Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Body Count of the Roman Empire

necrometrics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#51

Post by Red_Tarsius »

davidreiss wrote: post #36

The numbers attributed to genghis khan and the mongols are pretty much scientifically impossible. It's propaganda/folk lore than real. > It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia. Estimated based on what? Myth? > Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent status) or tax-paying citizens. And the mongols turned the peoples they conquered into t…

> Estimated based on what? Myth?

That's the number of casualties Weatherford (whose work is described in the article) argues against in his book. I compared such estimates with the Roman body count described by Matthew White.

> The Mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history.

It's easy to be called peaceful when you slaughtered all opposition beforehand.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#52

Post by Ntrails »

abiox wrote: post #33
jitix wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that the term "Holocaust" is being used here to sensationalize something that used to be a relatively common occurrence back in those days (infact also used to happen in medieval and post medieval - e.g. Trail of tears - times). You should not compare ancient post-war extermination events with a modern, civilized state exterminating a section of the population in an organized manner. It just dilutes the extrem…

> It just dilutes the extremity of what the Nazi's did. conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not "dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times? it also seems such a bizarre point of view that something was "relatively common" (and i'm not sure this phrasing is helpful) therefore it's /less/ of a tragedy for that fact.

> conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not "dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times?

Yes. I guess it was special. I think that it touches something we fear deeply - that seemingly rational/intelligent/scientific people can do evil things.

I think there have been plenty of things since then which have similar levels of horrificness (albeit usually on a smaller scale). I just don't think they proc the "there but for the grace of god go I" reaction

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#53

Post by vacri »

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #26

If the numbers are true, Genghis Khan killed more people in a few decades than the Romans did in a thousand years. It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2... Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent status) or tax-paying citizens.

Most of the numbers in the link are the bodycounts of soldiers, not civilians. And the count for 'slavery' is laughably small and only deals with slaves executed as punishment; far, far more slaves were worked to death in the fields and mines. You really, really didn't want to be a Roman slave, unless you were an educated Greek.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#54

Post by vacri »

davidreiss wrote: post #36

The numbers attributed to genghis khan and the mongols are pretty much scientifically impossible. It's propaganda/folk lore than real. > It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia. Estimated based on what? Myth? > Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent status) or tax-paying citizens. And the mongols turned the peoples they conquered into t…

> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history.

It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense.

If anything is a myth about the Mongols, it's this "noble/misunderstood savages" view of them. Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable. They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death. Hardly 'inclusive' and 'peaceful'.

> They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute

How is this different to most other empires? The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, as long as they bent the knee and paid tribute. It's not like the British put India to the sword in order to force-convert it to Christianity. The Ottoman Empire accepted many different religions, as long as you paid your tribute. And just like the Mongols, both of these empires allowed (or forced) people of conquered nations to fight for them.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#55

Post by nonamechicken »

vacri wrote: post #54
davidreiss wrote: post #36

The numbers attributed to genghis khan and the mongols are pretty much scientifically impossible. It's propaganda/folk lore than real. > It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia. Estimated based on what? Myth? > Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent status) or tax-paying citizens. And the mongols turned the peoples they conquered into t…

> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left…

Regarding British in India, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I..., there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened because of British looting.

And from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-...,

In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world” country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine. The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would call the poverty line.

Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#56

Post by sabarn01 »

jitix wrote: post #30
InitialLastName wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Disclaimer: I've only listened to the first chunk of the episode. It's 6 hours long, and I have other things to do with my brain] As far as I can tell, you've hit on exactly the distinction he's trying to make in the episode. There's a running theme of highlighting the difference in attitude towards war/death from the Romans to the modern era, especially with respect to things like civilian extermination. The name m…

I feel that the term "Holocaust" is being used here to sensationalize something that used to be a relatively common occurrence back in those days (infact also used to happen in medieval and post medieval - e.g. Trail of tears - times). You should not compare ancient post-war extermination events with a modern, civilized state exterminating a section of the population in an organized manner. It just dilutes the extrem…

What term would you use the more hip genocide. Do you feel that the Jewish genocide of 1940s is special in some way. Is using that term to describe the annihilation of a people in a systematic way somehow diminishing to those that lived thought the holocaust.

I'm just wondering there have been genocides of peoples throughout history right up to today. See Rwanda east timore/ south Sudan. I think in each case it was a holocaust for the targeted group.

In my view a genocide is a description of an event. The Jewish Holocaust articulates the target and effectively re-frames the conversation to group who was targeted. It also conveys that the genocide was general enough to affect the overall survival of the people. There are many conquests in history Rome defeated Carthage 3 times but only the third Punic war resulted in the cartagenian holocaust.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#57

Post by davidreiss »

vacri wrote: post #54
davidreiss wrote: post #36

The numbers attributed to genghis khan and the mongols are pretty much scientifically impossible. It's propaganda/folk lore than real. > It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia. Estimated based on what? Myth? > Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent status) or tax-paying citizens. And the mongols turned the peoples they conquered into t…

> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left…

>The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts.

Actually, the population of china rose during mongol rule. The population of some parts of northern china declined since many chinese fled to southern. But that got conquered too.

> Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died.

No they weren't and no they didn't.

> They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense.

Really half a million? Why did russia's population grow so much during the mongol rule then? Russia went from nothing to one of the greatest empire during mongol rule. Wonder how that happened?

Also, most of the deaths occurred in kiev and other "rus" urban areas. Not in the countryside. Russia is a vast territory. A few thousands mongols would have died of exhaustion hunting down and murdering 500K russians over thousands of miles at the very least.

> Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable.

I didn't say they were peaceful. I said the mongol empire was peaceful ( pax mongolica ) and the mongols brought stability and rule of law into a wide region.

> They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death.

They did? You mean like every empire in human history?

> How is this different to most other empires?

That's my point. They weren't different. But they are "caricatured" as bloody thirsty savages.

> The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies,

Except for the aborigines and the natives the british exterminated. The british are a poor example since theirs was a race based empire.

Anyways, my point is that the mongols were just another empire like any other more or less. Just bigger than most and far more inclusive.

The nonsense about the mongols exterminate this and that and were bloodthirsty is just historically incorrect.

Just like the ludicrous assertion that half of china died under the mongol rule. Feel free to study the Yuan Dynasty. Nothing of the sort happened.

It would have been biologically impossible. As I said, the mongol armies were a few thousand to maybe 20 to 30 thousand strong. Claiming they killed tens of millions of people over the vast territory of asia is ridiculous.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#58

Post by dredmorbius »

dom0 wrote: post #16
dredmorbius wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much this. The source which really hammered this home for me was Daniel Yergin's book, The Prize . It's a history of oil, but if you think that that doesn't have anything to do with war .... Yergin never quite comes out and state that WWI and WWII were resource wars, but they were resource wars. WWI saw the introduction of mechanisation to battle: cavelry were replaced by tanks, first motorcycles, then cars and…

> The Germans very nearly accomplished the same for domestic US oil shipments from Texas to East Coast population centres I didn't know about that. It was called Operation Paukenschlag. > [January to August] During this period, Axis submarines sank 609 ships totalling 3.1 million tons That's three sunk ships a day . The biggest problem for German subs in that operation was running out of torpedoes . Completely insane…

I've only been aware of the scope of that relatively recently. The scope of ignorance on this and other elements of this story are ... peculiar and fascinating of themselves.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#59

Post by vacri »

nonamechicken wrote: post #55
vacri wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left…

Regarding British in India, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I... , there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened because of British looting. And from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-... , In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating so…

It's no secret that Britain stripped India of its wealth. I wasn't saying the the British were a benevolent empire. But to imply that India dropping from 23% GDP from 1700 - 1940 was all Englands fault is grossly misleading. You're completely ignoring the Industrial revolution that swept Europe and North America in doing that, along with the immense increase in international trade that happened at the same time.

The British in India played puppet states off each other. What they didn't do was wilfully exterminate entire cities.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#60

Post by vacri »

davidreiss wrote: post #57
vacri wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left…

>The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Actually, the population of china rose during mongol rule. The population of some parts of northern china declined since many chinese fled to southern. But that got conquered too. > Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. No they weren't and no they didn't. > They killed half a…

You've got some pretty strong mythologising going on there. It's not really worth continuing with someone who thinks that an empire that massacres tribal natives = racist and unaccepting, whereas an empire that massacres urban natives = inclusive and accepting.
Post reply on HN