Wars where the "wrong side" won

[Spino]

- Any and all wars where the Huns, their offshoots or their vassals were victorious. Yeah, I'm sure Asian and European civilization was much better off after these guys rolled through town...

- Any and all wars where the Mongols, their offshoots or their vassals were victorious. Again, what on Earth would we have done without the great contribution from those wacky boys from the steppes!
(Anxiously awaiting the onslaught from the Org's Mongolphiles )

- Peloponnesian War - Sparta may have been the saviour of Greek and Western civilization in the preceding war with Persia but it really should have lost this war to Athens and its allies. It wasn't until the aftermath of the war that Sparta proved just how inept it was at doing anything other than waging war, running a modest agrarian based economy and creating the best heavy infantry in the world. One can make a strong argument that Athens with its democracy, institutions, infrastructure and massive naval and trade fleets was supremely qualified to carry the mantle of Greek civilization on its shoulders and spread its culture and advances to the rest of the western world.

[Meneldil]

The napoleonic wars
The Romans vs barbarians
Pretty much everyone defeated by Timur Leng
Vietnam
The russian revolutionnary war
The invasion of France in 1940

I fail to see why Germany, Austria and the Ottomans should have won WWI

[Steppe Merc]

Mongols helped spread different culture through out the world, as well as religon. Their empire allowed different places to trade. How would it have been better? Rome destroyed far more civilizations than the Mongols did. Most of the places that the Mongols took over, the civilization stayed the same. Russia was still Russia, the Il Khans became Muslims, the Persian Khans adopted Persian culture, the Chinese Khans became essientally Chinese.

[Meneldil]

I don't think the Mongols were that much different from the Romans. The main difference was that the Mongols allowed religious freedom, unlike the Romans.
They spread civilisations and culture in the same ways, and burnt some cities in the same way as the Romans did earlier. But then the Mongols came from Asia, and they are seen as invaders by the Western World, while the Romans (who invaded Asia) are proudly seen as our ancestors

[Steppe Merc]

Well to me there was a small difference. For example, the places the Romans conquered where never really the same, whereas the culture of the people the Mongols conquered stayed pretty much the same, though some were inriched (like Mongolia), while others were lessened (like Persia and Russia, though later leaders made up for the original burning of mosques and churches).
Also, Mongols absorbed other cultures, wheras the Romans destroyed other cultures. For example, the Romans who lived in Gaul never became Gauls, they were still Roman like, correct? Whereas the Mongols who lived in Persia became Persian like.

[Meneldil]

Yeah, you're right on this. The main reason for this probably being that Mongols were what, 100K people ? They could never have imposed their kinda 'backwards' culture to Persians and Chineses.
But OTOH, Romans did not destroy conquered culture : the Gauls became Gallo-Romains, they still used to speak their native language, their ancient customs and so on. A lot of place in France are still called by their gallic names.

[conon394]

For example, the places the Romans conquered where never really the same, whereas the culture of the people the Mongols conquered stayed pretty much the same, though some were inriched (like Mongolia), while others were lessened (like Persia and Russia, though later leaders made up for the original burning of mosques and churches).

But then by your own logic Rome made up for say the conquest of Gaul by later building roads, establishing secure boarders, the Pax ROmana, etc.

[Steppe Merc]

But was Gaul ever the same, though? Did the Celt's culture continue to florish after being conquered? I honestly don't know, but I thought that it didn't.

[Kagemusha]

What Rome did during Barbarian invasions was that those Nations became affected with Creco-Roman culture.Without Rome while she was on her death bed the steppe people would have flooded over Europe.And bases of our culture would have been destroyed.Maybe Roma wasnt such a tolerant Empire.But they also introduced the legacy of hellenism.To those people who they conguered.There was a reason why historians call the period after end of the Western Roman Empire the Dark Ages.

[Steppe Merc]

Steppe people were hardly mindless, cultureless barbarians. They influenced the Western World's military far more than Rome ever did, and spread the whole idea of Feudalism, really. In many cases, steppe nations were more advanced than their settled rivals.
Oh, and the Dark Ages is a incorrect term. While some places were in a low, the Byzantines and the Muslims, and even many steppe nations were advancing rapidly.

[Kagemusha]

Steppe people were hardly mindless, cultureless barbarians. They influenced the Western World's military far more than Rome ever did, and spread the whole idea of Feudalism, really. In many cases, steppe nations were more advanced than their settled rivals.

Steppe cultures had an military advance.They were superior horsemen and they had the composite bow.But you cant seriosly speak about high culture and Nomadism.They just dont mix.

[Steppe Merc]

Well what is high culture?

[Kagemusha]

Well what is high culture?

Im not going into this trap.you know what high culture is.Romans had all the knovledge that Hellenist scientist had discovered.Most of the Steppe people couldnt read or write.It has been studied that during the Roman Empires reign average citizen was living a better life than in Middle Ages.And about Feodalism,Feodalism was a setback compared to Roman system.

[The Wizard]

Feudalism only became a setback for Europe once weak rulers let it spiral out of control. The Ottomans used exactly the same system that Charlemagne's successors had implemented, and it worked like a charm.

The Dark Ages, much like the term Middle Ages, is a misnomer. Much of our current uses, laws and technology find their foundation in the Middle Ages. You are influenced by an order of history quite outdated nowadays. Not only do you discount Celts and Germanics as "mere barbarians", you also see the medieval period as a most unfortunate intermezzo, a black hole in between the classical age and the modern age. And this is simply not true.

If not for the Germanic invasions, much of our current world would be radically different. I would simply not have it any other way.



~Wiz

[Marshal Murat]

Chinese Nationalist and Communist (Mao)

[Kagemusha]

Feudalism only became a setback for Europe once weak rulers let it spiral out of control. The Ottomans used exactly the same system that Charlemagne's successors had implemented, and it worked like a charm.

The Dark Ages, much like the term Middle Ages, is a misnomer. Much of our current uses, laws and technology find their foundation in the Middle Ages. You are influenced by an order of history quite outdated nowadays. Not only do you discount Celts and Germanics as "mere barbarians", you also see the medieval period as a most unfortunate intermezzo, a black hole in between the classical age and the modern age. And this is simply not true.

If not for the Germanic invasions, much of our current world would be radically different. I would simply not have it any other way.



~Wiz

Sorry Wiz but where did i say that Celts and Germans were mere barbarians.I was talking about Steppe Nomads.And yes i was talking about Europe.About Ottoman Empire,there was very strong central government also.Not like in medieval Europe where Kings usually had one or more vassals stronger themselves.About Dark Ages never happened,yes there are group of Scientist that try to deny that.But the fact is that After the crumble of West Roman Empire ,the center of progression as we see it in world History left Europe and returned only again with Reneissance.

[King of Atlantis]

I have learned that not accepting baseless propaganda about the nazis gets you called names. Luckily, Kraxis has more balls than me and stated the truth.

baseless? Hitler sent men to tibet to find evidence of the ayrian race and sent people into france to look for the holly grail. This stuff is documented. Hitler was one crazty dude. He did not only kill jews, he kille homo's and gypsies. Everything he did would suggets he would keep doing it and saying he would stop is a very baseless hypotheses.

Ive said this before and of course people accused of being sympathetic with the nazis.

I never accused you of being sympathetic.

Who told you that Hitler planned to kill all non-aryans? Thats ridiculous and shows that you have swallowed the perverbial kool aid.

Is aryan even a real race. He thought so though it isnt true, he though there was a large ayrian empire, but most ayrian blood was in noth-west europe. He probably wouldnt have killed white people, but anyhthing other would have been on the chopping block.

[Steppe Merc]

I disagree. It may have slowed in Europe, but certaintly not in Byzantium and the Middle East.

[caesar44]

It is very nice to see how people can find logic in Hitler .
He did this , he did that , he may have done this , ha may have done that...
In 100 years from now , we (our grandchildrens) are going to see status of him and people will say "He gave our people hope , ha gave our people jobs , he only wanted us to be better , he only wanted the Jews to go to Palestine , he was attacked by the West , he wanted to save the world from Communism , he ..." 100 years , no , we are hearing it now !!!!!!!!!

Please , people , stop trying to understand evil . evil its evil its evil . there is no excuse in the universe for killing even one baby . they killed millions and you are talking about fighting Communism...well your president , Johnson , was fighting Communism , you can tell that to 58,000 young Americans .

[Gregoshi]

Please take the discussions on States Rights and what the Nazi did/didn't do to the Backroom. Thank you.

Please take the discussions on States Rights and what the Nazi did/didn't do to the Backroom. Thank you.

Apparently some of you missed my previous post. Next time I close the thread.

[caesar44]

Read it , but could not help my self , no matter , Ok ?

[Franconicus]

Deleted this! I just saw the moderator's warning

[Bartix]

And Panzer, I cannot believe my eyes. Take a look at the statistics, eh? 10 million was, at the time, half of the entire Jewish people, if not more. This would amount to what? 2 billion? 2.5 billion human citizens killed by communism to equal the percentage of the Jewish people killed in relation to the total numbers, but then in terms of world population? 100 million is peanuts in comparison

Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.
But i think Stalin said something.
"Loss of one life is tragedy, loss of thousands is statistics."
So death of last of the Mohikans is same as exterminasion of all who live in India, to take an all Indian exampel to show riddicklusness of your "reasoning".

Topic:
Most wars Romans won
Spanish civil war
War on Drugs

[cunctator]

The main difference was that the Mongols allowed religious freedom, unlike the Romans.

Before at latest 363ad the roman empire was a more tolerant place than any other state in europe before the enlighment in the 18th century. Everyone was allowed to admire the gods he want. The only main problems with religious freedom I am aware of were the ones with the monotheistic religions, because state authorities and large parts of the population did not understand them. While the ancient jewish religion was widely accepted the new christian one was suspicous for many people. Especially why they could not sacrifice to the official state gods and proove their loyality to the empire withthat. Also that they meet in private rooms to pry to their god increased their reputation as a kind of evil secret sect. But there weren`t any concentreted pursuits of christians before the end of the 3rd century only singular local suppression. I doubt that without the pax romana christianity could establish itself as a widespread mass religion.


Feudalism in Europe

For me a system were a few nobles ruled over all the others and are something better by birth is clearly a step backwards to a system where everybody has the chance to ascend in society.
Europe needed a few hundred years to reach the level it has had under roman rule again. I don`t think that this radically different world would be worse than the current.

I disagree. It may have slowed in Europe, but certaintly not in Byzantium and the Middle East.

Byzantium was only the surviving greek part of the former empire. There and in the middle east they could build on the ancient high culture demolished in europe. A still united and more peaceful mediterranean world with a more numerous population, more cultural diversity would has been a far better place for progress.

Ofcourse a culture devoloped in another way than before after it was integrated into the roman empire and became something different. Roman culture heavily influenced the celts while celtic culture also influenced the romans. Gaul with its Gallo-Romain population flourished and was one of the more properous regions of the empire.


If a native culture remained completly the same only shows that the conquerrors are not interested in properly integrating them into their empire and want only rule over this people or that their culture can`t offer very much.

[Advo-san]

Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.

Well, haven't you heard? According to some people's opinion, human life is not only a measurable quantity, whose value differs according to a nation's numbers, but even more: as long as a nation has a latino-vibe, it is ok to kill, supress and occupy other smaller nations, cause that is just politics and people are not to blame for their goverments
I get the feeling that some people, just because they r exellent programmers and they are constructing great mods, think they know everything not only about modding, but also about the history of a different continent. Well, they DON'T.

P.S. I ve written this post as neutral as possible, I hope I won't get another alert.

[Steppe Merc]

Will you stop, I don't want this closed.

If a native culture remained completly the same only shows that the conquerrors are not interested in properly integrating them into their empire and want only rule over this people or that their culture can`t offer very much

I don't get this. My point was that they didn't change the people's way of life, like the Romans did. They absorbed other cultures into their own, while allowing them to remain essentially the same.

[The Wizard]

Value of human life is directly proportional to total popolasion of that ethnisity?
That is very silly.
A life is a life, and 100 is ten times as many as 10.
But i think Stalin said something.
"Loss of one life is tragedy, loss of thousands is statistics."
So death of last of the Mohikans is same as exterminasion of all who live in India, to take an all Indian exampel to show riddicklusness of your "reasoning".

Oh, so you brush me into the same category as Panzer now? How nice.

If you read my post, you would notice that I am opposing the fact that Panzer proposes to wipe out half a people, comparing it to a hundred million on the world population. If you relatify that ratio, 2.5 billion people would have had to die to match the effect 10 million dead would have had on the Jewish people.

And yes, I do believe that if half a people is wiped out, or, to put this in modern, real terms: millions of people die in Darfur, then I find that worse than some three thousand in a building somewhere. Both are terrible, but what I oppose is that the immediateness of the killings in NYC are deemed much worse than those in Darfur.

But, we agree on an ethical level here. That means there is a very slight chance you and me will agree here. Therefore I propose we leave such debate to the Backroom, yes?

Oh, and Advo-san: I know exactly that you're talking to me. And indeed, a person should be judged on his own actions; the same goes for governments. Therefore people should not be judged on the actions of their nation in the past, for that is foolish and you surrender your own capability of thought, that which puts you above animals, to simple and animalistic fear.

Such an action would mean the Netherlands should pay reparations to each and every descendant of each and every person we ever wronged, and that each Dutchman should help pay those reparations. This includes all the slaves we ever traded, plus Spanish, Portuguese, English, Indonesians, and the list goes on and on and on and on. Completely useless. Preposterous to think that some people think that way.

But, I repeat what I said above. I will not go for any more baiting. Consider any more ethical debates (and indeed baits) to be ignored by me from now on.



~Wiz

[Orda Khan]

- Any and all wars where the Huns, their offshoots or their vassals were victorious. Yeah, I'm sure Asian and European civilization was much better off after these guys rolled through town...

- Any and all wars where the Mongols, their offshoots or their vassals were victorious. Again, what on Earth would we have done without the great contribution from those wacky boys from the steppes!
(Anxiously awaiting the onslaught from the Org's Mongolphiles )

Before criticising steppe culture it is necessary to fully understand steppe culture.

.......Orda

[Meneldil]

I think SteppeMerc, Orda and I should open a 'Moderated Steppe People club' in the frontroom

[Steppe Merc]

Angadil, Wizard, and Sharrukin should join as well.