Miscellaneous Civilopedia Entries!

INSULARITY

Insularity is the state of being isolated and inward-looking, as though on an island and cut off from the outside world.

Many societies throughout history have been insular, especially in pre-industrial times. Natural obstacles to movement such as mountains, deserts, or oceans could cut civilizations off from one another, making it easy to ignore or even forget the existence of the outside world, its customs, and its beliefs. Even modest efforts on the part of specific rulers or classes could heighten these effects, creating deliberate isolationism and an intentional rejection of foreign influence. While historically, all such periods of isolation have willingly or unwillingly come to an end, they are a theme in the history of many past civilizations.

FORBEARANCE

Forbearance is the act of choosing to accept and tolerate something that might otherwise be considered a provocation.

Most societies in history, prior to the modern era, had a state religion- tacitly if not officially. Often, the religious laws of the times could have been interpreted to justify harassment or attacks against those who did not share the dominant belief. However, many leaders have chosen *not* to act on these laws, simply accepting and tolerating different beliefs. Historically, this willingness to forgo religious strife rather than giving into it or using it as an excuse for persecution has generally strengthened the society in question, and ushered in periods of greater peace.

SYNCRETISM

Syncretism is the practice of trying to combine multiple religious traditions into one, or of incorporating elements of one faith into another.

Syncretic faiths tend to emerge at the boundaries between civilizations and religions, or in times of cultural ferment when numerous religions spread widely and compete for influence. They often evolve rapidly, and people grow accustomed to broad, versatile concepts of holiness and sanctity. This encourages cultures to reach out and find similarities among other peoples, looking for common ground rather than differences, and is in general beneficial to religious minorities that find themselves in such a cosmopolitan society.
 
IDOLATRY ( Prejudicial IMO :( )
ICONOGRAPHY

This is the practice of constructing large artifacts, often statues or other monuments, to commemorate one's religious values. Nearly all cultures do this to one degree or another. This can have considerable costs in resources, translating the artistic and cultural energies of a people into the creation of gargantuan statues and decorative architecture. Outsiders and future historians may both marvel at the dedication of the people to their gods, and wonder at whether these resources were expended wisely.

SACRIFICE

Sacrifice, in the context of religion, is the act of giving up or destroying something precious, as a way of symbolically giving it to the gods.

Customarily, sacrifices involved precious treasures, food animals, or in some cases even human beings. Widespread sacrifice of food was a strong sign of commitment to the gods in ancient times, when food was exceptionally precious and famines were not uncommon. Even when the temples shed no human blood deliberately, death could still be the result. To live in such times, one could only hope the gods would be properly appreciative.

CEREMONY

Ceremonies are practices that reflect cultural customs through pageantry, performance, and rehearsal of accustomed patterns of living. They can be important forms of art and provide unity for the populace. They can be entertaining and serve to relieve the stress of the people. They can be enlightening, serving to remind everyone of who they are and to help them understand their place in a complicated world. On the other hand, they are not without cost, and maintaining elaborate and often increasingly-festive ceremonies and practices presents burdens of its own for a far-flung people.

MEDITATION

Meditation is the act of stilling one's inner thoughts and seeking to attain novel mental and spiritual states through passive contemplation.

Meditation is a frequently adopted form of spiritual discipline, often favored by monks and other secluded religious figures. Many forms of meditation and many types of meditation exercises exist, usually designed to be followed in some scheduled pattern with tradition behind it. Meditation is known to calm the body and mind, and often serves to focus the energies of religious believers on their own inward paths, or to strengthen the perception of the world as a whole being sacred. This mindset has many virtues, among which one often finds a predilection towards pacifism.

PRAYER

Prayer is the act of attempting to communicate with superior supernatural beings (e.g. the gods) through some combination of recitation, meditation, and ritual.

A widespread belief in the power of prayer can provide confidence and hope that human beings have the power to affect the complex and frightening forces that shape their world. This has been common in many forms throughout many ages, and is unlikely to disappear any time soon. Some say that prayer focuses hopes and strengthens the community. Though others, more cynically, argue that to pray to a god for one's hopes to come true is to partially neglect the need to bring about one's hopes through one's own action.

APOSTASY

Apostasy is the act of casting off one's past religious ties.

It is a rare and arguably a bold move, even in modern societies, for the leaders of a major culture to openly express opposition of, or scorn for, religion. Aside from the officially atheist stance of communism it is *extremely* rare. Formally throwing aside the implicit endorsements between church and state, and pitting one's own rules and doctrines against the gods of one's people, represents a radical change in the tone of how society engages with religion. Even if the government does not actively persecute religions after proclaiming its own atheism and indifference, the consequences remain far-reaching.
 
CHIEFDOM

If the few Neolithic societies to survive into times recorded by history are any guide, early human societies tended to self-organize along relatively egalitarian lines. Extended family groups, or interrelated 'tribes' of many such groups, could live together and share a village or collection of villages, usually with relatively limited need for formal laws and institutions. What direction the people needed, beyond the day to day tasks they would perform by default, was generally provided by prestigious figures who accumulated fame and standing gradually over the course of their lives. Lines of control were often informal, and the status of a 'chief' was seldom that far above a common citizen. Despite having legal rights and powers ordinary people did not, even the chiefs were not always exempt from the need to gather their own food or tend to their own homes.

This sort of social organization promotes a relatively 'flat' social hierarchy, with few layers, and also relatively small communities in which every person can have at least some personal knowledge of the chief and share in their respect for the chief's reputation.

RETRIBUTION

Retribution is the practice of harming others or bringing down harm upon their heads, as a direct consequence of their misdeeds.

A law code based around retribution generally specifies harsh punishments for criminals. The goal is to intimidate would-be criminals, but also to publicly establish that society regards criminal deeds as the actions of contemptible lesser beings, often by openly and blatantly punishing and humiliating the evildoers in front of crowds. There are many arguments against such stern and even cruel practices, and few arguments for it, save the most minimal- which is that it can be used to enforce a social order where otherwise none would exist.

RESTITUTION

Restitution is the practice of trying to make up for losses through gifts or repayment.

A law code based on the value of restitution seeks to restore damaged relationships and replace lost property in the wake of a crime. Even when the damage cannot be undone, the primary focus of the system is to maintain amity and community among the people, not to target and brutalize the criminal. This high-minded approach is often functional even in traditional societies, and can result in praiseworthy and humane outcomes when wielded by a wise and benevolent leader who seeks the best for their people. With that said, some may characterize this approach as 'soft' and ultimately likely to lead to more crime than would otherwise be the case.

LIBERTY

Liberty is the ideal of all individuals being able to act with the fewest feasible and reasonable number of limitations.

A law code that emphasizes liberty will place sharp limits on the power of the state to coerce or control others. While criminals may be subject to harsh punishment, it can take a great effort by the state to bring about such punishments, wiht strong protections in place to ensure that only the truly guilty are likely to suffer. The people will in general be able to say and do as they please, fearing only one another.

EQUALITY

Equality is the ideal that all persons deserve equal treatment under the law.

A law code focused on equality will tend to seek out and punish unfairness. This has the most conspicuous effects in a society that is reforming its treatment of women, small ethnic groups, or other minorities. It affords members of disadvantaged minorities the fullest opportunity to utilize their talents for the benefits of society, and can act as a beacon of greater fairness and hope for minorities in other lands. On the other hand, the costs of maintaining such a state of affairs can be high, because constant vigilance is needed to prevent the old biases from creeping back into power.

SUBSISTENCE

A subsistence economy is one where the bulk of the population spends most of its effort on feeding itself. This is, in some sense, "low-maintenance" from the perspective of a central government, but offers few opportunities for the people to directly do anything that benefits the central government. There is little or no surplus of labor and resources to be used for the general good of the public, with the majority of the population being busy hunting, gathering, fishing, or growing crops on a small scale. This is the default state of all civilizations, but is not tenable for cultures that seek to grow either widely or to great heights.

SOCIAL WELFARE

Social welfare as the focus of an economy indicates that a culture has come to value the happiness of its citizens, and the co-equal status of the people as a whole, rather than prioritizing financial or industrial growth. The policies that go with such values generally involve heavy taxation to break up concentrations of economic power, and programs designed to directly or indirectly enrich those who would otherwise be poor. This is often expensive, but serves to greatly reduce the social disruptions that would otherwise result from abuse of corporate and government power, while creating a powerful state-controlled infrastructure dedicated to achieving projects deemed important to the common good.

MERCHANT TRADE

As advances in sailing, road-building, and animal husbandry increased the possibilities for long range travel, commerce grew more prominent and successful. It became relatively straightforward, if risky, to journey across international or even intercontinental distances, bearing valuable commodities that would excite interest- and extract payment- at one's destination.

When promoted by the state, this usually bolstered the interests of the merchant class in society, relative to the standing of landholding aristocrats, military leaders, or religious authorities, or other power blocs within the state. In many ways this presaged the modern rise of capitalism and industrial civilization as a whole, even though most of the great merchant princes of earlier times focused far less around economic production and far more around the act of exchanging the goods themselves.

CENTRAL PLANNING

The most conceptually simple way to organize an economy is for a single person or a specific bureaucracy to control all property of real value and simply issue orders about what is to be done with it. This has certain advantages- it reduces the need for 'wasteful' labor expended in competition amongst one's own people, it eliminates the power blocs associated with concentration of wealth, and it enables policymakers to direct the maximum amount of resources to the most urgent problems.

At the same time, there are often grave disadvantages. It promotes the bureaucratization of the state. It often comes with considerable reduction in political freedom, to ensure that the bureaucracy is complied with. And central planning makes it difficult for society to transfer resources to areas important to the citizens or to long-term development but *not* foreseeably important in the eyes of the state. And even relatively small miscalculations on the part of the government can trigger disastrous famines or industrial shutdowns in the outside world.

MERCENARIES

Mercenaries are combatants who fight purely because they are paid, and without regard to factors such as national loyalty or religious motivations. Armies of mercenaries have been common throughout history, especially in times and places where a nation could not easily train for itself the kind of soldier it needed. The ancient Romans hired mercenary auxiliary horsemen, bowmen, and slingers to make up for the deficiencies of their legions. Renaissance-era Europeans hired mercenary Swiss pikemen and German swordsmen to make up for weaknesses in their own infantry forces.

Mercenaries often provide very reliable and effective means to wage war, without any great impact on civilian morale back home... but only so long as the money flows. Almost *nothing,* not even the most absolute and total military disaster, can destroy a nation's hopes for victory in wartime faster than losing the ability to pay the mercenary armies it was depending upon. Even if the enemy doesn't take advantage, the mercenaries themselves are all too likely to turn on their employer and carve the price of the payment out of their own former allies in the form of pillage and theft.

CONSCRIPTION

Conscription is the practice of involuntarily enlisting able-bodied citizens into the armed forces, in order to increase the number of available soldiers.

Conscription (or related practices such as the involuntary recruitment of slave-soldiers) have existed for many centuries. Even if they were poorly trained and equipped, conscripts could fill out the bulk of an army and make it difficult for the enemy to resist effectively with smaller numbers of more professional troops.

In more modern times, conscription often comes associated with the idea of universal military training- that is, that most or all able-bodied and eligible citizens are required to serve for a short time in the armed forces in their youth. This then ensures that it will be easy to call up a great reserve force of soldiers who at least somewhat remember military training, in the event of a major war.

ESTATE SYSTEM

A nation organized around estates recognizes local communities ruled by a specific form of government, typically a hereditary aristocrat, as the core form of social organization.

This is a highly decentralized and relatively cheap way to govern a country. It tends to promote disruption, intrigue among the nobles, and revolt among the peasants... But it also ensures that the most prosperous class within society has strong incentives to keep the rest of the nation working as hard as possible on their farms.

MULTICULTURALISM

Multiculturalism is the belief that even when there is a lack of understanding or a conflict of values between two different cultures, it is still good for both to exist side by side. The ideal of diversity is prized highly, and ideas and information derived from foreign practices are often embraced, examined, and incorporated into the existing system. This makes for tolerant but very intricate societies.

On the one hand it is common in modern, highly peaceful societies, encouraging the flow of goods, services, and information rapidly around the world and giving the citizenry access to the best products and artworks the world has to offer. On the other hand, in the past it has often been an effective way for a conquering nation or tribe to safely settle into widespread power by avoiding needless conflict with the subject people.
 
AMORITES

[We might want to rename them the Babylonians again, because Babylon remained a great center of the Mesopotamian world long after the Amorites who founded it were expelled]

The Amorites originated in what is now modern-day Syria, speaking a language of the Semitic group. Starting in the 21st century BCE and continuing up through the 17th century BCE, they spread through the southern parts of Mesopotamia- what is now modern-day Iraq. In the process, they established many of the region's greatest and most famous cities, in particular the city of Babylon, and established their rule over many others.

Earlier sources from prior civilizations such as the Sumerians and Akkadians regard them as having been uncivilized and crude peoples. It is suggested that their original name in Akkadian, 'Ammuru' comes from references to pastures, and that they may have been in part a pastoral herding people. Changes in the climate of their homeland circa 2200 BCE appear to have triggered mass migrations of Amorites from the rugged uplands of what is now eastern Syria, down the Tigris and Euphrates rivers into the more fertile and settled parts of Mesopotamia.

The Sumerians regarded the Amorites (or 'Mar-tu') with contempt, thinking them to be savages: "The MAR.TU who know no grain.... The MAR.TU who know no house nor town, the boors of the mountains.... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles... who does not bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat, who has no house during his lifetime, who is not buried after death" They warred against the Amorites, and the kings of Ur, the dominant city-state of this period, sought to build a massive wall stretching all the way from the Tigris to the Euphrates to keep Amorites out of their fertile lands.

However, the Third Dynasty of Ur was unable to maintain its imperial dominance of Mesopotamia. Weakened by dissent from other cities and regions that did not wish to be ruled from Ur, and distracted by foreign wars against the Elamites, Ur's dominance of the region collapsed. Amorites moved into the chaotic conditions and began integrating and assimilating into the local culture. Amorite dynasties established control over many of the then-extant cities of Mesopotamia in the following centuries, governing them along much the same lines as their Sumerian predecessors despite the stereotype of the Amorites as being crude savages. This echoes the same pattern that many other pastoral or semi-pastoral cultures would in the millennia to come.

Eventually, the Elamites sacked the city of Ur around 2004 BCE, putting a final end to Ur's control of the region. The influence of the Old Assyrian Empire (not to be confused with the fierce and iron-shod New Assyrian Empire of over a thousand years later) in the 20th and 19th centuries BCE was formidable. But gradually, the combined and integrated Amorite-Sumerian population and governments of Mesopotamia were able to reassert control of local affairs, and ultimately even the Assyrians themselves found themselves with Amorite kings ruling over them.

The Amorites replaced the system of old Sumerian culture with their own. Before the Amorites, Mesopotamian land, cattle, and even people were considered the direct property of the king, or of the priests and the gods. The Amorite kings released large amounts of control over property and the people to individuals, and to the people themselves, thus creating a society in which priests served the gods but usually did not rule, and in which private individuals could establish themselves as enterprising traders and farmers without being treated as slaves of the monarch.

This was on the whole a neutral or positive development in the evolution of Mesopotamian civilization, which continued to grow and flourish under Amorite rule; the Amorites did not uproot or destroy the culture and infrastructure the Sumerians had built, continued to worship the Sumerian gods, and honored Sumerian traditions and epics. The Amorite kingdoms' height ran from roughly 2000 to 1595 BCE, marked by highlights such as the rule of King Hammurabi of Babylon in the early 18th century BCE. Babylon itself grew large and prosperous and was the centerpiece of Amorite civilization, supplanting much older cities such as Ur.

However, just as the dominance of Ur had begun to crumble in the 21st century BCE, so did the power of the Amorites in Babylon begin to crumble. In the middle parts of the 18th century BCE, the Assyrians began to overthrow the Babylon-backed Amorite dynasties controlling their region, and in the southernmost parts of Mesopotamia new kings established themselves, who are relatively little-known and referred to as the 'Sealand Dynasty.' The Amorites were able to at least hold onto control of Babylon itself until 1595 BCE, when the city was sacked by Hittites. New ethnic groups such as the Kassites established themselves, and the Amorites became more of a fringe presence in less desirable parts of the region, dominated by the Hittites and Assyrians.

However, the cities and customs established by the Amorite kings, who broke the theocracies and absolute monarchies of the earlier Sumerian people, remained in place, honored by the Kassites and other subsequent rulers in Mesopotamia. So did the law code established by Hammurabi, one of the greatest of the Amorite kings. And the city of Babylon continued to be a centerpiece of the region's commerce, culture, and military affairs for over a thousand years, long after the Amorites themselves had departed. Their influence persisted long after they themselves made the rise from primitive nomads to mighty kings, and even after they fell back into nomadism and were forgotten.
 
ANASAZI

(STRONGLY suggest renaming them Pueblo)

The North American natives now referred to as the Pueblo trace back ancestry to the Picosa and Oshara cultures (so named from archaeological cites at which their artifacts have been found). Starting roughly 7000 years ago, the Oshara gradually refined their technology and improved their capacity to make projectile weapons, prepare food, and ultimately to begin cultivating crops such as maize roughly 3500 to 3000 years ago. The Oshara began gathering in larger settlements and preparing distinctive. Starting circa 2750 years ago, the Oshara culture entered what is now called its 'En Medio' period, forming settlements at the base of cliffs and establishing storage pits for food, developing pottery and making baskets in greater numbers around 1500-2000 years ago.

This advance of food gathering and storage, echoing worldwide historical trends, gave rise to an early distinctive civilization. The Navajo tribes, whose ancestors fought against both this civilization and its descendants, call them the 'Anasazi' or 'Ancestors of Enemies.' However the Pueblo tribes, who are descended from this civilization, do not approve of this term and prefer that it be called the Ancestral Puebloans, which one can reasonably argue is a more accurate description.

The Ancestral Puebloans established themselves across a broad area of what is now called the 'Four Corners' region, centered roughly on the four-cornered intersection of what are now the American states of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Ancestral Puebloan sites and ruins can be found throughout large areas of all four states. The bulk of their settlements are found along the sides of, or at the bases of, cliffs, usually near a river or other body of water. The habit of settling in and along cliffs is a relatively distinctive feature of Ancestral Puebloan civilization; in the arid climate of the American Southwest this trait enabled them to maintain steady access to water while making sure their homes could be easily defended from enemies.

The region in which they lived had a variety of natural resources and opportunities to support communities, but also presented the Ancestral Puebloans with many challenges. While its plateaus, mesas, and hills provided ready access to timber, water was often scarce, and usually found within heavily eroded, steep-sided canyons. The most reliable source of water was snowmelt, as the winter snows accumulated in the mountains and plateaus during winter gradually melted and poured a reasonably steady if limited supply of water out into the land in the spring. Actual rain was infrequent, often coming at the ends of protracted droughts. Wind erosion and flash flooding could easily sweep away structures and agricultural fields, and it was all too common for a years-long drought to greatly decrease the carrying capacity of a given part of the land, spelling disaster for the inhabitants of any cities or towns therein.

Starting around 700 AD (the beginning of the 'Pueblo I' period), the population of key Ancestral Puebloan sites began to increase very rapidly, growing as much as tenfold in a period of four hundred years. This is believed to have been due to a combination of favorable, heavy rains, increased fertility both of the land and of the people, and immigration from outside the area. The Puebloan settlements grew rapidly, digging into the cliffs where they had settled and excavating or building out the cliffs, honeycombing them with caves and building up artificial structures against the rock.

The period from roughly 900 AD to 1150 AD was a Puebloan 'Golden Age,' during which their artwork and the scale of their architecture demonstrates a thriving culture. However, a massive, continent-wide drought struck the Americas starting around 1130 AD. This affected not only the Puebloans, but other cultures such as the Tiwanaku in modern-day Bolivia, and the Mississippian civilization that dwelled roughly a thousand miles to the east of the Puebloans. Diminished rainfall and groundwater levels made farming more and more difficult for the Puebloans. Natural resources, particularly timber, became scarcer over time, and it is believed that the Puebloans may have had trouble with warfare and attacks by neighboring peoples such as the Utes, Shoshones, and Paiutes.

Thus, during the 1200s and 1300s AD, many of the Ancestral Puebloan sites, including religious sites, were abandoned. Archaeological evidence usually indicates deliberate abandonment, and it seems likely that the people moved to new, more habitable sites with what water and resources they could find. By 1350 AD the Puebloans had largely departed the Four Corners region, mostly moving further south or to the edges of that area. It is likely that to some extent they mingled with the Hohokam and Mogollon cultures in the Southwest during this period.

The most distinctive artifacts of Ancestral Puebloan civilization are the stone and earthwork settlements they built into and along various cliffs throughout the Four Corners region. Most of them were constructed between roughly 900 and 1350 AD, in what is now known as the 'Pueblo II' and 'Pueblo III' period. They evolved out of earlier pit-house settlements more similar to what other native cultures of the region used during this era. The Ancestral Puebloans are also known for their distinctive pottery and other forms of artwork, such as the many petroglyphs and pictographs they painted as murals on carefully selected rock surfaces. Sheltered from the sun and yet visible to passersby, many of these artworks can still be seen today, many centuries later.

During their peak, the Puebloans built structures that remained the largest in North America until the late 19th century. These included large, palatial complexes built for their elites and large-scale 'great kiva' centers of worship. The complexes were in some cases aligned to correspond to solar and lunar cycles, suggesting considerable knowledge of astronomy. Many of the Ancestral Puebloan cities are preserved as national parks by the United States government today, and can still be seen, often in relatively good condition.

As of the arrival of the Spanish shortly after 1500 AD, the Puebloans enter the historical record, along with the archaeological record and oral traditions of their own past. By this time they had settled in firmly established towns of adobe construction, which the Spanish in the 1500s simply described as 'villages.' The Spanish word for a 'village' is 'pueblo,' which in turn gave rise to the term now used for the native inhabitants of the region as 'Puebloan' tribes. The Puebloans were subdivided by various linguistic and cultural differences, rather than being a single massive monoculture, but recurring themes of architecture and lifestyle were present.

Only scattered groups of Spaniards passed through the desert interior of the American Southwest in the first century of European colonization of the New World; these groups were usually searching in vain for rumored 'cities of gold' or other prizes. It was in 1598, when the first permanently settled point of contact between the Puebloans and European civilization. This proved the beginning of increasingly forceful efforts by the Spanish to subjugate the Puebloans and convert them to Christianity. The Pueblo, who had sometimes warred with intruding bands of Spanish explorers even before 1598, eventually rebelled against this treatment, ultimately staging a successful revolt in 1680. The revolt, led by Po'pay (otherwise known as Popé), was a great success. Carefully coordinated in advance to strike all Spanish bases and settlements at once, the revolt swept the Spanish from the Pueblo lands for a dozen years- one of the few such strategic victories of a Native American people over European colonizers in North American history.

The Spanish eventually persuaded or forced some of the Pueblo communities to re-affirm allegiance to the Catholic religion and Spanish rule. Others, such as the Hopi, never again tolerated Spanish control and remained free for a century or more. Even the reconquered Pueblo communities were able to maintain more of their traditional religion and culture than was normally tolerated by the Spanish. As a result, the Pueblo were less broken to the Spanish yoke than many other native cultures in Latin America. Even several generations later, in 1844 as American travelers began passing through the Southwest (which by then were held by Mexico after the Mexicans rebelled successfully against their Spanish overlords in the early 19th century), the Puebloans remained relatively independent and were remarkable for the success of their agriculture.

Afflicted by European diseases and by rapid expansion of American colonists into their land after the Americans wrested control of the territory from Mexico in the Mexican-American War of 1848, the Puebloans diminished rapidly in strength after this time, eventually being forced onto reservations by the expanding forces of the U.S. government. However, they retain a distinctive cultural identity and a strong sense of their ancestral ties to the region, including the very lasting material evidence of their golden age.
 
ASSYRIANS

The Assyrians are a (still-extant) ethnicity tracing its roots back to Mesopotamian civilization in the third millennium BCE, when much of northern Mesopotamia was united under the rule of the Akkadian culture. The center of Assyrian civilization was the upper parts of the Tigris river, including parts of what are now northern Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.

Akkadian influence was prominent in the culture of the city-states of Assur (Ashur) and Nineveh, which were to become two of the centers of later Assyrian civilization. Assyria gained independence from the influence of Sumerian and Akkadian kings during the upheaval of the 22nd and 21st centuries BCE, which also saw Amorite tribes descend upon Mesopotamia and gain great influence in the region. This permitted the rise of the Old Assyrian Empire circa 2025 BCE.

While Amorites made inroads into Assyria by putting Amorite kings on Assyrian thrones more than once, the characteristically Assyrian culture in the region remained distinct, and the Assyrians' defenses remained solid. The upheavals that eventually led to the downfall of Amorite control further south in Mesopotamia made little impression on the Assyrians, who were able to make favorable arrangements with the new Kassite rulers of Babylon in the 16th century BCE.

The Assyrians continued to hold a broad expanse of territory against the Kassites, the Mitanni, and others, until roughly 1450 BCE, at which time the Indo-European Mitanni and their Hurrian subjects appear to have gained considerable strength. After the Assyrians made an alliance with the pharaohs of Egypt aimed at weakening the Mitanni, the Mitanni reacted aggressively. Fearing the consequence of being surrounded on three sides by hostile Hittites, Assyrians, and Egyptians, the Mitanni struck to the west, sacking Ashur and reducing Assyria to a vassal tributary state in 1430 BCE.

Even during this time, though, the Assyrians were too powerful to be thoroughly controlled. They continued to pursue projects meant to strengthen their defenses and their ties with foreign nations such as the Babylonians. This struggle went on until the early 14th century BCE, when the Assyrians grew strong enough once again to shift the balance of power in their favor and begin exerting power over the Mitanni in turn. This heralded the beginning of the Middle Assyrian Empire in 1365 BCE, with the ascension of a new king who comprehensively defeated and subjugated the Mitanni. Growing Assyrian strength after they absorbed the Mitanni became so much of a threat to the balance of power that the Egyptians and Hittites, long rivals, made peace, and the Hittites and Babylonians in turn began to work together in an attempt to reduce Assyria's economic influence over the Middle East as a whole.

However, the Assyrians had grown too powerful to be contained by such measures. In the reign of King Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1207 BCE), the Assyrians defeated the Hittites decisively in the Battle of Nihriya, then turned south to seize Babylon and send its king, Kashtiliash IV, into humiliating exile, also crushing the Elamites and several kingdoms to the south of Babylon almost in passing, as a side effect. This secured a tremendous reputation and standing for the kings of Ashur. Tukulti-Ninurta crowned himsef "King of Sumer and Akkad," the title first used by Sargon the Great over a thousand years earlier.

The Assyrians also conquered sizeable portions of the Mediterranean coast along the Levant, subduing several of the Canaanite-Phoenician city-states in the region, such as Berytus (present-day Beirut). The Middle Assyrian Empire remained very powerful in Mesopotamia and the Levant up until the middle of the 11th century BCE. In 1056 BCE, King Ashur-bel-kala, faced a powerful rebellion that demanded much of his attention, and many of the empire's outlying provinces were lost in the following decade, particularly in the west near the Mediterranean.

The Middle Empire period as a whole consolidated Assyrian culture into a warlike, militaristic society united under the rule of powerful central kings who also served as the head of the priesthood. Widespread conscription of all able-bodied males in and around Ashur into the armed forces sustained the army at a size capable of subduing distant city-states. Assyrian law was unusually strict and brutal in its punishments by Mesopotamian standards, and their society had harsh, chauvinistic attitudes towards women.

The Bronze Age Collapse (1200-900 BCE) was a period of difficulty for the Assyrians, although one that they survived with the core of their powerbase intact. Many new ethnicities emerged in and around Assyrian territory, or migrated from distant lands, during the upheavals of this period. The Assyrian Empire shrank (particularly after the civil war mentioned above), and many of these new groups established kingdoms on its borders. Their preferred strategy for weathering the period of the Collapse seems to have been to remain securely based within a readily defensible core territory, while staging strong, punitive raids against any more distant enemies that might emerge, thus avoiding becoming dangerously overextended by trying to conquer wide stretches of territory that would be vulnerable to incursions from further out.

It was in 911 BCE, with the coronation of Adad-Nirari II, that the neo-Assyrian Empire began. This was the third and most famous of the 'Assyrian Empires' of history, and by far outstretched even the Middle Assyrian Empire in its military achievements, while also gaining a reputation for brutality and tyranny that would last for millenia.

The neo-Assyrians made extensive use of iron tools and weaponry to equip their military, enabling them to raise very large fighting forces. They drilled their armies extensively, using well armored heavy infantry. In addition to their iron weapons and armor, the neo-Assyrians pioneered one of the great unsung inventions of history: the army boot. The iron-shod boots of Assyrian soldiers were far more durable than the sandals favored by their more tradition-bound enemies, enabling Assyrian armies to march and fight in difficult weather and terrain more easily.

The neo-Assyrians were also masters of engineering and siegecraft, being the first people to form dedicated army units whose job was construction rather than combat: a corps of engineers. These engineers built bridges and earthworks, and with the aid of the potent Assyrian siege engines could reduce the defenses of virtually any city or fortress into rubble.

Once a city's fortifications were broken, the neo-Assyrians were generally merciless to the conquered, often selling much or all of a population into slavery, forcibly relocating the peasantry and scattering them across the empire in ethnic cleansing campaigns, and brutally torturing and killing the elites of city-states that resisted them too vigorously.

This proved to be a combination that the Middle East was ill-equipped to withstand. Neo-Assyrian armies advanced outwards in all directions from Ashur, winning battle after battle and taking city after city. Among the nations that were to feel the neo-Assyrian boot in the period from 911 to 783 BCE were the Arabs, the Arameans, the Phoenicians, the Philistines, Israelites, the neo-Hittites, the Edomites, the Persians, the Medes, the Chaldeans, the Suteans, and the Manneans. While the neo-Assyrians didn't succeed in conquering Egypt, they did defeat the Egyptians and drive them backwards towards their homeland.

After the death of King Adad-Nirari III in 783 BCE, the neo-Assyrians destabilized somewhat, losing control of many of their outlying vassals... only for King Tiglath-Pileser III to take the throne in 745 BCE and start the process all over again. Tiglath-Pileser formalized and professionalized the army, introduced a single official language for the empire, and created new bureaucratic structures to ensure that he could govern his conquests. He then marched out and reconquered most of the lands lost by his predecessors, including not only the conquest of Babylon but his own choice to crown himself as its king.

Following neo-Assyrian kings pushed out further, once again conquering the Levant and Canaan, large parts of Anatolia, and effectively all of Mesopotamia Eventually they conqeured Egypt as well, fighting a dizzying array of military campaigns in all directions, often having to subdue the same lands several times, despite (or perhaps because of) the brutality of their conquests.

At its height, the neo-Assyrian Empire ruled over Babylonia, Chaldea, Elam, Media, Persia, Armenia, Phoenicia, Aramea, Phrygia, what remained of the Hittites and Hurrians, large parts of Arabia, all of the states associated with the various Israelite tribes, and what is now Egypt.

However, after the death of king Ashurbanipal in 627 BCE, the neo-Assyrian empire began to fall apart. Rival kings fought one another in civil war. Scythian and Cimmerian barbarian raiders attacked the borders of the empire and struck down along the Mediterranean coast. The Egyptians quietly disengaged from the larger empire, and none had the strength to compel them back into obedience. Finally, the Medes, Persians, and Parthians united into a powerful force strong enough to smash one Assyrian force after another.

The Assyrian state was battered into submission, its cities sacked and devasted, over the course of the 610s BCE, finally drowning in a sea of attacks from all sides, with the last gasp of even vaguely independent Assyrian action being the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE.

The Assyrians now ceased to exist on the historical record as an independent state, being successively ruled over by subsequent generations of Medes and Persians. The Persians had little or no interest in allowing the Assyrians to rebuild their once-mighty empire, though they did rely heavily on Assyria's economy and soldiery to strengthen their own forces. Due to the long period of neo-Assyrian domination over the Persians in earlier centuries, though, many Assyrian influences can be seen in Persian culture. Some of the Assyrian cities were allowed to recover; others were not. Assyrian-based Aramaic remained the lingua franca of the Persian Empire for two centuries.

Ultimately, criss-crossing struggles for imperial power turned the Assyrian territories into the battlefield, rather than the players, of the clash of empires. Alexander's Greeks crossed through and conquered Assyria and made it their own under the Seleucids, in the process rather ignorantly referring to their territories by the partially related name of 'Syria.' In time the Seleucids gave way to the conflict between the Romans and the Parthian Empire, then to the Byzantines against the Persians, the Byzantines against the Arabs, the Byzantines against the Turks, the Turks against the Mongols, and so forth.

In more recent times, the remnant Assyrian ethnicity has remained characteristically Semitic, as were their ancestors of three or four thousand years ago. Having converted to Christianity in the days of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, many Assyrians continue to adhere to that faith, though many have converted to Islam over the centuries. Interestingly, some Assyrians held to the old Mesopotamian gods as late as the 10th or 11th century AD.

The city of Assur itself was ultimately destroyed by the Turkic ruler Timur (Tamerlane) in the 1300s AD, as part of a campaign to suppress Christianity in the lands he controlled; Timur himself was a Muslim. The Assyrians came under the power of the Ottoman Empire and were frequently targeted for massacres and suppression along with various other minorities. Much like the Armenians, the Assyrians underwent a genocide at Ottoman hands during World War One. After that time, Assyrians fought for the British colonial regime in Iraq, even reviving traditional Assyrian military ranks from the days of their ancient empires in the 1920s.

The Assyrians, now an embattled minority in the lands they once ruled, remain locked in ethnic rivalry against the Kurds and Arabs of the region, and continued to be targeted for persecution by many regimes throughout the 20th century. Most recently they have been persecuted by the forces of ISIL in the Syrian Civil War, which frequently attacks and destroys ancient Assyrian archaeological sites, which has at least given the Assyrians cause to unite with Kurds, Armenians, and other regional minorities against the common foe. However, many ethnic Assyrians have fled the region; there are approximately 100,000 Assyrians living in the United States, for instance.
 
Last edited:
BRAZILIANS

The history of Brazil begins with many long millennia of habitation by the natives. As the natives of Brazil lacked written language, this is the realm of archaeology rather than of 'history' in the usual sense. Archaeological research of Brazilian prehistory is further complicated by the humid climate and acidic soil of the Amazon basin, which attacks and destroys most normal remains of human settlement- even wood and bones.

The Brazilian natives are thought to have been mostly descended from the first wave of Siberian tribes to cross the land bridge into North America during the Ice Age, roughly 17000 to 13000 years ago. The descendants of these tribes would have made their way down through North America, probably working their way into the Amazon river basin from the northwest by way of the Isthmus of Panama, over the course of centuries or millennia of time. Later waves of Siberians coming across the land bridge seem not to have reached into South America, by contrast.

What remains to provide evidence of native inhabitation of Brazil is mostly pottery, the shells of discarded shellfish, and stone implements such as blades and arrowheads. It is known that the Brazilian natives developed a remarkable method of 'terraforming' parts of the otherwise low-fertility Amazon soil into 'terra preta' that is more suited for crops and gathering of edible food, by mixing potsherds and other refuse into the soil. Large patches of 'terra preta' provide evidence that large indigenous populations lived in, and practiced agriculture and at least small-scale civilization in, the Amazon basin for many long centuries. There is evidence that some Amazon settlements included tens of thousands of homes and were inhabited for centuries or millennia, but the extremely destructive climate, among other factors, makes details sadly difficult to establish.

As of the first arrival of Europeans- specifically a shipload of lost Portuguese- in Brazil in the year 1500, Brazil was the site of an ongoing ethnic conflict between the largely homogeneous Tupi peoples who had successfully taken over most of the Brazilian coast, and the Tapuia (a collection of 'everyone not Tupi' peoples) further inland. The fact that the Tupi language and culture were uniform along almost the entire coast greatly simplified the task of making contact with the natives, for European colonists- as did the fact that the Tupi were in many cases divided into mutually hostile polities.

Most of the natives lived in agrarian societies, supporting relatively dense populations with their detailed knowledge of how to farm under the unique conditions of the Amazon basin. Thus, the Portuguese were surprised to find a wide, rich coastline with ample resources and a vast population, all speaking a common language and sharing many cultural features. Moreover, due to the specific wording of the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, Portugal was considered to have official rights to colonize Brazil, even as the rest of the Americas were nominally a Spanish dominion as far as European law was concerned.

The Portuguese lost little time in acting on this opportunity.

Arguing that the natives were cannibals and citing intertribal warfare as evidence of Tupi and Tapuia 'savagery,' the Portuguese argued that they had a duty to establish themselves on the coast and, not coincidentally, seek out the highly prized, high-quality brazilwood for which the region later came to be named. Portuguese colonists were quick to found religious missions among the natives, quick to assert dominance over the natives, quick to interbreed with native women, and quick to spread catastrophic diseases among the native peoples.

Outbreaks of smallpox, measles, influenza, and other epidemic European diseases slaughtered countless thousands of Brazilian natives, entirely depopulating whole tribes and regions and leaving much of the Brazilian coast and interior in what can only be considered a 'post-apocalyptic' state of being compared to their previous dense, thriving, agricultural communities. This parallels the history of much of the rest of the Americas, and the disruption caused by the disease outbreaks helps to explain the inability of the natives to resist much of the treatment that followed.

Even as the overwhelmingly male Portuguese colonists settled down to father children with native women, they began establishing sugar plantations to be worked by slaves (including both enslaved natives, and West African slaves brought over by ship as the Atlantic slave trade began to pick up speed). They also dispatched many 'bandeira' expeditions into the interior in the 1500s and later, seeking precious stones, gold, or other valuables, and seeking to enslave as many native captives as possible. Due to their susceptibility to European disease, native slaves died extremely quickly and turnover was terrifyingly high. Thus, the slave raiding became yet another vector by which native populations were destroyed and broken into scattered remnants, while the Portuguese began to penetrate further inland. The natives put up considerable resistance to this process, such as the memorable revolt of the Tamoyo Confederation of Tupi peoples against the Portuguese in the mid-1500s under Cunhambebe, but they were ultimately overwhelmed.

One interesting footnote in Brazilian history is that the Jesuit order served extensively as missionaries in Brazil, as in many other parts of South America, and often became protectors of native populations for much of the 1600s and 1700s. However, this did not ultimately prevent the genocide of the natives; by 1800 AD, the population of Brazil stood at approximately three and a quarter million, and only a million of those were pure-blooded members of the indigenous peoples.

Thus, Brazil became, increasingly, a European colony state, albeit one in which the Portuguese-derived population was unusually heavily mixed with native and African blood due to the less race-purist attitude of the Portuguese colonists compared to (for example) their North American English counterparts. The colonists found an increasing number of ways to exploit the economic resources of the land they were conquering from the Native Americans, including plantations growing a variety of cash crops, gold and gemstone mining, and other such endeavours.

As the influence of Portugal weakened in the later part of the Age of Sail, due to pressure from Spain and the rise of British and Dutch merchant and military fleets, Brazil became more and more difficult to control. The Napoleonic Wars finally made the Portuguese position virtually impossible, and Brazil nearly followed the United States into open rebellion against its colonial motherland during the 1790s. However, the colonial regime was able to stay in power through that decade and the next, largely by pitting the white elite (who even if they supported independence, feared the poorer whites and the large slave population) against the rest of the populace.

In 1808, when Napoleon's armies conquered Portugal itself, the Portuguese royal family and court fled to Brazil in a large convoy escorted by the British Navy. This greatly changed the dynamics of the relationship between Portugal and Brazil; the tail was no longer in a position to wag the dog, as it were. King Joao VI declared Brazil to be a separate kingdom united under the royal family, and when he finally returned to Portugal in the 1820s, he left behind his eldest son Pedro as regent in the capital of Rio de Janeiro. However, a short time later, Pedro crowned himself Emperor Dom Pedro I of Brazil and declared independence from his father's kingdom.

Dom Pedro I abdicated in 1831, being too liberal for the prosperous landowners and not liberal enough for the intellectuals, leaving his kingdom to be ruled by a regency up until 1840, at which point his son Pedro II took the throne at the age of fifteen. The regency period was beset by internal conflict, but Pedro II was able to restore order and reign as a constitutional monarch for most of the 19th century, being ousted by an 1889 coup after which Brazil formally became a republic. During this time, Brazil thrived on massive exports of sugar and coffee, but as a consequence had strong incentives to keep up the slave-operated system of plantation agriculture that was going out of fashion in much of the rest of the world. Brazil was the last Western nation to abolish slavery, in 1888.

After the end of Pedro II's reign, Brazil remained at least nominally a republic, mostly ruled by wealthy landowner-politicians, but frequently threatened or disrupted by provincial uprisings and charismatic strongmen. A boom in commercial rubber production between roughly 1880 and 1920 further fueled the national economy, but also caused major upheaval, because the power base of the rubber plantations was deep in the Amazon rainforest, rather than in the more traditionally settled parts of the country. Brazil remained wealthy enough to purchase modern weaponry and amenities, but lagged much of the Western world in industrial development.

Liberalization of the republic in the 1930s reduced the power of the great landowners, and Brazil served the Allies during World War Two as a counterweight to the strategic influence of the pro-Axis nation of Argentina. Brazilians participated in many international UN peacekeeping operations in the 1950s and '60s, and it was under this relatively democratic regime that the capital was moved from the old colonial city of Rio de Janeiro to the technocratically laid out (and frankly nigh-unlivable) inland planned city of Brasilia.

However, in 1964 a military coup seized power and set up a right-wing junta that was to govern Brazil for the next twenty years. Censorship, arrests and killings of political opposition, and mismanaged reforms marred Brazilian affairs up until 1985, when a new democratic government took power. However, the revitalized democracy has faced many problems with rising wealth inequality, a tremendous population boom in the slums of Brazil's very large cities, mass-scale corruption on the part of the ruling left-wing party, and difficulty maintaining law and order, and ongoing environmental crises created by widespread farming and clearcutting of the Amazon rainforest. All these factors have led to extensive popular unrest, and to the election of the combative far-right politician Jair Bolsonaro to the presidency of Brazil in 2018. The effects of this on Brazil's future remain to be seen.
 
Last edited:
BURMESE

There is ample evidence of prehistoric settlement of Myanmar (also known at various times as Burma) dating back well over ten thousand years, following a trajectory similar to that found in many other parts of the world. By 1500 BCE, the prehistoric Burmese had developed a sophisticated civilization. They farmed rice, were early adopters of the domesticated chicken and pig, and making bronze tools. Iron working first arose in the region in the last few centuries BCE. However, the civilization of this era either made no written records, or none survived.

The recorded history of Myanmar begins with the Pyu peoples, speakers of languages in the Tibeto-Burman family. The Pyu established a number of city-states along the Mu River Valley, the Kyaukse Plains, and the Minbu region where the Irrawaddy and Chindwin rivers meet. These well-watered regions supported thriving cities, which grew to their height between roughly 200 BCE and the 9th century CE. The Pyu traded extensively with India, and Indian concepts, religion (especially Buddhism), and culture thus became major influences on Burmese culture.

The Pyu were eventually conquered and assimilated by invading Bamar people from the kingdom of Nanzhao, who founded what is now known as the nation of Pagan. Starting in the 9th century CE, the newly founded city of Pagan was used as a base from which the Bamar expanded to control most of the fertile regions of what is now Burma. Starting in the year 1044 CE, the first king of Pagan, Anawrahta, formally established Pagan as the center of a kingdom that swelled to control the great majority of the present-day territory of the nation of Burma, including (significantly) a string of coastal towns and outposts stretching down the east side of the Malay Peninsula, towards the strategic waterway known as the Strait of Malacca. The Bamar and Pyu nationalities merged into what we can now recognize as the Burmese people.

By the early 1100s, Pagan was a major power in Southeast Asia, rivaled within the region only by the Khmer Empire in what is now Cambodia. This was a period of cultural flourishing for Burma, including the rise of the distinctive Theravada sect of Buddhism, though numerous other religious sects including other forms of Buddhism, and also Hinduism and traditional animist beliefs, remained influential among the people. Widespread irrigation networks and a great system of Buddhist schools and temples were created during this time, ensuring that the people would be both fed and enlightened to the best of the Pagan Kingdom's abilities.

However, in the long run, the establishment of thousands of (non-taxable) temples and the donation of tax-free land to temple interests undermined the direct ability of the monarchy to raise troops and organize the country. By the 13th century CE, Pagan was threatened by external enemies including the infamous Mongols, but also more local threats such as the Mon and Shan peoples. In 1253 CE, a Mongol army conquered Yunnan, the home from which the Bamar peoples had once originated- and in 1277, the next generation of Mongol forces invaded Pagan, retracing the route of the kingdom's own ancestors. Within ten years, the Mongols had taken the city of Pagan itself, sacking it and putting an end to Pagan's dominance of the region. The remnant of the Pagan kingdom was conquered within ten years more, by the rising Myinsaing Kingdom.

The Mongols had relatively little interest in actually ruling over Burma, due to its tropical climate and due to the presence of other, more inviting territories elsewhere. This left the land in the hands of smaller, fragmentary remnant kingdoms (such as Myinsaing). By the mid-1300s, Burma was subdivided up among four major power centers within the land the Pagan Kingdom had once controlled, which were in turn often de facto confederacies of smaller principalities. The Ava Kingdom, founded in 1364 and ruling the central parts of Burma, struggled particularly hard to reunite the shattered fragments of their country. However, as decades of war and costly campaigns to subjugate rebels stretched into a century and more, the Ava eventually collapsed, although not before making their mark on overall Burmese culture and customs.

The confederation of Shan states in the far northern reaches of the land that finally brought down the Ava Kingdom created a power vacuum in the 1500s, into which the outlying kingdom of Taungoo, in the far southeast of Burma, began to expand. Winning battle after battle, the Taungoo Dynasty gradually reunited Burma, succeeding where the Ava had failed, though their borders were not exactly the same as those of the old Pagan Kingdom. Under the kings Tabinshwehti and Bayinnaung, the Taungoo conquered much of Southeast Asia, creating what was arguably the largest nation-state in the region's history over the course of the mid-1500s. They also introduced administrative reforms to help them govern their sprawling territory, which included all of modern Burma save the western corner around Arakan, a small part of what is now westernmost India, and most or even all of what are now the nations of Laos and Thailand (Siam).

However, after Bayinnaung's death in 1581, the empire began disintegrating rapidly, breaking down in a massive wave of provincial revolts. Some of these revolts and local independence movements were backed by Portuguese mercenaries and traders, who had been appearing throughout the region in increasing numbers since the early 1500s. This played a particularly crucial role in establishing the independent government of Arakan at that time.

Nyaungyan Min, one of Bayinnaung's sons, was able to restore order in the early 1600s, but the territory of the empire had been largely trimmed down to the boundaries of what we now know as the nation of Burma. He and his two successors fought the Portuguese and contained their influence, further reformed the bureaucracy and administration of the country to reduce the potential for warlordism, and in general oversaw a period of relative peace and stability for Burma that lasted throughout the 17th century CE. As the 18th century began, the long peace and other factors caused decay at the top, weakening the influence of the kings. Starting in the 1720s and ending with the fall of the capital at Ava in 1752, the Taungoo Dynasty was finally brought down by yet another series of local uprisings.

Yet another dynasty, this time the militaristic Konbaung dynasty, expanding from Shwebo under King Alaungpaya, arose to reunite the kingdom, which they did with great success by 1759, defeating British and French colonial interests and agents in the process and expelling them from the kingdom. The Burmese once again invaded Laos and Siam, but were forced to pull back rather than finish off the Siamese defenses after being repeatedly invaded by the armies of Qing China in the 1760s. While the war went extremely poorly for the Chinese, the sheer scale of Chinese military potential kept Burmese attention fully occupied for many years, allowing the Laotians and Siamese to re-establish independence. The Ayutthaya Kingdom (what is now most of Thailand and some of the eastern parts of Burma) rose as a rival to the Konbaung Dynasty during this time, and the two nations would go to war time and again over the following century or so.

Frustrated in the east by Ayutthaya, the Konbaung dynasty turned west. But further Konbaung expansion towards the west was to prove the dynasty's undoing, bringing their borders into direct contact with the parts of India governed by the British East India Company after the Burmese conquered Arakand, Manipur, and Assam in the late 1700s and the 1810s, respectively.

Conflicts with the British proved disastrous for Burma. Though defeating the Burmese in the 1820s during the First Anglo-Burmese War proved costly for the Empire, the war indemnity payments imposed on Burma were enough to be crippling. Another war in the 1850s resulted in the loss of Burmese border territory, and despite attempts by late 19th century Burmese monarchs to modernize and to appease the British, the British relatively easily finished the conquest of Burma in 1885, consolidating their hold on the country in an attempt to counter the increasingly firm French position in what was for a time called 'French Indochina.'

British conquest caused major changes for Burma. The monarchy was gone, and traditional ties between church and state were abruptly dissolved by the British. British corporations and incoming British and Indian managers and workers took over the bulk of the Burmese economy. This led to worsening conditions for the Burmese, and nationalist political opposition arose in the early 1900s, beginning with the Young Men's Buddhist Association. The British administration acceded to gradual constitutional reforms and increased autonomy for Burma, but the pace of change was quite slow. Protests, hunger strikes, and even armed revolts against British authority became increasingly common.

The picture was further complicated when, in 1942, the Japanese Army marched into Burma as part of its World War II campaign to secure colonies in the Far East, taking them away from European powers. The British had by this point already lost Hong Kong and the fortress of Singapore, and Japanese military success humiliated the European colonial powers as a whole. While British-led armies were able to hold the line against the Japanese and eventually push them back out of Burma, During the interim a sizeable part of the Burmese independence movement aligned with the Japanese, seeing them potentially as liberators from British rule despite their considerable brutality towards civilians and captured prisoners in the areas they had captured. However, it soon became apparent that Japan had no intention of allowing Burma any real independence, and realignment among the independence movement took place, as nationalist and communist rebel factions combined against the Japanese.

Burma gained independence relatively quickly after the end of World War Two. For a few years, the Burmese parliament held new elections and a massive pro-independence majority won office, though in the tumultous political scene, Aung San, a prominent hero of the independence movement such as Aung San were assassinated. In 1948, after it became clear that continued British rule could not be sustained, especially after the British had already given up rule over India. Burma's independence was recognized.

Burma strove to be neutral in the early years of the Cold War, but faced constant, ongoing problems with warlords and rebels of every sort. Regional secession movements, communist guerillas, military coup attempts, and even former Nationalist Chinese generals whose armies had taken up occupation of parts of Burmese territory all presented threats to the central government's legitimacy. Despite this, the country's economic recovery from World War Two proceeded apace.

Burma's recovery was disrupted in 1962 when a communist uprising led by ambitious army officers overthrew the national government. The resulting Union Revolutionary Council soon began a brutal crackdown against student protestors, killing a hundred or more and blowing up building they used as headquarters. Mass arrests and a total ban on all rival political parties followed within a few years, as the Council consolidated control and established a police state. The Council's rule was troubled and their efforts to reform the economy were largely unsuccessful, resulting in further, ongoing unrest. During this period the Council also began ethnic cleansing campaigns against Muslim minorities in Burma.

By the late 1980s, Burma's leadership was unstable under the control of U Ne Win, a man with dubious connection to reality. U Ne Win made ill-advised policy decisions such as when he canceled all government banknotes and currency except for bills whose face value was divisible by nine, on the grounds that nine was his lucky number. It was around this time that the United Nations allocated Least Developed Country status to Burma. A military coup finally overthrew the communists in 1989, renaming the country from 'Burma' to 'Myanmar' at that time.

However, the new military oligarchy was little or no less brutal and hamhanded than the communists had been, and Burma remained a repressive and impoverished state. Large scale human rights violations including mass forced labor were widely reported, all normal political activity was banned, opposing politicians were imprisoned, and the country remained a de facto tyranny, with international calls to try the military oligarchs for crimes against humanity.

Since 2008, Burma has gradually begun transitioning back towards democracy, but the process has been slow and painful. Burma still has to contend with a weak economy, ongoing ethnic strife, and little history of healthy political discourse within living memory. The country faces an uncertain future.
 
Last edited:
DRAVIDIANS

'Dravida' is a Sanskrit word referring to the south of India. There is evidence in written records referring to the 'Dravidian' ethnic group as far back as roughly 500 BCE, and it is probable that they existed in distinct form long prior to this time. It is evident that they made up the pre-existing population of the Indian subcontinent four to five thousand years ago, prior to the arrival of the Indo-Aryan chariot tribes. The Indo-Aryans became the predominant population of northern India, intermarrying and integrating with the Dravidian peoples present there, though a Dravidian minority still remains in parts of northern India. By contrast, the Indo-Aryans never reached the southern tip of the subcontinent in force, and here the Dravidian ethnicity and culture remained relatively separate from outside influence.

The Harappan civilization (3300-1300 BCE, peaking between 2600 and 1900 BCE) lived in the Indus River valley in what is now northwestern India and Pakistan. This civilization is sometimes characterized as having been Dravidian, simply because it predates the arrival of the Indo-European tribes. This civilization was a thriving Bronze Age culture at its peak, with cities such as Mohenjo-Daro exhibiting advanced architecture, artwork, and craftsmanship. They possessed a remarkably stable and regularized system of units of measurement, exceptional statuary, masonry, and ceramics, an impressive network of canals and earthworks, and (on a side note) possibly the most advanced dentistry in the world of their time. The Harappans were part of a trade network in the Indian Ocean, and regularly exchanged goods with sites as far as ancient Sumeria (where they were known as the Meluhha)

Unlike almost all other ancient peoples, the Harappans show little sign of having had large standing armies, theocratic priesthoods, kings, monumental structures, or the other paraphernalia typical of a powerful elite ruling over oppressed masses. It is speculated that they may have had some sort of democratic or anarchic mode of governing themselves, remarkable if true. The Harappans had a system of writing and numerous (unfortunately small) samples of that writing exist from their era. However, the Harappan writing system and language have sadly never been successfully translated. Thus, we are condemned to ignorance of the details of their unusual mode of living.

Increased levels of violence and infectious disease in the second millenium BCE presaged the fall of Harappan civilization, and by the middle of that millenium it is clear that the great, orderly cities of the Harappans had collapsed into a sorry and reduced state. It was during this timeframe that the Indo-Aryans arrived, and it can be inferred that the general decline of Harappan civilization created a power vacuum into which they could more easily migrate and establish power over northern India. However, many of the technologies and cultural elements of Harappan civilization survived even in the north, and other Dravidian peoples persisted unconquered further south. Dravidian loan words are found in the oldest Indo-Aryan language known, that of the Rigvedas (c. 1500 BCE).

In the south, Dravidian peoples continued to speak distinctive languages of the Dravidian family and to favor architectural styles distinct from those found further north. They practiced forms of Hinduism without the Vedic influence from the Indo-Aryans, or gradually admitting this influence into their religion as syncretism and millennia of time enabled cultural mixing. The Tamils, Telugus, and a number of other less numerous peoples are of primarily Dravidian ancestry, and established kingdoms in the south of India.

The Dravidians have usually been divided up into several kingdoms that vied among themselves for control of their part of the subcontinent, and for the island of Sri Lanka. However, the most successful and unifying of these was the Chola Empire, which ruled a large maritime trading and naval empire whose influence stretched across much of the Indian Ocean. At their height they controlled almost the entire area now populated by the Dravidian peoples, with widespread mercantile and military influence across Southeast Asia (enough to fight and win wars in Malaysia and Indonesia), and trading as far as China.

While the subsequent history of the Dravidian peoples tends to merge into that of India as a whole, with a historical narrative after 1500 that was increasingly dominated by the effects of European explorers, merchants, and conquerors, they remain a fully distinct set of cultures within the larger milieu of Indian society. The two largest Dravidian languages, Tamil and Telugu are recognized major languages within India, and the corresponding ethnicities have populations within India well in excess of fifty million each, comparable or greater than the population of many major European countries.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much, Simon.

WIROBROJO

(I'm not sure how to talk these guys up. I'm not questioning your choice, but can you talk a bit to me about why you chose this specific unit for the Javans?)

I chose them primarily because the art was distinctive and they were easy to implement. I'm open to replacing them with something more interesting in the future.

[We might want to rename them the Babylonians again, because Babylon remained a great center of the Mesopotamian world long after the Amorites who founded it were expelled]

I keep going back and forth on this. Babylonians would make the most sense except that I've included the Syrian Amorite states as part of the civ. I don't really want to exclude them and I can't really justify them being their own civilization.

(STRONGLY suggest renaming them Pueblo)

Yeah, I probably should. Both 'Pueblo' and 'Anasazi' are exonyms and I thought the latter might be more appropriate since it was from a Native American language. Remind me to look into it once 1.25 is done.
 
I keep going back and forth on this. Babylonians would make the most sense except that I've included the Syrian Amorite states as part of the civ. I don't really want to exclude them and I can't really justify them being their own civilization.
+1 for naming the civ Babylonians, without any changes
There are compromises for many civs, including the Syrian Amorites within the civ under that name doesn't sound too bad to me.
 
I chose them primarily because the art was distinctive and they were easy to implement. I'm open to replacing them with something more interesting in the future.
Well, it's just that I couldn't figure out what to say about them as a unit with a unique Civilopedia entry.

I keep going back and forth on this. Babylonians would make the most sense except that I've included the Syrian Amorite states as part of the civ. I don't really want to exclude them and I can't really justify them being their own civilization.
Welllll.

"Babylonian" gives more name recognition, which is frankly good for playing the mod because it means people know who they are as something other than "generic bunch of guys, wait, Amorite, aren't those the wizard civ from Fall From Heaven? :p "

What do the Syrian Amorites bring to the table, in terms of this civ's uniqueness as written? Leaders? City names?

Honestly, I think folding the Syrian Amorites into 'Babylonians' makes at least as much sense as folding Renaissance Italian leaders into Rome, let alone folding post-colonial Mexican leaders into the Aztecs and folding Cunhambebe into the Brazilians who in all other ways are clearly a product of post-colonial society.

[I know why you did that last one, what with Cunhambebe having a leader head already ready from Civ IV Colonization and all... but on another level it's kind of like having Hannibal as a Roman leader or something, in that it takes someone who fought with everything he had against the expansion of this state, and puts them at the head of that state]

Yeah, I probably should. Both 'Pueblo' and 'Anasazi' are exonyms and I thought the latter might be more appropriate since it was from a Native American language. Remind me to look into it once 1.25 is done.
Well, the thing is just that "Pueblo" is a relatively respectful exonym, it just means "towns" or "lives in towns," which is a hell of a lot better than most exonyms for Native American tribes.

By contrast, "Anazasi" literally means something like "old enemy,"

Given that you're using Po'pay as one of the civ leaders and he's explicitly Puebloan (modern, post-Columbian Exchange Puebloan), and that the consensus among anthropologists and archaeologists seems to be that 'Puebloan' is more respectful, I'd say call the civilization Pueblo with the adjective Puebloan.

A native name might be better, but the problem is that there is no single consensus name in the native languages, because the Pueblo don't all actually speak the same language. It's not as easy as saying "well, the people we used to call 'Sioux' actually call themselves the Lakota, so we should be calling them Lakota."

All things considered, if the concern is sensitivity to Native American culture, I'd say you're best off going with Pueblo; if you really care, we probably need to find a cultural authority on the Pueblo themselves to ask.
 
Well, it's just that I couldn't figure out what to say about them as a unit with a unique Civilopedia entry.

Understandable. Don't worry about it for now, I'll have a think about other options after 1.25 is done.

What do the Syrian Amorites bring to the table, in terms of this civ's uniqueness as written? Leaders? City names?

These Syrian cities/states, Ebla and Yamhad (Aleppo) especially, were some of the most important and oldest in Mesopotamia. They often get overlooked, by historians and by modders and I really didn't want to leave them out of HR. The Amorite connection with Babylon was a most convenient way to include them. The problem with renaming the civ back to Babylonia is that that is a regional/political name, and Western Syria was never a part of either, despite the ethnic and cultural connections. Of course, the flip side is that later neither Babylonia nor Nebuchadnezzar were Amorite.

Still in two minds on this one.

Well, the thing is just that "Pueblo" is a relatively respectful exonym, it just means "towns" or "lives in towns," which is a hell of a lot better than most exonyms for Native American tribes.

By contrast, "Anazasi" literally means something like "old enemy,"

Given that you're using Po'pay as one of the civ leaders and he's explicitly Puebloan (modern, post-Columbian Exchange Puebloan), and that the consensus among anthropologists and archaeologists seems to be that 'Puebloan' is more respectful, I'd say call the civilization Pueblo with the adjective Puebloan.

A native name might be better, but the problem is that there is no single consensus name in the native languages, because the Pueblo don't all actually speak the same language. It's not as easy as saying "well, the people we used to call 'Sioux' actually call themselves the Lakota, so we should be calling them Lakota."

All things considered, if the concern is sensitivity to Native American culture, I'd say you're best off going with Pueblo; if you really care, we probably need to find a cultural authority on the Pueblo themselves to ask.

Agree with everything you've said here. I'll change them to the Pueblo.
 
Last edited:
To chime into the discussion a bit here, the more I think about Amorites as a civilisation, the more I like it. Babylon may be very recognisable and Babylonia a staple civ in Civ games, but it doesn't really make sense to frame an entire civilisation around one city that happened to become prominent. After reading up a bit more on their context in wikipedia, it sounds like the Amorites actually changed things up quite a bit in Mesopotamia when it comes to society and culture, so they make a nice contrast to Sumer. People may not have heard about them before (I was confused too at first) but I also learned about the Hittites first in AoE, I think that's fine.
 
These Syrian cities/states, Ebla and Yamhad (Aleppo) especially, were some of the most important and oldest in Mesopotamia. They often get overlooked, by historians and by modders and I really didn't want to leave them out of HR. The Amorite connection with Babylon was a most convenient way to include them. The problem with renaming the civ back to Babylonia is that that is a regional/political name, and Western Syria was never a part of either, despite the ethnic and cultural connections. Of course, the flip side is that later neither Babylonia nor Nebuchadnezzar were Amorite.

Still in two minds on this one.
Ehhh, I can see why you want the Eblans commemorated, but I really should rewrite the Amorite civilopedia entry accordingly. :(
 
Top Bottom