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.
Not necessarily. The Inca Empire didn't have a writing system.
You surprise me, Ruth... The Incas had a nodular writing system which is a well-known fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
"Where is the Golden Horde's money?" Are you not aware that Ch. Khan "invented" paper money and used it extensively? It was the only practical solution to moving large sums of money around a huge empire, or even regionally, for that matter.
Ah in first "paper" or "leather" money were used until Genghis Khan still in China. By the way, and in Rus sometimes, too. But even if Genghis Khan, as you say, allegedly used such money, where is the information about them? About Chinese "paper" money there is information, and about Mongolian no. Why? Maybe just because they didn't exist?
All I’m saying is fair is fair, if the colonial history of the US is not “American history” yet, then the same should apply to Russia. And sure maybe it shouldn’t start with Tarsdom of Russia, but perhaps when Moscow gained its independence from the Golden Horde in 1480?
And why is that?
Russia under Tatar-Mongol yoke is as much part of Russian history as Russia after that yoke has been overthrown.
Quote:
And yes I often hear St. Petersburg either being called the second capital, or the cultural capital, in either case the city is viewed as being historical, when in reality the city is not that old, it just did a very good job at preserving the history that it did have, whereas American cities tore down their history and built skyscrapers over them.
It's UNESCO - the city has been preserved for the uniqueness of architecture, as part of the WORLD heritage, otherwise ( I'm sure) "new Russians" would have managed to destroy even THAT city in post-Soviet times, if this would promise them quick profits. The locust that they are.
Quote:
Also another note, if it wasn’t for the power that Moscow was able to gain from the Mongols, Novgorod would be it’s own independent republic, just saying. And if Kiev should be considered part of Russian history, then St. John’s on Newfoundland should be part of American history as it was founded by British colonists/fishermen in 1497.
Says who?
#1 Even if Moscow principality has gained power because of Mongols, ( or rather their backing,) what difference would it make, if Moscow princes wouldn't have been able to unite the rest of princes and to overthrow Tatar yoke?
( Just to bring the point across that Mongol backing alone was not good enough for the "gathering of Russian lands.")
#2. If Russian lands wouldn't have been gathred under Ivan III, MOST of them would have gone under Catholic church or Lutheran Church and whatever countries/local powers were represented by them - be that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Sweden.
So no, "Novgorodian Republic" wouldn't have been able to stand on its own for long.
How is that any different from saying; In my opinion, Russian history as the history of an independent state should be considered from the day Ivan IV assumed the title of “Tsar and Grand Duke of all Rus'”.
See, you are confusing Russia with the US precisely for the fact that before that announcement of "independence," there is no real history of the "USA."
Because when you are talking about the first settlers - they are still English.
The same genetic material as in England, the same church/beliefs as they've had back in the "old world," and they are even the subjects of the same king ( or queen - whoever was in charge of England at that time.)
So essentially, they are still part of the UK history, not "American" history.
Now when they write the "Declaration of Independence," - at least it's the new foundation for the new spiritual ideas that should govern the new state, ( even if the genetic material is still pretty much the same as in England.)
So yes, here you can already start talking about the "US history."
But in Russia, the creation of some "independent ( from Mongols) state" doesn't matter.
That's not where Russian history starts.
Because before the establishment of that "independent from Mongols" state, Russians already had their history that goes back in time when they were still tribes, then - Kievan state, then - same declining state with same principalities where the capital moved to Suzdal instead of Kiev.
After that they were conquered by Mongols, and during that conquest yet another principality with yet another capital rose to power and so on and so on.
See the difference now?
(Don't take anything personal - it's just every time I hear any hint of "Ukrainian patriots" version of history, (or rather their retarded manipulations,) it makes me hit the ceiling with no failure.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I still view Russian history as Veliky Novgorod => Kiev => Vladimir => Moscow => St. Petersburg => Moscow.
What I don't get is why you and Erasure don't view the colonial history as part of American history, if it's not American, then what is it, English? by that extension, does Canadian history only begin in 1982 when it gained full sovereignty, and even then it's under the crown of the British Monarch.
Now you know why. ( sorry I am not all that familiar with Canadian history.)
Quote:
In American schools, US history begins with either the failed colony of Roanoke in 1585, or the first successful colony of Jamestown in 1607.
Of course you need to know these things - without them you won't have a clue how it all started.
It's sort of like you won't understand the New Testament without an overview of the Old one.
But Old Testament is still the Old Testament.
And first settlers - that's still part of UK history.
Quote:
I don't see why the various independent Rus principalities being any different to the historical makeup of modern Russia, then the various English colonies are to the historical makeup of the US?
Because the "various Rus principalities" are ALREADY foundation of the future nation with certain bloodlines, the way they are.
But "various English colonies" are nothing but a PART of already established nation. So in order to become a "new nation," they need to have at least some new spiritual idea, before they get additional bloodlines, in order to become truly a "new nation" and start its own independent history.
I think that to speak about history any nation can be with moment mentioning about this nation in any historical documents, Chronicles and etc. If borrow Rus, then the first mention of were roughly in 9-10 centuries, if borrow France, then, too, about 8-10 century, about of England(not Britain, she even before) roughly with 6 century. As for North America, at first there were still British and French colonies on its territory. And it was first the story of the colonization of the new continent, which was part of the "British and French colonial" history. So, maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that the history of the United States as a state and nation begins with the Declaration of independence. After all, until that moment, the inhabitants were called British, French colonists, but after the signing of the Declaration, these colonies officially began to be called the United States of America, and their population Americans. So did Canada, which gained de facto independence in the 1800s.
Now as for the Tatar-Mongol yoke. I'm not a nationalist, I'm just used to letting things go through my head. This theme is worthy of a separate topic with "holywar" on over1000+ pages, so I will state briefly.
1. Until now, historians can not determine and accurately show the place where the capital of the Golden Horde was. All speculation at the level of "somewhere in the area of this spot size 1000x1000 km."
2. The presence of the state and statehood implies the presence of writing and maintenance of state archives (various decrees, reports on the collection of tribute etc.). There are no such documents.
Also the availability of money. Where is the money of the Golden Horde?
3.In various sources mentioned the size of the Mongolian army in 200 and the and in 400 thousands of people. And each warrior had to have 2 spare horses. Total on a modest calculation is 600 thousand horses.For the sake of interest, try to overtake at least 10,000 horses at a distance of at least 1000 km and provide them with water and provisions. And you will understand the absurdity of these figures. And still need to find livelihood for 200 thousand warriors. Also where they gathered so much iron to make weapons and chain mail. On the territory of modern Mongolia is not found any significant places of those times where they were engaged in metallurgy on such a scale.
4. The term "Tatar yoke" or "Mongol yoke"is not mentioned anywhere in the historical Chronicles. The term "Tatar-Mongol yoke" was introduced only in the 19th century.
5. Miniature from the chronicle of the battle of Kulikovo. And where are the Tartars? Right or left?
"As it was undergoing fragmentation, Kievan Rus' faced the unexpected eruption of an irresistible foreign foe coming from the mysterious regions of the Far East. "For our sins", writes the Rus' chronicler of the time, "unknown nations arrived. No one knew their origin or whence they came, or what religion they practiced. That is known only to God, and perhaps to wise men learned in books".[7]
I have no idea where this rumor "not mentioned anywhere in historical chronicles" came from.
Probably some people out there were not looking hard enough.
That is correct, the evolution of civilization over the last few 1000 years has been slow until only recently in history as your post illustrates. The civilization we have today is a result of technology, preservation/retention of information with writing and our understanding of science and the world around us.
All the above alowed humanity to not only expand the places we could live but allowed more of us to live and to live longer. This doesn't mean that the only thing that ever mattered in human history happened in Egypt and the Mediteranean. Horsemanship was not a Roman invention, nor was the Chariot an invention of Greece. There was A LOT going on in other places.
I went to the Gomel Museum a long time ago and it was interesting to note that the Sozh river had thriving communities in places going back as far as 7000 years. Gomel was only mentioned in writing around 1150, there was a fishing village there for 1000s of years before that though. Pottery and tools left behind tell of Neolithic trading empires in the area. The common culture of the people in that area seems to point to a riverine civilization throughout all that part of Europe.
As a foreigner I see things that natives don't. I see things in the writings of Erasure that tell me she is a product of that eastern European culture that in many forms goes back to prehistory. I see it in Zimogors posts and others. It's something unique and the legacy seems to be enduring.
i think that legacies form and mold civilizations and the people in them, the customs, rituals, beliefs may change outwardly but the framework changes little if at all. I also think that that framework gives people an example to follow, a sense of purpose.
I think that's why Russians are so good at some things too where others have their own legacies and strenghts.
Let's put it this way; what you see in our writing it's not just "Eastern European" thing - it's "European thing," period.
You'd sense the same thing if you'd read German classic literature or French, or English.
It's something that "in many forms goes back to prehistory" - just the way you've put it.
But this depth, this whole older layer that you detected correctly, is absent in US - yes.
"As it was undergoing fragmentation, Kievan Rus' faced the unexpected eruption of an irresistible foreign foe coming from the mysterious regions of the Far East. "For our sins", writes the Rus' chronicler of the time, "unknown nations arrived. No one knew their origin or whence they came, or what religion they practiced. That is known only to God, and perhaps to wise men learned in books".[7]
I have no idea where this rumor "not mentioned anywhere in historical chronicles" came from.
Probably some people out there were not looking hard enough.
And why did you decide that they are talking about the Mongols?
In those days many nomadic tribes lived on the territory of modern Siberia.
Maybe it was them, not the Mongols?
I think you in rate that on Russia any foreigner, which differed from Russians on mind, language or religion was called Tatar?
Though the German, though the Frenchman, though the Sweden, though the Polovtsian, though the Chinese..
P.S. This topic is created for the other and I think we should not clutter it with discussion of this issue, the more that it is too complicated. This would be appropriate in a separate topic, in the history section. If such a topic is interesting, I am ready to continue the debate.
And why did you decide that they are talking about the Mongols?
In those days many nomadic tribes lived on the territory of modern Siberia.
Maybe it was them, not the Mongols?
I think you in rate that on Russia any foreigner, which differed from Russians on mind, language or religion was called Tatar?
Though the German, though the Frenchman, though the Sweden, though the Polovtsian, though the Chinese..
P.S. This topic is created for the other and I think we should not clutter it with discussion of this issue, the more that it is too complicated. This would be appropriate in a separate topic, in the history section. If such a topic is interesting, I am ready to continue the debate.
Agreed, if needed this should be continued in a different thread, I’ve heard all your counter arguments, my main argument anyways was against Scrat’s statement saying that “ Russians are surrounded by history and a baby taking their first steps on the street may be doing it on a surface that has been there for hundreds of years.”
When that only applies to small part of russia particularly around the central federal district, and even then only within the historic centers of the city. However now that I think about it, considering the higher population density in western/central Russia, most Russians in fact probably do live at the very least not very far away from these historic cities/towns.
Agreed, if needed this should be continued in a different thread, I’ve heard all your counter arguments, my main argument anyways was against Scrat’s statement saying that “ Russians are surrounded by history and a baby taking their first steps on the street may be doing it on a surface that has been there for hundreds of years.”
When that only applies to small part of russia particularly around the central federal district, and even then only within the historic centers of the city. However now that I think about it, considering the higher population density in western/central Russia, most Russians in fact probably do live at the very least not very far away from these historic cities/towns.
It's really hard to explain. I think that "roots" do exist. It's a cultural heritage? Do you still feel an attachment to the place you grew up?
if you look at this video you will see that the lands of the Slavic cultures (eastern Europe) had a lot of people going far back in time. Larger populations start to show up around the year 1000 ad. It's pretty amazing that 100,000 years ago there was only about a million of us.
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.
The locust that they are. 
( sorry I am not all that familiar with Canadian history.)