Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
And on the broader point, it is actually pretty clear that, on the whole, the rich settled people had the edge. You can tell because they tended to control the most hospitable and resource rich regions of Eurasia (read: places with coastlines and enough water to farm)...
...whereas, with notable exceptions, the hard warriors of nomadic peoples were quite roughly shoved into marginal lands in the arid zone. Sure, we mark the big exceptions - Arabs, Turks, Mongols. But they are exceptions to the general rule.
And as a rule, those exceptions either figure out how to make rich-and-sedentary warfare work for them (e.g. the Ottomans) or they tend to be unable to control sedentary populations in the long-term.
It seems more like a general rule than the exceptions that people in poor, barbaric lands manage to conquer their richer neighbors. The Iranians, Macedonians, Jurchen, Khitan, Vikings, along with the examples you pointed to.
Don’t you think it’s odd that rich Egypt didn’t have native rulers for a stretch of over 2000 years?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
