News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

A Collection of Unimitigated Pedantry

Started by Jacob, January 15, 2021, 03:47:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Razgovory

Pastoralist weren't necessarily poor.  Their wealth was just in a different form than the more sedentary peoples.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

grumbler

Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2021, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
I reject the idea that any sort of poverty makes a warrior better.  All it does is make warriors hungrier.  I don't know what "decadence" is exactly in this situation or why it should make a soldier inferior.

I don't think this theory really works in the period after gunpowder was invented. Before that nomadic types were militarily comparable than the settled civilizations, sometimes better.

But how often has this worked out since 1500 or so?

Steppe peoples were occasionally better militarily than settled peoples, but 90% of the time it was the nomadic types coming put second-best.  We just hear less about it because it was the common occurrence, and so not noteworthy.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2021, 10:37:25 PM
The Arabs were hardly poor people.  The Bedouin lived a pretty hard life (and Mohammed was a Bedouin) but the Arabs were at the heart of the global trade system in the classical and post-classical era, and Syria was notoriously rich.

Muhammad was a merchant himself (according to the stories) as were the early converts and other leaders of Islam; this is not an accident. The merchant communities would have been most exposed to the religious ideas floating around from Judaism and Christianity that were incorporated into Islam.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2021, 12:11:14 AM
Steppe peoples were occasionally better militarily than settled peoples, but 90% of the time it was the nomadic types coming put second-best.  We just hear less about it because it was the common occurrence, and so not noteworthy.

As an example, nomadic peoples were a *constant* problem for whoever happened to be ruling the Iranian plateau from the time of the Achaemenids (themselves of nomadic origin) to the time of Reza Shah.  Most of the time they were just a nuisance and their presence and raiding activities didn't prevent the formation of enduring dynasties.  But when a dynasty weakened or a significant succession crisis occurred, they could take a more prominent role, either in supporting a claimant or supporting one of their own to form a new dynasty.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

crazy canuck

Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2021, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
I reject the idea that any sort of poverty makes a warrior better.  All it does is make warriors hungrier.  I don't know what "decadence" is exactly in this situation or why it should make a soldier inferior.

I don't think this theory really works in the period after gunpowder was invented. Before that nomadic types were militarily comparable than the settled civilizations, sometimes better.

But how often has this worked out since 1500 or so?

If nomadic types were comparable, hard to explain why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did in the East. Or the Egyptians.  Sure there were periods of trouble, but hardly comparable during the whole time period.

Razgovory

Pastoralists did do some farming and they were able to support artisans.  I don't know if their raiding was any more or less effective than raiding by more sedentary populations.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Valmy

#66
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 01:30:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2021, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
I reject the idea that any sort of poverty makes a warrior better.  All it does is make warriors hungrier.  I don't know what "decadence" is exactly in this situation or why it should make a soldier inferior.

I don't think this theory really works in the period after gunpowder was invented. Before that nomadic types were militarily comparable than the settled civilizations, sometimes better.

But how often has this worked out since 1500 or so?

If nomadic types were comparable, hard to explain why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did in the East. Or the Egyptians.  Sure there were periods of trouble, but hardly comparable during the whole time period.

I disagree completely that it is hard to explain. Vastly larger numbers and organization and wealth but that was not decisive militarily, the Eastern Romans often had little choice but to bribe other nomadic peoples to deal with their enemies as they were unable to defeat them militarily by themselves. How can you look at their problems with the Bulgarians and the Turks (and the Avars and the Pechenegs and others) and claim that nomadic warriors were not a serious military problem for the Eastern Romans? :hmm:

I don't understand this point unless the assertion is that "comparable" means vastly inferior. The nomadic nations were typically no more able to just roll over the civilized powers anymore than the civilized powers were able to dominate the steppe. They were comparable not dominant...with some exceptions when nomadic tribes conquered China (as happened more than once...) or usurped a powerful Islamic settled state (which happened more than once...). Those were exceptions, as noted, but the fact was that the nomadic tribes were capable of doing that. They were a powerful military force that the settled civilizations had to fear.

But this has not been true for at least 300 years.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

crazy canuck

You are ignoring a span of hundreds of years when nomads bothered the Romans not at all.  Your thesis really gets reduced to claiming that when rich settled areas fail nomads can take advantage

Razgovory

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 02:18:27 PM
You are ignoring a span of hundreds of years when nomads bothered the Romans not at all.  Your thesis really gets reduced to claiming that when rich settled areas fail nomads can take advantage


When was this period of time?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

crazy canuck

Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2021, 02:36:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 02:18:27 PM
You are ignoring a span of hundreds of years when nomads bothered the Romans not at all.  Your thesis really gets reduced to claiming that when rich settled areas fail nomads can take advantage


When was this period of time?

Easier to talk about the years when it was a problem.  If you are suggesting that nomads were a constant problem, then I am wondering whether the issue is the meaning of the word nomad.

Duque de Bragança

Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2021, 02:07:51 PM
Guy roaming the badlands with Lorenzo Lamas hair > trained militia type.

As in Joe Lara of American Cyborg or Steel Frontier fame ('90s video store fodder), admittedly a Lorenzo Lamas ('90s video store fodder) lookalike?




celedhring

Ah, Joe Lara, "famous" in Spain for starring in the Epic Adventures of Tarzan.

American Cyborg riped off Terminator and somehow also Children of Men avant-le-lettre.

The Brain

How good is American Cyborg? Is it essential viewing?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

celedhring

I don't recall it featuring lesbian sex, so I guess that's a no?

Duque de Bragança

Quote from: celedhring on January 27, 2021, 05:33:24 AM
Ah, Joe Lara, "famous" in Spain for starring in the Epic Adventures of Tarzan.

American Cyborg riped off Terminator and somehow also Children of Men avant-le-lettre.

How many times do you need to be reminded that Children of Men is a rip-off of an Italian rip-off called 2019 after the Fall of New York?  :contract:  :lol: