Let's Discuss Poland

[Ahimsadharma]

it makes sense to kill all the witnesses too.

Uhmm..so you think if someone barged into POland today and killed every last man in Poland, people in France or italy or Greece would not find out one way or another ?!

though, the most logical explanation is that the Huns just up and moved.

Err no, that is a longshot. When people move, people get noticed by other people, especially by the people into who's land the movers are arriving into.
That huns disappear without a trace is not a question of them moving, since mass migrations have been recorded in European history before and after Huns.
Its just that they got absorbed into the slavic fold(thus making slavs today inheritors of hunnic culture) and therefore were not recorded about.

It gets friggin' cold in Poland. It's a lot warmer down south of the Tatras, down in, you'd never guess .... HUNGARY.

I do not have the time or the inclination to debate everyone on this issue, especially one like you who just jumps in mid-debate and doesn't bother to read up before commenting on the thread.
For, if you bothered reading up on this thread, you'd find out that Huns and the word 'Hungary' have nothing to do with each other (which is what you are implying).

 

[seasnake]

I heard from a reliable blog that the Huns dissapeared because of a combination of witchcraft, sorcery, and UFO intervention. Needless to say they all disappeared, every one of them, no exceptions. That same blog further heard from trustworthy friend that the forerunners of poles took great care never to reproduce with any Huns during their time in Poland, because that way one day when there was a Poland, the Poles could look to their ancestors abstinence and remember how purely Polish they were. (Not tonight, Hunny, was their watch-cry!)
Even further, the friend of the blog once had a teacher spend a night in Poland, and was guided to the lair of a hermit living in a cliff. The hermit revealed ancient Polish texts (originating in Yugoslavia with the rest of their legends and culture, apparently) which state the great prophet Wzieckleyzcs explicity prophesied, "Certainly this people shall verily shun all foreign aid, influence or advance, that they remain distinct and special. Yea and thus, in the last days cometh one Sid Meier, who shall vindicate all specialness in the land, and usher in a true Woolen Age" (Gold being too hard for the local mud-farmers to relate to). If that isn't authoritative evidence, I don't know what is.
Meanwhile, all the Huns in creation are wandering Antarctica, eating Penguins and hiding from explorers. And growing some fine facial hair.

 

[Wodan]

Uhmm..so you think if someone barged into POland today and killed every last man in Poland, people in France or italy or Greece would not find out one way or another ?!

[emphasis added]

People today have global communications, widespread travel, and methods of recording data. Give some thought to the living conditions in Poland 1000-1500 years ago.

Err no, that is a longshot. When people move, people get noticed by other people, especially by the people into who's land the movers are arriving into. That huns disappear without a trace is not a question of them moving, since mass migrations have been recorded in European history before and after Huns.

Huns already existed in these other areas. There was no "mass migrations". It was simply "let's move in with our cousins".

Its just that they got absorbed into the slavic fold(thus making slavs today inheritors of hunnic culture) and therefore were not recorded about.

Uhmm... so you think if someone (Slavs) barged into Poland in 500AD, killed all the men, raped all the women, and forcedly occupied the entire nation, people in France or Italy or Greece would not find out one way or another ?! Don't you think the rape, pillage, and forced occupation of an entire nation would be recorded?

I do not have the time or the inclination to debate everyone on this issue, especially one like you who just jumps in mid-debate and doesn't bother to read up before commenting on the thread.

That's exactly the problem, you're making assumptions. I have been reading the thread all along.

Seriously, say that you're right. That the "most logic" explanation is that the Slavs "absorbed" the Hun population. Let's say 65% likely. That still leaves 35% for other perfectly reasonable explantions.

For, if you bothered reading up on this thread, you'd find out that Huns and the word 'Hungary' have nothing to do with each other (which is what you are implying).

Some modern scholars think that they have nothing to do with one another. On the other hand, some modern scholars think they DO have something to do with one another. In addition, what modern scholars think often has little to do with what actually happened.

Would you like me to quote the posts where these things were discussed? It's not quite fair to misrepresent a previous discussion, especially when you portend to be informed upon them and talking to someone you assume was not so informed.

Wodan

 

[Ahimsadharma]

People today have global communications, widespread travel, and methods of recording data. Give some thought to the living conditions in Poland 1000-1500 years ago.

Umm, you are misinterpreting that aspect. Sure, we have a truely global communications range today but its not like 1500 years ago, the world was limited to a little 2x4 sized valley.
It is a known fact that Rome, Greece etc. knew of China, India, etc. by 100 AD. As i said, what you are saying is as ridiculous as saying China knew of Constantinople in 500 BC but did not know of Japan and what happens there.

There was no "mass migrations". It was simply "let's move in with our cousins".

Umm.if all the huns in Poland packed up and left, it would be a mass migrations- whatever be the reasons ( moving in with cousins/running from plague/invasion etc).

so you think if someone (Slavs) barged into Poland in 500AD, killed all the men, raped all the women, and forcedly occupied the entire nation, people in France or Italy or Greece would not find out one way or another ?! Don't you think the rape, pillage, and forced occupation of an entire nation would be recorded?

Yes. It would've been. Which is why i don't think it happened that way.
Its much more a case of immigration/slow individual migrations (nobody minds if a new trader comes into town or a few dozen traders come into town and set up shop every year- but people mind when a whole hoarde shows up one fine day), inter-marriage, etc.
None of which are 'news' enough to report on.
Take today's world for example: in 300-400 year's time, most of Europe won't be 'white' anymore. Simply because across most of Europe, birth rates in white community is negative and most 'population growth' is fuelled by immigration and immigrants breeding. This is the case in much of Britain, California, Canada and continental Europe.
Russia for eg, has lost almost 5 million people in the last 10 years or so, simply because their birth rate is far below their death rate. How long before Russia starts importing immigrants to run the country and keep functionality ? Can you extrapolate how California/Canada/UK/continental Europe would look in 400-500 years time with this trend ?
Yet, this isn't making news. Simply because, as history shows up, when people move in peacefully, individualistically and end up setting shop/marrying into the people, nobody cares too much, since it is not a sudden, huge tremor to the society and power circles as a horde showing up at your city gates.
Same was the case in Slavic migrations and their gradual absorption of Huns into their fold.
And what is sad is, if your logic is used, along with so many others here, in 400-500 years from now, there will be some brown/mixed dude denying that there ever were white people in England.
And that would be rather sad.

That's exactly the problem, you're making assumptions. I have been reading the thread all along.

I call BS. If you had read the thread, you'd not have repeated the common fallacy of trying to associate Huns with the word Hungary, especially when it has been pretty categorically established in this thread so far that Huns had nothing to do with the word Hungary and that this is the academic position by overwhelming majority. But don't let me stop you.
Anyways, i am through this debate now- i think i have made my points and it is up to the readers to deceide what they take/leave from it.

 

[Catharsis]

Not tonight, Hunny, was their watch-cry!

Bwahaha.

 

[Wodan]

Umm, you are misinterpreting that aspect. Sure, we have a truely global communications range today but its not like 1500 years ago, the world was limited to a little 2x4 sized valley.

And thus, 1500 years ago, who would have known if all the people in that little 2x4 valley were killed?

Nobody.

It is a known fact that Rome, Greece etc. knew of China, India, etc. by 100 AD.

China was a world power, in fact stronger than Rome (they just weren't as Imperialistic as Rome was). India was on its way to becoming one, and had been invaded by Rome's civic ally, Greece. Ties to the east were long-standing and well established. Ties to the north were non-existent.

As i said, what you are saying is as ridiculous as saying China knew of Constantinople in 500 BC but did not know of Japan and what happens there.

Yeah, it probably appeared in their tabloids. I can see it now, in The Roman Enquirer, "the barbarians up north are killing each other again. Ho hum."

Umm.if all the huns in Poland packed up and left, it would be a mass migrations- whatever be the reasons ( moving in with cousins/running from plague/invasion etc).

Depends on how many there were, how fast it happened, and depends on if anybody noticed. Answers: not many, over quite a few years but still negligible on an epic time scale, and/or nobody of consequence in today's world.

Yes. It would've been. Which is why i don't think it happened that way.
Its much more a case of immigration/slow individual migrations (nobody minds if a new trader comes into town or a few dozen traders come into town and set up shop every year- but people mind when a whole hoarde shows up one fine day), inter-marriage, etc.
None of which are 'news' enough to report on.

I agree with you. However, there is no difference between the picture you paint, and with the Huns moving out at the same time as the Slavs moved in, over a couple hundred of years.

Heck, it happens now, in today's world. A neighborhood / suburb of a big city loses economic value. The people who are able to, move out, to a better neighborhood. The poor people move in, because it's a good / cheap neighborhood to them. Eventually, the entire neighborhood has the new people and none of the old.

Take today's world for example: in 300-400 year's time, most of Europe won't be 'white' anymore. Simply because across most of Europe, birth rates in white community is negative and most 'population growth' is fuelled by immigration and immigrants breeding. This is the case in much of Britain, California, Canada and continental Europe.
Russia for eg, has lost almost 5 million people in the last 10 years or so, simply because their birth rate is far below their death rate. How long before Russia starts importing immigrants to run the country and keep functionality ? Can you extrapolate how California/Canada/UK/continental Europe would look in 400-500 years time with this trend ?

Why do you single out these regions? It's the entire world.

When people become comfortable and affluent, more educated, they reproduce less. They love their comforts. Less affluent, and less educated, people reproduce more. With global transportation, people move around. Soon the world will be all brown people. QED.

Cultures sometimes have an effect (e.g., Mormons have a lot of babies), but you're not talking about that.

Yet, this isn't making news. Simply because, as history shows up, when people move in peacefully, individualistically and end up setting shop/marrying into the people, nobody cares too much, since it is not a sudden, huge tremor to the society and power circles as a horde showing up at your city gates.
Same was the case in Slavic migrations and their gradual absorption of Huns into their fold.

Do you have any evidence to support this conclusion? Where is this evidence available?

And what is sad is, if your logic is used, along with so many others here, in 400-500 years from now, there will be some brown/mixed dude denying that there ever were white people in England.
And that would be rather sad.

Today's situation has nothing to do with Poland 1500 years ago. You can apply "my logic" to that situation, but that doesn't make it analogous.

I call BS. If you had read the thread, you'd not have repeated the common fallacy of trying to associate Huns with the word Hungary

Perhaps you missed the smiley.

especially when it has been pretty categorically established in this thread so far that Huns had nothing to do with the word Hungary and that this is the academic position by overwhelming majority.

The overwhelming majority of who? Academics on this thread? Non-academics on this thread? Academics in Academic-land? Regardless, who did the research of these people and where are their results posted?

Wodan

 

[Tortilla Boy]

The battle of Nedao says nothing whatsoever about Slavs riding around Hunnic villages and burning them/killing all huns.
It talks about an armed combat between soldiers, not an entire society wiped out.

They were pushed back to the east - first after Attila loss at Chalons, then beaten by tribes residing in Eastern Europe, escaped to whereabouts of Romania.

Unless ofcourse you believe the far more ridiculous line of thoght that Huns brought everyone to war, including women, old men & children.

Unless you believe in *far more ridiculous* possibilty that they just lost a battle, run for their lives, leaving women and children behind, amongst the people who just beaten them. *That* certainly is hillarious idea.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

Umm.if all the huns in Poland packed up and left, it would be a mass migrations- whatever be the reasons ( moving in with cousins/running from plague/invasion etc).

Yes. It would've been. Which is why i don't think it happened that way.
Its much more a case of immigration/slow individual migrations (nobody minds if a new trader comes into town or a few dozen traders come into town and set up shop every year- but people mind when a whole hoarde shows up one fine day), inter-marriage, etc.

This period is called Great Migrations. Everybody was on the move. How could one tell a difference? Plus - It's north-eastern Europe, it's nothing but deep forests and occasionaly small (200-500 person) settlements. It's not like you could just leave some people behind and believe that they could live any longer than first bear spotted. It's the time when hordes were moving together.

Take today's world for example: in 300-400 year's time, most of Europe won't be 'white' anymore. Simply because across most of Europe, birth rates in white community is negative and most 'population growth' is fuelled by immigration and immigrants breeding. This is the case in much of Britain, California, Canada and continental Europe.

Somehow it disturbs only you, because you are race-oriented in all this reasoning presented here. Everything you write is "Huns are Poles, it makes a difference!". No, to me it doesn't. They could be Eskimo or anything. Phenotype DOES NOT matter. Huns just didn't leave anything of cultural importance after themselves in this region, not even in language (and to that period language spoken is everything). It's clear to me that Vietnamese culture had far greater impact on Polish one - apart from bars it would be Warsaw's landmark - "Jarmark Europa".

Russia for eg, has lost almost 5 million people in the last 10 years or so, simply because their birth rate is far below their death rate. How long before Russia starts importing immigrants to run the country and keep functionality ? Can you extrapolate how California/Canada/UK/continental Europe would look in 400-500 years time with this trend ?

Yes, it will be islamic in most parts and it doesn't bother me even tiny bit. I just accept changes to come. Europe absorbed any culture which came in, just like Poland absorbed Polish Tatar islam as integral part. Somehow it makes difference to you. In your own terms, you probably should consider yourself prejudiced.

And what is sad is, if your logic is used, along with so many others here, in 400-500 years from now, there will be some brown/mixed dude denying that there ever were white people in England.
And that would be rather sad.

Huh? You just simply don't read anything what has been written past ... 7 pages? It's not matter of race, but material proofs and linguistic artifacts. If there is anybody racially pre-occupied here - it's you.
I will repeat myself once more - "race" is just phenotype. It's arbitral. It's not biological. It's nothing as a basis. For me there is only human species and different cultures.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

Its just that they got absorbed into the slavic fold(thus making slavs today inheritors of hunnic culture) and therefore were not recorded about.

It doesn't matter if they breeded together. There is nothing hunnic about culture of this region. Nothing, neither now, not even a mention in any script from past thousand years. Your race concern doesn't lead to any cultural importance for people living in location between Oder and Bug rivers. No archeological findings, nothing.

 

[0R4NG3]

Poland's history is, from all angles, a 'small fish in a big pond'. Dark ages (1000 years ago in Europe) is a rather recent time in history for some/most cultures who's historical grasp is manyfold greater than that of Poland or much of Europe.

I object to your constant glorification of certain cultures over others. Sure Asian cultures may have had a longer history, but there is absolutely no basis to saying that they have acquired a superior historical grasp.

Following your logic: if 1000 years ago is a rather recent time, then 200 years is absolutely nothing and is insufficient for a complete replacement of Huns by Poles, especially seeing how you insist that it was gradual.

Your problem is that you compare Europe to Asia. Yes I know we're all human and so should be the same, but we're not, so you must consider that it is possible that things could've been done differently in Europe than they were in Asia.

It is a known fact that Rome, Greece etc. knew of China, India, etc. by 100 AD. As i said, what you are saying is as ridiculous as saying China knew of Constantinople in 500 BC but did not know of Japan and what happens there.

Here's a little fact about the greatness of western historical records concerning other contries: up to the XVI century many western historians referred to the area East of Poland as Scythia, so according to them Russians=Scythians. In fact it was probably strange when all of a sudden they learned that the people that live there call themselves Russians, they were probably very impressed by the rate of assimilation of Scythians by Russians....

 

[Tortilla Boy]

Poland's history is, from all angles, a 'small fish in a big pond'. Dark ages (1000 years ago in Europe) is a rather recent time in history for some/most cultures who's historical grasp is manyfold greater than that of Poland or much of Europe.

It takes person of low self-esteem to build it up upon things like "we grasp our history longer". Like yeah, it takes one Mao just to burn this "grasping" to the ground. I didn't feel culturally overwhelmed by the fact that I've just met the Chinese. So, if you're trying to convince me of some "racial superiority" or something, I consider it pointless. For me it's people as beings, not people as representative examples of their groups.

False. I have provided more proof than Polish nationalists here who claim a total break from Hunnic history.
As i said, the proof is circumstantial but far more robust than Polish nationalism.

"nationalists", yeah... conventional yadda yadda. Seems like Poles became new synonym for "elders of zion" with this special way of reasoning - "you are racist because you are Polish/European" - now this is not xenophobic way of thinking... ;]
If there was any proof past 10 pages there would be no need for using words like "more robust".

History is a PROOF that when societies are absorbed into another in a slow but peaceful process (such as mostly through intermarrige with a larger group), it goes unrecorded but if a society is wiped out, it IS recorded.

Yeah yeah... it's like the Universe being proof for something. It's like the God idea being invented for the purpouse of explaining things like "going for croissant to the local bakery each morning".

Some Hun shaggin' with some Slav doesn't make for an event of great cultural importance... And they would certainly notice if it was mass shaggin' - if it were of any great importance, there be "League of Concerned Parents-in-Law" or something on either side.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

It doesn't matter if they breeded together. There is nothing hunnic about culture of this region. Nothing, neither now, not even a mention in any script from past thousand years. Your race concern doesn't lead to any cultural importance for people living in location between Oder and Bug rivers. No archeological findings, nothing.

My last comment on this issue: You seem to say that Slavic culture arose 100s of years after Hunnic culture so therefore has no link to it.
That is absurd, since for all you know, Polish culture could be half hunnic and half your food/dress/music might originate in hunnic roots.
You have no way of knowing, so ruling it out instead of keeping the option open until anything is known categorically one way or another ( and thus include hunnic history as part of Polish history) is rather dumb in my opinion.

As per your racial superiority comment - i am not surprised that one who argues about 'slavic purity' and 'huns ! = poles because they are a different race/ethnicity to slavs' would take my comment about ' certain regions understand history/have culture for far longer and understand them better' to be racist. It figures, since you measure yourself on a racial barometer. In truth, it has nothing to do with implying racial superiority, it is simply a question of certain cultures judging history more accurately because they KNOW history for a much longer duration and their scholarly approach is simply more scientific and logical in nature, as it is a better developed field there.
History you will find is not really a universally equal feature and most of western history is weak in its theory- simply because, western ideas of history is based on far less historical knowledge ( due to their own history being so much younger) than scholarly opinions of cultures with further history.This is much like a high school physics chart-topper arguing with a Physics Grad student- the Grad student simply understands physics better because he knows MORE about physics. Same with cultures that've recorded history for a LONGER time- the social aspects of historical interactions is far better understood in Asia/mediterranean than in rest of the world, simply because of their far more robust historical knowledge giving them a better understanding of the topic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with race/ethnicity- this is simply a question of knowledge. And you'd understand history much better if you studied history of a classical/pre-classical civilization till today, preferrably from a cultural perspective that sees history of civilization as 7000-10000 years old and not just 1000 year old ethnocentric gibberish.

 

[Saim]

China was a world power, in fact stronger than Rome (they just weren't as Imperialistic as Rome was). India was on its way to becoming one, and had been invaded by Rome's civic ally, Greece. Ties to the east were long-standing and well established. Ties to the north were non-existent.

MACEDONIA invaded MAGADHA (Maurya dynasty).

I object to your constant glorification of certain cultures over others. Sure Asian cultures may have had a longer history, but there is absolutely no basis to saying that they have acquired a superior historical grasp.

Asian cultures where more powerful during the medieval era, definately. Europe was pretty weak then, the only things they really had then where the Franks, Vikings and Germans.

Your problem is that you compare Europe to Asia. Yes I know we're all human and so should be the same, but we're not, so you must consider that it is possible that things could've been done differently in Europe than they were in Asia.

We're not all human now?

 

[Tortilla Boy]

My last comment on this issue: You seem to say that Slavic culture arose 100s of years after Hunnic culture so therefore has no link to it.

No. 1)If there is "Slavic culture" then Polish culture is only part of it. 2)We are speaking of Polish culture. 3)Polan culture became something more than one villiage customs 4 hundred years after fall of Huns in battles with Rome and then Gepids. 4)There are no signs of Polans being aware of any link to Hun culture (whatever it might be).

That is absurd, since for all you know, Polish culture could be half hunnic and half your food/dress/music might originate in hunnic roots.

And if grandma had a mustache she would have been grandpa. That's this sort of argument. Of course it COULD. It could be anything. Just that there are no signs of awareness about something like that, so it's just plain "what if...".

You have no way of knowing, so ruling it out instead of keeping the option open until anything is known categorically one way or another ( and thus include hunnic history as part of Polish history) is rather dumb in my opinion.

Yeah, now I'm dumb. This makes for clever disscusion on your part, but I've grown accustomed to it somehow.
"Options" are not commonly accepted facts. All this time I've spoken of nothing else than those facts. It is commonly accepted fact, that there are no sources which would in any way tell people occupying territory of modern Poland that they culturally linked to Huns - in any given time (400, 800 and 1600 y. after Huns).
Culture is not just single atoms colliding by chance. Mr. Y from Poland might have met Ms. X from Brazil, but that doesn't create macro-scale effect. If Huns were of any significance to Polans, there would be any sign of it, in legends for instance.

As per your racial superiority comment - i am not surprised that one who argues about 'slavic purity' and 'huns ! = poles because they are a different race/ethnicity to slavs' would take my comment about ' certain regions understand history/have culture for far longer and understand them better' to be racist.

I'm not arguing for Slavic purity - all this time it's you, who takes it to the opposition Huns-Slavs, Asians-Europeans. Arguing for Slavic genetic "purity" would be cosmically stupid. Just that it's the first time I heard of anyone linking Polish culture with Huns. And if I am member of this culture, and never met even faint suggestion of that, I'm supprised that someone on the other shore of Atlantic knows better "how it really was", basing on "could be", "you can't rule it out", "there is no evidence". Taking "could be" as an accepted fact (equal to those known) leads to presumption that there is no such a thing as a "fact", because none of them we could have been certain. It's "Martian" sort of argument.

It figures, since you measure yourself on a racial barometer. In truth, it has nothing to do with implying racial superiority, it is simply a question of certain cultures judging history more accurately because they KNOW history for a much longer duration and their scholarly approach is simply more scientific and logical in nature, as it is a better developed field there.

1)I don't measure myself on "racial" barometer. Once again - we are discussing Poles. You are bringing up Slavic people all this time, like "Poles=Slavs". So, for the zillionth time I'll write it here: Poles=people of different origin linked by common culture, not place. Simply "being" in Poland is not enough (all tourist suddenly becoming Polish just because they got here). Culture is in the first place language. It DOES NOT have anything to do with race. Children of Vietnamese immigrants in Poland are just the same Poles as their friends in school. What else, and how many times, must I write?

2)I don't see the point in discussing "who's got better history", because whether it's good or not it falls to the people researching it, and I don't see any essential difference in nature of scientists from any part of the world, just like they were born with it. It doesn't have anything to do with race. Difference lies in fields of interest - different cultures have different problems, mainly ideological ones. And still it's like discussion of Grad student with Prof. - Professors tend to forget things out of area of their interest and students are not specialists in any area given. Comparing knowledge of two Profs. in different areas would be just pointless.

 

[Wodan]

As per your racial superiority comment - i am not surprised that one who argues about 'slavic purity' and 'huns ! = poles because they are a different race/ethnicity to slavs' would take my comment about ' certain regions understand history/have culture for far longer and understand them better' to be racist. It figures, since you measure yourself on a racial barometer. In truth, it has nothing to do with implying racial superiority, it is simply a question of certain cultures judging history more accurately because they KNOW history for a much longer duration and their scholarly approach is simply more scientific and logical in nature, as it is a better developed field there.
History you will find is not really a universally equal feature and most of western history is weak in its theory- simply because, western ideas of history is based on far less historical knowledge ( due to their own history being so much younger) than scholarly opinions of cultures with further history.This is much like a high school physics chart-topper arguing with a Physics Grad student- the Grad student simply understands physics better because he knows MORE about physics. Same with cultures that've recorded history for a LONGER time- the social aspects of historical interactions is far better understood in Asia/mediterranean than in rest of the world, simply because of their far more robust historical knowledge giving them a better understanding of the topic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with race/ethnicity- this is simply a question of knowledge. And you'd understand history much better if you studied history of a classical/pre-classical civilization till today, preferrably from a cultural perspective that sees history of civilization as 7000-10000 years old and not just 1000 year old ethnocentric gibberish.

If it's a matter of education, then we should be comparing educational systems in different countries.

Why? Because people in Western cultures have just as much opportunity to be educated in classical/pre-classical civilizations, and many do, and many are.

• There is no reason that simply being born in a country gives education upon that country's long history.
  
• There is also no reason that simply being born with a certain genotype gives education upon that race's long history.

MACEDONIA invaded MAGADHA (Maurya dynasty).

Yes, as I said. Greek invaded Indian.

Asian cultures where more powerful during the medieval era, definately. Europe was pretty weak then, the only things they really had then where the Franks, Vikings and Germans.

That depends on your definition of power. But, I thought we were talking about "culture" and "historical grasp".

Wodan

 

[onedreamer]

If it's a matter of education, then we should be comparing educational systems in different countries.

Culture is not only a matter of education. And the educational system doesn't determine how knowledeable is a student.

 

[Wodan]

Culture is not only a matter of education.

I agree... that was my point.

And the educational system doesn't determine how knowledeable is a student.

True... I was hasty in my terminology. The point is, if culture is determined in part by X (however you want to call X, "cumulative/average historical knowledge of the populace" or whatever), then that is what we should be discussing.

Wodan

 

[0R4NG3]

Asian cultures where more powerful during the medieval era, definately. Europe was pretty weak then, the only things they really had then where the Franks, Vikings and Germans.

So? I never said they weren't, all I said was that cultural age doesn't guarantee a better grasp of history. Neither does being more powerful at some point in time.

We're not all human now?

Sorry for not making that perfectly clear. I meant that for example Medieval Hungarians and Medieval Chinese had alot of cultural differences regardless of them both being human.

 

[Saim]

Yes, as I said. Greek invaded Indian.

That directly contradicts my point, so it's impossible for you to be in agreement with me.

"India" is a modern nation. "South Asia" or "the Indian Subcontinent" would be more fitting. Macedonia was not Greek, it was Greek-influenced, but they where not Greek. Of course, they where assimilated into Greece, but that does not make them Greek.

 

[Angst]

That directly contradicts my point, so it's impossible for you to be in agreement with me.

"India" is a modern nation. "South Asia" or "the Indian Subcontinent" would be more fitting. Macedonia was not Greek, it was Greek-influenced, but they where not Greek. Of course, they where assimilated into Greece, but that does not make them Greek.

Didn't Macedonia have a Greek culture back then?