Question about the Huns

Breunor --- My understanding is that it isn't clear at all if the 'White Huns' are related (or probably we should say strongly related) to the Huns that came into Western Europe. There is a good chance it is just another 'naming thing'.

well, the little section of my book that talks about them says something like this: "while moving westward, the Huns split into two groups"

i am not sure they... wait a moment... no, im confusing myself. you may be right...
 
I think the dissolution of the Huns speaks to a more interesting issue: that the pen is mightier than the sword. Such a powerful empire -- one that could defeat Rome -- would surely dominate the world?

Wasn't the Roman/Byzantine empire rather decrepit (and not particularly interested in the territory they were losing) by the time the Huns "defeated rome"???



But countries with more rights tend to innovate more thought. And where history has gone so far, technological advancement is a huge advantage. Hence why some limited notion of "human rights" exists in even the most backwards country. The ones that lacked such any notion of rights at all probably fell apart because of lack of innovation.

Disagree.

Countries with more rights only innovate more in the economic/cultural sphere, whereas the pure technological sphere is pretty much up to those "weirdos" that we call scientists and physicists.

How those pure technological innovations are applied in society for the good of man etc. is something quite different.

But perhaps thats what you meant in the first place? :lol:
 
It depends. There's a lot of theories about why scientific thought stagnated in China, even though they had laid the foundation for the scientific revolution with the Printing Press, Paper, the Compass, and Gunpowder. Some extraordinary things happened in renaissance Italy, in the Italian city-states, which were experimenting with republican ideals and free market competition.

State control tends to be bad for progress. And progress seems to be necessary to adapt to new problems and stay competitive.

It's just a theory though. Obviously there are counter-examples. It's just very interesting that the Huns failed to give us anything to remember them by -- not even any large number of people who call themselves relatives of the Huns.
 
my opinoin on why China (and the Eastern Asia) fell because it was too much like "one". simply, unlike Europe, if China went down, so did the rest of East Asia have to. however, in Europe, one country "unprogresses", thats a yipee and woohoo for the other country, because now THEY can get the power and cash, if you know what I mean.

anyhow, back on topic...

It's just very interesting that the Huns failed to give us anything to remember them by -- not even any large number of people who call themselves relatives of the Huns.

i don't understand what you mean by that... do you mean int erms of innovative progress or scientific improvment or reform or whatever?
 
Yeah, there's not much of a mark. Just a legacy that they were bad asses. Even the Mongols created peace along the silk road. The Romans influenced our notions of government, and many words have Latin roots. The Chinese gave us numerous inventions and are still standing. India gave us many key religious ideas. Any remnants of the Huns, for such fearsome and legendary military might, are basically absent from today's world.
 
The should add in mobile Civs (Steppe Nomads and their like) by making early settlers actually small mobile cities, where promotions could be counted as buildings. For example, promotions adding food to the tribe (maximum 6 Population or so), would be "Foraging", "Hunting". Worker camps on Elephants could be temporary, for example, and we could also see Nomads getting food from villages, plundered cities and conquering new units.
 
Back
Top Bottom