Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quid est Veritas?" data-source="post: 71542699" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>You must also beware of false friends.</p><p></p><p>A good example to illustrate the principle is the Zulu impi vs the Roman Legions:</p><p>Shaka Zulu shortened the Assegai, the throwing spear, into a stabbing weapon; He enlarged the cowhide shields that his people traditionally used; he organised his people into Impis, groups of warriors conjoined by rites and that had to get permission as a group to settle somewhere, etc.; he developed encircling tactics called the bull's horns which outflanked their opponents forcing them onto the central veteran body of warriors; and proceeded to build a strong kingdom. This was before European intervention.</p><p>The Romans abandoned their traditional spears for short stabbing swords; enlarged their shields; organised their legions into cohorts that had their own rites, etc.; they used auxiliaries to enfold their enemy onto a core of hardened legionaries; and proceeded to build an Empire (although they already started before this whole process was completed).</p><p></p><p>Now the Zulu today are westernised and clearly if we look back in time, and only had fragmentary records (as we have for the near-east), we could argue that the Zulu Impi was based on the Roman military and show later examples of Zulu usages of Roman practices to support it, like the use of the Latin alphabet. They are however, in no way related. How much more striking would such parallels have been if the peoples in question had cultural affinities?</p><p>I can take the analogy even further. The British were a successor of Roman Civilization, as Babylonian or Assyrian was of Sumerian, and via them the Zulus gained their modern superficial 'Romanisation in a sense'. Neither the British nor the Assyrians were of the same stock exactly as their predecessors, the Roman or Sumerian respectively. Perhaps a similar Sumerisation can thus be seen in the Hebrew? Although again, Abraham as being from Ur, means that they do acknowledge Sumerian or at least Mesopotamian connections.</p><p></p><p>One must be careful lest one end up in bouts of parallelomania and see connections everywhere. It must be cautiously made and firmly supported, as fake connections on spurious or specious grounds can easily occur.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 71542699, member: 385144"] You must also beware of false friends. A good example to illustrate the principle is the Zulu impi vs the Roman Legions: Shaka Zulu shortened the Assegai, the throwing spear, into a stabbing weapon; He enlarged the cowhide shields that his people traditionally used; he organised his people into Impis, groups of warriors conjoined by rites and that had to get permission as a group to settle somewhere, etc.; he developed encircling tactics called the bull's horns which outflanked their opponents forcing them onto the central veteran body of warriors; and proceeded to build a strong kingdom. This was before European intervention. The Romans abandoned their traditional spears for short stabbing swords; enlarged their shields; organised their legions into cohorts that had their own rites, etc.; they used auxiliaries to enfold their enemy onto a core of hardened legionaries; and proceeded to build an Empire (although they already started before this whole process was completed). Now the Zulu today are westernised and clearly if we look back in time, and only had fragmentary records (as we have for the near-east), we could argue that the Zulu Impi was based on the Roman military and show later examples of Zulu usages of Roman practices to support it, like the use of the Latin alphabet. They are however, in no way related. How much more striking would such parallels have been if the peoples in question had cultural affinities? I can take the analogy even further. The British were a successor of Roman Civilization, as Babylonian or Assyrian was of Sumerian, and via them the Zulus gained their modern superficial 'Romanisation in a sense'. Neither the British nor the Assyrians were of the same stock exactly as their predecessors, the Roman or Sumerian respectively. Perhaps a similar Sumerisation can thus be seen in the Hebrew? Although again, Abraham as being from Ur, means that they do acknowledge Sumerian or at least Mesopotamian connections. One must be careful lest one end up in bouts of parallelomania and see connections everywhere. It must be cautiously made and firmly supported, as fake connections on spurious or specious grounds can easily occur. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
Top
Bottom