Last edited by Son of Light; 07-24-12 at 01:28 PM.
Last edited by Trien Chieu; 08-19-12 at 08:54 PM.
Civilization is not the problem, incompetent ruler is. Civilization makes the country stronger and richer. If you look at Chinese history, capable civilized rulers always lead the country to great prosperity, much better than barbaric rulers. Han Wudi, Li Shimin, Zhu Yuanzhang, Yongle and Kangxi are examples of capable civilized emperors. Was the country getting weaker during their rules?
Last edited by Trien Chieu; 08-21-12 at 11:58 PM.
Occasionally, military superiority would enable the steppe nomads to conquer the territories of the agrarian farmers (this was not unique to China, but seen throughout Eurasia). However, because the administration methods of the steppe did not transfer well to the agrarian world, the steppe nomads were seldom able to maintain control over the agrarian civilizations for long.
Depends on what you call "prosperity." Nomadic civilization and agrarian civilization each has a different standard of prosperity, and each one is defined by environmental factors. The products of agrarian civilization are not very useful on the steppe, and the skills and abilities of steppe nomads don't serve them well in an agrarian civilization. What is almost certainly true is that most people are stronger in their native environment; if they leave it behind for too long, they will weaken.Civilization is not the problem, incompetent ruler is. Civilization makes the country stronger and richer. If you look at Chinese history, capable civilized rulers always lead the country to great prosperity, much better than barbaric rulers.
They were also exceptional men; the average Chinese emperor wasn't like these men, and the vast majority of them were mediocre to poor leaders.Han Wudi, Li Shimin, Zhu Yuanzhang, Yongle and Kangxi are examples of capable civilized emperors. Was the country getting weaker during their rules?
The Mongols were so successful that they had the leisure to think about how best to exploit their empire. Their idea was to promote free trade and free travel, essentially the precursor of the modern global economy. This produced prosperity on a scale that the Mongols became a byword for wealth and civilisation. It also allowed diseases to spread rapidly and over a far greater range, whereas previous pestilences would be more localised. The Mongols' "civilised" phase made them and their empire fabulously rich, but also devastated them with the Black Death.
The Spartans had a way of life that made them the undisputed military top dogs in Greece for several centuries. Their success was based on a professionalised military class bred and trained to be the finest warriors in the world. Their downfall came in their "civilised" phase when they began valuing wealth, and the peers were no longer so equal any more. The rich got richer and more exclusive, and fewer people were able to pay their dues, and the warrior class was no longer able to absorb losses. One defeat and the loss of a mere 400 Spartiates, and the Spartan system collapsed, compared to the 10,000 hoplites that Sparta fielded at Plataea.
How well did they do? The Spartans held off then defeated the massive Persian army while the other Greek states were on the verge of surrender.
Alexander conquered everywhere he went and transformed his poor debt ridden country into the largest empire it would ever become.
The Mongolians raped and massacred entire populations of Chinese and Muslim civilisation. The nation of Kwarezm is no more, so much for civilisation, picked apart brick from brick. It's said something like 0.5% of the human population has Mongolian blood. Civilisation wasn't so great that they could repel the Mongolian force. Instead they were soft and weak and couldn't stand up to the hardened life of the warrior.
You know what sucks worse than the life of a warrior? The life of a slave with your women being the plaything of said warriors.