History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

[H4run]

It's better to address this question to our resident historians. From what I read I can only recommend Lev Gumilyov as an author whose books may be relevant.
He had a few books about Steppe nomadic people and Mongols. Had unorthodox views, but the books may be interesting to read.

The Vasily Yan pop-historical novels about Mongol invasion were also interesting to me, but don't know if they have ever been translated to English.

Unfortunately I cannot found any of the author, I'm more keen toward book than historical novel, but even that I unable to find Vasily Yan's works. Is Lev Gumilyev with Lev Gumilyov are the same person with different (written/oral) dialect pronunciation? are both actually a different name (hence person)?

 

[red_elk]

Is Lev Gumilyev with Lev Gumilyov are the same person with different (written/oral) dialect pronunciation? are both actually a different name (hence person)?

Same person, same pronunciation. Different transliteration to English

 

[Hrothbern]

How correct is this account of the Renaissance as being an unambiguous decline in thought and innovation? It's pretty reasonable sounding and I recommend reading the whole thing, but some of his claims are ringing alarm bells (like his insistence on the Dark Ages being a terrible period, or his assertion that fundamentalism killed Islamic thought 'stone-dead').

Also, to illustrate that the decline was caused by a focus on symbolism and metaphor over concrete science, he points out without a hint of irony that Wars of the Roses were named after the heraldry of the two sides.

The word Renaissance, or re-birth, boxes in developments to the re-birth of thoughts of the classical Greek and Roman culture elements in sofar they had survived in documents.
Well... most of that knowledge was preserved by the Arab culture.... and the Arab culture had a multitude of other knowledge to offer to the (less educated) people of Europe coming into contact with the Arabs more intensively during the crusades.
Along that very broad wave of innovation the bridge is made between Medieval era and early modern era.
Renaissance largely disconnected from that broad change among commoners, burghers, towns-people, traders, industrious Guild people, merchants, etc, etc.
The idea that Renaissance from intellectuals and the very rich caused the broader development in Europe is I think for at least 80% false. That remaining 20% the interaction between almost parallel worlds.

And by that thoughts on the Renaissance being related to practical innovations is almost irrelevant.
Or your question has only to do with intellectual "innovations" in the realm of theology, philosophy, art (in sofar that was not influenced by new material technologies leading to new paints etc), etc.

 

[Lexicus]

Anyone can suggest me a good book about Mongol organization system, leadership, government policies, philosophies and tactics? I heard the Soviet Union make a comprehensive research regarding that, and build on military tactics and strategy based on that research. I currently reading a light book "Genghis Khan’s Greatest General: Subotai the Valiant", if anyone has better recommendation it would be lovely.

cc: @Lexicus @red_elk

@Ajidica would be a better bet probably. I haven't actually read much academic work on the Mongols.

 

[H4run]

@Ajidica do you have any recommendation? I just want to know their system of government, philosophy, law and perhaps military tactic. Not the politics of the surrounding area, historical back-ground, geography, economy, genealogy, etc. Thank you in advance!

 

[Ajidica]

While I'm honored for the suggestion, I actually was going to suggest you ask Lexicus as I know very little about steppe cultures outside of the Fall of Rome.
A bit of google searching turned up this reading list. Unfortunately, the list is about 20 years out of date and for many topics that starts to be the cut-off point for academic books. That is especially true for Asiatic topics, as a lot of research has been done post-Soviet Union (especially in archaeology) and China opening up to western academics. That said, the list does mention The Mongols from the 'Peoples of Europe' series by David Morgan. I've read two other books in the series (The Goths and The Huns) and they were well researched books with a good overview of the area, albeit a bit dated.

In general, I would recommend looking at books put out by major university presses - like Cambridge, Oxford, or Chicago - along with overview books with essays written by different authors. Two examples that came from quick googling are The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age or Oxford's The Mongols: A Very Short Introduction. Even if the books themselves don't have exactly what you are looking for, they should at least give you a robust bibliography and further reading section that will help you track down books on the area you are interested in. (Heck, simply looking at the authors/editors in the introduction books can let you look at them and see if they wrote any books on subjects you are interested in.)
I personally would recommend the Oxford book. It is definitely aimed at a more general audience than the Cambridge book, and is a lot cheaper than the Cambridge book on Amazon.

 

[H4run]

While I'm honored for the suggestion, I actually was going to suggest you ask Lexicus as I know very little about steppe cultures outside of the Fall of Rome.
A bit of google searching turned up this reading list. Unfortunately, the list is about 20 years out of date and for many topics that starts to be the cut-off point for academic books. That is especially true for Asiatic topics, as a lot of research has been done post-Soviet Union (especially in archaeology) and China opening up to western academics. That said, the list does mention The Mongols from the 'Peoples of Europe' series by David Morgan. I've read two other books in the series (The Goths and The Huns) and they were well researched books with a good overview of the area, albeit a bit dated.

In general, I would recommend looking at books put out by major university presses - like Cambridge, Oxford, or Chicago - along with overview books with essays written by different authors. Two examples that came from quick googling are The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age or Oxford's The Mongols: A Very Short Introduction. Even if the books themselves don't have exactly what you are looking for, they should at least give you a robust bibliography and further reading section that will help you track down books on the area you are interested in. (Heck, simply looking at the authors/editors in the introduction books can let you look at them and see if they wrote any books on subjects you are interested in.)
I personally would recommend the Oxford book. It is definitely aimed at a more general audience than the Cambridge book, and is a lot cheaper than the Cambridge book on Amazon.

I really appreciate your help and effort, thank you so much.

 

[sophie]

I haven't read any of these, so I can't tell you if they're any good, but here are some other texts to consider in the same vein as what Ajidica recommended:

Haldén, Peter. Family power : kinship, war and political orders in Eurasia, 500-2018. Cambridge, United Kingdom : Cambridge University Press, 2020. ISBN: 9781108495929

Prajakti, Kalra. The Silk Road and the political economy of the Mongol empire. Abingdon, Oxon : Routledge, 2018. ISBN: 9780415786997

Lane, George. A short history of the Mongols. London : I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2018. ISBN: 9781780766065

Chernykh, E. N. (trans. Irina Savinetskaya and Peter N. Hommel). Nomadic cultures in the mega-structure of the Eurasian world. Brighton, MA : Academic Studies Press, 2017. ISBN: 9781618115522

Hope, Michael. Power, politics, and tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate of Iran. Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press, 2016. ISBN: 9780198768593

May, Timothy Michael. The Mongol empire. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, 2016. ISBN: 9780748642373

Just a quick search of relevant-sounding things from the last few years. Let me know if you want more and I can search a bit more carefully.

 

[H4run]

@schlaufuchs is this you Owen? Thank you so much for the recommendation, very much appreciated getting a recommendation from a historian!

 

[Phrossack]

I used to be into the Mongols quite a bit but mainly relied on articles like what I could find on JSTOR. I do have a book by Timothy May, The Mongol Art of War. Haven't read it in awhile, but it was mostly a light history book where I sometimes felt there were parts where he wasn't quite critical of his sources enough - May repeated that, according to the old Yuan Dynasty text, The Secret History of the Mongols, the Mongols used shamans to influence the weather in their favor in battle, and he didn't really question it. He also appeared as a consultant on the Spike TV show "Deadliest Warrior," a guilty pleasure of mine when I was young but which is...not a valid source on anything, to say the least!

I'm not saying to count him out entirely, and I might be being unfair due to only reading his one book a long time ago, but you may want to read May with a grain of salt.

I will say, though, that The Mongol Art of War isn't a bad way to get an intro into Mongol military history. He does cite plenty of primary, or medieval but secondary, sources, and if you want to learn more, you can follow them.

 

[Traitorfish]

May repeated that, according to the old Yuan Dynasty text, The Secret History of the Mongols, the Mongols used shamans to influence the weather in their favor in battle, and he didn't really question it.

 

[r16]

apparently a picture from an host the internet provider in my town doesn't like . As in nothing seen . But it is wrong , it is a Turkish thing ! According to a guest in the Hour of Opposition , explaining the heavy rains in the Black Sea region and the even heavier damage they incurred a couple of years back . With the Turks making heavy rains to topple the Goverment . What , did you expect anything else ? When heavy rains happen to others , "Muslims" always explain it as a Punishment of Allah ... and it would never happen to them .

 

[caketastydelish]

I usually like this guy, but the video he made here is pretty hard for me to defend. I don't see the soviets not only surviving against a two-pronged attack from the Japanese and Germans at the same time but end up invading them as well.

Anyone else?

 

[Ajidica]

I usually like this guy, but the video he made here is pretty hard for me to defend. I don't see the soviets not only surviving against a two-pronged attack from the Japanese and Germans at the same time but end up invading them as well.

Anyone else?

Japan had attacked the Soviet Union in 1939 and came away with a healthy respect for the mechanization and firepower of the Red Army along with a good understanding of how outclassed they were in a high intensity mechanized conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

The Japanese Army, especially in China, was perpetually lacking in mechanization and heavy weapons - which are critical in high intensity conflicts in open terrain. In a conflict with the Soviet Union, the Japanese Army wouldn't be able to count on support from the Japanese Navy and as the Italians were learning, in a high intensity armored conflict, a light tank and a nickel is worth a nickel.

Throughout 1941 and 1942, the Soviet Union retained quite a large presence in the Far East. Japan also had little incentive to fight the Soviet Union. Any conflict with the Soviet Union would involve fighting in the wide open steppes, far from resupply infrastructure, with limited mechanized support. The Soviet Far East was largely empty and undeveloped with few resources in easy striking range of the Japanese Army. Much more tempting to go after the Dutch, French, and British colonies in South East Asia. Those were already well developed for resource extraction and Japanese combat operations could be supported by sea by arguably the best naval aviation wing in the world at the time.

Japan attacking the Soviet Union would require it give up attacking the British, Dutch, and French colonies with much needed resources, in favor of getting bogged down in yet another Asian land war (Japan was already slowly loosing in China) without the potential to immediately reverse Japan's tenuous raw material situation. This starts getting to rather dicey assumption chains for counterfactuals. With Japan focusing its forces in the north to fight the Soviets, that could have freed up Commonwealth forces to place greater pressure on Germany (and Italy) in North Africa and Greece, which might have pulled German forces from the Soviet front.

 

[JohannaK]

Title should be

What if Japan decided to suicide even faster and without a chance of a possibility of success?

 

[Cutlass]

I usually like this guy, but the video he made here is pretty hard for me to defend. I don't see the soviets not only surviving against a two-pronged attack from the Japanese and Germans at the same time but end up invading them as well.

Anyone else?

Japan really did not have the capacity to do any significant damage to the USSR in the Second World War. So it would not have changed the outcome of the war.

 

[Ajidica]

Japan really did not have the capacity to do any significant damage to the USSR in the Second World War. So it would not have changed the outcome of the war.

I wouldn't go that far. Japan could have shut down Vladivostok and the other Far Eastern ports, which I understand as having been a major transhipment point for American aid. Shutting that down would have been a big blow to the Soviet Union.
The issue is that, from Japan's point of view, "weakening the Soviet Union" does nothing to address their crippling resource shortage and placed even more stress on their already overstretched and underequipped army.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yeah, but collaborating with the European axis powers to knock the Soviets out of the war asap (before America got involved) would have made things exponentially easier in the long run. If the Soviet Union fell, as long as the axis powers didn't attack the United States it is likely they wouldn't have got involved at all.

 

[red_elk]

Yeah, but collaborating with the European axis powers to knock the Soviets out of the war asap (before America got involved) would have made things exponentially easier in the long run. If the Soviet Union fell, as long as the axis powers didn't attack the United States it is likely they wouldn't have got involved at all.

Attack against USSR could create a lot of potential problems for them including possibility of US joining the war and fight on two fronts.
In the same time, it was unclear if they could do enough damage to make a difference in the war between USSR and Germany. In September 1941 it might look like USSR either falls a month earlier with Japanese intervention or doesn't fall at all.

 

[caketastydelish]

Do you think America would have attacked Japan if left unprovoked?