History questions? Fire away!

[Orange_Kun!!!]

Mayhem: I did include a map with my blog post, go ahead and have another look. However, I can tell you that, from their base in Mongolia, they ended up severely harassing Russia and Getting as far west as the Belorussian states (i.e. the Ukraine, Belarus, etc.), and perhaps even creeping as far as Poland.


Orange: What I CAN tell you is that it is not the Byzantines. If you count their beginning as where it should be counted, at 476, the fall of the Western empire of Rome, it was only 977 years before they got formally destroyed by the Ottoman Empire in 1453. I would vote for Egypt, because even though there were some 'break ups', it has lasted for about 6000 years and I'm sure there was at least some period in there that was longer than 1000 years.


However, if you aren't a fan of those three that you mentioned, Here's an alternative that EVERYONE overlooks: Ethiopia. The Ethiopian empire lasted from roughly 1000 BC to 1974 when their Monarchy was overthrown. However, they were incredibly resilient; they were still considered an empire when they repelled Italy in the second world war.

Really, I'm not sure I like your definition of broken up; for me, while I can speak less for the others, Egypt and Persia stayed almost completely intact as a land mass for the duration of their respective empires, and the 'empire' status was never taken down. I think you might have to define your criteria a little better for me if you want to be more specific about it, but My vote goes to Egypt.

However, like I said, Ethiopia remained stable for close to 3000 years; my thought is that if you don't include the three you said there, that's the best you're going to get.

Thanks, you're right about Ethiopia, I never would've thought of them. I knew they had an emperor but for some reason, I never think empire when I think Ethiopia. *update* Now I know why. Though I've heard of the many names: Abyssinia, Land of Punt, Axum; I, for some reason, never put two and two together to figure out it was all Ethiopia the entire time. *Facepalm*

You are probably right about Byzantium since despite existing much longer than being Constantinople and the Capitol of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, it probably didn't carry empire status before Constantine and therefore wouldn't count.

I suppose that "broken" was a little too vague and/or generalized of a term to use.

What I was meaning was that in Egypt's case, there were too many times when the Empire, perhaps not in name since that I don't know for sure, collapsed by way of administration due to either periods of famine, revolts, civil wars (numerous fights between prominent Upper and Lower clans), or invasions (Nubians, Hyksos, Macedon, Rome), etc., that it doesn't feel that I can classify it as sustained more than it was like someone else would come by and pick up the fragments and rebuild.

With Persia, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. My confusion is that I don't see how it stayed intact unless you are referring to the very core of the Iranian plateau itself. The Achaemenid Empire crumbled under Alexander's push east, eventually having the majority (if not all) of that divided between Seleucus and Ptolemy. Then you have Parthians before you see the re-establishment of the Persians under the Sassanids.

The Sassanids build it back to the former glory of the Achaemenids but, that land mass was not sustained in between and they fell within 4-500 years thanks to the explosion of the Islamic expansion. Sure there were the Safavids, but they were swallowed up by the Ottomans even if they were kept intact. There were too many periods in time where they were broken, fragmented, or outright ruled by others that I can't say for myself that their empire was sustained.

I would definitely be interested if there's anything I might be overlooking that you can bring to my attention though, but thus far, that was what I had meant by "broken up". Sorry for my poor choice of terms earlier.

 

[Dreadmaker]

Thanks, you're right about Ethiopia, I never would've thought of them. I knew they had an emperor but for some reason, I never think empire when I think Ethiopia. *update* Now I know why. Though I've heard of the many names: Abyssinia, Land of Punt, Axum; I, for some reason, never put two and two together to figure out it was all Ethiopia the entire time. *Facepalm*

9/10 people don't even know that Ethiopa was an empire at all; African history tends to be a bit of a 'void' for most. You're right; Abyssinia was its first name, and if I'm not mistaken, Axum was actually their capitol for a significant time.

You are probably right about Byzantium since despite existing much longer than being Constantinople and the Capitol of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, it probably didn't carry empire status before Constantine and therefore wouldn't count.

I would contest that it didn't carry empire status until after the formal fall of the Roman empire in the West; it was still just the 'Eastern Empire', so I think that even after Constantine, it was only a part of a whole, not the whole itself. The city of Constantinople is, however, one of the oldest cities on the planet (that is still functioning). It started as Byzantium, a Greek Colony (where the empire got its name) then to Constantinople, during Roman Reign, and then, much later (I feel like the exact year is 1922, which is when Turkey became its own country, but I'm unsure) into Istanbul. However, a city doesn't really qualify as an empire.

What I was meaning was that in Egypt's case, there were too many times when the Empire, perhaps not in name since that I don't know for sure, collapsed by way of administration due to either periods of famine, revolts, civil wars (numerous fights between prominent Upper and Lower clans), or invasions (Nubians, Hyksos, Macedon, Rome), etc., that it doesn't feel that I can classify it as sustained more than it was like someone else would come by and pick up the fragments and rebuild.

I would contend that invasions, even of a particularly grievous nature, don't take away from the whole. In egypt's case, yes, invasions were a large part of their history. Hell, we think that it was the Hyksos that actually gave them the knowledge of iron working, and potentially enabled them to finish the pyramids. However, I think it is somewhat shortsighted to claim that Egypt prior to, and Egypt after the Hyksos was a different place on an administrative level. The culture and the administrative style were much the same, and the land which they held authority over remained largely unchanged. That's just one example; However, I would contend that despite occupations, it's the same thing.

Look at another example: Was France a significantly different place after the German occupation in World War II than it was prior to it? The culture and territory were largely unchanged, and while they maybe have been humbled, and while they may have been a little shaken up by a change in administration, it was still France. In both cases (i.e. Egypt and France), Language remained the same, governance remained largely the same, and religion stayed the same; that, to me, suggests a contiguous empire/country. What this will ultimately come down to, if the discussion continues, is what defines 'empire'. That's a big discussion, and one I'm happy to have, but one for a different post.



I'm not going to quote your Persian example for brevity; you're right. Persia did change a lot, and while we generally consider it to be one empire for geographic and historical considerations, It's generally more accurate to call it by the dynasty, because it DID change so much. If we use the criteria I set out just above, the governance DID change, the religion most certainly changed (a few times) and the language changed. Thus, I don't think we can consider it one body. I did indeed misspeak there.




Mayhem: That really depends on your criteria; that's a really broad question. A few come to mind, though: Sparticus, of the Romans, or all of the 300 men at the battle of Thermopylae (read: the movie 300 - yeah, it happened, and the movie was even relatively accurate, aside from the blatantly fake parts). Additionally, there was a particular sniper in the Winter War between Finland and Russia in the opening stages of WWII that obtained roughly 500 confirmed kills and many unconfirmed ones over the course of the battle (which was, relatively speaking, fairly short). His name escapes me, but I'm sure searching for famous snipers would bring him up.

 

[ST0RMY]

During Nam II when the vampires sided with the robots, which side did the NVA cyborgs join? I mean they are half-human and half-robot so where did their allegiance lie? Did they join the robot-vampire East Vietnam or the werewolf-zombie controlled West Vietnam?

If you dont mind id like to send you a PM with my real question.

 

[Dreadmaker]

During Nam II when the vampires sided with the robots, which side did the NVA cyborgs join? I mean they are half-human and half-robot so where did their allegiance lie? Did they join the robot-vampire East Vietnam or the werewolf-zombie controlled West Vietnam?

If you dont mind id like to send you a PM with my real question.

They joined the werewolves of West vietnam; clearly they could be excellent spies that way, because the Robot vampires of the east would have to pay very close attention to determine the difference between robot humans and robot vampires. It is well known that many a robo-vampire operation was stopped dead by the cunning subterfuge of the cyborg spy force.

Also, I sent you an answer to your real PM.

 

[Orange_Kun!!!]

I would contend that invasions, even of a particularly grievous nature, don't take away from the whole. In egypt's case, yes, invasions were a large part of their history. Hell, we think that it was the Hyksos that actually gave them the knowledge of iron working, and potentially enabled them to finish the pyramids. However, I think it is somewhat shortsighted to claim that Egypt prior to, and Egypt after the Hyksos was a different place on an administrative level. The culture and the administrative style were much the same, and the land which they held authority over remained largely unchanged. That's just one example; However, I would contend that despite occupations, it's the same thing.

Look at another example: Was France a significantly different place after the German occupation in World War II than it was prior to it? The culture and territory were largely unchanged, and while they maybe have been humbled, and while they may have been a little shaken up by a change in administration, it was still France. In both cases (i.e. Egypt and France), Language remained the same, governance remained largely the same, and religion stayed the same; that, to me, suggests a contiguous empire/country. What this will ultimately come down to, if the discussion continues, is what defines 'empire'. That's a big discussion, and one I'm happy to have, but one for a different post.

Thanks! Discussions are always welcome. Your reply proved me wrong on Egypt; it makes sense and all I can think is that, invasions aside, I was merely looking at the in-fighting between clans in different cities as well as the ever-lingering tension between upper and lower and not the bigger picture. You are right, the changing dynasties truly didn't break or radically upset any facets of the culture in the long term, administratively or religiously.

 

[Dreadmaker]

Thanks! Discussions are always welcome. Your reply proved me wrong on Egypt; it makes sense and all I can think is that, invasions aside, I was merely looking at the in-fighting between clans in different cities as well as the ever-lingering tension between upper and lower and not the bigger picture. You are right, the changing dynasties truly didn't break or radically upset any facets of the culture in the long term, administratively or religiously.

Yeah, discussions are where everyone learns the most, myself included. I love them.

In any case, yeah, defining 'empire' is difficult, but I tend to look at those three major things: culture (and language), government, religion. Also, sometimes, territory, but it's less reliable. They tend to be pretty great indicators of when a major change in a certain area occurs.

 

[SoldierX77]

I havn't seen this anywhere, but what were some of the Mongols tactics to attacking cities or castles.. Did they use anything unique? For example my friend read a book about them, and they cut off their trade supplies, and waited until they were out of water by surrounding them and not letting them out of the castle? Not sure.

And would it be possible for you to explain some stuff about WW2? Anything really, WW2 is my favorite topic. I would prefer stuff that isn't the basic unit that they teach you in school, but more so specific things.

Thanks.

 

[Mayhem Death]

Wow. Didn't think 300 was actually real.

Next Question: Who was Sparticus? Apparently a Spartan.

 

[SoldierX77]

You've never heard of the Battle of Thermopylae?

 

[Cupcake]

I'm asking this because I have no idea how I would Google it:

I read American Gods by Neil Gaiman in my Mythology class. Though most of it is idealism regarding Gods, at multiple points in the narrative references are made to America being explored before the vikings, etc. My teacher (someone I respect as being a legitimate scholar, especially for a public school teacher) stopped and started going over that passage.

The problem is that it's been about two years and I never did any personal research, so this is the best I can recall:

In the mid-west, archaeologists have found skeletal remains that have very specific deficiencies/unique developments that match only those found in what was either an Indonesian or Mediterranean tribe, who actually were believably capable of making it to the Americas.

Do you know if there's any credence to things like this?

 

[Dreadmaker]

Alright, once again, 3 questions, 3 answers:

Soldier: quite frankly, the Mongols used the same basic city breaking tactics that were relatively standard at the time. Yes, they cut of trade routes, and yes, they seiged through attrition. Because they were nomads, and especially because they could easily live off their horses' milk, they were much less dependent on external supply than the people in a city. Thus, they were very good at winning sieges.

What's more interesting to look at though is their consideration. They understood quite well that while they didn't care about cities, or need them to survive, the people who resided within them most certainly did. For these reasons, they tried really hard to NOT destroy cities. They used it as a big bargaining chip, and tried to force submission through fear, rather than actual combat. It isn't that they were afraid of losing (the did conquer most of northern Asia and eastern Europe, after all), but that they wanted to avoid the destruction of people's livelyhoods as much as possible. After all, they could stand to benefit if a fully functioning town paid them tribute; they couldn't if they burned the whole thing down.

As to your WWII thing, you're going to have to be a little more specific. I do know quite a bit about WWII, but this is a question answering thread, not a 'lecture' thread. I'm not going to even try to explain the whole of WWII... there are about a million books out there that do it for me. However, if you have a specific question about some part of it, I'd be more than happy to oblige you.


Mayhem: Yes, 300 happened, at the Battle of Thermopylae. The movie was actually quite accurate on the basic flow of the story; clearly it was stylized and there were some anachronisms and falsehoods thrown in, but the majority of it was basically correct.

Spartacus was absolutely not a Spartan. It would sorta be ridiculous to name someone after your city/country... make them sound sorta silly, right?

wait... never mind.

Spartacus was a Roman slave who was notable for leading a massive slave uprising against the Roman republic, known as the third servile war. We don't actually know much about him other than that he was a Thracian (read: from Thrace, in Northern Greece), and that he lead that whole slave revolt. I noted him as one of the warriors because in fact, he was a brilliant tactician, and coordinated the slave revolt very well. Generally it's agreed that he was an excellent fighter and thinker, but we don't really know much beyond that.


Cupcake: This question goes scarily into the bowels of prehistory, archeology, and physical anthropology, of which I am an expert in none. My only real knowledge of migrations to north america would be the vikings in the early 900-1000s to the north, in Newfoundland (Canada). I would imagine that it would be entirely possible for the same journey that occurred from Scandinavia to Canada happened the other way, from, say, the Philippines to California.

I don't really know, and really anything I can say here is conjecture. My historical expertise essentially begins when writing does; I can speak to anything from 4000 BCE onwards with relative confidence, but prior to that is a little foreign to me. So, I apologize, but I can't be of much use here. If you were to try and Google it, my inclination would be to go to Wikipedia and look for an article on immigration to the states; My assumption is that there would probably be at least some piece on ancient immigration. From there, you could probably just follow the magic of Wikipedia until you got somewhere you liked. Again, I apologize for not being much help.

 

[SoldierX77]

Ok, more specific you say, could you explain what happened in the Battle of the Bulge, other than the fact that the Germans pushed through the middle while the north and south lines kept moving?

 

[Mayhem Death]

Nice! Captain America...Lol.

Next question: When was the Holy Roman Empire finally taken down and what were the main causes?

 

[Dreadmaker]

I've seen the questions, and lest you think the thread is dead, it isn't. I'm in the process of setting up something fun over in the Tf2 division, so this has been on hold. Bear with me; If I don't answer them today, it'll be tomorrow for sure. Also, if anyone has MORE questions, feel free to keep stacking them up. I'm still around