Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP, the answer is - no. Your post or question is basically wrong in its entire premise.
Of course, I am not sure what exactly period of lie, called history, you refer to, but "Russia" started expanding East/SE - that's where roughly modern Kzakhstan is - around 16th century or so.
Except that that's official lie, as less knowingly, there were many more countries there up to about 18th century - that somehow vanished later. Maybe after dem 3 Germans re-wrote the entire history ofthat part of the world?
Kazakhs originally lived in Kazakhstan, in Central Asia. I'm not an expert on Russian history, I don't know how much interaction there was before Soviet times.
I think the various Kazakh Khanates were moved into the Russian Empire starting in the 1700s by a series of union treaties or loyalty oaths to the Russian Emperor / Czar. After incorporation into the Russian Empire, Kazakhstan was an autonomous emirate. Kazakhs made their own laws, were governed by their own selected (not necessarily democratically) leaders, and could not be conscripted into the Imperial army.
Full intergration did not come until Soviet times. Likewise, the mass influx of Russian, Germans, and other Slavs, did not come until during or after WWII. Kazakhstan figured prominently in the post WWII Soviet "New Lands" agricultural program designed to solve lingering food shortages once and for all. This brought large scale Russian settlement. The Soviet government also had a motivation to Russify Kazakhstan to ensure its long term loyalty.
After the break up of the USSR, Putin offered Kazakhstan a new union treaty with Czarist style autonomy along with Ukraine and Belarus. All three rejected it and Putin has been butt hurt ever since. Putin recently called Kazakhstan an "artificial country".
Kazakhs are Turkic people. Real Turks have Mongol origin. Mongols lived in yurts/teepees. So did the Native Americans, so there may be an analogy/relation there?
I have a Native American friend though who says her ancestors did not cross the Bering Straights, but have always been indigenous to North America.
Kazakhs are Turkic people. Real Turks have Mongol origin. Mongols lived in yurts/teepees. So did the Native Americans, so there may be an analogy/relation there?
I have a Native American friend though who says her ancestors did not cross the Bering Straights, but have always been indigenous to North America.
All nomadic tribes live in portable huts, that doesn't mean they are all the same.
Mongols had very high level of organization. They established a huge, well functioning state with efficient bureaucracy, complex legal system, extremely well trained and supplied army and navy, well maintained state of the art road system, highly developed metallurgy, arts, etc. I think it was Marco Polo who said in awe that in the XIII cerntury Mongol Empire, a woman with a bag full of gold could safely travel from one end of empire to another unafraid. Don't know if it was really _that_ safe, but it was a very efficiently run modern superpower by the standards of the time.
The American Indians were nowhere near that state of development. They were still largely Neolithic tribes when first encountered by the Europeans.
All nomadic tribes live in portable huts, that doesn't mean they are all the same.
Mongols had very high level of organization. They established a huge, well functioning state with efficient bureaucracy, complex legal system, extremely well trained and supplied army and navy, well maintained state of the art road system, highly developed metallurgy, arts, etc. I think it was Marco Polo who said in awe that in the XIII cerntury Mongol Empire, a woman with a bag full of gold could safely travel from one end of empire to another unafraid. Don't know if it was really _that_ safe, but it was a very efficiently run modern superpower by the standards of the time.
The American Indians were nowhere near that state of development. They were still largely Neolithic tribes when first encountered by the Europeans.
So Mongols had an advanced civilization for the time but lived in yurts/teepees?
So Mongols had an advanced civilization for the time but lived in yurts/teepees?
Sounds primitive to me..
Mongolia is not suited for agriculture. Unless you maintain herds of livestock, you don't survive. Their lifestyle was based on the best practices required to survive in the lands they lived on. That's essentially the same lifestyle the Mongol people living in the countryside have today. They had a livestock based economy, and this necessitates mobility.
American Indians that lived in teepees were hunters and gatherers, Neolithic people. They didn't yet know agriculture and didn't yet know how to maintain livestock. They lived the same way the Europeans lived 10,000 years prior. And they lived on some of the best agricultural land on Earth. So their nomadic lifestyle was due to them being at the earlier stage of civilization development, and not dictated by their environment. The nomadic lifestyle of Mongols was necessitated by their environment.
The Mongols weren't universally advanced, initially - just like any other contemporary civilization, they had their high and low points. Their initial strong point was warfare, specifically battlefield organization - compared to the Mongol way of waging battles and coordinating mass formations of troops, European armies looked like completely disorganized mess of stumbling idiots. Once the battle commenced, the European field commanders of the day had very little control of their armies, while the Mongols had a very sophisticated system of battlefield coordination combined with an iron discipline (again, something the European armies severely lacked).
What made the Mongols great, however, was their open-mindness and their ability to adapt and ever-readiness to learn from their opponents and to copy / incorporate their best methods and technologies. In that respect, they had much in common with the Romans. Another great trait was their ruthless practicality. They would massacre the entire nations if needed, built the infamous mountains of sculls, but the people they wanted to make part of their empire were given military protection, law and order, and the level of religious tolerance that you wouldn't find anywhere else at that time. In a very short period of time they went from a small nomadic tribe living far away from any large body of water, to an empire that built the biggest sea-going fleet of their time to launch a seaborne invasion of Japan. (Didn't work out due to a typhoon, but they couldn't well predict it could they )
So yes, they were an advanced civilization, that lasted for centuries. In a way, it was their ability to adapt to other ideas that destroyed them, as the Mongol dynasties in various parts of the empire quickly lost their cultural identity and assumed that of the conquered people.
And this is a far cry from the Neolithic hunter / gatherer tribes that lived on the North American continent.
Last edited by Ummagumma; 09-24-2016 at 11:24 AM..
Mongolia is not suited for agriculture. Unless you maintain herds of livestock, you don't survive. Their lifestyle was based on the best practices required to survive in the lands they lived on. That's essentially the same lifestyle the Mongol people living in the countryside have today. They had a livestock based economy, and this necessitates mobility.
American Indians that lived in teepees were hunters and gatherers, Neolithic people. They didn't yet know agriculture and didn't yet know how to maintain livestock. They lived the same way the Europeans lived 10,000 years prior. And they lived on some of the best agricultural land on Earth. So their nomadic lifestyle was due to them being at the earlier stage of civilization development, and not dictated by their environment. The nomadic lifestyle of Mongols was necessitated by their environment.
The Mongols weren't universally advanced, initially - just like any other contemporary civilization, they had their high and low points. Their initial strong point was warfare, specifically battlefield organization - compared to the Mongol way of waging battles and coordinating mass formations of troops, European armies looked like completely disorganized mess of stumbling idiots. Once the battle commenced, the European field commanders of the day had very little control of their armies, while the Mongols had a very sophisticated system of battlefield coordination combined with an iron discipline (again, something the European armies severely lacked).
What made the Mongols great, however, was their open-mindness and their ability to adapt and ever-readiness to learn from their opponents and to copy / incorporate their best methods and technologies. In that respect, they had much in common with the Romans. Another great trait was their ruthless practicality. They would massacre the entire nations if needed, built the infamous mountains of sculls, but the people they wanted to make part of their empire were given military protection, law and order, and the level of religious tolerance that you wouldn't find anywhere else at that time. In a very short period of time they went from a small nomadic tribe living far away from any large body of water, to an empire that built the biggest sea-going fleet of their time to launch a seaborne invasion of Japan. (Didn't work out due to a typhoon, but they couldn't well predict it could they )
So yes, they were an advanced civilization, that lasted for centuries. In a way, it was their ability to adapt to other ideas that destroyed them, as the Mongol dynasties in various parts of the empire quickly lost their cultural identity and assumed that of the conquered people.
And this is a far cry from the Neolithic hunter / gatherer tribes that lived on the North American continent.
Interesting but no 'advanced civilization' in the past was purely nomadic. Many ancient European cultures, you mentioned the Romans (and I'll throw in the Greeks), considered such nomadic cultures simply 'barbarian'.
If Mongols lived in teepees/yurts and moved around, they should've established a base area and develop a culture that could've survived until today.
Btw, warfare methods and techniques of the Romans were largely the same as those of the Greeks (see phalanx tactics).And which European armies are you referring to that looked completely disorganized?
I bet the Mongols would've ran and hid if they had to face more competent ancient armies (i.e. Alexander the Great, the Spartans, even Persians etc..)
Were Kazakhs the Russian equivalent of Native Americans for the U.S.?
After all, just like White Americans settled on a lot of (previously conquered) Native American land here in the U.S., ethnic Russians settled on a lot of formerly Kazakh lands which they previously conquered.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Why are you singling out Kazakhs? What about all the other Asiatics in Russia? Not to mention the Finno-Ugrian peoples and their lands in Western Russia. We could carry this further to include the Caucasics, too: the Georgians, Armenians, Dagestanis, Chechens, etc.
Interesting but no 'advanced civilization' in the past was purely nomadic. Many ancient European cultures, you mentioned the Romans (and I'll throw in the Greeks), considered such nomadic cultures simply 'barbarian'.
Greeks were in many aspects the Nazis of the Western World, at least culturally. BTW they considered Romans to be barbarian as well. Anyone but the Greeks. Romans adopted the same mindset.
The Persians and the Parthians had many nomadic peoples in their empires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger-f
If Mongols lived in teepees/yurts and moved around, they should've established a base area and develop a culture that could've survived until today.
Not necessarily. American Indians had largely kept their culture and their identity yet they never had an advanced civilization. Mongols lacked a unifying religion and when they settled anywhere outside of Mongolia they were ever ready to adopt the traditions, language and religion of conquered nations, thus they didn't leave much influence outside of current day Mongolia. A lot of subtle cultural influence, but nothing that screams "Mongol identity."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger-f
Btw, warfare methods and techniques of the Romans were largely the same as those of the Greeks (see phalanx tactics).
Not quite. The Romans started with phalanx formation but changed to a far more versatile maniple formation that they adopted from the Samnites.
And they didn't fare too well when faced with large masses of well organized mix of missile and heavy cavalry - which is why they were unable to win the wars with Parthian empire.
I bet the Mongols would've ran and hid if they had to face more competent ancient armies (i.e. Alexander the Great, the Spartans, even Persians etc..)
Again, see the Roman-Parthian wars.
The Romans were indeed some of the most disciplined armies - but so were the Mongols. So in a "what if" scenario, they would be evenly matched - and if the Parthian Wars are any example, it would be essentially a strategic stalemate.
A lot would also depend on the commanders in charge. A battle between Alexander the Great and Subudai would indeed be unpredictable, since they were two of the best generals of all times.
Realize, too, that in the XIII century, Europe was hardly the most developed or the most advanced part of the world. It started to accelerate in knowledge and development during Renaissance, but until the XVII century or so, there was always someone just as strong and just as advanced - the Ottoman empire probably being the last such enemy until the modern times. In the 1200s, it was just another part of the world, with it's strong and weak points, arguably the weakest being it's political, economic, and as a result, military fragmentation. It was never the target of the Mongol conquest in the first place - they merely sent a large decoy expedition to Central Europe to protect their Russian and Hungarian holdings. If they were determined to conquer Europe, it's debatable how this would turn out in the end. However, they were far more interested in the far richer China, India, and the Middle East (the only place they were soundly defeated).
Last edited by Ummagumma; 09-28-2016 at 04:44 PM..
Greeks were in many aspects the Nazis of the Western World, at least culturally. BTW they considered Romans to be barbarian as well. Anyone but the Greeks. Romans adopted the same mindset.
The Persians and the Parthians had many nomadic peoples in their empires.
Not necessarily. American Indians had largely kept their culture and their identity yet they never had an advanced civilization. Mongols lacked a unifying religion and when they settled anywhere outside of Mongolia they were ever ready to adopt the traditions, language and religion of conquered nations, thus they didn't leave much influence outside of current day Mongolia. A lot of subtle cultural influence, but nothing that screams "Mongol identity."
Not quite. The Romans started with phalanx formation but changed to a far more versatile maniple formation that they adopted from the Samnites.
And they didn't fare too well when faced with large masses of well organized mix of missile and heavy cavalry - which is why they were unable to win the wars with Parthian empire.
The Romans were indeed some of the most disciplined armies - but so were the Mongols. So in a "what if" scenario, they would be evenly matched - and if the Parthian Wars are any example, it would be essentially a strategic stalemate.
A lot would also depend on the commanders in charge. A battle between Alexander the Great and Subudai would indeed be unpredictable, since they were two of the best generals of all times.
Realize, too, that in the XIII century, Europe was hardly the most developed or the most advanced part of the world. It started to accelerate in knowledge and development during Renaissance, but until the XVII century or so, there was always someone just as strong and just as advanced - the Ottoman empire probably being the last such enemy until the modern times. In the 1200s, it was just another part of the world, with it's strong and weak points, arguably the weakest being it's political, economic, and as a result, military fragmentation. It was never the target of the Mongol conquest in the first place - they merely sent a large decoy expedition to Central Europe to protect their Russian and Hungarian holdings. If they were determined to conquer Europe, it's debatable how this would turn out in the end. However, they were far more interested in the far richer China, India, and the Middle East (the only place they were soundly defeated).
Hmm strange way to put it, Nazis? Maybe that's why Hitler was fixated with history, particularly Alexander the Great?
Barbarians or not, the Romans kind of fused together with the Greeks forming the Eastern Roman Empire. Plus half of ancient Italy had been colonized by Greeks.
I think Subutai would be no match for Alexander, had they lived in the same era. In addition, Mongols did not live in the shadow of 2 major military powers for ages (the rest of Europeans did) The rest of Europe did not advance militarily until about the time of the Crusades(1000AD). Maybe cut them some slack when you judge them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
