| > Nomads basically made huge swaths of Eurasian land uninhabitable to peasant communities because your settlement will be raided until it ceases to exist. Nonsense. Huge swaths of eurasian landmass is uninhabitable because of harsh climate ( siberia, gobi, etc ) or the distance from water sources. Even today, most of eurasia is empty. > In this fashion they were not unlike malaria and tsetse fly. Dumbest thing I've read in a long time. These 'malaria and tsetse fly' improved the lives of settlers by enabling trade. Modern history was made by these nomads. Everything from the italian renaissance to the discovery of the new world was a result of trade by these 'malaria and tsetse flies'. > Eventually, settled societies concentrated sufficient amount of military and industrial power in one hands that nomads could no longer compete and fell apart, and these steppes were finally populated by villages and towns. Wrong again. It wasn't settled societies that did this. The nomads conquered settled societies and militarized and developed them. From the mongols in much of eurasia, the vikings in europe, the turks in the middle east, etc. > Some of the smarter nomad communities figured out how to avoid that fate and settled down by themself. Avoid what fate? The nomad communities conquered and ruled. |
This gets repeated over and over but looks false.
Why is the city of Ryazan on five centuries older than the city of Voronezh just 200 km to the south? One is in cold swampy forests and the other one is temperate grasslands. And you see this pattern everywhere where barely arable places such as Vjatka are populated for a long time but Krasnodar only recently populated.