mongols win wrote:
I was going to ask you if you have ever heard of the Mongols, but other posters beat me to it.
Look up the siege of Baghdad.
What about it?
mongols win wrote:
I was going to ask you if you have ever heard of the Mongols, but other posters beat me to it.
Look up the siege of Baghdad.
What about it?
saddam whosane wrote:
mongols win wrote:I was going to ask you if you have ever heard of the Mongols, but other posters beat me to it.
Look up the siege of Baghdad.
What about it?
It was a thing.
mako wrote:
Attila's brother wrote:I think the point was that the barbarian Huns remained true to their barbarian ethos, in the face of opportunities to change--which is probably why they didn't actually last very long as an effective force.
I am a direct descendant of those peoples, and I've got to tell you, to this day, there are many Hungarians who still embody this sort of free-living, individualist mentality. One segment of the population seems to me to somewhat curiously lack the need for modern amenities, including civil society.
It is no fluke that they are the ones who put up a wall first, in the face of tremendous social opposition and pressure.
The older I get, the more I realize that I have in common with those people. I'm on the very of moving there, I am now in a financial position to do so. I have come to realize that I, too, embody many of these same traits and attitudes. It's hard to explain what is a somewhat individualistic, largely tribal, even predatory attitude. I understand the merits of civil society and participate, but not from deep conditioning--it is a conscious, aware participation, that is all to keenly aware of the limits, to the point where I became a lawyer to better understand what I was going through mentally and emotionally.
I'm on the civilized end of the spectrum, though--but there are many who are not, who still really enjoy what life has to offer, but who often pay the price with an early death, or ill health. They are far removed in time from the Huns, but not that far removed in either geography or basic needs.
IMO the only thing that really separates them from the Huns is the relatively recent introduction of sour cream into the culture. Offering a Hungarian sour cream is like offering an Indian shiny beads--they will never refuse, and it acts like a pacifier, especially when followed by a good shot of palinka, or maybe some Tokaji wine.
I'm sorry to tell you, but Hungarians are in no relation to the ancient Huns. That might be some myth of Hungarian nationalists but has nothing to do with reality. Ask any serious archeologist, historian or evolutionary anthropologist.
Unfortunately, you're not even a direct descendant of the original Magyars that came somewhere from Ural. Genetic tests have confirmed that modern Hungarian population is basically Slavic people, who were there before the arrival of Magyars and who adopted the Magyar language at some point.
I am keenly aware of the problems in ascertaining the lineage of modern Hungarians. I am also aware that you are correct about them/me having a strong Slavic genetic component.
But I wasn't talking about genetics, I was talking about cultural heritage. Nor would I exclude Slavs, or others nearby, from that heritage. What I said about some Hungarians applies absolutely equally to Slavs, Serbs, Croats, Ukranians, etc. IMO they all have a common cultural heritage, and the ethos (and sometimes practice) of the unwashed barbarian is still alive and well in all of those places.
Many feel that this is terribly "backward", and they may be right in the sense that it is almost certainly backward-looking. It is no accident that those areas of europe have not enjoyed the same modern economic prosperity as have other regions of europe. IMO this results from the fact that in some sense, they cannot "bring themselves to do it"; that is, they only go so far in subjugating their individual autonomy to the control of larger structures, and the larger the structure, the less they give to it. Hence, governments are generally weaker in the sense that they cannot count upon the allegiance of their citizenry to the same extent as other "more civilized" places, and must rule more by an iron fist than a velvet glove.
The self-imposed limitations of these groups, both economic and cultural, is what give them more power over governing institutions: the less one has to lose, the more freedom one has to disobey. While they may publically pine for more power and influence, the truth is that they will always be under the stated control of any large power that cares to administer them, the most recent of course being Russia. And even at that, administration is tough. They have all sustained huge loss of life to Russia, and have operated hugely successful giant black market systems in the face of massive control. They also each mounted rebellions/revolutions against the controlling powers--doomed to a certain kind of short-term failure, of course, but which will ultimately be vindicated in the tide of history, as the small tribal units in that area of the world will continue as they more-or-less always have since the Huns, like small bits of flotsam in the ebbing and flooding tides of the great movements in history.
It's a strange place. Like some other places in the world, you will never "get it", unless you are "in", and if you have no bloodline, you will never "be in". I'm talking about how you are treated, of course, which has a lot (everything) to do with your understanding of the nature of the tribe.
Here's another point: you say that current Hungarians are basically Slavic.
I would ask, what exactly is "Slavic", and why is it called "Slavic"? Given the history of mobility in that area, and lack of cohesion, it could easily be that what is known as "Slavic" would actually be more correctly called "Hungarian".
I won't get into it too deeply, you can look up all the histories. Suffice it to say that all the people(s) there are closely related, and deeply inter-bred. Essentially, they all share basic characteristics--culturally, as I have described, and very probably, genetically, as well. It is a regional population, not a national one.
Look to other populations for contrast, like the Italian peninsula, the French Gaul descendants, etc, who are definitely different.
I'm happy to know most of you have woken up this morning and like me have asked yourself, who were the greatest barbarians, and why?
Well I think it's time we stop pretending were not all thinking of this and start to face the reality. Thank you for starting this thread!
We first need to ask, what makes a successful barbarian? While I agree with your previously defined characteristics, I'd like to add.
1. Passionate
2. Risk takers
3. Team players
4. Adaptable
5. Traditionally left wing
Next I think it's important to overview the top 5 greatest barbarians.
- Gauls ( defeated huns, catalyst to roman empire decline )
- Huns ( pummeled the balkins, invaded Rome multiple times )
- Goths ( defeated greece & enslaved sparta )
- Mongols ( economy masters, progressive barbarians )
- Moors ( conquered hispana, beaten by the...french...... )
Reviewing our barbarian business plan attributes, it's easy to see that the Huns were the greatest barbarians of all time. Maybe not successful but they attacked Rome over and over and over again. They stuck to their plan, were passionate about pillaging, and pummeling Rome and stuck to their barbarian values.
Anyway, I guess we can all move on about our day now as this burning question, by all, is answered.
Why did the post saying that Vandals were better get deleted?
Only fanboys like the Huns wrote:
Why did the post saying that Vandals were better get deleted?
Politics. The Vandals refused to endorse Trump.
Only fanboys like the Huns wrote:
Why did the post saying that Vandals were better get deleted?
Someone doesn't like fun.
But I'll admit, the Vandals were pretty good. Had a hold of North Africa for a while. But got beat up by a Byzantine in the end, counts as a loss. Only Huns are undefeated.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Only fanboys like the Huns wrote:Why did the post saying that Vandals were better get deleted?
Someone doesn't like fun.
But I'll admit, the Vandals were pretty good. Had a hold of North Africa for a while. But got beat up by a Byzantine in the end, counts as a loss. Only Huns are undefeated.
The Huns (Attila) got turned back at Rome. Genseric was successful, and twice fought off attempts to overthrow him. So what if his grandkids ended up failing?
The romans claim the pope persuaded Attila to turn around and go home. He really went home because rome was a barren wasteland with nothing left to loot.
But in any case, showed mercy > got defeated. Nobody ever beat the Huns.
First of all,
is it not interesting that some of us come on Letsrun.com to improve our running but then spend all our time on non-running issues?
It does really come down to the Huns vs the Mongols (amazing how politically incorrect these words now are!). The Huns really did disappear, the Mongols did have a greater territory. But Attila was really, really feared. Wikipedia says, "the war came to an end in 449 with an agreement in which the Romans agreed to pay Attila an annual tribute of 2100 pounds of gold." Now I want a job as a barbarian leader!
Anyhow, I want to propose a third (and not really a barbarian) contender for discussion. One Vlad the Impaler or as we know him DRACULA.
"the war came to an end in 449 with an agreement in which the Romans agreed to pay Attila an annual tribute of 2100 pounds of gold."
This is like what, US$30 million in today's terms? Being a Yahoo! CEO would get you better than that.
Not a good negotiator wrote:
"the war came to an end in 449 with an agreement in which the Romans agreed to pay Attila an annual tribute of 2100 pounds of gold."
This is like what, US$30 million in today's terms? Being a Yahoo! CEO would get you better than that.
$38.7m, I'd take that. But you are correct, either gold is seriously under valued or that tech CEOs are paid far, far too much.
rundork wrote:
Next I think it's important to overview the top 5 greatest barbarians.
- Gauls ( defeated huns, catalyst to roman empire decline )
- Huns ( pummeled the balkins, invaded Rome multiple times )
- Goths ( defeated greece & enslaved sparta )
- Mongols ( economy masters, progressive barbarians )
- Moors ( conquered hispana, beaten by the...french...... )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEb2CecR11I
You can't count Gauls on these boards in any GOAT list, beacause they were using PEDs big time. Read up on your Asterix - they were even DQ'd from the Olympics. And unlike the British Barbarians of today they did not have any TUE permisson to do so.
mako wrote:
Attila's brother wrote:I think the point was that the barbarian Huns remained true to their barbarian ethos, in the face of opportunities to change--which is probably why they didn't actually last very long as an effective force.
I am a direct descendant of those peoples, and I've got to tell you, to this day, there are many Hungarians who still embody this sort of free-living, individualist mentality. One segment of the population seems to me to somewhat curiously lack the need for modern amenities, including civil society.
It is no fluke that they are the ones who put up a wall first, in the face of tremendous social opposition and pressure.
The older I get, the more I realize that I have in common with those people. I'm on the very of moving there, I am now in a financial position to do so. I have come to realize that I, too, embody many of these same traits and attitudes. It's hard to explain what is a somewhat individualistic, largely tribal, even predatory attitude. I understand the merits of civil society and participate, but not from deep conditioning--it is a conscious, aware participation, that is all to keenly aware of the limits, to the point where I became a lawyer to better understand what I was going through mentally and emotionally.
I'm on the civilized end of the spectrum, though--but there are many who are not, who still really enjoy what life has to offer, but who often pay the price with an early death, or ill health. They are far removed in time from the Huns, but not that far removed in either geography or basic needs.
IMO the only thing that really separates them from the Huns is the relatively recent introduction of sour cream into the culture. Offering a Hungarian sour cream is like offering an Indian shiny beads--they will never refuse, and it acts like a pacifier, especially when followed by a good shot of palinka, or maybe some Tokaji wine.
I'm sorry to tell you, but Hungarians are in no relation to the ancient Huns. That might be some myth of Hungarian nationalists but has nothing to do with reality. Ask any serious archeologist, historian or evolutionary anthropologist.
Unfortunately, you're not even a direct descendant of the original Magyars that came somewhere from Ural. Genetic tests have confirmed that modern Hungarian population is basically Slavic people, who were there before the arrival of Magyars and who adopted the Magyar language at some point.
Around 1200AD the Mongol Hordes bred with European women creating 'Slavs' or slaves. Crimea was the center of the slave trade where millions of Slavs were traded to the Middle East, Mediterranean, etc. The Mongols made a ton of money.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Not an American wrote:The Vikings did not disappear. They were basically iron age Scandinavian farmers who found out that they could make a profit by attaking and looting other peoples and cities.
When Scandinavia became Christian in the 10/11th century, they realized you could make even more profit from trading with other cities instead of destroying them.
After which, they weren't Vikings anymore. So the Vikings disappeared.
The true Vikings aren't the ancestors of today's Scandinavians, or even Icelanders or Russians. Those people are descended from rejects who weren't brave or strong enough and were left behind. Those who inherited the true Viking genes kept going farther and farther until there was nowhere left to go, but things had evolved and they weren't Vikings anymore, and as you say, they had adopted the roman religion.
When Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole, Viking exploration was done. They had sailed to literally every frozen wasteland on Earth.
Wait, I thought there was no South Pole? Isn't there just a circular ice wall?
Bad Wigins wrote:
Not an American wrote:The Vikings did not disappear. They were basically iron age Scandinavian farmers who found out that they could make a profit by attaking and looting other peoples and cities.
When Scandinavia became Christian in the 10/11th century, they realized you could make even more profit from trading with other cities instead of destroying them.
After which, they weren't Vikings anymore. So the Vikings disappeared.
The true Vikings aren't the ancestors of today's Scandinavians, or even Icelanders or Russians. Those people are descended from rejects who weren't brave or strong enough and were left behind. Those who inherited the true Viking genes kept going farther and farther until there was nowhere left to go, but things had evolved and they weren't Vikings anymore, and as you say, they had adopted the roman religion.
When Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole, Viking exploration was done. They had sailed to literally every frozen wasteland on Earth.
Careful. The Vikings are still around. We have retained our bloodlust and walk among you. We have taken a thousand year break to allow the world to rebuild and build up their treasuries, goods, and beautiful women. As soon as we identify a place with beautiful women we will emerge and conquer rape and pillage again.
For the moment you are all safe as the most beautiful women are all local to us in Scandinavia.
Flagpole's woman is of interest to us, but we respect a real man and we know she would probably die rather than submit to our pagan love rites. So why bother.
Keep talking smack and we will. One for you.
Dracula is a serious contender for all time great as he held his own against us and we called it a draw, the short nights gave us an advantage in the summer and he did not like the cold in the winter. Hear he is still around but is very refined - hope you get a chance to meet him.
Money Corrupts wrote:
Around 1200AD the Mongol Hordes bred with European women creating 'Slavs' or slaves. Crimea was the center of the slave trade where millions of Slavs were traded to the Middle East, Mediterranean, etc. The Mongols made a ton of money.
Somewhat decent imagination but of course wrong on all counts. The Mongols made a ton of money owning the silk trade route, as well as looting wealthy cities across Asia.
Mongol breeding with European women wholesale is also very false. Russians (which are most easterly) have almost no genetic markers linking them to Mongols. The only group with a small amount of Mongoloid admixture (1.5%) is in the far eastern fringes of Russia. If you said bred with central Asians, the you would be correct. Uzbeks are one of those groups with a higher percentage of Mongoloid blood.
Slave= slaves? Are you on crack? Slavs comes from the Slavic word, which means to celebrate. Slaves is an English word, and I believe the English were the ones to so wittily propose that the origin of Slav is slave.
All of you should check out Dan Carlins hardcore history podcast.
Dan Carlin is Ghengis' PR guy.
Road trip wrote:
All of you should check out Dan Carlins hardcore history podcast.