• ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.mlEnglish
    45·
    5 days ago

    I have an unreasonable dislike for sir Glubb. His conclusion is just wrong and based on horrible data. It bothers me that his opinion has lasted this long in the public consciousness

    I mean look at this shit bruh

    I’d be embarassed to have made this. What made him choose these dates? Wdym the Ottoman empire only lasted 250 years??? Yes, the Roman empire totally ended in 180 A.D. nothing happened after that don’t worry about it haha. Don’t even look at China, doesn’t matter, nothing is going on there. Like??? I hate him

      • KobaCumTribute [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        18·
        5 days ago

        I was just reading the other day about the historiography of the Ottoman Empire and how up until about 50 years ago it was warped around this central premise that it spent most of its existence as a rotting husk shambling inexorably towards its end, because everyone who had any real reason to write about its history had an ulterior motive that was served by that narrative: Christian westerners had religious, racist, and geopolitical motivations, Turkish writers had nationalist motivations (served by the “the Ottomans were corrupt and decadent and our national project has purged this and rejuvenated the nation” narratives), etc.

        But then more recent and rigorous historiography is basically just “well, no, actually: while the Ottoman Empire was ultimately weaker militarily and economically compared to other powers in the early 20th century than it was hundreds of years earlier, it had not been notably more stagnant or ossified than European powers over that same period and instead went through distinct crises and periods of reform and progress; it ultimately lost out because of things that materially happened rather than some innate and unstoppable march towards doom caused by a moral or ideological rot.”

    • BanMeFromPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      16·
      5 days ago

      Seems incredibly reasonable to dislike that hack.
      Roman Empire in 180 ad?? Lmao what the fuck is he smoking? Also seeing as how he separates the Republic and the empire then all you can really say is that a country will have a significant change in methods of governance (at least) every 250 years. What a bunch of cherry-picked ahistoric liberal-ideas-rule-the-world bullshit.

      Not to mention Chinese dynasties, the byzantines or, if youre a real pendant, the kingdoms of countries like Denmark or Japan.

      Edit: just noticed Britain lmao. So we do ALL of the Roman Republic, but of course we cant do ALL of Britain for some reason

        • BanMeFromPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
          14·
          3 days ago

          That table is great c/slop content. I just realised it accounts the “rise AND fall” of each empire. So Britain had its Imperial beginnings in 1700??? Lmao. Romanov Russia is a copout, you also had Russia before the Romanov dynasty. If youre doing Romanov Russia, why not Tudor Britain? Why not pre-union Britain? And aren’t these successor states, which we seem to include with greece and Persia?

          Why exclude the north sea empire? The maya? The aztecs?? Austria??? What about when the Vatican was a real-ass kingdom? Or the mongols??? The huns? The golden horde or whatever it was called?

          And again RISE and FALL so the cut offs are so weird.
          Not to mention we’re doing succesor states with greece and Persia, but somehow not including byzantium (even though it was just rome, but still a lib like him would see it as a successor) or the USA for Britain? Don’ts even get me started on Charlemagne… Or Portugal and its weird Royal fuckery with Brazil. Or what about Bolivar and Colombia? I remember something about him wanting a big united nation and it all falling apart, isn’t that an Imperial rise and fall? (Seeing as how his definition of empire seems to be entirely based on vibes and “did they invade any other country at any point?”)

          Tl;dr what no marxism or map games does to an mf

    • RedNajm [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      12·
      5 days ago

      Arab Empire

      This is like calling the British Empire “white empire” lmao

      Edit: I checked, “Arab Empire” is actually multiple Arab caliphates that he conflated into one, for some reason

        • RedNajm [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
          9·
          5 days ago

          dead-dove-1 dead-dove-2 dead-dove-3

          The Rashidun caliphate only lasted 40 years too, had he included it separately his whole thesis would’ve been thrown into the trash lol. So I guess he already knew he was full of shit curious-marx

          • BanMeFromPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            4 days ago

            He also includes successor states for greece, but separates Rome into two periods. He does “Romanov Russia” (which is arguably a successor state of the rurik dynasty) but he doesn’t do “Windsor england” or “Kōshitsu Japan” or Qing china or whatever. And isn’t the US a successor to Britain?

    • LupineTroubles [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      3·
      4 days ago

      He was obviously motivated by a desire to rationalize and explain the visible disintegration of British imperial project which happened within his lifetime. If it was fated that it would collapse when it did then it was destined what happened came to pass is the central belief within the analysis not a genuine examination of historical states and their trajectory. Because he has an idea and he is working back from it.

  • Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    20·
    5 days ago

    AI is truly iterative on the normal use of the internet. Before, you had to click one of the links Google gave you before you could see this sort of facebook style “political” posting.