Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Crash Course World History

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Henry IX said:
Huns, Scythians, Avars, Bolgars, Magyars, Turkomens, Mongols and Cumans just to name a few steppe nomads who left an enduring reputation for brutality and rapaciousness.
Click to expand...
Other than the Mongols (and arguably with the Huns, whose reputation as pure evil is IMO mostly unwarranted) none of those groups are remembered for destroying cities or murdering thousands of people. Magyars come closest, but considering that they shared Europe with the vikings their brutality was far from exceptional. Scythians and Cumans have more of a "noble savage" reputation if anything.

NorthernXY said:
Are you referring to your last EUIV game?
Click to expand...

EUIV portrays nomads as city-flattening lunatics. The sacking mechanic is ridiculous. Nomadic empires were normal states populated by normal people who didn't have some savage drive to murder and rape for no reason. The Mongols were the only nomadic empire that killed millions of people, and even that was just an extension of the ordinary medieval approach to warfare.
 
LordTempest said:
Wut?
Click to expand...
They were countries full of real people with real motivations and real institutions that made sense. Not chaotic mobs of mindless plunderers as portrayed by both contemporary non-nomads and by popular culture. It's the same with the so-called barbarian kingdoms at the end of the Roman Empire, they get painted with the "horde of rampaging savages" trope as well, despite that being far from the truth.
 
LordTempest said:
Wut?
Click to expand...
They were trading societies, selling their horses and livestock to the more settled while trading between them. It was when their sedentary neighbors thought they were strong enough to cut off trading ties or take their land when the trouble almost always started.
 
noobermenschen said:
They were trading societies, selling their horses and livestock to the more settled while trading between them. It was when their sedentary neighbors thought they were strong enough to cut off trading ties or take their land when the trouble almost always started.
Click to expand...

That is a very strong statement, and does not match up with my understanding. What are your sources for this?

Certainly, many of the conflicts between nomads and agricultural civilisations had some of their basis in the expansion of agriculture into former pastoral lands (this is certainly typical of the conflicts between Muscovy and the nomads), to state that it drove the conflict "almost always" is an overstatement. The typical view (perhaps biased by the written sources) is that nomad raids were common, and when they were highly successful (for example when a polity was in civil war or under an incompetent ruler) they tended to snowball in scale and turn into full scale invasions. Alternately, the nomads may have been driven out by their nomad neighbours, and so 'spill over' into 'civilised' lands.

The most well known invasions/conflicts appear to follow this pattern (except for the Mongols who were not typical for a whole range of reasons). For example Attila found a soft target in the Roman empire and his power and influence grew as he raided and was paid off repeatedly. It was only when he was stymied by the walls of Constantinople and defeated in the field by Aetius that the Hunnish power crumbled. The same patters seems to have driven the Magyars.

The history of Iran in particular, is full of invasions (successful and unsuccessful) and raids by nomads. Whilst the relatively poor written evidence for much of this period makes it hard to pin down the reasons for the invasion there is no evidence that I have seen that suggests that it was driven by the expansion of agriculture (the steppes are far to dry for agricultural expansion) or cutting off trade. Indeed, the economic situation of classical and medieval Iran would make cutting of trade with the nomads to the north and west a counterproductive act at best. Much of the wealth of the area was dependent on trade and the archaeological evidence suggests that Iran was major trading hub for much of its history.
 
Henry IX said:
That is a very strong statement, and does not match up with my understanding. What are your sources for this?

Certainly, many of the conflicts between nomads and agricultural civilisations had some of their basis in the expansion of agriculture into former pastoral lands (this is certainly typical of the conflicts between Muscovy and the nomads), to state that it drove the conflict "almost always" is an overstatement. The typical view (perhaps biased by the written sources) is that nomad raids were common, and when they were highly successful (for example when a polity was in civil war or under an incompetent ruler) they tended to snowball in scale and turn into full scale invasions. Alternately, the nomads may have been driven out by their nomad neighbours, and so 'spill over' into 'civilised' lands.

The most well known invasions/conflicts appear to follow this pattern (except for the Mongols who were not typical for a whole range of reasons). For example Attila found a soft target in the Roman empire and his power and influence grew as he raided and was paid off repeatedly. It was only when he was stymied by the walls of Constantinople and defeated in the field by Aetius that the Hunnish power crumbled. The same patters seems to have driven the Magyars.

The history of Iran in particular, is full of invasions (successful and unsuccessful) and raids by nomads. Whilst the relatively poor written evidence for much of this period makes it hard to pin down the reasons for the invasion there is no evidence that I have seen that suggests that it was driven by the expansion of agriculture (the steppes are far to dry for agricultural expansion) or cutting off trade. Indeed, the economic situation of classical and medieval Iran would make cutting of trade with the nomads to the north and west a counterproductive act at best. Much of the wealth of the area was dependent on trade and the archaeological evidence suggests that Iran was major trading hub for much of its history.
Click to expand...
Chiefly Empires of the Silk Road by Christopher Beckwith. The book gets a bit odd sometimes (the author goes on a 10+ page rant about Post-Modernism towards the end) but it does make a case that the history of nomadic nations, especially successful ones, has been consistently told from the view of the settled and thus quite slanted.

You are correct there was some depredation - though often, as with English piracy, as more peaceful means of support became unavailable. Dying ain't much of a living. And there are the effects of forced migrations, though the refugees usually presented themselves peacefully and were often treated like caca by their new hosts (looking at you Romans). But I agree more with @Fishman786 that nomadic peoples were not lawless savages, but very much a product of their times, and the most maligned were simply the most successful.
 
Also, not to derail, but when I first saw the thread title immediately thought of this: :D

166.jpg
 
noobermenschen said:
Chiefly Empires of the Silk Road by Christopher Beckwith. The book gets a bit odd sometimes (the author goes on a 10+ page rant about Post-Modernism towards the end) but it does make a case that the history of nomadic nations, especially successful ones, has been consistently told from the view of the settled and thus quite slanted.

You are correct there was some depredation - though often, as with English piracy, as more peaceful means of support became unavailable. Dying ain't much of a living. And there are the effects of forced migrations, though the refugees usually presented themselves peacefully and were often treated like caca by their new hosts (looking at you Romans). But I agree more with @Fishman786 that nomadic peoples were not lawless savages, but very much a product of their times, and the most maligned were simply the most successful.
Click to expand...

Thanks, will check it out. Certainly the written sources from the period spend very little time on working out the motivations of the nomads...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back