Fun Topic [Who would you like to be conquered by?]

[artavazd]

Ok. If you had no choice but to be conquered by an empire/kingdom, which empire would you want to be conquered by. Also which empire would you least want to be conquered by. Please explain your answers.


If I had no choice but to be conquered it would be pre-Islamic Iran ( Persians Parthians) Seems to me they respected the customes and cultures of people.

The least would be the Seljuks/Ottomans. I just dont think I would be happy to see my children given off as a Dervish tax to the Sultan.

[Zett]

Also which empire would you least want to be conquered by.


Thats easy, Romanoi. Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

And about the one that I want to be conquered by, something Hellenic. Perhaps by Arche Seleukeia or Ptolemaioi. But my favourite faction would be Makedonia.
PS. I always play KH, so I want to stay Hellenic.

[Maion Maroneios]

Wouldn't want to be qonqueed by: Celtic/Germanic factions. Why? I believe it's obvious...
Would want to be conqured by: The Koinon maybe, or some other Greek faction. Especially AS or Ptolemaioi, because I would probably be offered a high position because of my Greek heritge. Plus, I favour the Greek way of life.

Maion

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Would want to be conquered by: Romani. Usually they allowed the local aristocracy to remain ruling; generally didn´t impose their culture and last, but no least, the graeco-roman empire lasted the longer.
If not the romans, one of the Hellenes
Woundn´t want to be conquered by: Barbarians

[artavazd]

Thats easy, Romanoi. Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

And about the one that I want to be conquered by, something Hellenic. Perhaps by Arche Seleukeia or Ptolemaioi. But my favourite faction would be Makedonia.
PS. I always play KH, so I want to stay Hellenic.

Dont forget, Im not asking which historical culture you like today. Dont think of it as looking through the eyes of a 21st century person. Think of it you being a simple person in that era. Now you say you would want to be conquered by something Hellenic. That would be nice if you yourself were Hellenic. If you were not Hellenic it wouldnt be that nice being conquered by a Hellenic empire. Remember the spread of Hellenistic ideas and customs? Well if you didnt want to give up your own all of those Hellenisitc customs would be forced on you, or you would just be dealt with. Anyways Im enjoying reading peoples responses. Keep them coming.

[Zeibek]

The least would be the Seljuks/Ottomans. I just dont think I would be happy to see my children given off as a Dervish tax to the Sultan.

Actually it's called Devşirme... And the Ottomans weren't that bad governors, they were far more tolerant of other religions than most regimes in history, especially when compared to their contemporaries. Also boys levied by devşirme ended up in very high positions in the court, and by the 1500s wielded more influence than the Turkic nobility. BTW Unlike my name might suggest I'm not actually Turkish so there's no nationalism involved in this or anything...

Would want to be conquered by: Probably Achaemenid Persia, they were very tolerant of their subjects' customs, and often allowed vanquished kings to become members of the Royal court (think Croesus of Lydia).


Wouldn't want to be conquered by: Rome or any other power that is likely to eradicate my own cultural identity through bribery and clever policies.

[artavazd]

Actually it's called Devşirme... And the Ottomans weren't that bad governors, they were far more tolerant of other religions than most regimes in history, especially when compared to their contemporaries. Also boys levied by devşirme ended up in very high positions in the court, and by the 1500s wielded more influence than the Turkic nobility. BTW Unlike my name might suggest I'm not actually Turkish so there's no nationalism involved in this or anything...
Would want to be conquered by: Probably Achaemenid Persia, they were very tolerant of their subjects' customs, and often allowed vanquished kings to become members of the Royal court (think Croesus of Lydia).


Wouldn't want to be conquered by: Rome or any other power that is likely to eradicate my own cultural identity through bribery and clever policies.

Well the issue isnt how a high position the boys ended up as, the issue is they were stolen from their parents, and raised with foreign customs and a foreign religion. Thus becoming Turkified. Now imagine yourself being a non Muslim subject of the Ottomans and having your kids stolen from you. Would you care if your son would become someone in a high position later on? I wont. Also according to Ottoman law, inorder for a witness to be consider a witness they had to be Muslim. So once again imagine you are a non Muslim subject of the Ottomans, and a crime was commited toward you. If there are no Muslim witnesses every other witnesses has no worth. Very few people who were under the yoke of Ottomans have pleasant thoughts about it. Im not just talking about Non Muslim subjects either. Arabs (Syrians, Iraqis ect.) who were under Ottoman yoke hardly have pleasant thoughts either.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Being conquered by Rome is actually very good. Most areas of the world at that time had at best rudimentary water supply and sanitation systems all across the board. Which means that a Romanized people would likely have to face a bad governor sometimes, but would get fancy acqueducts providing water 24/7 (a luxury even for recent standards), and all sorts of luxury and marble buildings (nothing beats high civilization :smash:), plus protection from the legions. It's one of the reasons why everything started to crumble when the centralized defense began to crumble: people were too comfortable under the Pax Romana to ever grasp of bearing arms.

I would never like to be conquered by any barbarian people. Especially the Sweboz.

[Hax]

I don't know. Maybe Nazi Germany :laugh4:

I'd rather not be conquered at all; but if I had a choice in the matter I'd probably go with Achaemenid Persia. Or the Fatimid Caliphate.

[Tollheit]

Wouldn't want to be qonqueed by: Celtic/Germanic factions. Why? I believe it's obvious...

Soap?

[Nachtmeister]

I don't know. Maybe Nazi Germany :laugh4:

I'd rather not be conquered at all; but if I had a choice in the matter I'd probably go with Achaemenid Persia. Or the Fatimid Caliphate.


:laugh4: That's interesting - I wouldn't mind being conquered by Soviet Russia. Unless they interfeared with German super-efficiency, of course. But that's what they were all about, so - yea, and I'd want full access to all Careers, based upon fitness, diligence and capability (modern German armed forces motto). Meaning no anti-german racism or political bias blocking careers.
According to the official ethics, it was the best state so far - although sadly corrupt bureaucrats and faked heroes undermined what Marx and Lenin had in mind.
New Mother Russia! Red stars for the win!! Smite all enemies of equality and hard work with the apocalyptic hammer of your superior Forces! Cut them down with your sickle, the mighty AK74!! T90!! MIG29!! MilMi24!! YEAAAA... :smash:

I would fight to the death (theirs or mine) to resist conquest by any religion-based state.
Or any state that would attempt to even in the slightest way interfere with German identity. :skull:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, I go with the Roman Empire, for obvious reasons. Either early- to mid- Roman Empire ( no later than 300 CE), or Early to Middle Republic. Life was the best under those two periods. Very fair and lawful too. There is a reason why the Roman code of law still stands today with but minor changes and additions. And I am choosing from the EB period. I am also choosing nations that have been large empires. Sweden might be a nice place to live in today, but no idea as to how it will handle an empire...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Living under Swedish yoke was certainly better than living under Russian yoke. Ask Estonia or Latvia for example :clown:.

EDIT - And the fact that Code Justinian was adopted by Medieval powers means they were most influenced by Roman traditions, not necessarily because it was better for them. Indeed, in some aspects it just didn't fit them well.

[Silence Hunter]

Well first of all I would like to stay independant, but if I had to choose it would be:

To be conquered by: Carthage. Why? Because you have pretty much an autonomy on most of the areas, can retain your culture, religion and social structure. Plus increased trade opportunities and a chance to get a good post in the military.

Not to be conquered by: Huns. Not much was left after their conquests...

[Hax]

I would fight to the death (theirs or mine) to resist conquest by any religion-based state.
Or any state that would attempt to even in the slightest way interfere with German identity. :skull:

Don't you think that's awfully easy to say, sitting behind a desk in a warm house?

[Nachtmeister]

Don't you think that's awfully easy to say, sitting behind a desk in a warm house?

If I had never been in the army, yes. But as I have had my experience I can say I would fight with some credibility. Although you can not prove or disprove this of course, so your opinion on my post is your business.

[Maion Maroneios]

Soap?
Ha-ha Tollheit :tongue:

Maion

[Aemilius Paulus]

EDIT - And the fact that Code Justinian was adopted by Medieval powers means they were most influenced by Roman traditions, not necessarily because it was better for them. Indeed, in some aspects it just didn't fit them well.
I disagree. I am studying for a lawyer, and my father is a lawyer himself. We have discussed Roman law on numerous occasions ourselves. He has the very good knowledge of the law, while I have the history knowledge. And anyway, got anything better? Seriously, there has been so many law reforms aimed at improving our law, all throughout centuries, and yet it is still largely unchanged. Do you think you are smarter than all those lines of lawmakers?? The code was better for everyone. Culture does not have much to do with it.





To be conquered by: Carthage. Why? Because you have pretty much an autonomy on most of the areas, can retain your culture, religion and social structure. Plus increased trade opportunities and a chance to get a good post in the military.
Arguably, the Roman Empire provided all those things with much better quality/intensity. The Romans were after all renowned throughout history to be very tolerant of foreign cultures, and I would say that having all of the Mediterranean under a control of a single nation is much more receptive to trade (pax Romana anyone??), as is having such a large Empire with its need for soldier is more receptive to a career in the armed forces. IMHO, the Roman Empire provided all that you listed under the Karthadastim much better. Not to mention, I would hate having those Carthiginians for competition in my trading business...

[gammager2]

:laugh4: That's interesting - I wouldn't mind being conquered by Soviet Russia. Unless they interfeared with German super-efficiency, of course. But that's what they were all about, so - yea, and I'd want full access to all Careers, based upon fitness, diligence and capability (modern German armed forces motto). Meaning no anti-german racism or political bias blocking careers.
According to the official ethics, it was the best state so far - although sadly corrupt bureaucrats and faked heroes undermined what Marx and Lenin had in mind.
New Mother Russia! Red stars for the win!! Smite all enemies of equality and hard work with the apocalyptic hammer of your superior Forces! Cut them down with your sickle, the mighty AK74!! T90!! MIG29!! MilMi24!! YEAAAA... :smash:

I would fight to the death (theirs or mine) to resist conquest by any religion-based state.
Or any state that would attempt to even in the slightest way interfere with German identity. :skull:

marx's ideas were well meaning but he overestimated human generosity when he spoke of from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. Lenin twisted marxism into a state that was totalitarian state, not one that would wither away. Theocracies arent all bad, it just depends on how eager they are to get you to convert. of course, believe what you want, but id die before living in the USSR. i wouldnt mind being conquered by Saladin's forces because he had common decency and didnt usually slaughter Christians.

[waydog98]

i think being subjugated by alexander during his conquest wouldnt be too bad.. he even let some nations retain their kingdoms and treated foreign commanders with kindness and dignity

[Aemilius Paulus]

but id die before living in the USSR.
A shame you are so unwise... :no: USSR, take Stalin aside (everyone despises his Georgian behind), was a pretty good place. Socialism is not so scary y'know. Look at Europe today.

Americans just seem to have an inbred, automatic loathing of socialism/communism that supersedes logic and all else. Oh well, can't blame them after the Cold War is guess...

[desert]

Quality of life in the Soviet Union was never very high...and why do you keep mentioning Stalin's Georgian ancestry? What does that have to do with anything? Quite a few people still love him and refer to him as "Great Father", etc. This doesn't even belong here.

[soup_alex]

Aemilius, are you some kind of pinko, or something? ;)

[Bucefalo]

Would want to be conquered by Megas Alexandros...he would just stay here for a while, do minimal harm and then he would go on with his conquests...go ahead boy get yourself killed by the way. If not Alexandros then probably Carthage.

Wouldn't want to be conquered by any steppe nomad, from scythians to mongols, any of those... I really can´t stand how they smell:beam: Well really, i think they are quite scaring and uncivilized.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Mods, please delete the last couple of posts, including this one, on politics instead of locking this thread. I am sorry, I should have realised my post would lead to such discussion. As to the rest of posters, I suggest steering away from politics. I do not know if it is possible, given the mildly political slant of this thread, but we must stay in pre-1900's history, for any more posts on USSR will lead to more politics.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Would want to be conquered by Megas Alexandros...he would just stay here for a while, do minimal harm and then he would go on with his conquests...go ahead boy get yourself killed by the way. If not Alexandros then probably Carthage.

Wouldn't want to be conquered by any steppe nomad, from scythians to mongols, any of those... I really can´t stand how they smell:beam: Well really, i think they are quite scaring and uncivilized.
Back on topic: Well, MA had quite a bit of splendid ideas, but no telling how he would govern. A shame he died so early. THey do however say that governing is always much, much more difficult than conquering.

As for Mongols, they were actually quite beneficial as I have been taught in my Advanced Placement World History class. According to the teacher (with no less than a PhD) and the textbook, they instituted a form of pax romana and were very tolerant of other cultures, letting each govern itself with only the most minor supervision. From the political aspects, the Mongols were the best conquerors, after they got done with the conquering of course :P Since they were not much into administrative/political aspects, they instituted this laissez-faire type rule.

[desert]

The thing about the Mongols is that their initial invasions devastated the local infrastructure and, to put it bluntly, killed a lot of dudes. Like the time they slaughtered 1 million Iranians in about 5 minutes. They lined them up and started swinging their swords on cue, and throughout the lands a voice boomed "M-m-m-monster kill! Killionare! Killtrocity! Killimanjaro!"

Alexander was more interested in conquering than governing, and wanted to be "the very best, like no one ever was. To battle foes is my real test, to conquer is my cauuuuse. I will travel across the lands, burning far and wiiide, first Africa, then Europe too, and maybe even Oooooz!" (Yes, I know it doesn't rhyme...)

I would not really have cared who conquered me, as a lowly peasant often never even learned that he was now under another faction's jurisdiction until weeks or months after the fact, and the most I would ever see of them is a tax man every few months or years who would arrive to pick up a quota of crops.

[A Very Super Market]

Yeah, the mongols would create a short time when it was absolute hell, and then leave you alone. Mostly because there weren't nearly enough mongols to fight as infantry in a crowded city.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I disagree. I am studying for a lawyer, and my father is a lawyer himself. We have discussed Roman law on numerous occasions ourselves. He has the very good knowledge of the law, while I have the history knowledge. And anyway, got anything better? Seriously, there has been so many law reforms aimed at improving our law, all throughout centuries, and yet it is still largely unchanged. Do you think you are smarter than all those lines of lawmakers?? The code was better for everyone. Culture does not have much to do with it.

There are still many aspects of law that don't make sense at all many times or were not properly adapted from the old Classical or Byzantine mean. Laws are more than often a matter of tradition: certain witchcraft, feudalistic, heresy laws et all were not abolished until recently despite being ignored or useless for centuries.

[Aemilius Paulus]

There are still many aspects of law that don't make sense at all many times or were not properly adapted from the old Classical or Byzantine mean. Laws are more than often a matter of tradition: certain witchcraft, feudalistic, heresy laws et all were not abolished until recently despite being ignored or useless for centuries.
I do not quite think you have any facts behind you. I even doubt you have ever read the law codices. They are quite a bore to the vast majority of people. Therefore, I will decline to debate on this. Unless, of course, you are well-informed in these matters.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

That laws are more often a matter of tradition than efficiency is a well known fact.

And second, I am reasonably familiar with the codices. Doesn't mean I actually worship them resurrected as they were from the shadow. Code Justinian was made for entirely different circumstances, with an entirely different culture and Empire. Its main defenders were classicists who loved to worship everything that had a naked marble statue in it; its main adopter, the Holy Roman Empire, did not show any sign of cohesiveness to allow for unified institutions. It remained feudal in practice and Code Justinian just added to the Imperial myth around the Habsburgs.

[desert]

Well, some examples of
That laws are more often a matter of tradition than efficiency is a well known fact. are local American laws such as "It is illegal to keep a whale", "Indoor nudity is illegal", and "Don't chew gum on a Sunday while walking backwards". Some cities still retain the old law that states that if an automobile gets in the way of a carriage, it must be dismantled to allow the carriage to pass, so as to avoid scaring the horse.

And don't forget all the medieval trials of animals such as mice, fleas, and dogs.

[Aemilius Paulus]

And second, I am reasonably familiar with the codices. .
Well, as the age-old adage goes, "Everyone is a professor on the Internet!". I still have my doubts. You saw a couple of isolated anachronisms. I saw the whole legal system, which strikingly similar to the Roman. I take two classes on Legal Studies per semester in my HS, and we have already went over the history and the impact of the Romans and the Feudal System on the laws of US and Europe. I go to a Technical School BTW.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well the saying can go to yourself too :clown:.

Besides, the adoption of Roman traditions to pretty much everything was something that the "West" did up to unhealty proportions and often without consideration. Much better if some originality was retained.

FYI despite the "Renaissance" most countries remained more or less feudal in structure until the XVII century. Russia itself used local laws, tradition and more often than not the former Mongol bureaucratic apparatus for a long long time. This means that the Codex Iustinianus, as brilliant as ideologues use to see it, had a restrict application after the fall of Rome. They were pretty much ignored during Byzantine years too.

[A Very Super Market]

This topic has derailed so badly that it isn't even funny

(Did you see what I did there?)

[Ibrahim]

Ok. If you had no choice but to be conquered by an empire/kingdom, which empire would you want to be conquered by. Also which empire would you least want to be conquered by. Please explain your answers.


If I had no choice but to be conquered it would be pre-Islamic Iran ( Persians Parthians) Seems to me they respected the customes and cultures of people.

The least would be the Seljuks/Ottomans. I just dont think I would be happy to see my children given off as a Dervish tax to the Sultan.

If I were to be conquered, I prefer to be so under an Arab or sabaic power, and if unavailable, the achaemenids. I'm half Arab, and culturally a full Arab, so defeat wouldn't be as bad, as really there wouldn't be any dramatic changes in what happens, and the persians are kind. either way, I would waste no time trying to either: 1) revolt and throw off the new rulers, or 2) arrange a deal to make me a client king (preffered with persians):shrug:

least so? anybody else..I DO NOT care who they are:clown:

and what's so bad about becoming a dervish? I want me children to have a position of power, whether in the janissary corps or the beaurocracy*.:yes:

*I know I know, its cruel, but weighing it together, its not as bad as it could be. they could have easily end up like Mongol slaves:skull:

[Nachtmeister]

OK, so let's keep it in the EB time-frame... Re-post:

I would prefer, from the available factions, to be conquered by one of the hellenic factions since giving quarter was one of their customs. This would mean that your family was allowed to live even if you got mortally wounded in battle. It also meant that before a pointless (decided before it started due to superior numbers/higher ground/whatever) fight would at least be preceded by an opportunity to come to a peaceful arrangement.

I would not at all like to be conquered by the Romans. It was peaceful in the empire once the pax romana was established - but the stages before that sometimes involved severe mistreatment of civilians... Even if the "genocide" of carthage was "putting down a revolt of armed civilians", the alternative would not have been much better for the Carthaginians; they would have been exposed to Numidian raids without fortifications, 30 miles away even from the possibility to simply flee to the sea... If the "Rome" tv-series is accurate in this particular point, Vercingetorix was executed on Caesar's triumph, although after putting up a serious fight he did apparently surrender. Killing someone who surrenders is just - wrong. But killing them in a particularly cruel way is even worse.
*EDIT* almost forgot about Getai, Sweboz and Sarmatians. Getting conquered by them must have been even worse than having an evil Roman bureaucrat decide one's fate... Mass slaughters or sacrifices to their gods... */EDIT*

Then again, all of the factions in EB likely took slaves when they conquered enemies, so maybe getting conquered does not sound like a pleasant prospect no matter who the conquerors are.
Therefore, even in the EB period, I don't think I could stand the prospect of being subjugated by anyone. I mean, imagine your friends and relatives, if not yourselves, being abducted to an unsure fate, women possibly prostituted, men possibly made to labour in stone quarries and mines (not at all healthy back then, very low life expectancy)... Most slaves did not get to be greek teachers or specialist crafts-people! Even before that, one would have to put up with pillaging soldiers, and we all know that this could be horrible.
Before the EB time-frame - think of what the Assyrians did to their victims! So, I think that even from a warm desk and for someone not familiar with what combat means it is not entirely un-plausible to say that they, faced with the choice, would rather risk dieing while fighting than submitting to harsh aggressors. Doesn't mean war is generally a good thing, though...

[Tudhaliya]

First some assumptions:

1.) I think the original poster wanted us to discount ethnic affinity. So I'm not going to say "The Lusotanneans because my Grandpappy liked Mexican food LOL!"

2.) The two measures of how "gentle" an Empire is to its conquered people are a.) how non-disruptive they are to life and property and b.) how non-disruptive they are to cultural continuity.

Now there are two kinds of conquerers who violate assumption 2a. First, we have the "centralized" empires. Rome is a good example. For them, resources should be uprooted and transported to the heartland. Moreover the heartland should be defended at all costs. This meant the removal of peripheral threats by transporting their wealth to the Imperial coffers. A modern example would be Soviet Russia. The motto here is that "impoverished vassals are compliant vassals." The second kind of destructive conquerer is the barbarian. Because they lack admistrative systems, they cannot extract wealth in any way other than looting. Their motto is "if you can't carry it away on horseback, burn it."

So, in summary for assumption 2a, we have conquerors who pillage because of ideology and conquerors who pillage because of neccesity.

Assumption 2b, that conquerors are more gentle the less they disrupt a culture, tends to be violated by ideologically driven empires. Once again, Rome is a flagrant offender. Also included is pretty much any religious empire, like the initial expansion of Islam or Catholic Spain in Latin America. All these examples destory culture by ideological choice. The other kind of conqueror that destroys culture is any one that makes use of large-scale transport of populations. The Hittites were renowned for this. They would take captives from the borderlands and use them to repopulate the interior of their country. Another example is British North America and Australia. Large scale colonization destroyed the Native Americans. The Iron Age Greeks were also guilty of this, turning large swathes of the Eastern Mediterranean into Greek speaking colonies.

The two respective mottos of the culture-disrupters are "If it thinks different, burn it!" and "If we can't beat 'em, we'll outbreed them (and send them smallpox blankets too)".

-------

So now to answer the question. The ideal conqueror, from a conquered person's perspective, would be one who

1.) Has no desire to burn down your house because they're paranoid
2.) Understands the concept of "taxes" and "tribute," and realizes that it's better to feed and pamper a golden-egg laying goose than to gut it
3.) Doesn't mind other religions
4.) Doesn't want to move in next to you, or make you live right next to them.

With these criteria in mind, I would nominate either late Achaemenid Persia or 20-21st century USA as my preferred conqueror. Now with the USA, I know you guys will say "but what about the Iraq War?" Well, George W. is no Andrew Jackson. The Iraqis will still be speaking Arabic hundreds of years from now, still be Muslims, hopefully still be living in Al Jazeera and not as a scattered diaspora, and hopefully be quite wealthy and happy. Sadly, the Cherokee were not so lucky in the 19th century and the whole trail of tears thing.:thumbsdown:

Other nominees would be the late British Empire, most Hindu empires, some of the Hellenistic empires, maybe the Egyptians and that's about it.

In the no way, no how category: the Romans, Early Islam, any Medieval Christian Order, the Russians at any time in their sordid history, the frickin' Neo-Assyrians (they were some messed up people!) and the Japanese. Oh, and the Swiss. So mild, yet so xenophobic...

[artavazd]

If I were to be conquered, I prefer to be so under an Arab or sabaic power, and if unavailable, the achaemenids. I'm half Arab, and culturally a full Arab, so defeat wouldn't be as bad, as really there wouldn't be any dramatic changes in what happens, and the persians are kind. either way, I would waste no time trying to either: 1) revolt and throw off the new rulers, or 2) arrange a deal to make me a client king (preffered with persians):shrug:

least so? anybody else..I DO NOT care who they are:clown:

and what's so bad about becoming a dervish? I want me children to have a position of power, whether in the janissary corps or the beaurocracy*.:yes:

*I know I know, its cruel, but weighing it together, its not as bad as it could be. they could have easily end up like Mongol slaves:skull:

The issue is not the position of power. The issue is your child will be taken away from you and raised as a foreigner. The cultures and customs that you have, which will be passed down to your child will be cut off. I guess its a matter of preference, but for me those things are dear, and I wont care how much power my child will have. In many cases those same kids who became Janissarys were used against their own people. Now thats irony :inquisitive:

[Nachtmeister]

Tudhaliya,
I am seriously awed by the crystal-clear logic structure and on-the-mark accuracy of your post...
Thank you for contributing this. :2thumbsup:

[athanaric]

Tudhaliya,
I am seriously awed by the crystal-clear logic structure and on-the-mark accuracy of your post...
Thank you for contributing this. :2thumbsup:

I second that.

[Ibrahim]

The issue is not the position of power. The issue is your child will be taken away from you and raised as a foreigner. The cultures and customs that you have, which will be passed down to your child will be cut off. I guess its a matter of preference, but for me those things are dear, and I wont care how much power my child will have. In many cases those same kids who became Janissarys were used against their own people. Now thats irony :inquisitive:

true that.

@tudhaliya: I third Athanaric and nachtmeister.

[Nachtmeister]

-aside-
I propose that someone with more authority/seniority here give tudhaliya a balloon.

[seienchin]

The issue is not the position of power. The issue is your child will be taken away from you and raised as a foreigner. The cultures and customs that you have, which will be passed down to your child will be cut off. I guess its a matter of preference, but for me those things are dear, and I wont care how much power my child will have. In many cases those same kids who became Janissarys were used against their own people. Now thats irony :inquisitive:
I think the point is that as soon as every part of the ottoman empire had the chance to get independency they used it. Nobody wanted to stay inside the empire cuase it had nothing to offer.
But in an earlier timeframe it was probably even worse with the turks. They finally destroyed antiochia, slaughtered cypriotes like no other, broke every peace treaty with other powers and where feared by everyone. But even worse, the rule of the ottoman empire in most of the islamic world led to its downfall and stop of technological inventions. :book:
But anyway I would probably prefere them to mongols :sweatdrop:
They managed to destroy most of the biggest and prosperous cities in the world. :thumbsdown:
In the EB timeframe it would be probably the romans.:help::help::help:

[SwissBarbar]

Wouldn't want to be qonqueed by: Celtic/Germanic factions. Why? I believe it's obvious...

Soap?



:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: A just question. The Celts were not as barbarious as the Roman and Greek historians like to tell us.

I would not wanna be conquered by Carthage, since I would not like to have to sacrifice my babies in bad times ^^

I would want to be conquered by Rome or KH nonetheless, for me it would be the perfect opportunity to study them further ^^

[lenin96]

Would want to be conquered by: Achaemenid/Sassanid Iran, maybe Pontos and some Greek states.

Wouldn't want to be conquered by: Mongols, Huns and Arche Seleukeia.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Would want to be conquered by: The Romans. Why? Because as Dionysius of Halicarnassus pointed: e)/qnov te me/giston e)c e)laxistou gene/sqai su\n xro/nw| pareskeu/asan kai\
perifane/staton e)c a)dhlota/tou, tw~n te deome/nwn oi)kh/sewv para\ sfi/si
filanqrw/pw| u(podoxh~| kai\ politei/av metado/sei toi~v meta\ tou~ gennai/ou e)n
pole/mw| krathqei~si, dou/lwn te o(/soi par ) au)toi~v e)leuqerwqei~en a)stoi~v
ei~)nai sugxwrh/sei, tu/xhv te a)nqrw/pwn ou)demai~v ei) me/lloi to\ koino\n
w)felei~n a)paciwsei: (1.9.4)

They [the Romans] contrived to raise themselves from the most obscure to the
most illustrious, not only by their human reception of those who sought a home
among them, but also by sharing the rights of citizenship with all who had been
30
conquered by them in war after a brave resistance, by permitting all the slaves,
too, who were manumitted among them to become citizens, and by disdaining no
condition of men from whom the commonwealth might reap an advantage.

Other then this reason it would have to be for the aqueducts, public bath, wine:laugh4:...

If not the Romans one of the hellenes because as GRUEN has shown via his analysis of Greek authors writing on archaic Rome, postulating a Hellenic origin for the city was quite usual the most Greek of authors, Homer, sings a few words on the subject as well as Dionysius, Plutarch, Festus, and Servius...
The ancient rites of Hercules, still performed in Dionysius’
time, are even more explicitly the product of ‘Greek Romans.’ Hercules and the Epeans
erected an altar to Saturn o\v( e)/ti kai\ nu=n diame/nei para\ th=| r(i/zh| tou= lo/fou kata\ th\n
a)\nodon th\n a_po t=hv a_gora=v fe/rousan ei)v to\ Kapitw/lion (‘which remains to this
day at the foot of the hill near the ascent that leads from the forum to the Capitol,’ 1.34).
In other words, the Romans are so Greek that even the religious rituals of the fabled
Hellenic heroes, of whom Hercules was one of the most distinguished, have their roots in
the heart of Rome itself.

Would not be want to be conquered: Barbarians

[Cyclops]

What a fine topic, and some decent answers to ponder.

Of the EB factions I think Carthage would be a reasonable master (bearing in mind Tudhaliya's interesting analysis). This is based on very little historical knowledge of them. I like to imagine they were more interested in trade than repeatedly gutting everyone in sight. One possible exception leaps to mind, were the Barcids in Spain particularly bloody or heavy handed? I have an impression they might have been, but that might be more to do weith the naughty misbehaving (=freedom loving) Iberians.

Those who would favour conquest by Rome should bear this in mind: to enjoy your conquered state, you have to survuve the conquest un-chopped-up and un-enslaved. The Romans were absolute butchers of the highest order, repeated slaughtering and enslaving populations on an economy-distorting scale. Events like Alexander's razing of Thebes (which caused such an outrage in the Hellenic world) were par for the course in Romes blood-soaked rise to Empire. Even if you surrender to some "decent" honest Roman (like a Gracchi) your next governor might be someone like Cato the Censor:whip:.

Barbarians also are bad for the conquorees. If they are real savages, they may lack the politcal capital to impose lasting riule, so their "conquest" might amount to regular repeated looting....hmm are the Romans really just barbarians with aqueducts?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

hmm are the Romans really just barbarians with aqueducts?

Does the fact that the Roman Republic\Empire lasted well for 600 years relatively intact support that statement?

It's incredible how people associate Romans with oppressive brutality when it was in fact a trait common to every people. You cannot conquer without killing people, this is a known fact that even the most sheltered idealists aknowledge; Rome built the foundations of peace, prosperity and safety for a whole world in a way that was never seen before and would never be seen again for more than a millenium. People often look at Corinth and other similar brutalities but miss the big picture of the Pax Romana and its lasting consequences on the West and the World, for the matter.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

Does the fact that the Roman Republic\Empire lasted well for 600 years relatively intact support that statement?

It's incredible how people associate Romans with oppressive brutality when it was in fact a trait common to every people. You cannot conquer without killing people, this is a known fact that even the most sheltered idealists aknowledge; Rome built the foundations of peace, prosperity and safety for a whole world in a way that was never seen before and would never be seen again for more than a millenium. People often look at Corinth and other similar brutalities but miss the big picture of the Pax Romana and its lasting consequences on the West and the World, for the matter.

Indeed. Beleiving that you can conquer without kiiling is incredible naive. Even Alexander the Great, a noble man, destroyed cities like Thebes, Gaza, Tyre, Aornos...

[Cyclops]

Does the fact that the Roman Republic\Empire lasted well for 600 years relatively intact support that statement?

No, I think it is irrelevant. The longer Rome lasted, the "Greeker" it got.


It's incredible how people associate Romans with oppressive brutality when it was in fact a trait common to every people.

I feel the Romans were remarkably brutal, in a brutal world.


You cannot conquer without killing people, this is a known fact that even the most sheltered idealists aknowledge;

"Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes intulit agresti Latio".

Buddhism and Christianity likewise came to dominate several great empires with little or no bloodshed (although ionce in power their hands were less clean).

There is a palpable difference between the regular wholesale slaughter of Roman and other empires of the day. Perhaps the Romans simply had more staying power? My impression is of a terribly cruel politcal culture.


Rome built the foundations of peace, prosperity and safety for a whole world in a way that was never seen before and would never be seen again for more than a millenium. People often look at Corinth and other similar brutalities but miss the big picture of the Pax Romana and its lasting consequences on the West and the World, for the matter.

"Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant"

I believe China after the warring states period managed longer periods of stability and peace, lasting effectively to the present. Of course the Tai Ping rebellion may well be the second bloodiest war in history, but thats a one-off.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I feel the Romans were remarkably brutal, in a brutal world.
I am certain the other empires were quite pacifistic :yes:



Buddhism and Christianity likewise came to dominate several great empires with little or no bloodshed (although ionce in power their hands were less clean).
Yes, there was no blood associated with Christianity in Roman times... That apostle who got his head chopped off was a freak accident and Constantine peacefully converted everyone to Jesus' side. Oh, and likewise, no edicts ordering mass killings and persecution of Christians were issued at any time during the Empire



My impression is of a terribly cruel politcal culture.
Everywhere politics were cruel. In some places they still are. What makes some politics more cruel and others less is the scale to which they are documented. Power struggles within Roman Empire are remembered to the last detail, such as the tool of murder. The power struggles and revolutions in China are not comparable in remembrance, both by history books and us. Seriously, how much do you read about Ancient China compared to Ancient Rome?

Such impressions are common, and there is nothing wrong with having one. As long as you are open to other people's opinions. Rome was indeed cruel, in my opinion as well, but it was the Late Republican times that began the unsavoury but long-standing tradition of the use of assassination in politics. The contemporary Romans admitted the same.



I believe China after the warring states period managed longer periods of stability and peace, lasting effectively to the present. Of course the Tai Ping rebellion may well be the second bloodiest war in history, but thats a one-off.
Gross misunderstanding, but I do not blame you. Once again, the lack of your insight in the Chinese history is the problem. None of us read as much about them as about Rome. And in China, rebellions were very common, more so than in Roman Empire. As were famines, which usually sparked the peasant rebellions. You also had the inefficient gubernatorial and military-leader system which allowed the governors and generals too much power, leading to yet more rebellions.

[Hax]

Buddhism and Christianity likewise came to dominate several great empires with little or no bloodshed (although ionce in power their hands were less clean).

Are you sure about Buddhism? I've never read anything about Buddhism being used as a tool to make war upon other people (which can't be said about the monotheïstic religions, I'm afraid)

[Africanvs]

I suppose being conquered by anyone would be pretty bad. Many people have said Rome, but Romans had a tendency to be pretty rough on the vanquished in certain situations. Crusifiction or decimation can be nasty punishments. I suppose I wouldn't mind being conquered by Rome if I survived it. Good public works, baths, roads, etc. Laws, pretty accepting of religion and culture. I would not want to be conquered by the Germanic peoples. Just look at the dark ages.

[Africanvs]

Are you sure about Buddhism? I've never read anything about Buddhism being used as a tool to make war upon other people (which can't be said about the monotheïstic religions, I'm afraid)

I found this after some research online. It seems scholarly with a complete list of references. You might find it interesting. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~stroble/BUDDWAR.HTM


Buddhism and Christianity likewise came to dominate several great empires with little or no bloodshed.

Are you serious? :) Constantine, Charlesmagne, Pope Urban the II?

[Hax]

Interesting, taking a look at it right now.

Actually, in modern-day Buddhist states it is questioned whether the death penalty should be allowed or not; it is a Buddhist principle that one should not take other's lives, though in some Buddhist countries capital punishment is allowed. It is a difficult subject amongst Buddhists.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

hmm are the Romans really just barbarians with aqueducts?

Dionysius’ primary aim is to prove that Rome is, in reality, a Greek city – a polis miscast as a civitas. Since the Romans have always lived like Greeks (bi/on (Ellhna zw~ntev, 1.90.1), “all that is good in Roman society… is attributable to Greek ideals and Greek culture” (Schultze 132-8). In other words, the historian ensures that, although Rome is ‘the’ empire, the Greeks maintain their traditional habit of appropriating others into their society (Swain 1996: 161). As Gruen (1992: 6-21) has shown via his analysis of Greek authors writing on archaic Rome, postulating a Hellenic origin for the city was not an innovation particular to Dionysius;

The most Greek of authors, Homer, sings a few words on the subject as well.38 Dionysius himself, in fact (as well as Plutarch, Festus, and Servius) collected many accounts of earlier Greek authors writing the ‘Greek’ history of Rome (Bickerman 1952: 65).39 Like other pro-Rome authors, however (for example, Aelius Aristides and his 26th oration), Dionysius’ reasoning is that Romans are Romans, and thus necessarily better than their predecessors.

A common topos that Dionysius uses to prove the Greek origins of Roman society is the similarity of many Roman political and social institutions to their Hellenic prototypes. Beginning with Romulus, who himself maintains Greek-inspired marriage laws (2.24-25), the Roman people as depicted in the Roman Antiquities uphold a very ‘Greek’ set of civic and ethical standards (6.83-6, 8.5-8; Gabba 1991: 203). Dionysius asserts that political and social institutions such as clientship (2.9.2), the Senate , the dictatorship (5.73-4), and ovatio (5.47.2) all have their origins in Greece, and links Roman magistrates to their Greek equivalents (5.73.3). The historian also notes the similarity between Roman and Spartan kings (2.14.2), namely that neither had arbitrary power (Hill: 1969: 89).

Religion, too, is a frequent topic in the Roman Antiquities, and a facet of Roman society which Dionysius identifies, along with politics and society, as Greek in origin. To point out a few examples: Numa invented a story concerning Egeria (emulating the examples of Minos of Crete and Lycurgus of Sparta) in order that the people would be fear the gods (2.61.1-2), and instituted a temple to the Greek god Faith (2.75); the rites of the goddess Vesta were originally brought to the city by Romulus’ Greek ancestors (2.65.1-2); Dionysius remarks that Greek Sibylline oracles are among Rome’s most prized possessions (4.62). The ancient rites of Hercules, still performed in Dionysius’ time, are even more explicitly the product of ‘Greek Romans.’ Hercules and the Epeans erected an altar to Saturn o\v( e)/ti kai\ nu=n diame/nei para\ th=| r(i/zh| tou= lo/fou kata\ th\n a)\nodon th\n a_po t=hv a_gora=v fe/rousan ei)v to\ Kapitw/lion (‘which remains to this day at the foot of the hill near the ascent that leads from the forum to the Capitol,’ 1.34). In other words, the Romans are so Greek that even the religious rituals of the fabled Hellenic heroes, of whom Hercules was one of the most distinguished, have their roots in the heart of Rome itself.

Being a good and pious citizen –a requirement of a healthy city, state, or empire (Dionysius singles out Romulus, 2.18) – is an essential part of the Roman (and Greek) identity. This need for piety is, in effect, a need to acknowledge the Greek origins of Rome’s religious rites. To those who question his hypothesis, the historian argues that, if Romans were not Greeks but barbarians, tosou/tou a\)n e de/hsan au)toi\ ta\ patrw|~a i(era\ kai\ tou\v e)pixwri/ouv e)qismou\v a)pomaqei~n, di ) ou(\v ei)v tosau/thn proh~lqon e)daimoni/an, w#ste kai\ toi~v a@lloiv a#pasin, w}n h}rxon, e)n kalw~| kate/sthsan tou\v qeou\v toi~v sfete/roiv tima~n nomi/moiv: kai\ ou)qe\n a#pan e)kbebarbarw~sqai to\ (Ellhniko\n u(po\ (Rwmai/wn e(bdo/mhn h)/dh kratou/menon u(p ) au)tw~n genea/n, ei@per h}san
ba/rbaroi. (7.70)
They would have been so far from forgetting their ancestral rites and the established customs of their country, by which they had attained to so great prosperity, that they would even have made it to the interest of all their subjects as well to honour the gods according to the customary Roman ceremonies; and nothing could have hindered the whole Greek world, which is now subject to the Romans for already the seventh generation, from being barbarized if the Romans had indeed been barbarians.
In other words, had Rome not been a Hellenic city in origin, when it took over the Greek world it would have converted all of the native religious customs to ‘barbarous’ Roman rites. Since, as Dionysius reasons, the current Greek rites are the same as they have always been – and just happen to be the same as the ones the Romans practice – then they must be the same culture. Otherwise, the current state of religious affairs in Rome would be such that the city would have forgotten all of its native rites. Similarly, when discussing why he believes the Tyrrhenians were not a Lydian colony, Dionysius cites as his primary evidence that Tyrrehenians ou!te… qeou\v Ludoi~v tou\v au)tou\v nomi/zousin ou!te no/moiv ou!t ) e)pithdeu/masi ke/xrhntai paraplhsi/oiv (‘neither worship the same
gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions,’ 1.30) – the same criteria the historian uses to argue for Rome’s Hellenic roots. Since the Tyrrhenians are not Lydian because they do not have the same religious customs or laws, so the Romans are Greeks because they do observe the same rites, speak a language derived from a mixture of Greek and foreign tongues (ba/rbarov – ‘barbarian,’ to use Dionysius’ language), and utilize a similar legal system (1.89-90).
In ascribing Rome’s political, social, and religious customs to the Greeks, Dionysius is essentially arguing that the Hellenization of Rome in modern (for Dionysius) times – of which he himself, as a Greek author writing about, and partaking in, the empire, is a part – began in a “prehistoric stage,”41 before “the more recent cultural influences of the Hellenistic period” (Gabba 1991: 11) embodied by men such as Cicero who took an active interest in the ins-and-outs of Greek culture. The prominent presence of Hellenization in the Roman Antiquities, however, does not rob the Romans of all of their unique, non-Greek qualities. Dionysius may identify the Greekness of the Romans, but he is firm in pointing out their political superiority to the old Athenian and Spartan constitutions, especially concerning “the Roman capacity to assimilate other populations” via citizenship, which was the basis for their rightful (so the historian believes) hegemony and moral magnanimity (Gabba 1991: 87). In other words, while the majority of their institutions may be Greek, the Romans’ ability to use these institutions (along with the citizenship policy, an innovation of the new city) to build their empire propels them beyond their roots. This, in turn, makes them worthy of being, as fellow pundit Aelius
Aristides would say much later, the universal country.

[HunGeneral]

Well I might give a very weak answer but that has it's reasons (a normal people doesn't think on who it wishes to be conquered by - they resist any invader if they can no mather who he is. The other reason: if you do get conquered its not really your choice by whome).

In Eb's timeframe:
I would (maybe) want to be conquered by: Rome, Karthadastim (far away from the capital they might let me live my own life), maybe Pahlav, Saka or even Arche Seleukeia (also far away from the capital)


I would not want to be conquered by: all the others especially by the Hellenes (they would want to make a Hellen out of me no mather who or what I am).

Outside of EB's timeframe:

I would (maybe) want to be conquered by: Archemenid Persia, some who I can't rememeber right now (might Edit).

Would not want to be conquered by: Mongols (they were here not long and left, may they never return:whip:), Turks (call them ottomans if you wish), Russians and anyone at all.

About the Dervishire (Spelling?) - as much as I know the Ottmonas mostly tried to gather them from poor families who were even happy to get there child somewhere else. (and the child would have no reason to return to his parents and depended solely from the ruler) Serving as a Janissary wasn't all that great either you had a chance to get a high position in the end but the chance was equall that you die somewhere in battle or if youre succesfull you could get killed on the command of the Sultan because youre to succesful in his eyes.

[Husker98]

:laugh4:

I would fight to the death (theirs or mine) to resist conquest by any religion-based state.
Or any state that would attempt to even in the slightest way interfere with German identity. :skull:

i agree unfortunatly my german people got smited by russians so im inclined to agree

[gammager2]

Interesting, taking a look at it right now.

Actually, in modern-day Buddhist states it is questioned whether the death penalty should be allowed or not; it is a Buddhist principle that one should not take other's lives, though in some Buddhist countries capital punishment is allowed. It is a difficult subject amongst Buddhists.


arent some of the most famous and skilled warriors buddhists? i suppose training to fight is different from actually killing someone, i just find it interesting that buddhism, one of the most pacifistic religions has such a strong martial tradition

[Africanvs]

arent some of the most famous and skilled warriors buddhists? i suppose training to fight is different from actually killing someone, i just find it interesting that buddhism, one of the most pacifistic religions has such a strong martial tradition

If you mean martial arts such as Shaolin Kung-fu, I believe they are meant to be used for defense, as well as give the practitioner physical and mental discipline.

[Hax]

arent some of the most famous and skilled warriors buddhists? i suppose training to fight is different from actually killing someone, i just find it interesting that buddhism, one of the most pacifistic religions has such a strong martial tradition

Certainly, though the area from which these martial arts spring also have other cultural characteristics; China, which also had a Confucianist and Taoist history, as well as Japan where Shinto played a large part of the society.

However, Asiatic martial arts are not offensive, but defensive. It is not something you pick up and then use whenever it suits you; take the Japanese martial arts, Kendo, Karate-do, Aikido, and to a lesser degree Kyudo; these all have "the way" in their name. It is a path the martial artist undertakes, not a simple combat lesson.

[Tyrfingr]

Would like to be conquered by: SPQR!

Would NOT like to be conquered by: Any muslim state or country with muslim majority of any kind...

[Hax]

Would NOT like to be conquered by: Any muslim state or country with muslim majority of any kind...

And why is this? It wouldn't be so bad under the Islamic Golden Age, or the Fatimid Caliphate under Saladin.

[A Very Super Market]

Quite right. Muslims currently have an appalingly low amount of approval in the world, considering their many contributions to humanity.

[desert]

Math, machines, preservation of ancient Greek and Roman literature?

[Hax]

Astronomy, literature, cartography, philosophy, medicine, etc.

[Aemilius Paulus]

And why is this?
Do not blame him. He is Dutch. No wonder he dislikes Muslims. You are also from Netherlands, Hax, but apparently your national predisposition was tempered by history knowledge.

But yes, the Muslim Empires during their Golden Age were one of the most benevolent and tolerant rulers in the history.

[Ibrahim]

Would like to be conquered by: SPQR!

Would NOT like to be conquered by: Any muslim state or country with muslim majority of any kind...

you kidding me right?

look, once the Arabs defeated your armies and occupied your towns, all that was going to happen to you was that you have your taxes lowered*, you pay jizyah, as long as you aren't rebelling, or peeving the governer, ooh scary!! I don't want my taxes lowered or pay 2 dinars if I can, so that we have money to protect you! heaven forbid that!!

look, I admit we have done some really stupid and pointless things while conquering, especially in Persia, and for this I can say there was no excuse. but aside from Persia, I see no evidence of Violence being commited on non-muslims on being conquered, or of forced conversions, especially in the first century after the hijrah. in fact, the only evidence there is in that regard indicates that we Arabs didn't want to share the faith (early sahabah did, but not the rest), as evidence by the policies of banu Umayyah and the late Rashidun eras. you can look it up if you want.

lots of westerners sometimes act like a bunch of whiny ingreats, forgetting that you live under our legacy to this day-that's right, your economic systems(Capitalism), your knowlege, your language, all of it, affected by Muslims, Arab or Persian, once the latter converted (and even before, while they were zoroastrian). there is not a shread of your modern life unaffected by what we did, good or bad.

ooh, scary! heaven forbid we preserve and encouraged knowlege, improved agriculture, added 33% to to the life expectancy of all under Islam (from 25 to 35 years), came to within a hairsbreath of the industrial revolution, built culture centers like baghdad, fustat, tulaitilah and timboktou!

*ends rant*

[Hax]

Ibrahim, relax. Sarcastic responses to his ignorance will not make his view of Islam more positive, it would be better if we stay patient with him and try to explain him. It's not like he attacked you personally. I too, was offended, because I have a Muslim father, but I tried to remain calm and explain the things that Islamic culture has done for western society.

[The Fuzz]

Well, since I play as Baktria, I suppose I wouldn't mind random nomads taking me over. Or Indians. But not more Greeks. I've had it with ****ing Greeks coming out of the woodwork.

Edit; I just saw the Islam comments...it's sad. I'm not Muslim but my chosen career will take me to (hopefully) Central Asia and/or the Middle East... you, sir, a missing out on a great and hospitable cultures that are slandered by the worst aspects of humanity. And the history! :)

salaam :)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, I suppose you have learned a lesson, Jaertecken: do not post anything that might provoke a Muslim fanboy like Ibrahim when Ibrahim is around. There are fanboys everywhere, tempered Roman ones such as me, untempered Roman fanboys such as countless people here, and Greek ones such as satalexton/Maion. The best thing to do is avoid making any statements that might provoke them.

[Ibrahim]

Ibrahim, relax. Sarcastic responses to his ignorance will not make his view of Islam more positive, it would be better if we stay patient with him and try to explain him. It's not like he attacked you personally. I too, was offended, because I have a Muslim father, but I tried to remain calm and explain the things that Islamic culture has done for western society.

you are right.

its just galling to hear this crap every day (yes, everyday).

[The Fuzz]

Fighting ignorance is not the same as being a fanboy, Aemilius. The response may have been more forceful than perhaps what was necessary, but so it goes.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Fighting ignorance is not the same as being a fanboy, Aemilius.
There is so much ignorance everywhere that we must choose where we tackle it and where we look over it. Everyone has a lot to learn. Everyone says things that are wrong. One's choice of what to bash and what to not defines fanboy-ism. And there is nothing wrong with being a fanboy. it merely means that you have an intense interest in a certain field.

[A Very Super Market]

I would ask for your opinion on Israel, but experience has shown me that to be a bad idea.

[The Fuzz]

There is so much ignorance everywhere that we must choose where we tackle it and where we look over it. Everyone has a lot to learn. Everyone says things that are wrong. One's choice of what to bash and what to not defines fanboy-ism. And there is nothing wrong with being a fanboy. it merely means that you have an intense interest in a certain field.

Point taken, sir. I forget the org's posters have (generally) some maturity..as opposed to TWC.

Cheers :)

[Ibrahim]

There is so much ignorance everywhere that we must choose where we tackle it and where we look over it. Everyone has a lot to learn. Everyone says things that are wrong. One's choice of what to bash and what to not defines fanboy-ism. And there is nothing wrong with being a fanboy. it merely means that you have an intense interest in a certain field.

true that. but its hard to be a fanboy, when you are part of the thing you defend..

anyways, I will wisely walk away, because I have done enough today. I do not want wnymorre trouble.

[Hax]

Now, peace to all of you, friends.

Let's leave this matter behind us!

=============================

Also, I would not want to be conquered by Japanese clans. I mean, honour usually gets in the way of mercy.

[Cyclops]

I am certain the other empires were quite pacifistic :yes:

I speak Ironic fluently, so I'm right there with you sonny:yes:


Yes, there was no blood associated with Christianity in Roman times... That apostle who got his head chopped off was a freak accident and Constantine peacefully converted everyone to Jesus' side. Oh, and likewise, no edicts ordering mass killings and persecution of Christians were issued at any time during the Empire

Thank you for the history lesson. I completed a university degree in religious history and am somewhat aware of the extent an nature of religious violence under the empire, especially with regard to christians. Christianity did not use cruelty or violence to convert Rome, although later christian states used it extensively. I feel that of christian states only Spain regularly used cruelty in conquest to the extent of the Romans in their conquests: I regard Germany's obscene episode of totalinariansim under Hitler as an aberation for an otherwise tolerant and moral society. Of course the Mongols and Timurids put the Romans in the shade with their cruelty in conquest.


Everywhere politics were cruel. In some places they still are. What makes some politics more cruel and others less is the scale to which they are documented. Power struggles within Roman Empire are remembered to the last detail, such as the tool of murder. The power struggles and revolutions in China are not comparable in remembrance, both by history books and us. Seriously, how much do you read about Ancient China compared to Ancient Rome?

You misunderstand me. I was pointing out that Roman conquest (as distinct from administration) was extremely cruel.

I studied Chinese history (ancient and classical) at University, and am aware of the kind of violence associated with the warring states period. Under the various dynasties since that time peace has been the norm and war and inter-state agression has been kept to intermittent convulsions. Indeed far from seeking cruel conquests, China has for long periods turned its back on the outside world. This is all pretty well understood, I'm not proposing anything controversial here.


Such impressions are common, and there is nothing wrong with having one. As long as you are open to other people's opinions. Rome was indeed cruel, in my opinion as well, but it was the Late Republican times that began the unsavoury but long-standing tradition of the use of assassination in politics. The contemporary Romans admitted the same.

Contemporary Romans like Tacitus bemoaned the cruelty and immorality of their own culture, as anyone can, but I was specifically refering to the likelyhood of surviving Roman conquest given their propensity for slaughter.


Gross misunderstanding, but I do not blame you. Once again, the lack of your insight in the Chinese history is the problem.

I think you grossly misunderstand me, but I don't blame you. Once again, your failure to understand my post is the problem:laugh4:


None of us read as much about them as about Rome. And in China, rebellions were very common, more so than in Roman Empire. As were famines, which usually sparked the peasant rebellions. You also had the inefficient gubernatorial and military-leader system which allowed the governors and generals too much power, leading to yet more rebellions.

Speak for yourself. I believe from some study (only one year of ancient and classical chinese history at Uni) that China was more peaceful and less cruel than Rome in its conquests.

I'm also sure that I'd rather live under Rome than by classical or ancient china. The day-to-day cruelty to ordinary subjects in a Confucian regime beggars belief. They had a freaking ministry of torture. Their daily rule could be almost as bad as a Roman conquest.

On the point of Buddhism being pacifistic, I seem to recall that State Buddhism has been observed to have an ennervating effect on many cultures and that they tended to be conquered. I beleive China under the Han (or was it the three kingdoms?) undertook a real dismantling of the parasitic structure of ther Sangha, which was sucking intellect and revenues out of Chinese society and sequestering them in monasteries. When the English arrive in India, there was not a single Buddhist state (and barely a trace of Buddhism as a seperate religion) in its country of origin.

Bon Tibet was a terror and a threat to Classsical China but under the Lamas it became a repressed backwater of little consequence.

The association of Buddhism with acrobatic monks is hardly evidence of a warrior culture, although I understand that the severely mutated form of Buddhism found in Japan did for a short while produce a militarily active caste of warrior monks. They even made it into STW, so it must be true.

[Hax]

The association of Buddhism with acrobatic monks is hardly evidence of a warrior culture, although I understand that the severely mutated form of Buddhism found in Japan did for a short while produce a militarily active caste of warrior monks.

I hardly think "severely mutated" is the way to describe Mikkyo and Vajrayana.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, the the monks spent the entirety of their time in the monastery, so I wouldn't doubt the abilities attributed to them as described by outsiders.

[Africanvs]

@ Cyclops ~ You make some good points and I can tell you're well read. Would you really say that christianity converted the Romans, or would it be better to say that Constantine spread christianity to try to repair the empire? I think when you say that Christian kingdoms/empires/etc. did terrible things, that is basically an obvious truth isn't it? I mean Christianity can't harm anyone with swords, it's the Christians who do it. It seems like strange logic to me, like a guns don't kill people I kill people type of thing. I didn't argue with your observation that Buddhism conquered peacefully, because there are examples in history where rulers have embraced Buddhism and their policies change to peaceful ones, such as the example of Asoka.

[Rilder]

Would like to be conquered by: I dunno Greeks I guess.

Would not like to be conuqered by: Any Crusading Christian army. I don't like fire :(

[Cyclops]

@ Cyclops ~ You make some good points and I can tell you're well read. Would you really say that christianity converted the Romans, or would it be better to say that Constantine spread christianity to try to repair the empire? I think when you say that Christian kingdoms/empires/etc. did terrible things, that is basically an obvious truth isn't it? I mean Christianity can't harm anyone with swords, it's the Christians who do it. It seems like strange logic to me, like a guns don't kill people I kill people type of thing. I didn't argue with your observation that Buddhism conquered peacefully, because there are examples in history where rulers have embraced Buddhism and their policies change to peaceful ones, such as the example of Asoka.

Yes you make an excellent point. I am not a religious person so for me the question of religion is usually a political one. I feel Christianity made itself the 'best bet" for an emperor by converting a significant portion of Romans. This initial phase was done by gentle persuasion, and christianity was known as the religion of slaves and women.

There are a heap of examples of rulers voluntarily adopting a new religion (eg Irish monks converting heathen Germans, Russians adopting christianity, central Asian nomads becoming buddhist or Islamic) where the process was more or less bloodless. To me these situations are "cuultural conquest" where people basically choose to adopt amore attractive "cultural package" which might uiinclude the religion, the political culture, economic reforms etc. Plenty of folks became acculturated Greeks in ancient times because of the brilliance and atraction of their culture, and it has been suggested above that the Romans were not immune to this process.

Perhaps as many accepted Roman culture despite the violence of their conquests because of the delightful benefits once conquered. They had a big stick and a big carrot.

The great example of "peaceful conquest" is the spread of Buddhism in India and China, but Asoka probably continued to kill (at a slower rate). However Buddhism exists as a cultural and religuous movement in the real world and plenty of Buddhists have got up to evil just like the Christians and Muslims etc.

I do believe that Buddhism lends itself less readily to bloodshed than the religions of the book (there's some bloodthirsty chapters in the Bible and the Koran, if you want to find excuses to be naughty). Likewise the Roman "cultural package" had a certain bias in it toward cruelty and conquest: they don't have to be, but lots were.

Macillre (sp?) has posted a couple of fine short pieces about Roman cultural features like the "cursus honorum" and its effect on Roman destructive behaviours, both toward themselves and outsiders.

Geez this is an engrossing discussion, I'm happy I rose to that cheeky boy Aemilius Paulus' bait. Kudos to the OP'er.

The stuff about Islam is all OT. I would remark in general that any succesful cultural movement (eg Roman, Islamic, Greek, Chinese, Australian Rules Football) must have great strengths and beautiful things in it to be succesful for so long and for so many people.

[Africanvs]

Yes you make an excellent point. I am not a religious person so for me the question of religion is usually a political one. I feel Christianity made itself the 'best bet" for an emperor by converting a significant portion of Romans. This initial phase was done by gentle persuasion, and Christianity was known as the religion of slaves and women.

Right, supposedly Constantine picked Christianity up from his mother? I imagine the fact that he fought in the name of the Christian God was a bit of a set-up. I think it would be more accurate that he had faith in his superior skills as a general and a politician, and knew he was going to need to use Christianity once he won his military victory, but who's to say. We know he was baptized on his death bed, so maybe he did believe it. But I would still have to wonder. Furthermore, it can be argued that Christianity destroyed the empire, at least Edward Gibbon thought so, and I have to admit he makes some great points.


There are a heap of examples of rulers voluntarily adopting a new religion (eg Irish monks converting heathen Germans, Russians adopting Christianity, central Asian nomads becoming Buddhist or Islamic) where the process was more or less bloodless. To me these situations are "cultural conquest" where people basically choose to adopt amore attractive "cultural package" which might include the religion, the political culture, economic reforms etc. Plenty of folks became acculturated Greeks in ancient times because of the brilliance and attraction of their culture, and it has been suggested above that the Romans were not immune to this process.

As far as the heathen Germans, didn't they convert because they thought more or less that their Gods had abandoned them, and they believed that the Christian God was more likely to grant them victories in battle?


Perhaps as many accepted Roman culture despite the violence of their conquests because of the delightful benefits once conquered. They had a big stick and a big carrot.
I would imagine that while there were perks to being part of the Roman empire, it was kind of a "resistance is futile" sort of thing. Once the ram touches the wall as it were, you know you're screwed, so it might have been preferable to many peoples to just accept it peacefully? I know there were many who resisted, and they usually paid the price. But Rome seems to have been pretty good at finding an excuse to attack anyone.


The great example of "peaceful conquest" is the spread of Buddhism in India and China, but Asoka probably continued to kill (at a slower rate). However Buddhism exists as a cultural and religious movement in the real world and plenty of Buddhists have got up to evil just like the Christians and Muslims etc.

I do believe that Buddhism lends itself less readily to bloodshed than the religions of the book (there's some bloodthirsty chapters in the Bible and the Koran, if you want to find excuses to be naughty). Likewise the Roman "cultural package" had a certain bias in it toward cruelty and conquest: they don't have to be, but lots were.

I agree with you that Buddhism has far less potential for violence than the religions of the book. After all, there is nothing to my knowledge in Buddhist teachings about waging war. On the other hand there are many, many, many references to us and them, war and conquest etc. in the Christian scriptures and the Qaran. However, it never ceases to amaze me how far certain individuals can push religious doctrine to accomplish their ends, such as Pope Urban the II, and contemporary fanatics, without going down a list.


Macillre (sp?) has posted a couple of fine short pieces about Roman cultural features like the "cursus honorum" and its effect on Roman destructive behaviors, both toward themselves and outsiders.

Absolutely agree. The cursus honorum meant that every Roman aristocrat was driven to serve the state and make their name through military achievement. This was no doubt the fuel of the Roman empire. It made the most important virtues in a Roman's life ambition and the need for glory. Part of the reason that Edward Gibbon thought that Christianity destroyed the empire, was that people began to worry more about going to heaven than serving the state, and the empire lost a wealth of quality would-be ambitious commanders that ended up pursuing other things such as religious salvation. Quite frankly, no one wanted to be emperor, so it was basically up for grabs to the most successful military adventurer.


Geez this is an engrossing discussion, I'm happy I rose to that cheeky boy Aemilius Paulus' bait. Kudos to the OP'er.

The stuff about Islam is all OT. I would remark in general that any successful cultural movement (eg Roman, Islamic, Greek, Chinese, Australian Rules Football) must have great strengths and beautiful things in it to be successful for so long and for so many people.

I don't know, it's possible. I think a lot of it has to do with being flexible. Religions, movements, and sports such as football have to change with the times in order to remain relevant. I agree that there is certainly something special about them all and they all fulfill certain needs in a person's life. It's funny you mention football, because I believe a sport can be a person's religion just as easy as anything else can. At any rate, good conversation. You out-class me in knowledge no doubt, so it's fun to discuss this stuff. I always enjoy learning from someone else.

[Atraphoenix]

"About the Dervishire (Spelling?) - as much as I know the Ottmonas mostly tried to gather them from poor families who were even happy to get there child somewhere else. (and the child would have no reason to return to his parents and depended solely from the ruler) Serving as a Janissary wasn't all that great either you had a chance to get a high position in the end but the chance was equall that you die somewhere in battle or if youre succesfull you could get killed on the command of the Sultan because youre to succesful in his eyes."

It is "Devşirme" in Turkish must be something like "Davshirmah" in English.

I would like to be conquered by baktria or Alexandre himself.

I would not like to be conquered by any other hellenic factions or muslim factions except the almohad sultanate in Spain.

[Macilrille]

Macilrille means "Bright Blade" in Sindarrin and is the handle I use when I debate online as my first debates was on The White Forum (I know a lot about Tolkien as well), where I was eventually banned cause I claimed against Michael Martinez that people should not whine over and sue the tobacco companies over an addiction that they chose themselves against better knowledge as it has been common knowledge for 50 years or more that smoking is not healthy got you. Instead they should take responsibility for their own lives and actions. That was not very popular in his eyes, so I got banned as I refused to change that view :-s

Anyway, I ramble.

Point is it is macilrille, Real name Palle Rasmussen, but thanks.

personally I prefer to remain free. Wars and conquest tends to bring suffering even from the most benevolent rulers. The Romans were particularly brutal though. I would not at all want to have them knocking on my city gate.

Anyway, I have not been following the thread, so I will go silent again.

[Caligula]

Want to be Conquered by - Busty Amazon woman that want Snoo Snoo!
Would not want to be conquered by - Persians, I hate the heat and the desert, and I'd perish quickly as a slave.

[Atraphoenix]

Want to be Conquered by - Busty Amazon woman that want Snoo Snoo!
Would not want to be conquered by - Persians, I hate the heat and the desert, and I'd perish quickly as a slave.

best answer ~;)

[Tollheit]

However, Asiatic martial arts are not offensive, but defensive. It is not something you pick up and then use whenever it suits you; take the Japanese martial arts, Kendo, Karate-do, Aikido, and to a lesser degree Kyudo; these all have "the way" in their name. It is a path the martial artist undertakes, not a simple combat lesson.

A grave misconception, to my eyes.

[Hax]

Wait, what? Care to explain?

[ziegenpeter]

I think you are just wrong, Hax. I do MA since I was a child and I thinks its not the system, which is offensive or defensive but the fighter. You can very well go on the street and beat the **** out of somebody with Karate-do. Have you ever seen MMA like UFC? If this were just defensive they wouldnt make that much money.

[Apázlinemjó]

Would like to be conquered by Carthage

Wouldn't like to be conquered by Assyrians

[SwissBarbar]

He's speaking of Martial Arts origin and not American UFC-Boxring-karate-kid-kind-of-showmanship-stuff. :juggle2:

[Africanvs]

Wouldn't like to be conquered by Assyrians

Good answer! :)

As far as martial arts, the original conversation was about Buddhists and martial arts, but the fact is, most of them have a philosophy tied into them that they are to be used for knowledge, defense, and self discipline. I would say this is mostly true but of course there are always going to be a few arse holes who misuse it. I know my view of the world is particulary small but I've been a few places and I have never seen a master of martical arts running around picking fights with people. If they have attained that level, typically they have attained the mental and physical discipline that comes with it. I have however seen plenty of UFC wannabes making trouble. The reason is because mixed martial arts is hand-to-hand combat training, without the spiritual and philosophical element. The MMA philosophy, if there is one, is simply to kick ass.

[Tyrfingr]

And why is this? It wouldn't be so bad under the Islamic Golden Age, or the Fatimid Caliphate under Saladin.

But it would still be a islamic state, which would not sit well with my christian beliefs. My feelings about Islam is not positive one bit...although I'm aware that it's events during the 20th century that has affected them. I guess that Islam during the middle ages weren't that bad...too bad it haven't developed since then.

[Macilrille]

In fact all that "Islam carried on the knowledge and science from the antiquity and passed it back to us" us BS. It was as unenlightened as Christianity was. Most of the knowledge of Greece and Rome was passed directly through the East Roman Empire.

I am not keen on any religion BTW.

However, that nor much of this thread is neither here nor there. This is after all an EB Forum, politics, religion and other contemporary stuff have their own fora elsewhere.

[Hax]

But it would still be a islamic state, which would not sit well with my christian beliefs. My feelings about Islam is not positive one bit...although I'm aware that it's events during the 20th century that has affected them. I guess that Islam during the middle ages weren't that bad...too bad it haven't developed since then.

Which has clearly shown during the Islamic control of Jerusalem..how? Or the control of Greece, which was mostly Orthodox. Or yeah, in Spain, in Cordoba, where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived next to eachother in peace, until the Reconquista?

[athanaric]

Would want to be conquered by: Nobody. I will (and would) never submit (sic) to any foreign religion, ideology, or people.

Would not want to be conquered by: Any religion-driven society is on top of my list of worst possible oppressors. Huns and other nomads are also very low in my favour.




In fact all that "Islam carried on the knowledge and science from the antiquity and passed it back to us" us BS. It was as unenlightened as Christianity was. Most of the knowledge of Greece and Rome was passed directly through the East Roman Empire.

I am not keen on any religion BTW.

However, that nor much of this thread is neither here nor there. This is after all an EB Forum, politics, religion and other contemporary stuff have their own fora elsewhere.


Amen to that.

[Hax]

In fact all that "Islam carried on the knowledge and science from the antiquity and passed it back to us" us BS. It was as unenlightened as Christianity was. Most of the knowledge of Greece and Rome was passed directly through the East Roman Empire.

Where the hell did you get this information? Ever heard of Avicenna? Ibn-Khaldun? Abi ibn Ali-Talib?

[Barry Soteiro]

Or yeah, in Spain, in Cordoba, where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived next to eachother in peace, until the Reconquista?

Yeah they lived in peace except that Jews and Christians had to pay a special tax to their Muslim masters.
Typical muslim hyprocisy.

[Barry Soteiro]

Where the hell did you get this information? Ever heard of Avicenna? Ibn-Khaldun? Abi ibn Ali-Talib?

Fact is the translation of ancient knowledge during the "islamic golden age" was mostly done by syrian christians, jews or copts.
And the works of Avicenna or Ibn Khaldun were rejected by the muslims scholars as being incompatible with religion.

[Hax]

Fact is the translation of ancient knowledge during the "islamic golden age" was mostly done by syrian christians, jews or copts.
And the works of Avicenna or Ibn Khaldun were rejected by the muslims scholars as being incompatible with religion.

Please take the rest of this to the Backroom.

[Hax]

He's speaking of Martial Arts origin and not American UFC-Boxring-karate-kid-kind-of-showmanship-stuff. :juggle2:

Yes, I was actually talking about arts.

[Foot]

I think that we have forgotten what this forum is about.

Islam is a religion that has its origins roughly 1000 years after EBs timeframe. Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Want to discuss the nuances of islamic thought, do so elsewhere. It does not belong here.

Thanks,

Closed.