Why has Europe never been dominated by a foreign power?

macaquerie · Feb 20, 2024

Dreamhunter said:
Well, the way that I have read and understood it is that, the parent tribe (or whatever the proper term is) was Indo-Iranian, which I believe first emerged somewhere in Andronovo region.

Then, out of that Indo-Iranian, sprang forth sibling offspring tribes Iranian and Indo-Aryan.

I believe that is still the mainstream opinion?

Like many other instances, the Persian takeover of the ancient near east was mostly an elite replacement and in this case not even a particularly thorough one as many existing rulers remained in control as satraps. And once installed as the ruling class the Persians quickly forgot whatever traces of steppe culture they still had and embraced the lavish palace culture of previous eastern empires like the Assyrians and Babylonians.

Alexander the Gay · Feb 20, 2024

Dreamhunter said:
Well, the way that I have read and understood it is that, the parent tribe (or whatever the proper term is) was Indo-Iranian, which I believe first emerged somewhere in Andronovo region.

Then, out of that Indo-Iranian, sprang forth sibling offspring tribes Iranian and Indo-Aryan.

I believe that is still the mainstream opinion?

While later groups like Scythian, Cimmerian, Sarmatian, Medes, Persian were in turn like further offspring from the main Iranian trunk or branch.

The Iranian people came not from andronova region but were always present in the Iranian plateau the Iranian language did though developed from proto indo-iranian which was brought by the steppe tribes around 1500 BC.

Implying that Iranians sprang from Indo-Iranians from Andronovo is same as saying Indians came from Vedic people.

Dreamhunter · Feb 20, 2024

Sorry dude, but I think I would rather stick to what I believe is still the current mainstream position, at least for now:

"Indo-Iranian peoples, also known as Indo-Iranic peoples by scholars, or as Arya or Aryans from their self-designation, were a group of IE speaking peoples who brought the Indo-Iranian languages, a major branch of the IE languajhe family, to major parts of Eurasia in waves from the first part of the 2nd millennium BC onwards. They eventually branched out into: (1) Iranian peoples; and (2) Indo-Aryan peoples."

Indo-Iranians - Wikipedia

macaquerie · Feb 20, 2024

Dreamhunter said:
Indo-Iranian peoples, also known as Indo-Iranic peoples by scholars, or as Arya or Aryans from their self-designation, were a group of IE speaking peoples who brought the Indo-Iranian languages, a major branch of the IE languajhe family, to major parts of Eurasia in waves from the first part of the 2nd millennium BC onwards. They eventually branched out into: (1) Iranian peoples; and (2) and Indo-Aryan peoples.

What people call themselves and what aspects of their culture and identity matter the most can be quite different. You know what most people in both India and Iran (and Europe for that matter) have in common? They're not heckin' nomaderinos!

Alexander the Gay · Feb 20, 2024

Dreamhunter said:
Sorry dude, but I think I would rather stick to what I believe is still the current mainstream position, at least for now:

"Indo-Iranian peoples, also known as Indo-Iranic peoples by scholars, or as Arya or Aryans from their self-designation, were a group of IE speaking peoples who brought the Indo-Iranian languages, a major branch of the IE languajhe family, to major parts of Eurasia in waves from the first part of the 2nd millennium BC onwards. They eventually branched out into: (1) Iranian peoples; and (2) Indo-Aryan peoples."

Indo-Iranians - Wikipedia

And how does this goes against anything what I have said?

Are you saying north Indian people descended from Indo-Europeans from the steppe?

Mathias · Feb 20, 2024

macaquerie said:
What people call themselves and what aspects of their culture and identity matter the most can be quite different. You know what most people in both India and Iran (and Europe for that matter) have in common? They're not heckin' nomaderinos!

Chill.

Mathias · Feb 20, 2024

Alexander the ... said:
And how does this goes against anything what I have said?

Are you saying north Indian people descended from Indo-Europeans from the steppe?

In part, they do.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt · Feb 20, 2024

Alexander the ... said:
Life would be better for Chandragupta Maurya for sure.

No I mean the poster who just flat out said India superior until 1000 AD and Europe wasn't worth conquering

Dreamhunter · Feb 20, 2024

Alexander the ... said:
And how does this goes against anything what I have said?

Well, from what you wrote in post #222 you have basically more or less dismissed the position that 'Iranian peoples' (not just the citizens of today's modern state of Iran, but rather the entire grouping falling under the historical term 'Iranian peoples', including Medes, Persians etc.) ultimately originated from the 'Indo-Iranians' believed to have first emerged in Andronovo region.

The Sintashta-Petrovka culture (red) expanded into the Andronovo cultute (orange) in the 2nd millennium BC, overlapping the Oxus civilisation (green) in the south; it includes the area of the earliest chariots (pink).

Alexander the ... said:
Are you saying north Indian people descended from Indo-Europeans from the steppe?

It is not about what I am saying.

You can read that article yourself.

'Iranian peoples' and 'Indo-Aryan peoples' both branched off from the 'Indo-Iranian' main branch. While 'Indo-Iranian', believed to have first emerged in Andronovo region, branched off from the PIE trunk. So, just go figure.

It is not my position personally, but the position held in that article, which I believe is the mainstream position. Which I am sticking to for now.

Sher Khan · Feb 20, 2024

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt said:
No I mean the poster who just flat out said India superior until 1000 AD and Europe wasn't worth conquering

Looking back through the thread, I’m guessing this is the offending post:

Chandragupta Maurya said:
Since civilization began in Asia and Africa, they have been far wealthier than Europe. Most of Europe was not civilized till 1000 AD and not worth risking one's life to conquer. Just like no one bothered to conquer Greenland and Antartica for most of civilized history.

Which doesn’t sound like they’re saying life was better for your average Asian over European at all. It speaks more to how moralized the term civilization and civilized has become in common lingo. Nor is this post incorrect: a pre-modern state based on written record keeping, cities aggregating the markets of its surrounding villages, and a military class supported by the surplus collected in taxes, has technological limitations that make some lands worth invading and others a fool’s errand. The same calculus applied even to Northern European states themselves. Huge armies each tens of thousands strong could march quickly between Moscow and Paris quickly in the 18th century, but not in the 8th century. The reason has little to do with how much happier an 8th century North European could have been than his 18th century descendants, or whatever martial difference we might imagine.

macaquerie · Feb 20, 2024

Dreamhunter said:
Well, from what you wrote in post #222 you have basically more or less dismissed the position that 'Iranian peoples' (not just the citizens of today's modern state of Iran, but rather the entire grouping falling under the historical term 'Iranian peoples', including Medes, Persians etc.) originated from the 'Indo-Iranians' believed to have first emerged in Andronovo region.

It is not about what I am saying.

You can read that article yourself. It is not my position personally, but the position held in that article, which I believe is the mainstream position. Which I am sticking to for now.

Iranian civilization as we know it descends from the institutions and traditions established by the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires, both of which were built on top of an existing foundation of "ancient near eastern" civilization. Their name might refer back to an ancient steppe lineage, but by the time those peoples migrated into what we know of as Iran and intermixed with the likely far more numerous pre-existing populations, they had lost most of this nomadic heritage and become well assimilated into the decidedly sedentary civilization of their subjects. By the time that later Iranian nomads such as the Saka and Massagetae arrived in the same area, they had already diverged considerably from the "civilized" Persians and were regarded as hostile barbarians, until they too were assimilated that is. If this sounds like the *exact* pattern that happened in Rome, China, India, and countless other places, then you're starting to get the point that many posters in this thread have been trying to make.

Mathias · Feb 20, 2024

macaquerie said:
If this sounds like the *exact* pattern that happened in Rome, China, India, and countless other places, then you're starting to get the point that many posters in this thread have been trying to make.

I think it is only you that have been trying to make that point.

Mathias · Feb 20, 2024

macaquerie said:
Rome, China, India

Each of these had its unique culture, style of goverment, tactics, laws, identity… they didnt «adapt the near eastern model»

Changdao · Feb 20, 2024

Mathias said:
Each of these had its unique culture, style of goverment, tactics, laws, identity… they didnt «adapt the near eastern model»

He is arguing that the pattern is the same in every state-level society because of the inherent mechanisms of every state, not that those cultures did it because of Middle Eastern influence

macaquerie · Feb 20, 2024

Changdao said:
He is arguing that the pattern is the same in every state-level society because of the inherent mechanisms of every state, not that those cultures did it because of Middle Eastern influence

And to be perfectly honest, I think at an emotional level everyone can sort of at least understand where the OP's perspective is coming from. After all, why is it that these supposed wealthy, advanced, and productive civilizations keep getting plundered and conquered by these barbarian tribes whose numbers are miniscule and technology primitive by comparison? Surely there must be some "special sauce" in that steppe lifestyle that just makes those people stronger, more vigorous, and just plain more manly than those perpetually cucked bugmen slaving away on their farms eating their tasteless slop day after miserable day. But whatever that is, when the barbarians settle down and start living among the settled folks they inevitably become just like them, and with a few notable exceptions, once they get a taste of the pleasures of civilization they don't want to go back to living in the old ways anymore, even if that permanently dulls their martial edge.

Chandragupta Maurya · Feb 20, 2024

Sher Khan said:
Looking back through the thread, I'm guessing this is the offending post:

Which doesn't sound like they're saying life was better for your average Asian over European at all. It speaks more to how moralized the term civilization and civilized has become in common lingo. Nor is this post incorrect: a pre-modern state based on written record keeping, cities aggregating the markets of its surrounding villages, and a military class supported by the surplus collected in taxes, has technological limitations that make some lands worth invading and others a fool's errand. The same calculus applied even to Northern European states themselves. Huge armies each tens of thousands strong could march quickly between Moscow and Paris quickly in the 18th century, but not in the 8th century. The reason has little to do with how much happier an 8th century North European could have been than his 18th century descendants, or whatever martial difference we might imagine.

This is exactly the point I was making. Immigration has also been economically driven for the last few centuries. People move from poorer regions to richer ones (whether to cities, agriculturally more fertile lands, etc).

In the same token barbarian tribes are more likely to attack civilized entities rather than the other way around. The cost benefit for both sides of invading the other is clear.

I have used the word "civilized" in the technological sense, not the moral one. I am not even sure a civilized society is necessarily morally superior to a tribal society. A lot of savagery has been exhibited over the last thousands of years by civilized rulers and kingdoms towards barbaric societies.

Chandragupta Maurya · Feb 20, 2024

Mathias said:
we have the caliphate in Iberia and parts of italy, turks in the balkans and mongols in southren russia… did I miss anything?

This dwarfes in comparision to european domination of other continents, from Alexander to ww2. Why?

Alexander ruled barely 5 percent of the Asian population. The Seleucid's ruled for a couple of centuries. The Romans ruled even less of Asia than Alexander. The Ottomans ruled quite a bit of Europe for 5 centuries. The Mongols used quite a bit of Europe. The Magyars ruled Hungary for centuries.

The reason for Europeans to come to Asia and Africa was the presence of fertile lands there. River valleys with their annual flooding of their banks with alluvial soil provide an agricultural growing season throughout the year. In harsher weather like that of Europe, the growing season is generally only during the summer. This automatically supports a lower population and less surplus food. Which then inhibits crafts and trade..

That is why the earliest civilizations started on the banks of the Tigris, Nile, Indus, Yangste, etc.

Willempie · Feb 20, 2024

The others were just slackers and didn't try hard enough

robto · Feb 20, 2024

charlie ia said:
as orlando figes would probably say, the soul of the soviet union - and her post-soviet succesor- was asia...

I don't believe that at all. The "soul of the Soviet Union" - if they ever had such a thing - was, obviously, European Russia, Russian culture, Russian nationalism, and the legacy of Russian Orthodox tradition and worldview, mixed with pan-Slavism and socialist universalist ideals (which are also a very Western European idea), not Asia, at all.

The "Russian Asiatic Horde" trope or the "Mongolic character" trope is an old Russophobic argument that has become very canonical in modern Western discourse; it even played a crucial role in the Nazi genocide they implemented upon Soviet civilians in Operation Barbarossa.

Russians saw themselves as part of the pan-Slavic world, the Eastern European Orthodox milieu, and even towards the racial concept of "whiteness". Russian imperialists of the Tzarist Russia, and even Russian Soviets, always had a very colonial-racist attitude against the "Russian Asiatic" and the natives of the Caucasus - Russians even called them "black" - which was very similar to the same colonial-racist attitude Western colonial powers had over their non-European colonial subjects.

charlie ia · Feb 20, 2024

Mathias said:
I think it is only you that have been trying to make that point.

its an example of elite replacement and diffusion of languages as prestige elements.

robto said:
I don't believe that at all. The "soul of the Soviet Union" - if they ever had such a thing - was, obviously, European Russia, Russian culture, Russian nationalism, and the legacy of Russian Orthodox tradition and worldview, mixed with pan-Slavism and socialist universalist ideals (which are also a very Western European idea), not Asia, at all.

The "Russian Asiatic Horde" trope or the "Mongolic character" trope is an old Russophobic argument that has become very canonical in modern Western discourse; it even played a crucial role in the Nazi genocide they implemented upon Soviet civilians in Operation Barbarossa.

Russians saw themselves as part of the pan-Slavic world, the Eastern European Orthodox milieu, and even towards the racial concept of "whiteness". Russian imperialists of the Tzarist Russia, and even Russian Soviets, always had a very colonial-racist attitude against the "Russian Asiatic" and the natives of the Caucasus - Russians even called them "black" - which was very similar to the same colonial-racist attitude Western colonial powers had over their non-European colonial subjects.

frankly, this time i'd disagree a bit, robto. while it's true western prejudice has historically used the 'asiatic despotism' & 'mongolic character' tropes against russia, the foundational value of the mongol period is simply inmense, politically, culturally and even economically. its also true that russian intelligentsia for long was troubled by this, with these existencial, manicheist dichotomy of either looking west or looking east... both externally and internally.

i will quote few extracts from figes:

The influence of the steppeland tribes was manifested in the Rus elite's adoption of their dress and status symbols, such as the wearing of belts studded with heavy metal mounts and bridles with elaborate sets of ornaments.We need to think of early Rus, not as a story of hostile confrontation between the forest settlers and steppe nomads, but as one of largely peaceful interaction between all the peoples of Eurasia.
...

Philologists established the Tatar origins of many of the basic Russian words in administration and finance – dengi (money), kazna (treasury), tamozhna (customs duty), barysh (profit) – suggesting that the Mongols had an impact in these spheres. Many Russian families had Tatar names. Some descended from the Mongols who had stayed in Russia and entered into service in the Moscow court following the break-up of the Golden Horde. According to one estimate, 156 of the 915 noble families in the service of the tsar in the 1680s were of Tatar or other Asiatic origins. They were not as many as the Lithuanian and western European families, which made up almost half the noble class. But the true figure was probably higher because many Tatars Russified their names when they entered the nobility. Among these were some of the most famous names in Russian history: writers (Karamzin, Chaadaev, Turgenev, Bulgakov), composers (Rimsky-Korsakov), tsars (Boris Godunov) and revolutionaries (Bukharin).
...

The Russian lands controlled by Muscovy emerged strengthened, their people toughened by the harsh experience of Mongol rule, better equipped to survive the hardships that awaited them and more united nationally than they had been previously. Only Moscow was now capable of liberating them from the Mongols, of ruling all the Russians in a single state. As Karamzin put it, 'Moscow owes its greatness to the khans.'

Search

Search

Why has Europe never been dominated by a foreign power?

macaquerie

Alexander the Gay

Dreamhunter

macaquerie

Alexander the Gay

Mathias

Mathias

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Dreamhunter

Sher Khan

macaquerie

Mathias

Mathias

Changdao

macaquerie

Chandragupta Maurya

Chandragupta Maurya

Willempie

robto

charlie ia

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions