Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAncient History - is this true?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ancient History - is this true?
    Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 09:07
Originally posted by Onkel_Wowa

Sorry, only minority of Russians have the "asian eyes". Tartars themself are about 4% of all popullation of Russia. Word "yoke" used widely for propaganda purposes. There was no yoke in Russia in the Middle ages, and there is no yoke now. Russia is multinational. For thousand years people learned how to live in peace  there. Never heard about any problems in relatioship between Tartars and other nations living in Kazan area or somewhere else in Russia.
 
It doesn't matter that the Tatars are only 4% of Russia's modern population. Steppe empires, by their virtue, consisted of an elite of relatively few good mounted warriors who dominated militarily the sedentary masses.
 
It's not that there necessarily are problems between Tatars and "other nationalities living in the Kazan area". It's that there are problems between many nationalities, including the Tatars, and their colonial masters, the Russians. Or are you going to deny that as a myth as well? 
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Onkel_Wowa View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 10:36
Originally posted by Decebal

Originally posted by Onkel_Wowa

Sorry, only minority of Russians have the "asian eyes". Tartars themself are about 4% of all popullation of Russia. Word "yoke" used widely for propaganda purposes. There was no yoke in Russia in the Middle ages, and there is no yoke now. Russia is multinational. For thousand years people learned how to live in peace  there. Never heard about any problems in relatioship between Tartars and other nations living in Kazan area or somewhere else in Russia.
 
It doesn't matter that the Tatars are only 4% of Russia's modern population. Steppe empires, by their virtue, consisted of an elite of relatively few good mounted warriors who dominated militarily the sedentary masses.
 
It's not that there necessarily are problems between Tatars and "other nationalities living in the Kazan area". It's that there are problems between many nationalities, including the Tatars, and their colonial masters, the Russians. Or are you going to deny that as a myth as well? 
 
Yes it is a myth.
Never heard about steppe empires. Do You mean Kasakhstan or Mongolia?
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 14:01
You can't be serious: you've never heard about Steppe empires? There's an entire section on AE on them: I suggest you take a look. There have been dozens if not hundreds of Steppe Empires. Maybe use wikipedia on (for starters): Scythians, Sarmatians, Xiong-Nu, Huns, Hepthalites, Avars, Ruan-Ruan, Khitans, Jurchens, Xianbei, Khazars, Bulgars, Gok-Turk, Cumans, Pechenegs, Uighurs, KaraKhitai, Seljuks, Mongols, Djungaria, Timurids, Ghurids, Ghaznavids... And quite a few others, though I've left aside some Steppe Empires in Russia because you don't believe in them...Confused
 
Wow man, what planet do you live on? You believe all these wild theories, deny widely accepted facts, and are ignorant of undeniable contemporary realities. It boggles the mind!Shocked


Edited by Decebal - 13-Jun-2006 at 14:03
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Onkel_Wowa View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 17:01
Live in a steppe is not easy. Lack of water does not contribute cereal or rice farming. Sheeps are, probably, the only option to survive. And people must allways migrate to get food for animals. A weak economic basis for an Empire.
Of course, for fairy tales writers no problem at all.


Edited by Onkel_Wowa - 13-Jun-2006 at 17:07
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 17:11

Onkel Wowa,

So let me get this straight. You want us to write off legitimate historians as "fairy tales writers." Then you want us to accept the preposterous theories of a handful of conspiracy nuts? On what grounds?
 
Oh, and if you assert that we should do away with traditional methods of dating, as well as disregard legitimate historical documents (I might have missed it, but I don't think you have responded to the fact that the Mongols can be found in the histories of the sedentary societies around them), you have to give a very compelling reason. So what is it?
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 13-Jun-2006 at 17:13
Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 10:57
Originally posted by Onkel_Wowa

Originally posted by  .... and plain outright lies ... 
 
Could You comment this, please?
[/QUOTE



I presume you want a list of lies to debunk...

From http://lib.ru/FOMENKOAT/engltr.txt

lies..

para 1:


I presume you want a list of lies to debunk...

From http://lib.ru/FOMENKOAT/engltr.txt

lies..

para 1:
It should be mentioned that this tradition was  established  only  in
15-17th cc.(and especially by Scaliger and Petavius) as a  result
of attempts to construct the global chronology of Europe and Asia
at that time.

This is just a made up statement. 

later:
It seems that all the manuscripts  of  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle
which are available today were actually written (or revised)  not
earlier than in 15-16th centuries. 
We have 11th C manuscripts and a 13th one.  They also tie in with the Irish, Scots and several other documents.

then we get into la-la land:
Note that  there  is  a  strange  similarity
between two well-known names-terms
                        Grace - Greece.
Where does this come from?

then it gets really silly: (note that here the authors are referring to a latin phrase "Anno Domini" written "aň" or "ann" - the manuscripts being in Latin)
Maybe the  original  (and  forgotten  today)  meaning  of  a
formula "Years of Grace"  differs  from  one  which  is  accepted
today. Maybe it was "years in Greece", "Greek years" or something
like this.

There is no real point in discussing any more, these people haven't a clue.






Edited by tadamson - 14-Jun-2006 at 10:58
rgds.

      Tom..
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 13:12
Originally posted by Onkel_Wowa

Live in a steppe is not easy. Lack of water does not contribute cereal or rice farming. Sheeps are, probably, the only option to survive. And people must allways migrate to get food for animals. A weak economic basis for an Empire.
Of course, for fairy tales writers no problem at all.
 
So what you're saying is that someone like Genghis Khan, or Tamerlane are just complete myths and that they never existed, right?
 
For your information, precisely because life in a steppe is not easy, it greates very tough and capable men, who are born warriors because of their lifestyle. While people in the steppes are not numerous, almost all of the males can be enrolled in the army as very capable soldiers, usually horse archers. This happens with virtually no expense, as opposed to settled areas, where soldiers have to be speciafically trained at great cost, or untrained peasants have to be used instead. For most of human history, the quality of a few steppe warriors was more than a match for the untrained masses of settled empires. It was only with the advent of firearms, when peasants from settled areas could be quickly trained to form armies which were overwhelmingly superior in numbers, that the steppe nomads lost their dominant role.
 
Really, all these arguments that you're bringing up demonstrate a lack of understanding of human societies and of history, from your part and probably Fomenko's as well.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Onkel_Wowa View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 02:27

No, they are not myth. But, they are not from "steppe". We should keep in mind the middle age conditions for writing a history. No maps, no dictionaries, no newspapers. Mostly, controversial information from merchants. It means, the same people, had different names, places of origin, age of live. And other way round. Different people, towns and even countries called similar. For example: India.

And who financed writing histories? Rulers. They needed glory for themselves, not the truth.
What i want to say. Nobody conquered Russia for last thousand years.
May be Gengis Khan is known with Russian name as well.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 08:10
Uhh no. It wasn't just controversial history from merchants. If we take Genghis Khan for example, what we know of him comes from Mongol documents ("The Secret History of the Mongols"), from meticulous Chinese sources written down by bureaucrats and using material provided mostly by spies, from Arab and Persian sources documenting the Mongol conquest of their cities, and a few others. West Europeans had the poorest information on him, using indeed information from merchants, but that's not the material primarily used. And there were maps in medieval times by the way.
 
The thing is that today, history is written using a variety of sources, not just European ones. And when we look at the kind of sources that we use for the medieval period, it's not always typical history texts, but more often bureaucratic documents, travel diaries, hagiographies (lives of saints), treaties. There's also archeology supported by testing and forensics, linguistics and other related fields. Historians use all these sources, compare them with one another, and finally attempt to draw a conclusion. They seldom go by one source alone, only when they have no choice. In the case where a source clearly glorifies a ruler, they are very suspicious.
 
Nobody conquered Russia for the past 1000 years??? The Germans in WW2 and WW1, the French in 1812, the Swedes in the early 1700s. They all conquered large parts of Russia and eventually failed because of the climate. The major difference was that the Mongols were actually used to a worse climate, so this wasn't a factor for them.
 
 
So anyway, what are you implying here? That Genghis Khan somehow was a ruler from a settled, agricultural area and that he was likely a Russian?Confused
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 12:32
Originally posted by Onkel_Wowa

No, they are not myth. But, they are not from "steppe". We should keep in mind the middle age conditions for writing a history. No maps, no dictionaries, no newspapers. Mostly, controversial information from merchants. It means, the same people, had different names, places of origin, age of live. And other way round. Different people, towns and even countries called similar. For example: India.

And who financed writing histories? Rulers. They needed glory for themselves, not the truth.
What i want to say. Nobody conquered Russia for last thousand years.
May be Gengis Khan is known with Russian name as well.


Umm
maps, dictionaries and newspapers all exsisted.
virtually no history was 'financed' by anyone.
"nobody conquered russia for last 1000 years"  ??? 

j'accuse  -    troll   (nobody can be stupid enough to believe all that sh*t)
rgds.

      Tom..
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 14:21

You may be right Tom. I shouldn't be wasting my time with a troll/lunatic.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 18:01
This is a history forum, which means that we encourage dicussions relating to actual history, not lunatic theories. Please take those "ideas" elsewhere to another forum. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.