Favorite Empire?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

(Disclaimer: if you actually support imperialism,please go fuck yourself)

What imperial power do you love the most? Spain? France? The United States? Germany? Japan? The U.S.S.R? Italy? China? Israel? Saudi Aurabia? Great Britain?

Why do you love them? Because they know how to fuck over the proletariat more than their competitors? Or just because they have some pretty buildings?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm going with America! Have the rest of you even seen that painting of George Washington in the boat? How could anyone hate a country with such a great painting!?

:confused::laugh::confused::laugh:

[Os Cangaceiros]

the Mongol Empire.

I was always fascinated by them when I was a young 'un.

[Red Future]

China

[Il Medico]

Romans. They got shit done and partied why they were at it.

[Rafiq]

Ancient Egypt.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

the mongol empire. ghengis khan was fucking savage.

[Robespierre Richard]

The Inca

[Proukunin]

America, because this is where I live. I love it. Not the government, but the country.

[Rafiq]

The government? You mean the bourgeoisie, right?

[JazzRemington]

The Carolingian empire.

Too bad it went mainstream when it changed into the Holy Roman empire.

[Fawkes]

Mayans and Persians

[Tablo]

USSR :lol:

[DDR]

Rome, 'nuff said.


The Carolingian empire.

Too bad it went mainstream when it changed into the Holy Roman empire.

Imperial hipsterims? :laugh:

[Magón]

Olmec.

Mainly because their name is just so badass and fun to say.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You know what's another fun word to say? "Chapultepec".

[bcbm]

http://images.cryhavok.org/d/2211-2/Star+Destroyer+In+Atmosphere.jpg

[Tablo]

http://images.cryhavok.org/d/2211-2/Star+Destroyer+In+Atmosphere.jpg
xZmJle51WPw

[Q]

http://images.wikia.com/stexpanded/images/0/08/Romulan_Star_Empire2.jpg

Alternatively:

http://www.timqueeney.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Klingon-f.gif

[synthesis]

sWS-FoXbjVI

[Queercommie Girl]

Objectively, the best empires in Chinese history were the "Sino-nomadic" empires that combined cultural elements from Han China and the Asiatic nomads, such as the Tang Dynasty, which was a high point of Chinese feudal civilisation.

But really, every feudal empire was ultra-oppressive and ultra-exploitative towards its peasant and urban poor populations.

[manic expression]

Flavian and Nerva-Antonine Rome, Han China, Umayyad Spain, New Dynasty Egypt, Dacian Kingdom, Hittite Anatolia, Barcine Carthage, Inca America, Mayan America.

Their contributions, drawn from their contradictions and imperfections, are what make them so fascinating.

[Queercommie Girl]

Flavian and Nerva-Antonine Rome, Han China, Umayyad Spain, New Dynasty Egypt, Dacian Kingdom, Hittite Anatolia, Barcine Carthage, Inca America, Mayan America.

Their contributions, drawn from their contradictions and imperfections, are what make them so fascinating.

From a Marxist perspective, the positive "contributions" of feudal empires were largely made by the peasants and the labouring masses, while the ruling elites immensely exploited the majority of the population. Therefore there is nothing good to be said about feudal empires as intrinsic entities, only about the people who resided in them.

Marxism is just as anti-feudal as it is anti-capitalist. To glorify the greatness of an ancient feudal empire is no different from glorifying the greatness of the capitalist-imperialist United States today. After all, the American bourgeois class probably made more "contributions" to humanity objectively speaking than all of the feudal empires in history added together.

See my newly created group:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=706

Marxists must take an anti-imperialist stance when examining any kind of history. Feudal imperialism was no better than capitalist imperialism, if not worse. It's hypocritical to heavily criticise modern American imperialism on the one hand, but actually "admire" ancient feudal empires on the other.

[El Chuncho]

The Mauryan Empire.

[synthesis]

Objectively, the best empires in Chinese history were the "Sino-nomadic" empires that combined cultural elements from Han China and the Asiatic nomads, such as the Tang Dynasty, which was a high point of Chinese feudal civilisation.

XFcqGGMPc3k

[Queercommie Girl]

XFcqGGMPc3k

:confused: Huh?

[El Chuncho]

When I read Iseul's posts, I always have a taste for Chinese cuisine. :D

But seriously, the best Chinese empires, in a Marxist sense, might have been the ''Sino-Nomadic'' ones, but as a historian, my favourite subject of Chinese history is the era of the First Emperor.

[manic expression]

Respectfully, Iseul, I have to disagree. First, I find those empires fascinating, but that doesn't mean I endorse what they did. Second, oppressive entities had a progressive role to play in history:

Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science, without slavery, no Roman Empire. But without the basis laid by Hellenism and the Roman Empire, also no modern Europe. We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no modern socialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch16.htm

[Pavlov's House Party]

AMERICA (http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=FOURTH%20OF%20JULY%20EAGLE%20AMERICA&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi)

[Proukunin]

The government? You mean the bourgeoisie, right?

I dont like the way our government is run. so in turn I dont like the government. Doesnt mean I dont like Government.

[Queercommie Girl]

Respectfully, Iseul, I have to disagree. First, I find those empires fascinating, but that doesn't mean I endorse what they did. Second, oppressive entities had a progressive role to play in history:

Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science, without slavery, no Roman Empire. But without the basis laid by Hellenism and the Roman Empire, also no modern Europe. We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no modern socialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch16.htm

That may be true to some extent objectively, but when looking at history one must always put themselves into the shoes of the slaves and peasants, and not the slave owners and feudal lords. It's a matter of class consciousness. It's wrong to imagine that oneself is "above all classes" like a Bonapartist.

Whatever elements or people in these feudal or slavery empires that may be partially progressive or whatever, it's certain that as political and socio-economic institutions these empires are not progressive entities at all. If one went back in time, one should be on the side of the peasant rebels, not the defenders of the feudal state.

Also, it would make even more sense to speak about modern capitalism in this way: Without modern capitalist exploitation, there would be no socialism for sure. One could indeed say that even the recent military actions in the Middle East by US imperialism has a partially "progressive" character to some extent. You cannot apply a double standard to capitalist imperialism and pre-capitalist imperialism.

I don't think the above passage is actually technically correct. Many Asiatic cultures have never experienced a "classical slavery phase" similar to Greece and Rome, does this mean they can't advance into socialism? Or they can't advance into socialism without "Hellenising" themselves first? That's absurd.

[Tablo]

DZtlFXgkvKw
Not really an empire, but I felt like making this thread even more nerdy.

XkcT4_qvOME
Also, Cylons!

[manic expression]

That may be true to some extent objectively, but when looking at history one must always put themselves into the shoes of the slaves and peasants, and not the slave owners and feudal lords. It's a matter of class consciousness. It's wrong to imagine that oneself is "above all classes" like a Bonapartist.
It is not Bonapartist to imagine oneself above the classes of Ancient Rome (etc) when one objectively is. History has advanced past that point, those class struggles don't exist anymore.


Whatever elements or people in these feudal or slavery empires that may be partially progressive or whatever, it's certain that as political and socio-economic institutions these empires are not progressive entities at all. If one went back in time, one should be on the side of the peasant rebels, not the defenders of the feudal state.First, "not progressive" compared to what? Second, if one went back in time, which is not the exercise here. Further, neither the peasantry nor the slaves of antiquity constituted a revolutionary class.


Also, it would make even more sense to speak about modern capitalism in this way: Without modern capitalist exploitation, there would be no socialism for sure. One could indeed say that even the recent military actions in the Middle East by US imperialism has a partially "progressive" character to some extent. You cannot apply a double standard to capitalist imperialism and pre-capitalist imperialism.Pre-capitalist imperialism isn't imperialism in any materialist sense. Imperialism, along with all its acts, is objectively reactionary whereas Roman (for instance) expansion was not.

And modern capitalism did play a progressive role. This is universally acknowledged in Marxism. Capitalism is no longer progressive because the proletariat has developed to the point that it can take state power and eventually abolish class entirely. That was not the case in any of the entities I mentioned.


I don't think the above passage is actually technically correct. Many Asiatic cultures have never experienced a "classical slavery phase" similar to Greece and Rome, does this mean they can't advance into socialism? Or they can't advance into socialism without "Hellenising" themselves first? That's absurd.That's not what Engels was saying at all. He was saying that was the way modern society developed in Europe...and due to colonialism that line of development affected the history of the entire world. Engels certainly wasn't saying that socialists in Russia or America weren't true socialists because they were never Hellenized, he was saying that the epicenter of modern capitalism came about due to the line of development proceeding from the slavery of antiquity. That is why Rome served a progressive role in history.

[Robespierre Richard]

Resist Roman Oppression!

o_12E1EN6fs

[Pretty Flaco]

I was always a fan of the united galactic empire and american alliance.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ek1QPFXmY80/SrJp9QbMWmI/AAAAAAAAD6g/nQxlgEfBIW8/s400/obama-lightsaber-01.jpg

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Seleucid Empire, Ptolemaic Kingdom, Baktria, Delian League, Basileia Rhōmaiōn, Umayyad Caliphate, Timurid Empire.

I <3 Central Asian & Greek History.

[Queercommie Girl]

It is not Bonapartist to imagine oneself above the classes of Ancient Rome (etc) when one objectively is. History has advanced past that point, those class struggles don't exist anymore.


They don't exist anymore today, but Marx praised Spartacus as one of the greatest rebel leaders and heroes of the ancient world, which very clearly shows which side he is on.

Marxists should always be on the side of the oppressed, regardless of what objective analysis of the situation may be. Having an objective analysis of the situation doesn't prevent one from siding with the oppressed.

For instance, early capitalism was actually partially progressive, yet Marx and Engels were on the side of the workers and held an anti-capitalist position right from the very start.



First, "not progressive" compared to what?
How do you measure "progressive"? It's not something that's determined simply by how economically or militarily powerful a civilisation is. "Progressive" or not is measured primarily through its productive relation. In this sense then both slavery and feudalism are less progressive than capitalism, not just because of lower productivity, but more importantly because workers generally have more rights under capitalism than slaves, serfs or peasants had under slavery and feudalism.



Second, if one went back in time, which is not the exercise here.
The point (which is hypothetical) is that Marxists should be on the side of Spartacus, whatever limitations he may have had, and not on the side of Caesar.



Further, neither the peasantry nor the slaves of antiquity constituted a revolutionary class.
I disagree. I am a semi-Maoist and Maoism labels the peasantry officially as a semi-revolutionary class. Indeed, Mao himself explicitly praised the peasant rebellions against feudal rule in ancient China, just like Marx praised Spartacus. In fact, in this matter Maoism does not really differ from Leninism. The official symbol of Communism is "hammer and sickle", that is to say, an alliance of workers and peasantry, not just the workers.

Also, while slavery may not exist anymore, semi-feudal structures still exist in some parts of the world. The fact that the peasantry can play a semi-revolutionary role is certainly not just of purely academic interest, but is of practical significance in places like India today. I would support to a significant extent a people's war in India today, for instance.



Pre-capitalist imperialism isn't imperialism in any materialist sense. Imperialism, along with all its acts, is objectively reactionary whereas Roman (for instance) expansion was not.
It is very materialistic if you happen to be one of the tribes slaughtered and dominated by the Roman legions. It's ridiculous for people to morally object to the atrocities committed by capitalist imperialism today (e.g. US war in Vietnam and Iraq) yet not morally object to the atrocities committed by slavery and feudal empires such as ancient Rome. Don't apply a double standard, either you morally object to both, or I suggest one should turn a blind eye to the masses of the Middle East getting slaughtered by American warplanes as well.



That's not what Engels was saying at all. He was saying that was the way modern society developed in Europe...and due to colonialism that line of development affected the history of the entire world. Engels certainly wasn't saying that socialists in Russia or America weren't true socialists because they were never Hellenized, he was saying that the epicenter of modern capitalism came about due to the line of development proceeding from the slavery of antiquity. That is why Rome served a progressive role in history.
Certain aspects of Greco-Roman civilisation may have served a partially progressive role (certainly not completely progressive) in its own time (certainly they are all reactionary today), but the imperial entity of Rome certainly did not. (The majority of the partially progressive elements in ancient civilisations were all created by the masses, not the ruling elites) There is no Marxist text which suggest this. If Marx believed in this he wouldn't have praised Spartacus so much and labelled him as the greatest rebel leader of antiquity.

[Queercommie Girl]

But seriously, the best Chinese empires, in a Marxist sense, might have been the ''Sino-Nomadic'' ones, but as a historian, my favourite subject of Chinese history is the era of the First Emperor.

No Marxism certainly doesn't make such a point at all. Only completely non-Marxist (ideologically independent) historians do.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Iseul, you've already had one thread in the History forum split so you can verbally masturbate Chinese Dynasties, why are you doing it again here?

[RedStarOverChina]

I'm really fascinated by the Chinese Song Dynasty (not that much of an empire) as well as Japan during and after the Sengoku period when they went ape-shit and fought everything that moved, going as far as attempting to invade Ming China at the peak of its power.

As to Song China, I'm really fascinated by the sophistication in terms of its economic as well as the political system in Song China. To many, its final demise signified the end of classical Chinese civilization.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul, you've already had one thread in the History forum split so you can verbally masturbate Chinese Dynasties, why are you doing it again here?

Are you blind? Who the fuck is mentioning Chinese dynasties here? I certainly didn't.

Stop harassing me, you perverted creep.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

My favorite empire is the Roman Empire, because it collapsed.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Are you blind? Who the fuck is mentioning Chinese dynasties here? I certainly didn't.

Stop harassing me, you perverted creep.

Nevar.

[Tomhet]

Dutch Empire cos I used to play them in AOE3-Expansion..

[manic expression]

They don't exist anymore today, but Marx praised Spartacus as one of the greatest rebel leaders and heroes of the ancient world, which very clearly shows which side he is on.

Marxists should always be on the side of the oppressed, regardless of what objective analysis of the situation may be. Having an objective analysis of the situation doesn't prevent one from siding with the oppressed.

For instance, early capitalism was actually partially progressive, yet Marx and Engels were on the side of the workers and held an anti-capitalist position right from the very start.
Praise Spartacus all you like. I will do so with you. However, in my mind, the slaves of antiquity were not a revolutionary class, and neither were the peasantry. It's not about what side I'm on as much as analyzing the issue for what it is.

Marxists are most certainly not always on the side of the oppressed. I freely admit that the bourgeoisie of Cuba has been repressed, and I am not on their side.

Marx and Engels were on the side of the workers, which means they recognized that capitalism and the antecedents of capitalism played a progressive role to get humanity to the point of modern industrial society. That also includes Rome and other such entities.


How do you measure "progressive"? It's not something that's determined simply by how economically or militarily powerful a civilisation is. "Progressive" or not is measured primarily through its productive relation. In this sense then both slavery and feudalism are less progressive than capitalism, not just because of lower productivity, but more importantly because workers generally have more rights under capitalism than slaves, serfs or peasants had under slavery and feudalism.
Roman society centralized power and brought many peoples together, binding them with a common language and experience. The Roman Empire defined Europe essentially for the first time. In its fall, it laid the seeds of feudalist society and the rise of capitalism. That is a progressive role.


The point (which is hypothetical) is that Marxists should be on the side of Spartacus, whatever limitations he may have had, and not on the side of Caesar.
And what happens when Spartacus and the Gracchi are defeated? What happens when Caesar is basically the only viable alternative to senatorial rule and the breakup of the Roman world?


I disagree. I am a semi-Maoist and Maoism labels the peasantry officially as a semi-revolutionary class. Indeed, Mao himself explicitly praised the peasant rebellions against feudal rule in ancient China, just like Marx praised Spartacus. In fact, in this matter Maoism does not really differ from Leninism. The official symbol of Communism is "hammer and sickle", that is to say, an alliance of workers and peasantry, not just the workers.
I respect that fully. However, I would suggest that the peasantry of the ancient world was far different from the peasantry today for a variety of reasons. I applaud peasant rebellions as you do, but I do not hold that they were a viable revolutionary class in antiquity. At the same time, I have not specifically studied ancient China nearly as thoroughly as you, and so I will concede that point to you as I simply haven't gone over the specifics. I hold that I can still admire what the Han Dynasty accomplished, though.


Also, while slavery may not exist anymore, semi-feudal structures still exist in some parts of the world. The fact that the peasantry can play a semi-revolutionary role is certainly not just of purely academic interest, but is of practical significance in places like India today. I would support to a significant extent a people's war in India today, for instance.
Yes, but that's a big "semi". I don't find modern semi-feudal structures to have the same position to the peasantry as what was to be found in antiquity. That's why the people's war in India has quite a different character from what was seen in pre-modern societies. Is it a coincidence that people's war holds so much more potency today than it did even 300 years ago? When we analyze the disparity between the character of the anti-British rebellion (the Sepoy Rebellion) and the people's war today, this becomes all the more apparent.


It is very materialistic if you happen to be one of the tribes slaughtered and dominated by the Roman legions. It's ridiculous for people to morally object to the atrocities committed by capitalist imperialism today (e.g. US war in Vietnam and Iraq) yet not morally object to the atrocities committed by slavery and feudal empires such as ancient Rome. Don't apply a double standard, either you morally object to both, or I suggest one should turn a blind eye to the masses of the Middle East getting slaughtered by American warplanes as well.
I object to Roman atrocities. However, let's not beat around the bush: those tribes would have most likely raped and pillaged through Roman lands if they had the opportunity. Rome's enemies proved morally superior at many points, Hannibal is the best example of this. However, objecting to Roman atrocities on the basis of modern conceptions of humane behavior is entirely incorrect...there were no such conceptions in that time. The only time anyone in Rome condemned Caesar for being heavy-handed in Gaul was when they wanted to undercut him politically and paint him as bloodthirsty.

And furthermore, it's a matter of materialism. Rome did play a progressive role in its expansion. Imperialism does not and cannot. Rome brought improvements to humanity, whereas imperialism destroys them at every chance. There is no double-standard because there is no consistency in the comparison.

I'll ask you directly: how did Rome's expansion violate the morals of the day? How did Rome play a reactionary role? What was the viable alternative?


Certain aspects of Greco-Roman civilisation may have served a partially progressive role (certainly not completely progressive) in its own time (certainly they are all reactionary today), but the imperial entity of Rome certainly did not. (The majority of the partially progressive elements in ancient civilisations were all created by the masses, not the ruling elites) There is no Marxist text which suggest this. If Marx believed in this he wouldn't have praised Spartacus so much and labelled him as the greatest rebel leader of antiquity.
Engels is quite clear. He states that Roman slavery has contributed to modern society, and history does bear this out. Marx praising Spartacus (as I do, and as I'm sure all Marxists do) doesn't take away from this observation.

[Queercommie Girl]

Praise Spartacus all you like. I will do so with you. However, in my mind, the slaves of antiquity were not a revolutionary class, and neither were the peasantry. It's not about what side I'm on as much as analyzing the issue for what it is.


Obviously they were not revolutionary in the same way the modern working class is. In fact, even the modern peasantry isn't as revolutionary as the modern working class.

However, it is certain that the slaves and peasants are much closer to the modern working class than the slave lords and the feudal lords could ever be. The modern working class is to a significant extent the continuation of the ancient slaves and peasants, not the slave lords and feudal lords.



Marxists are most certainly not always on the side of the oppressed. I freely admit that the bourgeoisie of Cuba has been repressed, and I am not on their side.


Technically this example is correct, but only because the bourgeois is itself an exploiting class. Peasants and slaves are not. I certainly wouldn't support a hypothetical socialist system in which the leading working class actually oppresses the peasantry and the slaves, if they do exist.



Marx and Engels were on the side of the workers,


Marx was also on the side of Spartacus.



Roman society centralized power and brought many peoples together, binding them with a common language and experience. The Roman Empire defined Europe essentially for the first time. In its fall, it laid the seeds of feudalist society and the rise of capitalism. That is a progressive role.


As I said, I agree Rome had partially progressive features, but that's certainly not the same as saying the political entity of the Roman empire was generally "progressive" (even for its time) in any intrinsic sense.

You seriously shouldn't see Rome or Han China as some kind of "ancient equivalent" of the modern worker's state, that's ridiculous for sure.



And what happens when Spartacus and the Gracchi are defeated? What happens when Caesar is basically the only viable alternative to senatorial rule and the breakup of the Roman world?


I agree Caesar was relatively progressive compared with the Senatorial elites. But I was comparing Caesar with Spartacus.



I object to Roman atrocities. However, let's not beat around the bush: those tribes would have most likely raped and pillaged through Roman lands if they had the opportunity.


That might be true. But frankly you could say the same thing about Islamists today. If Islamists conquer America, (assuming they would acquire sufficient power) it would probably be just as bad as Western imperialism in the Middle East today.



Rome's enemies proved morally superior at many points, Hannibal is the best example of this. However, objecting to Roman atrocities on the basis of modern conceptions of humane behavior is entirely incorrect...there were no such conceptions in that time. The only time anyone in Rome condemned Caesar for being heavy-handed in Gaul was when they wanted to undercut him politically and paint him as bloodthirsty.


I recognise that morality is not an eternal constant. But it certainly isn't completely relative either. Both views would be un-dialectical. Being humans, there are certain moral constants that existed throughout human history. The mass killing of innocent people is something that would be denounced in both ancient Egypt and today. Even ancient Chinese dynasties that practiced human sacrifice had a moral code that limited the number of slaves the slave lords could slaughter.



And furthermore, it's a matter of materialism. Rome did play a progressive role in its expansion. Imperialism does not and cannot. Rome brought improvements to humanity, whereas imperialism destroys them at every chance. There is no double-standard because there is no consistency in the comparison.


But Marx also said that even British imperialism in India had some "progressive" features.

One can also argue that British imperialism developed Hong Kong from a tiny insignificant fishing village into one of the greatest city-states in the entire world today.



I'll ask you directly: how did Rome's expansion violate the morals of the day? How did Rome play a reactionary role? What was the viable alternative?


Ask Spartacus. Look at what he said. He was a Roman.



Engels is quite clear. He states that Roman slavery has contributed to modern society, and history does bear this out. Marx praising Spartacus (as I do, and as I'm sure all Marxists do) doesn't take away from this observation.

Engels was merely stating that objectively slavery was the precursor to feudalism and capitalism in the historical sense, he wasn't directly praising Roman slavery, let alone the Roman imperial state.

[manic expression]

Obviously they were not revolutionary in the same way the modern working class is. In fact, even the modern peasantry isn't as revolutionary as the modern working class.

However, it is certain that the slaves and peasants are much closer to the modern working class than the slave lords and the feudal lords could ever be. The modern working class is to a significant extent the continuation of the ancient slaves and peasants, not the slave lords and feudal lords.
Why? If anything, the proletariat and plebians are more approximately comparable to the modern proletariat, especially in regard to political standing. It's no surprise that they were able to constitute a force capable of presenting a viable alternative to senatorial rule, even if it ultimately failed.


Technically this example is correct, but only because the bourgeois is itself an exploiting class. Peasants and slaves are not. I certainly wouldn't support a hypothetical socialist system in which the leading working class actually oppresses the peasantry and the slaves, if they do exist.
Sure enough, but the point does stand.


Marx was also on the side of Spartacus.
As am I, even if I don't think Spartacus' rebellion had a chance to revolutionize Roman society as much as fight its way out from it or otherwise tear it to shreds. That being the case, Rome had a progressive role to play in the absence of a viable alternative IMO.


As I said, I agree Rome had partially progressive features, but that's certainly not the same as saying the political entity of the Roman empire was generally "progressive" (even for its time) in any intrinsic sense.

You seriously shouldn't see Rome or Han China as some kind of "ancient equivalent" of the modern worker's state, that's ridiculous for sure.
I'm afraid I haven't expressed myself clearly enough. I don't see Rome or Han China as being at all equivalent to a worker state. No way. I think of it along the same lines as I think of the rise of the bourgeoisie...oppressive, flawed and bloody but with a progressive role to play.


I agree Caesar was relatively progressive compared with the Senatorial elites. But I was comparing Caesar with Spartacus.
Yes, I agree with that. Compared to Spartacus or the Gracchi Caesar isn't progressive, but compared to the status quo in Rome he was.


That might be true. But frankly you could say the same thing about Islamists today. If Islamists conquer America, (assuming they would acquire sufficient power) it would probably be just as bad as Western imperialism in the Middle East today.
A problematic hypothetical, for if we assume that they acquire sufficient power, we would have to assume that they would develop an economic system that could build a viable challenge to US imperialism. That would mean those Islamists would have to be imperialists themselves to accomplish this. But regardless, the so-called barbarians had neither the ability nor the interest in accomplishing what the Roman Empire accomplished for history, and that's really what I'm getting at.


I recognise that morality is not an eternal constant. But it certainly isn't completely relative either. Both views would be un-dialectical. Being humans, there are certain moral constants that existed throughout human history. The mass killing of innocent people is something that would be denounced in both ancient Egypt and today. Even ancient Chinese dynasties that practiced human sacrifice had a moral code that limited the number of slaves the slave lords could slaughter.
True. However, a lot of those constraints went out the window when it came to warfare. Bellum se ipsum alet and all that. You're right that there were objections...a lot of Romans were troubled by what Caesar did to one specific rebellious Gaelic tribe and expected him to do the same when he fought Pompey...but that didn't happen.

Wartime morality in the ancient world was a very blurry thing. But at the same time I don't think we can hold the Romans to modern standards, on the whole they weren't so out of place for their time.

Plus, just by mere practicality is was hard to successfully siege a resistant populace without trashing the whole place and killing innocents. Hannibal was very generous to his enemies, but he razed Saguntum because he had to.


But Marx also said that even British imperialism in India had some "progressive" features.

One can also argue that British imperialism developed Hong Kong from a tiny insignificant fishing village into one of the greatest city-states in the entire world today.
Sure, but colonialism would have long outlived those progressive features by the time of the "Sepoy" Rebellion, no? I haven't studied it so much myself.


Ask Spartacus. Look at what he said. He was a Roman.
OK, I'll ask him as he crucified some lower-class Roman soldier in full sight of Roman lines.


Engels was merely stating that objectively slavery was the precursor to feudalism and capitalism in the historical sense, he wasn't directly praising Roman slavery, let alone the Roman imperial state.
Sure, but I never praised Roman slavery.

[the last donut of the night]

the brazilian empire, just because it was the only latin american monarchy

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm really fascinated by the Chinese Song Dynasty (not that much of an empire) as well as Japan during and after the Sengoku period when they went ape-shit and fought everything that moved, going as far as attempting to invade Ming China at the peak of its power.

As to Song China, I'm really fascinated by the sophistication in terms of its economic as well as the political system in Song China. To many, its final demise signified the end of classical Chinese civilization.

I think that view is certainly too exaggerated.

To be sure, millions were killed as a result of the Mongol invasions, but the essential continuity of Chinese civilisation was not intrinsically broken. China was no "waste land" after the Mongol conquest. I think the accounts of Marco Polo make this quite clear.

Nomadic invaders of China weren't the only ones to kill a lot of people either. Ethnic Han Chinese warlords tend to slaughter a lot of innocent civilians too. Even in the 20th century Chinese warlords were still quite brutal.

[Pretty Flaco]

Only on revleft will a comedic discussion of which empire you think is coolest turn into a violent argument over marxist theory.

http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/object/001/001448/ocd-buzz-kill-160boxart_160w.jpg

[Fulanito de Tal]

Ancient Egypt.

Fuck ancient Egypt.

0NRlBZfFIms

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Portuguese Empire

[Pavlov's House Party]

My favorite empire is the Roman Empire, because it collapsed.

kind of debatable, as the eastern half became the Byzantine Empire which lasted until its conquest by the Turks. Late Republican Rome IMO is one of the more interesting historical empires.

[Il Medico]

http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-empire-modern-nations-01.jpg

Romans knew how to get shit done.

[synthesis]

Alexander the Great was pretty badass

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Only on revleft will a comedic discussion of which empire you think is coolest turn into a violent argument over marxist theory.

http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/object/001/001448/ocd-buzz-kill-160boxart_160w.jpg

I wonder who started that...


http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-empire-modern-nations-01.jpg

Romans knew how to get shit done.

Pfft, that took them centuries, Alexander knew what to do.


Alexander the Great was pretty badass

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg

By the age of 32! Then he went kinda crazy when his boyfriend died, and died from either malaria, posioning, or exhaustion. Kinda tragic, I wonder what would have happend if he'd lived longer.

[El Chuncho]

No Marxism certainly doesn't make such a point at all...

I never said it did. :glare:

[Queercommie Girl]

Why? If anything, the proletariat and plebians are more approximately comparable to the modern proletariat, especially in regard to political standing. It's no surprise that they were able to constitute a force capable of presenting a viable alternative to senatorial rule, even if it ultimately failed.


The peasants were technically a layer in the plebians, who on the whole (except the highest layers) correspond to the petit-bourgeois and the middle classes of today. Of course, modern peasants are also technically a "middle class" in society.

The proletarii in Rome were not the direct analogy of today's proletarians, because they were largely unemployed, and relied on the Roman government to hand out grains to them to live. The proletarii would correspond more to today's lumpenproletariat, not proletariat proper.

But then, neither Gracchus nor Caesar represented the interests of the plebians or proletarii. It's a mistake to think that Caesar was truly a politician representing the lower classes. He was just a statist who supported some degree of economic redistribution in order to consolidate the imperial structures of Rome.



Sure enough, but the point does stand.


The "point" is moot, because Marxists would only ever oppress to some extent an exploiting class, like capitalists and landlords, but they should certainly never exploit another exploited class.



As am I, even if I don't think Spartacus' rebellion had a chance to revolutionize Roman society as much as fight its way out from it or otherwise tear it to shreds.


It's debatable. A successful slave rebellion in Rome could accelerate it towards a feudal transition. Feudal transition was already starting to happen at around this time. And feudalism is better than slavery. Han Dynasty China during the same period was a feudal society, and it possessed several features more advanced than those of Rome, e.g. very few enslaved people, higher agricultural productivity, etc.



I'm afraid I haven't expressed myself clearly enough. I don't see Rome or Han China as being at all equivalent to a worker state. No way. I think of it along the same lines as I think of the rise of the bourgeoisie...oppressive, flawed and bloody but with a progressive role to play.


That's better. I may still not completely agree with you, but at least you don't see the modern working class as inheriting the "legacy" of the Roman empire.



A problematic hypothetical, for if we assume that they acquire sufficient power, we would have to assume that they would develop an economic system that could build a viable challenge to US imperialism. That would mean those Islamists would have to be imperialists themselves to accomplish this. But regardless, the so-called barbarians had neither the ability nor the interest in accomplishing what the Roman Empire accomplished for history, and that's really what I'm getting at.


But you seem to be demonising the "barbarians" to some extent, as if they were intrinsically violent and brutal peoples. Truth is, most of the Celtic and Germanic tribes were semi-tribal societies, and since their class societies were less well established, they were on the whole more peaceful and less brutal than Romans, who already had a fully established class society and a large geopolitical empire.



Wartime morality in the ancient world was a very blurry thing. But at the same time I don't think we can hold the Romans to modern standards, on the whole they weren't so out of place for their time.


Depends on who you ask. Confucian historians in ancient China always spoke against the atrocities committed by Mongol troops as well as Chinese warlords, even in wartime and siege situations. It isn't true that no pre-modern culture possessed a heightened awareness of "human rights" in wartime conditions.



Plus, just by mere practicality is was hard to successfully siege a resistant populace without trashing the whole place and killing innocents. Hannibal was very generous to his enemies, but he razed Saguntum because he had to.


Couldn't you say the same thing about modern warfare? The US imperialists did certain things in Iraq and Afghanistan because "they had to"?



OK, I'll ask him as he crucified some lower-class Roman soldier in full sight of Roman lines.


That's different. Soldiers could indeed be very reactionary, even if they originated from the lower classes. For instance, even today revolutionaries may be forced to kill soldiers serving the capitalist state if they refuse to turn over to the side of the revolution and present a threat to the socialist revolution in general. Obviously we won't "crucify" anyone today, we'd merely shoot him/her, but that's just a difference in customs.

Sorry, but to say that the cruxification of a Roman soldier who is serving the imperial state is as bad as the slaughter of civilians of the Gaul tribes by the Roman legions is completely ridiculous. I'm certainly not an absolute pacifist. Even a revolution in America today would certainly not be completely peaceful and would lead to the deaths of reactionaries who oppose the revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

Nevar.

Besides, since people are talking about "empires of the world", in theory there is nothing wrong at all if someone mentions Chinese dynasties either.

Manic expression mentioned the Han Dynasty, but I don't see you jumping at his throat for it.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Besides, since people are talking about "empires of the world", in theory there is nothing wrong at all if someone mentions Chinese dynasties either.

Manic expression mentioned the Han Dynasty, but I don't see you jumping at his throat for it.

It's because I only have a fetishistic perversion for you, my dear :rolleyes:

Manic doesn't spend every minute of every day either vigirously mastubating to chinese history documentaries, or posting irrelevent walls of text about china in threads that have nothing to do with it.

Just so you know, that does not include this thread, although your walls of text are out of place in what is supposed to be the off-topic board, perhaps an admin should split this thread so you can chat on about china elswhere.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's because I only have a fetishistic perversion for you, my dear :rolleyes:


You think I'm just "playing hard to get". :rolleyes:

Actually you are kind of "cute" in a weird way...I will permit you to give me a kiss if you behave nicely...

[Il Medico]

Pfft, that took them centuries, Alexander knew what to do.




No, Rome wasn't built in a day, but they maintained it for a millennium. Sure people like Alexander or Genghis Khan conquered at lot of shit fast, but it didn't last, their empire wasn't a stable lasting influence. Alexander's Empire broke up right after his death and The Mongol Empire had split into several smaller Khanites in less than a century after Genghis coming to power. In terms of empire building Alexander and Genghis can't hold a candle to the Roman Empire.

[Queercommie Girl]

Manic doesn't spend every minute of every day either vigirously mastubating to chinese history documentaries, or posting irrelevent walls of text about china in threads that have nothing to do with it.


Objectively I've done no such thing. I've only mentioned China several times in total on this forum, and only in history-related topics. Stop misrepresenting me.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

You think I'm just "playing hard to get". :rolleyes:

Actually you are kind of "cute" in a weird way...I will permit you to give me a kiss if you behave nicely...

I guenuinly find this kind of creepy.


No, Rome wasn't built in a day, but they maintained it for a millennium. Sure people like Alexander or Genghis Khan conquered at lot of shit fast, but it didn't last, their empire wasn't a stable lasting influence. Alexander's Empire broke up right after his death and The Mongol Empire had split into several smaller Khanites in less than a century after Genghis coming to power. In terms of empire building Alexander and Genghis can't hold a candle to the Roman Empire.

Alexander's empire lasted for two years' after his death until 321 BC, and only collapsed after the Assasination of the Regent Perdiccas. The Hellenistic world settled into four main Diadochi Kingdoms, Ptolemaic Egypt (Egypt, Palestine), The Seleucid Empire (Parts of Asia Minor, Persia, Babylon, Afghanistan, & India), Kingdom of Pergamon (Agean cost of Asia Minor), and The Kingdom of Macedon (Macedon, Greece and the Agean Islands), most of which survived with relative stablity until there incorperation into the Roman Empire.

Alexander was begining to consolidate his Empire shortly before his death, he began to re-organize the Satrapies and remove poor Statraps, as well as beginning to re-organize his armies, sending some veterans home and rasing a new Persian corps. His death came before a suitable heir existed, and before the huge spear-won Empire had been properly consolidated under Hellenistic control.

[Queercommie Girl]

I genuinely find this kind of creepy.


Says the quintessential "creepy troll" of RevLeft. :rolleyes:

I was only "flirting" with you in a joking kind of way. What, don't you consider me a real woman just because I'm trans?

You are no fun at all, talk about being "one-dimensional", that's yourself, sir.



Comrade Wolfie's drug fuelled adventures


X or weed?

[manic expression]

The peasants were technically a layer in the plebians, who on the whole (except the highest layers) correspond to the petit-bourgeois and the middle classes of today. Of course, modern peasants are also technically a "middle class" in society.

The proletarii in Rome were not the direct analogy of today's proletarians, because they were largely unemployed, and relied on the Roman government to hand out grains to them to live. The proletarii would correspond more to today's lumpenproletariat, not proletariat proper.

But then, neither Gracchus nor Caesar represented the interests of the plebians or proletarii. It's a mistake to think that Caesar was truly a politician representing the lower classes. He was just a statist who supported some degree of economic redistribution in order to consolidate the imperial structures of Rome.
The peasantry of the plebians were evicted and were forced largely into the cities. That's really when class struggle kicked up a notch. That's really why I find the plebians to be a revolutionary class...they were able to challenge the ruling class directly within Roman society.

The proletarii were unemployed because of slave labor, hence the complication of class antagonisms and the complication of any determined comparison to modern times. As for the Gracchi, I think they represented the interests of the plebians as much as anyone else...and their defeat signaled the march to Caesar in order to keep the Roman world from falling apart.


The "point" is moot, because Marxists would only ever oppress to some extent an exploiting class, like capitalists and landlords, but they should certainly never exploit another exploited class.I don't think it's so simple...at least Marx had it otherwise when he said that members of the ruling class would join the working-class movement when they saw the jig was up. History has shown us examples of this, even if they are exceptions.


It's debatable. A successful slave rebellion in Rome could accelerate it towards a feudal transition. Feudal transition was already starting to happen at around this time. And feudalism is better than slavery. Han Dynasty China during the same period was a feudal society, and it possessed several features more advanced than those of Rome, e.g. very few enslaved people, higher agricultural productivity, etc.Perhaps, but I find it highly unlikely. Spartacus' best chance for freedom was to lead his comrades out of Roman lands and settle somewhere. He had the opportunity to do this and he didn't, and eventually lost everything for it IMO.


That's better. I may still not completely agree with you, but at least you don't see the modern working class as inheriting the "legacy" of the Roman empire.:thumbup1:


But you seem to be demonising the "barbarians" to some extent, as if they were intrinsically violent and brutal peoples. Truth is, most of the Celtic and Germanic tribes were semi-tribal societies, and since their class societies were less well established, they were on the whole more peaceful and less brutal than Romans, who already had a fully established class society and a large geopolitical empire.I'm not demonizing anyone. The so-called "barbarians" proved themselves capable of violence and brutality on many an occasion. It's not that they were bad, they just responded to the world they lived in. Caesar's conquests into Gaul started when one tribe forcefully migrated across lands and displaced various peoples; the refugees appealed to Rome for aid. It's no surprise that when the limes started weakening in the later empire, Roman cities started building ever greater defenses to defend themselves from barbarian threats. They didn't build those walls for the nice view, they had real reason to expect to be on the wrong side of rape and pillage.

I will say this about the "barbarians", they didn't engage heavily in slavery and they did sustain high sophistication in different aspects. I respect their accomplishments and contributions quite a bit.


Depends on who you ask. Confucian historians in ancient China always spoke against the atrocities committed by Mongol troops as well as Chinese warlords, even in wartime and siege situations. It isn't true that no pre-modern culture possessed a heightened awareness of "human rights" in wartime conditions.I agree with that, but at the same time "woe to the vanquished" was a widespread philosophy. Mercy could rarely be expected as a matter of course.


Couldn't you say the same thing about modern warfare? The US imperialists did certain things in Iraq and Afghanistan because "they had to"?I could also say the same for Sherman's progressive and necessary March to the Sea. It's not only a question of what you do, but why you do it.


That's different. Soldiers could indeed be very reactionary, even if they originated from the lower classes. For instance, even today revolutionaries may be forced to kill soldiers serving the capitalist state if they refuse to turn over to the side of the revolution and present a threat to the socialist revolution in general. Obviously we won't "crucify" anyone today, we'd merely shoot him/her, but that's just a difference in customs.

Sorry, but to say that the cruxification of a Roman soldier who is serving the imperial state is as bad as the slaughter of civilians of the Gaul tribes by the Roman legions is completely ridiculous. I'm certainly not an absolute pacifist. Even a revolution in America today would certainly not be completely peaceful and would lead to the deaths of reactionaries who oppose the revolution.Yes, I don't strongly disagree, but for all your objections to Roman cruelty, crucifying a soldier who was only following orders in full view of his own lines cannot be ignored. I reject the idea that the Romans were extraordinarily brutal for their time because of things like these. I recognize that Spartacus was progressive in comparison to his foes, but I also recognize that the Roman world played a progressive role in wider history. Brutality was something shown by many sides at that time.

[Queercommie Girl]

The peasantry of the plebians were evicted and were forced largely into the cities. That's really when class struggle kicked up a notch. That's really why I find the plebians to be a revolutionary class...they were able to challenge the ruling class directly within Roman society.

The proletarii were unemployed because of slave labor, hence the complication of class antagonisms and the complication of any determined comparison to modern times. As for the Gracchi, I think they represented the interests of the plebians as much as anyone else...and their defeat signaled the march to Caesar in order to keep the Roman world from falling apart.


I don't think you can say that in the ancient world, only the urban population had a "revolutionary character" and could challenge the system directly. The peasantry no doubt could play a semi-revolutionary role too. Even Engels made such a point in his commentaries on the Peasant Wars in Germany.

Also, even Gracchi was not really a "politician of the plebians" in any genuine sense. He was like the equivalent of a keynesian reformist, making certain slogans and policies that would appeal to the masses in order to acquire more political support, but ultimately doesn't wish to alter the underlying regime of the slavelord ruling class at all.



I don't think it's so simple...at least Marx had it otherwise when he said that members of the ruling class would join the working-class movement when they saw the jig was up. History has shown us examples of this, even if they are exceptions.
My point is that Marxists never oppress an exploited class. Stalin of course did oppress the poor peasants of Russia to some extent, but then Stalin made many mistakes. Marx and Engels never called on the workers to oppress peasants or any other exploited layers in society. On the contrary, they called on the proletarians to liberate all of humanity, as well as themselves.



I'm not demonizing anyone. The so-called "barbarians" proved themselves capable of violence and brutality on many an occasion. It's not that they were bad, they just responded to the world they lived in. Caesar's conquests into Gaul started when one tribe forcefully migrated across lands and displaced various peoples; the refugees appealed to Rome for aid. It's no surprise that when the limes started weakening in the later empire, Roman cities started building ever greater defenses to defend themselves from barbarian threats. They didn't build those walls for the nice view, they had real reason to expect to be on the wrong side of rape and pillage.
However, you should note that most of these more militaristic "barbarians" that went around pillaging Roman cities were actually Romanised "barbarians", serving as mercenaries for various local warlords, and turned to pillage when they couldn't get paid. It's similar to the non-Han warlord forces that caused havoc in China by the latter half of the Tang Dynasty.

But I agree that we shouldn't romanticise the more progressive forces either. For instance, peasant rebels in ancient China could also be very brutal after they sack major cities. Many people would get killed. (Though they do tend to kill mainly the rich, which makes them more progressive relatively speaking)



I agree with that, but at the same time "woe to the vanquished" was a widespread philosophy. Mercy could rarely be expected as a matter of course.
I would say that such philosophies are still widespread today. Look at how many people in America are actually pro-war.

My point is that I wouldn't draw such a sharp distinction between "antiquity" and "modernity" as far as moral attitudes towards war are concerned. In both ancient times and today, both more humane and less humane versions of such moral philosophies existed. There is only a quantitative difference, but no qualitative difference.



Yes, I don't strongly disagree, but for all your objections to Roman cruelty, crucifying a soldier who was only following orders in full view of his own lines cannot be ignored. I reject the idea that the Romans were extraordinarily brutal for their time because of things like these. I recognize that Spartacus was progressive in comparison to his foes, but I also recognize that the Roman world played a progressive role in wider history. Brutality was something shown by many sides at that time.My primary opposition isn't towards cruelty per se, but towards who it is directed to. In principle I oppose all kinds of torture, but I certainly don't see the torture of a fascist to be the same as the torture of a poor worker. "Red terror" simply isn't on the same level as "white terror". And in this sense cruxifying a Roman soldier is not comparable to cruxifying a slave rebel. Spartacus was much more progressive than the Roman legions due to this class difference. I don't think there is an "universal human rights" that completely transcend class and ideology.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Says the quintessential "creepy troll" of RevLeft. :rolleyes:

I was only "flirting" with you in a joking kind of way. What, don't you consider me a real woman just because I'm trans?

You are no fun at all, talk about being "one-dimensional", that's yourself, sir.

I had no idea you were trans? :confused: I got the joke, I just found it weird.


X or weed?

Depends on my mood.

[Queercommie Girl]

I had no idea you were trans? :confused: I got the joke, I just found it weird.


I thought you were into these kinds of "flirty-sexy" type jokes. How is it "weird?"

Though it's true I'm kind of new at this kind of jokes, (actually to be frank I'm kind of new at any type of jokes...) so maybe I was overdoing it a bit.

Honestly, I do find you annoying, and wish you could have a more positive view towards me. But at least you can (potentially) be quite funny when being annoying, unlike a few people on this forum (e.g. Thomas Shankara) who are just mindboggingly annoying without any redeeming features... (good riddance that Shankara troll)

[Fawkes]

The Five Nations.

(the Iriquois Confederacy far all you ignorant fools)

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I thought you were into these kinds of "flirty-sexy" type jokes. How is it "weird?"

I usually make them yeah, but you're not exactly known for your comedic stylings, it was kinda out of the blue.


Though it's true I'm kind of new at this kind of jokes, (actually to be frank I'm kind of new at any type of jokes...) so maybe I was overdoing it a bit.

It definatly needed more refrences to anal penetration.


Honestly, I do find you annoying, and wish you could have a more positive view towards me. But at least you can (potentially) be quite funny when being annoying, unlike a few people on this forum (e.g. Thomas Shankara) who are just mindboggingly annoying without any redeeming features... (good riddance that Shankara troll)

I miss Sankara, he was my favourite toy.

[Tjis]

The Mauryan Empire.

This.
Ashoka brutally conquered most of present-day India and Pakistan just for the hell of it, saw the error of his ways and converted to Buddhism. After that, he sponsored its spread through the asian continent. Without the Mauryan Empire there probably wouldn't have been Buddhism today.

[Dimentio]

China was not more productive than Rome because it didn't utilise slaves, but because it utilised rice, which could be harvested four times a year. The Mediterranean area is not suitable for paddy fields, and hence they had to stick with grain.

China however had probably less favelas.

[red cat]

This.
Ashoka brutally conquered most of present-day India and Pakistan just for the hell of it, saw the error of his ways and converted to Buddhism. After that, he sponsored its spread through the asian continent. Without the Mauryan Empire there probably wouldn't have been Buddhism today.

That is how the story is usually presented to us. An empire is unlikely to last even a day if the emperor sees the error of his ways.

[Dimentio]

That is how the story is usually presented to us. An empire is unlikely to last even a day if the emperor sees the error of his ways.

Akhenaten?

[Tjis]

That is how the story is usually presented to us. An empire is unlikely to last even a day if the emperor sees the error of his ways.

Indeed. Most of the sources available to us are what Ashoka ordered to be written at his various building projects and various Buddhist commentaries. Not exactly unbiased sources.
However, I don't doubt that Ashoka stopped his aggressive expansionism after his conversion. And I also don't doubt that his patronage and the stability of his empire were very beneficial to his favorite religion.
But he still was an emperor. He must have had an army which needed to be fed, armed and paid. Without drawing wealth from conquest, his empire must have used taxation to get those resources. So there must have been a bureaucracy regulating this taxation, and an armed force to enforce this. All in all not utopian happy land, but then again, what empire was?

[L.A.P.]

Ottoman Empire.

[RedStarOverChina]

China was not more productive than Rome because it didn't utilise slaves, but because it utilised rice, which could be harvested four times a year. The Mediterranean area is not suitable for paddy fields, and hence they had to stick with grain.

China however had probably less favelas.
Actually, during Roman times, (Han Dynasty) China's main crop was foxtail millet which was not very productive, but far more suitable to the arid conditions in Northern China. Rice was only the dominant crop in the South, where the population was smaller in comparison to the North. Han China also grew wheat, and barley, of course. But rice did not become the dominant crop in China until much, much later when Southern China became more populated.

Also, rice can only be harvested twice a year---in China, at least. I've heard in some countries they can be harvested 3 times a year, but never 4. It wasn't until the 1000s AD that parts of Southern China began harvesting rice twice a year.

I too have wondered why the argriculture-based China could have reach such economic heights during antiquity. The Yellow-River Valley must have been much more fertile than it is today.

[Queercommie Girl]

Back on topic:

My favourite empire is China's Tang Dynasty. It was a "Sino-nomadic" regime, ruled by the ethnic Han Chinese, but a "Han Chinese" that was partly Xianbei and had many cultural and military customs that originated from the Asiatic nomads, such as horse-riding.

The Tang was the most expansionist ethnic Han dynasty, and militarily the most powerful. Of all the dynasties of China, the Tang was the closest in form to the Roman empire of the West, even though the Han Dynasty was actually a contemporary of Rome. The Tang was more expansionist, militaristic and culturally cosmopolitan than the Han.

At its height, the Tang empire reached Siberia to the north, Korea to the east, Vietnam to the south and Afghanistan to the west. It was from the Tang, and not the earlier Han Dynasty, that Japan and Korea learned from which formed the basis of their classical civilisations. The Tang Dynasty was also the first nation in the entire world to use the technology of printing and gunpowder, and the technique of paper-making was passed on to the Arabs, which eventually reached Europe.

The Tang had the military tradition of the nomads, but also the advanced scholarship and technology of the Han Chinese. It had none of the backward "ethnic caste system" of the Asiatic nomadic empires. The Tang was the first Chinese dynasty to introduce a systematic meritocratic imperial examination system, for both the civil and the military fields.

[Sir Comradical]

The Maurya Empire - the first unification of the subcontinent. King Ashoka apparently abolished the death-sentence as well, and this was in 232 BC.

http://www.4to40.com/images/legends/ashoka/great_ashoka.gif

[RedStarOverChina]

The Tang Dynasty was also the first nation in the entire world to use the technology of printing and gunpowder, and the technique of paper-making was passed on to the Arabs, which eventually reached Europe.Not to "pick bones from eggs"(as the Chinese expression goes), but printing has been around for ever. Earliest surviving printed text dates to before 220 AD, or the Three Kingdoms Period in China.

Perhaps it's movable-type printing (活字印刷术) you are refering to. That was invented in the Song Dynasty by Bi Sheng.

So I win. :tongue_smilie:

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Back on topic:

My favourite empire is China's Tang Dynasty. It was a "Sino-nomadic" regime, ruled by the ethnic Han Chinese, but a "Han Chinese" that was partly Xianbei and had many cultural and military customs that originated from the Asiatic nomads, such as horse-riding.

The Tang was the most expansionist ethnic Han dynasty, and militarily the most powerful. Of all the dynasties of China, the Tang was the closest in form to the Roman empire of the West, even though the Han Dynasty was actually a contemporary of Rome. The Tang was more expansionist, militaristic and culturally cosmopolitan than the Han.

At its height, the Tang empire reached Siberia to the north, Korea to the east, Vietnam to the south and Afghanistan to the west. It was from the Tang, and not the earlier Han Dynasty, that Japan and Korea learned from which formed the basis of their classical civilisations. The Tang Dynasty was also the first nation in the entire world to use the technology of printing and gunpowder, and the technique of paper-making was passed on to the Arabs, which eventually reached Europe.

The Tang had the military tradition of the nomads, but also the advanced scholarship and technology of the Han Chinese. It had none of the backward "ethnic caste system" of the Asiatic nomadic empires. The Tang was the first Chinese dynasty to introduce a systematic meritocratic imperial examination system, for both the civil and the military fields.

Tang were badass. Although I have a love for theYuan Dynasty, for being even more badass, and being founded by Ghengis Khan.

[Queercommie Girl]

Tang were badass. Although I have a love for theYuan Dynasty, for being even more badass, and being founded by Ghengis Khan.

The Mongol empire at its height ruled over a larger area, but it was relatively short-lived. The Yuan Dynasty in China only lasted 97 years, the Tang Dynasty lasted for nearly 3 centuries.

The Tang Dynasty saw more technical innovations, its system was much more meritocratic, and had none of the racist ethnic caste system of the Yuan.

It's like Asia's equivalent of Rome and Alexander, but in reverse order.

Though personally I prefer Alexander. He was a more enlightened despot than Genghis Khan, and the Greeks believed in meritocracy like the Han Chinese, the Hellenistic world had no backward ethnic caste system. Genghis Khan was only a good warrior, he was barely literate, Alexander was both an excellent warrior and a superb scholar, well-versed in the Greek classics

Genghis Khan's empire only left a relatively brief geopolitical legacy. Alexander's empire left a lasting civilisational impact across the entire Hellenistic world.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not to "pick bones from eggs"(as the Chinese expression goes), but printing has been around for ever. Earliest surviving printed text dates to before 220 AD, or the Three Kingdoms Period in China.

Perhaps it's movable-type printing (活字印刷术) you are refering to. That was invented in the Song Dynasty by Bi Sheng.

So I win. :tongue_smilie:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSouQ-B5U8Kz0Rw3frGbsW_1V818Opg9CBlqdLeLl7ubigjtzod9Q

The world's first printed book, The Diamond Sutra, 868 CE

[RedStarOverChina]

Ah. Then you should have been more specific. Though printing existed well before the Tang Dynasty, it was only around that time that people started to print them on papers, thus creating books. Before that they printed things on silk.

[Tablo]

I'm a history major and this thread sucks now. Just like everyday of class for me. Have some more Gundam.
S_TXkteOAfU

[Queercommie Girl]

I usually make them yeah, but you're not exactly known for your comedic stylings, it was kinda out of the blue.

It definatly needed more refrences to anal penetration.


I'm not going to pursue this line any further, lest Quail begins to have ideas...

[Gorilla]

Kushan Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire) (or Yuezhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi) for Iseul)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Heraios.jpg

Who even thinks to make a coin like this? Amazing.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

The Mongol empire at its height ruled over a larger area, but it was relatively short-lived. The Yuan Dynasty in China only lasted 97 years, the Tang Dynasty lasted for nearly 3 centuries.

The Tang Dynasty saw more technical innovations, its system was much more meritocratic, and had none of the racist ethnic caste system of the Yuan.

It's like Asia's equivalent of Rome and Alexander, but in reverse order.

Though personally I prefer Alexander. He was a more enlightened despot than Genghis Khan, and the Greeks believed in meritocracy like the Han Chinese, the Hellenistic world had no backward ethnic caste system. Genghis Khan was only a good warrior, he was barely literate, Alexander was both an excellent warrior and a superb scholar, well-versed in the Greek classics

Genghis Khan's empire only left a relatively brief geopolitical legacy. Alexander's empire left a lasting civilisational impact across the entire Hellenistic world.

That's true, however Ghengis Khan was a badass motherfucker, who just ramapaged around the Far East and Central Asia, making TOTAL DESTROY. In terms of Asian Alexanders' I think that Temur(lane) is more similar to Alexander, the mongols were more like a rampaging Celtic hoard than a civilzation building Empire.


I'm a history major and this thread sucks now. Just like everyday of class for me. Have some more Gundam.
S_TXkteOAfU

WEEABOO SPOTTED. KILL IT BEFORE IT INFECTS OTHERS.


I'm not going to pursue this line any further, lest Quail begins to have ideas...

Aww, but I was hoping for a threesome. Also I'm not with Quail anymore. Sort of.


Kushan Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire) (or Yuezhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi) for Iseul)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Heraios.jpg

Who even thinks to make a coin like this? Amazing.

Weird, I'm british and I've only ever seen them called Yuezhi. They are pricks for destroying Baktria, a Greek kingdom in afghanistan that addopted buhddism, had diplomatic contact with China, and were possibly the First European civilization to come into contact with China. Also they had no contact with the Hellenistic world. And they made better coins:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/EucratidesStatere.jpg

^ That is the actual size of the coin, it weighs 170g.

The Greco-Baktrian kingdom also had giant pockets and wallets.

[DDR]

It surprises me that none had said Carthage.

[Gorilla]

They are pricks for destroying Baktria, a Greek kingdom in afghanistan that addopted buhddism, had diplomatic contact with China, and were possibly the First European civilization to come into contact with China. Also they had no contact with the Hellenistic world. And they made better coins:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/EucratidesStatere.jpg


The Greco-Bactrian kingdom was cool for a while but had become completely stagnant and uninteresting by the time the Kushan took it over. This coin is a perfect example: technically perfect, completely sterile. Everything wrong with Hellenistic art and none of the good parts.

The Kushan kingdom made some really bizarre hybridities possible between Greek, Persian, Indic, Han and nomad cultures. I'll take that over the same damn manneristic art style over and over again for centuries without end.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Are the Yuezhi the same as the Tocharians? Also I remember reading somewhere that some people identify the Tocharians with the Kushans?

The Greco-Bactrians were interesting for being (for a while) Greek Budhists. King Minandros/Minander is mentioned in the Pali canon.

[Delenda Carthago]

This.
Ashoka brutally conquered most of present-day India and Pakistan just for the hell of it, saw the error of his ways and converted to Buddhism. After that, he sponsored its spread through the asian continent. Without the Mauryan Empire there probably wouldn't have been Buddhism today.
He should turn to christianity. He would be a saint now.

[Tablo]

WEEABOO SPOTTED. KILL IT BEFORE IT INFECTS OTHERS.
Lol, fuck you. I ain't no weeaboo.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Lol, fuck you. I ain't no weeaboo.

We shall see, the weeaboo inqusition has been dispatched to apprehed you, and see the scale of your heresy.

[El Chuncho]

Are the Yuezhi the same as the Tocharians? Also I remember reading somewhere that some people identify the Tocharians with the Kushans?

The Yuezhi may or may not be Tocharians. If they are not Tocharians, they were still an Indo-European group that probably was highly related to the Tocharians.

The Kushan are not exactly the same as the Yuezhi, as they are an noble tribe of that ethnic group. ;)


The Greco-Bactrians were interesting for being (for a while) Greek Budhists. King Minandros/Minander is mentioned in the Pali canon.

Agreed. And many Buddhist monks were Greek. Buddhism did reach as far as Greece, in fact, but did not take off because some schools of Greek philosophy already had similar ideas.

[El Chuncho]

The Maurya Empire - the first unification of the subcontinent. King Ashoka apparently abolished the death-sentence as well, and this was in 232 BC.

http://www.4to40.com/images/legends/ashoka/great_ashoka.gif

Nice. I am not the only one with the Mauryan empire as a favourite. It was certainly one of the most, if not the most, progressive of all empires, and the quality of life was quite high in that era of Indian history.

[El Rojo]

Ottoman Empire. After the battle of Vienna it was all downhill, granted, but I chose them coz its all about the Janissaries

[Comrade J]

http://libcom.org/files/images/library/empire.jpg

"One of the rare benefits to the credit [of the contemporary Empire] is to have undermined the ramparts of the nation, ethnicity, race, and peoples by multiplying the instances of contact and hybridisation. Perhaps, at least this is the hope forwarded by these two Marx and Engels of the internet age, it has thus made possible the coming of new forms of transnational solidarity that will defeat Empire." - Aude Lancelin, Le nouvel observateur; "A sweeping neo-Marxist vision of the coming world order. The authors argue that globalisation is not eroding sovereignty but transforming it into a system of diffuse national and supranational institutions - in other words, a new 'empire'...[that] encompasses all of modern life." - Foreign Affairs

Download PDF or text here, free (http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/negri/)

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Agreed. And many Buddhist monks were Greek. Buddhism did reach as far as Greece, in fact, but did not take off because some schools of Greek philosophy already had similar ideas. Indeed, Ashoka sent embassies to the various Hellenistic states, however the philiosphers in the Hellenic world were already tending towards a more atheistic/agnostic interpretation of the world.

Also: fuck you guys Baktria is epic, the survial of a Hellenistic society thousands of miles away from Greece without any contact with the Hellenistic world for hundreds of years is very interesting, hell i'm writing a dissertion largely aimed at attempting to explain just why Baktria survived longer than Hellas as an intependent civilisation. You can't just blame it on luck, Baktria was surrounded by hostile Empires (parthia/Mayuran India/Seleucids, etc) yet survied, I suspect one of its great strengths came from the fact it was far more of a multicultural society than the other Hellenistic societies of the time (which were essentially a small Hellenistic elite rulling over a larger asiatic/african population).

Just my theories, btw.

[Sir Comradical]

Nice. I am not the only one with the Mauryan empire as a favourite. It was certainly one of the most, if not the most, progressive of all empires, and the quality of life was quite high in that era of Indian history.

You mention that it was relatively progressive? In what ways besides supposedly abolishing the death penalty? What do you know about it? Because it's not something I know that much about. I know bits and pieces because I'm Indian.

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree that Ashoka was one of the great emperors of the ancient world, (however it's only relative because really all forms of feudalism suck big time) and one of the later Chinese emperors, Sui Wendi (Han name: Yang Jian; Xianbei name: Puliuru Jian Naluoyan), the founder of the Sui Dynasty in 581 CE, has been directly compared to Ashoka, in terms of his compassion and wisdom. Sui Wendi was also a Buddhist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Wen_of_Sui

Emperor Wen of Sui (541–604), personal name Yang Jian (楊堅), Xianbei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianbei) name Puliuru Jian (普六茹堅), nickname Naluoyan (那羅延), was the founder and first emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_China) of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)'s Sui Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_Dynasty). He was a hard-working administrator and a micromanager.[clarification needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify)] As a Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist), he encouraged the spread of Buddhism through the state.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Sui_Wendi_Tang.jpg/210px-Sui_Wendi_Tang.jpg

[human strike]

http://libcom.org/files/images/library/empire.jpg

"One of the rare benefits to the credit [of the contemporary Empire] is to have undermined the ramparts of the nation, ethnicity, race, and peoples by multiplying the instances of contact and hybridisation. Perhaps, at least this is the hope forwarded by these two Marx and Engels of the internet age, it has thus made possible the coming of new forms of transnational solidarity that will defeat Empire." - Aude Lancelin, Le nouvel observateur; "A sweeping neo-Marxist vision of the coming world order. The authors argue that globalisation is not eroding sovereignty but transforming it into a system of diffuse national and supranational institutions - in other words, a new 'empire'...[that] encompasses all of modern life." - Foreign Affairs

Download PDF or text here, free (http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/negri/)

Damn you, you beat me to it! Awesome call though. <3