Crash Course World History

[Health]

ok I'll stop now.

Don't let the Atlanteans silence you.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Aaaah finally some interesting history.

 

[bz249]

Aaaah finally some interesting history.

I mean sure the amateurs study the list of Atlantean kings and admirals, while the true fanatics study their fiscal policy because in the end that was the reason why the Atlantean currency sunk like a rock.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

 

[MCMartel]

I mean, DIamond is not a good source on history. His conclusions are very often poorly supported by cherry-picked evidence and sources that he badly misreads. His descriptions are often at best ignorant, and at worst kinda racist (Eg. When it's european conquerers slaughtering people, it's just geography, basically absolving them of any guilt ,and when it's non-europeans in his book Collapse, suddenly it's agency of Maya, or Polynesians, etc that ruined things)
He became popular because:
A. He put together a compellingly simple thesis, and everyone likes those
B. He's an excellent writer, far better than he is a historian.

 

[LordTempest]

ok I'll stop now.

Don't. This is fun.

I mean, DIamond is not a good source on history. His conclusions are very often poorly supported by cherry-picked evidence and sources that he badly misreads. His descriptions are often at best ignorant, and at worst kinda racist (Eg. When it's european conquerers slaughtering people, it's just geography, basically absolving them of any guilt ,and when it's non-europeans in his book Collapse, suddenly it's agency of Maya, or Polynesians, etc that ruined things)
He became popular because:
A. He put together a compellingly simple thesis, and everyone likes those
B. He's an excellent writer, far better than he is a historian.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[NorthernXY]

But it wasn't a "by-product" at all, it was the result of active intervention by the Mongols. You can't just randomly discard major aspects of the Mongol Empire's impact for such arbitrary reasons. The Mongols protected the trade routes.

I know, that was my point. Once they conquered most of the Silk Road they protected traders because it directly benefitted them. Not because the thought of traders being robbed caused them sleepless nights.

They actively improved communications beyond that via the yam system.

Like the Achaemenid and Romans, they did it for the military. Merchants could use it, but again it wasn't out of benevolence but because it increased trade which the Mongols benefitted from.

They engaged in forced removals of artisans across the empire, a major undertaking which caused a lot of new artistic and cultural forms to grow up. They were active patrons even without these removals of sciences and arts, most famously with Tusi's observatory. And patronage/removals do matter, because development of scholarship might be severely limited without it.

No, they don't because any empire can relocate people. Might as well say Hitler was important because he too was a patron of the arts and without the Nazis our understanding of rocket technology might not be where it is today. The Nazis and Japanese inadvertently sped along the development of nuclear technology. Was WWII for the great good? Should we rethink our beliefs on Nazis like you're suggesting we rethink the view on Mongols?

Islamic art was permanently changed, the famous Chinese blue-and-white became makeable on a large scale, the first world history to actually use indigenous sources was created, religious minorities such as the Nestorians and Shi'is flourished, extremely important architecture such as the Soltaniyeh Dome was constructed. Nomads had literary culture for the first time in their history via the Secret History and the various Altan Debter-derived histories.

So? Islamic population was also changed. The Soltaniyeh Dome isn't extremely important, the Pantheon and Hagia Sophia are, in terms of dome technology.

Historians are (IIRC) now revisiting the Yuan and pointing out how a lot of Mongol innovations to the administration/commercial policy were a possible cause for the eventual commercial flourishing of the late Ming/Qing and an important part of China's administrative development.

If you mean that nomads themselves have generally been aids to transmission rather than creators of art themselves then, well, so what? If it wasn't for the Mongols and empires like them then these kinds of cultural exchange simply would not have happened. That counts as a contribution to the betterment of humanity. This isn't to say that the Empire's influence was a net positive (while the numbers usually given are probably wild exaggerations they still killed an awful lot of people) but you really can't just discount this stuff. They altered the world in a way beyond pure destruction, and if you ignore that you're missing a lot of the specifics of how Eurasian history developed.

You can't make a desert and call it peace. Again, you can praise Hitler for uniting a large portion of the world with a common goal and how he inadvertently got women into the workforce. Doesn't mean we should champion him for his contribution to the equality of the sexes.​

Have you never heard of any empire but those by nomadic horse lords? The Greeks, Romans, and British butchered people, but they also had their own cultures with art, math, science, philosophy, medicine, and engineering that laid the foundation of the modern world.

What am I missing on how the Mongols were integral in the betterment of Europe? Are you saying it was the Mongols' plan all along to cause a plague that would kill 1/3 of the population, decreasing the supply of workers and thus increasing their worth, thus pay, thus their quality of life? Europeans proved that if they wanted Eastern goods, they'd get them, even if they had to sail around Africa to do so.

Also Timur wasn't really a Mongol anyway. He was of Mongol descent but by all other measures he was a Turk emeshed in the era/region's Persianate culture.

 

[Arilou]

I know, that was my point. Once they conquered most of the Silk Road they protected traders because it directly benefitted them. Not because the thought of traders being robbed caused them sleepless nights.

Which yeah... Applies to every empire in history. No one cares about merchants for their own sake :rofl

 

[NorthernXY]

Which yeah... Applies to every empire in history. No one cares about merchants for their own sake :rofl

Never implied the contrary (or at least I didn't mean to). Governments have one goal and that is to acquire more power. That's why I look at what people manage to accomplish under (and in spite of) their government. Pompey clearing the Mediterranean of pirates wasn't altruism, neither Caesar and his pirate situation. Pompey looted the Cilician pirate base and got huge points with everyone in the Empire and Caesar got revenge.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Which yeah... Applies to every empire in history. No one cares about merchants for their own sake :rofl

Yeah. I think that the bigger problem in this discussion is that trying to assess historical developments in terms of how they contributed to "the betterment of humanity" doesn't really help you understand anything apart from your own assumptions of what "the betterment of humanity" entails.

 

[AureliusBob]

His descriptions are often at best ignorant, and at worst kinda racist (Eg. When it's european conquerers slaughtering people, it's just geography, basically absolving them of any guilt ,and when it's non-europeans in his book Collapse, suddenly it's agency of Maya, or Polynesians, etc that ruined things.

How can anyone interpret Diamond's supposed "its just geography" thesis as racist? If he were racist, wouldn't he, you know, claim it WASNT just geography...

The fact that Europeans colonized and the Mayans collapsed need not have the same causal variables.

 

[Geriander]

How can anyone interpret Diamond's supposed "its just geography" thesis as racist? If he were racist, wouldn't he, you know, claim it WASNT just geography...

The fact that Europeans colonized and the Mayans collapsed need not have the same causal variables.

The only non-racist way to explain colonization is that Europeans are inherently more evil than everyone else. Anyone could have done it but they were simply too moral to subjugate other peoples. By claiming geographical reasons, Diamond is being racist by ignoring this obvious fact!

 

[bz249]

The only non-racist way to explain colonization is that Europeans are inherently more evil than everyone else. Anyone could have done it but they were simply too moral to subjugate other peoples. By claiming geographical reasons, Diamond is being racist by ignoring this obvious fact!

There is another way... blind luck, no inherent difference just the roulette wheel produced red for 10 in a row.

 

[Geriander]

There is another way... blind luck, no inherent difference just the roulette wheel produced red for 10 in a row.

Isn’t living in the perfect geographical location a form of luck? While his thesis has its limitations, Diamond is right about the geographical limitations faced by Mesoamerican civilizations compared to European ones. No amount of luck would see the Maya discover and conquer Spain in the 16th century. Diamonds thesis is much weaker when it comes to explaining European success in Asia.

 

[AureliusBob]

There is another way... blind luck, no inherent difference just the roulette wheel produced red for 10 in a row.

That is the null hypothesis. Diamond's book is an alternative hypothesis that finds enough evidence to reject that. One can disagree with Diamond at some level, but it is a far better explanation than pure randomness.

 

[bz249]

Isn’t living in the perfect geographical location a form of luck? While his thesis has its limitations, Diamond is right about the geographical limitations faced by Mesoamerican civilizations compared to European ones. No amount of luck would see the Maya discover and conquer Spain in the 16th century. Diamonds thesis is much weaker when it comes to explaining European success in Asia.

Sure geography plays an important role (e.g it is much harder to control the Interior Plains as Mexico as the USA as the bloody rivers are just flowing plain wrong) but what is an asset now can easily turn into a liability 100 years laters. So is there a real perfect location?

 

[Geriander]

Sure geography plays an important role (e.g it is much harder to control the Interior Plains as Mexico as the USA as the bloody rivers are just flowing plain wrong) but what is an asset now can easily turn into a liability 100 years laters. So is there a real perfect location?

A perfect location for all purposes? No. For the purpose of accumulating technology invented across a huge landmass, domesticating many forms of plants/animals, building up immunity to a host of diseases, etc. Europe was better located than anywhere in the Americas.

 

[NorthernXY]

Yeah. I think that the bigger problem in this discussion is that trying to assess historical developments in terms of how they contributed to "the betterment of humanity" doesn't really help you understand anything apart from your own assumptions of what "the betterment of humanity" entails.

What? I think near 99% of people on this board will agree with what and what didn't help humanity. I think most of the disagreement is whether the ends justify the means. If you kill millions of people, take their wealth, and use it to fund orphanages, you're not a philanthropist.

 

[Geriander]

What? I think near 99% of people on this board will agree with what and what didn't help humanity. I think most of the disagreement is whether the ends justify the means. If you kill millions of people, take their wealth, and use it to fund orphanages, you're not a philanthropist.

Whoever invented agriculture is the greatest villain in human history. They made the average human less healthy for thousands of years.

Alternatively they created the necessary condition for civilization and higher culture making them a force for good.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Whoever invented agriculture is the greatest villain in human history. They made the average human less healthy for thousands of years.

Yeah, this mode of thinking forces you into silly ideas that massive long-term shifts like the development of agriculture were "invented" by individual people.