From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,soc.history,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The 'Mongol's Burden' (destruction of civilization)
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:28:22 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.turkish
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I'm disappointed that you chose to ignore my pun about the
"white man's burden". :-)..

I crossposted this to soc.history to see if we can get other
opinions.

In article <14u48nINN6ji@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:

>The traditional approach is to separate primarily agricultural
>peoples from primarily nomadic peoples. Ghengis Khan's great

I'll agree with you that this is 'traditional' thinking.
It's not modern and probably not correct.

It's not a good idea to make an omniscient being out of Fuller.

>contribution was the destruction of the primarily agricultural
>civilizations within his reach, thus eliminating human overpopulation
>and making the environment more suitable for a nomadic way of life.

The following is long and maybe unnecessary but I tried to give
a comprehensive (and hopefully a more balanced and correct) view.

An unavoidable (unfortunately) part of conquest. I don't think you'll
be defending the view that the Greeks, Egyptians, Carthiginians and the
othere Semites loved being conquered and sacked by the Romans. 
The fact that the slave system (serfs-nobles) spared the agricultural 
lands was only due to the fact that it benefitted the conquerors. 
During times of extended warfare, the lands between the warring
powers were left untilled and suffered a decline everywhere. In the feudal
 system the new conquerors only replaced the old nobility. It was to their
benefit to keep the slaves working. What fool would kill his
own cattle and burn his lands for no reason at all ?

As for the nomads: The nomads had always lived not outside of
civilization but as a part of it. They lived on the outskirts of
settled (sedentary) populations; traded with them and performed
services that were needed by them. They were interdependent. The
various manufactured goods; clothing, sword, jewelry, carpets
were needed by the nomads. The meat products, horses, dairy
products, felt, various pelts of game were all provided by
nomads. (There are records from Arab chroniclers and travels
of Ibn Fadlan and some books by historians (Dunlop) that such
conditions existed among the Khazars, Sabir Huns, etc)

Because of the natural conditions, civilization developed 
differently in different parts of the world. In forested areas,
people made dwellings out of wood. In areas where applicable
they were made of stone, especially in cold, wet lands like
north Europe. In areas where neither were available, such as
Mesopotamia, they were made from sun-dried mud. Same thing
in parts of Central Asia. In earth quake prone (but cold)
lands like Japan a whole different way of construction
developed. Even modern ways of living has its roots in
climate. In the cold and stone-house lands, they had to sit
high above the ground (chairs & tables) and they did not
put the furniture up against the walls. In hot lands (like
the Middle East and India), the furniture is put against
the walls and they sit on cushions on the ground.

After this digression:
The conditions in Europe were such that a division of labor
arose, where one group became the overloards (and took over
fighting) and kept the rest slaves, working on the fields. The
slaves were able to grow only enough cereals to feed themselves
and the nobility. Most of humanity ate cereals not meat. Even
today in most of the world it is so. The slaves were able 
to grow only enough plants to feed the population. The modern
methods of agriculture yield sufficient grains to be able
to make meat-farms practicable. In the olden days, the animals
had to be fed from the natural pastures. The slaves (serfs)
could only keep enough animals for milk for the babies and
some meat for the nobility. Because of the land-bound nature
of the slaves (serfs), they could not take the animals out
to pasture for long periods of time. 

In areas where there was suitable pasturage the nomads did it.
The nomads traded meat and dairy products for the manufactured 
products of the cities. The nomads were an integral part of 
human civilization. (Please see below.)

The fact that there are no instances of large scale nomad
living in Europe is to the fact that it is mostly
forested and mountainous. Only in the Hungarian plains,
the Danube plains and in the Eurasian steppes was life
suitable for a nomadic way of life. These places
resembled the Central Asian lands. That's the reason for
the Magyar and Turkic nomads (and before them the Goths)
to take abode in these lands.

In short, one group (in cities, towns) produced manufactured
goods, one group provided soldiers, one group produced 
cereals and the the last one, meat & dairy products.

In the settled parts the 'civilization' consisted
of slavery (farmers) and nobility (fighters). Nomadic systems
stood for independence and (at least) a primitive form of
democracy. 

As long as there seemed to
exist equitable balance of trade, the settled populations
suffered nothing. However at certain times, for whatever reason
it became necessary (probably through famine or thorugh a
perceived unequal exchange) for the nomads to fight. The serfs
were not really up to the task of fighting even if they
were starving. Because of the structure of nomadic society,
every man could be a soldier. That's the reason they
caused more damage than serfs during times of trouble. That and
the fact that they were mounted is the reason for their
successes.

This happened in many places. Not the least known is the one in which the
Semitic nomads (Hebrews) captured and took over the settled lands
of the Canaanites, Jebusites and Philistines. The semitic nomads
were apparently in the habit of going to the Nile delta in times
of drought to feed and water their flocks (See Wilson).

Similar conditions prevailed in other areas. In Central Asia,
a part were settled (Uighurs) and a part nomadic. Even in this
century there were nomads in Turkey (called yuruks) and in 
the Middle East (beduins). Even today they exist in parts of
Africa, tending goats and trading them in the cities.

The ridiculous views put forth by people of making the 
environment suitable for nomads is too stupid to comment on
were in not for the fact that it gets repeated so often by
ignorant and unquestioning people. Since the nomads are always
portrayed as savages (even cannibals-Scythians, Huns) nothing could 
have been better for them than to feed their cattle and horses 
greenery well-tended by human hands. The population of the said lands
was miniscule by todays standards so there was plenty of land
for the nomads' animals. In addition to all the grass, they could
have easily fed their horses all the veggies and wheat and cereals
which the slaves (serfs) produced. And if there was still not
enough food, they could have eaten roasted serfs :-). It would have
been just as easy to plunder the serfs' food stocks and their
animals on a regular basis. AFter all why would they care
about the welfare of other (foreign) people ?

Only in very difficult times did the system of relations
between the various groups break down. There were obviously
cases of peasant rebellions. Every once in a while the nomads
were able to form huge coalitions and change the system in
their favor. This was the case with the Mongol eruption. Smaller
scale occurences are the periodic migrations from Asia of
nomads to the Russian steppes and the Habirus' (Hebrews) 
conquest of parts of the Fertile Crescent.

>Similar remarks on a more limited scale apply to the destruction
>of the decadent Byzantine Empire by the Ottomans. The main weapon

Ridiculous. The system broke down the same way the slavery system
broke down in the west. The nobility were supposed to do their
share of protecting the slaves so they could produce in peace.
When the knighthood showed itself unequal to the task, the sytem
started to break down. Why should the slaves do their share when
the nobles don't keep up their part of the bargain ?

In the west the breakdown was seen when the knights were unable
to stop the Norse raids. At other times, only the ruling
classes changed.

The peasants/serfs worked under the impression that they would be
protected. If the Byzantine army could not protect them, why
should they pay taxes ? It's the same way today. The powerful get
their way.
 
It looks like you haven't paid any attention to the postings by
your truly on the travels of Ibn Batuta. Is it because it doesn't
fit into Fuller's preformed and ossified opinions ? Why don't you
read again and see what life was like in the cities and towns
in the various Turkmen dominions in Anatolia (~1300CE) when
the Ottomans were still a small Turkmen principality ?

By the time the Seljuks made it to Anatolia (1071) they had 
already conquered Persia and Baghdad (and environs). They had
already settled and acquired the Islamic civilization. In fact
there are settlements in the region between the Caspian and
the Aral dating from even before that date.

The fact that they made use of other (Turkish) nomads is no different
than the Byzantines making use of the Pechenegs, Slavs, Magyars
and other groups in Europe and the Romans making use of 
the Vandals, Goths and others.

The Ottomans were granted lands by the Seljuks when they fled
the Mongols. By this time the Seljuks were already well settled
in Anatolia and all over the Middle East and even Central Asia.

>of the agriculturalists was the wall, and until methods were
>found for breeching walled cities agricultural civilization had
>the upper hand over the nomads, due to the more rapid population
>growth made possible by increased production of food.

Yes, of course. That's why the 'barbarians' overran the Roman
Empire, and the Byzantine Empire, and the Arab Empire, and
the Persion and the Chinese. Not only that, they managed
to overrun 30 million Chinese behind their 6,000 mile wall.

And the walls are found for the most part in areas in which
there were no nomads. The walls (forts) were built for the most
part as a defense against their 'civilized' and settled neighbors.
They're still scattered all over Europe, some dating from
the last century and certainly not against nomads.

>The question now is, what is the next stage of human development?
>What new Ghengis Khan will arise to eliminate the excess human
>population? 

The last two tries in this century didn't do such a good
job :-).. Maybe if they had been launched by 'real' savages
like the Mongols, they would have succeeded instead of
by civilized nations like Germans, Russians, British, etc.

>One thing seems almost certain: the mathematics of human population
>growth indicate that catastrophe is coming, as the current growth rates
>can't continue much longer. Whether it will be 10 years or 2 centuries
>I don't know, but such exponential population growth isn't sustainable
>for long.


To tell the truth, no one knows, for the simple reason that mathematical
reasoning is not perfect when it comes to the behavior of intelligent
beings. They don't behave like rocks falling down cliffs.

Whether one uses Verhulst or logistic
equations, the great unknown is 'what is yet to be discovered' in the
future. The optimists bet on the scientists. The pessimists bet
against them, (of course using science :-)).

The only thing one say is that the minimax principle says that
we should be more careful.
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish