History questions? Fire away!

Armenian Genocide?

I bet they didn't teach you about that in school

They covered that in school...public school for that matter. The Cambodian Genocide on the other hand was not nor the genocide during the Kosovo War.
 
Last edited:
There were a lot of things all at once there.


@medivah, go ahead and check out pillar's link. It's short, but it's mostly to the point. Gunpowder happened in china long before Europe, and it didn't really come into popular use there until the late middle ages. As for who invented it, we don't really know. It came from a bunch of people independently. We do know for sure, though, that it wasn't just one guy. Additionally, guns didn't start as 'guns'. they started as cannons, primarily. There were smaller arms (i.e. hand cannons) but more modern individual firearms didn't come into use until much later.

@Passerby: I do indeed know about the Armenian Genocide; while I haven't really played around with the Ottoman empire in a while, I have touched on it in the past. I'm not sure whether that was an attempt to call me out for not knowing something important or what, but if you DID have a question, You'll need to be a little more specific than the name of the event.

Finally, @Mayhem Death. That question was almost big enough to garner itself a full blown blog post, but to be fair, it's pretty simple if you avoid the long, complicated genealogy and royal family dealings.


There were 3 big guys that affected Persia, and made it as big as they were. That would be (as Orange Kun suggested) Cyrus the Great, Darius I (sometimes referred to as Darius the Great) and Xerxes. Cliff's notes:

Cyrus the great was really the reason why the other rulers were so successful. He laid a brilliant foundation for the empire. Essentially, he established a national capital in Pasargadae, and ruled the entire empire centrally. The Persian empire is generally regarded as the most stunning example of central administration in ancient times; it was truly advanced.

Darius was responsible for the first invasion of Greece. They did manage to get some territory, and in fact, the empire was at its largest under Darius. However, after a stunning loss at the battle of Marathon (quite famous in ancient Greek history; it's where we get the term 'Marathon' today), they were turned back.

Xerxes was responsible for the second Greek invasion, where instead of coming over by sea (their massive mistake the in the first war) they came over land, in the north, and swept down into Greece. Long story short: they lost there, too. Oh, and the movie 300 was based off of the battle of Thermopylae, one of the famous battles here.


But the actual answer to the question, 'how did they get so big', is really boring in it's simplest form: they conquered stuff. They essentially integrated cultures and other peoples into the empire over time, some of them peacefully, and some of them not so much. They were largely regarded as successful because of how excellent their centralized administration was. For instance, The Persian empire is where we see the first 'official state language' in the history of the world. They allowed provinces to have other dialects, but all business that was official was all done in a specifically chosen dialect (Old Persian, if I'm not mistaken).

Additionally, they were also quite unique for their religious integration. While places like Greece all generally followed the same basic religion, there were tons of cults, different focuses on different gods by location; it was unorganized. In Persia, with King Artaxerxes (who came right after Xerxes... easy to remember, as it turns out) enforced Zoroastrianism as a state religion, and that was the end of it. I'm not sure if that was the first instance of enforced state religion (as I wrack my brain for previous instances) but I do believe it was. Other civilizations had universal religions, but there was a lot of variance by geography; that wasn't the case here.


So, essentially, The Persians were successful because of their awesome centralized government, their stunning integration of border states (through peaceful measures or otherwise) and later, the religious integration.
 
Last edited:
There were a lot of things all at once there.

@Passerby: I do indeed know about the Armenian Genocide; while I haven't really played around with the Ottoman empire in a while, I have touched on it in the past. I'm not sure whether that was an attempt to call me out for not knowing something important or what, but if you DID have a question, You'll need to be a little more specific than the name of the event.

ah sorry about that im just curious if it is actually covered at any university in the states iv heard that it is more or less ignored or defined differently in the states.
 
ah sorry about that im just curious if it is actually covered at any university in the states iv heard that it is more or less ignored or defined differently in the states.

I wouldn't know; I don't go to university in the states. I'm a Canadian ;)


In any case, I haven't actually had classes on it, because the modern history classes that I have taken tend to not center around the middle east. That said, I've read about it out of my own interest, as is the case with a good number of topics.
 
Wow. Impressive.

Next Question: In earlier times (near Lithuania, Estonia, etc..), was there a great nation called the Teutonic Order? I have read about them and from what I know, they were the greater power near Lithuania and Novgorad.
 
I wouldn't know; I don't go to university in the states. I'm a Canadian ;)


In any case, I haven't actually had classes on it, because the modern history classes that I have taken tend to not center around the middle east. That said, I've read about it out of my own interest, as is the case with a good number of topics.

ah nvm your Canadian too
 
There were a lot of things all at once there.


@medivah, go ahead and check out pillar's link. It's short, but it's mostly to the point. Gunpowder happened in china long before Europe, and it didn't really come into popular use there until the late middle ages. As for who invented it, we don't really know. It came from a bunch of people independently. We do know for sure, though, that it wasn't just one guy. Additionally, guns didn't start as 'guns'. they started as cannons, primarily. There were smaller arms (i.e. hand cannons) but more modern individual firearms didn't come into use until much later.

@Passerby: I do indeed know about the Armenian Genocide; while I haven't really played around with the Ottoman empire in a while, I have touched on it in the past. I'm not sure whether that was an attempt to call me out for not knowing something important or what, but if you DID have a question, You'll need to be a little more specific than the name of the event.

Finally, @Mayhem Death. That question was almost big enough to garner itself a full blown blog post, but to be fair, it's pretty simple if you avoid the long, complicated genealogy and royal family dealings.


There were 3 big guys that affected Persia, and made it as big as they were. That would be (as Orange Kun suggested) Cyrus the Great, Darius I (sometimes referred to as Darius the Great) and Xerxes. Cliff's notes:

Cyrus the great was really the reason why the other rulers were so successful. He laid a brilliant foundation for the empire. Essentially, he established a national capital in Pasargadae, and ruled the entire empire centrally. The Persian empire is generally regarded as the most stunning example of central administration in ancient times; it was truly advanced.

Darius was responsible for the first invasion of Greece. They did manage to get some territory, and in fact, the empire was at its largest under Darius. However, after a stunning loss at the battle of Marathon (quite famous in ancient Greek history; it's where we get the term 'Marathon' today), they were turned back.

Xerxes was responsible for the second Greek invasion, where instead of coming over by sea (their massive mistake the in the first war) they came over land, in the north, and swept down into Greece. Long story short: they lost there, too. Oh, and the movie 300 was based off of the battle of Thermopylae, one of the famous battles here.


But the actual answer to the question, 'how did they get so big', is really boring in it's simplest form: they conquered stuff. They essentially integrated cultures and other peoples into the empire over time, some of them peacefully, and some of them not so much. They were largely regarded as successful because of how excellent their centralized administration was. For instance, The Persian empire is where we see the first 'official state language' in the history of the world. They allowed provinces to have other dialects, but all business that was official was all done in a specifically chosen dialect (Old Persian, if I'm not mistaken).

Additionally, they were also quite unique for their religious integration. While places like Greece all generally followed the same basic religion, there were tons of cults, different focuses on different gods by location; it was unorganized. In Persia, with King Artaxerxes (who came right after Xerxes... easy to remember, as it turns out) enforced Zoroastrianism as a state religion, and that was the end of it. I'm not sure if that was the first instance of enforced state religion (as I wrack my brain for previous instances) but I do believe it was. Other civilizations had universal religions, but there was a lot of variance by geography; that wasn't the case here.


So, essentially, The Persians were successful because of their awesome centralized government, their stunning integration of border states (through peaceful measures or otherwise) and later, the religious integration.

It might not be a completely concrete example, but if I remember correctly the Assyrians enforced the acknowledgment of the superiority of the One Supreme God Ashur/Assur and the divine relationship connecting Ashur/Assur and the King upon conquered lands; though they were probably allowed to continue worshipping their own gods as long as they heeded this stipulation. (pls correct me if I'm wrong)

Also for a question or want of an opinion: I've heard so often that Indus River Valley cultures like Harappa were not considered as civilized as other early civilizations due to lack of an obvious centralized religious presence (Sumer had Ziggurats and temple records, Egypt had Idols/Statues/Shrines) despite building their settlements around planned streets, grid patterns, and having advanced waste disposal systems that kept their cities very clean.

I believe there's also evidence on economic records in Sumer and bullae/cylinder seals that have been found and attributed to Indus valley establishments to show there was trade flowing between them and Sumer and even Egypt.

Could you elaborate on this, or give your opinion?
 
Last edited:
I'm going to post answers here in two separate posts, that will be a double post if necessary, because both Mayhem and Orange's question in one post would be a massive text wall.

Starting in Order: Mayhem.


Yes, there was a nation involving the Teutonic Order. It was formally called 'The State of the Teutonic Order', but it is often shortened, yeah. You're also absolutely correct about placement; they were a little to the southwest of Novgorod, along the coast. I wouldn't really call them a Great Power, however. They only existed in a 'State' form for about 300 years, from the mid 1200s to the mid 1500s.

The state came into existence as a result of some of the lesser known crusades, the "northern crusades". Essentially, again, cliff's notes, The Teutonic knights believed that those people living in the West Baltic area were all pagans, and needed to be conquered. They did so, and you get the state.

The reason I wouldn't really call them a great state is because... well, they didn't really do very much that was significant, in the grand scheme of things. It could be said that they eventually aided in the growth of Prussia, but Prussia was only an arm of the much more interesting German Empire.

But, essentially, the Teutonic state bought some surrounding areas from places like denmark, absorbed some, like Livonia, and generally, like I said, didn't do a whole lot of significant things. They died out in the mid-1500s as a product of the protestant reformation; In that whole struggle, to simplify it greatly, some things happened and the state became the Dutchy of Prussia.


Short answer: yes, they existed, but they didn't do a whole lot. They're interesting to study if you're a fan of monastic Military orders and their function within the church ethos, but that's about it.
 
Next question: Orange.

Firstly, yes, the Assyrians certainly did force their beliefs on their subjects. That doesn't mean they were adhered to, however. Here's the difference: Assyrian conquest was relatively decentralized; it wasn't nearly at the level of organization of, say, the Persians, or better, the Romans. Basically all of the old world civilizations of that era believed that their gods were the best, and they tried to make other people see it that way. However, what we assume was actually going on was that the conquered people were simply worshiping what they wanted to in the privacy of their own homes.

In the case of Persia and Rome, That wasn't the case. The records we have indicate that Zoroastrianism and Christianity (after the edict of Milan), respectively, were generally adhered to by most, if not all peoples in their respective empires, conquered or not. We get the sense of 'peer pressure'. Essentially, the big difference is that in most previous empires, if you didn't worship 'x' god, you'd be persecuted by the leadership; in Persia and Rome, it seems as though you'd be persecuted by your fellow commoners.



As for your actual question:


This is almost purely a matter of opinion. Modern historians, from what I've read and heard, generally disagree here. A lot of ancient historians believe that it is most certainly religion that proves a civilization, and to an extent, I buy that. Marx had some excellent explanations about it, and as far as I'm concerned, it works quite well as a litmus strip. However, you're totally correct; in practical disciplines, they were ahead of the game.


Here's my thought: To be completely honest, Western society doesn't know a damned thing about Indian culture from any point in history. Hinduism, for instance, is very much not just 'one' religion. It's several. It's perfectly acceptable to be a polytheist Hindu, a monotheist Hindu, or even an atheist Hindu. It's more a way of life than a religion. The reason it is named as it is is because of British explorers. When they first arrived to colonize the place, they saw a lot of people doing the same basic things, and in a completely ignorant fashion, proceeded to name it A) a religion, and B) the SAME religion all over the place.

That's just a quick example, but nonetheless, it is relatively clear that the Indus is the least well known of all of the river valley civilizations. Why? Because unlike the other contemporary civilizations, we don't know anything about their language. Basically every written element we have from them is useless to us. So, all we have is an excavation, and while that gives us a lot to work with, it also makes us very confused.


However, with reference to your last point; we think they were very much a trading nation. A lot of what we know about them comes from other culture's written documents, like those you mentioned. Many, if not all, of those resources are, in fact, trade-based, and so we believe that it makes sense they were a trading nation; how else would they be so well represented?

Add to that that we have unearthed pottery that is very similar to those in the middle east, and you have a fairly likely case for a nation that was based not necessarily on its own ideas, but perhaps was more of a catalyst to others. To be honest with you though, my opinion on this particular matter is less informed than, say, my opinion on the Villanovans. I haven't studied the Indus civilizations as much as I would like to, so all I have to go on are some scattered readings I did a while back. So, take that with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
Alright. I get what you mean.

Next Question: Can you tell me more about the Mongolian Invasions? I know they were brutal and powerful, but I would like to know a little more.
 
If Hannibal was the greatest military tactician ever, how did he lose the Second Punic wars?
 
Alright. First: Mayhem.

EDIT: That was a long post. Too long for this thread. So, I just copy/pasted it over to my blog. You can find your full answer here.


Carmine: I'm not really sure how much detail you'd like there, but because this post is already gargantuan, I'll boil to down to 2 words: siege equipment. Hannibal, for all his military prowess, failed to account for siege, and brought not a single piece of artillery with him over the Alps (which would have been logistically difficult anyhow). Romans weren't all that great as siege either, but they DID bring some stuff along when they went for the counter attack. Essentially, Hannibal was left to sit at the gates of Rome with nothing to do but wait, while Rome went and wrecked what he had in Iberia. I CAN go into more detail, but if that answers the question, we can leave it there.
 
Last edited:
How did the defeat of the Grande Arm?e in Russia and the subsequent abdication of Napoleon (and his defeat in Waterloo) allowed Prussia to unificate Germany?

And if you want to write even more, how does Napoleon's invasion of Russia relates to the Russian Revolution?
 
Great answer Dreadmaker. It actually makes sense that they were all horseman. No wonder they moved so quick.

Next question: In early China, who was Sun Tzu?
 
Werner:

I will readily admit right now that if there is a time and place in history that I feel bad about not having studied very much, it's most certainly Napoleonic France. I know enough to talk about it conversationally, and this year, I've got 3 courses in the general vicinity, so it's a temporary problem. However, at the moment, I'm not where I would like to be.

That said: I DO know a lot about Russian history; I wrote a awesome paper last year on answering the question "Was the Red Army the determining factor in the Establishment of Bolshevik rule in Russia?" That was a lot of fun to write. So, in any case, I can speak at least a little to your question. Do take it with a grain of salt, however.

From what I know, the major reason for the lack of revolts and general solidarity of Napoleon's rule is that everyone was very conscious of his supposed military brilliance, and even more conscious of his undefeated military record. When you take into account how far he spread French rule, yeah, it's impressive that he was undefeated in that time. However, upon losing the Russian campaign, he really undid the confidence the entire state had in him. The worst part was that the Russian forces weren't superior, in any sense of the word; rather, Napoleon simply didn't follow the oldest rule in the book. It's well known that attrition (in the form of starvation and disease, primarily) killed WAY more of his troops than the Russians ever did.

Upon returning home, there was a lot of lost confidence, what with only a 10th of his army coming home with him. He did indeed muster another 400,000 or so to deal with the whole German contest only a year later, but after the defeat in Russia, the coalition knew that he was weak and COULD be vanquished.

So in short, I believe it was primarily a morale thing. Prior to Russia, it was pretty commonly accepted that fighting the french was pretty well an unwinnable act. However, after that, the cracks in the armor showed, and it was only a matter of time before confidence in Napoleonic rule wavered, and he simply lost the support and the resources needed to maintain his hold of his massive territory.


As for how it affected the eventual Bolshevik revolution (which I know MUCH more about), it really did influence Russia's idea of National identity. Russia hadn't really faced as dire a threat as France before, and it brought them together as a whole. It also showed them a thing or two about modernization, and sowed a few seeds of discontent within the average Russian. Realize that Russia, at this time, was still essentially practicing the feudal system. Yes, like the one from the middle ages. Serfdom was the name of the game in Russia until 1861, when they were emancipated. But with the invasion of such a nationalistic force, and one that was certainly more modern than Russia, it showed its populace a picture of the greener grass on the other side.


Mayhem:

Sun Tzu was a Chinese military general in the era of the 7 dynasties in China. There was a lot of war going on at the time, and he was a very esteemed military General. However, as far as that goes, not a whole lot of people care about his military endeavors; it was the fact that he wrote 'The Art of War' that really put his name into history. The Art of War is essentially a compendium of rules that every general should follow if they want to be successful at war (and by the way, it's a fantastic read; I recommend it highly if you have the time).

More recently, however, both Sun Tzu and his writings have come under pretty massive scrutiny because they have a lot of recently discovered anachronisms in them. For instance, as just one example, he makes specific reference to a crossbow at least a few times in the book; when the book was supposedly written, the crossbow had yet to be invented. Things like that have led to a lot of big questions; some actually doubt that Sun Tzu ever existed. Personally, I'm sure he did, but perhaps it wasn't him that wrote the book; he was just someone that the author attributed it to to give his ideas a little more credence.

That said, it's an incredibly famous text that is still very relevant today; it's on the reading list for the officers of the U.S. marine corps, if I'm not mistaken. Leaders throughout time have done the same thing; Napoleon in another example of someone who used it quite thoroughly (and demonstrated brilliantly why the chapter on army supply is important, what with the whole Russian thing). Machiavelli also borrowed from him heavily, not only in his excellent text 'The Prince' (another fantastic read), but also in a book he wrote titled, interestingly enough, "The Art of War" as well.
 
I'm confused, where is there a connection between the Unification of Germany and Napoleon I?

The leader of France during Bismarck's unification plan was Napoleon III. Napoleon I and his debacle in Russia was some 50-60 years before Bismarck ever thought about scheming to unify Prussia with the German states.

The reason Prussia was able to create the state of Germany was because Bismarck's plan was brilliant and due to Prussia being a very industrialized nation. They had the ability to mobilize their armies very fast and transport the troops fast via railway whereas Austria, Russia, and France did not have such means and mobilized much slower.

Bismarck used treaties in order to make sure Prussia never fought on two fronts so that they could stay focused on whoever they needed to defeat.

He goaded Austria into declaring war by first using them to help "liberate" the Schleswig and Holstein provinces from Denmark and then took control of both provinces after dividing the two between them.

He then secured Russia's cooperation to stay out of any conflict involving Austria because Russia was already angry w/ the Austrians over an issue in Crimea if I'm not mistaken. This allowed them to fight Austria one on one and easily defeat them with their superior trained military and technology.

Next, Bismarck goaded Napoleon III into declaring war by meddling with the Spanish succession by attempting to put a Hohenzollern on the Spanish throne. Once Napoleon declared war, they were also handily defeated for the same reason they easily defeated Austria. After that, there was no one to really oppose Prussia unifying the German states and themselves; not even the fact that the Prussians were Protestant and the Southern German states were mostly Catholic.
 
I'm confused, where is there a connection between the Unification of Germany and Napoleon I?

The leader of France during Bismarck's unification plan was Napoleon III. Napoleon I and his debacle in Russia was some 50-60 years before Bismarck ever thought about scheming to unify Prussia with the German states.

The reason Prussia was able to create the state of Germany was because Bismarck's plan was brilliant and due to Prussia being a very industrialized nation. They had the ability to mobilize their armies very fast and transport the troops fast via railway whereas Austria, Russia, and France did not have such means and mobilized much slower.

Bismarck used treaties in order to make sure Prussia never fought on two fronts so that they could stay focused on whoever they needed to defeat.

He goaded Austria into declaring war by first using them to help "liberate" the Schleswig and Holstein provinces from Denmark and then took control of both provinces after dividing the two between them.

He then secured Russia's cooperation to stay out of any conflict involving Austria because Russia was already angry w/ the Austrians over an issue in Crimea if I'm not mistaken. This allowed them to fight Austria one on one and easily defeat them with their superior trained military and technology.

Next, Bismarck goaded Napoleon III into declaring war by meddling with the Spanish succession by attempting to put a Hohenzollern on the Spanish throne. Once Napoleon declared war, they were also handily defeated for the same reason they easily defeated Austria. After that, there was no one to really oppose Prussia unifying the German states and themselves; not even the fact that the Prussians were Protestant and the Southern German states were mostly Catholic.


Yeah, I was sorta confused too. I attributed it to me not being as familiar with 18th-19th century European history, but I suppose my intuition was right. I didn't really touch on it in my response because of that confusion.
 
Let me find the source, but I'm sure there is a relation between Napoleon I and the unification of Germany (and no, it's not the fact that Napoleon III was related to Napoleon I). Gotta search them pile of books.
 
Let me find the source, but I'm sure there is a relation between Napoleon I and the unification of Germany (and no, it's not the fact that Napoleon III was related to Napoleon I). Gotta search them pile of books.

I'm sure there probably is... something about The German contest in 1813 setting the ground work for something or other... This is what you get for asking a question in what probably amounts to my 2 weakest centuries :p

I promise, in precisely one year from now, I will be able to answer this question fully... but for now, you're on your own :p
 
Back
Top