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

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#61

Post by boomboomsubban »

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.

The population of Europe also dropped by about 50% in roughly the same time frame, with cities hit particularly hard. The Mongol conquest coincided with the start of the Black Death, and their trade networks allowed it to spread.

As for the rest of your post, empire building is by nature evil. The Mongols were just better at building than most other empires. They were fairly inclusive and accepting for an empire, the various splinter kingdoms largely took on the culture and religion of the area they controlled.This was roughly the time of the Crusades, and the thought of them with Mongol military tactics is a terrifying.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#62

Post by dom0 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #58
dom0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

By now I've experienced this several times; a story in WW1 or WW2 that's large and seems rather important, yet I've never heard of it before, and few others seem to have as well [1]. N.b. I'm German and we probably have the most thorough history lessons on Nazism and the World Wars, yet both of these conflicts seem to be so vast that there is always another "big thing" one didn't know about yet. (However, for history lessons there is also the consideration that specific military engagements are not all that important, since German history teaching has a strong emphasis on motives and reasons why things happened and how they developed (it is very analytical that way); battles and other engagements and their outcomes are usually discussed as a result of the former, or the outcome of a battle is used as a starting point.).

[1] U-Boat war? Sure, that was in the Atlantic, no? — Yes, but not only...

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#63

Post by dredmorbius »

dom0 wrote: post #62
dredmorbius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By now I've experienced this several times; a story in WW1 or WW2 that's large and seems rather important, yet I've never heard of it before, and few others seem to have as well [1]. N.b. I'm German and we probably have the most thorough history lessons on Nazism and the World Wars, yet both of these conflicts seem to be so vast that there is always another "big thing" one didn't know about yet. (However, for history…

It's not just WWII.

Look up "rule of capture" some time, for grins.

Realise that that's the basis for pretty much all wealth and production functions.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#64

Post by davidreiss »

vacri wrote: post #60
davidreiss wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

There is a difference between massacres and extermination campaigns.

The mongols sacking baghdad isn't the same as the Nazis exterminating jews or the british exterminating aborigines or native americans.

The mongols didn't have a racist/religious ideology which would have led them to go on an extermination campaign. They didn't sack baghdad and go around killing every arab they could find. They didn't sack baghdad because they hated arabs for heir race. They sacked baghdad because their leader executed mongol emissaries.

That is different from the race-based extermination campaign where natives and aborigines were outright exterminated because of who they were. That's what separates the mongols from the british empire or nazi germany who specifically set out to exterminate a race.

Were the mongols brutal in their subjugation of certain peoples. Of course. But that's how you build empire. As soon as the nation submitted, they pretty much left and collected tribute. They didn't stay behind to wipe out the people.

The nazis exterminated ALL jews ( those who fought against them and those who submitted ).

> whereas an empire that massacres urban natives = inclusive and accepting.

My point was that the mongols went to war against states/nations/empires ( aka that's why they conquered cities ). The mongols didn't wage racial/religious wars of extermination. I'm not saying their massacres of the urban populace is good. It is horrific. But that's what all empires did. What separates british empire and nazi empire from the mongol empire is that the mongols didn't wage extermination wars. They didn't wipe out the russians, arabs, persians, chinese, koreans or anyone else for that matter.

There are chinese people in china, arabs in the middle east, persians in iran, russians in russia, etc. Something you can't say about the aborigines in australia or the natives.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#65

Post by dang »

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…

Somehow this turned into the kind of flamewar that we're trying to avoid on HN. Would you please stop engaging in these kinds of arguments here? Their thoughtfulness/rantiness ratio is much too low.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989642 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Body Count of the Roman Empire

#66

Post by zichy »

sabarn01 wrote: post #56
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…

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…

>Do you feel that the Jewish genocide of 1940s is special in some way

Yes.

Post reply on HN