2
   

It All Happened Before!

 
 
josh0335
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 12:21 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;97235 wrote:

We may be happy these days, but I'm saying that this is the reason our doom is looming.


Or your liberation is looming...
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 12:34 pm
@josh0335,
Yeah, I was responding to post 35. You still have yet to set into evidence a single bit of information to back up your historical assertions.

The Huns did not invade China as far as historians can tell, much less invade India. Would you like to try some sources?
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 01:00 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;97235 wrote:
Namely it's populace growing soft.


"Going soft"? Thousands of years of political ups and downs. Unimagined sums spent on immense armies and huge defenses. Millions of horses raised and trained. Hundreds of thousands of ships built. The finest minds of every generation working to beat each other in a million cunning ways. Radars searching the skies night and day. Spies murdering each other by the boatload. A thousand doomed charges and heroic defenses. Slaughter and genocide on a cosmic scale and the answer is "going soft?"
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 01:07 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;97193 wrote:
A sidenote, but the British didn't give up their colonial possessions out of good will. They simply couldn't afford them after wwII. And they realized that they were more of a detriment than a advantage.

Nothing in world history happens because of the moral implications. :sarcastic:

I think you'll find that, in comparison to most european empires of like organisation, if not scope, the overseeing of the deconstruction of the British Empire was done with relative magnaminity.

Not in every case, nor as ideal as it could of been in any case. But in relative terms and as a gestalt - certainly. I'm not talking about Platonic ideals, but comparisons with other historical empires.

Had Britain treated it's African holdings with the same sort of eye for liquidation that Germany, Russia and Spain have displayed throughout similar periods of history it could certainly have turned a profit. It would have cost some blood and effort, of course, but there's a moral aspect to such things too - to say there isn't makes you seem ignorant of the facts.

One of the less magnaminous episodes was India - quite abit of bloodshed over that. I don't hold it up as a matter of pride in the least - but it gives the lie to your assertion that affordability was a prime mover. Conflict and it's ending was - a moral implication.

I don't think Britain is any sort of apex here, by the way, I'm not a blindly patriotic individual, but a trading centre like Hong Kong was not ceded because it was too expensive - it was cash generative and a financial wobble was caused by giving it back to China - nor was it an issue of avoiding bloodshed.

Though avoiding bloodshed is a moral implication, so you'd still be incorrect if it was.

As for no countries making any sort of gestures on moral grounds. I'd nominate Ghana - who provide more troops to international aid efforts per head than any other - a pretty thankless task we should all appreciate more than spouting knee-jerk cynicism. The Dutch in Rwanda also performed a largely unnoticed attempt to prevent the genocide there, at their own expense, and their government even apologised for not being able to do more. I cannot imagine any other country than the Netherlands having the maturity to go "yes, we were wrong - blame us for those killings".
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 01:30 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
josh0335;97237 wrote:
Or your liberation is looming...


Sorry, what?

Didymos Thomas;97240 wrote:
Yeah, I was responding to post 35. You still have yet to set into evidence a single bit of information to back up your historical assertions.

The Huns did not invade China as far as historians can tell, much less invade India. Would you like to try some sources?


I never said so. It's right there in the beginning of post 35. It's a tendency of people pushing each others, not one group going from A to B.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 01:43 pm
@EmperorNero,
The great wall is not one wall, and it wasn't built for any one situation.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 01:45 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;97254 wrote:
I think you'll find that, in comparison to most european empires of like organisation, if not scope, the overseeing of the deconstruction of the British Empire was done with relative magnaminity.

Not in every case, nor as ideal as it could of been in any case. But in relative terms and as a gestalt - certainly. I'm not talking about Platonic ideals, but comparisons with other historical empires.

Had Britain treated it's African holdings with the same sort of eye for liquidation that Germany, Russia and Spain have displayed throughout similar periods of history it could certainly have turned a profit. It would have cost some blood and effort, of course, but there's a moral aspect to such things too - to say there isn't makes you seem ignorant of the facts.


I agree with you that the British were nicer. Certainly their greatest flaw was being too nice. For example in letting the slaves they brought to their American colonies alive and their ancestors able to complain about it. The slaves of other empires weren't left alive to complain about it, which makes it so much less of a horrific act in the history books.
And the British were nicer to their colonial subjects. That doesn't really argue that they acted out magnanimity.

I'm feeling a tendency towards me explaining a theory about a historical tendency I see and everyone hunting it down. It's easier to criticize details than defend a theory. Pointing out inaccuracies is certainly welcome, but nobody was able to point out any factual inaccuracies yet. I wish you people would see the idea and not discuss the events.

---------- Post added 10-13-2009 at 09:46 PM ----------

Dave Allen;97259 wrote:
The great wall is not one wall, and it wasn't built for any one situation.


It was built to keep out less civilized people from the north.
josh0335
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 01:49 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;97258 wrote:
Sorry, what?


I meant that if you believe Western civilisation is doomed, it may not be such a bad thing. Perhaps what is waiting for you is better?
0 Replies
 
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 01:50 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;97260 wrote:
Pointing out inaccuracies is certainly welcome, but nobody was able to point out any factual inaccuracies yet. I wish you people would see the idea and not discuss the events.



I've been pointing out inaccuracies because the "idea" of cyclic civilizations that fall due to going soft seems like a combination of urban myths rather than an idea that explains anything at all in human history. You've articulated the point well, but it has no substance outside of urban myth. I'd rather stick to specific inaccurancies because at least there is some substance there.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 01:55 pm
@EmperorNero,
Quote:
I'm feeling a tendency towards me explaining a theory about a historical tendency I see and everyone hunting it down. It's easier to criticize details than defend a theory. Pointing out inaccuracies is certainly welcome, but nobody was able to point out any factual inaccuracies yet. I wish you people would see the idea and not discuss the events.

If you have a coherant theory you wish to discuss then state your theory.

However, you seem to be attempting to give your theory extra legitimacy by tying it into historical precedent - rather than just giving your theory.

Your historical precedent is full of holes.

So whatever point you're trying to make (what is it by the way?) you aren't making it because the analogies used to illustrate it are desperately inaccurate.

Quote:
Certainly their greatest flaw was being too nice.

Oh so it's a FLAW being nice now, eh?

The Brits should have done to everyone what we did in Tasmania should we?

I thought a few posts ago you claimed nothing was ever done on the international stage because of moral implications.

Now it's "they were too nice".

Total inconsistency. Read a book on history and maybe get a clue, if you are capable.

---------- Post added 10-13-2009 at 02:57 PM ----------

EmperorNero;97260 wrote:
It was built to keep out less civilized people from the north.

"It" isn't even an "it", "it" is a "they".
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 02:22 pm
@Sorryel,
josh0335;97262 wrote:
I meant that if you believe Western civilisation is doomed, it may not be such a bad thing. Perhaps what is waiting for you is better?


I don't.

Western civilization is pretty much the only one that created freedom, democracy and high standards of living for large segments of the population in the history of mankind. I don't really see what better there is waiting.

Sorryel;97263 wrote:
I've been pointing out inaccuracies because the "idea" of cyclic civilizations that fall due to going soft seems like a combination of urban myths rather than an idea that explains anything at all in human history. You've articulated the point well, but it has no substance outside of urban myth. I'd rather stick to specific inaccurancies because at least there is some substance there.


We can we can spend a lot of time debating history details, a lot of that is subjective anyways. Rather the changes are gradual, so naming any clear tendencies can always be criticized. Unless you want to be a nihilist that's not very helpful.
We want to understand history because we like to draw conclusions about the future, right? I would appreciate a criticism of the idea, which could change my mind. Especially from you since you have followed my narrative in this thread the longest. After all it's only a pet theory. I moved away from many of those before because there was an inconsistency in the idea.

This is for Dave Allen too,
So basically I am saying that civilization allows a comfortable lifestyle to it's population. I don't really think anyone disagrees that less civilized life is more brutish. Having an comfortable lifestyle reduces self-sufficiency and creates softer people. That shouldn't be something to disagree on either. And finally I predict that more brutish peoples will replace those that became soft. Simply because of those attributes.
I looked at the classical civilizations, where I notice this causation in their demise. Most notably ancient Mediterranean civilization that was followed by the medieval ages.
I also noticed that there was a direct conquering of those classical civilizations by peoples outside of civilization.
I hope you see that saying "but the Huns weren't muslims" doesn't really change my mind about that overall picture.
josh0335
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 02:33 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;97277 wrote:
I don't.

Western civilization is pretty much the only one that created freedom, democracy and high standards of living for large segments of the population in the history of mankind. I don't really see what better there is waiting.


I'm sure you don't, but I was merely extending your theory a little further. The people of these classic civilisations you speak of were not destroyed after being conquered, they simply continued to live and evolve to a more advanced society under new leadership. So why not the same for the Western world today?
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 02:42 pm
@EmperorNero,
Quote:
So basically I am saying that civilization allows a comfortable lifestyle to it's population. I don't really think anyone disagrees that less civilized life is more brutish.

Depends. I think depleted uranium the most brutish weapon to be employed in contemporary warfare - because it's proven to make victims of the unborn.

Quote:
Having an comfortable lifestyle reduces self-sufficiency and creates softer people. That shouldn't be something to disagree on either. And finally I predict that more brutish peoples will replace those that became soft. Simply because of those attributes.
I looked at the classical civilizations, where I notice this causation in their demise. Most notably ancient Mediterranean civilization that was followed by the medieval ages.
I also noticed that there was a direct conquering of those classical civilizations by peoples outside of civilization.
I hope you see that saying "but the Huns weren't muslims" doesn't really change my mind about that overall picture.

OK, so what about all the civilisations that didn't get conquered and invaded. Turkey's alright despite having lost swathes of empire. The UK's fine. Spain's fine.

Are people from these countries "soft" in your esteemed opinion? Have they been replaced by more "brutish" people?

Meh - your Milleniallist panic is fun enough to watch, if only for the error-checking which has been educational, but hardly anything you've said is true and your assertion that things simply follow on from your observations depends on the veracity of those observations.

If anything it's economic surrender that leads to the destruction of paramountcy. It is now China's turn. While people like you panic over the Mohammedan hordes, your captains of industry are outsourcing more manufacturing plants and call centres.

Keep it up, there'll be nothing an invading army would want to loot.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2009 02:50 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;97282 wrote:
I'm sure you don't, but I was merely extending your theory a little further. The people of these classic civilisations you speak of were not destroyed after being conquered, they simply continued to live and evolve to a more advanced society under new leadership. So why not the same for the Western world today?


Well, they evolved to a more advanced society after the medieval ages. That wasn't too pleasant.
Some say that without that, humanity would be much more advanced today.

---------- Post added 10-13-2009 at 11:02 PM ----------

Dave Allen;97285 wrote:
OK, so what about all the civilisations that didn't get conquered and invaded. Turkey's alright despite having lost swathes of empire. The UK's fine. Spain's fine.


They're empires, not civilizations.

Dave Allen;97285 wrote:
Are people from these countries "soft" in your esteemed opinion? Have they been replaced by more "brutish" people?


Who are you referring to?
Were the Romans softer than the Germanic invaders? Yes. Have they been replaced by more "brutish" people? Yes they have.
Are European nanny state citizens softer than Arabs? Yes. Have they been replaced by more "brutish" people? Partly, but not yet.

Dave Allen;97285 wrote:
Meh - your Milleniallist panic is fun enough to watch,


I'm the exact opposite of that. Both in underlying motivation and in what I see happening.

Dave Allen;97285 wrote:
If anything it's economic surrender that leads to the destruction of paramountcy. It is now China's turn. While people like you panic over the Mohammedan hordes, your captains of industry are outsourcing more manufacturing plants and call centres.

Keep it up, there'll be nothing an invading army would want to loot.


Economic changes are important too, but nations can recover. Not being there any more is something you tend to not recover from.
0 Replies
 
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 06:33 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;97277 wrote:
IWe want to understand history because we like to draw conclusions about the future, right? I would appreciate a criticism of the idea, which could change my mind. Especially from you since you have followed my narrative in this thread the longest. After all it's only a pet theory. I moved away from many of those before because there was an inconsistency in the idea.



If you honestly want a critique from the point of view of a trained historian (ie me), it's this: your model (cyclic civilizations) is not actually a historical model. To say we study history to predict the future is to skip all the methods that allow one to isolate and describe factors that are real causational factors. So you're putting your conclusions way before you do any work or define your methodology. So that's a basic problem. You're doing what is called "cherry-picking"...you take whatever seems to suggest you have a coherent idea and piling it up. But your terms are so broad and ill-defined that it is difficult even to see what exactly the cherries are that you are picking.
If you really want to pursue topics such as what causes the apparent collapse of some literate regimes, I would start with some basic reading in archaeology using current text books.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 07:53 am
@EmperorNero,
Well, ok. Thanks.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 10:56 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;97200 wrote:

The historic evidence from that era is not strong, but I believe that the construction of the great wall lead to a general movement of peoples that brought the Huns into western Europe. Remind you that this happened centuries later.


Your belief is not an accurate understanding of what happened, then.

The Chinese aggressively defeated the Xiongnu (who you call Huns), it was not the Wall that ended Xiongnu incursion - instead, the Xiongnu remained north of China and largely dependent upon China for survival.

The Huns did not invade Europe because the Chinese built the Great Wall. Besides, your time line would leave some 400 years of blank space, You would also have to explain how the Huns could invade Europe while simultaneously conquering parts of India.

EmperorNero;97200 wrote:
What I am looking at is that the nomadic tribes north of China before the great wall regularly raided the settled Chinese border regions. And after China 'digging in' they lost that source of income, changes which certainly had effects on their neighbors who in turn pushed their neighbors.


Well, the problem here is that the Great Wall was not terribly effective at keeping out invaders. The Wall did manage to keep Chinese in, though.

EmperorNero;97200 wrote:
I might have made an error there. I don't think the Huns ever ruled much of India.
But they definitely had a part in the downfall of India as a unified civilization.
It says so on the internet.


You are having a problem with terminology. "Hun" can refer to two different things, either actual "Huns" or that particular steppe tribe or "Hun" as in any Asian steppe nomadic tribe.

The "White Huns", these folks:
Hephthalite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are not the same as the Huns who invaded Europe and the Roman Empire. It says so in your article.

EmperorNero;97200 wrote:
I didn't really make that comparison.


Then what in the world did you mean when you wrote:

"An Islamic invader is waiting at the door until we are weak enough to be taken over."

EmperorNero;97200 wrote:
That was the comparison I did want to make. That civilizations with a - as you call it - lush culture get overrun by the lean and mean ones.


I did not say lush culture, I said civilization that grew up in the lush river valleys - valleys which allow for great agricultural growth.

EmperorNero;97258 wrote:

I never said so. It's right there in the beginning of post 35. It's a tendency of people pushing each others, not one group going from A to B.


Oh, but you did. You made the false claim that "three of the classical civilizations - India, Rome and China - were all destroyed by the same invader - the Huns."

Your words.

EmperorNero;97277 wrote:

So basically I am saying that civilization allows a comfortable lifestyle to it's population. I don't really think anyone disagrees that less civilized life is more brutish. Having an comfortable lifestyle reduces self-sufficiency and creates softer people. That shouldn't be something to disagree on either. And finally I predict that more brutish peoples will replace those that became soft. Simply because of those attributes.


Then you are ignoring the most important aspect of warfare, the one item that is the difference between conquest or destruction - technology.

The Hitties, for example, conquered Mesopotamia because of their innovations in metalworking - they simply had better weapons. And this is repeated throughout history. The English have longbows which decimate French nobility.

So, this theory you've advanced, while appealing, just does not explain the historical record. Instead, the issue is far more dependent upon the sort of technology a society pursues.

Going back to the Hittites - their targets were too busy with agricultural technology to keep up with the military technology of the Hittites. In today's world, the "soft" comfortable people have the most advanced military technology out there. Thus, the "soft" people in today's world will win nine times out of ten.

EmperorNero;97277 wrote:

I also noticed that there was a direct conquering of those classical civilizations by peoples outside of civilization.
I hope you see that saying "but the Huns weren't muslims" doesn't really change my mind about that overall picture.


Maybe this will: Muslims are not "outside" of civilization.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/26/2023 at 05:17:10