Uppity Women of Medieval Times
Messages 1 - 10 of 1256 - Collapse all
« Older
Newer »
/groups/adfetch?adid=NC9anxEAAAC8dMJsCximJLbasHLwqt0SFSRgCP-avRN4YT0eROC0jw
Uppity Women of Medieval Times
|
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
From: "L. Morris" <con...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 1997/05/01
Subject: Uppity Women of Medieval Times
Conari Press announces the release of: UPPITY WOMEN OF MEDIEVAL TIMES More than two hundred tales of damsels definitely NOT in distress! The dark ages were indeed dismal for most of our foresisters. Arranged Vicki Le=F3n will be appearing at the following bookstores to sign copies= of UPPITY WOMEN OF MEDIEVAL TIMES: Women & Children First, Chicago, IL, May 19 Look for UPPITY WOMEN OF MEDIEVAL TIMES at bookstores everywhere, or You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
He who defends Mongols
|
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
From: lov...@aa.washington.edu (Bob Lovell)
Date: 1997/05/01
Subject: Re: He who defends Mongols
Well, it seems that Byambaa Garid, our Mongolian in Australia is Bob Lovell You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, soc.history.what-if, soc.culture.mongolian, soc.culture.china
From: Byambaa Garid <bga...@gse.mq.edu.au>
Date: 1997/05/01
Subject: Re: He who defends Mongols
In article <5k8tv2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, > Well, it seems that Byambaa Garid, our Mongolian in Australia is > Bob Lovell that Sung empire outnumbered Mongols 100 to 1. Since Mongols did not had any technological advantage over the Sung (in fact Sung had gunpowder and MOngols did not), the only reason for Sung defeat was their criminal incompetence in organising defence. Indeed, in this sense they well deserved their defeat. As for defense of Mongolian conquests: 1. Alexander the Great and Napoleon were in the same business as Genghis Khan. However,the western conquerors are considered to be heroes, Mongolian one is considered "smelly, ruthless, and terroristic barbarian".This is clearly a racism,not that I am very surprised since Jaskew and others had such a good time bashing Mongols here in such expressions like "The world, in my opinion, would have been a much better place with a lot fewer Mongols in it at any time between 221 BC and 1945." 2."Caused civilisation in Europe,China,and the other parts of Asia a big reversal"? Well,Europe part is certainly an exaggeration (though probably case could be made that Hungary, Poland and Czech republic are so poor now because of the Mongol raid in 1241, not conquest! Russians do claim exactly that and I usually answer that if things did not get better for 700 years probably Russians, not Mongols are to blame.Such accusations have nothing to do with history, only a usual piece of racism and desire to blame others for your own stupidity) China would have such catastrophic disaster even without Mongols,simply because of the cyclical nature of its history, as I pointed in my article "The Horror that was China". No reversal of civilisation took place in China simply because China is incapable of progress as cyclical nature of its history implies(rather like ancient Egypt.Periods of Chaos every couple of centuries and no change or progress to speak of) As for other parts of Asia, what do you mean by that? Khalifate? It started to die long before Mongol conquest, probably since 10th century when it was captured by Deilem highlanders. Khalifate could only go down with or without Mongols. Khoresm was destroyed,but Eastern Turkestan(now Xinjiang) benefited from it. Instead of Samarkand and Bukhara, Kashgar and Turfan became trade centers on the Silk Road. No "reversal of civilisation" there. Overall, I think the revival of Silk Road (Instead of hundreds of kings,sheiks, barons,emirs,emperial,feudal and tribal chiefs who were milking the merchants, one Great Khan and one tax. I imagine prices fell by hundreds of times and trade turnover increased even more)and general peace on the quarter of world landmass probably accelerated progress of world civilisation by a couple of centuries.Example: No Mongols, No Marco Polo, No Columbus, No European domination,No Industrial Revolution, No Internet. :-). If you want more :No paper, no printing, no gunpowder and so on and on. 3. The point you did not mention, but should have: Millions of people died because of Mongol conquest. Was it worth it? This is a hard question and we have to discuss such matters as acceptability of moral approach to history. However you are probably incapable of understanding such issues since your level of intelligence is shown in sentence "bunch of smelly, ruthless, and terroristic barbarians". You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, soc.history.what-if, soc.culture.mongolian, soc.culture.china
From: s...@eyrie.org (sw)
Date: 1997/05/01
Subject: Re: He who defends Mongols
In article <3367E88A....@gse.mq.edu.au>, >In article <5k8tv2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, The difference, essentially, is this. The Mongols were a nomadic society. > lov...@aa.washington.edu (Bob Lovell) wrote: >As for defense of Mongolian conquests: >1. Alexander the Great and Napoleon were in the same business as Genghis >Khan. However,the western conquerors are considered to be heroes, >Mongolian one is considered "smelly, ruthless, and terroristic >barbarian".This is clearly a racism, Almost by definition, nomadic societies have to get the majority of their wealth and goods from neighboring non-nomadic civilizations, by way of trading or raids (generally nomads are perfectly capable of feeding themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be out there). The Mongols were a conquering nomadic civilization, the French and Macedonians (and Romans, etc) weren't nomadic. I'm not sure if *any* of them are considered heroes (except in their home countries). They all certainly were worthy of respect for their military deeds, but wether they were heroes or not is another question. >2."Caused civilisation in Europe,China,and the other parts of Asia a big Now that's rather silly, as saying that completely ignores the Ottoman >reversal"? Well,Europe part is certainly an exaggeration (though >probably case could be made that Hungary, Poland and Czech republic are >so poor now because of the Mongol raid in 1241, not conquest! Empire, the German Empire, the Russians, and everyone else that cheerfully stomped all over that area later on. > Russians The Mongols stomped the heck out of the cities around the Caspian and >do claim exactly that and I usually answer that if things did not get >better for 700 years probably Russians, not Mongols are to blame. Such >accusations have nothing to do with history, only a usual piece of >racism and desire to blame others for your own stupidity) Black Seas, and dealt reverses to civilization (mainly by taking everything valuable that wasn't bolted down) that took that region centuries to recover from. It's rather hard to say what might have happened if the Mongols hadn't invaded that region -- but there might not have even been a Russian Empire, if the southern regions weren't so weakened and disrupted. Wether that's a good or bad thing is a question for someone who knows more about Russian civilization than I do. >China would have such catastrophic disaster even without Mongols,simply I'll admit that the Chinese occasionally did some rather wacky and >because of the cyclical nature of its history, as I pointed in my >article "The Horror that was China". No reversal of civilisation took >place in China simply because China is incapable of progress as cyclical >nature of its history implies(rather like ancient Egypt.Periods of Chaos >every couple of centuries and no change or progress to speak of) counter-productive things, but... incapable of progress? That seems a bit much. >Khalifate? It The Caliphate had long ceased to be a meaningful political force, but >started to die long before Mongol conquest, probably since 10th century >when it was captured by Deilem highlanders. Khalifate could only go down >with or without Mongols. it was still an important cultural force. >Khoresm was destroyed,but Eastern Turkestan(now Well, if you don't count the fact of the destruction of all those >Xinjiang) benefited from it. Instead of Samarkand and Bukhara, Kashgar >and Turfan became trade centers on the Silk Road. No "reversal of >civilisation" there. underground irrigation systems, anyway. >Overall, I think the revival of Silk Road (Instead of hundreds of It definitely increased *European* civilization (by providing yet another >kings,sheiks, barons,emirs,emperial,feudal and tribal chiefs who were >milking the merchants, one Great Khan and one tax. I imagine prices fell >by hundreds of times and trade turnover increased even more)and general >peace on the quarter of world landmass probably accelerated progress of >world civilisation by a couple of centuries.Example: No Mongols, No >Marco Polo, No Columbus, No European domination,No Industrial >Revolution, No Internet. :-). kick in the head that their little chunk of the world wasn't all there was of the Earth, among other things). And by disrupting a lot of the possible opponents to European global power. Again, wether this is a good thing or not is left as an exercise for the skilled reader. >If you want more :No paper, no printing, Urm? Paper had been available for a *long* time in the west before the >no gunpowder and so on and on. Mongols came around, and the printing press is really fairly straightforward to acheive once you get someone to look at it in the right way, and don't have crafts guilds holding them down. Dunno about gunpowder, though. >3. The point you did not mention, but should have: Millions of people That's more of a question of "is war *ever* worth all the people who >died because of Mongol conquest. Was it worth it? >This is a hard question and we have to discuss such matters as >acceptability of moral approach to history. die?" Which isn't really answerable. --JT You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, soc.history.what-if, soc.culture.mongolian, soc.culture.china
From: nitew...@asiaonline.net
Date: 1997/05/01
Subject: Re: He who defends Mongols
south...@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Kamal J Southall ) wrote: We still should not forget how the war started against the Caliphate. The Caliphate send his envoys back to Genghis Khan with their headwear The world may have been a different place if those envoys had been Warmest Regards The Taoistic Idiot You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Who were the "Mongols" who invaded Eurasia?
|
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, soc.history.what-if, soc.culture.mongolian, soc.culture.china
From: bru...@SPAMKILLER.atl.mindspring.com (bruce thompson)
Date: 1997/05/03
Subject: Re: Who were the "Mongols" who invaded Eurasia?
In article Han" <al...@u.washington.edu> wrote: You are quite right, but it's no secret or conspiracy as to why this was > We should also remember that only a SMALL PORTION of the westward campaign > "Mongol" troops were actually Mongols. The majority were probably central > Asian/Turkic soldiers who joined the campaign. It was a time of heros and > heros easily attracted large numbers of followers. > Both the Mongols and the Manchus were aided by large numbers of "Chinese" > contingencies in their campaign to conquor "China." I see no reason why > the westward campaign forces didn't involve an un-ignorable large presence > of non-Mongol components. the case. The reason that the other steppe and taiga dwellers joined the Mongols is quite prosaic. The Mongols offered the men of conquered tribes and cities the choice of joining the Golden Horde or joining their slaughtered kin. > Having said that, on what ground do individuals like J. Askew and B. So who could have been neutral in the middle of a ferocious, > Lovell make accusations of "Mongol barbarity"? What do you by "Mongol"? > here? > Non of the "histories" written about the "Mongol" invasion were written by > neutral parties, as far as I know. destructive, attack by the Golden Horde, huh? >Can we really depend totally on them History in many cultures is little more than ethnic boosterism, or > to make MODERN moral judgement? Given the fact that histories can > only come down to us through various subjectivities, can we really regard > them as transparent "facts" to base our judgements on? hagiography of the tribal or national hero. This has occurred too often in the West, over time. But most historians, I'll bet, have aspired to the ideal set up by the Roman historian Tacitus. To tell history "without anger or bias" is achievable, and frequently achieved, IMO. >What baffles me is that while TODAY's Mongols still unjustly suffer from That's sad, and deplorable. Just remember, to most Westerners, Genghis > stigma for something they have never done, nations such as Germany and > Japan have not suffered a similar fate for what they have committed only > in the recent past. In other words, despite their rather atrocious war > acts during the WWII, people seldom make such generalized statements as > German or japanese barbarity. When we do hear such statements, we don't > see any sign of people trying to implicate a whole culture or > civilization. The atrocities in question are only regarded as a strange > metamorphorsis, an incomprehensible and TEMPORARY mutation, an episode of > accident. On the contrary, the Japanese and Germans are regarded as among > the highly civilized nations of the world. This provides a stark contrast > to the Mongol case, where somehow what the "Mongols" did nearly one > thouseand years ago precisely have been taken to judge a whole > civilization and a whole nation. Khan is the only noteworthy feature of Mongolian history. Without him, in Western eyes, the Mongols would be just another faraway horse tribe. -- Remove SPAMKILLER from return address to reply. "Dammit, Philbert; what kind of lepidopterist are you? For god's sake, You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, soc.history.what-if, soc.culture.mongolian, soc.culture.china
From: rt...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Richard Tung)
Date: 1997/05/04
Subject: Re: Who were the "Mongols" who invaded Eurasia?
bru...@SPAMKILLER.atl.mindspring.com (bruce thompson) writes: Actually, you still get adverse feelings against Germany and Japan. >>What baffles me is that while TODAY's Mongols still unjustly suffer from >> stigma for something they have never done, nations such as Germany and >> Japan have not suffered a similar fate for what they have committed only >> in the recent past. In other words, despite their rather atrocious war >> acts during the WWII, people seldom make such generalized statements as >> German or japanese barbarity. When we do hear such statements, we don't >> see any sign of people trying to implicate a whole culture or >> civilization. The atrocities in question are only regarded as a strange >> metamorphorsis, an incomprehensible and TEMPORARY mutation, an episode of >> accident. On the contrary, the Japanese and Germans are regarded as among >> the highly civilized nations of the world. This provides a stark contrast >> to the Mongol case, where somehow what the "Mongols" did nearly one >> thouseand years ago precisely have been taken to judge a whole >> civilization and a whole nation. For example, some Jews I know still refuse to buy anything made in Germany, and if you don't think that Japan's atrocities don't have an effect any more, then I urge you to take a trip around East Asia (specifically China) and ask various people their feelings about the Japanese. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, soc.history.what-if, soc.culture.mongolian, soc.culture.china
From: "X. Han" <al...@u.washington.edu>
Date: 1997/05/04
Subject: Re: Who were the "Mongols" who invaded Eurasia?
On 4 May 1997, Richard Tung wrote: original point is this kind of negative feelings does not cause chinese and the whole world to judge the whole Japanese culture/civilization as barbaric. And it does not affect the image of the people as a whole. In the case of Mongols, I think it is particularly true with Europeans to make a direct connection between Mongols today and Chinggis Khan's wars. I have pointed out one example in my original posting. But there are more. They again and again invoke this history when they are talking about Mongols ofthe late 20th century, as if time has frozen when it comes to Mongols. And Mongols only, since atrocities committed by some nations in the very recent past are regarded as just that-- a simple past with no bearings on their contemporary image and representations. And let me repeat, this is hypocracy and unjust among the most blatent and You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
New Anglo-Saxon Helmet discovered in England
|
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, rec.org.sca
From: kei...@m130.aone.net.au (Keith McArdle)
Date: 1997/05/01
Subject: Re: New Anglo-Saxon Helmet discovered in England
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:35:47 -0500, "Nathan A. Breen" <nbr...@sprynet.com> wrote: Hi, >I had read, in the NY Times online (4-23-97) I believe, that it wasn't >Thanks! They believe he was a prince who lived in the 7th century. A helmet cu You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, rec.org.sca
From: Angelcynn
Date: 1997/05/02
Subject: Re: New Anglo-Saxon Helmet discovered in England
Although the grave was 'in the middle of nowhere', it was near the
junction of two Roman roads - a landmark of some significance in early Anglo-Saxon England. We know that barrows were often erected at prominant landmarks, and the archaeologists believe the body _MAY_ originally have been buried in a barrow, so perhaps this explains why he is buried by himself. To find out more about this helmet (and to see photos of a http://www.hrofi.demon.co.uk/angelcyn/helmet.html Ben Levick You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||