History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Batrix2070]

We’ve been over this before, @Bassoe, and I guess we have to take it from the top again.

If you want to comment, you should at least engage with the subject matter instead of shoehorning your pet issues into a discussion that’s clearly not about them. We already know that’s your shtick, and while showing us some “cool media” or “interesting quotes” from an external site you probably had on-hand well before the conversation turned in that direction is attention-grabbing, you really don’t need to remind us. At this point, you’re just wasting thread space, and could easily be taken for a troll here to disrupt for its own sake.

Seriously for a troll? I thought that from his paranoia he just got numb to the rest.
Neither funny nor interesting. In fact, every one of his posts can be summarized this way.

It's going to be fucking bad because the rich with technology (insert appropriate) are going to make us (insert appropriate dystopia) here. Be afraid, ha!

It's like listening to a stripped down record.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Seriously for a troll? I thought that from his paranoia he just got numb to the rest.
Neither funny nor interesting. In fact, every one of his posts can be summarized this way.

It's going to be fucking bad because the rich with technology (insert appropriate) are going to make us (insert appropriate dystopia) here. Be afraid, ha!

It's like listening to a stripped down record.

I run into people like this a lot, and then they get mad when you start to feel blackpilled.

 

[Zyobot]

I run into people like this a lot, and then they get mad when you start to feel blackpilled.

I’m irritated, because no matter what the topic is, he somehow manages to inject his favorite talking points — “Corporations will enslave us!”, “Technology will kill us!”, or “Look at this cool social-media post I found!” — into the convo, as if those are the only ways he’s capable of framing the issues. And he does it repeatedly, while only making token edits every time and barely changing the substance of his post to fit the subject at hand.

 

[King Arts]

@Skallagrim
While you are right that Augustus does put the empire back together, you are wrong on who he is. He was not Caesar’s opposite he was the successor he upheld all Caesar did. He was not a conservative optimate but the descendant of populares. The conservatives who supported the rich oligarchs were purged by him and Antony. The only thing he was conservative about was sexual morality. He was not your ideal small government guy he increased the power of romes government.

 

[stevep]

Lets look at some facts. In post 384 & 387 I replied to a prior comment pointing out that the dominant dogma that had handicapped Britain for the past 40+ year was actually a rehash of an earlier period ~1850-1930 of similar policies that seriously handicapped Britain's continued economic success. Anyone who had done any studying of the earlier period would know there's a wide literature on the issue and why free trade in a protectionist world and even more so laissez faire policies are so damaging to a nation. Admittedly we're talking from a sample size of one as Britain in those periods was the only sizeable power ever to be stupid enough to impose such policies for a prolonged period - let alone to do it twice! I gave one fairly well known example, of the decline of the British steel industry but could easily give others.

In post 385 & 388 Skallagrim responded with personal abuse, argument by assertion that his dogma was right with no supporting evidence, assorted claims about what I was thinking that were generally way off reality and then a comment about Augustus which was irrelevant to what I was saying and in at least some elements inaccurate.

As such I would be fully entitled to call him Mr Pot if I so wish.

To look at some of the points in more details.
a) I specifically said with regards to free trade that it doesn't work in an otherwise deeply protectionist word which is basic economic theory that even most neo-classical economies would accept. Its probably the most efficient method if you can ensure that at least the bulk of the other powers are playing by the rules but not when everybody else is using different rules.

b) I have pointed out the flaws in laissez faire ideas and why they don't work. I know of no nation which has become a significant economic power without significant intervention by the government to support its business - with arguably one class of exceptions* - especially in the last few centuries. There are plenty of nations which have failed because government has intervened too much and/or in support of the wrong causes, generally vested 'elites' which has been significant in the post 1979 period in Britain. However that some governments get it wrong doesn't necessary mean any and all government support is going to fail.

* - the class exception would be possibly those generally small and lightly populated nations which get a big mineral windfall. Most obviously here are the gulf oil states which have achieve massive wealth largely by chance. This is questionable as an exception because when the oil is no longer a valuable resource, unless they have used the wealth to develop other sources of income which I think few (if any) have done their likely to fall back into relative irrelevance. A similar example was the Pacific island of Nauru which had large quantities of easily mined phosphate and at one point was one of the richest per capita nations in the world as a result. However the resource was largely exhausted in the 1990's which has left the small nation with a devastated ecology due to the widespread strip mining and the lack of alternative sources of revenue.

Given that in the period 1840-60 Britain was clearly the dominant economic power and that by ~1900 it had fallen a long way behind its primary rivals I find it totally unrealistic, not to say comical for Skallagrim to say that continuing the same policies would have made Britain the dominant economic power through the 20thC as well! I remember reading back in the 1970's a reference to a parliamentary commission which had been drawn up to look at Britain's economic and technological decline that while Britain would inevitably lose ground as other nations industrialized, especially larger ones like the US or a unified Germany it should not have lost as much ground. The thing that horrified me about this was that the commission dated from the 1880s or 1890s yet unfortunately vested interests prevented changes to improve matters.

It was only in 1914 when the decline in Britain's capacities was made clear by the needs of war that new/revived industries were created and the option to continue a reconstruction and revival of the economy and society was ignored. Even after the great depression and further US tariff increases prompted the British government to abandon free trade the more damaging laissez faire policies were continued until again the shock of war prompts reforms.


Skallagrim argued that the period of Labour government under Blair and then briefly Brown was a significantly different period but this is a somewhat dubious argument. While they didn't directly continue the policies of extensive social engineering of Thatcher and Major to transfer funds and resources to the very rich they did nothing really to reverse those policies. Similarly the de-regulation of financial institutions that was the major factor in the 2008 depress was not reversed or anything done to mitigate against the dangerous of fiscal recklessness by the banks. [Note I'm not saying that sorting out Britain's fiscal sector problems would have prevented the depression but it would have done something to mitigate the problem for Britain when the shit hit the fan].

Possibly worse of all was that while they did put some money into new infrastructure, to avoid direct government spending and the open tax or borrowing increasing which would have been attacked by their opponents they massively expanded the PFI policy initially developed by the Tories. As warned by many sources, by pushing back the actual spending to later governments this comes at much greater cost in the longer term. Obtaining funds from this route is far more expensive than direct government loans. Even worse when the contracts finally end and the massive bills are paid off the private contractors NOT the state which paid for them will own the facilities which will mean either paying through the nose to keep using them or further expenditure to build new facilities. Furthermore while there were contractual constraints on the private investors to meet conditions of service those have often been bypassed by those contractors selling on the contract to a new group which then claims those conditions don't apply to them!

Skallagrim ended with a strange comment about Augustus. Leaving aside other possibilities the simple and obvious factor was that when Augustus won the final civil war he finally brought much needed peace, which was what enabled them to have stability. That was nothing really to do with the internal political and economic policies that he followed after he won. He just didn't engage in massive foreign wars or seek to extract massive wealth from the population.

He also claimed it was free market. I don't know about internally, possibly it was although I suspect there would be some internal trade. However it definitely wasn't a free trade world as there were taxes on merchants traveling beyond the empire and both Rome and assorted foreign powers gained considerable wealth from such measures.

Similarly I find it strange he suggests that under Augustus there was massive religious intolerance - which goes against everything I've read. There was some hostility towards some of the eastern cults, in part possibly a left-over from his programme of demonizing Antony and Cleopatra and the religions of Egypt as decadent and foreign and some that were seen as violent. It was far worse under the Dominate then again after Christianity took over.

 

[Skallagrim]

@Skallagrim
While you are right that Augustus does put the empire back together, you are wrong on who he is. He was not Caesar’s opposite he was the successor he upheld all Caesar did. He was not a conservative optimate but the descendant of populares. The conservatives who supported the rich oligarchs were purged by him and Antony. The only thing he was conservative about was sexual morality. He was not your ideal small government guy he increased the power of romes government.

In many cases, the Augustus figure is a monumental hypocrite -- albeit a very successful one -- who adopts a mantle of legitimacy, even as he alters it to suit his needs. In the event, Augustus himself was the heir of Caesar, and Caesar was murdered when he was still extremely popular. Naturally, Augustus exploited this. That is not to say that he actually continued Caesar's policies. In fact, he went against them in key ways. The important fact is that he didn't adopt the policies of the (thoroughly defeated) Optimates, either. He left the ideological vendettas of the civil wars far behind, and got "back to business".

We must take care not to mistake the Opimates for "conservatives" (or rather, not to mistake them for traditionalists). They are the established elite of the era. The Populares are the populist opposition. Augustus is neither. He is precisely the man who defeats all opponents and then leaves behind the factionalism of the civil wars. He does this through an appeal to tradition, which gains in legitimacy in turbulent times-- because people yearn for stability and the comfort of the known; the tried-and-tested.

To say that Augustus was only conservative about sexual morality is a profound error. Any decent study of his life will inform you that he consistently leaned towards tradition. Not just because that mindset suited him, but also because embacing it allowed him to maximise his own legitimacy. He wasn't throwing out all sorts of respectable institutions! No, sir: he was merely restoring a lot of even more ancient institutions. And if a lot of what he was "restoring" was partially or entirely made up... well, it helps when you're the one who commissions the definitive histories to be written, doesn't it?

Again, this is pure hypocrisy. But it works.

If the plot against Caesar had failed, and he had been given a few decades to become a properly paranoid tyrant, then the ATL equivalent to Augustus would have defined himself as a sworn enemy of Caesar. But upon winning, his policies would have been near-identical to those of the actual Augustus. Because the policies that initiate the Principate phase of a civilisation are always roughly the same! (Why? Simple: because the cyle of civil wars goes on until someone capable seizes power and implements such policies. Because they are the only ones that work.)

And, certainly, they do involve shrinkig back the size of government. Why? Because in the preceding period, government has ballooned beyond reasonable proportions (as it has in our current age!) -- it has become larger than the underlying economy can realistically sustain. So for the age of chaos to end, and for properity to be restored, government must be reduced. Which Augustus did. He certainly increased the power of his own position, and he greatly increased the government's efficiency. But he did not, as you suggest, incease the overall power or size of the government. He reduced its size, and he restored many liberties that had been lost in the civil war. He abolished quite a few of the useless odds and ends of the old administration, and he reformed the tax apparatus to not only streamline the system, but to reduce the tax burden substantially. He also significantly reduced the size of the military (which he could afford to do, with the civil wars put behind him).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The chaotic, jumbled screed of a confused mind*

The way you appear to talk to an imaginary audience, as if autistically narrating your warped view of what is actually being discussed, serves to underscore the revelation that you are evidently talking with (or rather: to) an imaginary version of myself. A version that, in your mind, is heard saying things I never claimed.

Take your delusions elsewhere, please.

I understand that references to the topic of this thread may confuse you (indeed, many things appear to confuse you), but the fact is that you are creating a bizarre derail to spew your dogmatic nonsense about economics. You don't anwer arguments (in fact, you literally pretend they don't exist), and you veer off to rant maniacally about your pet obsession regarding free trade and its supposed evils. Just above, someone complained about derails, but that derail was minor compared to your persistent harping on this off-topic matter.

Seriously, take your obsession elsewhere. It's no crime for you to be ignorant of economics, but it's irritating when you then insist on ventilating your dogmatic views very insistently and repeatedly, in a thread not even about the subject, while actively complaining about all attempts to connect the tangent (or even steer it back) to the actual topic under discussion. (Although I understand your reluctance to discuss it, since you obviously don't grasp the issue. You even completely misinterpret my comments about the religious developments during the Principate to suggest that we're talking about intolerance, which I didn't mention. But then again, that idea of "religious universalism" meaning "intolerance" is another obsession of yours, so I shouldn't be too surprised...)

If you want to warble about the gospel of Keynes, do start a thread about. I'll be sure to stay far away from it.

 

[stevep]

I mean, I’m not entirely a free marketeer and free trader myself (indeed I’d describe myself as High Tory on the matter) on account of not wanting native industries be crushed by cheap, semi-slave labour from overseas, but even I know that without competition the economy goes to shit (cough, Post War Consensus, cough).

Edit: Also, on an entirely unrelated note, if one wanted to prevent a country from being absorbed by the universal empire, and indeed restore it to some of its former power, how would one go about that, Skallagrim?

Just a thought experiment, nothing serious… (come off it, as a Dutchman you’ve probably asked that question yourself from time to time) ;D

In many cases, the Augustus figure is a monumental hypocrite -- albeit a very successful one -- who adopts a mantle of legitimacy, even as he alters it to suit his needs. In the event, Augustus himself was the heir of Caesar, and Caesar was murdered when he was still extremely popular. Naturally, Augustus exploited this. That is not to say that he actually continued Caesar's policies. In fact, he went against them in key ways. The important fact is that he didn't adopt the policies of the (thoroughly defeated) Optimates, either. He left the ideological vendettas of the civil wars far behind, and got "back to business".

We must take care not to mistake the Opimates for "conservatives" (or rather, not to mistake them for traditionalists). They are the established elite of the era. The Populares are the populist opposition. Augustus is neither. He is precisely the man who defeats all opponents and then leaves behind the factionalism of the civil wars. He does this through an appeal to tradition, which gains in legitimacy in turbulent times-- because people yearn for stability and the comfort of the known; the tried-and-tested.

To say that Augustus was only conservative about sexual morality is a profound error. Any decent study of his life will inform you that he consistently leaned towards tradition. Not just because that mindset suited him, but also because embacing it allowed him to maximise his own legitimacy. He wasn't throwing out all sorts of respectable institutions! No, sir: he was merely restoring a lot of even more ancient institutions. And if a lot of what he was "restoring" was partially or entirely made up... well, it helps when you're the one who commissions the definitive histories to be written, doesn't it?

Again, this is pure hypocrisy. But it works.

If the plot against Caesar had failed, and he had been given a few decades to become a properly paranoid tyrant, then the ATL equivalent to Augustus would have defined himself as a sworn enemy of Caesar. But upon winning, his policies would have been near-identical to those of the actual Augustus. Because the policies that initiate the Principate phase of a civilisation are always roughly the same! (Why? Simple: because the cyle of civil wars goes on until someone capable seizes power and implements such policies. Because they are the only ones that work.)

And, certainly, they do involve shrinkig back the size of government. Why? Because in the preceding period, government has ballooned beyond reasonable proportions (as it has in our current age!) -- it has become larger than the underlying economy can realistically sustain. So for the age of chaos to end, and for properity to be restored, government must be reduced. Which Augustus did. He certainly increased the power of his own position, and he greatly increased the government's efficiency. But he did not, as you suggest, incease the overall power or size of the government. He reduced its size, and he restored many liberties that had been lost in the civil war. He abolished quite a few of the useless odds and ends of the old administration, and he reformed the tax apparatus to not only streamline the system, but to reduce the tax burden substantially. He also significantly reduced the size of the military (which he could afford to do, with the civil wars put behind him).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------




The way you appear to talk to an imaginary audience, as if autistically narrating your warped view of what is actually being discussed, serves to underscore the revelation that you are evidently talking with (or rather: to) an imaginary version of myself. A version that, in your mind, is heard saying things I never claimed.

Take your delusions elsewhere, please.

I understand that references to the topic of this thread may confuse you (indeed, many things appear to confuse you), but the fact is that you are creating a bizarre derail to spew your dogmatic nonsense about economics. You don't anwer arguments (in fact, you literally pretend they don't exist), and you veer off to rant maniacally about your pet obsession regarding free trade and its supposed evils. Just above, someone complained about derails, but that derail was minor compared to your persistent harping on this off-topic matter.

Seriously, take your obsession elsewhere. It's no crime for you to be ignorant of economics, but it's irritating when you then insist on ventilating your dogmatic views very insistently and repeatedly, in a thread not even about the subject, while actively complaining about all attempts to connect the tangent (or even steer it back) to the actual topic under discussion. (Although I understand your reluctance to discuss it, since you obviously don't grasp the issue. You even completely misinterpret my comments about the religious developments during the Principate to suggest that we're talking about intolerance, which I didn't mention. But then again, that idea of "religious universalism" meaning "intolerance" is another obsession of yours, so I shouldn't be too surprised...)

If you want to warble about the gospel of Keynes, do start a thread about. I'll be sure to stay far away from it.

You want to talk BS that's your choice. That you have no factual counter to my arguments and continued to bluster and lie because you have no response other that bigoted rants is your problem not mine.

 

[Skallagrim]

The delusions escalate. Now my posts, or "rants" (coming from you, that's rich), are "bigoted".

I'm bigoted against... the economically illiterate?

Yeah, nice try. I award you 7/10 points in Applied Wokie Tactics, and recommend that you seek mental help.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Another shower thought has come to mind.

...how do the Steppe Nomads fit into the theses of High Cultural cycles? Because, and forgive my ignorance, it seems like the Xiongnu, Huns, Mongolians and such either exist outside of it or act as wrecking balls.

To my mind I'd almost qualify them as a High Culture of sorts.

 

[Skallagrim]

Another shower thought has come to mind.

...how do the Steppe Nomads fit into the theses of High Cultural cycles? Because, and forgive my ignorance, it seems like the Xiongnu, Huns, Mongolians and such either exist outside of it or act as wrecking balls.

To my mind I'd almost qualify them as a High Culture of sorts.

An important distinction, I believe, is that the steppes were historically the realm of nomads, as you say. This pts them apart from the civilisational cycle to a degree-- which after all starts with the neolithic revolution and agriculture. A society that doesn't embrace agriculture (and, with it, the sedentary life) doesn't enter into the cycle.

As I've noted elsewhere, I don't believe that just agrarian culture is needed, but also urbanism-- although these two typically go hand in hand. This produces a food surplus, a variety of professional classes, a priestly caste that can give shape and continuity to an organised religion, a hierarchical apparatus of governance, a writing system and a literate elite, and thence the creation of a distinct literary tradition (a well as distinct art in all other forms).

And what is all that, if not culture?

Nomadic societies can produce a great conqueror. Such a conqueror can co-opt existing sedentary societies. If that happens, either the "barbarian" conquers civilisation and re-shapes it... or the "barbarian" is conquered by the civilisation, and it shapes him. Islam conquered much of the shattered Roman Empire and all of Persia, and re-shaped them to its own image. The Mongols invaded China and (Islamic) Persia and Russia and it didn't work for them. China swallowed them, although they left their mark. They could no doubt have taken Persia, had they concentrated all their efforts there. But they didn't. So a thin-spread Mongol elite was Persianised (and converted!), and subsequently the Ilkhanate just became a new incarnation of Islamic Persia.

As for Russia... the Mongols sure did a number on them, but they were always foreign overlords, and their reign was ultimately a temporary thing.

This teaches us that the nomad conqueror must "either beat them, or join them". He must either comprehensively defeat the civilisation and re-make it in his own image (having a convincing religion to introduce really helps!), or he must assimilate and become part of the culture that he now governs. He cannot be a mere overlord who bosses "them" around. Because then, it's only a matter of time before "they" eventually manage to kick him out.



So, yes-- to some degree a "wrecking ball" for whatever societies they hit. But quite often, the nomadic invaders are not a wholly destructive, but more of a (destructively) transformative force.

(And to my above statement, I add the fact that Islam had an easier time co-opting establihed civilisations because Islam itself came from an already quasi-urbanised region in Western Arabia -- albeit a peripheral one, fairly constantly out of the grasp of the surrounding High Cultures. So Islam was successful by converting the surrounding nomads first, and using them as "shock troops", so to speak.)

 

[Zyobot]

Another shower thought has come to mind.

...how do the Steppe Nomads fit into the theses of High Cultural cycles? Because, and forgive my ignorance, it seems like the Xiongnu, Huns, Mongolians and such either exist outside of it or act as wrecking balls.

To my mind I'd almost qualify them as a High Culture of sorts.

An important distinction, I believe, is that the steppes were historically the realm of nomads, as you say. This pts them apart from the civilisational cycle to a degree-- which after all starts with the neolithic revolution and agriculture. A society that doesn't embrace agriculture (and, with it, the sedentary life) doesn't enter into the cycle.

As I've noted elsewhere, I don't believe that just agrarian culture is needed, but also urbanism-- although these two typically go hand in hand. This produces a food surplus, a variety of professional classes, a priestly caste that can give shape and continuity to an organised religion, a hierarchical apparatus of governance, a writing system and a literate elite, and thence the creation of a distinct literary tradition (a well as distinct art in all other forms).

And what is all that, if not culture?

Nomadic societies can produce a great conqueror. Such a conqueror can co-opt existing sedentary societies. If that happens, either the "barbarian" conquers civilisation and re-shapes it... or the "barbarian" is conquered by the civilisation, and it shapes him. Islam conquered much of the shattered Roman Empire and all of Persia, and re-shaped them to its own image. The Mongols invaded China and (Islamic) Persia and Russia and it didn't work for them. China swallowed them, although they left their mark. They could no doubt have taken Persia, had they concentrated all their efforts there. But they didn't. So a thin-spread Mongol elite was Persianised (and converted!), and subsequently the Ilkhanate just became a new incarnation of Islamic Persia.

As for Russia... the Mongols sure did a number on them, but they were always foreign overlords, and their reign was ultimately a temporary thing.

This teaches us that the nomad conqueror must "either beat them, or join them". He must either comprehensively defeat the civilisation and re-make it in his own image (having a convincing religion to introduce really helps!), or he must assimilate and become part of the culture that he now governs. He cannot be a mere overlord who bosses "them" around. Because then, it's only a matter of time before "they" eventually manage to kick him out.



So, yes-- to some degree a "wrecking ball" for whatever societies they hit. But quite often, the nomadic invaders are not a wholly destructive, but more of a (destructively) transformative force.

(And to my above statement, I add the fact that Islam had an easier time co-opting establihed civilisations because Islam itself came from an already quasi-urbanised region in Western Arabia -- albeit a peripheral one, fairly constantly out of the grasp of the surrounding High Cultures. So Islam was successful by converting the surrounding nomads first, and using them as "shock troops", so to speak.)

Seriously, though, now I wonder what a Mongol High Culture might've looked like, had they settled down and adopted the more sedentary ways of their new subjects? First order of business — well, from a macro-historical perspective, anyway — is Genghis Khan establishing himself as Mongol Charlemagne, assuming my reading of things is accurate and view of his ATL self as the "Father of Mongol Civilization" makes sense. 🧐

Beyond that, I can imagine ATL Mongols would've remained quite martial and conquest-oriented for at least their "Springtime" phase (as Spengler put it). As we've seen, mass-agriculture and urbanization aren't mutually exclusive with military might (as the Romans and a host of other great empires have proven in spades).

Further along, I'm quite sure short to mid-term considerations — such as devoting more time and resources towards co-opting or establishing the more "permanent" infrastructure they'd need for their incipient High Culture to last — would force them to ease up on conquests for a few more centuries. But in the long term, they'd probably have an economic (and dare I say, maybe even industrial) base for further conquests than what even OTL Mongols managed, if OTL West's ability to suddenly overtake everyone else and make its influence known at the farthest reaches of the world is any indication.

 

[Skallagrim]

Seriously, though, now I wonder what a Mongol High Culture might've looked like, had they settled down and adopted the more sedentary ways of their new subjects? First order of business — well, from a macro-historical perspective, anyway — is Genghis Khan establishing himself as Mongol Charlemagne, assuming my reading of things is accurate and view of his ATL self as the "Father of Mongol Civilization" makes sense. 🧐

Beyond that, I can imagine ATL Mongols would've remained quite martial and conquest-oriented for at least their "Springtime" phase (as Spengler put it). As we've seen, mass-agriculture and urbanization aren't mutually exclusive with military might (as the Romans and a host of other great empires have proven in spades).

Further along, I'm quite sure short to mid-term considerations — such as devoting more time and resources towards co-opting or establishing the more "permanent" infrastructure they'd need for their incipient High Culture to last — would force them to ease up on conquests for a few more centuries. But in the long term, they'd probably have an economic (and dare I say, maybe even industrial) base for further conquests than what even OTL Mongols managed, if OTL West's ability to suddenly overtake everyone else and make its influence known at the farthest reaches of the world is any indication.

The big problem is that their heartland wasn't even close to being prime agricultural land, but it was great for nomadic horse-riders. So the incentive to "settle down" wasn't there. At least not on their home turf. They at least sort of settled down immediately upon conquering more agricultural regions. This happens every time a Turkic/Mongolic people conquers Persia. Likewise, see the Turks settling Anatolia. And the Mughals in India. And the Great Yuan, for that matter. The golden Horde is a less successful case, since they never really put down any roots, and and always remained "foreign oppressors/exploiters". But the other examples show the obvious pattern--

The nomadic conquerors "go native", and are by definition vastly outnumbered, so they are absorbed.

The only practical ATL method by which the Mongols might have become a sedentary civilisation in themselves would be to have them focus all their efforts on one target, invade that region, entirely wipe out the previous inhabitants (presumably save the women they'll be mass-raping), and re-settle the land with your own people. The most obvious target for such a strategy would, ironically, be Russia.

This would involve Genghis Khan abandoning all attempts to take Chinese lands after 1215 or so (when his campaigns had gained him the northern border regions). Instead of expending more energy on China, he'd have to secure the established border. The idea after that is simple: instead of pushing South via Central Asia, only defeat and annex the Qara Khitai, and then establish a line running West to the Aral Sea as your border (running further Westward to the Kaydak Inlet of the Caspian Sea). Conquer the Kimeks and the Kipchaks, then the Avars and Alans to the North of the Caucasus (so that this become your border West of the Caspian). Then take down the Cumans durectly North of the Black Sea, and finally overrun the Eastern Slavs. Don't push beyond the Carpathians, don't try to take over Poland, and don't invade Finland or anything dumb like that. In fact, stop once you've got Novgorod.

At this juncture, Genghis will die, as we've about reached that point in OTL. He dies having basically established Russia... but some 600 years early, and from the East. Which makes it Mongolia instead of Russia. But it roughly covers the same area as the Russian Empire in its 'final form'. Bit less of Central Asia, bit more of Northern China.

Genghis's eager heirs can see to the 'mopping up'. That is: subdue the Baltics on one end of the empire, and Korea on the other. After that, it's all done. Just kill a lot of the men living in the conquered territy (especially the upper classes), and take their women for yourself. Two generations later, it's Mongols as far as the eye can see. Mongols that are becoming slowly but increasingly more "settled" in their role as overlords over a sedentary population.

The Mongols were pretty good at infrastructure (great road-builders; excellent postal service) and they didn't shy away from co-opting anything that worked. So I'd expect the "Mongol High Culture" to invest, first and foremost, in a great road-way extending all the way from the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea to the Bohai Sea and the Sea of Japan. This would be economically sound, but also a wise military action: it would allow for a faster response time if trouble ever arose on either end of their empire.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Sometimes I wonder whether or not the successor Khanates could be likened to the Diadochi states, or other Greek kingdoms rising in the ruins of Persia. Whilst they would be swallowed by the culture of the lands they ruled (aside from Macedon obviously), they never entirely stop being their ancestral culture.

And I do think steppe nomad culture is profoundly sophisticated and influential.

 

[ATP]

The big problem is that their heartland wasn't even close to being prime agricultural land, but it was great for nomadic horse-riders. So the incentive to "settle down" wasn't there. At least not on their home turf. They at least sort of settled down immediately upon conquering more agricultural regions. This happens every time a Turkic/Mongolic people conquers Persia. Likewise, see the Turks settling Anatolia. And the Mughals in India. And the Great Yuan, for that matter. The golden Horde is a less successful case, since they never really put down any roots, and and always remained "foreign oppressors/exploiters". But the other examples show the obvious pattern--

The nomadic conquerors "go native", and are by definition vastly outnumbered, so they are absorbed.

The only practical ATL method by which the Mongols might have become a sedentary civilisation in themselves would be to have them focus all their efforts on one target, invade that region, entirely wipe out the previous inhabitants (presumably save the women they'll be mass-raping), and re-settle the land with your own people. The most obvious target for such a strategy would, ironically, be Russia.

This would involve Genghis Khan abandoning all attempts to take Chinese lands after 1215 or so (when his campaigns had gained him the northern border regions). Instead of expending more energy on China, he'd have to secure the established border. The idea after that is simple: instead of pushing South via Central Asia, only defeat and annex the Qara Khitai, and then establish a line running West to the Aral Sea as your border (running further Westward to the Kaydak Inlet of the Caspian Sea). Conquer the Kimeks and the Kipchaks, then the Avars and Alans to the North of the Caucasus (so that this become your border West of the Caspian). Then take down the Cumans durectly North of the Black Sea, and finally overrun the Eastern Slavs. Don't push beyond the Carpathians, don't try to take over Poland, and don't invade Finland or anything dumb like that. In fact, stop once you've got Novgorod.

At this juncture, Genghis will die, as we've about reached that point in OTL. He dies having basically established Russia... but some 600 years early, and from the East. Which makes it Mongolia instead of Russia. But it roughly covers the same area as the Russian Empire in its 'final form'. Bit less of Central Asia, bit more of Northern China.

Genghis's eager heirs can see to the 'mopping up'. That is: subdue the Baltics on one end of the empire, and Korea on the other. After that, it's all done. Just kill a lot of the men living in the conquered territy (especially the upper classes), and take their women for yourself. Two generations later, it's Mongols as far as the eye can see. Mongols that are becoming slowly but increasingly more "settled" in their role as overlords over a sedentary population.

The Mongols were pretty good at infrastructure (great road-builders; excellent postal service) and they didn't shy away from co-opting anything that worked. So I'd expect the "Mongol High Culture" to invest, first and foremost, in a great road-way extending all the way from the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea to the Bohai Sea and the Sea of Japan. This would be economically sound, but also a wise military action: it would allow for a faster response time if trouble ever arose on either end of their empire.

According to what i read,after taking entire China there was serious proposition to kill all settled people and turn it into pasture.
But,beourocrats shot it down asking who would made silk for mongols.
Forget source,as usual.
But - it could be done,mongols wiped out Tanguts after all.

 

[stevep]

According to what i read,after taking entire China there was serious proposition to kill all settled people and turn it into pasture.
But,beourocrats shot it down asking who would made silk for mongols.
Forget source,as usual.
But - it could be done,mongols wiped out Tanguts after all.

I do remember reading once that it took some of the bureaucrats pointing out the tax income to persuade Genghis not to depopulate the bulk of the N China plain and settle Mongol herdsmen on it. Which if it occurred would have drastically changed the development of China and also the economic capacity of the lands affected. Given the regions tendency for flooding and that without a large peasant population to provide the necessary labour I suspect that the flood defences won't last very long so the region is likely to suffer some serious flooding.

Eventually the Chinese are likely to recover and spread north again but it would take a while for them to restore their control and then repopulate the region.

 

[Skallagrim]

Sometimes I wonder whether or not the successor Khanates could be likened to the Diadochi states, or other Greek kingdoms rising in the ruins of Persia. Whilst they would be swallowed by the culture of the lands they ruled (aside from Macedon obviously), they never entirely stop being their ancestral culture.

There is some basis for comparison here, although not (I think) for equating them fully. The comparison also shows us the differences. That is: the successor kingdoms, for the most part, were fairly thoroughly Hellenised. Note, for instance, that Hellenic culture continued to thrive in Anatolia right up to the Turkic conquests (and thus all through the preceding period, which includes all of the Roman Empire). Previously, only the Western shores had been Hellenised. To a lesser degree, we see profound Hellenic influences in Syria and the Levant (as can be seen even in the Bible). Persia and Egypt saw the Hellenistic rulers 'going native' to a considerable degree, but not to such a degree that they stopped being Hellenistic themselves. Their "Greekness" persisted, hand-in-hand with their assumed native identity, right to the very end.

We may contrast this with nomadic conquerors from the steppe, who either assimilate fully (basically losing whatever made them distinct, and just becoming Chinese or Persian or whatever) or remain fully "outsiders" who rule as foreign despots (as they did in Russia). An exception to this is the Manchu rule over China, which retained elements of cultural distinction. I believe this is because their ancestors had already become a more sedentary people themselves, and only then conquered China.

The difference, then, is that nomadic people lack a very "entrenched" complex culture of their own.

And I do think steppe nomad culture is profoundly sophisticated and influential.

The above is not to say, to be clear, that the culture of the steppe people is not sophisticated or influential. Rather, that their mode of existing does not encourage much complex literature (mobile libraries are impractical), nor the division of labour and the development of city-specific professional classes. Thus, when they conquer an area that has a far more entreched culture, the typical reaction is adopt that culture.

Precisely because they are not... "Dothraki"... but actually sophisticated and intelligent people, they readily embrace a deep-rooted culture when they find it. But pecisely because that culture is so deep-rooted (and because they, the nomads, are severely out-numbered by the natives), the result of this is that the nomad conquerors become the culture that they conquer.

The alternative is to rule as a purely foreign despot and simply demand tribute. But this doesn't work long-term, because you're not building anything... except resentment. So eventually, the natives kick you out.

According to what i read,after taking entire China there was serious proposition to kill all settled people and turn it into pasture.
But,beourocrats shot it down asking who would made silk for mongols.
Forget source,as usual.
But - it could be done,mongols wiped out Tanguts after all.

The notion of depopulating all of China strikes me as very impractical. It makes for a good tale, but I doubt they'd even be able to do it. They may have considered doing it to certain regions, but then got talked out of it by the local governor(s).

 

[Zyobot]

Like the bulk of insights @Skallagrim and @Lord Sovereign have brought to the table, but specifically regarding this one:

The notion of depopulating all of China strikes me as very impractical. It makes for a good tale, but I doubt they'd even be able to do it. They may have considered doing it to certain regions, but then got talked out of it by the local governor(s).

Yeah, probably good they never tried that. Brutal as he was, Genghis could still be merciful and practical towards populations that submitted and joined his empire without further protest. If nothing else, that’s how you ensure they don‘t fight to the bitter end instead, which makes things agonizing for both you and the new subjects you want to absorb.

In fact, depopulating all of China sounds more like something Hitler might've tried, had he ruled WWII Japan and directed his genocidal insanity mostly towards "Asian subhumans" instead of "European subhumans".

Sure, I doubt he (or anyone else without nuclear weapons) would succeed, but concerning the ATL you outlined with my prompting, I think the odds of a Mongol High Culture producing at least one or two Hitlerian figures during its own “Modernity” is more probable than not. Granted, maybe I’m projecting the Western ideological pedigree onto a foreign civilization that never lived up to its full potential IOTL— and if I am, feel free to point that out. Even so, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to imagine a handful of Mongol Hitlers who’d give Genghis pause arising about a thousand years later, either, given that the Mongol High Culture would be one of brutal and warlike conquerors at its core — the worst aspects of which may reach its apogee somewhere from 2200 to 2500-ish, going by the timetable you’ve sketched out above.

 

[Skallagrim]

I think the odds of a Mongol High Culture producing at least one or two Hitlerian figures during its own “Modernity” is more probable than not.

Granted, maybe I’m projecting the Western ideological pedigree onto a foreign civilization that never lived up to its full potential IOTL— and if I am, feel free to point that out. Even so, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to imagine a handful of Mongol Hitlers who’d give Genghis pause arising, either, given that the Mongol High Culture would be one of brutal and warlike conquerors at its core, which… may reach its apogee somewhere from 2200 to 2500-ish, going by the timetable you’ve sketched out above.

These things balance out. (As I say so often, about so many things, because it's so consistently true.)

The Mongols were capable of intense brutality, but then again: was Caesar not? Was Alexander not? Was Charlemagne not? Was Napoleon not? Was Chandragupta not? All these successful men, with great military achievements to their name, used the same fundamental approach that Genghis Khan also used. When meeting resistance, they exterminated. When meeting submission, they were gracious and tolerant-- often to the point that they were seen as liberators by those who voluntarily joined them; removing corrupt or overbearing previous rulers.

Alexander he Great and Genghis Khan, in particular, excelled at this strategy. They burned down cities that arose against them, but they also lowered taxes overall, removed corruption, elevated capable men to stations of power, expanded and improved infrastructure, and were genuine proponents of cultural and religious tolerance and co-existence.

Now, if Genghis Khan "goes West" and depopulates Russia, turning his empire into a "Great Mongolia in the shape of OTL Russia", we must admit that the whole thing starts with an act of massive genocide. That might set the tone, as it were. But it's not a given, as I've outlined above. Since much of the Mongols' own steppe culture would in this scenario prevail, the resulting High Culture (of which Genghis Khan would be the 'Charlemagne') could be a curious mix of practical-minded, no-nonsense brutality and remarkaly 'enlightened' attitudes of social tolerance. I could imagine its laws being permissive of many things, but carrying a (swiftly-executed) death penalty for all the really serious things.

Assuming that Genghis Khan gets eveything done during his life-time (say, by AD 1225), this suggests that we might expect their equavalent of a 'reformation' somewhere in the twentieth century, and their counterpart to Napoleon about two hundred years from (the ATL's version of) now. Which means that their 'Napoleon' would appear about a century into our Principate. That would surely make for interesting times!

 

[CastilloVerde]

The most obvious target for such a strategy would, ironically, be Russia.

This would involve Genghis Khan abandoning all attempts to take Chinese lands after 1215 or so (when his campaigns had gained him the northern border regions). Instead of expending more energy on China, he'd have to secure the established border. The idea after that is simple: instead of pushing South via Central Asia, only defeat and annex the Qara Khitai, and then establish a line running West to the Aral Sea as your border (running further Westward to the Kaydak Inlet of the Caspian Sea). Conquer the Kimeks and the Kipchaks, then the Avars and Alans to the North of the Caucasus (so that this become your border West of the Caspian). Then take down the Cumans durectly North of the Black Sea, and finally overrun the Eastern Slavs. Don't push beyond the Carpathians, don't try to take over Poland, and don't invade Finland or anything dumb like that. In fact, stop once you've got Novgorod.

I really like this. You can even realistically set up this scenario with the following (perhaps more suited to an AH thread):

History proceeds as usual till AD 1218. The Qara Khitai was indeed annexed that year. The point of divergence occurs in the same year with the (in)famous Mongol diplomatic trade mission to Khwarezm. In OTL, the governor of the city of Otrar, with his shah's agreement, arrests and kills the delegation - provoking the wrath of the Khan in the process.

In this scenario, this does not happen. Instead, Khwarezm and the Mongols conclude a trade agreement, preventing the Mongol invasion of Persia. For now, the Mongols are at peace with Khwarezm. Now I don't know how plausible this state of affairs can last. The Khwarezmian Empire was only recently founded by this time as a nomadic conquest empire like the Mongols. Much of Transoxania was itself recently captured from the Qara Khitai. Perhaps a conflict between the Mongols and Khwarezm would be inevitable in the future.

Alternatively, the realm of Khwarezm could itself break apart with several internal rebellions without the Mongols invading anyway. This assumes that the subjects of Khwarezm despise their Khwarezmian overlords, which is possible.

In any case, though, assume the Mongols never invade Persia.

The next realm to border the Mongols is the Kipchak Khanate. In OTL, they were distrustful of the Mongols, so if we assume that the Mongols attempt to send a trade delegation, this mission would fail and the delegates arrested and killed. The Mongols thus have a pretext to invade which they proceed to do with massive devastation.

The rest of your outline logically follows.



Regarding China, the Jin can conceivably exist as a vassal to the Mongols and also serve as a buffer against the Song. In OTL, the Jin offered peace to Ogedei but he refused. Once the Jin killed the Mongol delegation in OTL, their fate was sealed. If the Mongols accept peace and the Jin become vassals, this should allow China to be spared from the Mongols for long enough - just as long as the initial conquering generations to die. By then, hopefully the "window" would close for the possibility of a Mongol invasion of China.

China would then proceed on its own path free from Mongol domination. The Song and Jin would go into terminal decline and collapse by the late 1300s - according to China's previous macro-historical timeline.

Now, if Genghis Khan "goes West" and depopulates Russia, turning his empire into a "Great Mongolia in the shape of OTL Russia", we must admit that the whole thing starts with an act of massive genocide. That might set the tone, as it were. But it's not a given, as I've outlined above. Since much of the Mongols' own steppe culture would in this scenario prevail, the resulting High Culture (of which Genghis Khan would be the 'Charlemagne') could be a curious mix of practical-minded, no-nonsense brutality and remarkaly 'enlightened' attitudes of social tolerance. I could imagine its laws being permissive of many things, but carrying a (swiftly-executed) death penalty for all the really serious things.

Some view Charlemagne's atrocities against the Saxons to be something resembling a genocide too. What Muhammad did to the al-Yamamah clan or against the Jews of Mecca were also atrocities. The point: such atrocities are not uncommon to history, even at the founding of High Cultures. Thus, these Mongol actions in Russia would not be too out of place in the grand scheme of history.


On a related topic, I wonder what the religion of the Mongol High Culture would be? There is always the possibility for a "reformed" Tengriism, if you will, that develops as the main religion, but this does not seem natural or all that likely. Genghis Khan or his successors were no Muhammad and there were no Mongol attempts to create a reformed Mongol religion. I think that it's most probable for the Mongols to adopt a pre-existing religion than to create a new one.

The likely options are Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. Now Islam seems much less likely if the Mongols avoid conquering Persia and the Middle East. There were also no prominent Mongol clans who were Muslims as well. As for Buddhism, the Mongols only converted to Buddhism in OTL due to influences from Tibetan missionaries. Because the Mongols do not conquer Tibet,a nd even much of China, that makes a Buddhist Mongol Khanate less likely as well. We are left with Christianity, but of all the different Christian churches, "Nestorian" Christianity seems the most possible - consider that prominent Mongols were Nestorian Christians including Genghis Khan's own mother. This is also most interesting from a macro-historical perspective because Nestorianism would differentiate the Mongols enough from other High Cultures to develop their own identity.

This can even be accomplished with the following: Guyuk Khan, a Nestorian, becomes Great Khan after the death of Ogedei like in OTL.

In OTL, Guyuk died prematurely, but this can be changed with alternative events. Now, in OTL, Batu Khan was preparing to engage Guyuk in a civil war but this was avoided with Guyuk's own death, and Batu was able to arrange for the sons of Tolui to become the future great Khans.

Batu Khan was a more trafitionally-minded Mongol compared to the Nestorian Guyuk, which is one reason for the rivalry between Guyuk and Batu. (There was a similar dynamic between the OTL conflict between the traditional Ariq Boke and the sinophile Khublai. Guess who won that struggle.) Because Guyuk survives, the civil war proceeds, but I expect Guyuk to emerge victorious from the conflict as he has the more prestige along with authority over the eastern hordes.

The result would be a Nestorian Khanate, one that has an identity separate from that of other kingdoms. After the "Carolingian" disintegration of the khanate, a proper High Cultural sphere - both Nestorian and Mongol - remains.

 

[Skallagrim]

I really like this. You can even realistically set up this scenario with the following (perhaps more suited to an AH thread):

History proceeds as usual till AD 1218. The Qara Khitai was indeed annexed that year. The point of divergence occurs in the same year with the (in)famous Mongol diplomatic trade mission to Khwarezm. In OTL, the governor of the city of Otrar, with his shah's agreement, arrests and kills the delegation - provoking the wrath of the Khan in the process.

In this scenario, this does not happen. Instead, Khwarezm and the Mongols conclude a trade agreement, preventing the Mongol invasion of Persia. For now, the Mongols are at peace with Khwarezm. Now I don't know how plausible this state of affairs can last. The Khwarezmian Empire was only recently founded by this time as a nomadic conquest empire like the Mongols. Much of Transoxania was itself recently captured from the Qara Khitai. Perhaps a conflict between the Mongols and Khwarezm would be inevitable in the future.

Alternatively, the realm of Khwarezm could itself break apart with several internal rebellions without the Mongols invading anyway. This assumes that the subjects of Khwarezm despise their Khwarezmian overlords, which is possible.

In any case, though, assume the Mongols never invade Persia.

The next realm to border the Mongols is the Kipchak Khanate. In OTL, they were distrustful of the Mongols, so if we assume that the Mongols attempt to send a trade delegation, this mission would fail and the delegates arrested and killed. The Mongols thus have a pretext to invade which they proceed to do with massive devastation.

The rest of your outline logically follows.

A very good POD. I do wonder about the timing regarding border conflicts with the Jurchen state of 'Great Jin'. The border was very much in flux in the relevant period, and we certainly want to avoid a scenario where the Mongols, though declining to take all or even most of China, still take a big chunk of it. (It would run the risk of the tail wagging the dog before too long.)

But I think a 1218 POD would work, provided the Mongols leave China be, thereafter.

Regarding China, the Jin can conceivably exist as a vassal to the Mongols and also serve as a buffer against the Song. In OTL, the Jin offered peace to Ogedei but he refused. Once the Jin killed the Mongol delegation in OTL, their fate was sealed. If the Mongols accept peace and the Jin become vassals, this should allow China to be spared from the Mongols for long enough - just as long as the initial conquering generations to die. By then, hopefully the "window" would close for the possibility of a Mongol invasion of China.

China would then proceed on its own path free from Mongol domination. The Song and Jin would go into terminal decline and collapse by the late 1300s - according to China's previous macro-historical timeline.

In fact, the Song dynsaty had already fallen into terminal decline exactly on schedule (as it were), with its fracturing occurrung shortly after AD 1100. The rise of the Jurchens forming Great Jin wasn't just the end of the Khitans' pretensions of being the Liao dynasty, but also saw them rapidly advancing against the moribund Song. By 1144, 'Great Jin' controlled a good half of China-- and kept it until the Mongols barged it.

Without any Mongol involvement at all, this would have been a destructive Song-Jin war to the bitter end, with both Song and Jin almost certainly splintering themselves in the process, and with others (such as the Tanguts, a.k.a. 'Xi Xia') also staking a claim. Which, as we know, would then continue until roughly AD 1400, when a new unification would be carried out by a meteoric conqueror-dynasty in the mold of Qin and Sui before them.

In the event we propose here, however, the Mongols reduce the Khitans greatly, and probably absorb the Tanguts outright. I think this leaves the Song to crush the Khitans, although without any realistic prospects of re-taking anything the Mongols have annexed. (Meaning that the Southern border of Mongolia runs from the Bohai Bay in the East in a more-or-less straight line to the Tian Shan-- or rather, the Tengri Tagh.)

The Song dynasty is almost certainly still doomed. If it retakes lost regions, it absorbs unruly rebels. If it doesn't, it proves itself too weak to conquer even weakened enemies, thus sparking internal dissent. Either way, a bad situation. So, I expect that China still collapses into a period of chaotic fracturing and in-fighting, which will (as mentioned, and for the same reasons) be resolved circa AD 1400.

Some view Charlemagne's atrocities against the Saxons to be something resembling a genocide too. What Muhammad did to the al-Yamamah clan or against the Jews of Mecca were also atrocities. The point: such atrocities are not uncommon to history, even at the founding of High Cultures. Thus, these Mongol actions in Russia would not be too out of place in the grand scheme of history.

Exactly.

On a related topic, I wonder what the religion of the Mongol High Culture would be? There is always the possibility for a "reformed" Tengriism, if you will, that develops as the main religion, but this does not seem natural or all that likely. Genghis Khan or his successors were no Muhammad and there were no Mongol attempts to create a reformed Mongol religion. I think that it's most probable for the Mongols to adopt a pre-existing religion than to create a new one.

The likely options are Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. Now Islam seems much less likely if the Mongols avoid conquering Persia and the Middle East. There were also no prominent Mongol clans who were Muslims as well. As for Buddhism, the Mongols only converted to Buddhism in OTL due to influences from Tibetan missionaries. Because the Mongols do not conquer Tibet,a nd even much of China, that makes a Buddhist Mongol Khanate less likely as well. We are left with Christianity, but of all the different Christian churches, "Nestorian" Christianity seems the most possible - consider that prominent Mongols were Nestorian Christians including Genghis Khan's own mother. This is also most interesting from a macro-historical perspective because Nestorianism would differentiate the Mongols enough from other High Cultures to develop their own identity.

This can even be accomplished with the following: Guyuk Khan, a Nestorian, becomes Great Khan after the death of Ogedei like in OTL.

In OTL, Guyuk died prematurely, but this can be changed with alternative events. Now, in OTL, Batu Khan was preparing to engage Guyuk in a civil war but this was avoided with Guyuk's own death, and Batu was able to arrange for the sons of Tolui to become the future great Khans.

Batu Khan was a more trafitionally-minded Mongol compared to the Nestorian Guyuk, which is one reason for the rivalry between Guyuk and Batu. (There was a similar dynamic between the OTL conflict between the traditional Ariq Boke and the sinophile Khublai. Guess who won that struggle.) Because Guyuk survives, the civil war proceeds, but I expect Guyuk to emerge victorious from the conflict as he has the more prestige along with authority over the eastern hordes.

The result would be a Nestorian Khanate, one that has an identity separate from that of other kingdoms. After the "Carolingian" disintegration of the khanate, a proper High Cultural sphere - both Nestorian and Mongol - remains.

I'm certainly partial to surviving Tengriism, but it does seem less likely that a more organised religion getting a firm hold. I do agree that Nestorianism has the best chances. Which is kind of funny, because they were dying out in Persia, and although they got a brief stint in favour during the Ilkhanate, Islam still beat them into the dirt.

In this ATL, Nestorianism probably still dies out (or close enough for it not to matter) in Persia, but could then thrive in Great Mongolia.