History questions not worth their own thread V

[Tee Kay]

Everyone knows that Turks are just Muslim Greeks. They have kebabs, barbers and an unhealthy preoccupation with Cyprus, therefore, Greek. Logic, innit?

Snark aside, this is basically true. Until very recently "Greek" and "Turk" weren't ethnic or linguistic identities but religious identities. In the 1923 Swap, Karamanli Christians who spoke nothing but Turkish were sent to Greece, and Cretan Muslims who spoke nothing but Greek were sent to Turkey. The two populations, Greek and Turkish, are essentially descended from the same population that inhabited the area in millenia past. The Turkish migration into Anatolia was a migration of language, religion, and culture as much if not more than physical migration of people, especially for Western Anatolia.

My dear fellow, your suggestion was that Vietnam wasn't "an issue" prior to the Kennedy administration. The war started with US military advisors, because it was wrongfully assumed that South Vietnam would be able to put up some defense of its own. Those "advisors" became involved in actual fighting rather soon, when it became that advisors and materiel wouldn't hold up the South Vietnam "domino", which was considered essential in the then predominant containment policy. The US escalation in Vietnam resulted ultimately not only in Vietnam falling, but Laos and Cambodja as well. The fact that Kennedy started the escalation on a major level suggests that Johnson could make a "radical change", as you said. He failed.

This post is about as clear as Bangkok canal water. I really don't know what you are trying to say here. That the Vietnam War was an issue prior to Kennedy, but after Kennedy it became an issue? And how does Johnson's failure or otherwise even related to this.

 

[Traitorfish]

How did cossacks get their chupryna/khokhol hairstyle? It seems more reminiscent of the styles worn by Central Asian nomads than by the Slavic peoples from who the cossacks derive. (Presumably their location on the steppes, and thus bordering such peoples, is no coincidence.)

 

[Mouthwash]

How did cossacks get their chupryna hairstyle? It seems more reminiscent of the styles worn by Central Asian nomads than by the Slavic peoples from who the cossacks derive. (Presumably their location on the steppes, and thus bordering such peoples, is no coincidence.)

What? I don't have any clue. I could Google it.

 

[Traitorfish]

History questions not worth their own thread V.

Not all about you, kiddo.

 

[Domen]

If there are any Germans (or people who understand German and have access to German ZDF television) on this forum, I recommend you watching the historical debate about the TV series "Generation War", which will be broadcasted by ZDF television tomorrow (20 June 2013).

This debate has been broadcasted (life) today in Polish TVP television, just after the 3rd (last) episode of "Generation War" has been telecasted (yesterday was 2nd episode and on Monday 1st episode - I have watched all three episodes and also the debate that followed).

In this debate took part: professor Shevah Weiss, several Polish and German historians, one veteran of the Home Army, and some other people.

Very good debate, I recommend. And many aspects of this TV series have been discussed, not just the portrayal of the Home Army.

Actually I think that they should also show this debate in Anglophone media (since this TV series was already translated to English).

================================

Among aspects of this movie, which were described as historical falsification, was the fact that a Jew (Victor) lived peacefully in Germany until 1941 and was not persecuted at all until that time, he (and his family as well) did not expect anything bad taking place in near future, their Jewish shop was opened and working until 1941, and Victor and his family continued to consider themselves as Germans - or even German patriots.

This is in stark contrast to historical reality, when persecutions of Jews in Germany started long before the war, and many of them were escaping abroad, experiencing antisemitism and anticipating future tragedy. By 1941 (de facto already in the 1930s) Jews were excluded from German society - they were not considered Germans or even citizens - all Jews were deprived of citizenship (see the Nürnberger Gesetze from 1935).

All these historical facts are not showed in the movie. Also enthusiasm for Hitler of large part of the German society (especially young people - who are naturally very susceptible to influence and propaganda of radical ideologies) could not be seen anywhere in the movie.

I didn't notice this aspect initially while watching, because I started to watch the 1st episode not from the start, but from the middle (I only watched entire 2nd and entire 3rd episodes). I didn't know, that the movie starts in 1941 (when I started to watch the 1st episode, it was Winter of 1941).

Watch the debate in ZDF tomorrow, and you will see how they discuss this, and other things.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Everyone knows that Turks are just Muslim Greeks.

You mean Greeks are just Christian Turks.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: I've moved the argument about Israel to here. Please try to keep things both civil and on-topic in this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yeah, those Mongols in the 1240s had a tiny population in a resource-poor steppe of East Asia, no major cities, and will likely never conquer the world. Theory of Determinism decisively settled.

I didn't want to thread-jack another thread with my question so I decided to bring it here.

I've had it heard before that it was the Medieval Warm Period that made the Mongolian Steppes warmer and able to sustain a larger population leading to a population boom which eventually hit the carrying capacity of the steppes pushing the Mongols into expanding and conquering neighboring lands. This being the catalyst or the driver for the later Mongolian conquests of Eurasia.

I was wondering how much basis in the academic community is for this theory or some variation of it?

 

[Lord Baal]

I didn't want to thread-jack another thread with my question so I decided to bring it here.

I've had it heard before that it was the Medieval Warm Period that made the Mongolian Steppes warmer and able to sustain a larger population leading to a population boom which eventually hit the carrying capacity of the steppes pushing the Mongols into expanding and conquering neighboring lands. This being the catalyst or the driver for the later Mongolian conquests of Eurasia.

I was wondering how much basis in the academic community is for this theory or some variation of it?

Steppe nomads have routinely invaded and conquered neighbouring civilisations. The Mongols are exceptional only in the sheer volume of the territory that they conquered. The fact that they remained nomadic and didn't really assimilate into the cultures they conquered - except ona few localised levels - is also pretty unique. That has nothing to do with a "carrying capacity" for a geographic area.

 

[Dachs]

I didn't want to thread-jack another thread with my question so I decided to bring it here.

I've had it heard before that it was the Medieval Warm Period that made the Mongolian Steppes warmer and able to sustain a larger population leading to a population boom which eventually hit the carrying capacity of the steppes pushing the Mongols into expanding and conquering neighboring lands. This being the catalyst or the driver for the later Mongolian conquests of Eurasia.

I was wondering how much basis in the academic community is for this theory or some variation of it?

The whole "climate change drives steppe military expansion" thing has been kicking around for about a century in various contexts. I suppose you can say that there's a basis in the academic community for it, but most of those "academics" that adhere to it don't tend to be historians these days, they're more like, say, physicists. Historians have that unfortunate tendency to look for causation, and it's kind of hard to find any basis for it in this case.

There's simply no evidence that there was some sort of population crisis among the disunited Mongol tribes, or that this crisis sparked Činggis' series of conquests, or that it spurred Činggis to go to war with his southern neighbors. There is no sign of mass Mongol resettlements upon the conquests of new lands. And even if it had occurred, a population crisis certainly wouldn't explain the continuing run of Mongol success up through the middle of the thirteenth century as they ran amok throughout the entire Eurasian land ocean, far beyond any possible space requirement.

 

[Lord Baal]

The whole "climate change drives steppe military expansion" thing has been kicking around for about a century in various contexts. I suppose you can say that there's a basis in the academic community for it, but most of those "academics" that adhere to it don't tend to be historians these days, they're more like, say, physicists. Historians have that unfortunate tendency to look for causation, and it's kind of hard to find any basis for it in this case.

There's simply no evidence that there was some sort of population crisis among the disunited Mongol tribes, or that this crisis sparked Činggis' series of conquests, or that it spurred Činggis to go to war with his southern neighbors. There is no sign of mass Mongol resettlements upon the conquests of new lands. And even if it had occurred, a population crisis certainly wouldn't explain the continuing run of Mongol success up through the middle of the thirteenth century as they ran amok throughout the entire Eurasian land ocean, far beyond any possible space requirement.

That's one thing that bothered me about this theory even as long ago as primary school; even if the theory explained why the Mongols embarked on a series of conquests, it certainly wouldn't account for their success.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Moreover, would a warmer climate wouldn't even necessarily be any helpful in improving land productivity/life expectancy?

Obviously it might lead to less catastrophic winters, but would it really appreciably increase the quality of graising? The improvements in the lake Baikhal region seem ever more dubious.

 

[Cutlass]

Moreover, would a warmer climate wouldn't even necessarily be any helpful in improving land productivity/life expectancy?

Obviously it might lead to less catastrophic winters, but would it really appreciably increase the quality of graising? The improvements in the lake Baikhal region seem ever more dubious.

That's situational depending on just what the warming did the climate in that region. Milder winters without adding dryness in the summers would allow larger herds of horse and cattle. But if there was more drought, then they might be forced to migrate for better grazing.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Did the Mongol's even have that large of a population when they went on their conquests? I was under the impression that they did it with relatively few numbers.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Relative to what?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Relative to what?

Probably China for a start and the great chunk of Asia they took over...

 

[Masada]

I'm not sure a population to population comparison matters all that much, given that the Mongols armies weren't fighting the whole of China. Rather, the Mongol armies were fighting Chinese armies. So perhaps a fighting man to fighting man metric might be more useful? If we look at that, the differences aren't as stark.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Relative to what?

It was either the population size in total, or the army size, I don't remember which. Army size sounds like it would be the more relevant metric, as Masada said.

 

[Lord Baal]

It was either the population size in total, or the army size, I don't remember which. Army size sounds like it would be the more relevant metric, as Masada said.

I recall that the initial Mongol attacks involved smaller or equal numbers to the Chinese, but that their mounted component was considerably above the norm. Their manoeuvrability tended to be the decisive factor in their battles, so it worked. They certainly had fewer troops than the Shah when they invaded Persia, but they tended to avoid battles with superior forces, preferring to divide them first.

 

[TheLastOne36]

^^Hmm, since you brought it up.. how was warfare in general in Persia?

Kind of a broad question with many different time periods ranging from Alexander to Tamerlane and beyond, but I'd imagine the terrain and geography made things exceptionally more difficult for warfare, movement and supplying of large armies.