Wars were the "wrong side" won II

[cunctator]

i just wanted to answer. I hope nobody captures this one to continue discussing about Nazis.

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.

I think if one culture is conquered by people with a very differnet one at least the conquered one or in most cases both should change almost automaticly, especially if the conquerors rule over a huge empire. New religions, new thoughts, new technology and people from different parts of the world come into that country, they have a new and probably different administration, live under new laws etc. All things that greatly influences and changes societies even if no one force them to do so.

If the they remain essentially the same I see two causes:
1. The conquerrors are only interested in ruling over this people and receive their tribute. As long as they don`t rebell they can live with their own laws fight out their internal problems etc. One day the empire of their masters will collapse and they will still be essentially the same. I can`t justify such wars and empires that only look good on a map.

2. The culture of the conquerors can`t offer anything that the conquered people are willing to adopt.


Romanization was not created to destroy cultures but to integrate them properly into the roman state. They build roads, bridges and harbours to connect the new province with the rest of the empire, introduced the roman law, founded cities as administrative centers and settled citizens there, gave the people oportunities to receive roman citzizenship etc.
But they did only force conquered people to change their way of life if they had caused problems and if it seems inevitable to the romans. Like the former kilikian pirates that were settled far from the sea. In most case native people kept a lot of their cultural identity and were just atracted by the comfort the roman culture offerd or better economical perspectives near roman garrisons/settlements. The celts in gaul already lived in cities which became roman with the time. Direct contact between romans living and working in new provinces contributed more to romanization than anything else.
Without that roma would has stayed a city state, maybe an italian hegonomial power forever or has became a short living regional "empire" like Sparta or Athens.

With the time the provinces became an integral part of the empire, like italy, and it was really possible to speak from the roman world with a lot of cultural diversity. For me one of the best places antiquity had to offer.

[Conqueror]

1. The conquerrors are only interested in ruling over this people and receive their tribute. As long as they don`t rebell they can live with their own laws fight out their internal problems etc. One day the empire of their masters will collapse and they will still be essentially the same. I can`t justify such wars and empires that only look good on a map.

Could you tell what kind of war of conquest you find "justifiable"? If they are paying tribute, then it's still good and beneficial for the conqueror. And just about any kind of conquest is a bad thing for the conquered, but some types less destructive than others.

[The Wizard]

Perhaps you could have PM'd Steppe? This topic is a basket of needles, and I'm going to refrain from it since it doesn't belong in the Monastery and therefore I cannot contain myself.



~Wiz

[Azi Tohak]

Icky.

I can't help but think this whole theme, as interesting as is could/should be, won't just wind up being a backroom topic in the monastery. A.k.a. people sprouting off about how some side is evil.

Victors write the history. We are all biased for or against someone because of this.

I just hope v2.0 of this thread works better than v1.0.

Azi

[Steppe Merc]

Most steppe people were certaintly intrested in settled lands culture. Many tribes adobted parts of civilization from their controled lands. For example, many Turkish tribes became Muslim. The Parni adopted Persian custom, and they helped revive Iran (not the Persians themselves, they didn't like the Parthians that much) while keeping some remaints of Hellenism. Under Chingis Khan and many of his succesors, art and trade flourished, and Mongolia was inriched culturally.
As for the steppe people imparting their culture onto their subjects, that would be difficult. Sure, many customs and military styles were imparted, but there weren't any great philosphers amongst the nomads or builders. Many tribes seemed to have loved art and fine clothes, but the main part of nomad culture is living on the steppe. That said, the Bosphoran Kingdom, Russia, China, many Islamic Nations, Persia, the Byzantines and even Western Europe adopted many pieces of nomad warfare and culture. If such diverse places, not all of which were conquered by nomads, adpoted so many different parts of the steppe people's life, there was certainly something worthwhile there.

As for Feudalism, I think that it was a decent government style for a war like nation that was under constant attack. Rome fell because it couldn't provide enough protection, while Feudalism provided excellent protection in return for what farmers would be doing anyway. Later it was corrupted, which could be seen with the Parthians as the nobles got more power than the king, but it was certaintly better than anarchy.

And I fail to see how Rome was more free. The conquered peoples couldn't vote, unless they served for a long time in the army. It's not like it was a perfect utopian system.

[Colovion]

those uneducated as to the Mongol's Empire and, later, Timur's should do some reading. In the time when the said empires were flourishing they were head and shoulders above any other nation - and would remain the pinnacle of civilisation, trade and economy for hundreds of years after. Hell - even those ignorant Europeans looking for the passage to Asia and the Golden City were still under the impression that the Great Khan ruled China and the surrounding regions. At one point the Portugese held a monopoly on the trade routes down around Africa and east to the Philipines and the Spanish held the Western sector which included the entire New World minus the bulge of Brasil. Both trade empires were racing to gain the upper hand to be able to trade with the Great Khan - each thinking that their direction would be the fastest.

One more notable to leave you with - the Empire under Kublai were the precursors for printed money. Granted, the Chinese had printed money previous to his rule, but the rebirth of the printing press in China led the technology to be brought West with the incredible amounts of trade which proliferated the region, eventually leading to the "invention" of the printing press by Gutenberg.

[cunctator]

Conquerror:
The question if any war and specially a war of conquest a justifiable and should or should not be a part of politics definatly belongs to the backroom. Generally I would say when the the large majority of citizens of both sides have a better life after a war than before.


The first part of my post were primary theoretical considerations based on Steppe Mercs statements that the cultures remained the same and that this was a good thing.
It was not based on the real mongols/steppe peoples. My knowledge about the mongol empire(s) is surely limited but i don`t think that they can be prefered to the romans so easily.

The discussion came to a point when it was debated why the mongols were more preferable conquerors than the romans. My main point was to show that change in culture on both sides is almost inevitable and that it can`t be seen generally as a bad thing. Your comments show that conqueros and conquered cultures often influenced eachother very fruitful. One main arguement was that the "evil" romans "destroyed" cultures and the mongols not. I don`t think that this is true. I can`t accept cultural change as an easy criteria to decide between "good" and "bad".

I also don`t think the romans had a perfect utopian system and it looks very bad compqred with what we have today. I prefers it Only in comparision with other contemporary systems, mainly because it was possible and easier for the conquered peoples to reach to become equal to "native" romans before the law.

[caesar44]

To answer the question - the "extremist" Muslims today , they are winning !!! 60 deads in London and the British want's to leave Iraq (Btw , today they have launched an attack against the "Zionists and the crusaders" and killed 88 people , 80 of them are Muslims...)

[edyzmedieval]

Wars....

The Kuweit wars. Iraq with Saddam Hussein won. Don't get me wrong, I only say the part when Iraq conquered Kuweit.

USA relieving Kuweit, it's another thing.

Also, the Soviets won the battle for Berlin. Damn!!!! Those f**** communists conquered Berlin and the eastern part, which even now looks like a communist country!!!!!

[Incongruous]

Yeah that's right F**king commies!

[Gregoshi]

Politics belong in the Backroom. Topic closed.


That is strike two for this theme. I think it would be a good idea to let this topic rest in peace.

Oh, and profanity filter or not, let's watch the language please. Thank you.