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

The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#51

Post by vee-kay »

jmyeet wrote: post #39
orwin wrote: post #6

What's also interesting about the mongols and their inheritors (India's mughals especially) was how weird but effective their administration was. India knew around no global famines and very few local ones (none around the Bengal) in ~300 years of Mughal rule. In ~100 years of British rule, you had regular famines all around India, and some very harsh ones where millions of people died from hunger (which used to be m…

You’re so close to the point but not quite there. Famines are political. They happen because one population is happy to starve another. The Mughals ruled themselves. The British stole harvests for themselves and let the local population starve. The potato famine in Ireland is treated as some kind of unavoidable, natural event. No, the British just stole the harvest. And this continued right up until Churchill in Indi…

[dead]

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#52

Post by phainopepla2 »

jmyeet wrote: post #39
orwin wrote: post #6

What's also interesting about the mongols and their inheritors (India's mughals especially) was how weird but effective their administration was. India knew around no global famines and very few local ones (none around the Bengal) in ~300 years of Mughal rule. In ~100 years of British rule, you had regular famines all around India, and some very harsh ones where millions of people died from hunger (which used to be m…

You’re so close to the point but not quite there. Famines are political. They happen because one population is happy to starve another. The Mughals ruled themselves. The British stole harvests for themselves and let the local population starve. The potato famine in Ireland is treated as some kind of unavoidable, natural event. No, the British just stole the harvest. And this continued right up until Churchill in Indi…

> The Mughals ruled themselves

> So the Mughals might’ve been effective but the big difference is they weren’t being exploited as an imperial subject.

The Mughals were the imperium, ruling over their subjects. They came in to the subcontinent as outsiders, just like the British.

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#53

Post by forshaper »

brabel wrote: post #35
forshaper wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that you can't admire people you're fighting is ridiculous. You're forced to admire them. If you don't admire where they win, you lose.

I disagree. It's very hard to admire a direct enemy, even if you can see their strengths, you'll rationalize them in your head as being the evil sort of strength, which comes not from virtue but from their total lack of morality or whatever you can conjure up. We see that everywhere in history and even in contemporary conflicts.

We do?

Where, like Totila and Belisarius?

Richard the Lionheart and Saladin?

The death of Taira no Atsumori?

Byrhtnoth and the Vikings?

The Black Prince and King John II?

The Song dynasty's opinion of the Mongols?

David Hackworth saying that the US Army had to out-G the G?

GWOT instructors telling you that when you're out partying, the Muj is sharpening his knife?

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#54

Post by throw3846892 »

thisislife2 wrote: post #48
PlatoIsADisease wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worry Colonialism will come back again. Or at least in a different form. Most International Relations practitioners are followers of (Systems) Realism. You might find some minor power with Idealists/Instituitonalists, but they only get that privilege by being under the umbrella of a great power. Colonialism was not some greedy merchant/state thing, it was an Arms Race. It follows the inevitable forces produced by a…

You may be right - Russian invasion of Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza (most westerners don't even know that Israel is a settler-colony - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-fares-abraham-021826 that has been deliberately oppressing, chasing and killing Palestinians for a long time) and Trump demanding Greenland - all indicate that certain oligarchs are working to bring back imperialism.

All westerners have heard this claim repeated many times, but it’s never called a “colony” after gaining independence - otherwise every country on earth would be a colony.

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#55

Post by orwin »

vee-kay wrote: post #51
jmyeet wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re so close to the point but not quite there. Famines are political. They happen because one population is happy to starve another. The Mughals ruled themselves. The British stole harvests for themselves and let the local population starve. The potato famine in Ireland is treated as some kind of unavoidable, natural event. No, the British just stole the harvest. And this continued right up until Churchill in Indi…

[dead]

So, counterpoint: genocide aim to destroy the culture of a group, either by killing the women and children alongside to fighters during a conquest/repression, or by forcefully moving them to make them mix with a new dominant culture (Crimean Tatars are an example). This almost always end in streamlining the language and destroying language diversity, often reducing it to a single one for all the survivors/moved. While not even close to the SEA level, India is one of the subcontinent with the most different spoken languages, which would indicate that it might not have been that bad. At least, not genocide-bad.

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#56

Post by RealityVoid »

ecshafer wrote: post #47
RealityVoid wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a fair take but it works great as a gateway drug! I am curious what are your recommendations though. Always eager for expanding my horizon.

Revolutions Podcast is good and well researched (Especially later seasons). The History of the Germans Podcast is really great (100+ episodes from Ottonians just to Habsburgs, so its pretty well in depth). History of France Podcast is good, its from a University professor, but not overly academic but well researched. History of England Podcast is good as well, starting with Anglo Saxon and Post Roman England. He uses…

Revolutions is my go-to. I also listened to History of Rome from Duncan. And because of this History of Byzantium is on my to check out list as well. I will try the others you mentioned. I'm very eager to find others as in depth as revolutions. Thanks!

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#58

Post by constantius »

soiltype wrote: post #34
wiseowise wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodreads reviews don't instill confidence in the book.

As a rule, "pop history" is full of shit and is probably better considered misinformation than anything else. I probably don't I know of a single general-audience history/anthropology book that doesn't horrify scholars of the field. As unfortunate as it is, studying cause-and-effect is extremely complex. If it's even theoretically possible to distill it down to easily digestible ideas, that's well outside our current…

By general audience, do you mean any book that's not intended for academics?

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#59

Post by rramadass »

orwin wrote: post #6

What's also interesting about the mongols and their inheritors (India's mughals especially) was how weird but effective their administration was. India knew around no global famines and very few local ones (none around the Bengal) in ~300 years of Mughal rule. In ~100 years of British rule, you had regular famines all around India, and some very harsh ones where millions of people died from hunger (which used to be m…

[flagged]

Re: The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

#60

Post by vee-kay »

orwin wrote: post #55
vee-kay wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

So, counterpoint: genocide aim to destroy the culture of a group, either by killing the women and children alongside to fighters during a conquest/repression, or by forcefully moving them to make them mix with a new dominant culture (Crimean Tatars are an example). This almost always end in streamlining the language and destroying language diversity, often reducing it to a single one for all the survivors/moved. Whil…

[dead]
Post reply on HN