Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: epicure who wrote (140261)	7/14/2004 1:15:41 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) of 281500

The Umayyad were fairly "tolerant" with obeying citizens but were extremely ruthless (this is a great understatement) against cultural diversity or political defiance. This partially explains why the countries with less developed political organization actually became "Arab" while Persians and Europeans resisted. In time the Iranians played on differences between Arab tribes and shifted the Caliphate from Umayyad to Abbasids who agreed to move the Capital to Baghdad and include Iranians in the government. The significance of moving the Capital is that Baghdad is only 60 miles away from the Ctesphone [sp?] the capital of Persian Empire. The Iranians went further and married into the Abbasid dynasty and eventually helped a half Iranian Caliph (Mamoon) to power, whom I believe later wiped them all out! In general, maintaining an empire without a good measure of social justice and prosperity is not possible. The Romans, like the Arabs, were successful in maintaining their empire because they assimilated the locals on a cultural level and maintained some measure of social justice. The Persians had a different approach that is best described as confederation. And the Vikings were yet even more "hands-off". Last year on this thread I discussed how there are three major ways to colonize: The way of the Romans, the way of the Persians, and the way of the Vikings. The Roman way is what most people think of when they think of an Empire and is the most obvious. The Persian way is by putting in place a leadership loyal to the central command and leave them alone in their internal matters, within confines of Federal law. The Viking way is to use trade routes for gains. Should the trade come under threat, use military power to punish the dissent and get the hell out ASAP. US foreign policy has slowly shifted from the Vikings', to the Persians', and now increasingly towards the Roman model.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next