Wonder why.
I mean, I know why, but
Even their understanding of the Vikings is incredibly western, most barely know about how prominent the Varangians were in Eastern Rome because they only read Latin sources. It begins and ends with Ragnar and some Marvel superheroes (and the Nazis, obviously).
deleted by creator
Wonder how many of the Viking stans are even aware who and what “The Rus” were. Ya know, Rurik and co
“Based vikings ruling over the Russian savages” is often accompanied by “and then the savages took the worst from Mongols and became an asiatic horde and that’s how Russia was born” which also don’t prevent them from praising Mongols themselves.
Common opinion in polish internet and not only, i once heard that even from actual medieval history professor ex cathedra in university, just without the loud said slurs, those were only implied in his case.
Oh right, I forgot about the whole “haha stoopid russkies couldn’t even organise themselves and needed GLORIOUS NORDIC UBERMENSCH to rule them!”
Do these people also claim Vladimir chose orthodox Christianity because other religions forbid alcohol?
Do these people also claim Vladimir chose orthodox Christianity because other religions forbid alcohol?
Some of them do, although even polish history books (and said professor) have more sober look on it, probably because it mirrors reasons Poland (and most other european pagan countries) adopted this or that version of christianity.
Also Varangians weren’t exactly this prominent in Byzantium, they were kept apart from rest of society (which often hated them because it’s their axes that were chopping up the citizens heads in every significant riot) and they weren’t even kingmaking as much as one could expect from a Byzantine throne bickering.
Yeah, I didn’t mean “prominent” as in wealthy or socially highly regarded but just in how they are a notable fixture of that society. It’s very rare to read a Byzantine source that doesn’t mention Varangians and eunuchs at least once, and yet those “successors to Rome” in Western Europe don’t know much about either. As soon as things stop being relevant to the Normans, Westerner pop historians just forget about it.
Really? I was under the impression the current bunch of internet dwellers are rather uncritically starry-eyed about the Mongols. Especially when the question of Russia comes up. If I had a nickel for every time a redditoid said a variation of “hurr da Mongols had attacked da Russkies in winter and won!”, I’d probably be a petit bourgeoisie by now
It seems to me that people think lots of empires that killed millions of people are ‘cool’. E.g. Mongols, Napoleonic, Byzantine. They only react negatively to things that occured from 20th century onwards.
I think they’re both cool.
Racists end up missing out on a lot of cool in their lives.
I feel the opposite. Neither was cool, both were quite violent
Back in the Medieval era you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who wasn’t, although in terms of scale Mongols and Vikings were pretty far reaching in their brand of violence.
I would argue there’s still a difference between “callous because medieval life sucks” and Viking “plundering as the core value”. Viking is a profession after all, not an ethnicity.
Mongols are a bit different case, as I would argue the idea of Mongols that exists in popular culture is pretty far off, and fits better to earlier steppe cultures - Cumans, Pechenegs, etc. By the time Mongols rolled into what is now Russia, the Golden Horde was an empire. With massive production capabilities, logistics, the works.
That said, I agree that the level of everyday violence and cruelty of those periods is severely underestimated
Honestly, when I read about what the Mongols and other medieval empires did to their enemies, it actually does make me feel like we’ve come a long way. As evil and destructive as people can still be towards one another, we don’t dehumanize each other to such absurd levels as feudal regimes did.
BUT DO WE HAVE THE EDDA AND MONGOLIAN THROAT SINGING
I found the vinland saga fan
Yeah no offense intended to either, should have made that clear. They’re both being exploited by racists.
No worries, and no offense taken! (Personally, I don’t have a dog in the race, just lowkey interested in ancient/medieval cultures).
It’s like taking a trip through time. There’s a creative component to it because you get to create the picture of the setting in your mind. For example, if you’re reading about Egypt you get to picture the sands, pyramids, and The Nile.
When we read about capitalism, well, we already know the settings because it’s around us. So theres a bit of escapism in ancient history which is nice.
And being a Marxist removes the mysticism of the aristocracy and nobility of these societies. This, perhaps unexpectedly, helps me enjoy historical dramas/movies even more. You’re going to be even more conscious of the decadence these people lived in in contrast to the people they exploit. You’ll see the class conflict of these times, too, even though that is usually not, if ever, the focus of these movies.
Are Mongols really portrayed as evil in the west?
I honestly can’t even recall portrayals of Mongols in mainstream western media.
They were saying that a lot of Russians have Mongolian heritage and so they’re naturally predisposed to violence as part of the war propaganda.
Lol what that seems absolutely insane
In old western historiography, up to like 40-50 years ago Mongols were often portrayed as wild savages, “scourge of god” etc. Socialist historiography was more neutral on them (like Lev Gumilev or Stanisław Kałużyński). Recently westerners did close to a 180 on them though, as part of the historical revision trend going for at least 3 decades (most of that trend is actually not that bad, for example new critical look on ancient roman sources, still a lot worse than marxist view but a lot better than uncritically quoting Suetonius for example). From the top of my head read anything by John Man or Justin Marozzi.
That’s very interesting, I never heard of this.
Screw Lev Gumilev, though
Iirc he was antisemite and proponent of central Asian nationalism? Something like that. Still, i think he did first proper marxist analysis of history of the nomads.
Aye, he’s the one who proposed the whole “Ashkenazim are akschually khazars and thus not real Jews”. He also blamed these jew-khazars for various things, i.e. introducing alcohol drinking to ancient Rus
Wew, i do know he had some bad takes about Khazars, but not that he coined that vile theory.
I can think of South Park and Ghost of Tsushima.
Ghost of Tsushima is based in Japan but it’s made by Sucker Punch so I am counting at as American.
South Park is an interesting example, and one I actually remember now that I think of it.
Though from what I remember they were portrayed as crafty and clever invaders, and both sides (the “Chinese” guy trying to stop them and the Mongol “invaders”) were portrayed in a bad light (kinda like most people in South Park really).
Having as a core value the act of taking by force stuff produced by others for yourself is in general quite cringe, be it in the east or in the west.
Something something, surplus value.I’m mostly indifferent towards both of them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM8dCGIm6yc https://yewtu.be//watch?v=jM8dCGIm6yc
Here is a song my friend recommended that can make Mongolians look cool. It’s an interesting song.
