| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| EndlesslyRocking wrote: | Interestingly, this is the same reason why another part of the world was saved from Mongol destruction:
| Hulegu Khan was preparing the final conquest of the Middle East and North Africa in 1259 -- at the last moment, the Supreme Khan (Mongke this time) died, and the armies were recalled, saving Islam from obliteration. | |
Right. And what does that suggest? That history really does repeat itself? That some mystical force guarantees the same fate repeatedly befall the same people? Or is there a simpler explanation?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
My 'simple' explanation -- which is quite different from Ishmael's simple explanation -- is that the Mongols were quite aware that all the various civilisations were definitely worth keeping (if only to conquer from time to time for a few years of slothful ease). So they always stopped and went home when the immediate purpose was achieved and before any lasting damage was done.
And in case anybody got to wondering why they were being constantly milked in this fashion, they put about the story of Great Khans always dying and everyone having to go home and bury him. Ah...bless. And you can add Attilla to the list: dying on his wedding night just as he was about to finish off the Roman Empire....yeah, right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have any great civilizations fallen in, say, the last 200 or 300 years? I mean a civilization like the Incas, where they build great monuments and are advanced for their time and then something happens and they just go away.
Or like the various British tribes (Stonehenge builders, Picts) that supposedly just disappeared into the mists?
I suppose you could try to argue that various native cultures of the new world have disappeared, but there are still a lot of people living on reserves doing more or less what they've always done.
Are there any accurate historical records of a great or reasonably great civilization falling rather recently?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| EndlesslyRocking wrote: | | Are there any accurate historical records of a great or reasonably great civilization falling rather recently? |
If you mean "Falling" in the sense of Rome's Fall, where civilization is replaced only by its absence (a dark age of barbarism) then we'd surely have to say no.
But the European Empires do, I admit, come close in some respects. Especially when we look at Africa. As the British and French left, they were replaced, some might say, by barbarians. But civilization itself did not crumble even in these far-flung places -- nor did the parent European nation states fall into decay, as is typically the case with the fallen empires of "history".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Have any great civilizations fallen in, say, the last 200 or 300 years? I mean a civilization like the Incas, where they build great monuments and are advanced for their time and then something happens and they just go away. |
The people don't vanish into the mist, the end of an empire is more of a culture change than an ending of a civilisation. Within the last 100 years two empires collapsed almost simultaneously; whether the rulers were murdered or exiled, the erstwhile subjects didn't disappear despite uncertainty, new identities or even displacement.
The monuments of civilisation are usually examples of urban power, the countryside carries on regardless, at least until the rise of totalitarian regimes. You could argue that China's civilisation 'went away' with the ironically titled Cultural Revolution; perhaps Japan likewise with the American occupation. But it's true that mysterious disappeared empires tend to belong to the long-distant past.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| As the British and French left, they were replaced, some might say, by barbarians. But civilization itself did not crumble even in these far-flung places |
This is surely wrong. Civilisation's benchmark has always been "cities" (not jumped-up towns....but cities.) If we look at sub-Saharan Africa in the last half-century, we would have to say that civilisation is gradually giving way to....well, let us just say non-civilisation. In most countries only the capital remains (just) and that largely because the whole country is propped up by the Aid Industry in all its manifestations and Western donors demand a certain minimum level of comfort.
It is important we resist the blandishments of political correctness in this evaluation because what is happening in Africa now is at least an arguable template of what happened in Britain et al after the fall of the Roman Empire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Are there any accurate historical records of a great or reasonably great civilization falling rather recently? |
| But it's true that mysterious disappeared empires tend to belong to the long-distant past. |
Yes and no. This is surely the difference between inferring only what the evidence suggests as an Applied Epistemologist and inferring only what the evidence suggests as an archaeologist/ historian. Since the written record reflects the regime, and records and regimes are discontinuous, it's seen as mysterious. The Stonehenge builders, for example, are mysterious and can not have been the Druids since they do not appear for many centuries.
But we say the record must reflect normal behaviour and the mysteries are simply unknowns. Stonehenge could have been built by Druids if the surrounding circumstantial evidence allows, even though there is no record of them for many centuries.
We can see in great detail the circumstances surrounding the rise and/or fall of the British and Ottoman Empires, USSR, Japan, imperial Indo-China, Africa, Yugoslavia, Central & South America... and must suppose that the same sorts of rough-and-tumble surrounded any "mysterious" episodes in history for which we simply don't have the direct evidence. Oh: that's pretty much what Mick said.
The mystery is why the historical professions have such weird ideas about what does and does not count as mysterious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | If we look at sub-Saharan Africa in the last half-century, we would have to say that civilisation is gradually giving way to....well, let us just say non-civilisation. In most countries only the capital remains (just) |
I was not aware of this. I thought the cities were actually growing in these parts of the world.
| ...and that largely because the whole country is propped up by the Aid Industry... |
There is at least a chance (a good one I would say) that you have mis-arranged cause and effect. It may be International Aid that is killing off the cities: Outliers lose capital and labour to the competitive lure of the state-centric Aid Industry, headquartered in the capitals.
End the aid and normative competition might produce better results.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I was not aware of this. I thought the cities were actually growing in these parts of the world. |
As shanty-towns, yes. But not as 'cities' in the civilised sense.
My uber-point is always the same re Third World countries. We have two rational choices, either
1. Leave them severely alone and allow them to develop organically or
2. Reimpose colonialism and force them to develop very rapidly.
I might reasonably point out that the first course would be fairly quick too because they will have so many templates to guide them. Nevertheless it will be too slow because the suffering involved in (just for instance) obtaining proper borders would so fill our TV screens with suffering that probably not even hard-bitten realists such as myself will be able to watch with equanimity. Which is why generally I advocate re-imposing colonialism. (Neo-colonialism of course -- we have learned so much.)
But of course we follow the third course which is to interfere just enough so that organic progress is not possible. For some reason we are perfectly happy to watch the whole of sub-Saharan Africa in chronic, permanent semi-misery so long as it never ever gets as far as all-out, useful misery.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | But of course we follow the third course which is to interfere just enough so that organic progress is not possible. For some reason we are perfectly happy to watch the whole of sub-Saharan Africa in chronic, permanent semi-misery so long as it never ever gets as far as all-out, useful misery. |
When the chronic misery spreads to touch our shores, then we will go.
This has just happened with another region -- or didn't you notice?
Makes me think that misery is meant to impact the uninfected in order to secure the cure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Poinar's work clearly shows it was a two-way bridge, with mammoths moving back and forth. |
It makes it sound as if crossing the Straits was a Sunday afternoon stroll whereas in reality these creatures would've been required to surmount peaks and crevasses which is not to say there wasn't any traffic. Probably easier to swim across. Same for human beings except they have boats.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. The floor of the Bering Sea is remarkably flat (see the various crab-catching programmes on Channel Four) so if it was dry land, it would have been...um...a Sunday afternoon stroll for Big Beasts like mammoths. Indeed, it is difficult to see how they could avoid going back and forth without even noticing it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Probably easier to swim across. |
Hatty. I'll bet you are right! If elephants can swim, why not Mammoths?
I wonder - did their hair turn white in winter? Or were some breeds permanently white?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Both elephants and mammoths are evolved aquatic mammals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure if mammoths would need to change colour, just grow thicker coats or moult as the seasons dictate...arctic animals generally have lighter coloured winter coats I think. In a programme about the Sami, they swam their reindeer to and from the winter grazing which raises the question of whether animals such as bison/mammoths would invariably smell out the feeding grounds without human intervention, or make the effort to get there unless herded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
