|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
|
Why do people ignore the Axumite Empire? |
|
|
|
|
 Replies: 27 — Last Post April 6 11:52pm by Graustein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keltic Fighter
Wealthy Hobo
|
     
Quote: from Bud2400 at 1:20 am on April 5, 2008
 If you actually read my summary on the Axumite Empire, you'd notice that they conquered the Kushites who had a civilization just south of Nubia on the Nile River and were prominent traders as well. The Kushites also had a tendency to invade Nubia and Egypt from time to time. Not to mention, the Axumite Empire had quite the navy, which makes sense considering their emphasis on trade, much like Phoenicia in the Mediterranean Sea. I believe around 500ish, Axum's navy was one of the largest in the world. And as far as philosophy goes, much of the knowledge about the Axumites have been loss. Some of their archtitecture still stands and some writing has been preserved, but most of it lost. And considering that the Axumites never had a lasting legacy in eastern Africa like Rome did throughout the entire Mediterranean basin, it became largely forgotten. Much of this is owed to Islam overtaking the Axumites in that respect. And military is only a small component of an empire. An empire is generally defined as a civilization (that of Axum in this case) forcing its rule over other peoples (such as Somalia, Eritrea, and the Kushites, as the Axumites did). Axum was in every way an empire and just because it mainly thanks to their trade why they became so powerful doesn't demean them in any way. I personally think it's offensive that you try to as the United States would be nothing without its trade, and the same goes for the UK, Germany, the Roman Empire, and virtually every other great empire to have ever existed. An empire is dependent on its economy, and an economic collapse is almost equivalent to the end of the empire itself (as was the case of the Western Roman Empire). And do bear in mind that Axum was located a ways inland, certainly not on the coast. I didn't mention their rise very much, but as they were originally on the Ethiopian highlands, they had little trade going on and did have to conquer other tribes and cities before they could get access to the Red Sea and Nile River and prosper.
And if you're interested where I got all this information, just search the Axumite Empire online. Wikipedia has a nice summary on it. I can also recommend you a book on the subject (which also talks about the Kushites) here. 
Hmmm, No philosophers, conquered weak neighbors, and supposedly has one of the largest navys in the world. They don't compare to the Great Empires of Europa. There navy didn't have the technology of Rome or Greece. What is a good link where I can read up on this? Wikipedia isn't reliable and I don't feel like buying a book, just for one time use.
-------
If you don't live for something, You will die for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
( Bud2400 )
Omnipotent One
 Patron
Support Leader
|
Quote: from Radon at 2:09 am on April 5, 2008
That's actually a huge problem because it makes the whole subject prone to emotionalism. Hence we get those nutjob Afrocentrists claiming the Malinese created flying machines 600 years before the Wright Brothers, that Europeans stole everything they got from black Africans (or vice versa that blacks never invented anything) This is what happens when you don't detach your personal grievances from real objective analysis.
You mean like those people who try claiming that Egyptians were all as black as Sub-Saharan Africans? I think it's sad that some black people and other Afro-centrists try to claim bullshit things like a black Egypt and the things you mentioned. It's as if they truly don't believe that ancient African empires have had some significance and good-ness in themselves that they have to make up bullshit for them. Quote: from Keltic Fighter at 6:30 am on April 5, 2008
Hmmm, No philosophers
No philosophers? Are you trying to be retarded? Or does the concept of losing manuscripts and many other significant writings over a period of a thousand years not make sense to you? Do realize that a great minority of all information gets passed onto future generations. We only know a tiny fraction about the Romans and their society, but we at least know enough to figure out the whole general picture. Same applies to the Axumites, only nobody continued their legacy, largely as a result of Islam and Ethiopians confinement to the Ethiopian highlands and resulting decline.
conquered weak neighbors
And I suppose you'd consider Egypt a weak civilization as they were often in conflict with the Kushites? The Egyptians were never able to defeat the Kushites so wholly as to assimilate them into their empire, as the Axumites did.
and supposedly has one of the largest navys in the world.
Funny how you say supposedly. Don't believe me? Figures you wouldn't as it would completely destroy your whole notion of a racial heirarchy, with whites at the top. Yet it's amusing that you clearly accept the wonders of the Roman Empire, when the Romans themselves weren't even white (certainly not white as we'd think of the term today, at least). I gave you a legitimate source. You act like you want to learn about the subject, yet you refuse to go to a library and check out a book on it. Here's something online that gives a brief summary of Ethiopia's history and eludes a bit to their significance in the eyes of the rest of the world. Though do realize that online sources of anything are never as reliable as something published in print, like the book I showed you.
They don't compare to the Great Empires of Europa.
Europe's rise beginning around 1500 is unique in that it was the first to rise in a truly global way, yet I'd attribute their rise for the same reasons as rise of any other great empire. A combination of geography and ideal circumstances led Europeans to be so successful - but don't be so fooled as to think that Europe's success had anything to do with the fact that the Europeans were "European."
There navy didn't have the technology of Rome or Greece.
And I'd like to see your sources on this? The Roman navy wasn' that sophisticated - their main tactic during the Punic Wars was to slam some kind of makeshift bridge between them and the other ship and send fighters in to slaughter the other crew. The Roman navy was pretty big, but also pretty pathetic during the imperial period. How else would it get completely pwned by the Vandal tribe who were newcomers to the Mediterranean in the 5th century? Post edited at 9:57 pm on April 5, 2008 by Bud2400
|
9:54 pm on April 5, 2008 | Joined Dec. 2004 | 973 Days Active
Join to learn more about Bud2400 Washington, United States | Straight Male | 4906 Posts | 19097 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
( Bud2400 )
Omnipotent One
Patron
Support Leader
|
Quote: from Radon at 12:04 am on April 6, 2008
Exactly. In general people believe whatever they want to believe. They seek facts which re-affirm their preferred point of view, and exclude facts they may be uncomfortable with. So this is certainly not something unique for Afrocentrists.
Indeed, it's a very natural process that extends to all humans. In psychology, they give it a term - confirmation bias: the act of selectively taking evidence that supports a pre-conceived notion and ignoring the evidence that opposes it. I find supremacists and nationalists of all races use this to an incredible degree.
Plus, wanting to put your own race (or what you perceive as such) on a pedestal is such a natural thing. Heck I do it myself sometimes. I'm not optimistic about self glorification ending any time soon.
Who doesn't want to appear great and strong? It's one of the biggest reasons why I love reading about medieval Europe and Europe's rise - the rise of my ancestors - more than most civilizations. Despite that, no matter how much pride one feels for that, one needs to look at history with a more objective mindset as possible. It requires getting out of one's thinking that what is theirs is best and recognize that all people think this way, and thus from an outside observer, there is no "best." Post edited at 12:18 am on April 6, 2008 by Bud2400
|
12:13 am on April 6, 2008 | Joined Dec. 2004 | 973 Days Active
Join to learn more about Bud2400 Washington, United States | Straight Male | 4906 Posts | 19097 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
Keltic Fighter
Wealthy Hobo
|
Quote: from Bud2400 at 12:54 am on April 6, 2008
No philosophers? Are you trying to be retarded? Or does the concept of losing manuscripts and many other significant writings over a period of a thousand years not make sense to you? Do realize that a great minority of all information gets passed onto future generations. We only know a tiny fraction about the Romans and their society, but we at least know enough to figure out the whole general picture. Same applies to the Axumites, only nobody continued their legacy, largely as a result of Islam and Ethiopians confinement to the Ethiopian highlands and resulting decline.
They had no philosophers, even after a thousand years we have info about the Romans and other Empires, even the Chinese. Are you trying to be retarded? There is no proof they had them. They had no great inventors. We know a lot of the Romans because of all the things they left behind. There cities, writings, inventions, all of that, but yet these people can't leave anything? They were traders and don't compare to the Roman empire or Greek empire.
And I suppose you'd consider Egypt a weak civilization as they were often in conflict with the Kushites? The Egyptians were never able to defeat the Kushites so wholly as to assimilate them into their empire, as the Axumites did.
This so called empire gained power in the 3 century BC, at this time Ancient Egypt wasn'tt the country it once was. Egypt was in the Ptolemaic Dynasty which was the last dynasty before they become under the Romans. So yes at that time the Egyptians were weak.
Funny how you say supposedly. Don't believe me? Figures you wouldn't as it would completely destroy your whole notion of a racial heirarchy, with whites at the top. Yet it's amusing that you clearly accept the wonders of the Roman Empire, when the Romans themselves weren't even white (certainly not white as we'd think of the term today, at least).
Wow, I love how you just assume that I am a White supremacist. The Romans were white, and what do you know about who is white? If the Italians now a days are white the Romans are defiantly white.
Europe's rise beginning around 1500 is unique in that it was the first to rise in a truly global way, yet I'd attribute their rise for the same reasons as rise of any other great empire. A combination of geography and ideal circumstances led Europeans to be so successful - but don't be so fooled as to think that Europe's success had anything to do with the fact that the Europeans were "European."
The Celts and the Germanic people were a lot smarter than most civilizations back in those days. The Romans were never able to beat the Germanic people. The both had great cultures too. Look at the Celtic art, how they use metals to make it.
And I'd like to see your sources on this? The Roman navy wasn' that sophisticated - their main tactic during the Punic Wars was to slam some kind of makeshift bridge between them and the other ship and send fighters in to slaughter the other crew. The Roman navy was pretty big, but also pretty pathetic during the imperial period. How else would it get completely pwned by the Vandal tribe who were newcomers to the Mediterranean in the 5th century?
I remember watching something one the History channel about there techologies. All well, I can't find it. Look at all of there other inventions though, Axumite Empire doesn't even compare. lol. They were nothing compare to Europa. Even this website says http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/AXUM.HTM
-------
If you don't live for something, You will die for nothing.
|
|
|
( Bud2400 )
Omnipotent One
Patron
Support Leader
|
Quote: from Keltic Fighter at 10:21 am on April 6, 2008
They had no philosophers, even after a thousand years we have info about the Romans and other Empires, even the Chinese. Are you trying to be retarded? There is no proof they had them. They had no great inventors. We know a lot of the Romans because of all the things they left behind. There cities, writings, inventions, all of that, but yet these people can't leave anything? They were traders and don't compare to the Roman empire or Greek empire.
Each civilization has its own philosophers and wisemen, and certainly each one has some truth to them. But as I've explained, the reason the philosophy of the Greeks has remained is simply because it was able to diffuse with Hellenistic culture before any alternatives were. Thus if the Greek civilization fell, their philosophy would remain because the other civilizations that remained would retain it. To suggest that a civilization doesn't have a philosophy of some kind of naive.
This so called empire gained power in the 3 century BC, at this time Ancient Egypt wasn'tt the country it once was. Egypt was in the Ptolemaic Dynasty which was the last dynasty before they become under the Romans. So yes at that time the Egyptians were weak.
Uhm, I didn't realize that Egypt only existed in the 3rd century BC? The Kushites were a continual problem for the Egyptians for thousands of years. Even at its militaristic height during the New Kingdom period, Egypt was never able to fully conquer the territory of Kush.
Wow, I love how you just assume that I am a White supremacist.
I wouldn't consider you a white supremacist per se. More of a white nationalist, but either way, you seem to assume some sort of innate superiority of whites judging by your posts over the last year or two. I'm not blind - I do remember individual posters and I treat them as such.
The Romans were white, and what do you know about who is white? If the Italians now a days are white the Romans are defiantly white.
I suppose you never heard of something called the great migration? When all the Germanic hordes settled Roman lands and intermixed with the Roman people? Why do you think northern Italians look more "white" than a southern Italian? I'd suggest reading up a history of the Lombards and exactly what they did with northern Italy. When migrations occur, races intermix and thus we get "new" people. Just take a look at the US today. 100 years ago, you'd be on crack to say that the US wasn't entirely a white nation, but now that's rapidly changing and in the future, we're going to see a different racial makeup of a typical American. Thus it's silly to say that the people of a region looked exactly the same 2000 years ago, especially when you consider those Germanic migrations.
The Celts and the Germanic people were a lot smarter than most civilizations back in those days.
How so? Give me a comparative summary on how the Celtic and Germanic peoples were smarter than the civilizations of, for example, their contemporary civilizations in the Middle East.
The Romans were never able to beat the Germanic people.
They certainly could have. The Romans had the resources to, but certainly not the will. Why didn't they have the motivation to conquer the Germanic peoples? Because back then, Germany and the rest of northern Europe was a backwards region with no development - there'd be no money to make! The Romans took England purely because of the affluence of the civilization there, spawning back to its trade of tin (as England is rich with tin ore) to the Middle East during the Bronze Age.
The both had great cultures too. Look at the Celtic art, how they use metals to make it.
Because nobody else knew metal working? Metal working was the basics of the basics - everyone, especially the Axumites, were very sophisticated with their metal working.
I remember watching something one the History channel about there techologies. All well, I can't find it. Look at all of there other inventions though, Axumite Empire doesn't even compare. lol. They were nothing compare to Europa. Even this website says http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/AXUM.HTM
Uhm, all the website you posted said was that by the time the Europeans rose, the Axumites were no longer a major power. How is that any different from what I claimed? As far as Roman naval technology went, making some kind of bridge between you and the other ship so you can send your soldiers in to slaughter the opposing crew isn't the height of technological achievement. It's a very good example of the Romans' adaptability to a different form of warfare, but nothing beyond what any other civilization could do.
|
7:02 pm on April 6, 2008 | Joined Dec. 2004 | 973 Days Active
Join to learn more about Bud2400 Washington, United States | Straight Male | 4906 Posts | 19097 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graustein
Enlightened One
Patron
|
I didn't ignore it per se, I'd never even heard of it. I tend to research other empires, somehow the Middle Eastern ones eluded my scrutiny.
But I'll definitely look it up when I get time.
-------
vote
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
330 users online 
157969 members 
You have 1 new message.
