Dany's death!

[CelticBrennus]

Rex: If you are incapable of addressing any of the points, let us know.

It certainly seems that way.

i dont read 13th century chinese do you? i've not heard of GK's dictations having been translated in any complete version if you have mention it

Its called a translation. There is a large body of work in historiography that deals with how to analyze translations, and how to critically approach them.

[doc awesome]

But almost EVERYONE who was not a slave had them are you saying that the entire non slave population had slaves?

[Guest Other-in-law]

But almost EVERYONE who was not a slave had them are you saying that the entire non slave population had slaves?

Perhaps if this question was reformulated into something intelligible there would be a point to replying to it?

[doc awesome]

If someone did not own a slave and dressed like a slave owner then what would happen to them?

[Guest Other-in-law]

Ah, now I understand. Also, I'm sorry about being rude earlier, that was out of line.

It's pretty much spelled out how the Tokar is the badge of the slave-owning class among the Ghiscari, and I read it as a deliberate thing (insofar as cultural traditions can be said to be 'deliberate'). The garment is so difficult to wear that doing so precludes any sort of manual labour whatsoever (I think the Chinese Imperial families had something similar with sleeves that were far too long to be able to do anything). You need to hold it in place with one hand and walk very, very carefully to avoid tripping. It's obviously impractical and proclaims that the wearer has someone else to do just about everything for them.

Now, we don't know the specifics of how slave ownership works under that system...whether slaves belong to individuals, or to whole families collectively. Regardless, any one wearing a tokar is enjoying the benefits of slave-ownership before Dany changes everything.

[Red Rex]

Oddly enough, you've managed to miss my point completely, which was to educate you as to the actual meaning of the terms you use in hopes of being able to read a post or two of yours that isn't riddled with errors.

Other I never fail to get my POINT across, grammar and stuff like that is simply inconsequential to me and no amount of nit-picking or insuling is going to change that fact

And no, I don't read Chinese from any era, though you can often find translations of major primary sources. And none of those that I (or CelticBrennus, thanks for that link by the way; I'm strongly tempted to buy a copy of that Polish chronicle) cited are Chinese in the original, anyway. They were Mongolian and Arabic (or possibly Persian, I'm not 100% sure about Juvaynī).

Other there IS no such thing as "Mongolian" language, one of GK greatest accomplishment was having the Chinesse put his story down on paper because the Mongolians didnt have a written language of their own

Rex: If you are incapable of addressing any of the points, let us know.

It certainly seems that way.

Its called a translation. There is a large body of work in historiography that deals with how to analyze translations, and how to critically approach them.

Celtic when I get the chance I'll go back over the points you've raised and addressed them I've just been occupied recently

[Ealasaid]

Other I never fail to get my POINT across, grammar and stuff like that is simply inconsequential to me and no amount of nit-picking or insuling is going to change that fact

Celtic when I get the chance I'll go back over the points you've raised and addressed them I've just been occupied recently

I invoked your name elsewhere and you did not come to argue with us. Now I find you here telling someone your "stuff" is good? "Stuff" from such an erudite person?

Not to be nosy, what is your chosen occupation and field other field of expertise? Bugger, I'm quite nosy and curious. Are you an electrical engineer?

And isn't that the real problem with Genghis Khan? We don't know that much about him. I was under the impression much of the knowledge we did have was oral.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Other I never fail to get my POINT across, grammar and stuff like that is simply inconsequential to me and no amount of nit-picking or insuling is going to change that fact

Complaining about a simple typo like "insuling" would be a genuine nitpick. Pointing out that you don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about when you claim a book written in 1969 as a "primary source" for the thirteenth century is a legitimate problem, and the sort of willful ignorance and refusal to address your shortcomings you just displayed there does you no credit.

Other there IS no such thing as "Mongolian" language

No doubt the 5.7 million speakers of Mongolian will be disappointed to discover that their language doesn't exist. Of course they would be guilty of nitpicking if they complained about it, I suppose.

one of GK greatest accomplishment was having the Chinesse put his story down on paper because the Mongolians didnt have a written language of their own

Forgot your waterwings yet again. The Mongols adopted a version of the Uighur alphabet in 1208 during Chinggis Khagan's lifetime (as does the oldest survivng inscription, which dates to 1225), and it has been used continuously since then (particularly in the Inner Mongolian region of China). This was the script that the Secret History was originally written in, though no manuscript survives. The oldest surviving manuscript is written in chinese characters to be sure, but would knowledge of chinese be sufficient to understand it? No, because it's in the mongolian language, just written with chinese script!

Here's a nice page on the old Mongolian Uighur alphabet, which explains the pen strokes used in writing it. I'm linking it mainly because I like it, not because I have any confidence in your willingness to educate yourself.

They also adopted their own squarish variation of the Tibetan alphabet, called Phagspa (after the monk who devised it) starting in the late 13th century, which was apparently the official alphabet of the Yuan court.

Oh yeah, and this:

Other I never fail to get my POINT across, grammar and stuff like that is simply inconsequential to me and no amount of nit-picking or insuling is going to change that fact

once again fails to grasp the fact that when, time and again, your point is based on factual errors it is consequently WRONG.

[CelticBrennus]

Other there IS no such thing as "Mongolian" language, one of GK greatest accomplishment was having the Chinesse put his story down on paper because the Mongolians didnt have a written language of their own

Given the mystical nature of Chinese Emperorship (Mandate of Heaven and the like) would it not make perfect snese fo rthe Chinese authors to deliberately build Ghengis up - to make him more then he was to help fit him closer into the position of Chinese leadership.

Also, it is a tendancy of many peoples to build up the nature of their foes - after all Ghengis was a mere steppe barbarian to those Chinese chroniclers, and they would have to turn him into someone that they could accept as having conquered thier far more civilized society.

Caesar and Napoleon both were notorious for doing similar thing, albiet for differing reasons. They built up their foes as often as possible, inflating numbers, and praising their enemy commanders till their faces turned blue. After all, its a more glorious victory when you defeat an army of a quarter million led by a brilliant commander then a half starved force of a hundred thousand led by an idiot....

These are all issues that true students of history have to grapple with and work at when analyzing primary sources from ancient texts, and even many modern ones.

[Red Rex]

No doubt the 5.7 million speakers of Mongolian will be disappointed to discover that their language doesn't exist. Of course they would be guilty of nitpicking if they complained about it, I suppose.

they had no WRITTEN language at the time of GK birth, this is a fact

[CelticBrennus]

Well, since according to Others link, Ghengis ORDERED them to create one....

*HINT* If you have any evidence to the contrary, here is where you put it, cause, sorry, your word just doesnt cut it...

[Red Rex]

Given the mystical nature of Chinese Emperorship (Mandate of Heaven and the like) would it not make perfect snese fo rthe Chinese authors to deliberately build Ghengis up - to make him more then he was to help fit him closer into the position of Chinese leadership.

I dont think so, his accomplishments were far and beyond unprecedented, also the failed invasion of Japan which can said to have possibily having been the byproduct of Chinesse sabatoge under GK's grandson illustrates the fact that due to the fact that the Mongolian conquerors kept themselves seperate from their conquerd subjects leads me to believe that the Chinesse picture of GK as fat and overly indulgent was not meant as flattery but as contemptuous propoganda dismissing the Mongolian warrior ideals that was most responsible for GK being able to conquer China in the 1st place... It was Conuscious (I believe) who stated that being a "soldier" is the most contemptable profession for a person to devote himself to, and I'd hypothesize that it was this underlying cultural belief that led to the most able and remarkable men of China NOT choosing "warrior" as their profession, and Chinesse arrognace and STUPIDITY was the cause of their destruction I mean seriously who builds such a long+large wall and FAILS to complete it anyway...

Well, since according to Others link, Ghengis ORDERED them to create one....

*HINT* If you have any evidence to the contrary, here is where you put it, cause, sorry, your word just doesnt cut it...

oh, yes GK ordered one to be CREATED I thought we were discussing Mongolian language PRE-GK

Also, it is a tendancy of many peoples to build up the nature of their foes - after all Ghengis was a mere steppe barbarian to those Chinese chroniclers, and they would have to turn him into someone that they could accept as having conquered thier far more civilized society.

There is simply no arguing the point that GK conquerord an empire 4x the size of Alexander and 2x the size of Rome at its pinnacle, instituted freedom of religion, a swift messenger service, opened up formerly non-existent trade routes, gave his people a proud national identity, is the direct ancestor of something like 1/8-1/4th of the present worlds population, and was the 1st Steepe chieftain to distribute rank and titles based upon ability and personal loyalty as opposed to birth...

[Daemrion]

Chinese arrognace and STUPIDITY was the cause of their destruction I mean seriously who builds such a long+large wall and FAILS to complete it anyway...

Ummm...maybe because squillions of people died trying to finish it?

Maybe the cost of human lives was too great??? I mean why does one with the technology to build nuclear missiles and armaments stop building up more and more??

[Red Rex]

Caesar and Napoleon both were notorious for doing similar thing, albiet for differing reasons. They built up their foes as often as possible, inflating numbers, and praising their enemy commanders till their faces turned blue. After all, its a more glorious victory when you defeat an army of a quarter million led by a brilliant commander then a half starved force of a hundred thousand led by an idiot....

There are certainly similarities between GL and these two great men, but significant differences as well. 1st lets examine Caesar: doubtless he exaggerated the NUMBERS of his opponents, BUT he WAS doubtlessly outnumbered in most of the battles of the Galic campaigns but the extent of which must be viewed dubiously since his book was written as much as self promoting propoganda as anything else. NOW that having been said, Vercingetorix was undoubtebly a remarkable man in his own right (you can compare and contrast and ponder perspectives of Caesar's Gallic campaigns with "Druids" by Llyelyn) but Vercengetorix's main failing IMO was the underlying nature of his (ever so briefly) united Gaul. Gallic warriors were all motivated by advancing their personal glory and lacked the roman discipline (which once lost was the true cause for the fall of the empire, just look at the changes in equipement and you see a change in the mentality of your average legionare). Vercengetorix greatness couldn't have been all THAT overstated BECAUSE he was the 1st Prince to become King of a unified Gaul for however brief a time. Now, it CAN be argued that by having been in many ways Vercengetorix's mentor, Caesar was perfectly positioned to know the mind of his enemy while Caesar might very well have manipulated the most formidable man of Gaul into acting as Caesars puppet in some respects I could probably argue either side of that argument. The army locked within (Alesia?-spelling?) was no doubt starving when they sent out their women and children to be roman slaves, so their attacks on the roman entrenchments might have had periodic decreases in ferocity, BUT those Gauls who attacked the Roman entrenched position from the rear were well fed it would seem.

On the other hand, Napolean LOST in the middle east and only REPORTED a victory, I dont liken Napolean to Caesar for this very reason. Caesar's VICTORIES were unquestioned FACT evidenced by the Gallic States being incorporated into the Roman Empire. The bridge across the Rhine into Germany and Caesar's returning with an army intact could hardly be discounted other than in the respect of the size of the Germanic Tribe across the Rhine that fleed before him.

GK wasnt built up, as much as his descendants who followed him never rivaled GK's greatness. Consider the fact that Kublai Khan treated his Chineese subjects wit contempt, while also placing the lives of his great army in the hands of Chinesse shipwrights. GK was a unifier, while in contrast his descendants were seperatists. When the Mongolian invasion of Japan failed, it wasn't a defeat of a nationalist china, in contrast it was a pronouncement that the Mongolian Invincability was no longer in effect. GK freed slaves and not only incorportated them into his army, freed slaves were some of his most trusted generals. Once the initial conquest of China was taken care of there's no evidence that the Conquoring Mongolians even THOUGHT of incorporating their new subjects into MONGOLIAN society, so that when the air of Mongolian Invincibilty no longer held sway there were an unhappy populous...

It's GK's undoubted courage, revolutionary decrees, unquestionable brilliance and personal charisma which echos down to us through the centuries. I dont see how building up GK would serve any interests, and in truth was completely unnecessary because GK's greatest accomplishments were obtained Pre-Chinese Conquest, by defeating his blood brother who had undoubtebly had a stronger starting position, by inventing new tactics and training methods such as having his mounted archers ith composite bows fire when their horses were momentarily suspened in mid air so as to improve firing accuracy, constantly challenging his men to maximize themselves... If anything, China would have diminished GK to the rank of a primitive savage, but by chronicalling his policys and their effects along with his victorious battles there were really no unknown areas on which they could slant in unfavorable OR magnanimous light. What you WILL see is that his policy of religious freedom throughout his empire, the expanded trade, these things aren't as popularly circulated as GK the warrior. Everyone KNOWS GK was ruthless, don't you think that "ruthlessness" being a focal point of his character could be seen as a criticism coming from a "civilized" society.

GK's "style" of tactical decisions alone give credence to the fact he was largely out numbered in MANY circumstances, which is why he cannot be said to be anything short of a tactical genious. Now Caesar himself was a tactical genious BUT since the same could be said of Pompeii it could easily be inferred that Caesar's transcipts were subject to a great deal of one-upmanship.

Now I must admit I dont have as thruough an understanding of Napolean as I do of Caesar who I've read most about, or GK who I understand best, but both Napolean and Caesars accounts were written with a political agenda being promoted in each case promoting themselves to imperial authority. GK's chronicles in contrast were recorded in retrospect AFTER he'd achieved supreme authority. The sense of Mongolian Invincibilty continued on long after GK's death, and GK's chief rival as previously stated was his blood brother, who when captured and brought before GK, GK has his blood brothers captures executed on the spot, GK DIDNT want to lie about his blood brother, while Caesar and Napolean had far less attachemnts to their enemies.

Now does anyone know where to find the Napoleanic Prophecies?

[Ealasaid]

Ummm...maybe because squillions of people died trying to finish it?

Maybe the cost of human lives was too great??? I mean why does one with the technology to build nuclear missiles and armaments stop building up more and more??

The answer is fear,

the little mind killer.

[Daemrion]

The answer is fear,

the little mind killer.

I know, I was just being sarcastic about the nuclear thing. I was being snarky towards RR's suggestions that stupidity was the reason that the Great Wall stopped being built.

[Guest Other-in-law]

oh, yes GK ordered one to be CREATED I thought we were discussing Mongolian language PRE-GK

Um...NO, we were not talking about the existence of a Mongolian alphabet at the time of Chinggis Khagan's birth, we were talking about what language the primarary source's on his conquests were written in. Gee, which comes first- building the largest empire in history, or being born? Hopefully even you, Rex, can see the problems that a fetus might have in so formidable a task as conquering Asia?

The state of Mongolian writing at time of Chinggis' birth=not relevant to language that the Secret History of the Mongols was written in over 70 years later. What a feeble attempt at shifting the goalposts!

The funny thing is that even if this sort of shameful evasion doesn't necessarily allow Rex to be correct.

There was a runic alphabet in wide use several centuries earlier which is named after Mongolia's Orkhon Valley, where several inscription stones have been found (the Orkhon Valley was also home to CK's capital of Khara Khorum).

http://www.culture.mn/mongolia.php?recordID=scripts

Moreover, there is some indication that the Mongolian Uighric alphabet existed well before CK, who only made it's use official:

"A diversity of scripts have been used by the Mongols throughout their long literary history. The classical Mongolian script is believed to have originated in the 9th or 10th centuries on the basis of the Uighur alphabet, but did not become the official system of writing until the 12th century. The oldest known example of the Mongolian script is the so-called "Chinggis Stone", now preserved in the Hermitage museum in St. Petersburg. The monument was left by Chinggis Khaan in 1224 honour of Yesuge, who shot an arrow a record distance (335 ald) during celebrations held after an important military victory."

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/orkhon.htm

[Red Rex]

Um...NO, we were not talking about the existence of a Mongolian alphabet at the time of Chinggis Khagan's birth, we were talking about what language the primarary source's on his conquests were written in

the were recorded by CHINESSE scribes... that I know cant say anything more on the topic

[Guest Other-in-law]

the were recorded by CHINESSE scribes... that I know cant say anything more on the topic

Chinese scribes writing the Mongolian language, but phonetically represented by Chinese characters. Much like these lines are in the Mongolian language, but phonetically represented by the Roman Alphabet:

Chingghis Khaghan-u ijaghur

deger-e tnggri-eche jayaghatu

torugsen borte-chinu-a ajughu

gergei inu khuva maral ajighai

Here's a line by line comparison, which shows that the Chinese characters are just approximating Mongolian. What's interesting is that the 'silent G' of the western Khalka had already disappeared 700 years ago, though it's still pronounced in the eastern Khalka dialect. It's always spelled in Uighur, but not in the Cyrillic alphabet (where the only sign of it is in doubled vowels....Ulaan Baatar instead of Ulaghan Baghatar).

[Red Rex]

Here's a line by line comparison, which shows that the Chinese characters are just approximating Mongolian. What's interesting is that the 'silent G' of the western Khalka had already disappeared 700 years ago, though it's still pronounced in the eastern Khalka dialect. It's always spelled in Uighur, but not in the Cyrillic alphabet (where the only sign of it is in doubled vowels....Ulaan Baatar instead of Ulaghan Baghatar).

Ok, I agree with that and see were I was in error, I didnt realize that Mongolian was created with chinesse characters but as a completely seperate language... so do ypu think an 11 hour eclipse will herald the quickening of danys womb?