Historical myths [Archive]

edyzmedieval

07-12-2005, 13:38

Post your historical myths here, and what do you think about them....
And questions also...

I found in one book, evidence that suggest that the great leader of Moldavia, Stephen the Great and Saint, was a Templar Knight.... Did the Templar Knights arrive in Romania?!

lars573

07-12-2005, 15:02

Ironside

07-12-2005, 16:12

The myth about the middle age man thinking that the earth is flat.

First mentioned 1828.

It annoyes me.

The Wizard

07-12-2005, 20:34

Mine is that the medieval eastern Roman empire was ever called the Byzantine empire, which it never was. It bugs me to no end. I'm going to invent a time machine find the historian that started this incorrectness and kill him.

It's simply a scientific term nowadays. Keeps the Roman and Greek phases of the empire neatly seperated.

I say Atlantis. All that lefty nonsense about sinking islands... get real! ~D

~Wiz

King of Atlantis

07-12-2005, 20:44

It's simply a scientific term nowadays. Keeps the Roman and Greek phases of the empire neatly seperated.

I say Atlantis. All that lefty nonsense about sinking islands... get real! ~D

~Wiz

:charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:

caesar44

07-13-2005, 08:49

Adam and Eve...

Incongruous

07-13-2005, 09:07

I found in one book, evidence that suggest that the great leader of Moldavia, Stephen the Great and Saint, was a Templar Knight.... Did the Templar Knights arrive in Romania?!

Do you mean St Stephen the Great King of Hungary, he was the one who Christianised the Magyars and was annointed as first King of Hungary.
I have never heard of a Stephen the great of Moldavia.

edyzmedieval

07-13-2005, 11:36

Do you mean St Stephen the Great King of Hungary, he was the one who Christianised the Magyars and was annointed as first King of Hungary.
I have never heard of a Stephen the great of Moldavia.

Bad for you.....

Stephen the Great was the greatest feudal leader of Moldavia.....

1457-1504

Kraxis

07-14-2005, 21:06

The myth of the Jomsvikings. A really nice myth and a really good read (Jomsvikinga Saga).

Why I like it? Because I think I have found the background to it. ~;) And because it is not a crazy myth but rather a legend.
Studied it as my main subject the first year of my historical studies and had a verbal exam in it. Did quite well.

ShadesWolf

07-16-2005, 20:35

The V sign and the link to the hundred years war.

lars573

07-17-2005, 04:03

That the great wall of China is an actual wall for it's entire length. And that it was all built by Qin Huang-di to use demoblized soldiers after his war of unification.

Colovion

07-17-2005, 04:29

Alexander was a Greek.

hahahaha, oh man that one gets me every time

Azi Tohak

07-17-2005, 05:13

PanzerJaeger

07-17-2005, 06:15

The US lost the Vietnam War. :no:

Meneldil

07-17-2005, 09:25

Germany was more powerful than France in 1939-1940.

barocca

07-17-2005, 10:18

that america was discovered by columbus, which is STILL taught in schools

so how do they explain the viking settlements that predate columbus by several hundred years?

that australia was discovered by Captain Cook - which they ALSO still teach in schools...
what a joke..

B.

Kaiser of Arabia

07-17-2005, 10:27

That the Nazis and Japanese were the only ones to commit war crimes during WWII.
*cough*Katyn*cough*

Kraxis

07-17-2005, 13:13

that america was discovered by columbus, which is STILL taught in schools

so how do they explain the viking settlements that predate columbus by several hundred years?
Heh... True, but we are still a bit behind there... There are some who discovered it even earlier.
We should redefine it to spreading the knowledge ofte continent, then it would certainly be Columbus.

that australia was discovered by Captain Cook - which they ALSO still teach in schools...
what a joke..

B.
That one is bad... again I think a redefinement would be nice.

That the Nazis and Japanese were the only ones to commit war crimes during WWII.
Yes that is true... But even in the west we see crimes. Such as the blowing up of docks and other port facilities after the war to 'prove' how effective the bombing was. A disgrace and something that hurt the civilians!
The execusion of youths on their way to join the army (the stories and evidence abound in the Ruhr), the official destruction of the surrendering of a depleted SS division on the ground that it had captured a field hospital (and treated them nicely, though gorging on the supplies). The local commander basically told his troops to kill them all. Well that more or less happened.

But we don't want to hear about that as many of us know/knew people who fought in the war, and we don't want to look at them as potential warcriminals. Also, who won? The winner's right.

Colovion

07-17-2005, 20:55

Germany was more powerful than France in 1939-1940.

~:confused: Please explain. After reading Paris 1919, something rather drastic must have occured to produce a strong France by the beginning of WW2. Population size and resources alone lead me to believe the alternative.

Meneldil

07-17-2005, 22:46

hoom

07-18-2005, 19:44

God(s)

That the 2001 NZ power crisis had anything to do with drought rather than power companies simply dumping far too much water from the hydro dams.

Cook 'discovered' NZ.

The Wizard

07-18-2005, 20:25

Oh; the myth of samurais being categorically superior to knights. Both one-on-one and in a battle. But especially in one-on-one.

~Wiz

Kagemusha

07-18-2005, 21:40

And another one about Knights being superior against Samurai specially on one against one. ~D

The Wizard

07-19-2005, 17:30

Indeed; you see, they are equal warriors. That was my point: both are theoretically equal to each other in one on one combat -- but then there are so many variables in a duel that any of the two warriors can win. It depends on what type of warriors are squaring off against each other.

~Wiz

Watchman

07-21-2005, 18:32

Pit either against his colleague (ie. professional heavy cavalry warrior) from about any culture and military system of equivalent tech level anywhere, and odds are any practical superiority will be due to individual factors and/or a fortunate mismatch of weaponry and armour (a la knight in full plate with a poleaxe vs. a samurai in lamellar and wielding a katana, a ghulam in heavy armour with a shield and a heavy mace against a knight in mail hauberk with shield and an early-medieval slashing sword etc.).

One of my favourite beefs is the weight and general usefulness, nevermind the timeline, of body armour, or rather the popular misconceptions thereof. Like the ones involving cranes. :dozey: Or the one about firearms obsoleting armour (seeing as how armoured cavalry saw field duty as late as 1870...). :tongue:

swirly_the_toilet_fish

07-31-2005, 01:56

Cavalry wasn't disposed of until WWII (poles, heh).

The Fountain of Youth. :laugh4:

It is still popular today as the elderly still flock to Florida in droves. I don't understand why, especially with the sinkholes, hurricanes, crocodiles, humidity, heat, etc.

master of the puppets

07-31-2005, 02:31

custers last stand being orderly and honorable to the end...BS!!!
he foolishly split his troops, held back a charge, and declined several oppertunities to entrench himself.

also i say he deserved what he got, GO CRAZYHORSE w00t

Evil_Maniac From Mars

07-31-2005, 02:37

That the Nazis and Japanese were the only ones to commit war crimes during WWII.

That always makes me laugh. *cough* Dresden carpet bombings */cough*

swirly_the_toilet_fish

07-31-2005, 03:35

Just so everyone knows, only losers commit war crimes. Our most recent example of this double standard is rather clear, isn't it?

Ace of Spades

07-31-2005, 04:40

Mine would have to be the myth that if the Confederates would've taken Little Round Top on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, the Union line would've been rolled up and the battle would've been over, thus ending the ACW. This myth has been perpetuated by "The Killer Angels" and then the movie "Gettysburg".

Incongruous

07-31-2005, 06:15

Some people actually think that Lenin and his Bolsheviks were great people, jesus, that make me collapse all the time.

Kagemusha

07-31-2005, 12:26

Cavalry wasn't disposed of until WWII (poles, heh).

Also Soviets,Germans and Finnish had Cavalry in WWII.Soviets even had elite units of Guards Cavalry and Germans even SS Cavalry.But these guys used horses as means of transportation.They didnt fight on horseback.Specially at Steppes of central and Southern Russia at Spring and Autum horses were the best means of transportation,because everything else would stuck in the mud. :bow:

IliaDN

07-31-2005, 12:35

That aliens built the pyramids.

Wait...does that not count as historical?

How about Noah's surivors after the flood? The flood was probably real (too many similiar accounts of a huge flood), but we are all descended from a half dozen people? Talk about inbreeding...

Azi
About floods:
You will find info about floods in religions of people who lived in areas which were flooded often ( South Americans for example ) - so are you sure there was ONE GREAT FLOOD?

Colovion

07-31-2005, 18:39

About floods:
You will find info about floods in religions of people who lived in areas which were flooded often ( South Americans for example ) - so are you sure there was ONE GREAT FLOOD?

even Assyrian mythology holds true that there was a great flood. There is evidence that it was from a time when the Black Sea flooded as well as the Tigris and Euphrates flooded which obviously had a huge effect on nearly the only city-dwellers in the world at the time. Since Abraham and the first Hebrews came from Ur, it's little surprise that you find similar stories in the Bible.

swirly_the_toilet_fish

07-31-2005, 18:50

Also Soviets,Germans and Finnish had Cavalry in WWII.Soviets even had elite units of Guards Cavalry and Germans even SS Cavalry.But these guys used horses as means of transportation.They didnt fight on horseback.Specially at Steppes of central and Southern Russia at Spring and Autum horses were the best means of transportation,because everything else would stuck in the mud. :bow:

Yes, very true. I meant in the form of actual fighting from horseback as the Poles didn't possess much armour, they eventually fought from horseback during the 30-day resistance. I guess that's why it only lasted thirty days. :laugh4:

Kagemusha

07-31-2005, 18:54

Yes, very true. I meant in the form of actual fighting from horseback as the Poles didn't possess much armour, they eventually fought from horseback during the 30-day resistance. I guess that's why it only lasted thirty days. :laugh4:

Maybe they thought their Hussars would wipe out the pesky Germans. ~;)

swirly_the_toilet_fish

07-31-2005, 19:03

Maybe they thought their Hussars would wipe out the pesky Germans. ~;)
Maybe that picked that up from playing Age of Kings. Everyone knew how well hussars did at chasing cannons. :laugh4:

Okay enough poking fun at the Poles, considering I am descended from them at some point in my family tree.

Watchman

07-31-2005, 21:48

Kagemusha

07-31-2005, 22:12

Actually when you think about it, if WW2 cavalry who for some strange reason carried armes blanches was given an opportunity to attack a period artillery unit up close they'd probably stand a pretty good chance of wiping it out. Around that time artillery usually didn't fire grapeshot levelly, after all. ~;p

Maybe, if that artillery would be on tracks,those gunners would have laughed their heads of at those horsemen poking them with lances. :charge:

Watchman

07-31-2005, 22:40

At that point the horsemen naturally enough shoulder the lances, sheathe the sabers, and unlimber the rifles. Those go through doors and wall rather better. Come on now, cavalry have been using guns and cold steel side-by-side ever since some clever fellow figure dout how to build the first pistols.

Besides, most WW2 artillery got dragged around by horse teams anyway. The ones that had decent motor transport, nevermind of the combat-survivable kind, were very well equipped indeed by the standards of the time.

Kagemusha

07-31-2005, 22:45

Im not arguing on that with you Watchman. ~:) I stated the same thing in this thread before. :bow:

lars573

07-31-2005, 23:20

even Assyrian mythology holds true that there was a great flood. There is evidence that it was from a time when the Black Sea flooded as well as the Tigris and Euphrates flooded which obviously had a huge effect on nearly the only city-dwellers in the world at the time. Since Abraham and the first Hebrews came from Ur, it's little surprise that you find similar stories in the Bible.
I have seen it asserted that the Assyrians and Babylonians (and the Israelites) got the Noah myth from Sumeria. Where Noah was king of one of the Sumerian city states (I can't for the life of me remember the name though). And that the "global flood" was a catastrophic flash flood of the Euphrates. Where Noah and his family who were on his trade barge loaded with beer grain and live stock animals was washed out into the Persian gulf, and ended up on Dilmum (Bahrain).

swirly_the_toilet_fish

08-01-2005, 06:41

I have seen it asserted that the Assyrians and Babylonians (and the Israelites) got the Noah myth from Sumeria. Where Noah was king of one of the Sumerian city states (I can't for the life of me remember the name though). And that the "global flood" was a catastrophic flash flood of the Euphrates. Where Noah and his family who were on his trade barge loaded with beer grain and live stock animals was washed out into the Persian gulf, and ended up on Dilmum (Bahrain).

The myth of Noah probably stems from the melting of the ice age around 10,000 BC. If that is the case, then it is possible the story could stem from early humans who witnessed it and passed it along as a verbal account. If not then it was one horrid monsoon season for Sumeria. :inquisitive:

lars573

08-01-2005, 14:59

It also means anyone who looks for an ark in the Caucases(SP) is never going to find one. ~:)

Sigurd

08-01-2005, 15:19

It also means anyone who looks for an ark in the Caucases(SP) is never going to find one. ~:)What do you mean never finding it? It's found:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/arkold2.jpg

Ianofsmeg16

08-01-2005, 15:33

Franconicus

08-01-2005, 15:47

That the vikings had horns at their helmets ~D

IliaDN

08-01-2005, 15:51

Masson Order - myth or reality? ~:confused:

Ludens

08-02-2005, 12:02

What do you mean never finding it? It's found:
Do you really think a wooden hull could survive four millenia? We should be looking at a few shreds of wood, not a boat-like structure.

We don't even know where Ararat is. There have been several claims that the Ark has been found (this is a reinvestigation of one of the older claims), which always created a great deal of excitement, but they were all short-lived. The website does try to put up a convincing case, but I will remain sceptical until a neutral institute confirms their claims. (If the researcher wanted other scientists to back his claims he should have arranged this already).

Sigurd

08-02-2005, 14:27

Do you really think a wooden hull could survive four millenia? We should be looking at a few shreds of wood, not a boat-like structure.

We don't even know where Ararat is. There have been several claims that the Ark has been found (this is a reinvestigation of one of the older claims), which always created a great deal of excitement, but they were all short-lived. The website does try to put up a convincing case, but I will remain sceptical until a neutral institute confirms their claims. (If the researcher wanted other scientists to back his claims he should have arranged this already).
I am still an agnostic...
I remembered seeing a show concerning this find on discovery channel. I posted the response primarily as a jest.
There are several sites that are quite negative to this particular supposedly archaeological find.
Whether it is remnants of a boat or just a mound can only be verified by closer scrutiny and by qualified personnel. That is: scientist with open minds.
It would have been interesting if a 2nd and thorough investigation would be allowed.

Franconicus

08-02-2005, 14:49

More myths:
Germany lost WW1 because of the revolution.
In WW2 Germany had excellent General's. They lost because Hitler was an idiot.

R'as al Ghul

08-02-2005, 14:50

The V sign and the link to the hundred years war.
Are you referring to the provocative gesture of holding up two fingers?
(quite unique and limited to the English afaik)
I read somewhere that the Longbowmen were dreaded so much that
a "bounty" was put on their heads or rather their fingers, which they need to
draw the bow with.
The Longbowmen, knowing this, raised their two fingers to indicate "Come and get them" or something similar...

Is this true?
Or were you referring to the Victory symbol?

lars573

08-02-2005, 15:13

What do you mean never finding it? It's found:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/arkold2.jpg

I got just onen thing to say to that, bull sh** (not directed at you mind but the whole idea in general). The ship in order to make any kind of impression in rock would have to have been there for millions of years when the mountain rock was still mud. And the only place where wood avoids decomoposition is antartica, and I doubt it gets that cold for long enough in the high caucases.

So the obvious answer is that it's a fake carved there by some christian trying to make sure the bible was right.

Ludens

08-02-2005, 15:37

I am still an agnostic...
I remembered seeing a show concerning this find on discovery channel. I posted the response primarily as a jest.
There are several sites that are quite negative to this particular supposedly archaeological find.
Whether it is remnants of a boat or just a mound can only be verified by closer scrutiny and by qualified personnel. That is: scientist with open minds.
It would have been interesting if a 2nd and thorough investigation would be allowed.
I am sorry, I thought you was serious. Actually, a team had been sent to this particular site right after it was discovered in the 1960's. They said it was a geological formation. Modern equipment can detect finer traces of material, but it is also more error prone. I am from a different branch of science, but I can attest that, under the right conditions, a bit of carelessness can dramatically improve your results. That's why I recommended waiting until the results had been confirmed by a not-religously motivated researcher.

I like to keep an open mind, but a bit of experience with Creatonists has taught me that, when claims are obviously religously motivated, a good deal of scepticism is required. It could be the Ark, but it could also very well be Christian hysteria.

The ship in order to make any kind of impression in rock would have to have been there for millions of years when the mountain rock was still mud. And the only place where wood avoids decomoposition is antartica, and I doubt it gets that cold for long enough in the high caucases.

So the obvious answer is that it's a fake carved there by some christian trying to make sure the bible was right.
That's the point I was trying to make, though I doubt even a fanatic would go this far to prove his point. It is more likely just a geological formation (think of it: there are hundreds of mountains in the Turkey: at least one of them was bound to have a boat-like structure on it.

lars573

08-02-2005, 16:05

And I don't trust anyone who is overly relgious, ever. I personally wouldn't put it past some group of crazy monks to have gone up there and carved a boat shape into the rock.

Now I wouldn't completely dismiss the random hand of fate creating a boat shape in a rock face. But until someone goes up there and finds out what in the hell is up there we can't know for sure.

pezhetairoi

08-03-2005, 02:05

I don't personally believe the Ark story was true. (The logistical difficulty of putting all animal species on one ship boggles me, knowing biodiversity for what it is :-D) Neither do I believe there ever was an Ark. Probably just a king who built an extra-large Royal Barge to weather the flood, nothing more. No Ark find has ever been confirmed, and I therefore do not believe, Roman Catholic as I am. Turkey's not helping by refusing to allow excavations :)

swirly_the_toilet_fish

08-03-2005, 06:32

The hauls of Viking burial ships are often found mostly(not all of) intact, only after a thousand years of decay. As it has been said, after approximately four(or more) thousand of years the wood would be all but disintegrated.

We should stop debating historical record while mixing it with religious influence though. Let us debate a more important topic. Were oats, barley, etc first grown to make bread or beer? ~D

Meneldil

08-03-2005, 10:59

I like the Myth That King Arthur came from France, Anybody heard this one, so King Arthur valiantly fought the invading saxons from the heavy walls of Paris did he?
It comes from the fact that the middle ages author of the King Arthur novels based most of his facts on old Welsh legends and the other bits on fairytale and fantasy, the names Lancelot anmd Galahad are French.....there trying to steal the Celts' greatest hero lads. CHARGE!!!!!!
Also, why is Arthur reveired (sp??) in England when he did all that he could to rid britain of the english?

Well, the Arthur myth is linked to France because :
- I think the first guy who ever wrote this story was french
- French nobility was found of chivalric tales and things like that
- Many people encountered in the Arthur Tales came from Britanny or Northern France.

Masson Order - myth or reality?

If you're speaking about the Free Massons, they aren't a myth. I won't really explain you everything about them, because that would be really long, but some people seem to think the Free Massons are some kind of secret sect trying to rule the world that was supposedly created 6000 years ago...
Obviously, this is one of the silliest conspiration theory I've ever heard of.

Soulforged

08-05-2005, 07:13

Just so everyone knows, only losers commit war crimes. Our most recent example of this double standard is rather clear, isn't it?

Just so everyone knows, there is not actual "war crime" because there are not laws in war. All that bullshit about the ONU (who mostly the US who created it doesn't respect at all, an it's an example) and it's treaties, and respect the cameraman (hey he is just filming some guy cutted in two asking for help!!!) and the honor, and the medical care... all proven bullshit, war is a crime (and if you're yankee this is actually a surprise for you ¿no?) all that happens in it is just a consequence of ignorance an respect to an idea. So please don't talk about that myth of war crimes.

Soulforged

08-05-2005, 07:24

Because i can't edit my post i will add this:
King Arthur- It's true that a french was who first called it Arthur, but Sir Thomas Mallori was actually the first on writting it's story, very different but also centuries before.
Atlantida (Atlantis)- Ok i think that you know much of this history for the actual myth. There are some evidence (doubtful) on South America about Atlantida, things that refer directly to the story provided by Plato. You may want to read the story that he tells, and also notice that he even says that he listened the history from an egyptian. The eqyptians are beleaved to had some connecction (commercial) with the so called Atlantis, the marihuana founded on the rests of their kings, plant that only comes from Eqypt. The thing is that all that about their amazing civilization are certainly a meet.

Advo-san

08-05-2005, 09:37

Alexander was a Greek.

hahahaha, oh man that one gets me every time
There is always someone that will say "Alexander was not Greek, he was Macedonian".... Oh man , that one gets me every time.

@Colovion:Do you know the terminology of the name Alexander? Alex-andros Alex=a GREEK, ancient greek but also widely used in MODERN GREEK word, that means "counter". -Andros= the anccient but also modern GREEK word for "man". So Alexandros=The One that countermeasures other men, the Defender. Alexandros means the Defender and it is a GREEK name.

2) Alexander's language was GREEK, his teacher was Arstotle (but is he Greek??) and his favorite book was Homer's Heliade (maybe this book was not Greek either)

3)Alexander's Gods and culture and tradition all GREEK. So Alexander was Macedonian, but ALSO GREEK. Just like Plato was Athenian but Also Greek, Ippokrates from the island of Chios but also Greek, Demokritus from Avdira in Thrace but also Greek, Aristotre from Stageira in Chalkidiki but also Greek.

@The Moderators: I m not going to sit and watch my history, one of the few things that I m proud as a Greek, being savagely abused. How would an American feel if I went on saying "G.Washington was not American, what a stupit theory hahahahhaaa". Some things deserve more respect.

Soulforged

08-06-2005, 03:22

I disagree with you man. You want to tell the truth about somebody, then have in mind that this somebody is a person just like you and it's a myth that some persons are better than others, so if you want to consider Alexander your hero then do that, but you can't tell other people how to think about him. Also you can say any truth you want about Washington or Ghandi. So i can tell you this, Alexander was everything but a hero, a great general and great politician, but a despot and a tiran, he only cared about his own, true heros cares about the others, he never hesitated to wipe away of the planet any threat or man whom stood in his way or even spoke against him or to try to correct him, the nephew of Aristoteles and his own counselor. Words don't heart, actions do.

swirly_the_toilet_fish

08-06-2005, 06:32

He wasn't American. Washington was a British colonist who became a citizen of a confederate states (1781 articles of confederation) until he became a US citizen (1789 when the constitution created the federation of states). The first born "American" president was actually John Tyler who was born in 1790. So yes, Washington wasn't American. :laugh4:

And since Washington was a member of the Virginia plantation elite, as well as educated in British schools (as well as fought in the French-Indian War), he cannot be considered American through any form of influence. While Washington is considered a war hero he won three major engagements (decisive but not many) and lost many more.

Alexander however would be considered greek because of his religion, etymology, military tactics, education, etc. He would be considered Macedonian but Greek influence and culture spread well beyond the city-states. Besides, even Byzantium was considered Greek when it was in Thrace.

Anyway, historical myths? I like the one about how the Spanish Conquistadors destroyed the Aztec Empire with 160 soldiers. They had steel, cannon, horses, and bio-weapons (smallpox) but they still enlisted the help of the Mexicans (yes, the native american tribe) and attacked the Aztec with well over 4,000 men (I believe that is the number, maybe more.)

VAE VICTUS

08-06-2005, 07:13

Colovion

08-06-2005, 07:25

There is always someone that will say "Alexander was not Greek, he was Macedonian".... Oh man , that one gets me every time.

@Colovion:Do you know the terminology of the name Alexander? Alex-andros Alex=a GREEK, ancient greek but also widely used in MODERN GREEK word, that means "counter". -Andros= the anccient but also modern GREEK word for "man". So Alexandros=The One that countermeasures other men, the Defender. Alexandros means the Defender and it is a GREEK name.

2) Alexander's language was GREEK, his teacher was Arstotle (but is he Greek??) and his favorite book was Homer's Heliade (maybe this book was not Greek either)

3)Alexander's Gods and culture and tradition all GREEK. So Alexander was Macedonian, but ALSO GREEK. Just like Plato was Athenian but Also Greek, Ippokrates from the island of Chios but also Greek, Demokritus from Avdira in Thrace but also Greek, Aristotre from Stageira in Chalkidiki but also Greek.

He was heavily influenced by the Greek culture, taught things by Greek teachers. His blood was Macedonian. He grew up in Macedon. His father was labelled by Demosthenes, rightly so:

In the third of the Philippics, which is considered the finest of his orations, the great Athenian statesman spoke of Philip II as of:

"not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" (Third Philippic, 31)

Now, when someone is born by a Macedonian (in the Macedonian Capital, Pella), raised in Macedonia in the Macedon culture; with the addition of a Greek tutour (age 13-16) - would that not cultivate the conclusion that the person is ethnically and culturally Macedonian? How do you say he is a Greek? Because those he led and the culture which was spread under his command was Greek? No one is trying to steal your cultural hero; he was never yours to begin with. His father = Macedonian. His Mother = princess of Epirus. Where's the Greek?

Perhaps he fell in love with the Greek culture and, later, the Eastern World - and felt that in the end he was neither Macedonian, Greek, Epirote nor Babylonian - in terms of citizenship anyway.

TosaInu

08-06-2005, 11:57

Didn't Alexander think he was a god? Would he bother about being part of any human tribe then?

Samurai Waki

08-06-2005, 12:25

Pretty much everything that happens in the 1st testament. There are generally scientific findings that support many of the events mentioned in the 1st Testament, but all of them are WAAAYY blown out of porportion to add grandeur of the tales, just think of them as religious/biblical fishermen tales.

Soulforged

08-06-2005, 22:24

1.that deeply religious religious people are nuts.some are but not all.i know because i am one,say what you want.
2.that the trinity is supported by the bible
3.that the catholic church was the first church
4.that war is glorious

fight with a greek,eat with a jew,sleep under the roof of a zorastrian.

1- Yes you are not nuts, but you're ignorant. If you want to beleave in something then beleave in humanity, not in some superior being that goes against all known science, lick the boots of an idea, it's just an idea you know, or you will tell me that you think it's more than that, perhaps a real material entity. If you have faith in that (i mean real faith like beleaving in something without any proof) then why not have faith in aliens or elves? Don't take me wrong, you're not doing any harm directly, but knowing some people that litterally lives from god (coming for a country where the things are always wrong i can tell you that) asking god for this and for that, it helps the church and the church is what does real harm (the explanation for this is really long). Read somthing of Bakunin, i always beleaved in god, an all that bullshit, but his text are a real "blessing" not like the Bible.
2- Not by the bible, but if you are catolic then you will notice that the unic interpretation of the Bible is from the Papacy (the Real Church) so you have to beleave in it, if you're not then the Holy Trinity is not more than other of the bullshit that no even Jesus said, like Vote of Castity, or the exclusion of the womans from the high positions in the church. Almost all the Bible is, like other fairytales, a matter of sugestion and of interpretation.

Washington was not a british because he fought against the british, and it wasn't exactly a civil war, it was a war for independence, so he considered himself another party and a new nation. He born in Britain but nothing else tied him to that land that this fact, from that point of view a kid born in Italy that migrates with his parents to Mexico is still Italian, now with the modern laws he is still Italian but also Mexican. Now you are stating a simple technicism, the reality is that nobody, not himself, considered as british.

Soulforged

08-07-2005, 00:34

Hey i've found a pretty example of what i say on the ignorance of beleavers, and the oldest myth of all...God:
look at this link (it's in english):
http://www.venganza.org/

VAE VICTUS

08-07-2005, 00:43

why should i believe in humanity?we still havent a found a way to stop killing.if someone disagrees with us we kill them.we want something they have we fight.(maybe its the only way?) i believe it is foolish to put trust in man.humans have to believe in something.without hope we are already half dead.and i cannot believe that everything was brought about by blind chance.maybe the flood was global,considering that there is enough water to cover the face of the earth,also if continental drift is correct at one time there was pangea,a super continent and supposedly mt. ranges were much smaller then supposedly.the catholic church is not the real church.dont just look at the words,read the bible actually.no graven images of god or anything else.you worship god not saints.and it doesnt say that if youre a virgin youre extra holy.also if everyone lived by the real true biblical rules of christianity the world would be a better place.that happened for a short while(maybe 25 yrs after john died).but it has been watered down immensly.and please dont call me ignorant.just because i believe in a higher power doesnt make me a fool,a nut or ignorant.i love philosophy,especially nietzche,because he makes me think.just because someone is religious doesnt mean that they belive anything that is said over the pulpit.(i certaintly dont)
to be honest im not sure if you can prove it one way or another.you have your faith,iahve mine.

Soulforged

08-07-2005, 02:18

Man beleave in what you want. But have this in mind, humanity is real, God is an idea. Read the text on the link, and then realease that you can't mock me if I start to beleave in the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", because is the same irrefutable idea. How can you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Can you prove it? Well you can't because is just an idea, if you want to exist in that level of paranoia and absurdity then do it, it's just a problem for you.
I know that the Church is not just an actual building man, that stupid christian statement have being around for hundreds of years, when i say that the Church corrupts an blinds i'm talking about the whole community, specially the :furious3: Pope. Others religion do the same, but there's no other so adaptative like the all mighty Church of Jusus Cryst. Perhaps you readed the Bible but you didn't do the same with my post, i never say that the things are like that. It's true the Bible does not say that "if you're virgin then you will be more holy"...please that type of religion would have lost all it's followers in the blink of an eye. But it's true also that says that Jesus never married (Which the Catolic Church (wisely?) interpreted like to be close to a such mighty person like him you don't have to have a female lover of any type, man that's so retrograde) and it says too that homosexuality is work of the Devil. And you know what are the "rules" of christianity? Because it's clouded by the work of the all mighty catolic church, who hides new documents from the public knowledge. Even reading at the "rules" that you can see on the public Bible you will see a lot of retrograde ideas like those posted before. And finally, no i've no faith, i belive in things, but i've to have some factical (visual) prove of it. Man you said so many things in this post that i cannot answer them like i want but let's say this: there is one proven fact stated by all known scientists- if you can prove a thing then it's not a scientific fact, and more if there is no way to refute it then it's also bullshit. For example i can say that the planets are atracted to each other by mutual love, now you can measure the factor "love" nor can you prove the element "love" exists or disaprove it. It's ironic that playing a game such as Rome Total War, where you kill people (fake people, but for this setence it doesn't matter) for fun, you say that you don't beleave in humanity for the same reason, and for the same reason so many "beleavers" blame god every time that there's a killing, and guess why God does not answer?... There's nothing perfect, but i chose to beleave in the human kind, is who i'm, is who you're, we suffer, we love, we destroy, we create, we evolve, and with our own minds and hands not with the help of some ghost. To not lose the topic here it's a scientific fact that religion born from the ignorance, an it only can spread ignorance, it born to give explanations, like philosophy, and like it the "study of nothing" (teology) adapted it self to every time that the state needed an excuse to opress people or to maintain the ignorance, the zeal, the patriotism, to make war or alliances, to call a crusade against the demons, against the negros (black people), it reacreated it self througth holy "evidence" of the saints and the visions of "chose people". But with one difference, the philosophy try to get facts and make an introspection from them (wich gives results) and then externalize them. The teology try to give you facts and make an interpretation of it, always fictituos, they don't see the thing for what it's they see in an eruption the wrath of god, in love too, in life and in death, so there is no introspection at all, the religion gives you what you must beleave with sweet words, and then says to you: "You are free to beleave it" but... If you don't beleave then you go to hell... Well there is much more to say, i don't pretend to change your way of thinking but also i pretend that you read this at least, because the discussion is for another thread.

swirly_the_toilet_fish

08-07-2005, 07:15

What about Yetis? Historically they have existed in myths for thousands of years!

:hanged:

VAE VICTUS

08-07-2005, 16:28

because spaghetti cant fly.i would rather believe in an idea then in man.

Meneldil

08-07-2005, 19:17

Mongols were bad.

Steppe Merc

08-07-2005, 20:02

That any culture was barbarians. There was no such thing, it's a myth created by Greeks and Romans to demonize everyone not like them.

Menedil, I like that one. ~;)

Kraxis

08-07-2005, 20:13

Mongols were bad.
Statement or myth?

They weren't exactly nice... But hey so weren't a number of conquering peoples. It could be argued that they were a lot less nice than most others, and that could eventually term them 'bad'. But it is really in the view of how we have experienced them. Enough anecdotes abound of their wild behavior in civilized areas, but sometimes we have to ask our selves, 'How did this get out?'

But all can agree that the treatment of the Khwarazmian Empire and it's cities was something out of the ordinary. I mean returning a few days after ravaging the city to merely kill the few survivors that had managed to hide, that is plain nasty. And destroying a city so much that it could be ploughed over afterwards (and was) is quite spiteful.

Steppe Merc

08-07-2005, 23:00

He's saying it was a myth.

And yeah, they weren't nice, but I doubt they were that much worse than most other contomporaries.

Soulforged

08-07-2005, 23:38

Some people actually think that Lenin and his Bolsheviks were great people, jesus, that make me collapse all the time.

Maybe not ("but no one is free from sin"), they were just humans. But that leads me to another myth: that the "Communist" Soviet Union was actually communist, and that communism is a bad thing and should be banned (following the words of that great demagogue: JFK). Besides Lenin didn't interprete well the theories of communism (of Marx and Engels), the Bolsheviks should have been trained and educated people with a general idea of politics, socialism and with an undertanding of government, they were far from this, that allowed Stalin to control them like sheeps, and with the death of Lenin all fell down.

Meneldil

08-08-2005, 08:55

Statement or myth?

Since we are in the Historical Myths topic, I'll let you guess ~;)

But yeah, I'm currently reading 'Le devisement du Monde' (Marco Polo's travel to the East, don't know the english name sorry), and apart from the fact he's really biased toward Muslims (he hates them) and 'Tartars', as he calls the Mongols (he loves them), we can see how the common view of the Mongols in the Western world is screwed up. Marco Polo speaks about all the cities they destroyed, he explains how they wipped out Persia, how Cingis killed the christian 'King Jean' and how Kubilai killed his possibly christian uncle, but he also speaks about all the huge cities they built, the Yasa, their civilised customs, their wonderful palaces, etc.

As for burning whole cities and killing all survivors, I know a few european lords who did the samein France, Germany, though not on the same scale.

Kraxis

08-08-2005, 14:05

It is not killing the entire population, or even the destruction of cities. But the way it was done.

Almost always tere were some that somehow managed to survive. Hiding, fleeing, whatever, but in any case they survive. The Mongols wanted to get those too, where most others were satisfied with the destruction of the city. Sending back a patrol after a few days is a very effective way of dealing with the survivors, but to what end? The point has already been made, the few hundred survivors (if that many) are of no consequence.

And the absolute destruction of a city is also very much beyond what others did. Sure, they burned cities, but ripping it to pieces, and taking the time to plough over the land afterwards, well that is in my mind too much (well it all is really). Again no need for it, their point had been made. Would people be more scared because of it? Doubt it, chances are that they would die to a normal sack anyway.

Steppe Merc

08-08-2005, 16:23

I am sceptical about how many cities were truly destroyed. Some probably were, and I trust Muslim sources far more than I do Western ones, but even so contemporary historians tend to exagerate, especially when it comes to the people of the steppe.

cunctator

08-08-2005, 16:23

Roman republican cavalry was of poor quality.

Steppe Merc

08-08-2005, 16:32

Heh. Well it was compared to the best cavalry. ~;)

cunctator

08-08-2005, 17:02

Yes, as well as many others.

Steppe Merc

08-08-2005, 17:07

No arguments here. But surely the home grown Roman cavalry was inferior to even the Gallic cavalry, and certaintly to the Succesor's cavalry.

cunctator

08-08-2005, 17:37

Sure. I can`t disagree with you here. Celtic nobles spend much more time with training and the successors already had a very professional army.

And yet another myth:
Roman republican infantry was better than anybody else.

lars573

08-08-2005, 17:44

Actually they were. But only because of tactics.

cunctator

08-08-2005, 17:55

I left tactics out and considered only the quality of individual soldiers and basic units not complete armys.
You can say that the whole republican army was better thanks to its command structure, Generals, organisation, tactics and formations etc..
But not for individual skill. Poorly led armys were destroyed often enough. With infantry alone, without any support, the romans would most probably never have conquered their empire.

Don Corleone

08-08-2005, 22:15

Steppe Merc

08-08-2005, 22:21

Don, I've always found it funny the idea of Puritans getting all chummy with Indians, who they viewed as demons and evil...

Soulforged

08-09-2005, 01:14

Some American historical myths that drive me insane....

In the American revolution, the Americans fought the British. Upon losing, the British moved to Canada. Wrongo! British citizens rebelled against their crown and fought other British citizens who didn't. Approximately 1/3 of the 'people born in the Americas' sided with the rebels, 1/3 with the loyalists, and 1/3 wanted no parts of it. In many ways, it was more of a civil war than the US Civil War, in that you had divisions within the same household in all of the original 13 colonies, plus the terriorties of what's now Vermont & Maine. After the war, a lot of loyalists DID move to Canada, but to believe that a bunch of redcoats came off the ships, and that's who we native born americans fought with is ridiculous (I mean, granted, a bunch of regiments DID get sent over, but as a DOMESTIC police action).

Perhaps you're right, but this is similar to another post in elsewhere, where a guy said that Washington was not american (how do you people call an Estado Unidense -your national name- in United States, i mean do you always say "american"?) but british. What gives you your nationality? The idea of nation is relatively new so... I don't think that a people that doesn't believe to belong to an older order is from a new one, is purely ideal, being born in United States doesn't make you an american, because United States is also an idea (the terrain is not marked as "USA"), so you born in a terrain, but you don't belong to a nation if you don't feel like, you don't have their culture or don't respect their ideas. Now in this case probably you're right because the idea of United States was still in formation, but from that point of view any revolution that happened on America (indepence revolution that is) was always like you say, like a civil revolt. Almost the same happened on every country formed in the american territory. For example here, spanish people rebeled themselves against the crown (because of high taxes, corruption and even pillage) but they never really felt like belonging to that crown or that the crown deserved respect, now is that what it requires to be an spanish, well i cannot answer you that...

Kraxis

08-09-2005, 02:09

Steppe Merc, don't worry, it was not every city, or even most of them, but a number of them that suffered such increadible actions. Poor old Persia really got the stick. And why? Because the Shah (he was a Shah right?) executed a few 'diplomats' for spying. It sounds like Great Khan looked for a reason to invade, and one where he could dish out a good deal of punishment. I believe he said as he died that he wanted a specific city burned to the ground... Is that spiteful or not?

Now of course historians of the time, christian and muslim tended to view the steppe peoples as savages, but honestly they were not that nice to the settled peoples, so I can't fault them.

Roman Equites were not bad per se. They were brave, dashing and often quite capable in their own right. But often they were significantly outnumbered by heavier cavalries, and they suffered from a lack of attention from the commanders who really only saw them as stopgaps against the enemy cavalry.
Magnesia shows that Equites could fight well enough, routing cataphracts and the Seleucid Agema head on while slightly outnumbered.
But great they never were.

Soul, do you mean what a US citizen is called? Well, I have never heard anything but American, but I ahve too wondered at this for years. Isn't it a bit arrogant to lay claim to the entire continent? Yes US citizens are Americans, but so are Mexicans, Canadians and a whole lot of other people, and they are far more numerous.

Steppe Merc

08-09-2005, 02:21

It wasn't even the Shah, it was some local governer. I think they then sent word to the Shah asking permission to kill the governer, and the Shah refused. Or something like that.

It sounds like Great Khan looked for a reason to invade, and one where he could dish out a good deal of punishment. I believe he said as he died that he wanted a specific city burned to the ground... Is that spiteful or not?
Yeah, I guess it spiteful. But I think the city he requested refused to fund him troops after promising to do so. Not that that made it alright, but then so was a lot of contemporaries actions. But steppe people certaintly were harsher, especially towards settled people. With another steppe tribe, they were almost always allowed to move on, or be absorbed (the whole Chingis killing all the Tartars higher than a wheel thing was very much an exception, and is possibly an exageration, according to some newer ideas, in order to promote his terrifying image).

Now of course historians of the time, christian and muslim tended to view the steppe peoples as savages, but honestly they were not that nice to the settled peoples, so I can't fault them.
Well, most of the times. But many civilized folks were very happy to trade with and pay off steppe peoples, in return for soldiers (Byzantines, Russians, etc.) Of course, sometimes that went bad when the steppe soldiers swiched sides, or decided they wanted say Asia Minor in the case of the Seljuqs.

Kraxis

08-09-2005, 02:45

Well, most of the times. But many civilized folks were very happy to trade with and pay off steppe peoples, in return for soldiers (Byzantines, Russians, etc.) Of course, sometimes that went bad when the steppe soldiers swiched sides, or decided they wanted say Asia Minor in the case of the Seljuqs.
Yes, but remember that those 'hired' swords were semi-settled most often. They were the ones living close to the settled lands, especially in the case of Russia, where they had almost been hemmed in on all sides, with the Hungarians in the west, various principalities to the north and the Kievans to the east (and the sea to the south). It is limited how steppelike could remain. The Seljuks came from the deep interior of Central Asia, Turkestan, and had hardly had any contact with powerful settled states.

What I tried to say earlier was that, while we have a tend to overdo how bad the Mongols really were, they were certainly a new and fearful force, not just because they won, but because they were quite rough. It was an image they liked and kept alive as it apparently fitted their own view of themselves.
In time they became less pronounced violent until of course the famous skullmounds of Timur-i-Lenk (Tamerlane).

conon394

08-09-2005, 02:51

I dunno 'bout arrogant how about practical. After all after the revolution (err revolt from the crown and sovereignty of Great Britain) there were no other 'Western' or 'European' states based entirely in America ( I presume the Spanish, French and English in their respective colonies called themselves Spanish French or English...). Plus it sounds rather cumbersome to call yourself a United Stateser...

Steppe Merc

I am sceptical about how many cities were truly destroyed. Some probably were, and I trust Muslim sources far more than I do Western ones..

Yes but the Islamic sources seem to agree with the western one on the issue of the Mongols...

Take the account of the Mongol sack of Isfahan by Ibn Abi l-Hadid (note the city seems to have been riven by factional strife between the Hanafis and ‘Shafi is’ factions. The ‘Shafi is’ had arranged to betray the city to the Mongols on the obvious understanding that their enemies the Hanafis suffered while they would not)

“Yet when the Tatars entered the city, they fell upon the ‘Shafi is’, contrary to their agreement with them. They then turned against the Hanafis and the rest of the population. Women were taken prisoner and the bellies of the pregnant split open; property was plundered and the wealth of the prosperous confiscated. Finally, fires were set, and Isfahan was reduced to a mound of ashes.”

Not only did they subject the city to a fairly extreme sacking, but it’s really sort of low to even kill your quislings…

Or what of Rashid al-Din, what did he really think about the Mongols, that is what he said in his letters to his sons, not his official history of the Mongols produced for the Mongol rulers of Persia. He calls the Mongol rulers of Persia “mere deceivers and accomplices of the Devil”, he note the “oppressive bitikchis” (bitikchis = Mongol officials), etc.

Steppe Merc

08-09-2005, 02:59

Yes, Timur was quite a character, though I think he was primarily Turkish, and certaintly didn't have any componctions against fighting his Mongol overlords. ~;)

And Kraxis, you are probably right. In the end, it was often far easier to raid settled people than trading with them, and easier to force those peoples to pay tribute than herding horses for a living. But the Mongols were quite fearsome, and they and their enemies both encouraged that reputation.
But one thing is that I'm not sure how new they were. I mean, the basic warfare style was around for over a thousand years before them, and you think that their enemies would have learned how to have fight nomads (China, Persia and Russia all had long experience).

Conon, that is sort of what I'm talking about. How much of that really happened, and how much is the sort of exageration that has always gone on about steppe peoples, from the Scythians to the Huns to the Mongols? And another common idea is them being devils, from the Huns to the Mongols.
I'm not saying they were very nice, or that they didn't sack cities pretty ruthlessly. But it is all to easy to justify a defeat by saying how horrible and numerous the Mongols were (when they were often either equally numbered or out numbered).

Kraxis

08-09-2005, 03:08

I dunno 'bout arrogant how about practical. After all after the revolution (err revolt from the crown and sovereignty of Great Britain) there were no other 'Western' or 'European' states based entirely in America ( I presume the Spanish, French and English in their respective colonies called themselves Spanish French or English...). Plus it sounds rather cumbersome to call yourself a Unites Stateser...
Hm... That is a point, but even back then it must have been known that America was big big big, and the 13 colonies were a mere pinprik in it all. Of course it could have been a political agenda, in that they would call the citizens Americans to gather support among the rest of the colonies, even among foreign colonies. You know along the lines, "we are all Americans, they are all Europeans." But I have heard no such claims.

Personally I just believe the people who did it simply didn't think about it. "United States of America sounds good, don't you think Jefferson?" "Sure it does! And we should call ourselves Americans to make certain that those Brits know we are not like them, we are from another continent. We belong free." But not a single one considered the fact that there were millions more Americans out there, who would not belong in their state. A simple oversight.
So now we have that odd instance where a Canadian should by all means avoid calling himself an American unless he adds that he is a Canadian right away. While I can easily call myself a European and no misunderstandings comes from that (unless we are talking about quite ignorant people).
It is to some extent the same case with Africans. When I say African, everybody thinks a black man, logically enough, but we forget about the Egyptians and Libyans for instance.

Kraxis

08-09-2005, 03:18

Timur, Turkish... Hmmm... I seem to recall something about his mother was Turkish and his father Mongol. Well at least he was mixed at a relatively short distance.
And just because he fought Mongols didn't mean he wasn't one. As noted earlier Kublai had no trouble fighting other Mongols.

The Chinese had actually learned very well. They had learned that it is hard to fight the nomads, but it is 'easy' to absorb them. 'We are far more than them, they will vanish soon'. And it worked well until the Mongols of course. The wall helped with the small raids and kept a check on the trade.
The Russians had learned how to fight the nomads, and so had the Caucasian peoples, but they hadn't learned to fight determined and superb armies like those of the Mongols. That is what set them apart. The style itself was countered, but add to it great tactics and discipline and it throws it all into confusion.

Steppe Merc

08-09-2005, 03:23

Agreed, that was what was quite amazing about the Mongols. They used an ancient, practically unchanged style of warfare to conquer great amounts of lands and peoples.

Timur, Turkish... Hmmm... I seem to recall something about his mother was Turkish and his father Mongol. Well at least he was mixed at a relatively short distance.
And just because he fought Mongols didn't mean he wasn't one. As noted earlier Kublai had no trouble fighting other Mongols.
I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure for example he never adopted the term Khan (I think he was highest at an Amir, or similar Muslim title). And my point about fighting Mongols was that I don't think he was one of the Khans of the Mongol Empire at large, which I think was sort of still together more or less, despite the break up between multiple Khans.

Kraxis

08-09-2005, 03:28

Ahh of course. He wasn't a khan, that is for sure. But he wasn't the first non-khan ruler of some piece of dirt. The simple fact that he respected the khan title enough to not use it at least indicates that he viewed himself as a mongol. Until the time he had conquered enough to be called khan.

conon394

08-09-2005, 04:04

Hm... That is a point, but even back then it must have been known that America was big big big, and the 13 colonies were a mere pinprik in it all. Of course it could have been a political agenda, in that they would call the citizens Americans to gather support among the rest of the colonies, even among foreign colonies. You know along the lines, "we are all Americans, they are all Europeans." But I have heard no such claims.

Personally I just believe the people who did it simply didn't think about it. "United States of America sounds good, don't you think Jefferson?" "Sure it does! And we should call ourselves Americans to make certain that those Brits know we are not like them, we are from another continent. We belong free." But not a single one considered the fact that there were millions more Americans out there, who would not belong in their state. A simple oversight.

Admittedly there was quite a bit of America outside of the U.S. But at least in the 18th and 19th centuries the U.S did spend a considerable amount of time trying to add at least most of (or perhaps all, if I recall correctly Seward wanted to conquer Canada and Mexico with the Union army for example) of N. America to the U.S.

By the 20th century American for citizen of the U.S. is really just an inculcated historical artifact. Nobody calls people from the Netherlands Netherlanders, but rather the Dutch (or maybe somebody does since MS Word actually corrected the word…).

Kraxis

08-09-2005, 04:24

Admittedly there was quite a bit of America outside of the U.S. But at least in the 18th and 19th centuries the U.S did spend a considerable amount of time trying to add at least most of (or perhaps all, if I recall correctly Seward wanted to conquer Canada and Mexico with the Union army for example) of N. America to the U.S.

By the 20th century American for citizen of the U.S. is really just an inculcated historical artifact. Nobody calls people from the Netherlands Netherlanders, but rather the Dutch (or maybe somebody does since MS Word actually corrected the word…).
Argh, now you make it sound as if the Founding Fathers had an ulterior motive for the name. ~;) 'Conquer in the name of... well yourself.'
Damn, I didn't know they had been that ruthless and shrewd.

I was actually going to name some peoples who were not named as their contry but couldn't remember any... ~:rolleyes:

Bartix

08-09-2005, 08:00

Timur, Turkish... Hmmm... I seem to recall something about his mother was Turkish and his father Mongol. Well at least he was mixed at a relatively short distance.
I seem to recall opposite. Souce probably Man book on Genghis. :balloon2:

Genghis only massacre entire popolasion if they not open gates to city and welcome mongols unquestionly. ~:) (except a couple of peeples he took dislike to genrelly.) ~:eek:

Else he was tolerant of diversity open to ideas etc. :help:

Don Corleone

08-09-2005, 15:28

Perhaps you're right, but this is similar to another post in elsewhere, where a guy said that Washington was not american (how do you people call an Estado Unidense -your national name- in United States, i mean do you always say "american"?) but british. What gives you your nationality? The idea of nation is relatively new so... I don't think that a people that doesn't believe to belong to an older order is from a new one, is purely ideal, being born in United States doesn't make you an american, because United States is also an idea (the terrain is not marked as "USA"), so you born in a terrain, but you don't belong to a nation if you don't feel like, you don't have their culture or don't respect their ideas. Now in this case probably you're right because the idea of United States was still in formation, but from that point of view any revolution that happened on America (indepence revolution that is) was always like you say, like a civil revolt. Almost the same happened on every country formed in the american territory. For example here, spanish people rebeled themselves against the crown (because of high taxes, corruption and even pillage) but they never really felt like belonging to that crown or that the crown deserved respect, now is that what it requires to be an spanish, well i cannot answer you that...

Hi Soulforged. Yes, people from the United States always refer to themselves as American as a national describer. I know that covers any of the inhabitants of 2 continents, but unless I'm mistaken, we're the only nation that has 'America' in the title of the nation.

At the beginning of the American Revolution (1775), the colonists still thought of themselves as British citizens who were seeking redress through their government. As time wore on, and they didn't get it (what they got was martial law to bring them back into the fold) they gradually came to stop thinking of themselves as subjects of the Crown. This culminated with the Declaration of Independence, which is actually a truly remarkable document. Taken at face value, for the situation at the time it was written, it was a formal declaration of treason. People had rebelled against their monarchs throughout history, but this was the first time somebody had issued a legal argument for having done so.

At the cessation of the war, the newly liberated colonists formed a government under the 'Articles of Confederation', but they didn't have a national identity. They associated themselves with their particular colony... they thought of themselves as Virginians, or Hampshirians, or Georgians. After 6 years of border disputes, trade disruptions and all sorts of problems with currency (13 different ones), the 13 sovereign states recognized that they really couldn't continue to go it alone and formed the United States of America, bound by law under the Constitution. From that point forward, people began to think of themselves as Americans, but most people still favored their state identity over their national identity, particularly in the South. It wasn't until the 20th century that people began thinking of themselves as solely American, throughout America (though many people in the North & Midwest had since the beginning of the 19th century).

Hope this helps. If you'd like, I could put it into Spanish, might make it easier to understand.

Louis VI the Fat

08-09-2005, 17:00

how do you people call an Estado Unidense -your national name- in United States, i mean do you always say "american"? 'Gringo' seems to work just fine too. :balloon2:

Louis VI the Fat

08-09-2005, 17:07

At the beginning of the American Revolution (1775), the colonists still thought of themselves as British citizens who were seeking redress through their government. As time wore on, and they didn't get it (what they got was martial law to bring them back into the fold) they gradually came to stop thinking of themselves as subjects of the Crown. This culminated with the Declaration of Independence, which is actually a truly remarkable document. Taken at face value, for the situation at the time it was written, it was a formal declaration of treason. People had rebelled against their monarchs throughout history, but this was the first time somebody had issued a legal argument for having done so. But this a historical myth in itself.

I know of at least one other, much older document wherein a people abandoned their monarch on legal arguments. In 1581 the Low Countries issued their 'decree of abandonment'. Somewhat unwillingly it turned out to be a declaration of independence for them too. It is the oldest written document of this kind I can think of out of the top of my head.

The legal argument that subjects are not bound to a monarch who has become a tyrant is very old. One man's declaration of independence is always another man's act treason. It just depends on your perspective. The Americans revived a very old tradition, almost forgotten in absolutist 18th century Europe.
As always, the Europeans invented it, the Americans put it to practice on an unprecedented scale.

yesdachi

08-09-2005, 17:28

In 1939 and even in 1940, the French economy and military was much better than those of Germany. The war would probably have ended in early 1940 if the Franco-British had attacked Germany with a valid strategy.

I'm pretty sure some Germanophile folks will have something to say against that, but facts are that France lost because it had sucky generals, not because its economy/manpower/whatever was unefficient, or because "France sucks", as some people keep claiming.

This issue is not really related, so if anyone wants to discuss about that, create a new topic, or dig another one about WWII and 'how french sucked', because I'm sure there's a lot such threads ~;)
The French got beat up because they built a static defensive deterrent, the Maginot Line which was built between 1930 -1940, instead of a mobile reactive army. To counter the Germans they planned to seal the boarder and just keep them out. The Germans went around and over the line. The French resistance behind the line was week and technologically inferior because all the money went into the line and not into beefing up the army. I would say that the French generals were not too bad but the French governments decision to invest in the line was the mistake that really cost them.

Oh yah, France Sucks. ~;)

yesdachi

08-09-2005, 17:43

More myths:
Germany lost WW1 because of the revolution.
In WW2 Germany had excellent General's. They lost because Hitler was an idiot.
They did have good generals and they did loose because Hitler was an idiot.

Don Corleone

08-10-2005, 12:12

But this a historical myth in itself.

I know of at least one other, much older document wherein a people abandoned their monarch on legal arguments. In 1581 the Low Countries issued their 'decree of abandonment'. Somewhat unwillingly it turned out to be a declaration of independence for them too. It is the oldest written document of this kind I can think of out of the top of my head.

The legal argument that subjects are not bound to a monarch who has become a tyrant is very old. One man's declaration of independence is always another man's act treason. It just depends on your perspective. The Americans revived a very old tradition, almost forgotten in absolutist 18th century Europe.
As always, the Europeans invented it, the Americans put it to practice on an unprecedented scale.

Well, there you have it. We weren't the first to issue a formal declaration of separation based on legal grounds. Learn something new every day. Thanks Louis. ~:)

Franconicus

08-10-2005, 12:28

They did have good generals and they did loose because Hitler was an idiot.
They did have foolish general as well. I find it rediculous that everybody praises the generals for the victories and blames Hitler for the failures. Hitler was a fool and his biggest mistake was to start a war he could not win (or at least end).

Ja'chyra

08-10-2005, 13:27

That 300 Spartans held the pass at Thermopylae by themselves.

yesdachi

08-11-2005, 16:27

That 300 Spartans held the pass at Thermopylae by themselves.
Didn’t they? ~:confused: I seem to recall that there were other soldiers but they were sent ahead? I would be interested in knowing more?

Kraxis

08-11-2005, 21:10

Didn’t they? ~:confused: I seem to recall that there were other soldiers but they were sent ahead? I would be interested in knowing more?
They didn't. But I think you got that.

Most of the battle was indeed the entire allied force, where only 300 Spartans participated. Once again they couldn't come in force because of religious festivals, the king could volounteer and his Hippeis were obligated to follow him. Thus 300 Spartans and their helot servants (1 each) went.
I don't know how many other hoplites there were, but I seen figures of around 6000 to 10000 in all. Certainly not a small force. And trust me 300 men could not cover the entire pass, eventhough it was very small.

The alliedforces were only sent home when Leonidas heard that the Immortals were marching through the mountain route towards their rear. He couldn't go as he had been sent to hold the pass, or at least that is what we hear, I believe he stayed behind to keep the Persian cavalry off the back of the allied troops, a rearguard. That fits perfectly with Aristopompos at Plataea, but that is another discussion.
Anyway, eventhough he sent all allied troops away, even the helots (though they had to wait until much later), the Thespians (400?) and Thebans (700?) stayed as well. The Thespians fell with their Spartan compatriots on the small hillock and down by the wall. Supposedly the Thebans ran away when they saw the inevitable destruction bearing down on them. I believe they might have surrendered late in the battle as by then further deaths were needless in terms of a rearguard action. That Thebes later joined with Xerxes gives the other Greeks plenty of incentive to describe them as cowards, even if they fought as hard as the others. How can traitors share in the glory of the battle?

yesdachi

08-11-2005, 21:44

Most of the battle was indeed the entire allied force, where only 300 Spartans participated. Once again they couldn't come in force because of religious festivals, the king could volounteer and his Hippeis were obligated to follow him. Thus 300 Spartans and their helot servants (1 each) went.
I don't know how many other hoplites there were, but I seen figures of around 6000 to 10000 in all. Certainly not a small force. And trust me 300 men could not cover the entire pass, eventhough it was very small.
Thanks!

I saw this show on the History Channel a while ago but they appear to be full of it.
Decisive Battles: Thermopylae
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=72982&browseCategoryId=&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=

Kraxis

08-11-2005, 22:03

Interesting... I didn't think they would make such a major mistake.

Funny enough this is the series containing the RTW engine.

conon394

08-12-2005, 02:11

Kraxis

I would not be surprised they made a complete mess of Marathon as well...

Kraxis

08-12-2005, 09:00

Kraxis

I would not be surprised they made a complete mess of Marathon as well...
"And the Corinthians won by driving the Persians inland by virtue of their strong center."

Soulforged

08-12-2005, 09:00

It's pretty logical, how could ever 300 hundred man stand to thousands of enemies? That's absurd. It's like the post above they were much more. The number three (and it's multiples) were a "magic" number to the one who wrote the story later, i don't remember his name, he says also something about the battle lasting 3 days, wich is probably false too. But if i'm right after the first battle, when the army leaded by Leonidas repeled succesfully the persians they were outnumbered but not for much. Then the story tells that at night, a "traitor" falls in fear and tells the persian general about a way to surround the army of greeks. They are sorrounded and fight all night until morning, then is when the first group flee (i mean at seen that they're being surrounded), mercenaries and other greeks, at the end a great army becomes bastly outnumbered and they loose (the battle of course because the war was won by the greeks, and this battle is still an heroic one), now if they were 3000 or 6000 i really don't know, but is probably mithical bullcookies.

Gemenii XIII

08-14-2005, 21:52

Alexander was a Greek.

hahahaha, oh man that one gets me every time

assuming your reffering to Alexander the great. What else could he be, Mayan?

Redleg

08-14-2005, 22:37

It's pretty logical, how could ever 300 hundred man stand to thousands of enemies?

They didn't stand - they were defeated after a period of battle if I remember correctly. What the actually number of warriors involved and the time taken is lost in the myth - but the historical aspect of the battle is true.

In warfare if the defender is holding the right terrian and has the right tactics - a small number can hold a larger number for a period of time. This has been shown to be true numerous times throught history.

For instance another myth around the same lines is the Defense of the Alamo during the Texas Revolution. The story of the defense has been blown so out of portion of the actual events that it makes for a good story.

Colovion

08-15-2005, 02:06

assuming your talking about Alexander the great. What else was he, Mayan?

Macedonian.

If you would be so kind as you actually read the information I have presented previously in this thread, then get back to me - you might be able to have enough understanding to comment. :bow:

Incongruous

08-15-2005, 06:41

That the Americans won at Bunker Hill!

amazon77

08-15-2005, 10:28

As far as Alexander is concerned: untill upon his time (actually his fathers breaking into the scene), greek ppl were divided into the following geographical categories:
Greeks from Sparta, Athens and Thebes. These were considered more sophisticated than the others. Ancient scipts refer to them much more often.
Greeks from the aegean islands (lesbos, chios, crete etc.) and the western shores of asia minor. Also very sophisticated, but since they were away from Athens (the intellectuall center of ancient greece) and also under the direct or indirect control of the Persian empire they are less often refered to.
Greeks from the western part of the Meditterenean, including Sicily, South Italy (Greca Magna) and the south costs of modern day France (Marsaile was a greek colony).
Greeks from Macedonia, Epirus and Thrace. These were thought to be quite backward and not so civilised by the Southern Greeks. Especially the Thracians. The Epirotes were quite poor and never really played an important role in greek history, as far as the start of the Peloponisian war. Macedonians were in a better position and they are refered by athenian writters. In particular, Alexander's great-grandfather (also Alexander) had sent a message to the Southern Greeks before the Battle of Marathon or Plataia (don't remember) apologising for having a treatie with the enemy and informing the leaders of the greek army of the Persian plans. In his letter he refers to himself as a "greek" and to the southerns as "brothers" asking an apology for having to have a treaty with the enemy.
As far as Demosthenes goes, he hated Philip and the macedonians, cause they were in war with athens. He wrote several scripts for the athenians called "Against Philip". The southerns generally didn't hold their northern neighboors in high esteem, as they were a bit more "tribal" than them, living in little scattered villages, instead of the southern cities. Something like the difference of the civilised East the "wild west" of USA 150 years ago.
In addition, the year alexander was born, Philips chariot won the olympics. Only greeks were allowed to take part in the games which is evidence macedonians were greeks. By the way, romans also took part once in the olympic games, but at that time greece was almost a protectorate of rome, so it wasn't really their call, while at the time philips chariot won, he was far from being the rulling head of greece.

As far as Alex being a tyrranic despot, he performed much less atrocities against the defeated side than most other emperors in the history of humanity. He tried to unite the persian and greek cultures. He left most persian satraps governing their lands. He only ordered the burning of the Persepolis palace, i don't know why, but he may had his reasons. Romans were much more tyrranic in their behavior towards conquered ppl, i mean they enslaved entire populations, almost exterminating the celts. Of course let's not forget he conquered the greatest empire the world had seen in few years. No other person in the world history can go near that. Even Julious Ceaser conquered Gaul and some of Belgium, Spain and Egypt. Now, don't you think that, that amount of success would naturaly make someone "despotic" or "tyrranic"? Yet, i believe, alexander although the most successfull conqueror of all times, he showed the most human face of all emperors. In any case, one should be judged taking in mind the era he lived. Of course if you advocate war is a crime, i'm with you 100%. Alexander took to being a god, after his visit in Egypt. Faraoes were thought to be gods and since he had himself proclaimed one it was a bit "naturall" to claim he was a god as well. Also, his family tree, the Argeads, tracked their roots from Achileas and Hephfastos, a semi god and a god respectively. The theme of great individuals (kings usually) being relatives of gods is a common one in greek mythology.

About the 300 Spartans, they weren't 300. Th troops defending Thermopylae were considerably more, like 5,000. The Thebeans didn't play an active role in the defence, as they had already a truce with persia and the other greeks didn't trust them. In the last stand, along with the 300 Spartans were 700 Thespians. I'm not quite sure, but they managed to escape, since they had been ordered to rearguard the Spartans from the encyrcling troops. However the Immortals didn't bother with them, as what mattered was to free the passage. The important thing about the Spartans was that the other greeks who sent forces to help them did it only because the Spartans were there. Hadn't they gone to the thermopylae defence, neither would the others. Btw, hold no questions on their value as warriors. In his history of the Pelloponisian war, Donald Keagan, who is considered one of the best proffessors in that era, talks about 6,000 to athenian troops that were sent to capture the 400 spartans (not all of the which were actuall spartans) in the island of Sfactiria.

caesar44

08-15-2005, 10:36

Soulforged

08-15-2005, 18:01

Well you've a point there caesar. Altough i don't know much about Alexander to get in further discussion, i can say this, he believed he was a god, so where is the human face. No emperor governs outside despotism, it's an universal caracteristic of al monarcs, that's why they stand in power (or like Weber said because charisma too, but there are no perfect models, the charismatic rules is an ideal model nothing more). When i said that (if my is what you readed) i was talking from a moral point of view. If you think you're superior to everybody, then for that alone you don't treat the others with respect and decency. But don't take me wrong, Alexander was not the only one, and what he did was necessary to stay in power. Now was it necessary to kill Aristoteles nephew or everyone that goes against his ideas? Especially the ones that try to persuade him that he's not god. One fact is certain he was by definition a despot, a tiran.

Colovion

08-15-2005, 19:10

thanks for that amazon77, but he was still ethnically not a Greek

nothing you wrote depicted him as such besides assuming that since the different peoples in the Balkans were heavily influenced by the Greeks to the south that they were all Greek. Macedonians in Alexanders army always were jealous about his infatuation with the Greek culture - and later the Greeks were perturbed that he began to enjoy the Eastern culture more than their Hellenism. That's hilarious that you discount Demosthenes' comments that Peter was not Greek at all as simply hate towards him and so it must be false; rather convenient. I've had this argument with a number of people - the long and the short of is that Alexander didn't have Greek parents and wasn't raised in a Greek society. That makes me believe he wasn't Greek. If you disagree with what I've said you probably also dont' believe that Palestine is a nation.

conon394

08-15-2005, 19:40

It is very interesting - people don't accept the numbers in Termo' (300 etc') , and with good reasons , but they accept anything that was told about Alexander , that is , anything although it was written 300 to 500 years after hie time .
Hhhhmmmmm

But only 300 Spartans at Thermopylae is not an error in the historical sources, but simply popular modern misconception. No ancient historian (either period like Herodotus, or the later writers like Ephorus, Diodorus or even people like Pausanias) suggests that there were only the Spartans. While Herodotus does note an inscription by Simonides to just the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, he first notes one to all 4000 Greeks as well. So it’s is not a case of rejecting the ancient evidence in one case and accepting it in the other; but in your first instance Thermopylae it’s rejecting modern mistakes.

AntiochusIII

08-15-2005, 21:27

In defining Alexander's ethnicity, shall be define who are the ancient Greeks first?

It's easy to say that since Alexander did not live in a society that makes up "Greece proper" that makes him not a Greek.

It's also easy to say that since Macedonia was a Greek state, even if backwards, he's naturally a Greek.

First of all, this stupid modern conflict is a tug-o-war between two, shall I say, ignorant groups of people should be put out of this discussion completely. Both modern Greece and modern Macedonia have equal (which means...little :P ) claim to Alexander the Great's heritage. Neither are pureblood (according to Harry Potter's definition ;p)people and both are greatly influenced by the passage of time of just about 2300+ years, a lot of generations. I don't really understand why can't BOTH nations worship him if they so wishes...

Now, as we know, the Greeks are a group of varied people. The Achaeans, which Athens and some Asia Minor cities claimed to be, were the rulers and people of ancient Mycenae. According to one of the many legends they came from the direction "of the sea", probably are Hyksos migrating from Egypt. So they won't have much influence in Macedonia when it comes to ethnicity.

However, many other peoples that later makes up classical Greeks come from the north - the direction of Macedonia, and further up - and I think they were known as the Dorians. Some theories (could be outdated) state that the Dorians makes up the majority of Spartans (proper Spartans, at least, not their Helots), Thebans, and Peloponnesia as a whole.

Naturally there will be a mix. Though if we decide that the Dorians are also the ancient Greeks, whether they actually migrate that far south or not, then ancient Macedonia would most likely classify as a Greek state, since they will certainly have a lot of Doric influence in their blood...literally.

However, this does not take into account the Illyrian, Epiriot (probably also Doric), and Thracian influence in the ethnicity of Macedonia.

Is he a Greek or not it depends on your point of view.

Kraxis

08-15-2005, 21:51

Well, the Spartans spoke a Doric dialect, and since they had long been subjecting the local (Ionic speaking) peoples then it is highly likely that they were Dorians. Also Dorians differed from the Ionians by being rather darker in complexion and hair. (Achaeans are often called Ionians)

Now that conflicts with the often blond Macedonians, but it is most often assumed that the Dorians came from about Macedonia and Thessaly, possibly even Thrace.
Because Alexander and the rest of the nobility often were blonde does not make that a major part of the Macedonian heritage. One should remember that the Macedonian noble families had to marry with Epirote, Illyrian or Thracian nobles to stay at peace with them. So it is not unlikely that the Thracians blondness took over a few families. But that does not make the Macedonians Thracian.

caesar44

08-15-2005, 23:48

AntiochusIII

08-16-2005, 05:49

[QUOTE=AntiochusIII]

First of all, this stupid modern conflict is a tug-o-war between two, shall I say, ignorant groups of people should be put out of this discussion completely. Both modern Greece and modern Macedonia have equal (which means...little :P ) claim to Alexander the Great's heritage

You said that , not me . you should expect a MGA (Massive Greeks Attack) ~D ~D ~D , for them , to say such a thing is sacrilegious... ~;) ~;) ~;)Bah, phalanx are pathetic on offensive against those who know how.

Just don't let them catch me and shoot them down! ~D

My Sarmatians, aim your bows! :charge:

Edit: it IS stupid though, don't you think? I mean, what's the problem if two nations worship...oh the horror...the same hero?

caesar44

08-16-2005, 12:14

caesar44

08-16-2005, 12:19

(I can't edit , damn) Bty , why Antiochus III ? you know , he lost it in 190... ~;)

AntiochusIII

08-16-2005, 19:35

(I can't edit , damn) Bty , why Antiochus III ? you know , he lost it in 190... ~;)Somebody already taken Seleucus/Seleucos I Nicator, aren't they? ~D

So I choose his best successor instead. I was expecting much fun from the Seleucids and I did :) ... Unfortunately the best mods right now (RTR, EB) are historically accurate and that means an oversized (no blame to the modders, all to Seleucus' campaign into the east...duh) empire to rule from the start. Not fun :(

Luckily I heard something about some people already gathering to make an add-on for EB for the age of Marius, and the Seleucids are still alive (and small enough to be fun!) ~:)

Colovion

08-16-2005, 21:18

Is he a Greek or not it depends on your point of view.

You say that neither the Macedonians nor the Greeks have a full ability to claim him as 100% their own cultural hero; that's true. However, the Macedonians have a much more viable argument than the Greeks. To claim Alexander at all for the Greeks would be like centuries from now people saying that Wayne Gretzky was an American hockey hero.

Red Harvest

08-16-2005, 22:20

My favorite myth:

That the cause of the American Civil War was not slavery, but instead "State's Rights." This one is still taught as if it were true...

#1 Reason given to support this? That the North did not invade to end slavery, it was a battle over State's Rights.

Rebuttal: That is very much true, but the North was not the initiator of the conflict. The South was, so to find the cause you must look at what motivated the South, not what drove the North. (The North wanted to preserve the Union primarily, and secession was unacceptable for that. The North had compromised on slavery many times. When war started, the only way to preserve the Union was to conquer the South, but the North was not the aggressor in *initiating* the war.) The South could not accept Lincoln's election and the stated aim to prevent slavery from being introduced into the new territories. That prompted secession (without waiting to see if they could defeat his initiative once he took office.) Then the South started seizing Federal property and attacked Fort Sumter.

Further Reasoning that Has Convinced me that Slavery was THE Cause:
1. The test for the myth? Name any reason given for justifying secession, then ask yourself: was this sufficient reason for the South to seceed? Only one will pass the criteria: slavery.

2. The institution of slavery had transformed the South's culture. The whole sense of being Southern had its root in slavery. It was an economic division, *even in the South.* There were quite a few Unionists in the South, but not in sufficient numbers to prevent majorities from voting secession. The Unionist strongholds were areas that did not have much slavery.

3. The belief in racial superiority to justify slavery had extended into a belief in fundamental superiority over "Northerners." I've read several statements to the effect that slavery allowed Southerners to be more "enlightened" since they did not have to do the toughest labor. This sort of aristocracy was felt superior than the "shopkeepers and tinkerers" of the North, not to mention the menial industrial laborers.

4. There was little "Northern tyranny" to speak of before the war (a protectionist *import* tax, a tariff that was lower than most other nations of the time and applied to both North and South.) However, the South felt that it should be able to maintain over representation in govt., not just the 3/5th's representation added for slaves, but also a balance in the Sentate by extending slavery. They simply could not accept that slave states should be represented by their true numbers. Therefore, they could not accept the basic precepts of majority representation.

Longshanks

08-17-2005, 11:03

That the Americans won at Bunker Hill!

I wouldn't necessarily call that a myth.

Technically the British did win the battle since they took the redoubt, but it was a phyrric victory at best. The British were repulsed twice and finally only took the hill after the rebel ammunition was spent, and at a cost of over 1,000 casualties, about 40% of the attacking force, compared to only about 400 casualties among the rebels. Casualties among the British officers in particular were high, with every officer on General Howe's staff either wounded or killed. General Clinton remarked after the battle, "A few more such victories would have surely put an end to British dominion in America."

The British also only achieved their immediate objective, which was seizing the rebel redoubt on Breed's Hill. Their ultimate objective was to lift the rebel siege on Boston. The losses suffered in the battle of Bunker Hill prevented the British from accomplishing that. They won the battle but lost the campaign.

It could be said that Bunker Hill was an important moral victory for the rebels as well. Had the British simply rolled over them the rebellion may have ended right there. The fact that they did repulse the British twice and caused such heavy casualties among the redcoats hardened the resolve of the rebels...it gave them hope that they could actually take on the British Empire and win.

Red Harvest

08-17-2005, 16:28

Agreed, Bunker Hill was a Pyrrhic victory for the British. The British acheived a tactical victory but the price they paid was too high and both sides knew it. So from a strategic standpoint it was a defeat as it would have negative consequences for the campaign. It is no myth to claim it as a victory for the Americans.

These were not backwoodsmen with excellent rifles. Instead they were raw militia without bayonets. This meant that the British had only to reach the redoubt and the battle was over, yet it took them three ties. The militia were actually running out of ammunition at the end.

Advo-san

08-22-2005, 13:24

Alexander didn't have Greek parents and wasn't raised in a Greek society. That makes me believe he wasn't Greek.
This is a joke! Alexander's teacher was Aristotle and his favourite book was Homer' s Heliade! He was considering himself as the champion of Greeks against Persia, the avenger of the persian invasions! He was Greek down to his bones! You take the word of an Athenian politician as The Ultimate Truth and deny everything else! Since you like ancient greek politicians so much, here is what Isokrates, an enemy of Demosthenes said: Greek is everyone who has greek education . Why not take his word as The Truth?

Red Harvest

08-22-2005, 17:30

Myth: That very few Southerners at the time of secession owned slaves and therefore slavery was not the major reason for secession.

Fact: The 1860 Census reveals that there were 5.42 people per household on average in the 11 seceeding states (slaves were not included in the household count.) Only one slaveholder was listed per household. There were 317,000 slaveholders, so the family population that had slaves was 1.72 million out of 5.58 million total. This is 30+% of the population.

I came across the same result (30+%) quoted by Southern secessionists of the time also. Keep in mind that these were the percent of the population that could *afford* slaves at the time. More would have had them if they had sufficient means or need.

Slaveholding was regional, and slaves were uncommon in rugged areas where planting was not the primary activity (Ozarks, Western Virginia, East Tennessee, Northern Georgia, etc.) Those areas had a neutral or Unionist sentiment.

Rodion Romanovich

08-23-2005, 19:17

Seamus Fermanagh

08-23-2005, 20:26

Alexander son of Phillip

Macedonian by birth, possessed of an Athenian education, he fought as a cavalryman in the style of Thessaly but commanded an army famed for its super-hoplites before whom none could stand.

Peninsular Greeks of the era apparently viewed the Macedonians and Thracians the way Tudor Englishmen viewed the Scots -- barely civilized. Phillip's system of warfare ensured that the Macedonians emerged as the dominant political group in the Southern Balkans.

Most of Western Civilization since Alexander has been taught to think of him as the ultimate super-warrior and hero, and as the man who spread hellenic culture far and wide -- and yes, most kids still think of him as Greek, though the ethnic purists of his own era probably did not.

Alexander's greek tutor was a man with an ax to grind against Athens in general and the platonic academy in particular. Did he teach Alexander to love Greek culture or did Alexander simply avail himself of the useful tools of rhetoric and logic to further his own ends.

Upon conquering the largest empire of the world (at least in geography if not in population), he was quick enough to adopt the king as deity trappings of the East, adopted the empire-running aparatus of Persia rather than any Grecian format, and was even experimenting with the phalanx (making each block of troops 50% percent archer in content was actively being considered/tested when he died).

Some Hellenic culture -- particularly the combat portions -- spread throughout his empire and was maintained by the successors. The oriental style of government, power struggles, and bureacracy came to characterize this "greek" successorship far more than the logic driven analytical approach bequeathed us by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides and the like. The most successful of the successors -- Ptolemy -- went so far as to become an Egyptian pharoah and found a new dynasty -- becoming Ra manifest like the wearers of the two crowns before him. From this point forward, Greece becomes more and more oriental in character, and the Greece of antiquity is preserved more and more in Rome and less and less in Athens. (Some good insight on the "oriental" character of Greece can be found in the book "Balkan Ghosts")

Ultimately, Alexander is the last of the truly Homeric heroes. His name and personal deeds outshine his inadequacies as a ruler and make all of his story seem "larger than life." How much of it is outright fiction propagated by the successors to add stature to their own efforts? I doubt anyone can tell.

Phillip defeated Greece and Alexander completed that conquest. Alexander conquered Persia and the Middle East. After his death, the Persian/mid-eastern culture took back control of the whole region as well as Greece -- though it took a while.

Seamus

conon394

08-23-2005, 21:01

Seamus Fermanagh

Actually you could carry the negative effects of Alexander importation of oriental style rule a bit farther, since the Roman Empire essentially succumbed to it as well.

Greece didn’t go all that quietly. Athens clung fairly tenaciously to her democracy for more than half a century after loosing the Lamian War, and Rhodes certainly deserves notice, it remained an independent polis democracy (and power to be reckoned with) till at least the first century BC.

Longshanks

08-24-2005, 00:39

Myth: That very few Southerners at the time of secession owned slaves and therefore slavery was not the major reason for secession.

Good post Red Harvest. Sort of related to that...

The Secession Declarations of several of the Confederate states cite the slavery issue as the primary cause for the break with the Union. The notion that the American Civil War was over States Rights vs. the rights of the Federal gov't rather than slavery is only half true. It may have been over states' rights...but a state's right to do what? Determine for itself whether or not slavery was legal within that state, without Federal interference.

Idomeneas

08-24-2005, 03:29

Agreed , it is , how to say it...meaningless , "he was Greek...he was Macedonian..." what is the point ? the Greeks and "Macedonians" of the modern era are not the Greeks and Macedonians of antiquity (Oh my god... ~;) )

why dont you try read actuall books instead of wikipedia and googling before you assume the big shot historian attitude? Where is your bibliography for all the stuff you are writing? Your empathy is endless. The ''Macedonians'' you reffer are slavs staying in the area since Byzantine or eastern roman empire era if you preffer. The greeks are not the one of antiquity and bla bla... i dont know you think anyone that doest live in an abandoned island staying pure blooded? Nevertheless Greeks have certain ''racial'' characteristics still today maybe much more than other ancient peoples like Romans for instance.
People change but some basic features still remains. You wont find many people taller than 1,80 or open eye colors. And what we think as blond is light brownish color. Red simply almost does not exist. There are many other features but some things changed also we dont live in iceland you know.

I think this purity thing is tricky and rediculus and even more when an american guy refferes to it. Themistokles the greatest athenian general had thracian mother and propably etaira that made him less greek? Education collective traditional values and mentality makes somebody part of a nation more than dna. Jannisaries were Greek childrean in a big part taken from their families during childhood and brainwashed in fanatic Muslim warriors. They had no contact with greek mentality should they be considered greeks?

By the way i can trace my family line till 1530 and have clues for earlier times. My grand grand grand grand grand grand grandfather's sword is hanging on the wall of the family house in my grandpa's village. How about you?

Seamus Fermanagh

08-24-2005, 03:43

Bits of family history stretching back on either side to when/why they "hopped the pond." That's probably about average by yank standards.

As to Macedonia v. Greece, while the folks on this site have no problem figuring it out, many (most?) of my countrymen -- even some of the ones who served there -- couldn't find it on a map.

Heavens to mergatroids but I hate ignorance.

SEAMUS

Soulforged

08-24-2005, 04:36

Worst myths ever: That the invention of civilization led to more compassion and less violence among humans, rather than the opposite. That the human sacrifice etc. of early civilizations were examples of uncivilized behavior, when in reality it happened in the most civilized societies of it's time, and the contemporary uncivilized nomads were the peaceful ones.

That's not an historical myth that's your wrong perspective on society function towards civilization. You're ignoring tons of science work from Locke, Hobbes and mostly Rousseau.
The nomads were violent, were uncivilized (what a paradox) and were obstuctring evolution. I'm not justifing it from a moral point of view, but history doesn't have place for morality. Civilization was on the career and the irrational old society had to been removed.
The compassion is inherent to human nature, you don't need civilization to achieve it. And if you look at the evolution and rationality that civilization (that btw is part of evolution) brought, you will surely change your mind, unless you wanted to be sacrificed every time that some ignorant people believes that the sun will not rise again.
Violence is inherent to all life forms (the same Universe was created in violence, as we know violence), it is necessary for change and evolution many times. So the violence is just another result of nature, the best weapon against nature that we have is evolution, the separation from nature, and therefore rational tought is necessary to end all this that you seem to dislike.

Rodion Romanovich

08-24-2005, 08:20

That's not an historical myth that's your wrong perspective on society function towards civilization. You're ignoring tons of science work from Locke, Hobbes and mostly Rousseau.
The nomads were violent, were uncivilized (what a paradox) and were obstuctring evolution. I'm not justifing it from a moral point of view, but history doesn't have place for morality. Civilization was on the career and the irrational old society had to been removed.
The compassion is inherent to human nature, you don't need civilization to achieve it. And if you look at the evolution and rationality that civilization (that btw is part of evolution) brought, you will surely change your mind, unless you wanted to be sacrificed every time that some ignorant people believes that the sun will not rise again.
Violence is inherent to all life forms (the same Universe was created in violence, as we know violence), it is necessary for change and evolution many times. So the violence is just another result of nature, the best weapon against nature that we have is evolution, the separation from nature, and therefore rational tought is necessary to end all this that you seem to dislike.

That's my point - the human sacrifice is civilized, because it happened in civilization, not in a pre-civilization society. And the nomads I'm speaking of refer to early ancient period nomads. After that, those nomads got more civilized, i.e. violent and barbaric, and started incorporating human sacrifice etc. too. The rationalism of civilization is actually a lot smaller than most people think. Today's society and most others are driven mostly be fear, fears that are often very irrational, including fear of the sun not rising again. Fear and dogmatic thinking - because it would be nice you could plead for mercy and safety from nature like if nature hade a soul, you invent human sacrifice, etc. The rationalism is rather a reaction against civilization IMO. Civilization in itself is to partly apply rationalism but mostly stick to instincts, which aren't adapted to the changed environment caused by civilization.

The violence is a result of instincts ordering violence, but most instincts react directly on the surroundings. One can easily prove that this is the case by thinking about how good instincts would be if they didn't read indata from the surroundings. This reading and interpretation isn't perfect and rational, but based on factors that coincided in nature. When environment changes, certain combinations of environment factors will send signals to commit actions, even though it isn't rational. (This phenomenon can easily be proved btw) That means many actions will be committed even when there's no danger. Violence had a function in nature, otherwise there wouldn't be instincts creating violence. But all research proves it was very limited - much more limited than civilization's violence. And more importantly - most of it could be avoided, as it was status and sexual ranking violence. Surrendering would not mean death, but only a lower status. Civilization's violence, however, isn't possible to escape from if you dislike it and know you can't win the fights.

A second important factor that makes civilization violent is the fact that the system in itself is so unnatural that the ethical instincts we are born with can no longer instinctively analyze the different complicated situations that may occur, so that we will always have REASON for conflict, whereas in nature everybody knew their rights a lot better. When humans hunted mammoots it was necessary to maintain order and peace in a flock, losing to many hunters would make hunting impossible. Therefore, nature had evolved the instincts to function properly for reducing violence, as long as the natural society was kept.

A third factor that makes civilization violent is that there are totally unpsychological, real threats in it. The mere basic shape of civilization creates actual, real threats for several people, in a way that often makes it benefitial to use violence. At the moment the first wars had happened, everyone had reason to fear his neighbor, and had reason to strike first in order not be the first struck. The will to hold militarily strategical points and control resources like iron, oil etc. that would strengthen the military has become a goal which is enough to cause war. This means there are often wars even though there's no actual conflict that causes it, merely the will to be prepared in case the opponent that was attacked would want to start a war in the future. This and similar types of real threats created by civilization and society structure in itself, is a major factor causing violence.

I don't disagree with you about a 100 percent rational thinking is a good thing. The civilization is based on 1 percent rational thinking that enables the development of items and society structures that only work in the short term and in the long term lead to problems of different kinds, and often violence. The 100 percent rational thinking is the only way of realizing how to solve factors 1 to 3 listed above, and realize that they exist. What I'm saying is a myth is:
1. that statistically, violence decreased proportionally to amount of civilization.
2. that Genghis Khan and others would be violent because they were less civilized.
3. that civilization is the same thing as pure rational thinking.

Truth is:
1. The opposite is almost true, but it's not as simple as being directly proportionally. Civilization at least leads to more violence than pre-civilization society did.
2. On the contrary, Genghis Khan was among the most civilized of his time. Same thing for the Huns (who in reality according to my sources favored rational thought and atheism over religion).
3. Civilization is the usage of 99 percent instincts and 1 percent rational thinking, with the result that a society is created where the wrong instincts are used because we can't interpret the unnatural environment signals correctly.

Violence is inherent to all life forms (the same Universe was created in violence, as we know violence), it is necessary for change and evolution many times. So the violence is just another result of nature, the best weapon against nature that we have is evolution, the separation from nature, and therefore rational tought is necessary to end all this that you seem to dislike.

Remember that violence can have a rational function in a few cases. That's why it's natural, but the increased violence is a result of civilization. The separation from nature is not a solution, on the contrary only a change of the human genes would be a solution, but that would mean no existing human today would be good enough. The problem is, when humans lose the strong urges, their strong will to struggle for anything at all, which is the root of violence, they lose their ability and will to survive. So the only way of ending human violence in civilization, would be to end all humans. The only way that works is to recreate something that to the instincts look nearly the same as nature, so that violence instincts aren't born all the time, but with safety system against incidents similar to those in the early civilization.

BTW, civilization is a part of evolution, yes, but many paths of evolution lead to extreme destruction and mass death. The asteroid theories to explain all mass death events througout prehistory are ridiculous. The fact that evolution reaches tracks that can't possibly lead to survival is the only realistic explanation to this. And civilization, with it's violence, it's irrationalism in a society when rationalism is necessary to avoid destruction, and it's destruction of nature by pollution etc., WILL lead to the elimination of most or all humans. Remember that in nature we weren't depending on rationalism to work in order to avoid violence, here on the other hand, we are.

Even though I might praise the society before civilization, I thereby do not mean that society, in the form it had then, could be recreated. That is an impossibility. I just think it's interesting, there's a lot of interesting lessons for the future to learn from the process when civilization was created.

Soulforged

08-24-2005, 09:16

That's my point - the human sacrifice is civilized, because it happened in civilization, not in a pre-civilization society. And the nomads I'm speaking of refer to early ancient period nomads. After that, those nomads got more civilized, i.e. violent and barbaric, and started incorporating human sacrifice etc. too. The rationalism of civilization is actually a lot smaller than most people think. Today's society and most others are driven mostly be fear, fears that are often very irrational, including fear of the sun not rising again. Fear and dogmatic thinking - because it would be nice you could plead for mercy and safety from nature like if nature hade a soul, you invent human sacrifice, etc. The rationalism is rather a reaction against civilization IMO. Civilization in itself is to partly apply rationalism but mostly stick to instincts, which aren't adapted to the changed environment caused by civilization.

Civilization is the road to rational thinking, it doesn't mean that if you're in the road you have to be civilizated already. Rationalism is the source and the origin of civilization. I think that you're mistaking the meaning of civilization.

The violence is a result of instincts ordering violence, but most instincts react directly on the surroundings. One can easily prove that this is the case by thinking about how good instincts would be if they didn't read indata from the surroundings. This reading and interpretation isn't perfect and rational, but based on factors that coincided in nature. When environment changes, certain combinations of environment factors will send signals to commit actions, even though it isn't rational. (This phenomenon can easily be proved btw) That means many actions will be committed even when there's no danger. Violence had a function in nature, otherwise there wouldn't be instincts creating violence. But all research proves it was very limited - much more limited than civilization's violence. And more importantly - most of it could be avoided, as it was status and sexual ranking violence. Surrendering would not mean death, but only a lower status. Civilization's violence, however, isn't possible to escape from if you dislike it and know you can't win the fights.

Agree. Though i really don't see the refutation here.

A second important factor that makes civilization violent is the fact that the system in itself is so unnatural that the ethical instincts we are born with can no longer instinctively analyze the different complicated situations that may occur, so that we will always have REASON for conflict, whereas in nature everybody knew their rights a lot better. When humans hunted mammoots it was necessary to maintain order and peace in a flock, losing to many hunters would make hunting impossible. Therefore, nature had evolved the instincts to function properly for reducing violence, as long as the natural society was kept.

That's your perspective on civilization. You'll see that Rousseau said something in the opposite way. Though i don't see why any human isn't capable of analyze the different complicated situations, when in fact our own evolved mind created the situations. We don't act instinctively at the original degree anymore, that's one of the effects of society and civilization. You also mention "ethical instincts" when infact the ethics comes from morality, wich is totally ideal construction of the human mind. The natural society is exactly the begining of civilization, unless you consider the "natural society" in a different way than I.

A third factor that makes civilization violent is that there are totally unpsychological, real threats in it. The mere basic shape of civilization creates actual, real threats for several people, in a way that often makes it benefitial to use violence. At the moment the first wars had happened, everyone had reason to fear his neighbor, and had reason to strike first in order not be the first struck. The will to hold militarily strategical points and control resources like iron, oil etc. that would strengthen the military has become a goal which is enough to cause war. This means there are often wars even though there's no actual conflict that causes it, merely the will to be prepared in case the opponent that was attacked would want to start a war in the future. This and similar types of real threats created by civilization and society structure in itself, is a major factor causing violence.

That will be the effect of nationality. But do you really think that the in natural state humans were less violent and didn't fought for territories, goods or even for a couple. Civilization doesn't create any threats those threats are created by human and by the wrong assumption of many that we're diffrent as humans.

I don't disagree with you about a 100 percent rational thinking is a good thing. The civilization is based on 1 percent rational thinking that enables the development of items and society structures that only work in the short term and in the long term lead to problems of different kinds, and often violence. The 100 percent rational thinking is the only way of realizing how to solve factors 1 to 3 listed above, and realize that they exist. What I'm saying is a myth is:
1. that statistically, violence decreased proportionally to amount of civilization.
2. that Genghis Khan and others would be violent because they were less civilized.
3. that civilization is the same thing as pure rational thinking.

Demonstrate point 1. As far as what the point 2 states, the mongols were nomads and Genghis Khan was uncivilized because he was a violent irrational man. You're correct in the 3, but i already answered to that.

Truth is:
1. The opposite is almost true, but it's not as simple as being directly proportionally. Civilization at least leads to more violence than pre-civilization society did.
2. On the contrary, Genghis Khan was among the most civilized of his time. Same thing for the Huns (who in reality according to my sources favored rational thought and atheism over religion).
3. Civilization is the usage of 99 percent instincts and 1 percent rational thinking, with the result that a society is created where the wrong instincts are used because we can't interpret the unnatural environment signals correctly.

1. Again demonstrate (though it will be really difficult because we've no empirical proof of the times that you're talking about, so it's imposible to talk about statistics).2 That doesn't make him civilized, and the Huns where not Atheist, they simply didn't care about religion, just asimilated the first that fitted their nessecities.3. Arbitrary numbers. Again you're assuming that the mind (the brain work that creates ideas) is inferior to instincs, when we already erased or decreased much of them.

Remember that violence can have a rational function in a few cases. That's why it's natural, but the increased violence is a result of civilization. The separation from nature is not a solution, on the contrary only a change of the human genes would be a solution, but that would mean no existing human today would be good enough. The problem is, when humans lose the strong urges, their strong will to struggle for anything at all, which is the root of violence, they lose their ability and will to survive. So the only way of ending human violence in civilization, would be to end all humans. The only way that works is to recreate something that to the instincts look nearly the same as nature, so that violence instincts aren't born all the time, but with safety system against incidents similar to those in the early civilization.

Again assuming that the instincs are superior to the mind. Even materially you'll be wrong because all the day i ignore instinct after instinc. And the separation of nature actually means giving away your instincs and taking a more rational stance, so it's in fact the solution.

BTW, civilization is a part of evolution, yes, but many paths of evolution lead to extreme destruction and mass death. The asteroid theories to explain all mass death events througout prehistory are ridiculous. The fact that evolution reaches tracks that can't possibly lead to survival is the only realistic explanation to this. And civilization, with it's violence, it's irrationalism in a society when rationalism is necessary to avoid destruction, and it's destruction of nature by pollution etc., WILL lead to the elimination of most or all humans. Remember that in nature we weren't depending on rationalism to work in order to avoid violence, here on the other hand, we are.

On nature we depended on rationality to evolve. On nature we must be aware of all survival problems that civilization tries to solve. On nature humans also killed themselves as i already said, and civilization spreads humanity and tries to keep humans alive, then the conclusion is the contrary: in natural state the mortality rate will be higher, there will be more irrational violence and there will be less reflexion, so it's more logic to say that nature leads to extintion of the human kin.

Even though I might praise the society before civilization, I thereby do not mean that society, in the form it had then, could be recreated. That is an impossibility. I just think it's interesting, there's a lot of interesting lessons for the future to learn from the process when civilization was created.[/

What means "in the form it had then". Society is the beggining of civilization (again). Some times you refer to the natural state and some times, to the "natural society" ~:confused: .

Advo-san

08-24-2005, 10:42

why dont you try read actuall books instead of wikipedia and googling before you assume the big shot historian attitude? Where is your bibliography for all the stuff you are writing? Your empathy is endless. The ''Macedonians'' you reffer are slavs staying in the area since Byzantine or eastern roman empire era if you preffer. The greeks are not the one of antiquity and bla bla... i dont know you think anyone that doest live in an abandoned island staying pure blooded? Nevertheless Greeks have certain ''racial'' characteristics still today maybe much more than other ancient peoples like Romans for instance.
People change but some basic features still remains. You wont find many people taller than 1,80 or open eye colors. And what we think as blond is light brownish color. Red simply almost does not exist. There are many other features but some things changed also we dont live in iceland you know.

I think this purity thing is tricky and rediculus and even more when an american guy refferes to it. Themistokles the greatest athenian general had thracian mother and propably etaira that made him less greek? Education collective traditional values and mentality makes somebody part of a nation more than dna. Jannisaries were Greek childrean in a big part taken from their families during childhood and brainwashed in fanatic Muslim warriors. They had no contact with greek mentality should they be considered greeks?

By the way i can trace my family line till 1530 and have clues for earlier times. My grand grand grand grand grand grand grandfather's sword is hanging on the wall of the family house in my grandpa's village. How about you?
@ Idomeneas. I wouldn't bother so much if I were you. No one else except from Greeks can understand that a nation that has been around for 3.500 years (minimum) has gone through major identity changes, which is normal, but can still remain one nation, one continuity through time. Bear in mind that most european nations' history only counts less than 2.000 years, actually a lot less than that. They compare us to FYROMers, Bosnians, etc, because they simply cannot understand how it is ever possible for someone to be part of a chain whose first link is 3.500 years old. Of course I cannot prove (with a birth sertificate or with eye-witnesses, or by any means) that I am related with Pericles or Vrasidas or Alexander or Komninoi or Kolokotronis, but I share with them a common land, a common language, a common culture.

Advo-san

08-24-2005, 10:56

Alexander son of Phillip

Alexander's greek tutor was a man with an ax to grind against Athens in general and the platonic academy in particular. Did he teach Alexander to love Greek culture or did Alexander simply avail himself of the useful tools of rhetoric and logic to further his own ends.

Seamus
I strongly disagree. A lot of people didn't like Athens and Plato (most famous among them:Thoukidides) but Aristotle was n ot one of them. Because:
1) He spent most of his life in Athens, and he even got the honour to be named "citizen of Athens", even though his father was not athenian, an honour that few people had been awarded at the time. It was a gesture that expressed the deep and profound link that connected him with the city.
2) He was Plato's most beloved and intelligent student (remind the painting of Rafael named "Scuola di Atene" where the two philosopers are marching side by side) but he had a different, less poetic and more rational way of thinking than his mentor. They disagreed, but if you ever have the chance to read their works, you will see that Aristotle is pretty much a "product" of Plato's teachings. The product of a procedure often differs from the initial materials, but it carries them within it.

Advo-san

08-24-2005, 11:08

Alexander son of Phillip

Phillip defeated Greece and Alexander completed that conquest. Alexander conquered Persia and the Middle East. After his death, the Persian/mid-eastern culture took back control of the whole region as well as Greece -- though it took a while.

Seamus
That is a quaint conclusion you extracted.. After all, historians agree that the era after Alexander's death is called "Hellenistic era", exactly because greek (vis a vis Hellenistic) culture was the dominant culture of the kingdoms that emerged, a culture that had adopted many elements of both Egypt and Persia, true, but fused them into one, hellenic, culture, with a greek core and Persian, Syrian, Egyptian, etc layers.

Rodion Romanovich

08-24-2005, 11:14

Civilization is the road to rational thinking, it doesn't mean that if you're in the road you have to be civilizated already. Rationalism is the source and the origin of civilization. I think that you're mistaking the meaning of civilization.

It's source was 1 percent rational thinking in combination with 99 percent instincts. As the creators and those who keep developing civilization lacked/lack, respectively, total rationalism, they can't foresee the results of what they do.

That's your perspective on civilization. You'll see that Rousseau said something in the opposite way. Though i don't see why any human isn't capable of analyze the different complicated situations, when in fact our own evolved mind created the situations. We don't act instinctively at the original degree anymore, that's one of the effects of society and civilization. You also mention "ethical instincts" when infact the ethics comes from morality, wich is totally ideal construction of the human mind. The natural society is exactly the begining of civilization, unless you consider the "natural society" in a different way than I.

Instincts were created in the pre-civilization society, and are adapted to it. The instincts can't be guaranteed to work in any other society. I think you force me to present the proof of that, well, I can do that by an example. All animals, humans included, have for example a stronger sexual urge in the summer, than any other time of the year. Why? What's the rational explanation for such a behavior pattern? Well, simply that the chances of feeding the offspring is greater if the offspring is born in the spring. Now, if that instinct had been perfect and would be constructed in a way that would work in any environment, it would be based on knowing exactly when it was 9 months to the next period of spring and access to much food. But it's impossible to have senses that can predict that exactly, therefore, the instinct has to be connected to something that almost always exists at the same time as a period where it's 9 month left to the next spring. It might be the summer heat, the increased light, the green colors of all vegetation, etc., that gives birth to the actions through this instinct. And that means we can fool that instinct, by in the winter use artificial lights, green tapetsry indoors, and artificial heat etc. Similar systems exist for ALL instincts, because their indata must come from the environment through our senses, and our senses will not tell us the entire truth, it'll always only give us a foggy picture of reality. Therefore, a man might have a reflex to kill when it looks like he is attacked, but the environmental effect that causes the kill reflext isn't the attack itself, but certain ways of moving of the other guy, etc., that usually only exist at the same time as an attack will happen.

If humans live in a society of exactly the same kind over millions of years, evolution would adapt those instincts to react correctly, according to the signal system in the society they live in. However, when we by civilization constantly change the meaning of symbols etc., the instincts will never develop to become adapted to the civilization, resulting in faults of the kind I mentioned above.

Even so, it's important to remember that this is only one of the minor factors behind violence in civilization. No. 3 is by far the most important one, which will remain even when rationality increases. Only by increasing rationality enough to understand the existence and cause of no.3, and by making humans have a will to remove the causes of it, will it be possible to remove the violence. (No.3 is the factor when civilized societies are in their construction made in a way so that violence and evilness pays off, whether it's in the short or long term. A society must be built in a way so that evilness punishes itself - laws etc. aren't good enough, as history has proved - think about all dictators and war mongers etc., and how crime isn't less common in countries with tougher sentences than in countries with milder sentences AND last but not least - have non-violent alternatives in the cases where pressure, and not greed, leads to violence)

BTW you don't need rational thinking in a society where your instincts will lead you to make the correct decisions anyway. The only time we need rationality, is when we live in civilization.

That will be the effect of rationality. But do you really think that the in natural state humans were less violent and didn't fought for territories, goods or even for a couple. Civilization doesn't create any threats those threats are created by human and by the wrong assumption of many that we're diffrent as humans.

I don't understand what you mean by this ~:confused: Please clarify...

Demonstrate point 1. As far as what the point 2 states, the mongols were nomads and Genghis Khan was uncivilized because he was a violent irrational man. You're correct in the 3, but i already answered to that.

As for uncivilized nomads being less violent, I was referring to the ancient nomads. Those were uncivilized, and peaceful. As for Genghis Khan being uncivilized, that's a lie. He was leading one of the most civilized cultures ever. And it was a violent culture. Genghis wasn't irrational, he was among the most rational people ever, but because the civilizations around him and his own civilization implied violence would benefit him and his people, his rational thoughts led him to violence. Not only instincts, but also rational thinking, can lead to violence. The difference is that instincts lead to violence because it misconcepts environment, whereas rational thinking leads to violence when environment makes it benefitial, or when it is benefitial in the short term (so that the rational thinking, with it's limits in how many factors it can take into account, can predict it). Of course in the long term it's seldom true that violence pays off, even for a Genghis Khan, but rational thinking is often too limited to understand the long term factors.

To summarize the limitations of instincts and rational thinking:

Instincts:
- are based on statistics over millenia. Although such statistics don't lead to an exact result, all billions of factors that exist are weighed in. Therefore, instincts are really good at foreseeing long term effects of actions, which is why we among other things instinctively hate unethical power fights and are careful with unethical actions of any kind as long as we listen to instincts.
- they are however not based on causality, but on correlations that only exist as long as the society they were developed in remains fairly constant.

Rational thinking:
- it is exact, but it can't weigh in as many factors as instincts. Over a thousand factors is nearly impossible to master. This makes it really weak when it comes to predicting long term effects of something, which is why the psychopats who led conquest but got their empire crushed one or more centuries afterwards were thinking rationally, not instinctively.

Furthermore:
- every rational thought has it's origin in an instinct. You may work for money, even though money didn't exist in nature and there couldn't possibly be an instinct for money, but why do you work for money? Because you want security and food, which is an instinct. Every basic urge that makes you do anything at all has it's roots in an instinct. The way you carry out the actions, the way you strive towards that goal, is decided by rational thinking.
- the reason why natural evolution developed rational thinking was for using it in isolated situations like hunting, not to replace the long term thinking which instincts are better adapted to handling.

It's a misconception to think that you can make all living humans behave rationally in the way for example you and I are behaving by being able to analyze things such as this, things such as excessive violence of wars and genocide etc. etc., without mixing in too much instincts and feelings in it. There will always be people who can't control their feelings, and one or two per century is enough to create huge wars. Also bear in mind that if instincts are too much denied, the no. 1 factor in my post above will grow in strength, as civilization tends to get more unnatural, and that will lead to more violence. There is simply no other way than accepting that instincts will always control us to a very great extent, and that society must be adapted to it. The main way in which society has to be adapted to it, is by regulating the levels of fear. They are way too high in modern society, which leads to much frustration and violence as a result. It's true what many dogmatics in Christianity or Rationalism say: "IF everyone would follow our faith, there would be no violence". But it will never happen that everyone will follow a faith other than instincts, which they were born with. Even a Christian or Rationalist is driven to his belief by instincts, by the searching for safety, and he/she then chooses faith after what rationalism mixed with feelings tell him/her is the faith that will lead to most safety. The same thing is probably true for me to some extent, I guess. But I'm not yet believing in any political ideology or faith, any complete method that would solve all problems, but still only analyzing what exists, in order to, perhaps in the future, find such a faith.

1. Again demonstrate (though it will be really difficult because we've no empirical proof of the times that you're talking about, so it's imposible to talk about statistics).

Well, monkeys don't fight wars as often as humans. It has happened that raids have been conducted by gorillas, but that's still by far less common than among humans (I hardly think it has happened more than once or perhaps twice btw). Besides, gorillas have a lot of rational thinking ability, and after humans have destroyed most of their habitats and they are victims of more or less inbreeding, it doesn't change much if one male gorilla goes to rape all females because the inbreeding will be there even if he lets, as is the usual method, more gorillas share the mating procedure to achieve more genetic variety, and the gorillas are therefore, no matter what, doomed to extinction no matter what WWF or Greenpeace do (they can only prolong the inevitable a little).

If we compare human violence with violence in nature, humans are by far worst. And we shouldn't compare humans to some insects that aren't even closely related to humans, we shouldn't compare human violence to the violence of a predator to a prey. We should compare it to internal violence within the same species among other species. And we should also keep in mind that most violence among other species can be easily avoided, whereas a total war is nearly impossible to escape from. For example monkeys have a complex system of threatening signals that they send out before attacking, giving the opponent to surrender. And whoever surrenders is usually shown mercy. Many so-called "rational" humans today are so scared (by instincts) that they immediately think the earliest display of discontent is a sign that they will be attacked, and they immediately strike - with unethical power tools that gives them a strength they do not naturally possess, so that they have to defend that power with constant attacks, because if they didn't use their unnatural power tools they would immediately lose the power.

Again you're assuming that the mind (the brain work that creates ideas) is inferior to instincs, when we already erased or decreased much of them.

No we haven't. The very fact that you're debating with me prooves that the instincts still exist. Why would you debate this if you didn't think it would create a safer world to apply more rationalism and civilization? Why would you want a safer world if you aren't still afraid of death? Why would you still be afraid of death, if you had no instincts, no urges.

Besides, it has been proved that during a normal talk, about 90 percent (these are not my own arbitrary numbers, but the numbers of scientists) is carried over by body language. Good looking people get jobs easier than bad looking ones even in cases where the boss won't benefit at all from the beauty of the one he hires and the less beautiful one was better at the job. Every time you fall in love, instincts are driving you to it. Men and women still choose men after looks to some extent, even though money and evil shrewdness can be more benefitial in today's society. Women who choose men after money and evil shrewdness, which is also common, do so because of their instincts for safety, which drives their rational thinking to make the conclusion that they can give more safety than other men. The urge to attack countries because a small number of people from the country committed an act of terror, is an instinct. The will to eat, to breathe, to sleep, is based on instincts. Fear of conflicts is an instinct. Compassion is an instinct. Curiosity, the urge that drives people to think rationally in sciene, is an instinct. One could go on forever...

Again assuming that the instincs are superior to the mind. Even materially you'll be wrong because all the day i ignore instinct after instinc. And the separation of nature actually means giving away your instincs and taking a more rational stance, so it's in fact the solution.

You can't get rid of instincts without losing your will to live, your will to reproduce, and your will to protect your children, the things that makes you a human. You can't eliminate instincts without eliminating yourself and mankind! A man who doesn't care about his children, what is he? What is a man who doesn't want to reproduce - what does he care about future or long term effects of his actions - why not conquer half the world and kill all the people you conquer to the last man, if you don't care about tommorrow? Why refrain yourself from massacring the first people you see before your eyes if your instincts don't tell you your own life is worth something?

BTW, this post of mine describes more about this:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=885768&postcount=18

On nature humans also killed themselves as i already said [...] in natural state the mortality rate will be higher, there will be more irrational violence and there will be less reflexion, so it's more logic to say that nature leads to extintion of the human kin.

Like I said, irrational violence exist IF AND ONLY IF the instincts order violence in a situation when it isn't benefitial in any way. This means the instincts have to give birth to it. But instincts were not made to be irrational in the society they were created in. They were made to be rational in the society they were created in - based on research over thousands of years. The only way instincts can give birth to irrational behavior, is by being exposed to an environment which they aren't adapted to.

What means "in the form it had then". Society is the beggining of civilization (again). Some times you refer to the natural state and some times, to the "natural society" ~:confused: .

With natural society, I mean the way things were before civilization. I use that term to clarify that there's only a small number of things that have changed since then. Otherwise, using different words fools many to believe that more than just a few minor things have changed since then, fools some people to even believe EVERYTHING has changed since then. My definition of the word society is: "a system for how humans live together". With that definition, also nature is a society. Accepting this also opens the path to learn from the natural society when creating a modern society. Nature was better in many ways.

caesar44

08-24-2005, 14:52

[QUOTE=Idomeneas]why dont you try read actuall books before you assume the big shot historian attitude? Where is your bibliography for all the stuff you are writing?

Vice versa

Bty , why are your posts include so harsh words , do you think your argument is better that way ?

You don't have the slatiest information about the guy , why ? Because the whole story was written 500 years after he died , you can belive that you are the son of Zeus , a pure Athenian , an uncle of prickles , of the father of the greek nation , but please leave your personal feelings out of historical arguments .

Colovion

08-24-2005, 20:01

I think it's hilarious how when someone discovers that Aristotle tutored Alexander and assume it means that he had a Greek upbringing. Haha. He began teaching him at the age of 11 or 12 and only did so for a short number of years - enough so Alexander could become versed in Greek language and the culture thereof.

I have no clue where anyone who is claiming him as a Greek are justifying their claims from because it seems rather clear to me. He had Macedonian and Epirote blood (Royal Blood, no less). He was raised a Macedonian and his father imported a Greek teacher to teach him; as many Royal Families did at that time seeing as Greek was the merchant and noble education; lingua franca so to speak. Seeing as he led Greeks and their culture was more solidified than his Macedonian upbringing it is no surprise that those writing the histories and proliferating the conquered regions were largely Greek speaking (they were the merchants and the educated ones afterall).

In the end he, and his predecessors, were labelled Kings of Macedonia. Themselves and their peoples had their own language, although Alexander I (450bc) did promote the usage of the Attic dialect by the tradespeople. This brought more proliferation of the Greek culture to their borders, but largely people spoke their own native tongue. Now titles, Royalty, language even modern peoples claiming Macedonian ancestory ...

... it's all very amusing because the Macedonians were the ones who conquered the Greeks. Haha. And then the man who created an empire far and above anything Greece had seen previous was thereafter adopted as one of their own. Man, history is so much fun.

Leodegar

08-24-2005, 20:09

[QUOTE=Colovion]I think it's hilarious how when someone discovers that Aristotle tutored Alexander and assume it means that he had a Greek upbringing.

Actually even Aristotle was Macedonian. He was born in Stageira on the Chalkidike peninsula.

conon394

08-24-2005, 20:40

Leodegar

While I don’t agree with Advo-san; I would say the issue of whether the Macedonians were Greek (or more specifically the how Greek was the Macedonian ruling Argead dynasty) is rather murky and open to interpretation.

But Aristotle was certainly a Greek by any standard. Stagira was an Ionian colony.

Duke Malcolm

08-24-2005, 20:52

I hate the myth that the battle of Culloden was Scots versus English.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-24-2005, 21:00

That is a quaint conclusion you extracted.. After all, historians agree that the era after Alexander's death is called "Hellenistic era", exactly because greek (vis a vis Hellenistic) culture was the dominant culture of the kingdoms that emerged, a culture that had adopted many elements of both Egypt and Persia, true, but fused them into one, hellenic, culture, with a greek core and Persian, Syrian, Egyptian, etc layers.

Advo:

If I had the time, I'd pick up a masters just to argue my thesis at more length and with the proper research. Prior to Alexander's conquests, Greek culture - as expressed through Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, et. al. emphasized the rational and logical as a basis for knowledge and society (Yes, I am aware that Greek culture in practice never reached the perfection of its expressed ideals, nor has the USA with its own constitution -- people aren't perfect). These ideals undergird the strength of republican Rome, Roman engineering, and -- eventually -- the renaissance of Western European culture. After Alexander, Hellenic culture -- which I freely admit shows greek influence, takes on an essentially "oriental" culture as opposed to the western "occidental" ( I recognized the propriety of these terms is disputed) Imperial Rome did progressively trend in this direction as well -- preserved longest and most emblematically in the "Byzatine" empire. The West followed a different route.

As to Aristotle, he became tutor to Alexander following his rejection as Plato's successor as head of the academy -- despite the fact that Plato himself had acknowledged Aristotle's mind as the best aside from his own. Having worked in academe, I can tell you that Aristotle being anything aside from bitter at the "shabby" treatment accorded him by Athens and the Academy after such high previous honors would be almost an inhuman response. The laurels should have gone Socrates - Plato - Aristotle, and Aristotle was, I conjecture, at least a little bitter towards his erstwhile home. He would have been well aware of Thoukidides and other's views of Macedon and Phillip, nor would he have lacked other lucrative offers as a tutor.

And yes, I have read the surviving works of Plato and Aristotle, Euripedes, Aeschylus and pieces of Herodotus, Galen, Euclid, and Thucidides. Your are correct in that Aristotle's work clearly proceeds from the Socratic and Platonic efforts prior to him -- but that doesn't change my point. ~:)

Seamus

Soulforged

08-25-2005, 04:49

It's source was 1 percent rational thinking in combination with 99 percent instincts. As the creators and those who keep developing civilization lacked/lack, respectively, total rationalism, they can't foresee the results of what they do.

Again totally arbitrary. Anyway this doesn't refute anything. In the course of civilization the humans begun to understand it porpose.

Instincts were created in the pre-civilization society, and are adapted to it. The instincts can't be guaranteed to work in any other society. I think you force me to present the proof of that, well, I can do that by an example. All animals, humans included, have for example a stronger sexual urge in the summer, than any other time of the year. Why? What's the rational explanation for such a behavior pattern? Well, simply that the chances of feeding the offspring is greater if the offspring is born in the spring. Now, if that instinct had been perfect and would be constructed in a way that would work in any environment, it would be based on knowing exactly when it was 9 months to the next period of spring and access to much food. But it's impossible to have senses that can predict that exactly, therefore, the instinct has to be connected to something that almost always exists at the same time as a period where it's 9 month left to the next spring. It might be the summer heat, the increased light, the green colors of all vegetation, etc., that gives birth to the actions through this instinct. And that means we can fool that instinct, by in the winter use artificial lights, green tapetsry indoors, and artificial heat etc. Similar systems exist for ALL instincts, because their indata must come from the environment through our senses, and our senses will not tell us the entire truth, it'll always only give us a foggy picture of reality. Therefore, a man might have a reflex to kill when it looks like he is attacked, but the environmental effect that causes the kill reflext isn't the attack itself, but certain ways of moving of the other guy, etc., that usually only exist at the same time as an attack will happen.

Instincts were created? You're definitively wrong on that, instincts come from the inconcient part of the brain, so you can't create them. Again there's no pre-society, civilization starts with society, it's the first step on the construction of the structure. You're again assuming that the instincts are superior to the mind. We humans can surpress and ignore instincts totally, humans, from the time that civilization begun, learned to do that. Now we don't eat for hunger, we don't sleep for rest, we don't look for coverage for protection of the bad weather, we don't have sex only for reproduction or not at all for reproduction. The mind works over the ignored parts of the brain, and is that mind that has the capacity of adapt humans to their own creations. You're giving a to high and fictional value to the instincts.

If humans live in a society of exactly the same kind over millions of years, evolution would adapt those instincts to react correctly, according to the signal system in the society they live in. However, when we by civilization constantly change the meaning of symbols etc., the instincts will never develop to become adapted to the civilization, resulting in faults of the kind I mentioned above.

My instincts and those of many others i know are, at least in practice, totally supered.

Even so, it's important to remember that this is only one of the minor factors behind violence in civilization. No. 3 is by far the most important one, which will remain even when rationality increases. Only by increasing rationality enough to understand the existence and cause of no.3, and by making humans have a will to remove the causes of it, will it be possible to remove the violence. (No.3 is the factor when civilized societies are in their construction made in a way so that violence and evilness pays off, whether it's in the short or long term. A society must be built in a way so that evilness punishes itself - laws etc. aren't good enough, as history has proved - think about all dictators and war mongers etc., and how crime isn't less common in countries with tougher sentences than in countries with milder sentences AND last but not least - have non-violent alternatives in the cases where pressure, and not greed, leads to violence)

Again we don't want to remove violence, we just want to remove irrationality. Violence is the very engine of civilization. Though my principal critic here's that you fail to see the true begining of civilization. The natural society itself (though it's very discused if such a society existed) was the begining of civilization. Laws will never be good enough, they're imperfect. What we really need is to achieve the momentum when laws are not needed anymore, when the laws come then there's something wrong. Of course that tougher sentences don't make crime low, it's an absurd of actual law makers, but that doesn't make it less rational, and your missing something, state only cares about imposing power, there's little reason in reality to believe that the state really gives a damn about prisoners.

BTW you don't need rational thinking in a society where your instincts will lead you to make the correct decisions anyway. The only time we need rationality, is when we live in civilization.

Correct by what criteria. Instincs will not pull you to construct houses, invent concret, creat powder, steel, in short they will not make you evolve. Instincts are very simple and they exist only on the cerebelum, wich is the most primitive part of man. To evolve the matter made the brain grew and granted the different parts of the brain a different function, but most of nothing beyond instincts we are self aware.

I don't understand what you mean by this ~:confused: Please clarify...

It's simple your initial thread accused civilization of increasing violence (i dunno if you refer to the irrational one or the rational). I ask you. Were the mans less violent in natural state? (notice that here i mention the natural state, and not the natural society, because for me it's a contradiction, anyway this has no importance for this question)

As for uncivilized nomads being less violent, I was referring to the ancient nomads. Those were uncivilized, and peaceful. As for Genghis Khan being uncivilized, that's a lie. He was leading one of the most civilized cultures ever. And it was a violent culture. Genghis wasn't irrational, he was among the most rational people ever, but because the civilizations around him and his own civilization implied violence would benefit him and his people, his rational thoughts led him to violence. Not only instincts, but also rational thinking, can lead to violence. The difference is that instincts lead to violence because it misconcepts environment, whereas rational thinking leads to violence when environment makes it benefitial, or when it is benefitial in the short term (so that the rational thinking, with it's limits in how many factors it can take into account, can predict it). Of course in the long term it's seldom true that violence pays off, even for a Genghis Khan, but rational thinking is often too limited to understand the long term factors.

Again civilization begun far before Genghis Khan. When i said that i was refering to the mongols and Genghis Khan included being the more uncivilezed on the context. Ghengis Khan just conquered for the sake of conquering and spread fear and terror, like if that would help him keep the territories that he conquered. So i would say that he acted more irrationally (less reason and reflexion) than rationally.

To summarize the limitations of instincts and rational thinking:

Instincts:
- are based on statistics over millenia. Although such statistics don't lead to an exact result, all billions of factors that exist are weighed in. Therefore, instincts are really good at foreseeing long term effects of actions, which is why we among other things instinctively hate unethical power fights and are careful with unethical actions of any kind as long as we listen to instincts.
- they are however not based on causality, but on correlations that only exist as long as the society they were developed in remains fairly constant.

Instincts based on ethical values. Wrong instincts give no importance to the complexity of the minds construction, less to one of the more complicated: "morality".

Rational thinking:
- it is exact, but it can't weigh in as many factors as instincts. Over a thousand factors is nearly impossible to master. This makes it really weak when it comes to predicting long term effects of something, which is why the psychopats who led conquest but got their empire crushed one or more centuries afterwards were thinking rationally, not instinctively.

Rational thinking is not exact, that's why it has so much problems. If it was exact then it will be perfect, but rationality is falable and also perfectionable. Psychopats thinking rationally? Please, come on. The very core of psychosis is the fact that rationallity "fades away" on the mind of a certain person that suffers it, temporary ot constantly.

Furthermore:
- every rational thought has it's origin in an instinct. You may work for money, even though money didn't exist in nature and there couldn't possibly be an instinct for money, but why do you work for money? Because you want security and food, which is an instinct. Every basic urge that makes you do anything at all has it's roots in an instinct. The way you carry out the actions, the way you strive towards that goal, is decided by rational thinking.
- the reason why natural evolution developed rational thinking was for using it in isolated situations like hunting, not to replace the long term thinking which instincts are better adapted to handling.

Agreed with point one. Though you always forget that rationality also made those realationships more complex and at the same time devoloped the mind, so instincts are less needed more and more. And you don't "think" when you're behaving instinctively.

It's a misconception to think that you can make all living humans behave rationally in the way for example you and I are behaving by being able to analyze things such as this, things such as excessive violence of wars and genocide etc. etc., without mixing in too much instincts and feelings in it.

I don't see the misconception, in teory it could work. And the point is separation from natural, unnatural. The social human (zoon politkon, Aristoteles) is not more ruled by positive science, natural science, it has it's own method, dinamics and matter, called social science. You're trying to mix the two. The social science surged from the very principle that the humans had an ideal "spirit" that performed the actions socially and all scientists agree that the spirit is superior to the instincts.

Well, monkeys don't fight wars as often as humans. It has happened that raids have been conducted by gorillas, but that's still by far less common than among humans (I hardly think it has happened more than once or perhaps twice btw). Besides, gorillas have a lot of rational thinking ability, and after humans have destroyed most of their habitats and they are victims of more or less inbreeding, it doesn't change much if one male gorilla goes to rape all females because the inbreeding will be there even if he lets, as is the usual method, more gorillas share the mating procedure to achieve more genetic variety, and the gorillas are therefore, no matter what, doomed to extinction no matter what WWF or Greenpeace do (they can only prolong the inevitable a little).

No mokeys don't reason they just adapt themselves to the eviorament, they just have more memory than most of the other animals, though they're showing signs of begining to separete from survival, and start to think in other things. And the chimpances act in an interesting way, when they reach the period when we're considered adolescents, they group in "gangs" and fight each other and also kill other species just to demonstrate masculinity. And they're condemned to extintion right because they didn't evolve (or did they? us), civilization secures the duration of man.

If we compare human violence with violence in nature, humans are by far worst. And we shouldn't compare humans to some insects that aren't even closely related to humans, we shouldn't compare human violence to the violence of a predator to a prey. We should compare it to internal violence within the same species among other species. And we should also keep in mind that most violence among other species can be easily avoided, whereas a total war is nearly impossible to escape from. For example monkeys have a complex system of threatening signals that they send out before attacking, giving the opponent to surrender. And whoever surrenders is usually shown mercy. Many so-called "rational" humans today are so scared (by instincts) that they immediately think the earliest display of discontent is a sign that they will be attacked, and they immediately strike - with unethical power tools that gives them a strength they do not naturally possess, so that they have to defend that power with constant attacks, because if they didn't use their unnatural power tools they would immediately lose the power.

It's worse because the number of humans have increased. The violence that you're talking about is exactly the rational violence, the one that is acting to create a mor fair and rational society. They're not scared by instincts, the instincts are exactly the problem why they act like you describe (if i interpreted it well).

No we haven't. The very fact that you're debating with me prooves that the instincts still exist. Why would you debate this if you didn't think it would create a safer world to apply more rationalism and civilization? Why would you want a safer world if you aren't still afraid of death? Why would you still be afraid of death, if you had no instincts, no urges.

The instincts don't give you selfawareness, therefore no fear for death ,that's rational, reflexive thinking. And i'm debating this with you to proove the contrary, my instincts are not moving me to do so, i do this rationally, also it has nothing to do. I just want to state my point, you, yours. And i never said that i've no instincts (though it doesn't matter at this point), i just said that the man achievied to ignore the instincts, they're still there and they show from time to time some some signals.

Besides, it has been proved that during a normal talk, about 90 percent (these are not my own arbitrary numbers, but the numbers of scientists) is carried over by body language. Good looking people get jobs easier than bad looking ones even in cases where the boss won't benefit at all from the beauty of the one he hires and the less beautiful one was better at the job.

Yes i've saw it too. But that doesn't prove anything to your initial statement. That doesn't make civilization the cause of violence. Besides that's exactly one of the signals that some times instincts show. I still ignore instinct after instinct, though sometimes the signals show up (generally because they're inconcient).

The urge to attack countries because a small number of people from the country committed an act of terror, is an instinct. The will to eat, to breathe, to sleep, is based on instincts. Fear of conflicts is an instinct. Compassion is an instinct. Curiosity, the urge that drives people to think rationally in sciene, is an instinct. One could go on forever...

They're not insntincts (except for compassion), they just surge from them. They need of rationallity to analize the situation and make a response, because of the same complexity that you state.

You can't get rid of instincts without losing your will to live, your will to reproduce, and your will to protect your children, the things that makes you a human. You can't eliminate instincts without eliminating yourself and mankind! A man who doesn't care about his children, what is he? What is a man who doesn't want to reproduce - what does he care about future or long term effects of his actions - why not conquer half the world and kill all the people you conquer to the last man, if you don't care about tommorrow? Why refrain yourself from massacring the first people you see before your eyes if your instincts don't tell you your own life is worth something?

Yes i can, and i'll. Most utopies are constructed over the basis of no family and no child protection from biological fathers. The females may want to protect the children, i'm male, by instinct males of almost all species doesn't care about their children, they just deposite the seed and disappear. The instincts don't make you human, they make you an animal, rationality makes you human. The idea of the worth of the life of human kind surges from rationality, again instincts doesn't give a damn about society or "groups".

Like I said, irrational violence exist IF AND ONLY IF the instincts order violence in a situation when it isn't benefitial in any way. This means the instincts have to give birth to it. But instincts were not made to be irrational in the society they were created in. They were made to be rational in the society they were created in - based on research over thousands of years. The only way instincts can give birth to irrational behavior, is by being exposed to an environment which they aren't adapted to.

This is incorrect. Animals fight for chances of reproduction and territory. Again instincts weren't creted, unless you believe in God, and atribute the creation to "him".

With natural society, I mean the way things were before civilization. I use that term to clarify that there's only a small number of things that have changed since then. Otherwise, using different words fools many to believe that more than just a few minor things have changed since then, fools some people to even believe EVERYTHING has changed since then. My definition of the word society is: "a system for how humans live together". With that definition, also nature is a society. Accepting this also opens the path to learn from the natural society when creating a modern society. Nature was better in many ways.

That'll be exactly natural state. Society is a mental construction, so it's not exactly living together, they can live together but don't have an actual relationship at all, it has to fit in a formal conception of what society is. Nature wasn't better in anyway. You were stuck on the evolution process at the same level as other animals, there were more mortality rate, less use of inteligence (therefore less rationality and more irrationality), in few words we were abandon to the phenomenums of nature. Though i agree with you in some points, nothing of that makes civilization the cause of violence (just of rational violence, that's not always "bad") nor natural state the better relationship between man.

conon394

08-25-2005, 05:07

I strongly disagree. A lot of people didn't like Athens

Funny thing is Demosthenes managed to find rather a lot of friends before Chaeronea while at the same time the majority of Macedonia’s friends found more pressing things to attend too… The only real solid facts about Chaeronea seem to be it was a long battle, Philip won and the Macedonians had to build a rather large mound over their dead, and a lot of Greeks died as well. Historians tend to be enamored with the autocrats Philip and his son, but it was a close test, and Macedonia dose not look to have been all that well loved by contemporary Greeks.

Rodion Romanovich

08-25-2005, 09:52

@Soulforged: I apparently have to start over...

1. Is violence a good or bad thing in itself?
- It's a bad thing, violence hurts people. Only if the violence can ACHIEVE something, is it good - for the one who achieves it by using the violence. Now, assume we create a society where say, cooperation is forbidden. Everyone who cooperates will be killed. In a such a society, it's rational to kill each other, but is that violence REALLY good for them? No, because it's the society that creates it, and it's unnecessary. Now let's take a real example: After the first wars raged on earth, men started fighting wars just because of mutual fear of the other part going to attack - they wanted to strike while they were stronger, in fear of being struck later. Even though no REAL conflict existed, but only the fear of a future conflict did, did they start war, and kill each other en masse. Later in civilization, men started to fight wars even with people they considered completely harmless, not even a future threat, because those harmless people possessed strategical positions. Taking those strategical positions would make the attacker safer against those he DID consider threats, in case of a future war. That's the way wars and violence work today in civilization, and that violence serves no real purporse - there's no real conflict, it's the fear of a future conflict, that creates it. Try to see the difference between a conflict that is about something real, and a conflict which is created solely by fear.

Again totally arbitrary. Anyway this doesn't refute anything. In the course of civilization the humans begun to understand it porpose.

So what was it's purpose?

Instincts were created? You're definitively wrong on that, instincts come from the inconcient part of the brain, so you can't create them.

Instincts were created by evolution. If you misunderstood me that much, please reread my post again and you'll hopefully understand what I mean.

You're again assuming that the instincts are superior to the mind.

No, I've never assumed that. My knowledge about instincts and rational thinking was posted in my post above (reposted below for convenience):

Instincts:
- are based on statistics over millenia. Although such statistics don't lead to an exact result, all billions of factors that exist are weighed in. Therefore, instincts are really good at foreseeing long term effects of actions, which is why we among other things instinctively hate unethical power fights and are careful with unethical actions of any kind as long as we listen to instincts.
- they are however not based on causality, but on correlations that only exist as long as the society they were developed in remains fairly constant.

Rational thinking:
- it is exact, but it can't weigh in as many factors as instincts. Over a thousand factors is nearly impossible to master. This makes it really weak when it comes to predicting long term effects of something, which is why the psychopats who led conquest but got their empire crushed one or more centuries afterwards were thinking rationally, not instinctively.

Furthermore:
- every rational thought has it's origin in an instinct. You may work for money, even though money didn't exist in nature and there couldn't possibly be an instinct for money, but why do you work for money? Because you want security and food, which is an instinct. Every basic urge that makes you do anything at all has it's roots in an instinct. The way you carry out the actions, the way you strive towards that goal, is decided by rational thinking.
- the reason why natural evolution developed rational thinking was for using it in isolated situations like hunting, not to replace the long term thinking which instincts are better adapted to handling.

We humans can surpress and ignore instincts totally, humans, from the time that civilization begun, learned to do that. Now we don't eat for hunger, we don't sleep for rest, we don't look for coverage for protection of the bad weather, we don't have sex only for reproduction or not at all for reproduction. The mind works over the ignored parts of the brain, and is that mind that has the capacity of adapt humans to their own creations. You're giving a to high and fictional value to the instincts.

I've presented proof of the opposite. Please motivate this obvious incorrect statement you're making. BTW, we do eat for hunger, try not eating for two days (should be enough), and you'll think of nothing but food. Try not sleeping for five days, and you'll start sleeping microsleep, and think of nothing but your soft pillows. Sex? Your instincts tell you to have sex, it's them that makes you want it. As condoms didn't exist in nature, you can fool the instincts that way (remember the instincts are based on correlations existing in the nature they were created by evolution, not on any causality - again I refer to my post above which explains that extremely important phenomenon in detail) - you'll still feel the pleasure. Why do you feel pleasure by having sex? Because that's the instincts ordering you to have sex. Almost everything instinctive works like that - satisfy the instinct and you get pleasure, don't satisfy it and you get pain and fear. BTW, a man who doesn't eat for five days to prove that he can "supress his hunger", can do so because he knows he'll get food again after those five days have ended - therefore, he hasn't supressed any instincts much at all by doing so. But assume we force you not to eat for five days, then throw you out in the wilderness. Then you'll know fear - the fear of not being able to know whether you'll get food or not.

My instincts and those of many others i know are, at least in practice, totally supered.

Please prove this. Say anything you've done, that doesn't have it's roots in instincts. Everywhere you look, my statement is confirmed, the rational thinking may control your way of achieving a large goal by achieving several smaller goals on the way, but the large goal is always originating in instincts.

Again we don't want to remove violence, we just want to remove irrationality.

So, you think rational violence is good? If a single people benefits from killing all others and conquering the world, do you think they should do that? What we have to remove, above all, are the signals that lead people to violence. Most violence is unnecessary and caused by an artificial, created situation, which always leads to violence when it exists. If we create situations that lead to violence, then we're just plain stupid. If such situations are created, it's hard to oppose to the violence, as those carrying it out will see it as necessary to use the violence.

Violence is the very engine of civilization. Though my principal critic here's that you fail to see the true begining of civilization. The natural society itself (though it's very discused if such a society existed) was the begining of civilization.

Again you need to explain what you mean. Natural society being the beginning of civilization, even though natural society didn't exist? How can something non-existing cause something existing? ~:confused: ~D

Correct by what criteria.

By evolution's criteria. By maximizing survival. Maximizing survival is caused by, for example, living without destroying the nature that feeds you so it can no longer feed you, as well as keep conflicts and violence to a minimum. Statistically it's easily proved that humans are the most violent and irrational of all animals. Theoretically, the same thing can also be proved, as I have done here - the explanation is not the human nature, but the civilization humans live in.

Instincs will not pull you to construct houses

*cough* Birds, Rabbits, Foxes *cough*

invent concret

*cough* Birds and their building materials *cough*

in short they will not make you evolve

Why evolve if the evolvement leads to more unnecessary, irrational violence?

It's simple your initial thread accused civilization of increasing violence (i dunno if you refer to the irrational one or the rational). I ask you.

Both. The instincts behave irrationally if they are in a different environment in that which they were created in, i.e. the natural society. That explains the increased irrational violence. Then civilization has also created more causes of conflict, which is probably the worst thing, as it will also lead whoever is thinking rationally to commit violent acts.

Were the mans less violent in natural state?

Everything implies that, yes. See the explanations above for a theoretical proof of it. The statistical proof is quite as simple - looking at monkeys gives an (if not perfect), at least quite good indication of it.

Again civilization begun far before Genghis Khan. When i said that i was refering to the mongols and Genghis Khan included being the more uncivilezed on the context. Ghengis Khan just conquered for the sake of conquering and spread fear and terror, like if that would help him keep the territories that he conquered. So i would say that he acted more irrationally (less reason and reflexion) than rationally.

On the contrary, everybody thought his methods of conquests would prevail and never lead to their defeat. It was rational - by eliminating everyone who could perhaps in the future become a threat, they achieved safety. By creating a strong economy they could get hold of luxury. The tactics and strategies employed by the mongols were brilliant. All that came from a rational mind, controlled by instincts. The instincts were the origin of the will for safety and luxury (all humans are by nature lazy, like all other animals, it's a basic instinct which helps survival - you don't waste energy unless you have to). Besides, Genghis also realized that a more total terror and spreading of fear would make the effect of keeping the territories calm a lot stronger than if he would have applied partial terror. However, he failed to see that it would eventually lead to an inevitable destruction. Would you have seen that in his situation? Probably not. Besides, mongols and other steppe tribes were constantly subject to expansion attempts from city people. The constant expansion of farmer's territory pushed these nomads out in infertile, harsh land where it was much harder to survive, and life much more painful. He had a reason to strike non-nomad civilization, which has always thought itself better than nomad civilizations, and taken from the nomads their land and pushing them out on steppes, into deserts, and so on.

Though you always forget that rationality [...] devoloped the mind, so instincts are less needed more and more. And you don't "think" when you're behaving instinctively.

Modern humans almost always mix in rational thought in their decisions, but the instinctive parts are still also part in all decisions. Rationality developed the mind? How so? The neurophysiology of man hasn't changed over the last seven thousand years in any way.

I don't see the misconception, in teory it could work. And the point is separation from natural, unnatural. The social human (zoon politkon, Aristoteles) is not more ruled by positive science, natural science, it has it's own method, dinamics and matter, called social science. You're trying to mix the two. The social science surged from the very principle that the humans had an ideal "spirit" that performed the actions socially and all scientists agree that the spirit is superior to the instincts.

What kind of fantasy/religion is that? All thoughts that aren't rational, are instinctive. There are no other parts of the brain. And our very own society is a good proof that it couldn't work. A majority are quite rational, but a few are irrational, and that's why there are thousands of irrational murders every year, and why irrational war after irrational war is started all over the world. Not to mention the rational violence caused by civilization creating unnatural situations that make violence benefitial.

No mokeys don't reason they just adapt themselves to the eviorament,

*cough* Even cats reason. The reasoning ability is being able to perform statistical research of the environment in your brain, then create new neutral connections accordingly. That system has existed from the time of the first mammals and birds, perhaps also among a few reptiles.

they just have more memory than most of the other animals, though they're showing signs of begining to separete from survival, and start to think in other things

Why is it good to separate from survival (and reproduction and caring/protecting of your offspring)? A man who doesn't care about his offspring doesn't care about longterm effects of his actions, which, again, makes it rational to be a Genghis Khan - even though it'll lead to losing the provinces some centuries afterwards. Then it would also be rational to destroy the environment so much that humans can't continue living on earth, because it'll take one to five generations from now until that happens, given the speed at which we're doing it at the moment.

And the chimpances act in an interesting way, when they reach the period when we're considered adolescents, they group in "gangs" and fight each other and also kill other species just to demonstrate masculinity.

Chimpanzees eat other species. But do they kill each other in those gangs? Nope. Almost the only times animals other than humans kill each other is during sexual rank fights, and then it's always possible to give up. It's only individuals who refuse to give up their status that are killed. Not very surprisingly, those are the individuals that have created civilization - those who can't accept their sexual rank. And only by unjust means can they hold that rank in civilization, by constantly using their power. Not surprisingly, those are the ones that refuse to give up civilization, despite all the violence it causes.

Besides, don't small children often like to roast ants under magnifying glasses? Isn't it common that parents refuse to give their children pets when they're too young, of fear of the children hurting them?

And they're condemned to extintion right because they didn't evolve (or did they? us), civilization secures the duration of man.

So you mean not evolving means being condemned to extinction?

*cough* Beetles *cough* Fish *cough* Reptiles *cough* Insects *cough* Spiders *cough*

In fact, the animals mentioned above are among those who have the greatest chance of all to survive if humans hadn't existed. Most of those also even have a chance of surviving even now, when humans exist and destroy earth. They are really tough, I can assure you.

The one thing that makes humans strong enough to survive compared to other species is their ability to cooperate and their complex system of instincts which store ethical values for the practical situations which may occur in the natural society (the instincts aren't, like I've explained above numerous times by now, adapted to any society other than the one in which they were developed by evolution, due to the phenomenon of them having to be based on CORRELATION rather than CAUSALITY). A so frail, weak little animal like the humans can never survive without cooperation. How sad that such a frail, slow little animal is a hunter and collector, when it's too slow to hunt by itself. Like suricats, like rabbits, like lions, they have to stick together or they'll face certain death. How sad that such a species doesn't realize how much it depends on, for it's survival, the ability to cooperate and fight the systems which create conflicts that have no real meaning, because the state of matters that made the conflict worth fighting was created artificially and by accident.

It's worse because the number of humans have increased.

On the contrary, humans are more violent per capity nowadays.

The instincts don't give you selfawareness, therefore no fear for death ,that's rational, reflexive thinking.

The fear of death doesn't have to be an aware feeling in order to work. Think of things such as the reflex which makes you move a hand from a hot stove. Some instincts are that primitive. But it has been proved that the more complex instincts which exist in the lower parts of the brain, are aware instincts. That's the part of your brain which gives birth to all your feelings. Attempts to avoid death, aware or not, but in any case combined with a painful fear feeling, exist in any living species, whether it's bacteria, rabbits or humans.

And i'm debating this with you to proove the contrary, my instincts are not moving me to do so, i do this rationally, also it has nothing to do. I just want to state my point, you, yours. And i never said that i've no instincts (though it doesn't matter at this point), i just said that the man achievied to ignore the instincts, they're still there and they show from time to time some some signals.

Ok, so you admit the instincts still exist and show from time to time. But have you now realized that they are the basic urge behind EVERY rational thought? Because when you realize that, you'll realize that in order to create a functioning society it's necessary to not deny the instincts, but allow them to exist freely, but adapting the society to the instincts so that they lead to rational behavior. I've explained how that is achieved. Of course, there will have to be SOME regulation with rationalism suffocating instincts, but if society is adapted well to the instincts, there will be so few cases when such adaption is needed, that people's frustration levels won't rise high enough to cause irrational behavior and conflicts. It doesn't matter if the thoughts are irrational, our goal is to achieve rational behavior, whether it has it's origin in instincts or reasoning.

Yes i've saw it too. But that doesn't prove anything to your initial statement. That doesn't make civilization the cause of violence. Besides that's exactly one of the signals that some times instincts show. I still ignore instinct after instinct, though sometimes the signals show up (generally because they're inconcient).

The civilization is, once again, the cause of the INCREASE of violence of two types:
1. the one caused by making the instincts lead to irrational behavior by changing the indata signals patterns by changing the society.
2. the one caused by making it benefitial to use violence, so that it is rational to use violence to achieve success.

Yes i can, and i'll. Most utopies are constructed over the basis of no family and no child protection from biological fathers. The females may want to protect the children, i'm male, by instinct males of almost all species doesn't care about their children, they just deposite the seed and disappear.

On the contrary, fathers do care about their offspring, always. Not always actively, but at least passively in the sense that they wouldn't want to kill their offspring or actively hurt it in any way. A father wouldn't either hurt the mother of his children in a way that would result in the mother getting smaller chances of protecting the offspring, and so on.

The instincts don't make you human, they make you an animal, rationality makes you human. The idea of the worth of the life of human kind surges from rationality, again instincts doesn't give a damn about society or "groups".

No, rationality without instincts makes you a machine. You can't remain a human unless you both have your urges - your definitions of goals, preferences and feelings - and your tools to carry it out - the instincts.

This is incorrect. Animals fight for chances of reproduction and territory.

Yes, but only when doing so leads to an advantage. Humans create situations that makes violence lead to an advantage, and then they apply the violence that those situations lead to. Besides, those fights are fought in a way that reminds of what humans in civilization refer to as "honor" and "fair play". Threat signals are always given before an attack, and their are ethical rules about how much land each flock is allowed to own - most territories are of approximately the same size etc. When it comes to the reproduction fights, it's ALWAYS possible to surrender for most animals, and the result is mercy. One of the few cases where animals are killed often during such fights are deers and others who have developed horns and evolution of instincts hasn't been fast enough to correct their fighting behavior after it, so that they are aware of that their weapons are more dangerous and can be less violent against each other, and surrender more quickly (this can also be compared to human behavior, where the same phenomenon has happened). Besides, in nature it's mostly the initiative of the weaker (in status - therefore most of the time also in strength) to start a status fight. The stronger keeps his status automatically and doesn't need to "defend" it by constantly hurting and weakening his opponents. When the weaker win, however, they must constantly defend that rank by attacking and by hurting weakening their opponents. Of course, they can only win if they use hideous weapons like brainwashing, religion, spears and guns, and power - which is why civilization was created. It was created because of people wanting to hold a power they weren't constructed to hold.

Civilization was not created in an attempt to improve life for entire mankind, it was created merely out of egoistical thoughts of minorities or individuals. Where was the rational thought when money was invented to facilitate trade, and it lead to slave trade, prostitution, poverty (with laws against stealing food), economical competition instead of compassionate cooperation within flocks, and wars in order to get hold of silver and gold mines (Iberian conquest and conquest of Dacia during roman times come to mind) etc. You must realize that civilization is a series of failures, and it's kept from total collapse not because it's basic system is good, but because their are plenty of good humans living in it, striving to compensate for the numerous faults of it. Just think if the workers that go to poor countries to feed the poor - isn't that like trying to fill a water barrel with a hole in by pouring water in it from the top when society system in itself has created that hole and keeps it from closing? Think of the industrial decapitating and injuring of people in wars, and the rows of medics repairing the wounds. Think of all rebels that have to sacrifice their life in order to make state realize that workers need rights and that giving them rights will also benefit the company owners in that healthy workers will do a better job?

You seem to believe in the myth of civilization. Unforuntately, you're not the only one. And so, mankind will keep spiralling closer and closer to their own destruction. They're all affected by civilization - only civilizations which can in their system promote making nature look dangerous and cruel, could survive the thousand years during which civilization evolved. How many today act of their own free will - and how many act in ways because civilization orders them to? The civilizations that were best at making the humans in them create armies and destroy others, prevailed. The civilizations that went back to nature lost military power, and were overthrown. Perhaps that is how it always will be? An evolution reinforcing civilization until it has full power over mankind, and mankind loses their own will, their own urges. Slaves to a system, which as no soul, no mercy. Acting no longer of free will, but on orders of the society they once created to increase their chances of satisfying their own free will. They even try to debate against the few remaining that see the true dangers of civilization. Can that be an act of free will? To defend a system which suffocates free will, to defend a system which makes people want to suffocate their free will and want to make others suffocate it too?

Again instincts weren't creted, unless you believe in God, and atribute the creation to "him".

They were created by evolution, what else? (I assume you meant "created" when you wrote "creted") Humans have other instincts than fish, frogs have other instincts than reptiles. What could be more self-explanatory?

Advo-san

08-25-2005, 12:54

Advo:

If I had the time, I'd pick up a masters just to argue my thesis at more length and with the proper research. Prior to Alexander's conquests, Greek culture - as expressed through Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, et. al. emphasized the rational and logical as a basis for knowledge and society (Yes, I am aware that Greek culture in practice never reached the perfection of its expressed ideals, nor has the USA with its own constitution -- people aren't perfect). These ideals undergird the strength of republican Rome, Roman engineering, and -- eventually -- the renaissance of Western European culture. After Alexander, Hellenic culture -- which I freely admit shows greek influence, takes on an essentially "oriental" culture as opposed to the western "occidental" ( I recognized the propriety of these terms is disputed) Imperial Rome did progressively trend in this direction as well -- preserved longest and most emblematically in the "Byzatine" empire. The West followed a different route.

As to Aristotle, he became tutor to Alexander following his rejection as Plato's successor as head of the academy -- despite the fact that Plato himself had acknowledged Aristotle's mind as the best aside from his own. Having worked in academe, I can tell you that Aristotle being anything aside from bitter at the "shabby" treatment accorded him by Athens and the Academy after such high previous honors would be almost an inhuman response. The laurels should have gone Socrates - Plato - Aristotle, and Aristotle was, I conjecture, at least a little bitter towards his erstwhile home. He would have been well aware of Thoukidides and other's views of Macedon and Phillip, nor would he have lacked other lucrative offers as a tutor.

And yes, I have read the surviving works of Plato and Aristotle, Euripedes, Aeschylus and pieces of Herodotus, Galen, Euclid, and Thucidides. Your are correct in that Aristotle's work clearly proceeds from the Socratic and Platonic efforts prior to him -- but that doesn't change my point. ~:)

Seamus
seamus:
A phrase you wrote made me realize that we have a fundamentally different approach on what we call "greek": After Alexander, Hellenic culture -- which I freely admit shows greek influence, takes on an essentially "oriental" culture as opposed to the western "occidental" . You consider hellenic culture to be something non-greek, or demi-greek or at least partially-greek . But, for me, hellenic is greek.
Firstly, as you probably know, we do not call ourselves "Greeks", you 'll never hear that in Greece, we call oureselves "Hellenes". Greeks was a name the Turks gave us, but we never adopted it, though europeans did. We have always been "hellenes", for the last 35 hundred years.
To our subject now, for me hellenic culture is the result of a fusion between classical greek culture and "oriental" cultures. And this hellenic culture, after its fusion with christian culture produced Byzantine culture, which is also greek to me, and Byzantine culture after its fusion with the renessance-western culture produced modern-greek culture, my actual culture.
What I am trying to say is that, to my eyes, the minoic and mykenian culture (1300-800 bc), the pre-classical greek culture(Homeric culture we call it, 800-500 bc), classical greek culture (500-323 bc), hellenistic culture (323 bc-400), byzantine culture (400-1453) and modern greek culture (1821-today) are all greek vis a vis hellenic, are the different phases that my culture has been through the last 3.500 years. Greek culture has always been a never-ending procedure of integration of "alien" influences.
I will try to make a comparison. Greek culture is like a student. A student who goes erasmus, who travels abroad a lot, who does post-graduate studies in a foreign country. He is being influenced by all the things he encouters while abroad and by all the new stuff he is learning. He is changing .... But can you really say he is a different person? Of course not. He is still him, because he integrated all those influences in his own special and unique way.
So you see now why I believe hellenistic culture is greek culture. Our disagreement is a matter of definition. A definition of what is Greek.

BTW I m really enjoying our debate, even though we disagree, and I m more than happy that you are so interested in greek history. So, I 'll give you a few things to think over.

conon394

08-25-2005, 14:26

Advo-san

Your Greek history seems to be missing a few centuries. The more pertinent for the question on the Greek-ness of Macedonians, is would the ancient Greek’s of Athens or Corinth would see it the same way. To use a different example, the Pope may have crowned Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans (Irene in Constantinople not withstanding), but would Cato, Cicero or Caesar call either Charlemagne or Irene Romans?

The ancients Hellenes were called Greeks by Romans, well before the Turks showed up. The Byzantines called and thought of themselves as Romans.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-25-2005, 15:29

Seamus Fermanagh

08-25-2005, 15:51

On violence et al.:

Soul' & Legio30':

First, as a conflict scholar, I recommend the following to both of you:

Paul Bohannon's "Law and Warfare"

John W. Burton's "Deviance, Terrorism, and War"

Collins' "Conflict Sociology"

T. R. Gurr's "Why Men Rebel"

and

Konrad Lorenz's "On Agression"

The latter, in particular, discusses many of the themes on which you both have built.

"Violence" at least in the sense of conflict to acquire resources, seems to be an instinctual component of all higher animals, including homo sapiens.

"Violence" may well be considered the cause of civilization as homo sapiens, poorly suited to solo survival in a "natural" setting was very effective in coordinated groups.

In competing for resources and, potentially, to address violent conflict with other groups doing the same, we have the beginnings of civilization. Remember the doctrine of Hobbes who views civilization as a "contract" by which individuals band together to combat the state of nature wherein life is "nasty, brutish, and short."

Civilization, of course, allows for the development of resources far beyond that available to individuals. Specialization - including warriors - becomes possible only when resources are assured. In that sense, Civilization may be said to have "caused" more violence than ever existed in the "state of nature."

As to rationality versus instinct.

Yes, individuals living in society can suppress or supercede -- or at least channel -- instinctual behavior. This does not, as has been noted, deny their existence. Western culture tends to preference "rationality" as the acme of intellectual development, and we have consequently enshrined science and technology as the hallmarks of civilization. Other cultures, notably the asiatic ones, take a different route. Enlightenment, for many asiatic philosophies, is not so much a product of superceding instinct with rationality so much as it is a quest to accept these traits and to "integrate" them as a means to achieving spiritual balance and enlightenment.

A good read on this area is R.G.H Siu's "The Tao of Science."

Fun discussion.

Seamus

conon394

08-25-2005, 16:21

Soulforged

08-26-2005, 05:12

Rodion Romanovich

08-26-2005, 09:06

Well Legio this is going to large. But to keep it simple, you mentioned the creation of instinctc as created through times by humans. Secondly you have a romantic vision on history, many works on the natural state state that we were more violent, because of the little use of rationality. Rationality makes us evolve, because our body does not evolve at the same rate of other species, and it doesn't adapt to the enviorament as fast as other species we need rationality to survive what we're in nature

Please prove these things. You haven't presented any proof at all, neither theoretical nor statistical.
1. please present any works that state natural state was more violent, and what their motivation for that lie is.
2. rationality makes us evolve? how so?
3. our body does not evolve at the same rate as that of other species? what makes you think that?
4. it doesn't adapt to environment as fast as other species? what makes you think that, nothing implies so.
5. rationality to replace instincts isn't the main thing humans needed to survive in nature. They needed cooperation, and rational thinking in isolated situations such as hunting. They are in that sense comparable to other flock animals and other predators/partial predators/omnivores.
6.

that's why the only way to decrease irrational, and eventually rational, violence, is too simple, reason with more frequency and you will notice what is that separates you from your own nature. All your positive objective post on rationality is based on the assumption that instincs overwhelm the rational mind, that you can't get rid of instincs.

Once again, I never said instincts are superior to rational thinking. I explained that both have strengths and weaknesses. Instincts are nearly perfect as long as they are used in a society during which they were developed. If we'd keep civilization constant for half a million years, then our instincts would adapt to it. Unfortunately, civilization will never be constant, it'll keep evolving because of the leaders' hunger for power and safety, which are, of course, instincts adapted to the natural state, that they can't deny. If civilization keeps changing, our instincts will always call to arms.

And again, the worst of all scenarios is when we actually create a situation where it DOES pay off to be evil/violent, where such a scenario didn't exist before. Then we're creating a most unnecessary violence. And that happens often in civilization.

Finally, last but not least, the power that drives civilization to evolve is NOT rational thinking and attempts to make the world better. Civilization was created by greed and instincts, combined with not to farsighted, primitive attempts at rational thinking, that made it look benefitial to be evil, even when it in the long term punished itself. The only way civilization isn't worse in practise than it is at the moment, is because there are thousands of people trying desperately to fill the holes in it.

But i really don't think that you gave enough empirical proves on that. Just some isolated presence of instincts that are present on everyday, but that doesn't mean that they've a great effect. I'm not saying that actions doesn't have any roots on instincts, but you're misunderstanding me, the mind is capable of surpressing the effect of the instinct and create a new expression totally isolated from the instinct. For example let's take one simple: every day you go to eat, but you do it on certain hours, you prepare your food and eat with dishes. If you're saying that this unnatural deviation makes the man react wrong in some way to the enviorament, then i asure you that that doesn't have any effect over me. (this is what i meant when i said "we don't eat for hunger", you just supposed a situation were obviously our instincts of autopreservation will come up)

Ok, did I get this right? You're admitting that every action has it's root in an instinct? But still we can create a new expression totally isolated from the instinct? How can it both be totally isolated from the instinct and still has it's root in an instinct?

But even if you were right there's no point in discussing this, you don't have empirical facts on the increasing of violence through history, therefore you can't say with certainty that civilization increases violence.

You have no empirical proof of the opposite. And, all proof and indicia that aren't counted as empirical supports what I say. Besides, if you sketch a graph based on historians' assumptions on death tolls in human-caused problems, you'll see that it increases per capita - with only a few exceptions from the linear or possibly exponential increase (it's hard to know if it's linear or exponential if the base isn't much enough larger than 1.0000).

And the comparisons to animals aren't to be underestimated. A personal question - are you living in a city with skyscrapers? Have you ever seen animals in their natural setting? Have you ever tried to understand the rules and systems for how to avoid conflicts in a flock of any animal species of your choice? How much do you know about animals and nature? Have you only read what philosophers that despited nature have written? Have you only read what stiff civilizationist people write? Just look at the first non-breeded, natural mammal or bird you see, and I can assure you it's a hundred times less violent than humans against it's own species. I've never suggested going back to nature, as that is both impossible and unrealistic (the damn humans would create a new civilization and go through sacrifice etc. all over again). So, then, what are you afraid of when it comes to nature? Whenever I say something about natural state, you seem to immediately reject it,no matter how well I prove it. I've never recieved a correct contra-argument against something I've said about nature, only attempts at escaping from the scientifically proved theories that I present. Doesn't this fear of nature come from civilization itself? How would civilization have survived if it hadn't been so skilled at decieving people again and again that nature would be more cruel? I've never heard any rational explanations for comments like yours.

Btw, i never said reason - instincts = human. Obviously you will never be able to do that, what you'll be able to do is to surpress the instincts, but they will exist, as always, in the unconscious (above i said inconcient, sorry for that kind of english). So rationality will rule irrestricted over the instincts. So you will leave your animal past behind and just resort to instincts when you invetabily need them (like in your case of hunger). What i mean is: you keep your instincts as your background and use always reason as your primary "weapon" to "survive" in society, so that way the background only gives origins and support, while the principal weapon is used always to express and move yourself in society.

What exactly do you mean by supressing instincts (you make it sound like you want both survival, sex and offspring survival to be suppressed)? How is it done (are you talking about brainwashing by schools and other civilizational institutions, or by discipline and violence again children who doesn't agree to it?), how will you make all humans do it (or will you kill/punish/inprison those who fails - calling them criminals because they lived in a society situation that made them commit crimes, because their pain and fear instincts couldn't make them avoid the frustration that caused it - instead of changing back society to be less full of pain and fear, so that it would never have gotten to that)? What will be the effects of it (do you think peace will magically spread over earth because people think rationally - when the first implementation of rational thinking in the fields naturally covered by instincts, i.e. the long term effect actions, led to creation of civilization with it's power fights, human sacrifice etc.)? Why should it be done? Will you, or civilization, a soulless system, be the winner of further denying the humans?

I once joked to an obvious civilizationist and said, trying to not sound sarcastic: "When humans and society aren't in harmony, either has to change. So, now that we have such a nice society, why not change the humans?" And got a serious nod as response ~:confused: :furious3: What is it with you people?

Changing humans rather than society, is what nazis, communists, dictators, murderers - every evil man who has ever lived on earth - has been trying to do. A society that has forced Jews to become bankers (because they aren't allowed to any other jobs, where Christians are favored), which a few centuries makes them the richest in Germany in a time when Germany is poor - instead of changing the society, the nazis kill the Jews*. The communists being so scared of coming back to a tsar dicatorship, but have found a society which would, if all would follow it, lead to peace and compassion - and so they kill all anti-communists, who don't like the lack of freedom and chances of career in that society. And whenever a foreign nation seemed like a threat, no leader ever tried very hard to create a system for making war gainless for both parts - instead they usually attack. And always, the society changes, so there are always new groups who have to be "removed" for it to work. It will never become calm, because always a new group will be subject to "removal". Those who commit suicide in the USA (about 50000 per year from what I've heard, mostly little girls), are the losers, the victims, today. Those, and the black people, mostly innocent, that end up in the electrical chair. And as long as humans are denied in favor of society, society is allowed to change in a way that always makes a new group badly adapted, because people always think it's those people that are bad, and not the society, whenever it occurs.

The only way to achieve a society without killing, is to adapt it to the humans, rather than adapting humans to the society. What will you do with those who aren't "rational enough" when they kill for money, because society structure doesn't give a [BEEP] about the poor? Will you call those uncivilized and irrational, who rebel against western culture? Will you call Africans and Arabs irrational, if they, in a hundred years from now, have succeeded in getting a stronger military than western countries, and attack them as payback for the colonialism and imperialism, which even though it was a long time ago, still is present everyday in that it set those countries at a disadvantage in economical competition in it's starting phases.

And even if you, personally, claim that a society based on changing humans after society rather than society after humans, wouldn't need killings, you can never guarantee that nobody will come to that conclusion as long as you stick to such a society. Because people always do. There are millions of people today who wouldn't mind a mass killing of those not well adapted to the society, when the reason why they aren't well adapted to society is because society isn't well adapted to mankind. It has happened over and over again, throughout history, that the belief that humans should adapt to society, and not society to humans, resulted in massmurder. It will again, I can assure you. Nobody can do a thing about it, until they admit this simple fact: adapt society after humans, not the opposite. If the first gloves you put on in a shop, when you intend to buy gloves, are too small, do you cut off your fingers, or change gloves?

* It has always been the praxis of humans to kill those with the money in times of poverty, rather than going for the systems that led to the money ending up in the hands they did end up in. Sometimes, it was the same hands that created the systems for how money is distributed, and who ends up getting it. In such cases, a behavior of that way could be rational. Often, however, this is not the case. Hardworking formerly poor or oppressed can often be the richest ones, through hard work and by being honest. Even then, unforuntately, people go after the people, instead of the system. Civilization is considered holy, it is never seen as responsible for the injustice and poverty. Therefore, in the case mentioned above, when the victims were NOT the same as those creating the systems, completely innocent people were killed for a fault in the society system.

Rodion Romanovich

08-26-2005, 11:22

@Soulforged: Ah, now I suddenly realize what it is you might disagree with. You think I by meaning instincts still affect us say that we'd often not be able to control our actions in the sense that we would choose a completely random and not appropriate action in a situation. If that's what you think I meant, then I'm sorry for the angry post above and will explain more thoroughly what I meant.

The instincts' effects on behavior are very small in the sense that the amount of actions they directly affected by instincts are small. Even so, instinct is the ultimate source of all actions. However, that instincts are the source of all actions, often simply means no more than that all actions are in one way or another striving towards the ultimate goal of survival, sex/reproduction, and protection of the offspring. It does NOT mean the instincts necessarily affect the way this is carried out in ANY other way than simply making sure the rational-though induced actions strive towards those goals, and not against them, as best the instincts can (although sometimes they're fooled by principle no.2. - the wrong causality behind instincts, which is the reason why instincts has no guarantee to work in a non-natural setting). That way, we can in practise see instincts are a minor effect on actions, which is probably what you're referring to - what we can see in practise. I'm doing a more theoretical way of reasoning about this. Because, on a world political level, or even a national level, there are enough cases of instincts being fooled after principle no.2, that it has a major effect on actions and events.

Still, this problem is overshadowed by what I believe I called principle no.3 - that the ACTUAL state of affairs makes people want violence, death etc.

So, in conclusion, violence is induced by either:
- the human brain, through instinct or rationalism, correctly seeing that violence is benefitial (and the human being a type of person which doesn't care about ethical principles)
, or,
- the human brain, through instinct or rationalism, through the existing inaccuracies in our senses, wrongly seeing that violence would be benefitial

That summarizes it all - in order to avoid violence altogether, both those factors must be fought. I'm not sure you agree about the existence of the first of those points, but you must agree with the existence of the second one. As that one is the most problematic one in that it causes most of the violence (not proved), it's most important to first of all counter that one. That civilization and society structure in themselves contain situations of that kind, is the thing I above all want you to understand. That conflicts are created by the system itself, rather than the humans in them, and that those conflicts therefore were unnecessary, because it had been possible to create a system where those conflicts hadn't been benefitial.

One of the scariest things about civilization is that it's so complex that such a simple fact takes ages of philosophy and rational reasoning before it is realized, meaning it's very hard indeed to counter it, as few will understand what a person trying to counter it is really meaning. That means factor no.3 is never fought. That means civilization is not only a problem in that it creates factor no.3, but it also prevents people in it from countering that factor.

Advo-san

08-26-2005, 15:37

Seamus Fermanagh

I was really aiming to use the original point to look at Advo-san’s rather broad construction of a unified and continuous Hellenic culture. From the current point looking back one can call it all on collective Hellenic culture, but I was questioning the validity of that. If you polled the various points in time he notes I don't think he would often find agreement.

The Byzantine would almost certainly answer that they were Romans not Hellenes. A classical Greek might well agree there was broad cultural group of Hellenes, but would almost certainly construct an identity around his or her polis first.

To take up the student example, I don’t know that his education is a good analogy. If the same traveling student returns home, but retains very little if any of the cultural values and norms he left home with does he really have the same culture.

And at the risk of aggravating Advo, I was also pointing out his list of fussions has a gap as well, of some 400 years.
@conon
1)The byzantines would answer that they were Romans, but I have a surprise for you. Even today, Greeks call one another "Romhios" and women "Romhia", there is a very popular greek song that says "A Romhios fell in love with a Romhiaaaaaaa, a Romhiaaa from Thessaloooonikaaaaaa.......". Pretty amazing, don't you think... Politicians use the term "Romhios" all the time, it is a synonyme to "honest Greek people" I suppose... And the byzantines would still use the term hellenes to describe the non-christians. But, today, we can proudly call oureselves either Romhios, or Hellenas.
2) I left out the ottoman occupation period, 1453-1821 on purpose. We were under turkish occupation for that time and I wish this 400 years never existed. Of course, today Turkey is our ally and friend, even though we dissagree over some agendas. Since you asked though, the period 1453-1821 is called "Turkocracy" and during this era byzantine (vis a vis medieval greek) culture made first contact with the renaissance, mainly through Greeks of Italy, Russia and the Austrohungarian empire.
3) As for the student thing: I can assure you that there is no chance for an 18year old Greek to stop being Greek. Even if he leaves Greece not only to study, but even for the rest of his life, he will never become american, english or French. One of the most ancient greek words, that is still pronounced, written and used today in Greece the same way as it was used in Homer's Odyssey is the word NOSTOS.

It means homesick, and it has been used from Greeks for at least 2.800 years. Unchanged. Once a Greek, always a Greek.

What I realize is that you are determined not to accept the continuity of the hellenic culture. But, I cannot debate over that. I feel like I m trying to prove that I m not an elephant, and it is neither interesting nor fun.
There is, though, a huge gap in your opinion. What are you thinking? That a fine morning, a few hundred years ago, my people woke up and said:"Hey, why don't we call oureselves Greeks?-Ok, lets do it!!-We can claim to be decendants of Homer, Plato, Alexander....hmmm....What else?-We can add Byzantium.....hmmmm....Any other ideas?-No, that will do!" and here we are now? Well, that is not the deal.

Advo-san

08-26-2005, 16:46

Conon:

Bless you, but Advo and I have moved beyond that tidbit. Whether the residents of Athens in his time referred to Alexandros as a Makedonian, a Hellene, or a tater-tot is secondary. We have both already noted that most of the Hellenes in what we label Greece thought of him as a Macedonian, whereas the Persians Armenians, Indians, et. al had a tendency to lump them all together as "greeks." We have re-centered the discussion on cultural influence.

Advo:

Please do not be upset with me for the use of the label "greek." For me it has no perjorative character. I am actually aware that you are a citizen of what is called the Hellenic Republic.

Hellenic culture is, as are all cultures, the product of much time and interaction among cultural groups. My point is that western cultures -- of which I am a product -- took much of the thinking extant in those cultural periods prior to Alexander's demise and used that as the foundation for what we call the Renaissance. We tend to think of THAT as the history of Greece, and sort of assume that Rome and later Byzantium maintained this without accounting for the huge impact of the infusion of "oriental" cultures beginning in the time of the successors. In fact, you will find many western tourists who don't quite "get it" when visiting Greece since they're mentally locked into the Greece of Apollo, Zeus, Socrates and Alexander. You rightly point out that it is substantially different from this, and seem to be in fairly close agreement on this with me -- despite our language disconnects. ~:)

Seamus
Seamus
I understand what you say and I agree. Let me add a few tips in your thoughts.
As you said, Classical greek culture truely offered the foundations of the modern society,from democracy to theatre. Ancient Greeks have not created the first civilized society, but they did create the first civil society, a society of civilians.That explains pretty much the admiration of the western world, which is also a civil, even though not that civilized, society if I am allowed to say.. But back then was not the time for city-states. It was the dawn of the Empires. The Peloponessian war showed the inadequacies of the city-state. If it wasn't Pella's phallanxes, it would have been Theve's holy band, or Athens' hoplites, or Corinthian marines or another greek region's army that would have turned Greece into a kingdom and the lands all the way to India an Empire.

During our Revolution, in 1821, many foreigners came to fight by our side, but were dissapointed and left us, because they expected to find bearded philosophers wearing white robes and temples made of marble. This is a shame, because all eras of hellenic culture have a unique beauty-at least to my eyes, and I can trace them all in my actual culture. There is more in Greece than classic.. ~:)

What a nice debate! :bow:

Seamus Fermanagh

08-26-2005, 17:34

~:)
Seamus
The Peloponessian war showed the inadequacies of the city-state. If it wasn't Pella's phallanxes, it would have been Theve's holy band, or Athens' hoplites, or Corinthian marines or another greek region's army that would have turned Greece into a kingdom and the lands all the way to India an Empire

Agreed. The polities of the era did not have the resources to guarantee their own defense. They were ripe for conquest/assimilation. Had it not been Phillip, it would have been Thrace or Dacia or one of the city states. It would be centuries before nationalism, the printing press, and greater numbers of people with "liesure" time allowed the development of the modern quasi-democratic republic.

During our Revolution, in 1821, many foreigners came to fight by our side, but were dissapointed and left us, because they expected to find bearded philosophers wearing white robes and temples made of marble. This is a shame, because all eras of hellenic culture have a unique beauty-at least to my eyes, and I can trace them all in my actual culture. There is more in Greece than classic.. ~:)

Exactly the kind of mis-conception I was referencing. I always knew things didn't fit, but never knew why until I'd read Balkan Ghosts. I realized that, like most Americans, Greece "stopped" with the defeat of Pyrhus [sp?], re-appeared in blip form while Byron was there, and then "stopped" again until the Italian invasion in 1940. Needless to say, this skips a good bit. ~:rolleyes: I've gone back and filled a few things in on my own.

Like you, I too am enjoying the discussion.

Seamus

conon394

08-26-2005, 17:54

Advo-san

I say we agree tht we basically disagree on the point of weather or not you can describe Greek history as an unbroken progression of a nation state, I certainly don’t want to drag out a debate that is not enjoyable.

How about just arguing the idea of a ‘failure of the city states’. How do you think they failed?

Gregoshi

08-26-2005, 19:13

How about just arguing the idea of a ‘failure of the city states’. How do you think they failed?

Sounds like an interesting seed for a new topic.

AlokaParyetra

08-26-2005, 20:48

THat Aryans invaded India.

AntiochusIII

08-28-2005, 18:38

THat Aryans invaded India.And what is the alternate theory to the dated "Aryan" theory that you are dismissing?

I am questioning only out of curiousity. :bow:

AlokaParyetra

08-28-2005, 19:39

And what is the alternate theory to the dated "Aryan" theory that you are dismissing?

I am questioning only out of curiousity. :bow:
That there was no invasion.

The only reason there was ever a proposed Invasion Theory is because Max Mueller, a German Indologist, observed similarities between Sanskrit, the once prominent language of the Indus region and several European languages. Therefore, he declared that there must be some Proto-Indo-European language from which all others evolved.

The controversy came into effect when Mueller claimed that a race called the Aryans, that originated from Southeast Europe, invaded the Indus region to bring to it its Vedic culture and language. Mueller theory (Aryan Invasion Theory) had its skeptics even then. Mueller changed his affirmation later, saying that he did not mean that the Aryans were of any particular race origen. However, no one really cared for what Mueller had to say then, and the AIT became a prominant tool of European expansionist (to justify their taking over of Southeast Asia) and later the Nazis (to justify their superiority over Asians).

I don't really have any particular alternate theory i support, because there are a few out there (including AIT), and i am yet to find convincing evidence for any of them.

Kralizec

08-31-2005, 22:44

Steppe Merc

09-01-2005, 00:27

There certaintly were Iranians (Aryan) people around India, and some may have taken over land in India.
However, the whole Nazi thing is crazy, but there were Aryan (Iranians), but not in the way Germans thought of it. Many Northern Iranians were probably fairer than moder day Germans.

Advo-san

09-01-2005, 14:10

The whole Greek-Macedonian discussion is extremely interesting...

About the Macedonian identity: compare this to the European settlers of America. Especially among younger and lesser informed people, there is another myth that America before the independence war was completely in the hands of England, in reality only a small portion. Of all the Americans, few were English by ethnicity (Anglo Saxon), the rest were Spanish, French, Dutch or of other European descent.
Yet today, we consider the US (not just the original English colonies) to belong to the same Anglo-Saxon cultural group that England belongs too, even though only a small part of the Americans actually has Anglo-Saxon blood running through their veins.
So the Macedonians, and later the Diadochi, were certainly part of the same culture as the old polises wether you call that culture Helenic or Greek. To deny that Alexander was a figure in Greek/Helenic culture and history is, well, incredibly stupid.

(I know this has been discussed at lenght before, but seeing Ceasar44's locked poll, I couldn't resist)

Advo-San: I read somewhere that the Byzantines considered the word "Helene" synonymous to "heathen". Is this correct? Did they look on classical Greek/Helenic culture with contempt?
My favourite topic.. ~;)
@Germaanse
About your question first.
-It is true that the Byzantines were using the word Helene as a synonyme to "heathen" and they waged war on the remains of the Old Religion. But do not be mistaken.
-The religion was the only thing under persecution, not the whole culture. We owe the survival of the ancient philosophers to the byzantine, vis a vis christian monks, who copied the old scrolls long before the Arab Muslims took up the task.
-Truely, most christian temples in Greece are actually built in the spots where Olympian Gods' temples once stood. But in the years of the Empire, denying Christ was not a religious declaration, but an act against imperial authority. Constantine and his successors decided that the cohesive force behind the Empire would be Christianity and the ones who were following the Olympian tradition were actually denying the Emperor.
-On the other hand, hellenic/greek culture was very important for the Emperors. I should only mention The Translation of the 70 . By Imperial word, the Holy Scripts were translated to Greek, for the people to understand it. The purpose was obvious. The Emperors would use the dominating culture to impose their authority. All they had to do was modify a huge part of this culture, the Religion... One Empire, under one God, and one Emperor to rule it.. It was a simple plan afterall.
-Besides that, the Olympian polytheistic Religion was not suited for an Empire. A monotheistic Religion was needed, in order for the Emperor to be the mirror-image of the One God. The era of the Dodekatheon was over... But not completely lost...
-Even today many many people in Greece do not have Christian names, but names of Olympian Gods. Aris (in latin:Mars, the God of War) is as common in Greece as is John in the US. Also, the most major Greek Christian fests (15.08, 25.12) are held in the dates of Olympian Gods' fests. There is even a Saint, called Saint Dionysus, protector of Judges and Justice....
-As a conclusion I could say that IMHO the persecution of the Old Religion was a political call, and so was the maintainance of the rest of the Greek/Hellenic culture. Of course it was a major change, but a culture is consisted from many other things besides Religion, and the two of them should not be confused. And besides that, a carefull eye can trace a lot of Olympian traditions in the Greek-Orthodox Church.

About Macedonia:
-Macedonia is a region in the Balkans, whose parts are possessed by Greece, FYROM and Bulgaria.
-Macedonia is also a famous salad, that contains everything, from tomatoes and eggs to various vegetables and spices. It is called "Macedonia", because it contains as many ingredients, as the nations that inhabit Macedonia. Greeks, Turks, Bulgars, Serbs, Albanians, Romanians, Hungarians....
-But the multi-nationality of Macedonia was the product of millenias of Imperial occupation of the region, from Alexander's Empire to the Ottoman Empire. Before that , the native people, including Alexander and his father Phillipe, were Greeks. They were speaking and reading greek, they were participating at the Olympics, they were worshiping the Dodekatheon, they were called "Greeks" by other nations.
-As long as I m concerned there is a well-calculated plan behind the denial of the greek identity of Alexander. I ve seen the official map of FYROM, it was even available online at their State Department's webpage, and it covers 1/3 of northern Greek soil and streches all the way to the Aegean sea. I ve heard the FYROMers speak about their "regions that are under greek occupation", about "the land of their ancestor,Alexander the Macedon, that is today under greek occupation" (sic). My answer to all these will be the same. If there is anyone else in this planet that can read the name Alexander and explain its significance in his mother language (Alexander is a greek name meaning more or less the Defender), Be My Guest .
I hope I covered your questions, feel more than welcome to post any other! ~;)

conon394

09-01-2005, 15:44

Before that , the native people, including Alexander and his father Phillipe, were Greeks. They were speaking and reading greek, they were participating at the Olympics, they were worshiping the Dodekatheon, they were called "Greeks" by other nations.

That is a bit of an overestimate, at least for the classical era. The Argead Kings sporadically asserted a claim of decent from The Argive royal house (more specifically from Herakles via the Temenidai) and thus a tie into the mythical lineages that were used to define the various Greek ethnic groups. Alexander I was the first Macedonian king too make such a claim (to Herodotus) and the last for a while. Phillip revived the claim, with good reason seeing as it helped to legitimize his aspirations for hegemony in Greece. Overall the claim seems to have won at least tacit acceptance with Greeks, but importantly for the Argead House, not for Macedonians in general. Phillip was allowed to participate in the Olympics and he seems to have been particularly perceived as Hellenizing at least the aristocracy in Macedonia (ala Isocrates).

By the same token, you can’t really call the claim universally accepted. There is the oft cited evidence from Demosthenes. The fate of Eumenes is also interesting, since it suggest that both sides the Macedonian gentry and the Greeks still perceived themselves as different.

Certainly by the later Hellenistic era, especially to Romans there is little distinction drawn between the 2 groups anymore.

Advo-san

09-01-2005, 18:22

That is a bit of an overestimate, at least for the classical era. The Argead Kings sporadically asserted a claim of decent from The Argive royal house (more specifically from Herakles via the Temenidai) and thus a tie into the mythical lineages that were used to define the various Greek ethnic groups. Alexander I was the first Macedonian king too make such a claim (to Herodotus) and the last for a while. Phillip revived the claim, with good reason seeing as it helped to legitimize his aspirations for hegemony in Greece. Overall the claim seems to have won at least tacit acceptance with Greeks, but importantly for the Argead House, not for Macedonians in general. Phillip was allowed to participate in the Olympics and he seems to have been particularly perceived as Hellenizing at least the aristocracy in Macedonia (ala Isocrates).

By the same token, you can’t really call the claim universally accepted. There is the oft cited evidence from Demosthenes. The fate of Eumenes is also interesting, since it suggest that both sides the Macedonian gentry and the Greeks still perceived themselves as different.

Certainly by the later Hellenistic era, especially to Romans there is little distinction drawn between the 2 groups anymore.
@conon
Your knowledge of Greek mythology and history is truely amazing, my respects. :bow: But, IMHO you are missing the exact significance of certain facts.
-I think we agree that Greeks were more or less the result of the fusion between the Dorians and the Iones, along with minor groups like the aioleis and pelasgoi. But, the separating line between Dorians and Iones was at the time still visible. The greatest Dorian superhero was Heracles, brutally strong. On the opposite, the Ionian superhero was named Theseus, and he was always victorius thanks to his brains more than his strenght. The difference in mentality was also visible to architecture, with dorian rythme more cubic while Ionian more sofisticated.
-Dorian-descended cities rarely allied with Ionian-descended cities. And the most famous Ionian-descended city was Athens, Phillipe's one and only worthy enemy. So, Phillipe claimed to be descendant of Heracles not in order to persuade other Greeks about his "greekness", but in order to take the lead among the rest of the Dorians and moreover, throw the glove to Athens. Reading between the lines, Phillipe's declaration was saying: "The Dorians have a new champion; Athens, we are coming"
-The only actual reference that denies the hellenic origins of Phillipe is Demosthenes. But as I have already said, Demosthenes was a bittered politician, who was trying to shake Athens out of its decline and into the counter-attack. He still believed in his city-state and hated Phillipe. But his argument is so feeble that even himself didn't bother enough to support it. It is more of an insult rather than an actual argument.
-So, all we have is the word of an enemy politician, against solid evidence suggesting that Macedonia didn't develop any different culture than the other Greek regions. Sure they were "rednecks", sure they were not as developped as the southerners due to their dorian past, since in Macedonia the Dorian invasion faced little Ionian resistance, but saying they were "something else than Greeks" is IMHO a wrong conclusion.

I would like you to comment the last paragraph of my previous post. Thank you for a civilized debate! ~:)