Comments by "Ikenga Spirit" (@ikengaspirit3063) on "The Empire History Lied About (it's not Tartaria!)" video.

  1. ​ @LiterallyWho1917  okay, and the Medes left behind the Achaemenids and I have yet to hear of archeological discovery of those bones.
    14
  2. Yeah, it's why am I skeptical of the "it didn't exist" wave in historical revisionism. It would be better if they had counter evidence but this is all based on interpreted Silence.
    6
  3. The Huns left alot of distinct archeology tho, I guess they didn't do cities. So maybe they're both similar in that way.
    3
  4. Lol
    3
  5. I mean, Europe is also called the West so the Bias is actually around between Cyprus and the Levant.
    2
  6. Eh, there is some also late collaboration of the idea of a preceding Empire in the Persian Shahnameh. So even if we had other sources, chances are it would have just changed to some legendary dynasty in the Shahnameh being said to be the Medians.
    2
  7. Yeah, being a powerful political entity in itself alone argues for complex organization.
    2
  8. Except the Huns weren't destructive Hordes. They were an imperial sized, complex polity and the Romans contemporary to them mention offices of governance and institutions. They were literally the Xiongnu just moved West and as such had that whole steppe culture organization. The Germans by the time they conquered Rome had been under this tutilate for a while, first under Sarmatian influence (the reason why the Goths were the most formidable) and then under Hunnic tutilage.
    1
  9. In other words, if they were similar to the Huns they were at least an empire on the level of complexity of the Xiongnu.
    1
  10. Another thing. Historical Unicorns referred sometimes to Rhino and sometimes to a deer today called the Asian Unicorn.
    1
  11.  @arman_1024  yeah, but like what if what we expect to see there is wrong?. I am getting this because for example, there is this norm in archeology of assuming an Imperial city had to be X size or whatever to be an imperial city, it is part of the reason the united kingdom of Israel was out into doubt but in that case, we know large states can have small Empires due to a different political, economic and population structure like the Mongol Capital just having abt 10,000 people or the Capital of Zimbabwe(a state comparable in size to medieval France) having a Capital of about 14,000 people. Now for these two states we have the advantage of textual and other archeological evidence to support it but what if we are wrong about the nature of political organization of Media. What if the towns we see aren't the main centres of political organization given the economy as he said, was largely pastoral?. Edit Now, of course I am not an expert so I can't really do much but I would like the experts that peer review this theory to at least take up and answer this alternative interpretation first.
    1
  12. ​​ @arman_1024  I am pretty sure it was the Medes that did most of the work and destroyed the Assyrians Empire(destroyed the Capital). The Babylonians did inherit most of it tho. The very organization of the Medes to be able to do that argues for a Median state.
    1