When Did the ME Go Wrong?

[Malthus]

My post was in response to that theory.

Your response to the theory is "no, that's not the case"?

I remain unconvinced.

It depends on what the "case" is.

If the "case" is that they fostered long-range trade - that they did.

If the "case" is that, overall, this made the Mongols a net boon for world civilization - no, it doesn't.

[crazy canuck]

How can I be "shifting" when what I said was in the part you quoted?

Answer the question Malthus.  Do you think the Vandals and Visigoths were steppe or non steppe nomads.  Why do you characterize them so.  If you characterize them as steppe then you are just wrong about nomads remaining nomads.

You are shifting because in answer to Jacob you now say that nomads from the steppe dont actually remain nomads - as you originally asserted but instead become absorbed by culture insteand of absorbing it...

Nice gymnastics but your argument is getting thin will all the twists and turns you are making.

[Jacob]

How can I be "shifting" when what I said was in the part you quoted?

I too am finding your argument getting muddled.  This is understandable as you're fielding questions from a variety of people who are disagreeing with you.  Maybe if you took a step back from all the separate lines of argument and wrote one large post that contains your thesis and the supporting arguments?  I'm sure we'd all rather avoid having long arguments based on misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of peoples' arguments, so a restating might be useful

[Malthus]

How can I be "shifting" when what I said was in the part you quoted?

Answer the question Malthus.  Do you think the Vandals and Visigoths were steppe or non steppe nomads.  Why do you characterize them so.  If you characterize them as steppe then you are just wrong about nomads remaining nomads.

You are shifting because in answer to Jacob you now say that nomads from the steppe dont actually remain nomads - as you originally asserted but instead become absorbed by culture insteand of absorbing it...

Nice gymnastics but your argument is getting then will all the twists and turns you are making.

I'm not twisting at all. Go back and read what I wrote.

For your convenience I'll quote it here:

Heh never heard of the Huns? 

Or for that matter Vandals, Visigoths, etc.?

Barbarians (both steppe and otherwise) had lots to do with the fall of Roman civilization, which was the culmination of Mediteranian civilization. The main difference between steppe and non-steppe barbarians being, of course, that the non-steppe variety was capable of absorbing much of that civilization even as it destroyed it - by its nature, nomads cannot do so and remain nomads.

Now the explaination (though I'm sorry it is necessary):

1. Huns were steppe nomads.

2. Vandals and visigoths were barbarians, but *not* steppe nomads.

3. All of these barbarians helped to destroy Roman civilization.

4. There is a difference between the steppe kind and not steppe-kind.

5. The difference is that the non-steppe variety - Visigoths and Vandals - were capable of absorbing Roman civ..

6. Nomads can't do this, as the nomadic lifestyle precludes this.

7. Nomads who take over an advanced civ (like the Manchus) set themselves up as aristiocrats on top of the civ. they have taken over. They cease to be nomads.

8. Others - like the Huns or, better, the Golden Horde - remain nomads by refusing to take over such civilizations - they act more are gangsters or predators, taking tribute.

Is this clear enough?

[The Minsky Moment]

The Huns at the origin were steppe nomads.  By the time they penetrated into the limnes though the "Huns" were far from the steppes - the armies that fought at Chalons (both sides!) were a highly ethnically variegated mix of peoples whose side had more to do with pledges of personal allegiance than ethnic identification.  The actual steppe nomads were a distinct minority in the Hunnic invasion force.

As to whether the "Huns" were capable of absorbing Med civilization or not, there is no way to know because their empire collapsed shortly after it was put together.  The Goths were - and not I suspect because they were "not nomads".  The Goths took considerable care to maintain their separate legal status and their separate quality as a warrior band - that didn't stop them from being acculturated.  The irony is that it was the Byzantine reconquista, not the barbarians, that finally sounded the deathknell of classical civilization.

[Malthus]

How can I be "shifting" when what I said was in the part you quoted?

I too am finding your argument getting muddled.  This is understandable as you're fielding questions from a variety of people who are disagreeing with you.  Maybe if you took a step back from all the separate lines of argument and wrote one large post that contains your thesis and the supporting arguments?  I'm sure we'd all rather avoid having long arguments based on misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of peoples' arguments, so a restating might be useful

This would be a great idea, but a lot of work, and I'm out of time to goof off. Plus, is anyone really interested in doing more that picking nits?

[crazy canuck]

Why do you characterize the Goths and the Vandals as not being Steppe nomads or put another way What is the essential difference between Steppe and Non-Steppe nomads that makes the Steppe nomad unable to absorb culture?    This I think is your weakest link since Jacob has already listed examples of where they did.  I dont fully understand you distinction between absorbing and being absorbed by culture.  It seems to me that Khans were pretty successful at both particularly in relation to China.

Other side issues:

Why do you say the Visigoths destroyed Roman civilization.  From what I saw in Ravenna they perpetuated it.

Why do you say the Huns remained nomadic?  Didnt large numbers settle in the Hungarian plateau?

[Malthus]

The Huns at the origin were steppe nomads.  By the time they penetrated into the limnes though the "Huns" were far from the steppes - the armies that fought at Chalons (both sides!) were a highly ethnically variegated mix of peoples whose side had more to do with pledges of personal allegiance than ethnic identification.  The actual steppe nomads were a distinct minority in the Hunnic invasion force.

As to whether the "Huns" were capable of absorbing Med civilization or not, there is no way to know because their empire collapsed shortly after it was put together.  The Goths were - and not I suspect because they were "not nomads".  The Goths took considerable care to maintain their separate legal status and their separate quality as a warrior band - that didn't stop them from being acculturated.  The irony is that it was the Byzantine reconquista, not the barbarians, that finally sounded the deathknell of classical civilization.

The invasions of Justinian were the quietus, but the Western empire had been dying for years and years before that. Thec fact that there were barbarians on both sides of Chalons is a symptom of this.

The Goths were an agricultural people. The Huns were not, though it is true that they were able to put together a coallition which included agricultural peoples.

I suspect the Huns looked on Rome like the Golden Horde looked on the Rus - a source of plunder.

[The Brain]

Why do you say the Huns remained nomadic?  Didnt large numbers settle in the Hungarian plateau?

You're thinking of the Gyppos.

[crazy canuck]

Why do you say the Huns remained nomadic?  Didnt large numbers settle in the Hungarian plateau?

You're thinking of the Gyppos.

I am not thinking about the modern era.

[Valmy]

The point was, if I recall correctly, that much of the technology which formed the basis for the advancements in Europe arrived through the diffusion and scholarly exchanges facilitated by the Mongols.  No more.  So why Poland and Russia didn't go further than they did is not the point.  The argument isn't "everyone who's next to the Mongols did awesome" the argument is "many of the specific knowledges and technologies from Asia which Europe expanded upon as it developed only reached Europe when the Mongols encouraged and facilitated the exchange, something that was made possible by their vast control, their peace and their inclination to seek out and diffuse knowledge independent of its sources."

Well now wait a second.  Poland, and Eastern Europe in general, were closer to and associated with Easterners all the time.   They also were close by and associated with Westerners.  So my question woud be if bringing forth all this Eastern knowledge through Islam, Mongols and so forth was so instrumental wouldn't it have had a larger impact in places that associated with those cultures on a regular basis than those that interacted less?  Why didn't the renaissance start in Spain or Poland if it was all about Westerners being influenced by the East?

I am always a bit leery of the whole idea of the East facilitating the rise of the West.  it just makes no sense culturally or geographically.  Great ideas were taking off from Western Europe...not from Greece, Spain, Poland, and Russia which is where one would expect it to originate from if Eastern ideas were really as central as they were often presented.

That is not to say that Asian ideas did not have an influence (or that the Italians were not involved in the Eastern Mediterranean because they were) but the whole 'The Renaissance would never have happened with <insert pet Eastern culture here>' thing is a bit overstated IMO.

[crazy canuck]

The invasions of Justinian were the quietus, but the Western empire had been dying for years and years before that. Thec fact that there were barbarians on both sides of Chalons is a symptom of this.

But only if you define a fall as not being run by Romans.  The Visigoths were doing a pretty good job of governing until Justinian decided to reclaim the lost parts of the Empire.

[Valmy]

But only if you define a fall as not being run by Romans.  The Visigoths were doing a pretty good job of governing until Justinian decided to reclaim the lost parts of the Empire.

The Visigoths were in Spain, the Ostrogoths were in Italy just FYI.

[Malthus]

Why do you characterize the Goths and the Vandals as not being Steppe nomads or put another way What is the essential difference between Steppe and Non-Steppe nomads that makes the Steppe nomad unable to absorb culture?    This I think is your weakest link since Jacob has already listed examples of where they did.  I dont fully understand you distinction between absorbing and being absorbed by culture.  It seems to me that Khans were pretty successful at both particularly in relation to China.

Other side issues:

Why do you say the Visigoths destroyed Roman civilization.  From what I saw in Ravenna they perpetuated it.

Why do you say the Huns remained nomadic?  Didnt large numbers settle in the Hungarian plateau?

Put it this way: When the Mongols invaded China, did they take the secrets of Chinese civilization back to Mongolia, make all of the Mongols living there cease using Yurts and erect towns and cities on the Chinese plan, and transform their own people into farmers?

The answer is that they did not - rather, the Mongol invaders set themselves up basically as Chinese aristocrats. The steppe remained more or less exactly as it had been before the invasion. It would remain that way for hundreds of years.

In contrast, the various Germanic barbarians surrounding the Roman empire tended to themselves over time absorb the traits of civilization - create their own cities, often on the sites of Roman cities but not always, even though their ancestors had been directly instrumental in destroying the same (see: Alfred the Great the Saxon - Saxons had ruined Roman Britian).

[crazy canuck]

Put it this way: When the Mongols invaded China, did they take the secrets of Chinese civilization back to Mongolia, make all of the Mongols living there cease using Yurts and erect towns and cities on the Chinese plan, and transform their own people into farmers?

But that is because of climate and geography.  Of course you are not going to grow rice on the Mongel Steppe.  That says nothing about the ability of nomads to absorb culture.