Does Barbarism define Nomadic? I think so.
...2000 years of barbarians in 50 minutes
[SOURCE]
(Based loosely on a talk given at Reed College Paidea, January 21, 2005).
The weakness of the nomads was logistics. Since their food source (sheep) and everything they owned was portable, they didn’t need to defend their rear the way civilized armies did. But if an attack wasn’t immediately successful, or if they were forced into an area without sufficient grass, then they would have to call off the attack and go home. For these reasons the early purely nomadic societies were only an intermittent threat to the civilized world, whose much greater wealth often made it possible for them to buy off the nomads with tribute.
According to Steensgaard, at least up until the sixteenth century the political “protection cost” of the Asian trade (taxes, tribute, military action) was always greater than the direct cost (manpower, supplies, ships, goods to exchange), and the Mongol Empire enormously reduced this protection cost, which showed up in Europe as enormous markups in price required to pay off all the intervening taxing jurisdictions.
The Mongol Empire was thus a precursor trade empire and blazed the way for the modern world. When the Mongol collapse cut off access to China, the riches of China provided a powerful incentive for Europeans of many nations to start looking for a sea route. For better or worse, one thing led to another, and the globalizers of today, at least, owe an unacknowledged debt to Chinggis Qan. (Emerson, John; no date. Idiocentrism Home Page HERE)
This is the History of Everything, Roughly, as Spun by John J. Emerson Musings and Candor, it is a good study in self-publishing:
A positive mental attitude is your first step toward success and happiness. Put a smile on your face! Nobody likes a sourpuss
No comments:
Post a Comment