History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, I doubt 18th century armies were truly all that well-equipped for insurgent warfare fighting their own population in the streets of their own city.
 
Also, I doubt 18th century armies were truly all that well-equipped for insurgent warfare fighting their own population in the streets of their own city.

Napoleon handled it quite nicely!
 
He handled fighting in Russian wilderness with half a million army and low supplies far worse, however, which ended in defeat.
 
He handled fighting in Russian wilderness with half a million army and low supplies far worse, however, which ended in defeat.

A bit off subject though aren't we? :lol: Napoleon should have retreated south after retreating from Moscow on October 19th 1812. The Russian winter would have had less effect, and he would have been able to keep his army intact. Five thousand Russians stood in his way. Napoleon thought it was a whole army. He could have pushed those aside with ease. The issue wasn't fighting. It was not trying to fight when he should have. Supplies, did become an issue, due to the Russian winter. If he had taken a southerly route out of Russia, supplies would have been more readily available. A lot of people do not think of this when the Russian Campaign is brought up. In either case, he would have been defeated, just not as ingloriously.
 
Or, maybe he could stop being pretentious after conquering half of Europe and seeing Russia not blockading some guys on an island while the said people were also attacking him in Spain and taking names.
 
Or, maybe he could stop being pretentious after conquering half of Europe and seeing Russia not blockading some guys on an island while the said people were also attacking him in Spain and taking names.

The point is he never should have went to Russia.
 
Yes. That's what I just said.

Not much of a Bonapartist are you? :lol: All kidding aside who is the main person who answers history questions on here? Is that you? Coming up I may have a few things to ask. I am working on a Napoleonic Wars scenario.
 
Nah, far from it. My knowledge is mainly general trivia, and I happened to come upon your question and tried to answer it to the best of my ability.

If you have more specific questions about Napoleonic Wars, you could also open a thread.
 
From:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13377669&postcount=847

Cheezy the Wiz said:
However, Mongol rule in Russia did a great deal to permanently tarnish the European image of Russia and Russians. Even today people invoke the image of The Brutal Asiatics when discussing Russia and Russians, Lenin, Stalin, Putin, etc. Although by Mongol times that was already A Thing in itself, they just used Scythians, the horse-riding nomadic steppe terrors of Antiquity, instead of the Mongols, the horse-riding nomadic steppe terrors of the Medieval world. But as I said, I think this rhetoric is mostly a disguise for vested material interests, and did very little to actually dictate the course of history or the actions of individuals; some people obviously notwithstanding.

Ekhem, ekhem. Scythians were not exactly "Asiatic". They were very much White by modern WASP standards. Actually it seems that blond hair was present among ancestors of Scythians in Russia already before it spread into Europe. According to this discussion:

http://historum.com/european-history/2379-brits-more-german-celtic-29.html#post1920995?postcount=283

Xardas said:
Ancient remains of individuals who had blond hair were identified by scientists at archaeological sites of Oust-Abakansty (Khakassia Republic, Russia) and Solenoozernaïa IV (Krasnoyarsk Region, Russia). They died around 1800 BC - 1400 BC and belonged to Andronovo Culture. Their skin pigmentation was identified as fair or medium and their eyes as blue or green. Their hair was blond. Two other individuals from the same burial site at Solenoozernaïa IV were identified as having brown hair - one of them had brown eyes and fair or medium skin. Another individual from Andronovo Culture - found at Tatarka cemetery (Charypovsky Region, Russia) - was identified as fair or medium skin, dark brown hair and brown eyes.

Two individuals of Karasuk Culture, 1400 BC - 800 BC (Oust-Abakansty and Bogratsky, both in Khakassia) were blue or green eyed.

By comparison, so far no hunter-gatherer pre-Indo-European remains from Scandinavia were identified as having blond hair.

Blond and tattooed Scythian 7th or 6th century BC warrior discovered in kurgan burials near Arzhaan, Tuva Republic, Russia:

IE_individual_from_Russia.png


Location of Tuva Republic:

Tuva.png


Ancestors of Scythians were Indo-Iranians from Andronovo Culture (2000 BC onwards) in Southern Russia.

They had 90% of R1a haplogroup and at least 60% of them had light hair (brown and blond), with blue / green eyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture#Ancient_DNA

Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one the haplogroup C-M130 (xC3). mtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.

90% of the Bronze Age period mtDNA haplogroups were of west Eurasian origin and the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 Bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes.[19]

A 2004 study also established that, during the Bronze/Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during Bronze Age), was of west Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the thirteenth to seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages.[20]


Link to video.

Another Indo-European group who lived far to the east were Tocharians - preserved as Tarim mummies (some of them were red-haired):

http://postimg.org/image/djwdnff1f/full/

Bronze_Age_IE_extent_png.jpg


Tocharian woman from the Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, modern China:

Tarim-mummies-14.jpg


Western Mongolia was where Caucasoids (R1a Scythians) were intermarrying with Asiatics (Q1 Mongols + C Chinese) in the Bronze Age:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(14)00116-1/abstract

Strong genetic admixture in the Altai at the Middle Bronze Age

(...)

In the same way, the patrilineal gene pool revealed the presence of different haplogroups (Q1a2a1-L54, R1a1a1b2-Z93 and C), probably marking different origins for the male paternal lineages. To go further in the search of the origin of these ancient specimens, phenotypical characters (i.e. hair and eye color) were determined. For this purpose, we adapted the HIrisPlex assay recently described to MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. In addition, some ancestry informative markers were analyzed with this assay. The results revealed mixed phenotypes among this group confirming the probable admixed ancestry of the studied Altaian population at the Middle Bronze Age.

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

Another argument often used by these who claim that Russians = basically Mongols, are the Cro-Magnons.

But people of the Cro-Magnon anthropological type lived all they way from France to Russia:

Xardas said:
Cro-Magnons lived also in Russia - for example in Sunghir, 200 km east of Moscow (see the video):


Link to video.

They were part of the eastern branch of the Gravettian Culture (which extended from France to Russia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravettian

Cro-Magnon site at Sunghir (also spelled Sungir), 200 km east of Moscow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungir

Another video with reconstructed Cro-Magnons:


Link to video.

But those Cro-Magnons were not so much "white", rather quite swarthy - especially those in western regions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon#Physical_attributes

The very light skin tone found in modern Northern Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon,[36] and may have only appeared in the European line as recently as 6 to 12 thousand years ago[37] indicating Cro-Magnons had light brown to tanned-skin.[38] Sequencing of finds of the late post ice-age hunter-gatherer populations in Europe indicate the Cro-Magnons likely had blue eyes and dark hair, and an "olive" complexion.[39][40] A small ivory bust of a man found at Dolní Věstonice and dated to 26,000 years indicates the Cro-Magnons had straight hair, though the somewhat later Venus of Brassempouy may show wavy or curly hair, possibly braided.

Reconstruction of a Cro-Magnon woman with her child:

640px-CroMagnon.jpg


And it seems that blond hair appeared first among Proto-Indo-Europeans of Central Asia, rather than in Scandinavia or the Baltic Region:

http://historum.com/european-history/2379-brits-more-german-celtic-29.html#post1920995?postcount=283

Xardas said:
Two hunter-gatherer individuals from Sweden - one from Gotland (Pitted Ware Culture) and one from Motala (Mesolithic) were identified as having blue eyes. The one from Gotland - despite blue eyes - had dark skin, while the one from Motala had probably fair skin, but it wasn't determined for sure (and hair colour also couldn't be established). Another Mesolithic individual with blue eyes was discovered at Loschbour in Luxembourg, but skin was dark and hair was dark brown or black. Yet another Mesolithic individual with blue eyes was discovered at La Braña-Arintero in Spain, but hair was dark and skin was dark. All in all, so far there is no evidence that blond hair was in Scandinavia earlier than it was in Russia.

Source of the info posted above

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

Edit:

Kazakhstan used to be inhabited in 100% by White people during the Stone Age and the Bronze Age (see Andronovo Culture above):

http://www.scientificfund.kz/index....thropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis

Kazakhstan.png


Stone Age and Bronze Age Kazakhstan was inhabited in 100% by White people (Caucasoids / Europoids). Iron Age Kazakhstan saw small influx of East Asians (15%), during the Ancient Era Mongoloid ancestry increased to 25%, during the Middle Ages to 50% and in the Early Modern Period to 70%.

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

Early Indo-European Bronze Age city of Arkaim in the Southern Urals steppe, near the Russia-Kazakhstan border:

http://culture.ru/en/uploads/media/atlas/0001/08/238eb93193bafcbd5dd7e3b1916f2e40f4151f3d.jpeg

Spoiler :
238eb93193bafcbd5dd7e3b1916f2e40f4151f3d.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkaim

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Arka...0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1525&bih=691&dpr=0.9#imgdii=_

Arkaim.png


The site is generally dated to the 17th century BC. Earlier dates, up to the 20th century BC, have been proposed.

Zoroastrianism and other similar beliefs perhaps originated from Arkaim and other cities of this Bronze Age Culture in Russia.

Later it was for example the religion of Indo-Iranian (one of branches of Satem Indo-Europeans) Persians:

http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html

Darius I of Persia said:
A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, one king of many, one lord of many. I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

Satem Indo-European languages:

The satem IE languages (which have the sibilant where the centum equivalents have the velar) include Baltic, Slavic, Armenian and Indo-Iranian.
 
A bit splitting off from the Rants thread, but I kind of was like "whaa, was everything I thought before a lie?".

So. Before Treaty of Westphalia, how did the international treaties and relations manifest?
 
A bit splitting off from the Rants thread, but I kind of was like "whaa, was everything I thought before a lie?".

So. Before Treaty of Westphalia, how did the international treaties and relations manifest?

What do you mean? There was nothing fundamentally different about the Treaty of Westphalia and treaties before or after.
 
The Treaty of Westphalia is seen as a watershed, not for any particular merits of its own, but because it marks the emergence of the (mostly) secular, sovereign nation-state as the driving force of international politics. Pre-Westphalia, international politics were dominated by dynastic relations, feudal obligations, and (at least nominal) obedience to the Papacy.

How such relates to the management of treaties and treaty obligations, I can't say. One obvious change would be the removal of the Pope as a mediating authority in most circumstances, though this was already so in the case of Protestant nations.
 
I'll point out that some Medieval scholars cringed at the use of the phrase "feudal obligations." Certainly, religious, familial, etc. relations mattered in determining actions, but geopolitical strategy was still important.

Take the example of the anarchy that was northern France in the 11th Century. This is an area where "feudal ties" as people think of it seem the most obvious (because of the complicated situation of Normandy). I'd argue what you find is loyalty to the King rather than anything uniquely feudal (in other words, nothing uniquely tied to land as the source of that loyalty, but tied to the title of King), but let's leave that aside for a second. Here, royal authority was extremely weak anyway. In order to strengthen his position, the King of France had to make alliances with Counts and Dukes in the area. Ultimately, when Normandy got too strong, he had to make an alliance with Anjou (who he had previously fought as well in an attempt to subjugate). To me, that's not dramatically different than the situation after Westphalia, just on a smaller scale.
 
I was under the impression most Medieval scholars cringe at the use of the word "feudal" full stop. :p
 
I think it's more the 'feudal system', which carries the implication that there was something systematic and uniform uniting all of the various 'feudal' arrangements and societies. By the time you take into account all of the potential differences within 'feudalism', the word simply comes to mean 'systems which existed in the Middle Ages', which is quite useless.
 
I thought the definition of the feudal system was semi autonomous states acknowledging the authority of a king in order to have a balancing counter force against other semi autonomous states. The degree to which this definition was true and how this system worked varied from place to place but that is a common characteristic of a feudal systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom