|
There's a long series of posts on AskHistorians about the Xiongnu/Hun thing here by a late antiquity specialist that I don't feel like reading through again at the moment, but as I recall it challenged the idea that the connection is 100% unsubstantiated. I think what they were arguing was that while it's not like the Xiongnu straight up moved west and became the Huns, it's possible that descendents of an offshoot of the Xiongnu did. Maybe someone else can read it and verify what they actually said though, it's been a couple of years since I have.Ras Het posted:Fwiw I don't think "the mongols" is the end-all answer to the question "what happened to the islamic golden age" Yeah I was very much under the impression that the thinking these days is that the Islamic Golden Age was already long passed by the 1200s? I know I've read at least that Baghdad was well past its prime when it was sacked.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
The argument I've heard is that the Xiongnu who attacked China and the Huns who attacked Rome weren't the exact same groups with direct societal links, but instead indirect cultural links, with the Huns taking on cultural signifiers from other Steppe peoples in order to build up their prestige. Stealing Xiongnu valor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
also a lot of the bigger steppe groups (i.e. all the ones that did any conquering of note) were often these huge multi-ethnic multi-lingual confederations of dozens of tribes which can make it more than a little hard for any outsiders to discern anything. Easier to just slap them all with some vague generalized label. The Hungarians claim descent from the Huns but that's a bit iffy at best since they don't really start to claim their founder Árpad was a descendant of Attila until the 1200s a couple hundred years after the Magyars settled in the Hungarian basin You'd think they'd harp on it more while they were still pagan and nomad-ish. The Huns might've been Iranian since they practiced cranial deformation (I think, I might be remembering wrong) and that was a big thing among the Sogdians, one of the most prominent Iranian groups, in Central Asia. and also there were quite a few excursions into India in the fifth and sixth centuries by various groups referred to as the Huna which were most likely Iranian and also big into deforming their cranium to make it elongated. We know a lot about the Mongols because they had the decency to conquer some very organized states with good record keeping and also leave a whole bunch of successor states. Which was very nice of them but doesn't quite make up for all the bloodshed. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Nov 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:The Huns might've been Iranian since they practiced cranial deformation (I think, I might be remembering wrong) and that was a big thing among the Sogdians I think this was common to a lot of steppe groups, including much farther east; it shows up in (iirc) Gaya and Silla in southern Korea and I think the current understanding is that this is because of steppe influence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
Koramei posted:There's a long series of posts on AskHistorians about the Xiongnu/Hun thing here by a late antiquity specialist that I don't feel like reading through again at the moment, but as I recall it challenged the idea that the connection is 100% unsubstantiated. I think what they were arguing was that while it's not like the Xiongnu straight up moved west and became the Huns, it's possible that descendents of an offshoot of the Xiongnu did. Maybe someone else can read it and verify what they actually said though, it's been a couple of years since I have. I'm no Historian or expert but the vibe I've been reading from historians is that yeah, the current trend of scholarship is "there might really be something there", but it's obviously more nuanced than just "Huns = Xiongnu"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
And now I want to play a mounted archer game on bannerlord. Thanks ancient history thread!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 04:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It helped that the Chinese states of Jin and Song were exhausted from 40 years of intense warfare when the Mongols showed up. This was much the same for the Abbasid's as well. When the Mongol's rolled through the Caliphate had been falling apart for centuries. This was't the Caliphate that could wage war against Tang China anymore, it was a rump state that was at constant war in a fractious land. Not to diss Genghis or anything because what the Mongol's achieved was indeed incredible, but a large part of their success was due to their conquests being big empires that had both just bled themselves dry. This is ironically how the Islamic Conquests had gone themselves, where the big empires of their day had just annihilated each other and the Arabs got to pounce on the survivors. I think we give the idea of the "Invincible Nomadic Warrior" too much power though. We see things like the Arabs taking both Rome and Persia or the Mongols taking the Song and Abbasid's and say "Wow these horse riding nomads sure are invincible!" But we neglect the fact that these same nomads had been getting swatted down by the big empires for centuries before and after, we just don't talk about it because it's not as exciting as "Underdog Nomads spank decadent city dwelling Liberals." The nomadic invasions that were big successes usually happened because they happened at the right time. I doubt Genghis would be one of the most important men in history if he hadn't united the Mongols at just the right time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 06:17
|
|
|
It's very possible he would have been preemptively crushed the moment he started looking threatening if there had been a strong and stable dynasty in China at the time, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 06:28
|
|
|
China definitely did smack down nomadic raiders again and again before the mongols came along to totally destroy them, but that's not the same as not being a problem. Actively defending against attacks out on the frontier was expensive as hell, and launching punitive attacks against raiders through territory with no food to forage was even more expensive, while way far away the people in the capital also had to worry about all the military commanders out on the frontier rebelling with all those expensive supplies and men. Although I'm not really sure what the interplay was between the nomads who raided and the nomads who made serious bank off of the economic activity of the silk road. I know that when the Comanche independently developed into horse nomads, they had a pretty loose organizational system where raiding groups would be temporary in a way that gave all the more permanently organized groups plausible deniability when working out economic relations to fence their stolen goods.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 06:56
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:This was much the same for the Abbasid's as well. When the Mongol's rolled through the Caliphate had been falling apart for centuries. This was't the Caliphate that could wage war against Tang China anymore, it was a rump state that was at constant war in a fractious land. Not to diss Genghis or anything because what the Mongol's achieved was indeed incredible, but a large part of their success was due to their conquests being big empires that had both just bled themselves dry. This is ironically how the Islamic Conquests had gone themselves, where the big empires of their day had just annihilated each other and the Arabs got to pounce on the survivors. Yeah the Abbasids when taught in high school and you only learn their "reign" number (750-1258) and you go "whoa they lasted a long time!" but for the last 300 years they were generally under the thumb of several different groups for the last 300 of that, where the Caliphate was still the legitimate religious authority in the Sunni world, but had very little military power itself anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 06:59
|
|
|
Do we know anything about the relationship between Atilla's Huns and the hephtalites? Or with the Bulgars? I recall from the History of Byzantium podcast that 6th century Romans tended to use "Hunnic" and "Bulgar" interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 09:01
|
|
|
It's worth considering that these big settled empires are large sources of valuable trade goods: things that nomad chieftains living on their periphery really want in order to show off their power and status, and all they have to do is cut a deal with the nearest Chinese commandery. Oh, all we have to do is attack those loving Assholes Over There who keep raiding our cattle? Have we got ourselves a deal!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 13:44
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:China definitely did smack down nomadic raiders again and again before the mongols came along to totally destroy them, but that's not the same as not being a problem. Actively defending against attacks out on the frontier was expensive as hell, and launching punitive attacks against raiders through territory with no food to forage was even more expensive, while way far away the people in the capital also had to worry about all the military commanders out on the frontier rebelling with all those expensive supplies and men. Oh yeah for sure, that's what I meant about strong and stable dynasties. Even the more successful dynasties stop being able to do it when they go into decline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Do we know anything about the relationship between Atilla's Huns and the hephtalites? Or with the Bulgars? I recall from the History of Byzantium podcast that 6th century Romans tended to use "Hunnic" and "Bulgar" interchangeably. Hunnic tribes seem to have been one component of the Bulgars. The connection between Atilla's Huns and the Hephtalites is apparently a matter of scholarly dispute. My impression is that in general, both Roman and Chinese sources didn't distinguish very clearly between different "barbarian" groups (especially the horse-riding, nomadic kind), and they tended to form confederations with each other and move around a lot. Modern nationalist crankery can make things even more confusing. So it can be very hard to understand the exact relationship between the different groups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
Roman and Chinese approaches to barbarians, esp the steppe nomads, were both very schematic. This is most obvious (to me anyway) with Roman sources blandly referring to Goths, Huns and anyone else they please as “Scythians” because that’s what was in Herodotus. But you can also see it in the Four Barbarians of the cardinal directions of the Zhou, or the Five Barbarians of the Han.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
Kassad posted:Oh yeah for sure, that's what I meant about strong and stable dynasties. Even the more successful dynasties stop being able to do it when they go into decline. Part of what maintains stability is just not funding the coup machine out on the frontier though, isn't it? An expedition into mongol territory to destroy Genghis Khan's new confederation and nip it in the bud seems like the sort of expensive project that could ruin you in the imperial court or create some powerful new rival.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
I'm more familiar with the Roman frontier, but there it's usually the case that powerful new confederations only get to form in the first place because the Imperial authority is distracted by internal goings-on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 17:49
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
GoutPatrol posted:Yeah the Abbasids when taught in high school and you only learn their "reign" number (750-1258) and you go "whoa they lasted a long time!" but for the last 300 years they were generally under the thumb of several different groups for the last 300 of that, where the Caliphate was still the legitimate religious authority in the Sunni world, but had very little military power itself anymore. It’s some of the same dynamics of empire that you can see, going all the way back to before Alexander and all the way forward to the present day. Empire can be an oddly fragile system when the circumstances align the wrong way: garrisoning huge swathes of territory is expensive, difficult, and has a nasty tendency to turn the locals against you. Conquering a huge empire is incredibly lucrative, while administering and defending a huge empire isn’t (but a coup certainly is), which is why so many conquest dynasties begin to implode once they’ve got no easy targets to invade. You can conquer an empire with a good army of 50,000, but you can’t garrison and administer it with one. Garrisoning the empire with an elite army of outsides (like the caliphate did) helps head off internal revolt, but it creates an organized and powerful parallel structure that can coup your poo poo in a heartbeat. Russia used the Cossacks to great effect, but using foreign peoples to murder your rebellious subjects makes those subjects really loving angry. Rebuilding from huge wars can take decades, working to rebuild, reassert control over lost territory and restore tax revenues, which just aren’t available if other stuff is going on. Look at how the Eastern provinces under Heraclius were broken by Persian invasion, unable to pay for or defend themselves, and ripe for conquest by the Arab invasions. Even if he’d retaken them, for a second time, it would’ve been a net loss for decades. A large amount of an Empire’s stability comes from the appearance of strength- once the Assyrians got bogged down in Egypt and crippled by civil war, their many enemies realized they weren’t invincible and banded together to destroy Ninevah. Once Rome took some heavy blows during the crisis of the 3rd century, they stopped being the invincible superpower and started getting raided and invaded constantly (plus disease, political changes, and all those other conditions we’ve discussed at length). Once Napoleon lost in Russia, his conquered empire didn’t band together and raise troops to Rescue the French Empire! ...the fruits of empire are concentrated while the dissent and anger grows everywhere else. It’s a hydraulic pump for power and wealth, and sooner or later the pump runs dry or breaks. Once the British Empire was crippled by debt from two world wars and getting their poo poo thoroughly rocked, a bunch of colonies broke off from them post-WW2 and settled into the US orbit instead. Whenever the US Empire looks weak, those same cycles are going to play out in the present day. Nothing lasts forever, it’s just a matter of rolling 2d6 every year and seeing what comes up. A really strong, stable empire will hold together on a 2+, a really weak and fractured empire needs a 5+ to stay together, but there’s no such thing as indefinite empire. The Assyrians probably came the closest, but it all came crashing down very quickly once they rolled a few 1s. A chain of good Emperors provides temporary wealth and stability, while a chain of bad Emperors can destroy or cripple the empire permanently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm more familiar with the Roman frontier, but there it's usually the case that powerful new confederations only get to form in the first place because the Imperial authority is distracted by internal goings-on. yeah this. it's not really emphasized in most histories, but there is a constant slow-burn frontier conflict going on any time settled peoples feel threatened by their "barbarian" neighbors where agents of the empire are buying people off to maintain lack of cohesion. large military actions were rarely required
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Yeah, and we focus on the military aspect but the material payoffs are hugely important too. The imperial power handing out status goods to friendly rulers was a big deal, and you find Roman stuff as grave goods all the way up into Denmark and Norway; having them was important to people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
It was very much the same for China. There were direct actions from time to time but it was far more a matter of playing tribes against each other. Usually based around Chinese investiture rather than straight monetary bribes though (although the two maybe aren't so distinct in most of premodern East Asia). In Han times for instance, before their neighbors had coalesced into states, they would hand out titles by the bucketload; every petty chieftain would be given Chinese investiture, and so whenever one tried to consolidate their power they'd be met with local challengers on every front. Meanwhile, they gave more genuine support to the neighbors of their neighbors; keep the immediate frontiers weak, and the farther flung reaches friendlier and stronger so they can help deal with any powers that actually do form while being too distant to be a threat to China. This seems to have been pretty effective; in Korea and Manchuria there's indications of states coalescing in the period before the Han empire expanded that way and again pretty immediately after Han collapsed, but basically not at all while the empire was actually active. Then in later times when the frontiers weren't just a mess of chieftains anymore you get the tributary system, the main point of which was again to make actual military intervention as unnecessary as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
skasion posted:Roman and Chinese approaches to barbarians, esp the steppe nomads, were both very schematic. This is most obvious (to me anyway) with Roman sources blandly referring to Goths, Huns and anyone else they please as “Scythians” because that’s what was in Herodotus. But you can also see it in the Four Barbarians of the cardinal directions of the Zhou, or the Five Barbarians of the Han. Pretty much nothing we know about these groups was written by the people themselves as they were generally illiterate, and often the chroniclers only really know "They came from roughly that direction". It's possible that much of our understanding of these groups is flawed. For instance imagine a group that raided and got called "Tribe A", and then decades later they raid a different part of the empire that speaks a different language and get called "Tribe B". The imperial historian writing this down might incorrectly assume that the A's and B's were totally different people. We tend to imagine that the Huns disappeared but maybe they just got called something else later and no one now knows they are the Huns since "All these Barbarians look alike". Or we take it in the opposite direction. How many completely unrelated tribes were called things such as Scythians like skasion pointed out because they came from the same general direction. And historians shrugged and went "Don't Scythians come from that direction? I guess I'll say they're Scythians." And then we get to how we often don't know if these names (especially within the groups themselves) referred to their ethnicity, the name of the leading tribe, the ethnicity of the leading tribe, or something else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:Pretty much nothing we know about these groups was written by the people themselves as they were generally illiterate, and often the chroniclers only really know "They came from roughly that direction". It's possible that much of our understanding of these groups is flawed. For instance imagine a group that raided and got called "Tribe A", and then decades later they raid a different part of the empire that speaks a different language and get called "Tribe B". The imperial historian writing this down might incorrectly assume that the A's and B's were totally different people. We tend to imagine that the Huns disappeared but maybe they just got called something else later and no one now knows they are the Huns since "All these Barbarians look alike". Or we take it in the opposite direction. How many completely unrelated tribes were called things such as Scythians like skasion pointed out because they came from the same general direction. And historians shrugged and went "Don't Scythians come from that direction? I guess I'll say they're Scythians." And then we get to how we often don't know if these names (especially within the groups themselves) referred to their ethnicity, the name of the leading tribe, the ethnicity of the leading tribe, or something else. To a point, but we also have archeological evidence of a fair number of nomadic groups that point to some relationships. This isn't my field at all, but for example I've read that poo poo like the layout of houses and barns (as reconstructed from evidence in the dirt of where structural posts were planted) and variations in how they made pottery is one of the ways that archeologists try to reconstruct what was going on in Roman-era Germania. Plus other poo poo that can point to cultural relationships, I'm grossly simplifying a thing that I've read like sections of two books and maybe a handful of papers about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
How did Roman emperors (or whoever was in charge of quashing external threats) know when a tribal confederation was gaining enough strength to be a big problem? Ignoring the media, we have embassies and intelligence agencies that regularly report on goings-on abroad, but as I understand it the Romans had no permanent embassies and only rudimentary intelligence-gathering mechanisms. Reports from traders?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
If there's a lot of dudes on horses over there's more than usual, you know it's going to be a bother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
Trade was part of it. Another part was the flow of notables across the border, which was in part the same thing — it was not at all uncommon for people from beyond the frontiers to go to markets under imperial control. Additionally, barbarian leaders were constantly going into or returning from Roman military service and could be expected to appraise their superiors of what was going on out there, though not necessarily accurately (Arminius for example). It wasn’t uncommon for barbarian leaders to send embassies (in the sense of delegations to make arrangements, not permanent diplomats) to Roman leaders either. Dio says that the Marcomannic wars began with a raid in force which was quashed:Dio 72 posted:Then, thrown into consternation by such an outcome to their very first undertaking, the barbarians sent envoys to Iallius Bassus, the governor of Pannonia, choosing for the purpose Ballomarius, king of the Marcomani, and ten others, one for each nation. These envoys made peace, which they ratified with oaths, and then returned home... The emperor came to the region in anticipation of further trouble: Dio 72 posted:Marcus Antoninus remained in Pannonia in order to give audience to the embassies of the barbarians; for many came to him at this time also. Some of them, under the leadership of Battarius, a boy twelve years old, promised an alliance; these received a gift of money and succeeded in restraining Tarbus, a neighbouring chieftain, who had come into Dacia and was demanding money and threatening to make war if he should fail to get it. Others, like the Quadi, asked for peace, which was granted them, both in the hope that they might be detached from the Marcomani, and also because they gave him many horses and cattle and promised to surrender all the deserters and the captives, besides, — thirteen thousand at first, and later all the others as well. The right to attend the markets, however, was not granted to them, for fear that the Iazyges and the Marcomani, whom they had sworn not to receive nor to allow to pass through their country, should mingle with them, and passing themselves off for Quadi, should reconnoitre the Roman positions and purchase provisions. Besides these that came to Marcus, many others sent envoys, some by tribes and some by nations, and offered to surrender. Some of them were sent on campaigns elsewhere, as were also the captives and deserters who were fit for service; others received land in Dacia, Pannonia, Moesia, the province of Germany, and in Italy itself. I recommend reading the whole chapter honestly. It’s not all about the Danube border problems but it gives a good sense of how Romans conducted affairs across the border in times of trouble — by receiving a lot of ambassadors from barbarians and bossing them around, fighting them if it came down to that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Yeah it's critical to understand that the border is not a hard border, it was always extremely porous. People are coming and going constantly, and there are lots of personal relationships through which information is flowing.Communist Walrus posted:How did Roman emperors (or whoever was in charge of quashing external threats) know when a tribal confederation was gaining enough strength to be a big problem? Ignoring the media, we have embassies and intelligence agencies that regularly report on goings-on abroad, but as I understand it the Romans had no permanent embassies and only rudimentary intelligence-gathering mechanisms. On the German frontier (presumably the others are the same) there was an active and continuous presence, from pretty much the instant the Empire gets itself running. Whenever there isn't an active civil war the army is out on the frontier, local commanders are establishing relationships with foreign leaders, and raids are going out to punish anti-Roman groups. As for how the Emperor would know, either letters or personal communications; often in the late empire the western Emperor isn't in Italy he's on the frontier somewhere. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Last time I heard about Germanicus's campaigns, it sounded like he was operating a lot like Julius Caesar was; that old game of allying with one or more tribes while picking a fight with another, and then using that alliance to build influence within the allied tribe and absolutely dominate any of them that dare to step out of line as the alliance becomes more subservience, and then just doing that and asserting that you have control over the area until you do. Only difference is the German version of the battle of Alesia actually worked. How much of a presence did Rome have beyond its proper borders anyways? Weren't they constantly extending themselves into Scotland and Germany despite not having official, defensible political control over the area? Like not just legions going out and marching around slaughtering everyone like animals, but civilians regularly interacting or trading, building long-term relations with foreigners. Those maps that always show a hard line at Germany seem a little reductive. It's not the same as the border with Persia where there's another great power putting pressure on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:
The short version is that the border was less a hard line and more a intermediate region. Romans would go into "barbarian" lands to trade and do other poo poo, barbarians would come over and do the same. Romans settled on the wrong side, barbrians did likewise. Barbarians adopted roman customs and goods etc, and romans would do the same to an extent. So it's less a hard line with Romans on one side and a bunch of pants-wearers on the other and more a gradient where eventually you stop talking about somewhat germanicized Romans and start talking about somewhat romanicized Germans. Basically the notion of a border as we understand it today is entirely nominal well, well into the early modern period if not later. People in border territories are frequently more like each other than they are the people calling the shots in their respective metropoles until you get well into the 19th century in a lot of places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
I always love that one anecdote from the english lord who's in the middle of a battle against perfidious Scots and he comes across a bunch of border reavers from both sides just hanging out and chatting out of sight. When they saw him they hurridly started to fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Reminds me of an anecdote I heard about farmers in France near the border with Germany who would routinely cross the border to help the German farmers with their work and the Germans would do the same later. So on the day Germany declared war on France during WWI, the French farmers cross the border as usual and the German farmers go "Holy poo poo haven't you heard? Get your asses back across the border right now".
Kassad fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Nov 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
Did that anecdote take place near Alsace-Lorraine? Because that story would make a great deal of sense there, that region would have a great number of cultural connections to the rest of France. Heck, I can even see it occuring elsewhere along that border.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 13:16
|
|
|
People who live next to imaginary lines dont tend to care as much about those lines as those who only see them from a top down view on a map.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Did that anecdote take place near Alsace-Lorraine? Because that story would make a great deal of sense there, that region would have a great number of cultural connections to the rest of France. Heck, I can even see it occuring elsewhere along that border. I mean the entire franco-german border is “Reichsland Elsass-Lothringen” in 1914 so one imagines yes. But more specifically it would have probably happened in the northern bit, Moselle or Lorraine or whatever you want to call it, which was overwhelmingly francophone even in 1871. Alsace was overwhelmingly german-speaking* until after. *but I feel like noting during 1871-1918 it was colonized with prussians by Berlin and Hochdeutsch was enforced as brutally as french had been before. Some people not familiar with see the annexation of Alsace as a glorious return to the Fatherland or some poo poo which it definitely wasn’t.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Dalael posted:People who live next to imaginary lines dont tend to care as much about those lines as those who only see them from a top down view on a map. *shakes head Britishly in disbelief*
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Confucius' household has been a continuously recorded thing, with special privileges since imperial times, right? I have no clue but maybe they have some artifact they've been holding onto the whole time. This is only very vaguely true; 'Confucius' household' -- the Kong 孔 clan had been a thing in Lu for some time. There are stories about Confucius' upbringing, but considering the providence, I don't know any reason to believe them. The descendant lineage did get recognition by the Han and the Tang, but not as a matter of course. The establishment of the 'classicist' chinese canon as orthodoxy was first done in the Han, but initially, the Tang pantheon has left the Duke of Zhou as a more sacred personage--it was not until the reign of Xuanzong that Confucius himself was again raised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
I have an economic history question which may or may not be ancient history - I’m not sure what time period this would be. Basically I’m curious when the concept of depreciation of capital became a thing, as well as measurement of human capital. Are these present this far back, or did they really truly only appear until much later on? Most histories I find talk about 20th century versions which are very close to modern conceptions, but it feels like this concept must be older than that even if the words used to describe it might be different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:32
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Once the British Empire was crippled by debt from two world wars and getting their poo poo thoroughly rocked, a bunch of colonies broke off from them post-WW2 and settled into the US orbit instead. More usually Soviet, actually... (Or Non-Aligned Movement)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Nope. General opinion is they're not, but there is no real consensus. Patrick Wyman makes the case that they are, because the traders who went between those lands who absolutely needed to know accurately who was who would translate hun and xiongnu into eachother. He makes the case that atillas Huns are a different group but the same thing, pushed west by difficult winters He's better at explaining it than I but what would be your take on that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 10:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
tildes posted:I have an economic history question which may or may not be ancient history - I’m not sure what time period this would be. Basically I’m curious when the concept of depreciation of capital became a thing, as well as measurement of human capital. Are these present this far back, or did they really truly only appear until much later on? Most histories I find talk about 20th century versions which are very close to modern conceptions, but it feels like this concept must be older than that even if the words used to describe it might be different. The idea of depreciation itself? It has to be as old as the first tool. Accounting conventions regarding measuring depreciation and how to most accurately reflect the value of capital? I'm gonna guess and say early modern europe, man. I can at least say that in the ancient Roman world, we do have at least one transmitted text that does include an attempt at cost-accounting, but it is a very very bad attempt, and in Qin China, the Shuihudi manuscripts do include statutes on replacing govt capital, but there seems to be no greater differentiation than 'new' and 'broken', which doesn't suggest that the idea of accounting for the transition between them was worth their effort. Accounting for depreciation shows its value when its applied to extremely costly capital -- we're talking about the sort of industrial equipment that just did not exist in private hands until very recently. This line between state and private property can get a little blurry--the early Han is probably the best example (princes and kings and emperors and chieftains all living together in...harmony?), but such large pieces of capital as blast furnaces, foundries, and i suppose the actual buildings housing workshop complexes weren't united by any centralized budget. (this remained true at least in China as far as the late Ming-- I assume the Qing didn't do it either, but I'm pretty ignorant of Qing political administration).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 15:19
|
|