|
|
Post by yesughei on Sept 22, 2010 22:13:19 GMT 3
-Help needed for writing a paper
Hello everybody,
I am new here, though I've looked very often for information about steppe history here, and I found it of course. Also I'm Dutch, and my English isn't great so sorry for that...
I could really use your help for a paper I'm writing about the influence of Eurasian steppe nomads on western European societies, from ancient Greece to this time. I became interested in this subject when I read about the pax Mongolica, the theory where the Mongol conquests are pointed out as one of the starting points of the European renaissance. Nowadays in Europe we think our civilization started with the Greek, and later the Romans. At school we learn everything about these cultures but nothing about steppe cultures. I want to prove that many aspects in our society and major events in history can be traced back to nomadic steppe people. Another obvious example is the migration of the Huns, that caused the fall of the Roman empire, but also the sabres used by European cavalry were replica's of the sabres the Avars and Magyars used.
Could you give me some advice or tips about this subject? I would really appreciate it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Sept 22, 2010 23:46:02 GMT 3
Man, this is seriously huuuge topic...
Well I would start from dividing it thematically, and then do chronological subdivisions.
Like (the way I see it):
A) material influence
1) Peace
1a) cultural influences (for a start transition of early chinese animalistic art to Celts and Germans)
1b) trade & goods exchange (silk! but also other things)
2) War
2a) wars & conquests (that is actual border changes and demographic changes of the regions)
2b) military style changes (like formulating of viking/steppe mixture of warriors in Rus and Ukraine, later on difference between western Europe and eastern Europe)
B) Civilisation - that is state-scale, long term influence, the most elusive yet most interesting category -- for example there's theory, that germanic peoples fled from Balkans, because their heavy armour style of fighting wasn't good against nomads, on the contrary to slavic guerilla sort of way of both fighting and living (they often fled to swamps, and go back when nomads went back without much spoils; and generally they weren't so bound to their claimed soil as germanic people); there also would be early slavic states that emerged on one hand to overthrow Avars, on the other hand as copies of Avar centralised states (as Slavs wouldn't have much tendencies to form such big state-like organisms before Avars) formed by Slav-Avar elites; there also was a topic somewhere here of hunnic influence on germanic peoples as well
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 23, 2010 8:05:48 GMT 3
Yep, a HUGE topic.
There's a different kind of influence too at play. There's an idea that events in China impacted events in Europe. When the Chinese closed their markets and engaged in hostilities with the "barbarians", that usually set off a wave of power changes and migrations that eventually reach and effect Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 23, 2010 19:17:13 GMT 3
One simple example that comes from my mind is the tall hats worn by High Medieval European ladies, as they were probably products of Mongol influence; Turko-Mongol ladies also used to wear tall hats all throughout their history.
Not to forget the composite bow, sabre (already mentioned) and stirrups, plus the entire concept of heavy cavalry.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 23, 2010 21:58:49 GMT 3
One simple example that comes from my mind is the tall hats worn by High Medieval European ladies, as they were probably products of Mongol influence; Turko-Mongol ladies also used to wear tall hats all throughout their history. I believe, it, actually, should be even earlier Scytho-Sarmatian influence. Those hats were typical for Sarmatian women as well, and as we know Alans had spread all over Europe from Britain to Spain. Interestingly, these kind of hats still survive in Caucasus as a part of traditional women costume that is also claimed to be originated from Sarmatians-Alans. |
|
|
|
Post by yesughei on Sept 24, 2010 11:22:35 GMT 3
Thanks everybody! This really is a great help. It is indeed a huge topic, but I think if I use Kilij Arslan's method it's possible. hjernespiser, your theory is very interesting! Could you tell me were you read it? If I want to use this theory I'm going to need some more sources. I hope you don't mind if I ask some more questions?  -Has there also been religious influence? There must have been many contacts between shamanism/tengriism and say Christianity and Islam. -Kilij Arslan, you mentioned the viking/steppe mixture of warriors in Rus and Ukraine and later the difference between western Europe and Eastern Europe. Could you please clarify this? For example what do you mean with viking/steppe mixture of warriors? -Steppe people are very often mentioned together with Celts, Germans and Vikings. What is the connection? Although Vikings didn't live on the steppe, I think their lifestyle is in many ways similar to steppe people. And furthermore, it would be great if you could give me some advise about useful books or other sources on this topic. Thanks! ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 24, 2010 20:40:18 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 24, 2010 23:04:44 GMT 3
shamanism/tengriism and say Christianity and Islam. -Kilij Arslan, you mentioned the viking/steppe mixture of warriors in Rus and Ukraine and later the difference between western Europe and Eastern Europe. Could you please clarify this? For example what do you mean with viking/steppe mixture of warriors? -Steppe people are very often mentioned together with Celts, Germans and Vikings. What is the connection? Although Vikings didn't live on the steppe, I think their lifestyle is in many ways similar to steppe people. Thanks! ;D ;D Well, the Rus was actually the place where Vikings met with nomades. And the whole Russian warfare was kind of a transition between Viking style to Nomadic style, becoming more nomadic with the passage of time. Since Vikings frequently travelled through the Dnieper, Don and Volga to the Black and Caspian seas, naturally, they had frequent contacts with local steppans and they influenced each other. Early Varangians princes of Rus, usually, hired steppan nomades. In fact, early Viking rulerk of Kiev were called "khagans," apparent, steppe influence. Steppan influence was visible in the appearance of some famous Rus warriors, like the famous prince Sviatoslav (Viking by blood) who had Pecheneg hair-style - shaved head with a hair lock, that was so popular among Cossacks centuries later. Another very interesting thing that I remember is the description of the Viking burial ceremony left by Ibn-Fadlan, which for some reasons seemed almost identical to what we know about Scythian burial ceremonies... In fact, however, I believe this connection goes even earlier in history. Scandinavians were familiar with the Steppan culture from the times of the great Gothic migration. Goths came from Scandinavia and by the time they reached the stepp shores of the Black Sea they have created an interesting mix of Germanic-Sarmatian military horse culture. As I also referred earlier, Alan influence in Europe was quite significant. Some researches suggest that the whole concept of knighthood as a mounted warrior with a strict code of behavoir originates from Alans. Also many "very European" myths and legends like king Arthur cycle and the legend of Graal seem to have Alanian origins. Nomades and Attila also play a significant role in early German literature as well as in Scandinavian and German myths, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 25, 2010 14:08:42 GMT 3
^ Now that you mention it, I've always been curious about the whole "Arthurius of Romano-Britain and his SARMATIAN 'knights'" theory thing. They even made a movie out of it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=el70npaRtLM"FINALLY! A man worth killing!" xD Heh that was a great line... anyways, what do you know about it? |
|
|
|
Post by yesughei on Sept 25, 2010 15:43:07 GMT 3
Ah yes, king arthur. Great movie, I loved it!
The movie is based on a theory that king Arthur lead a group of Alan and Sarmatian knights when the Roman empire fell. Lucius Artorius Castus may have commanded this cavalry unit, and he could have been the basis of king Arthur.
There are some similarities between legends about king Arthur and Sarmatians. For example his sword, excalibur, which is very important in the legends. Romans didn't have a tradition of naming their swords, but Sarmatians made some sort of religion around their swords. Furthermore it's actually quite strange if you think that Arthur and his knights were heavy armored cavalry, but they lived in the dark ages, and even the Romans didn't have heavy cavalry. So that is certainly an indication that Arthur and his knights were Sarmatians or Alans. And of course Merlin could be seen as a shaman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Sept 25, 2010 18:14:08 GMT 3
I see others wrote mighty fine in my stead  A quick jab now from me, quick one, for I don't have much time right now to forumise meself I'm afraid: The reason I would do this paper in these two parts is that the first (purely historical and archaeological) part would be reasonably easy to write and would be reasonably objective. The second part, since its content would be elusive, might be an object of controversies. *Might* is a keyword. It all depends what sort of professors do u have. If they are christian-paneuropean, they would scorn the 'hideous attack on the ideals of chivalry'; if they are pangermanists they would hate the idea of steppe influence on germanic idea of overlord; and since there actually is one notorious nationalist from Scandinavia, who tends to be slavophiliac, they even might dislike the idea of foreign influence on slavic states Of course, their doubts and disbelief would be only mildly expressed, just by a lesser note you would receive for your paper. And you can't really tell what actually would be their reaction now, can you? So, I think it's just proper to make a solid, safe staging base in the first part, that would let them know, that you've made your homework, you took time and effort to conduct an indepth research, you just can't be downright loathed for whatever you will write later on. And only then, in this second, non-material part would you dare to present some less known stuff, show them that there is a *theory*, that says something, that there are *some* scolars that believe in this and that, that judging from something it *might seem* that... and so on and on. I don't say that you shouldn't write some things, just imbue them with 'if'fings, 'propably's and 'not certain that's :] Oh, one more thing came to my mind. European fairy tales. The ones where Prince (even better - NOT a Prince, commoner! or the champion of the Prince) has to slay some undergroud (chtonic!!!) beast (a dragon would be the best naturally) to get the kingdom. Or get the Princess hand. Or get the Princess hand to get the half of the kingdom. Or whatever combination of the above (sans getting the hand of the dragon to slay the half of the Princess I believe). All this Rustam-khvarenah-matrilinear inheritance of the land memes are of indo-iranic origin. And they were very popular among turkic peoples, and it must have been them who brought them to Europe. But do remember, that dragonslaying and getting through that its power (chvarena = fire = gold!!! but also wisdom, enlightment - like Sigurd vs. Fafnir) is propably general indoeuropean meme! However its form of granting the lawful claim of the land (AND the just rule over people) AND the king's daughter as a notarial deed of the half of a kingdom is for sure specifically indo-iranian; thus you would have an example of nomads as the mediums of culture. |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 25, 2010 20:28:01 GMT 3
I see others wrote mighty fine in my stead A quick jab now from me, quick one, for I don't have much time right now to forumise meself I'm afraid: The reason I would do this paper in these two parts is that the first (purely historical and archaeological) part would be reasonably easy to write and would be reasonably objective. The second part, since its content would be elusive, might be an object of controversies. *Might* is a keyword. It all depends what sort of professors do u have. If they are christian-paneuropean, they would scorn the 'hideous attack on the ideals of chivalry'; if they are pangermanists they would hate the idea of steppe influence on germanic idea of overlord; and since there actually is one notorious nationalist from Scandinavia, who tends to be slavophiliac, they even might dislike the idea of foreign influence on slavic states Of course, their doubts and disbelief would be only mildly expressed, just by a lesser note you would receive for your paper. And you can't really tell what actually would be their reaction now, can you? So, I think it's just proper to make a solid, safe staging base in the first part, that would let them know, that you've made your homework, you took time and effort to conduct an indepth research, you just can't be downright loathed for whatever you will write later on. And only then, in this second, non-material part would you dare to present some less known stuff, show them that there is a *theory*, that says something, that there are *some* scolars that believe in this and that, that judging from something it *might seem* that... and so on and on. I don't say that you shouldn't write some things, just imbue them with 'if'fings, 'propably's and 'not certain that's :] Why should we care about stupid brain-washed nationalistic Eurocentrist historians? If we focuse on their "ideas," then Steppans were just a banch of uncilized barbarians who didn't play any positive role at all and didn't have any significant influence. The theories should be presentive objectively based on the analysis of the dry facts. If we focuse on "nationalistic" historical approaches we will not get anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Sept 25, 2010 21:00:53 GMT 3
Ah, we should care what we write if it will influence whether we would graduate or not  And it is not being *silent* do I advice, it is being *cautious* As for things like cultural influences, they just can't be always objectively presented, I even doubt that it's possible, as the researcher is a human, not a tool. I just wanted to encourage yesughei not to be too 'definite' when dealing with topics that might be a subject of whatsoever controversies. The sad fact of life is that student is lower than the teacher. And the student must stay within certain... borders. Now if you actually graduate and become an acknowledged scholar yourself, that's another story. But still you might become an outcast. I also think, that world shouldn't look like this, but sciences (even those not humanistic) are always tainted by ideologies. And we have to deal with it, find a way of remaining true, yet also passing through the course of studies. |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 26, 2010 9:34:36 GMT 3
^ That's one of the wisest things I've ever read for a while, and yes you are correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by yesughei on Sept 26, 2010 11:21:48 GMT 3
I agree with you, Kilij Arlsan. Yesterday I told someone enthusiastically about this subject, and I noticed he didn't like it all. He started talking about that everything originates from the Romans/Greeks and Christianity, nothing else.
BUT luckily I don't have to worry about that because my professors are great and they encourage me to write down all interesting theories and draw conclusions from it. I think the more I prove that western history is way more influenced by "barbaric" people than everybody thinks the higher notes I get ;D
I also want to add a more complicated chapter about the Islam. I'm not sure if what I'm writing is total nonsense, or going to far, but it is interesting:
Originally, Judaism and Christianity came from nomadic people from the desert. It's not strange that they believed in one god if you think that the only thing they saw the whole day was the sun. Later, when Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity this original nomadic religion changed. Later Mohamed founded the Islam, NOT as a new religion, but to restore the original monotheistic religions. Mohamed started his new Islam as a nomad, and united the nomadic tribes of Arabia. In that time the Islam was monotheistic because they believed in one god, but that didn't mean there was nothing more they believed in. They believed in ghosts, ancestors, dreams, and all sorts of superstition. (May I see some sort of connection between Tengriism and Islam here?) But later the Imams began preaching against these beliefs, and just like other monotheistic religions the Islam wasn't what it should have been. And this is very interesting if you look at the Islam now. The Islam of the people is that of Allah, but also of superstition, dreams and ghosts. But the Islam of (some) Imams is that of Allah, the Koran and nothing else.
So my question is, is there some connection between religion of steppe people and the Islam. And aren't the Arab Tribes a lot like the steppe people, although they didn't live on the steppe? In Dutch we don't use the word steppe people often, but we call it horsepeople/cavalry nations. I think the Arabs were certainly a cavalry nation.
I think it would be interesting to add this to my paper because of this huge Islam debate.
What do you think?
Oh, almost forgot. Kilij Arslan, your theory about fairy tales is very interesting! I googled it but...well you know google. Do you know where I can find more information about this?
|
|
And it is not being *silent* do I advice, it is being *cautious*