... and historical materialism became outdated a little while later. The trick is finding the balance between the two.
... and historical materialism became outdated a little while later. The trick is finding the balance between the two.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul
Who said anything about historical materialism? There are hundreds of ways to interpret history, reducing yourself to just two theories on history - or the balance between two - would be plain ignorant. If anything, I'd analyze the Mongol Empire from the Annales School to get a good overview, but then again, that's just one way to do it.
It's not easy being a man, you know. I had to get dressed today... And there are other pressures.
- Dylan Moran
The Play
Oh, come on. Did you see how Tolstoy tried to justify his loony view of how history is predetermined? A complete, utter mess that makes no sense whatsoever. A blight upon an otherwise brilliant novel.
What Colovion's opponent is apparently saying is that the Mongols were just, well, lucky. Bullcrap. Everybody from the edge of Byzantium to China knew about the composite bow; heck, everybody from the edge of Byzantium to China also knew how to fight hordes of horse archers. It's not like the Mongols were stormtroopers stumbling upon a primitive planet of unarmed wookies, or the Spanish with their guns, cold steel, and horses upon obsidian-armed tribes.
That the Mongols were disciplined and united is only a testament to Genghis' importance I'd think.
I realize that the circumstances of the day is a large factor of happenings. It's the dismissing of someone who inspired and united warring tribes into a world-conquering machine because he trained his troops and disciplined them into such a force.
I've heard arguments that Alexander was a buffoon because his enemies were largely composed of mercenaries who fled at the slightest sign of defeat and his troops were much more disciplined. Something like "well he used his Cavalry in an Overpowered way, of course he won. That would be like proclaiming that Hannibal won at Cannae simply because the Roman troops were largely green recruits and over-confident. It's a factor, but it's a small part of the reasons for victory when put into context of successive battles and campaigns won and spectacularly inspired decisions both Militarily and Socially. I don't buy into the assumption that people just so happened to become shakers of the world because they lucked out to be born at the right time and got lucky.
Think of any historical figure who rose from obscurity to gain near immortal status as a conquerer and leader of people. To dismiss their victories and entire life accomplishments as products of their times seems like a dismissal of all great accomplishments as impressive because people don't like to believe that greatness is self-made. Any shaper of historical events requires a steadfastness and inspiration which any factor of the times cannot create; they didn't just happen to stumble into a wonderful series of events and happen to have the ambition and luck to pull it off.
Maybe it's that I find it way too depressing to dismiss the accomplishments of those in the past as mere coincidence and convenient happenstance with a dash of making the right choices. As I said, until he compared the Mongol Empire's expansion to the slaughter of the Aztecs by the Spanish, I was just going to allow him to think that Composite Bows and Horse Archers were invented by the Mongols and were, for some reason, the equivalent of an Abrams Tank in Waterloo.
Last edited by Colovion; 01-07-2008 at 08:16.
robotica erotica
Bookmarks