Tag Archives: History

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (7) Arab – Umayyad Caliphate

Posted on by

Expansion of the caliphate, 622–750 CE: (Muhammad, 622–632 CE; Rashidun caliphate, 632–661 CE; Umayyad caliphate, 661–750 CE) – public domain image Wikipedia “Caliphate”

 

(7) ARAB – UMAYYAD CALIPHATE (661-750 / 756-1031)

The Arab conquests were a nigh-unstoppable historical explosion, once previously divided tribes in a historical backwater had been united under Mohammed – conquering one of history’s largest pre-modern empires (indeed the seventh or eighth largest in all history) in about a century or so, a blitzkrieg by horse, sail…and camel!

Mohammed had essentially conquered the Arabian peninsula, but his death left his successors – the three great Arab caliphates – only at the start of extending his empire to even wider conquests.

Now it might be said that I am somewhat inconsistent between empires in my entries, as I classify some, such as the Arab caliphates, as separate empires by different dynasties, while others I essentially classify as single empires despite their dynastic succession or fragmentation.

And the answer is, as usual, that I make my own rules and break them anyway – some empires have historical unity to them, if only in culture or theme, that appeals to me, while the different Arab caliphates appeal to me as distinct polities.

The Rashadun Caliphate, immediate successors to Mohammed, did most of the heavy lifting of empire as they broke out of the Arabian peninsula. Two formidable empires blocked their path, the Persian Empire and the eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, but the Arabs conquered the former and routed the latter back to Anatolia.

However, it was under their successors, the Umayyad Caliphate, that Arab empire reached its greatest extent, westwards from the north African shore to Europe itself – conquering Spain (well, not quite all, in a manner similar to the famous caveat to the Roman conquest of Gaul in Asterix comics) and famously invading France before being turned back at Tours by Charles Martel. Eastwards, they also extended beyond Persia through central Asia to the fringes of India and China – the latter of which presented even the Tang Empire some difficulty resisting their advance.

The Umayyads were mostly overthrown by the third Arab caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, who then presided over what is often regarded as the Golden Age of Islam from their capital in Baghdad – but for all that became increasingly vestigial in the empire they had inherited from the Umayyads as it fragmented into separate dynasties. The Abbasids did revive their political authority somewhat in Mesopotamia and Persia – only to be crushed along with Baghdad by the Mongols, although they continued to limp along in even more vestigial form in Egypt until the Ottomans replaced them as caliphate. Ha! That’s what you get for messing with my boys, the Umayyads!

Nor were the Umayyads done with history just yet – the Umayyads managed to pull a Taiwan, with an Umayyad prince in the role of Chiang Kai-Shek, fleeing into exile across the Mediterranean to Spain and continuing the Caliphate as the Emirate of Cordoba independent from the Abbasids, even with their own rival golden age of Islam in the fabled Al Andalus of Spain.

The Umayyads endured for almost three centuries before finally falling again in 1031 – but true to karmic form, once again cursed their successors with fragmentation, as Islamic Spain broke up into minor states and principalities, weakening it to Christian reconquest.

 

The Umayyads actually used a plain white flag!

 

DECLINE AND FALL

You have to rank the Ummayads high for tenacity in their decline and fall – even in defeat by the Abbasid Revolution, they pulled a Taiwan to rule in Spain, partying it up in Ibiza like an English tourist .

THE UMMAYAD CALIPHATE NEVER FELL

Well it obviously did, although perhaps not in its enduring influence in Spain, and even more so in the dreams of caliphate by Islamic political extremists in the twenty-first century.

THE SUN NEVER SETS

One of the top 10 largest empires in history – although the sun literally set on them, they can be ranked among the world empires of history.

EVIL EMPIRE

To be honest, I don’t know much about the brutality of Arab conquests or repression, although there seem to be a number of revolts against them, not least the Abbasid revolution itself.

But they do have to rank highly in evil empire stakes for one thing – the Arab slave trade, which was of a scale at least equal to, if not exceeding, the more notorious Atlantic slave trade by European empires – not as intense perhaps, but of a longer duration. As in only abolished (when it was formally abolished) in the twentieth century.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (7) Hunnic Wars – Hun Invasion of the Roman Empire

Posted on by

Total War Attila game box art

 

(7) HUNNIC WARS –
HUN INVASION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (440-453)

Yet another horse blitzkrieg of mounted nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppes and the most formidable one prior to the Mongols, founding an empire that should be ranked as the fourth great empire of late antiquity and menacing the other three – Persian Empire as well as eastern and western Roman empires – in turn.

To be honest, purely on their own merits of military conquest, I’d rank the Mongols over the Huns. It’s hard to argue with the world’s largest contiguous land empire – and second largest empire in all history. While both shared the historical infamy of being extremely barbaric and ruthless towards their adversaries, albeit almost a millennium apart, the Mongols seemed to rely more on strategy than savagery. Both the Huns and Attila acquired such a reputation for savage barbarism that Kaiser Wilhelm sought to invoke it for his German soldiers in the Boxer Rebellion – which of course backfired as the Allies happily used it as a pejorative term for the Germans in the world wars. Although I have to admit Attila being identified as the Scourge of God earns him badass points. The Mongols also seem more diversified in the number of their skilled leaders and commanders beyond Genghis Khan and his death – while the success of the Huns seems largely focused through the charismatic leadership of Attila himself, with the Hunnic empire rapidly disintegrating after his death.

On the other hand, I have this chronological ranking going among the top tier entries of my top ten – and the Huns do predate the Mongols. However, it’s more than a matter of mere chronology – the Hunnic Wars also overlap with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, itself ranking as god tier special mention to my top ten, arguably more so than any other war. To pit the Mongols against the Romans is often the ultimate fantasy match of military history – I always recall that very proposal in a pulp science fiction novel of my youth – and the Hunnic Wars is the closest you get to that scenario, albeit the Roman Empire in terminal decline rather than its prime. (Spoiler – the Mongols actually did overlap with the Roman Empire, as in the surviving eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, but more as allies). And from a Eurocentric perspective, the Hunnic Empire was more in Europe itself, with both a seat of power and range of penetration much further west than the Mongols ever did.

I also have a romantic soft spot for the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in Gaul or France as the heroic last stand of the Roman Empire, although that may be more legend than history – on par for me with the final battle of King Arthur against Mordred at Camlann, particularly as depicted in the film Excalibur, to the stirring choral music of Carmina Burana and Arthur thankful for the mist so that their enemy “may not see how few we are”. Aetius as Arthur, yo! Although in fairness, that was few in Romans, with Aetius relying less on mystical mist and more on his Visigoth and other Germanic allies to make up numbers.

Although truth be told, the real heroic stand and final battle that doomed the Hunnic Empire was the Battle of Nedao in 454, where they were defeated by their former Germanic vassals. The Huns took one last shot at the eastern Roman Empire under one of Attila’s sons in 469, vanishing from history with their defeat.

Their origin is even more mysterious – with some theories resembling an extent almost as wide as the Mongols, particularly those theories that linked them to the Xongniu and other nomadic peoples that menaced China, often stylized as Huns, such as in the Disney version of Mulan. They are also often linked to other nomadic tribes, sometimes also stylized as Huns, that menaced the Persian Empire and even India.

The only clear history of the Huns seems to be that they emerged east of the Volga from about 370, soon conquering the Goths and other Germanic tribes to forge a vast dominion essentially along the Danube on the borders of the Roman Empire – ironically driving the fall of the Roman Empire even before they invaded it, as the various Germanic tribes that invaded or settled in the Roman Empire were fleeing the Huns.

Ultimately however the Romans had to face off the fearsome Huns themselves – and that is where my romantic soft spot for last stands come in, as the Romans managed to mobilize themselves one last time to hold off the Huns. Firstly, however, the Huns turned on the more robust eastern Roman Empire, invading the Balkans and threatening the capital Constantinople, with little to stop them until the emperor opted for the pragmatic policy of paying tribute for peace. The Huns then invaded the western Roman Empire in 451, with Attila claiming the sister of the western Roman emperor as his bride and half the empire as his dowry – with some fairness, as she had swiped right on him in preference to her betrothal to a Roman senator. However, there the Huns encountered the general Flavius Aetius, often hailed as “the last of the Romans”. That’s right – this is an Aetius fan account.

Ironically, Aetius had effectively risen to power by relying on the Huns as his allies. Now he had to face off against his former allies as Attila invaded Gaul, drawing on the waning resources of an increasingly vestigial empire to field one of its last major military operations in alliance with the Visigoths and its other Germanic allies – and won, defeating the Huns at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains.

Or not, as historians dispute how conclusive a victory it was. Certainly Attila and the Huns withdrew from Gaul, only to invade Italy the following year – with there was little Aetius could do to stop them there, except for the Pope to ask Attila nicely if he would leave without sacking Rome.

Surprisingly, it worked – Attila left Italy (albeit more for lack of supplies and expectations of tribute), never to return as he died the following year, aborting his plans for a further campaign against the western empire – as with the Mongols, Europe was saved from invasion by a fortunately timed death (from Attila partying too hard celebrating his latest wedding to his hot new bride)

ART OF WAR

Certainly the Huns demonstrated the art of war, despite their reputation for savage barbarism. At a tactical level, they had the usual mobility, speed, surprise and shock of the steppes horse blitzkrieg – while strategically, they also sought out ways of winning without fighting through tribute and political alliances.

As for the Romans, they might have excelled in the art of war at the height of their empire, perhaps even retained their tactical skill towards the end, but just had too few legions as they struggled to mobilize any army.

WORLD WAR

The decline and fall of the Roman Empire – and the Migration Period or barbarian invasions – might be considered to be on the scale of a world war, but is a little too piecemeal in space or time.

I also like to think the Huns might also qualify as precursors of the Mongols on a similar world scale, but their origins – and links – to people identified as Huns in China, central Asia, Iran and India is not clear

STILL FIGHTING THE HUNNIC WARS

Well, not so much the fighting the Huns, vanishing as they did from history, but perhaps still living in the decline of empire…

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

Sorry Huns – that reputation for savage barbarism may be unfair and overstated, but when it comes to classical history, I usually side with the Romans, particularly in the fifth century

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – Top 10 History Books: (7) John Ellis – Brute Force: Allied Strategy & Tactics in the Second World War

Posted on by

Cover as published by Viking 1990

 

(7) JOHN ELLIS –

BRUTE FORCE: ALLIED STRATEGY & TACTICS IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR (1990)

 

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

Stalin is reputed to have said this, aptly enough about the Soviet armed forces in the Second World War. It’s probably apocryphal but I like to think that the fact it and other zingers are attributed to him implies an ability to drop one-liners unparalleled by any other war leader than Churchill – and certainly far exceeding Hitler. It amuses me to think that above all else, the Allies won the war of one-liners, the most important war of all. In modern internet parlance, you might say the Axis couldn’t meme.

More relevantly, if you were to sum up this book’s theme and thesis in one line, Stalin’s would do nicely, except that for both his Soviet forces and those of the Allies, it was a somewhat poor quality – the brute force of the title, grinding to a slower and more costly victory than might otherwise have been the case. In other words, war by attrition – and often not too different from the bloody attrition of the First World War for which that conflict’s military leadership is often faulted.

I obviously like Ellis as a historian – his Social History of the Machine Gun was similarly illuminating and insightful – although sadly his books seem somewhat neglected these days and can be elusive to find.

This book remains my favorite by Ellis – as well as one of my favorite general or thematic histories of the Second World War, exceeded only by my entry in top spot, which might arguably be paired together as alternatives (or correctives) to each other.

It certainly was an eye-opening look at Allied strategy and tactics in the war – and his critiques of their lack of finesse, proficiency or skill are persuasive, as for example with RAF Marshal Sir Arthur Harris’ area bombing dogma, a common subject of historical (and moral) criticism.

On the other hand, such critiques are easy to overstate in hindsight, particularly as opposed to the contemporary reality where each theater competed with the others, demanding troops and resources in very different ways and that could not be used elsewhere – or planning or production line decisions well in advance but which took substantial periods of time to change to battlefield requirements.

As opposed to my top spot entry (as something of an antidote), the book does lean into a historical pet peeve of mine – that tendency, dubbed in some internet circles as ‘wehraboo’ (a play on Wehrmacht and ‘weeaboo’ as slang for excessive or obsessive anime fandom), to disparage the Allies compared to so-called German military ‘excellence”.

While I would accept arguments that the Germans were the most consistent in their tactical proficiency throughout the war, albeit not so much in their strategy, much of the critiques Ellis makes about Allied “brute force” might also be made about German military successes.

In fairness, Ellis does make much of the same critiques about the Germans, particularly as the wheels started to fall off their blitzkrieg. However, the book overlooks the extent to which initial German successes relied not just on good luck and timing in a somewhat narrow window of opportunity, but also on significant advantages over their adversaries at the outset – advantages which arguably weren’t effectively matched by the comparable advantages in manpower and materiel by the Allies against them until 1944, at which point the Germans collapsed in a rapid manner similar to their own initial adversaries.

It also overlooks that the Germans owed their endurance in defense, at least in part, to the improvements in defensive firepower from that at the outset of the war, as well as their undoubted tactical proficiency in defense that enabled them to outfight numerically superior enemies until 1944.

I also took away from the book something else from the “brute force” of its title about Allied superiority – just how foolhardy the three major Axis nations in general were and Germany in particular was to decide on war in the first place, resembling nothing so much as a twentieth century version of the ghost dance seeking to conjure victory out of “triumph of the will”.

Germany and Japan even sought to make a virtue out of necessity by vaunting their so-called martial and psychological superiority over the material strength of their adversaries. History generally has a name for nations that do so – losers.

It also overlooks that Allied superiority was hard-earned. Material strength doesn’t just, well, materialize but takes a very real achievement in mobilizing manpower and materiel – one in which the Allies massively outclassed the Axis and one which is highlighted further by the fact that Germany had managed to occupy a productive potential in Europe to rival the United States but was still massively out-produced by the latter.

Italy is often disparaged for its performance in the war, particularly compared to Germany, but the underlying reality was not too different between them, albeit kept at bay for longer by Germany’s greater industrial base and tactical proficiency – such that I like to adapt the late Cold War quip about the Soviet Union being “Upper Volta with rockets” to Germany being “Italy with rockets”, in a very literal sense.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (8) Ottoman Empire

Posted on by

Map of Ottoman Empire in 1683 by Chamboz for Wikipedia “Ottoman Empire” licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

(8) OTTOMAN EMPIRE (1299 – 1922)

The empire that conquered Constantinople and besieged Vienna – twice.

As the latter, the last non-European empire to invade and conquer significant parts of Europe (unless you count the Americans or Soviets), although Vienna was their high water mark – and as the former, the power that finally conquered (and saw itself as inheriting) the last of the Roman Empire.

Ironically, the Ottomans often resembled the Roman Empire, firstly in its rise from one of numerous non-descript warring tribes on a peninsula, albeit the Anatolian rather than Italian peninsula (although as further irony, the Romans traced themselves from that peninsula as well, with their mythic origin from Troy). And secondly, in its tenacity in decline.

It is also intriguing how much of the origins of modern history might be traced to the looming presence of the Ottoman Empire in Europe and the Mediterranean – such as the discovery of the New World from seeking to find alternate trade routes to Asia and so on.

The rise of the Ottoman Empire rivals the conquests by the Arab caliphates it ultimately replaced in predominance in the Middle East – and indeed replayed much of the same history. The Ottoman Empire may have lacked the range and speed of the Arab conquests, although it made up for that in the extent to which it invaded and conquered within Europe.

With its conquest of the Byzantine Empire (as well as Constantinople as its newly conquered capital) and control of the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was a transcontinental empire at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa for six centuries.

Egypt was of course the jewel in the crown of their African empire – but it extended westwards from Libya to Morocco (and briefly into the Atlantic with the Canary Islands), becoming the basis of the fabled Barbary corsairs or pirates which even fought the United States, although these were only nominally under Ottoman control. The Ottomans also extended southwards to the Horn of Africa – and into naval wars in the Indian Ocean.

In Asia, they inherited the caliphate and its predominance in the Middle East, extending south through the Arabian peninsula, although held at bay by a resurgent Persia under their own Turkic Safavid dynasty.

And in Europe, they conquered the Balkans, extending to Crimea with the Crimean Khanate or Tatars, successors to the Mongol Golden Horde, as their vassal state, and also reached to the heart of Europe to besiege Vienna. Although apart from its defeats when besieging Vienna, it encountered significant holdouts or resistance elsewhere – Croatia, Dracula or Vlad the Impaler, Venice and the naval Battle of Lepanto.

It faced its waning tide of decline in the aftermath of its second defeat at Vienna, steadily losing its conquests in the Balkans even as it was propped up by Britain against Russia, resulting in it being styled as the “sick man of Europe” in the nineteenth century – somewhat overconfidently, as the Allies were to find out in WW1, although ultimately it collapsed in that war.

 

DECLINE & FALL

Ironically, the Ottomans might be compared favorably to the Romans they supplanted in their tenacity in decline. They did not endure for so many centuries as did the Romans – but then modern history moves a lot faster.

Of course, they were helped by European powers propping it up against each other, particularly Britain propping it up against Russia.

And against the apparent odds, they and their predominance in the Middle East endured until the First World War – and they might well have endured beyond that if they had remained aloof from that war and not chosen the losing side. Even in that war, they proved a resilient adversary, and even in defeat, they cast a long shadow – historian J.M. Roberts refers to most wars in the Middle East thereafter as the wars of Ottoman succession, up to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, their imperial core Turkey, to which they were shorn after the First World War, has also had a remarkable resurgence, rebounding almost immediately after its defeat from that war against further incursions, and newly emerging as a regional power in the Middle East, extending its influence and military presence through much of its former imperial territory

THE SUN NEVER SETS

Well, the sun did literally set on the Ottoman Empire in pure geographic terms – for example, it did not extend as far eastwards into Asia as its Arab caliphate predecessors. However, it can properly be ranked as a world empire in its influence, extending across three continents and reaching even further beyond that.

EVIL EMPIRE

As I said, the Ottomans get a lot of historical hate from certain circles – but sadly, I do have to rank them highly in the evil empire stakes. To be honest, I don’t know quite how brutal they were in maintaining their conquests, but they were notorious for their patronage of piracy and slavery, particularly through the Barbary corsairs.

What earns them their high ranking in evil empire stakes is their actions against ethnic minorities in the empire’s dying days – notably the Armenians – that gave the definition to genocide in the twentieth century

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (8) Mongol Conquests – Mongol Invasion of Europe

Posted on by

The Battle of Legnica (Liegnitz or Wahlstatt) on 9th April 1241 during the first Mongol invasion of Poland – copper engraving by Matthäus Merian the Elder 1630 (public domain image – Wikipedia “Mongol Invasions and Conquests”)

 

(8) MONGOL CONQUESTS –
MONGOL INVASION OF EUROPE (1236-1242)

The Mongols were essentially a horse blitzkrieg across Eurasia, achieving a mobility and speed on land, exceeded only by modern mobile warfare using the internal combustion engine.

The horse blitzkrieg was a recurring feature mounted (heh) by nomadic herding tribes, particularly by those from the steppes of central Asia, to such devastating effect against more sedentary or settled agricultural states throughout history. I can’t resist the memorable quote by the Pax Romana Youtube channel that “history is mostly a matter of hoping those psychos on horseback don’t attack this summer, steal the grain and take the slaves”.

None were more supremely effective at it than the Mongols, one of the most proficient and versatile military forces in history – one that was also supremely adaptable at coopting its conquered people for further conquests and for strategies of war beyond their horse blitzkrieg. It’s surprising how small the actual Mongol component was of their forces.

The founder of the Mongol Empire – Temujin, better known as Genghis Khan – was the best military and political leader of his era, or arguably any era. He succeeded in unifying the Mongol tribes as the nucleus of his empire, which at his death stretched from northern China through Central Asia to Iran and the outskirts of European Russia. In doing so, the Mongols conquered glittering states along the Silk Road in central Asia that barely anyone remembers because the Mongols wiped them out so thoroughly – the Khwaraziman Empire of Iran and the Qara Khitai.

However, it is the wars of his successors that are particularly fascinating to me as they advanced into almost every corner of Eurasia.

In the Middle East, they besieged and sacked Baghdad, the center of Islamic power for half a millennia, occupying as far as parts of Syria and Turkey, with raids advancing as far as Gaza in Palestine, where they were stopped in the battle of Ain Jalut by the Mamluks of Egypt.

In East Asia, the Mongols did not face a unified China but two warring states, the Jin in northern China and the Sung in southern China. Genghis had largely defeated the former – his successors finished it off and conquered the Sung as well. The latter was most famously by Kublai Khan – and in Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree.

The Mongols also invaded Korea, Burma and Vietnam. It’s interesting to think of the Mongol Vietnam War, which as Vietnam Wars usually go, resulted in defeat for the Mongols. It’s also interesting, given the definitive horse blitzkrieg of the Mongols, that the Mongols launched naval invasions of Java and Japan, but perhaps not surprisingly neither did well – the latter giving rise to the Japanese word kamikaze or divine wind for the storms that scattered the Mongol invasion fleets.

However, I’m giving this entry to the campaigns of his successors most familiar to me from my Eurocentric perspective – the Mongol invasion of Europe, commanded in the field by one of the best Mongol generals, Subutai. The Mongols rolled over European Russia – over much of which they would remain ruling as the Golden Horde until the fifteenth century – and invaded central Europe, decisively defeating Poland and Hungary.

They were poised to strike into the heartland of Europe and the Holy Roman Empire, indeed raiding the latter (and the Balkans), with little to stop them but the English Channel – but fortunately for Europe, the Great Khan Ogedai died, so the Mongol armies withdrew back to Russia while their leaders returned to Mongolia to select the new Great Khan. Or so the story goes – historians vary on whether that was the true cause for the Mongols to desist from their invasion.

Even so, the Mongols continued to cast a long shadow of terror into Europe, reinforced by further raids in the thirteenth century (such that the raids of the 1280’s are sometimes styled as the second Mongol invasion) and fourteenth century.

And traumatizing Europeans with steak tartare, based on the popular legend of Mongol or ‘Tartar’ warriors tenderizing meat under their saddles and eating it at night after it had been ‘cooked’ by the heat and sweat from the horse.

ART OF WAR

Forget Sun Tzu – the true Art of War was written by Genghis Khan and the Mongols…in conquest. A friend and I used to observe the irony of Sun Tzu’s Art of War originating in China – a country that historically has gotten its ass kicked as often as not. (The same irony for Machiavelli’s The Prince originating in Italy – a country known for its political chaos).

But seriously – an army that conquered the world clearly excelled in the art of war. Ruling their conquests on the other hand…although in fairness any empire that size at that time was doomed to fragmentation.

WORLD WAR

The Mongol Conquests were nothing short of what should be described as a world war to create the largest contiguous land empire in history, and one that is still only exceeded by the British Empire – perhaps the most serious contender for the first true world war.

STILL FIGHTING THE MONGOL CONQUESTS

One of the few wars we’re not still fighting, even though we live in a Mongol-made world. The rising Russian state, with long memories of the Golden Horde, saw to that by conquering the steppes and various residual khanates (into the nineteenth century), but arguably inheriting their legacy and former territory as the new horde.

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

History has tended to overlook the positive or even progressive aspects of the Pax Mongolica – but it is also difficult to cast them as good guys, given the destruction they wrought, exceeding even the Second World War relative to world population.

RATINGS: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (8) Felipe Fernandez-Armesto – Civilizations: Culture, Ambition & The Transformation of Nature

Posted on by

Cover 2002 Free Press edition

 

(8) FELIPPE FERNANDEZ-ARMESTO –

CIVILIZATIONS: CULTURE, AMBITION & THE TRANSFORMATION OF NATURE (2000)

 

A book on the suject of human civilization – or rather, civilizations, arranged by environment, consistent with the definition of civilization in the subtitle as the transformation of nature.

The book essentially treats all human societies as civilization, or at least a civilization – eschewing attempts at ‘checklist’ of criteria that define a civilization, given the problems of previous attempts to do so for any that are universally agreed, instead looking at human societies in classic Toynbee terms of challenge and response to their natural environments, at least in origin.

While such an approach may have flaws in its lack of distinction between a ‘civilization’ and other human societies, the book does have much to offer from its thematic history of human civilization from a geographic and environmental perspective.

Firstly, it vividly impresses on you the extent to which human history and societies have been shaped by nature, at least in origin – including the most basic or stark features which one might otherwise overlook from a different thematic perspective.

This is most striking when it looks at those environments it groups together as the wasteland, worlds of ice or sand deserts, which can only support the most minimalist societies – minimalist that is, beyond surviving in them, prompting to mind the lines from the poem “Australia” by A.D. Hope, about men whose boast is not “we live” but “we survive”. There’s a similar quality

Perhaps its most insightful feature – which it states in its introduction – was its comparative history of civilizations, “arranged environment by environment, rather than period by period or society by society”, thus yielding comparisons across time and space that might not otherwise occur to the reader.

The evocative part and chapter headings (or subheadings) illustrate those environmental classifications:

  • Part 1: The Wasteland – Ice Worlds & Tundra, Deserts of Sand
  • Part 2: Leave of Grass – Prairie & Grassy Savannah, the Eurasian Steppe (the Highway of Civilization)
  • Part 3: Under the Rain – Postglacial & Temperate Woodland, Tropical Lowlands
  • Part 4: The Shining Fields of Mud (alluvial or river floodplains in the ancient Near East, China and India)
  • Part 5: The Mirrors of Sky – the Highland Civilizations of the New World and the Old
  • Part 6: The Water Margins (Civilizations Shaped by the Sea) – Small Island Civilizations and Seaboard Civilizations such as the Seaboard Civilizations of Maritime Asia or the Greek and Roman Seaboards
  • Part 7: Breaking the Waves (the Domestication of the Oceans) – the Rise of Oceanic Civilizations, the Making of Atlantic Civilization, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific – from the Pacific to the World

I was particularly fascinated by its comparison of grassland societies – prompting to mind, as such things tend to do, whether other grasslands might have produced the horse blitzkriegs that the Eurasian steppes did in other circumstances.

Or its subject of the oceans – how maritime navigation has been shaped by the distinctive currents and wind patterns of each ocean, with the Indian Ocean proving the most ”precocious’ for long distance navigation (indeed from the dawn of human history), the Atlantic being somewhat more tricky, and the Pacific trickier still (Polynesian island-hopping aside).

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (9) China – Qing Empire

Posted on by

The Qing dynasty at its greatest extent in 1760, with claimed territory not under its control in light green – based by Aldermanseven on Albert Herrmann’s map in the 1935 History and Commercial Atlas of China for Wikipedia “Qing Dynasty” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

(9) CHINA – QING EMPIRE (1644 – 1912)

The last Chinese empire, lasting into the twentieth century with perhaps the most spectacular decline and fall on the world stage in modern history.

Like India, China has seen the rise and fall of numerous empires over millennia that could well be the subject of their own top ten, although Chinese empires are probably better known to general history and more coherent imperial states than their Indian counterparts.

Similarly to India, there are a number of candidates for the top spot among Chinese empires – the Qin and Han empires were its definitive empires (giving their name to China itself and its predominant ethnicity respectively), while the Tang, Song and Ming empires all vie for status as classical Chinese empires or golden ages. The Ming empire is particularly reputed for being on the threshold of becoming a maritime empire with its fabled fleets and expeditions, before turning back to the usual landbound nature of Chinese empires.

The Yuan Empire – the dynasty of Kublai Khan and China’s Mongol conquerors – could also argue its claim for top spot, and depending on how you reckon it, may well qualify as China’s largest empire.

However, I award the top spot to the Qing Empire. Firstly, it is the Chinese empire of modern history, its last empire that survived until falling in the early twentieth century, as well as the empire that interacted most with European powers as they increasingly encroached upon it.

Secondly, my particular fascination with empires is with their decline and fall – and few things were as spectacular in modern history , or loom as large in the hindsight of a Chinese revolutionary regime succeeding it and adapting its imperial forms, as the decline and fall of the Qing Empire.

And by spectacular, I mean the grand spectacle playing out on the world stage of it desperately trying to fend off foreign powers it previously saw as barbarians or tributaries, but even more so fighting the endless rebellions within itself, until it was ultimately overwhelmed by the final one.

Of course, it didn’t start off that way – like every empire, it had its robust rise, essentially as a conquest of Ming China by one of those northern non-Chinese minorities that bubbled up occasionally to rule China, in this case the Manchus (for which Manchuria is named).

At its height in the 18th and early 19th centuries, it was the largest Chinese empire in history (depending on how you calculate the Mongol Yuan Empire) – and indeed fourth largest empire in history, as well as the most populous state and largest economy in the world.

And then came its decline and fall, in the so-called century of humiliation – usually reckoned to start with its defeat by Britain and France in the Opium Wars, which heralded ever more depredations by foreign powers, as well as ever more dangerous rebellions against the empire.

I’ve heard it said that the Qing Empire literally faced a peasant rebellion an average of every hour or so. I don’t know the truth of that assertion, which probably tallies up the hours in the numerous historical rebellions against the Qing, although I also suspect that many or most rebellions were too limited or localised to have any serious consequence.

Not so the Taiping Rebellion, in which a cult with a leader proclaiming himself the younger brother of Jesus and declaring his own Heavenly Kingdom, slogged it out with the Qing in the bloodiest civil war in history, with casualties to rival the First World War or even the Second World War.

Although it was in the Boxer Rebellion that China’s humiliation by foreign powers perhaps reached its nadir. That or its defeat by Japan in the Sino-Japanese War. It was one thing to lose to European powers – it was another to lose to another Asian state, a former Chinese tributary, that had been in a similar position to China vis-a-vis European powers only a generation or so previously

Qing China finally fell to rebellion or revolution in 1911, which abolished empires in China altogether (even if many of their features were to recur in their successors), with the last Qing emperor abdicating in 1912.

 

DECLINE & FALL

As the decline and fall of empires go, Qing China ranks up there with the most spectacular and tenacious of them, holding the line despite the odds – and when it did fall, at least it fell to internal revolution rather than conquest. Particularly as they did it on a shoestring – apparently they were never able to raise taxes above 2% of their economy.

“There are serious questions as to whether any government could’ve handled the gargantuan tasks the Qing faced, and they managed to survive a civil war that by all accounts should have destroyed them and would probably have taken down most lesser Chinese empires.”

Even then the Qing emperor at least managed to bounce back, although his empire did not – twice, albeit more by that adage of history repeating itself first as tragedy and then as farce. Firstly in 1917, when he was briefly crowned for a fortnight by a royalist warlord in the so-called Manchu Restoration, and secondly in 1932 as “emperor” of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo

It’s tempting to think what might have happened if the Qing could have pulled off the same trick as the defeated Nationalists and retreated to Taiwan – but unfortunately for the Qing, they had lost Taiwan to Japan in the Sino-Japanese War

If nothing else, they totally had a better flag than any of their successors.

THE QING EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, the Qing Empire never fell. As the Soviet Union ironically replicated much of the nature and territorial claims of imperial Russia – with Stalin as the red Tsar – so too did Communist China with imperial China, particularly under Mao as red Emperor

THE SUN NEVER SETS

Although the Qing Empire was confined in physical extent to east Asia, it deserves its status as a world empire – its designation for itself as the Middle Kingdom or heart of the world not too far from the reality as a world unto itself, the world’s most populous state and largest economy

EVIL EMPIRE

While the modern view of Qing China tends to be closer to that of victim to Western powers, it can rank reasonably high as evil empire. Its original conquest of Ming China is estimated to have a death toll of at least 25 million. And it was seemingly indifferent to even higher death tolls to suppress the rebellions against it – although a casual indifference to loss of human life, even in the millions, was not unusual in either its predecessors or successors in China.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (9) Spanish Conquest of the Americas – Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire

Posted on by

The 1521 Fall of Tenochtitlan by Spanish Conquistador Hernán Cortés, from the Conquest of México series – oil on canvas 17th century (public domain image)

 

(9) SPANISH CONQUEST OF THE AMERICAS –
CONQUEST OF THE AZTEC EMPIRE (1519-1521)

 

Remarkable for just how few Spanish forces conquered such a populous empire in such a short span of time (as it was with the conquest of the Inca Empire).

The Spanish Conquest of the Americas – la Conquista by the conquistadors – falls within the broader native American wars. Indeed, it and the American Indian Wars might be regarded as the two poles of native American wars – whereas the American Indian Wars fall at the tail end of them, the Spanish Conquest is at their very head.

It also propelled Spain, something of a peninsular backwater in Europe that had only just reconquered all its territory from Islamic conquest to the first world maritime superpower.

As for which Spanish conquest to nominate for this entry, I’ve gone with the conquest led by Hernan Cortes of the Aztec Empire. After all, it was either that or the close second for the conquest by Francisco Pizarro of the Inca Empire – and the conquest by Cortes was the influence and model for the latter, as well as effectively the springboard of the whole Conquest of the Americas, at least on the mainland.

Population estimates of the Aztec Empire prior to its conquest vary but generally seem to be about 10 million people, while Cortes had 508 soldiers in his expedition.

And he was lucky to get away even with that, as he set sail only just evading the Governor of Spanish Cuba revoking his commission, as it had become obvious that Cortes had something far more audacious in mind than mere exploration or trade. Cortes also famously scuttled his ships after arriving in Mexico, so that his forces could not retreat and had no other option but to fight.

Of course, Cortes’ forces did have some qualitative advantage of technological superiority. It is tempting to see it purely in terms of the first element of Jared Diamond’s titular trinity of guns, germs and steel – guns.

The Spanish certainly had guns, even cannon, and while the latter gave a useful advantage to the Spanish, I’m not sure I’d want to face down a fanatical horde of Aztec warriors in close combat with my inaccurate sixteenth century muzzle-loading single-shot musket, let alone whatever an arquebus is.

Far more useful were the Spanish crossbows and of course the third element of trinity – steel, in their armor and weapons, which the Aztecs lacked. More useful yet were the 16 horses of the expedition, as the Aztecs (and the Americas) were utterly without and therefore unfamiliar with horses, so that the Spanish cavalry had a real impact of shock and awe on the Aztecs. Probably with less impact but fascinating to me was the Spanish use of war dogs.

Another qualitative advantage was leadership. While Cortes had no experience, he proved himself a capable and charismatic military commander, while the Aztec emperor Moctezuma or Montezuma was generally perceived as weak or hesitant, even by the Aztecs.

Cortes was so capable and charismatic, that he defeated the larger Spanish force sent to retrieve him and then talked its soldiers and cavalry around to joining his conquest. However, this expanded Spanish force was still pitifully small compared to the Aztecs, even with its technological and tactical superiority

Which is where the second element of Jared Diamond’s trilogy was probably decisive – germs. The Aztecs are estimated to have lost almost half their population to smallpox from the Spaniards by the last year of the conquest and Cortes’ assault on their capital.

God and the gods also played their part. Faith in God was an important part of motivation and morale for the Spanish and not least Cortes himself in their conquests, coming as they did on the heels of the Reconquista of Islamic Spain.

One factor may or may not have played a part, reported by Cortes himself, was that he was seen as the return of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl – but it is disputed as to whether or what extent the Aztecs actually believed this, and impossible to know its effect on them even if they did.

Another factor that certainly did play its part was that of the old saying that behind every great man is a woman. Malintzin, a slave-woman “gifted” to the Spanish with her own gift for languages, who became Cortes’ interpreter, diplomatic adviser and mistress – and who might well be hailed as co-conquistador.

Malintzin was an instrumental part in the true reason for the Spanish victory other than disease – that the Spanish force didn’t win it as such, but rather led the much larger winning force consisting predominantly of their native American allies against the Aztecs.

The Aztecs had their own bloody sacrificial empire that was still new and expanding just prior to the Spanish conquest – for which they were absolutely hated by many or most of their imperial subjects, at least some of whom were all too happy to ally themselves with the Spanish to overthrow the Aztecs.

ART OF WAR

Well obviously when your forces of a few hundred (or few thousand with reinforcements) defeat an empire of millions in a few years, you’re doing something right in the art of war.

And partly this would seem to be down to factors you can’t plan or even predict according to Sun Tzu – good fortune, and even more so, the boldness it favors. Say what you will about Cortes but he had cojones.

Of course, partly this would seem to be down to factors you can draw from Sun Tzu – subterfuge, diplomacy or alliances, and capturing enemy leaders or holding them hostage

WORLD WAR

The Spanish Conquest was the decisive landmark in what might be described, in its total scope, of a world war as the powers of one continent commenced their conquest of two others – the world war that started all the world wars of European maritime empires.

Even more as the Spanish conquest extended beyond the Americas to Asia (where the Spanish conquered the Philippines) and Africa, not least in the slave trade to the Americas.

STILL FIGHTING THE SPANISH CONQUEST

While the Spanish empire in the Americas fought for and (mostly) won its independence, the Spanish conquest casts a long shadow in Latin America – with native American resistance persisting even today, as with the Zapatistas in Mexico.

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

Modern historical perspective tends not to favor the Spanish as the good guys, although this is often disputed as a continuation of so-called Black Legend of anti-Spanish history – with some fairness. On the other hand, of all people the Spanish conquered, the Aztecs qualify the least as good guys, although again often disputed as historical propaganda against them – with some fairness.

Probably the only people who unambiguously qualify as the good guys are the indigenous population of Mexico caught between the two empires as one conquered the other.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (9) Adrian Goldsworthy – How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower

Posted on by

Cover – 2010 Yale University Press edition

 

(9) ADRIAN GOLDSWORTHY –

HOW ROME FELL: DEATH OF A SUPERPOWER (2009)

 

 

Adrian Goldsworthy has risen to the status of my favorite historian of the classical Roman empire, mostly on the back of this book although his 2023 book The Eagle and the Lion: Rome, Persia and an Unwinnable Conflict was a leading contender for my wildcard tenth place entry for best history book of 2023.

 

I’ve used the American title for the book because I prefer it as more catchy – and it also prompts to mind one of my personal highlights of the book in its introduction, dismissing the cliché of comparing the decline and fall of the Roman Empire to the modern United States (a cliché with which Goldsworthy entertainingly relates that he is routinely accosted at dinner parties when he informs someone of his historical speciality).

 

As to the question in the book’s title, in a nutshell Goldsworthy answers that they did it to themselves. It’s a little like the twist in Fight Club, with the Romans revealed as the protagonist beating himself up, to the bemusement of the barbarian onlookers – and their delight when picking up the pieces.

 

I think it’s a solid answer. Goldsworthy does not dismiss the various barbarian invasions as the reason for the empire’s demise but that looks to the question of how they did so, given that the empire’s adversaries were not fundamentally different from when the empire successfully resisted them – and in the case of the various German tribes, so surprisingly small compared to the empire.

 

As Goldsworthy memorably observes, no matter who won their seemingly endless civil wars or wars of imperial succession, the losses were all Roman, weakening the empire as a whole against its external adversaries. Another memorable observation is how the Romans never really left the crisis of the third century, just muted it to fewer civil wars and usurpations.

 

Also, the Romans ultimately played a losing game enlisting German tribes as allies or foederati in its own territory – in that the territory occupied by the Germans was no longer Roman territory, with the Romans losing any revenue from those territories, or any manpower beyond that provided by the Germans. Thanks a lot, Theodosius – you empire killer.

 

As for the history itself, Goldsworthy takes the same starting point as that of Gibbon’s famous History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire – itself following on from Roman historian Cassius Dio who marked it as their descent from “a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron” – the death of Marcus Aurelius and accession of Commodus in 180 AD.

 

However, he pulls up stumps well before Gibbon’s finishing point, wrapping up the book aptly enough with the reign of Heraclius and the empire’s territory lost to the Arabs.

 

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (10) India – Maurya Empire

Posted on by

India under Maurya rule c. 250 BCE (based on map p. 69 of Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge) by Avantiputra7 for “Maurya Empire” Wikipedia and licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 

 

(10) INDIA – MAURYA EMPIRE (322 – 184 BC)

The Maurya or Mauryan Empire ranks in top spot among Indian empires, mostly due to my fandom of its emperor Ashoka, held in semi-legendary regard as one of India’s (and history’s) greatest emperors, as well as the first state to rule almost the entire Indian subcontinent (except the southernmost part that consistently held out against other Indian empires except their own and the British).

The Indian subcontinent has seen the rise and fall of numerous empires that could well be the subject of their own top ten, even if most are little known outside Indian history – reflecting that they almost never extended beyond the subcontinent, at least in direct territorial extent. In fairness, the Indian subcontinent has always been virtually a world of its own, particularly as a proportion of world population and economy (the latter at least until the ascent of Europe).

There are a number of candidates for top spot among Indian empires. There’s the Gupta Empire, from the fourth to later sixth century (and therefore contemporary to the declining west Roman empire), often considered the golden age empire of classical Hindu India.

There’s the early modern Islamic Mughal (or Mogul or Moghul) Empire, which might well be considered the height of empire in pre-British India as well as that best known in general history, not least because it gave India its most iconic landmark, the Taj Mahal.

And of course there was the crown jewel of the British Empire that was the British Raj – although that is usually not ranked among Indian empires as such.

However there can only be one empire for this entry and that is the Maurya empire, which one might consider the Roman Empire of India, or at least the equivalent of the rising imperial Roman republic with which it was a contemporary.

And its founder for which it was named, Chandragupta Maurya, ranks almost as highly in legendary esteem as Ashoka – or Rome’s Romulus for that matter – rising from humble origins from a cowherd and essentially to bandit leader to defeat the Nanda Empire (which had faced off none other than Alexander the Great) and forge his own empire instead.

Back to Ashoka, he extended the empire to its greatest extent before, as it is told, being sickened by the violence of the Kalinga War (against the Kalinga state on the Bay of Bengal), he converted to Buddhism and pacifism, thereafter ruling with legendary benevolence.

Although his empire extended only throughout the subcontinent, its influence extended well beyond that through his patronage of Buddhism and Buddhist missionaries, which arguably played the same role expanding that religion as Roman imperial state patronage did for Christianity.

One of Ashoka’s edicts proclaimed the territories “conquered by the Dhamma”, from the Buddhist term Dharma and reflecting the moral law or sphere of influence within Buddhism, to extend to the west through the Hellenistic kingdoms to Greece itself

The empire declined and fell within fifty years of his death, which shows you where pacifism gets you as an empire. In fairness, that was due as much to the subsequent line of succession, although it hasn’t stopped some historians alleging that Ashoka’s pacifism undermined the “military backbone” of the empire – while others assert that the extent or impact of his pacifism was “greatly exaggerated”.

 

Art of the Samath Lion Capital statue for Ashoka – the closest thing to a flag I could find for the Maurya Empire

DECLINE & FALL

Nothing to see here – it all fell apart quickly after Ashoka. That’s where pacifism gets you – I guess it’s a Darwinian world after all

THE MAURYA EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, the Maurya Empire never fell – arguably having the most enduring influence of any Indian empire through its patronage of Buddhism.

THE SUN NEVER SETS

The sun obviously set on the Maurya Empire, which was limited in physical extent, as almost all Indian Empires were, to the Indian subcontinent. However, I think it might properly be reckoned as a world empire, particularly in its “territory conquered by the Dhamma” or influence through Buddhism – a world religion on which the sun does not set.

EVIL EMPIRE

One of the few empires, at least under Ashoka’s legendary benevolence, that avoids the tag of evil empire, albeit arguably at the cost of its endurance.

In The Outline of History, H.G. Wells wrote “Amidst the tens of thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history, their majesties and graciousnesses and serenities and royal highnesses and the like, the name of Ashoka shines, and shines, almost alone, a star.”

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)