Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"Foundation of Empire"

4 Comments -

1 – 4 of 4
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rome wasn't a marcher state?

Rome was physically and culturally on the border of Hellenistic civilization. Part of the reason that Hannibal's military successes in Italy never quite paid off is that even the Italo-Greek city-states saw the Romans as akin but the Carthaginians as not (Carthage was another marcher state).

5/21/08, 10:51 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another advantage of the marcher state is that you are able to accept your culture's principles as verities.

In fact, attacks on one's own cultural principles are usually a generational version of a lack of asaabiya. Where there is no outside threat forcing generational cohesion, the young try to make a place for themselves by embracing some kind of scepticism.

The Romans were, of course, very much on the march of Hellenistic civ. They had to fight the Carthaginians and the Celts, Gauls, and Celto-iberians. These were also more primitive anc conquerable folk too.

One point needs to be added to your thesis:
not only does conquering lots of 'primitives' give you more territory to work with, its also the kind of conquest that doesn't disturb your own cultural principles, since the 'primitives' appear to have little to offer. Conquering settled, wealthy states, on the other hand, is not only harder, but it tends to contaminate or even absorb the conqueror's culture.

-osvaldo m.

10/17/11, 10:16 AM

Anonymous theo the kraut said...

a quibble:

> The term "marcher lord" is the English version
> of what the Germans call a "margrave,"

Actually, we call such a guy Markgraf. Margrave is the frenchified version known to anglophones, too. 'em frogs don't like 'em ks, particularly when followed by gs--tends to knot their slimy tongues, so they can't enjoy french kissing. 'em monkeys can surrender, but they can't have that.

10/19/11, 7:36 PM

Anonymous ArtVanDeLay said...

More paleocon rubbish.

I love how you strain to slip in the requisiste neocon/Israel bashing!

U.S may not be interested in the Arabs but the Arabs are very interested in them.

Sayyid Qutb had a loathing hatred for Americans since he spent time in New York and Colorado(please note that hardly any Israelis reside there)

Apart from the recognition of Israel, U.S was very cold to the Jewish state till 1967.
It was only then that Republicans warmed to it as well.

Sure neocons have proven to irresponsible and incompetent bumblers esp with the Iraq war and the silly democracy project inspired by the even sillier Nathan Sharansky.

However,you dont counter a stupid idea (neocons innovate "bomb them into loving us" strategy) with an even stupider one(paleocon isolationism where we ignore threats and attacks and that will get them to respect us!)

And whats this shaming language about "sofa samurai" , the last time I checked those who advocate war are not compelled to enlist!People like Steve Sailer would rather have FDR join in on D Day storming Omaha in his motorized wheelchair!

And Walt and Mearshimer-seriously?

10/21/11, 2:16 AM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL