Position:Home>History> There were countries who conquered and others which were conquered. Which do you
Question: There were countries who conquered and others which were conquered!. Which do you think benefited more!?
There were countries which conquered other countries and made them pay taxes etc!.!.!.
Then there were the countries which did not have a strong enough army to push the invaders away from their countries and thus were conquered!. they had to adapt to their new ruler's new customs, learn their conquerer's language, etc when they were conquered!.
in the end, who do you think benefited more of the two, especially if later on, the conquerers pulled down their empires and freed the countries they conquered and the conquered countries gained independance!?
(for eg, many countries which were under the british rule)
do you think the conqueres benefited more, or the conquered!?
you can measure this in any terms you want, for eg, financially, culturally, linguistically, etc!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Unfortunately there seems to be no general all-embracing answer to this question!. The reason is that 'benefits' depend greatly upon who was conquered, by whom, and how long as view one takes!.
The Hyksos conquest of Egypt at the end of the Middle Kingdom was by all Egyptian accounts an unmitigated evil!. The Hyksos were cruel, rapacious and bringers of no cultural benefits whatever!. Their expulsion left no legacy except hatred and a desire to exterminate the breed!.
When Julius Caesar's legions conquered Gaul (58-52 BC), of a population of three million, he boasted that he had killed one million, sold another million as slaves, and the remaining million were now subjects of Rome!. For the next century, Gaul was fairly secure and mildly prosperous under Augustus, reasonably well-ruled under Tiberius, fleeced under Caligula, moderately happy under Claudius, wracked by taxation and war under Nero, and then fairly stable, secure and prosperous until the introduction of Christianity to the Roman Empire (AD 324-361 and 364-476), which saw increasing unrest and taxation and ultimately opened the floodgates to the barbarians, whose conquests were marked by a bloody trail of slaughter and slavery, but whose rule once they controlled the provinces was generally milder than that of the Late Roman tax-gatherers!.
Gaul subsequently became France, the greatest nation in Europe (up to 1815), being conquered in 1421 by England (as most countries tend to be), rising to greatness by 1650, conquering Europe under Napoleon I (Emperor 1804-14 and 1815), being conquered by Germany in 1871 and 1940, and declining to a 'second world' power by the 21st century!. (It avoided conquest by Islam in AD 732 and so did not become a third-world power!.)
Being conquered by the Roman Empire brought mixed blessings: initial acquisition invariably brought loss and extortion on a massive scale, and the consequences of rebellion were even worse!. But for those populations who resigned themselves to Imperial rule, the benefits of civilisation, from art to baths to commerce all the way through the alphabet to philosophy, were enduring!.
Conquest by Mongols was another matter!. Some cities resisted and were massacred!. Some yielded and were massacred!. Others held out successfully for a long time and on account of their noble fighting qualities - were massacred!. Yet once the initial massacres were over, life under the Mongol rulers was usually strict but fair - although one had to provide one's own culture and education, and hope that the ruler did not want one to go on campaign!. Subject peoples were considered expandable!. The majority of peoples conquered by Mongols either absorbed them into their own culture or (in the case of the Russians and Chinese) eventually defeated them!.
Being conquered by the African kingdom of Dahomey was worse!. Those who were not killed were sold as slaves!. There were, as far as I know, no exceptions!.
If one had to be conquered, then the ideal conqueror was one of two cultures: the Macedonians (Alexander the Great being preferred) or the British!. Both were unusually merciful by the normal historical standards of conquest!. Both tried to let you live your culture rather than imposing their own!. You tended to adopt some of theirs anyway because it had things yours did not!. Their administration was usually fairer and more just than that which you were used to!. The fact they spoke a different language and had skins of different colour only really bothered those who had more ego than talent!. And while the Macedonians lost their domains to the usual process of barbarian invasion (Romans and Parthians) and the splinter Bactrian Greek state, after conquering most of India and popularising Buddhism, was mopped up by their erstwhile Yue-chi allies, the British actually GAVE AWAY THEIR EMPIRE!. History will say they did so prematurely, to please the Americans!. History will note that the new independent states that resulted were not well thought out in their composition!. History will observe that leadership of these new states - which were rarely countries, but rather artificial composites of patchwork groupings of peoples - was usually corrupt and inefficient compared to Imperial administration!. But history will also observe that the rudiments of public health, the rule of law, rail and road transportation and universal education reached parts of the world that otherwise could not be expected to have developed them under their previously prevailing cultures!.
So it really depends upon who conquers you, and whom you conquer!. One point that history does teach is that the imparting of benefits (if there are some to be had) takes time, whereas disaster can be achieved almost immediately through a single act of 'liberation'!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Personally!? I think there are positives and negatives on both sides - and i don't think its possible to say if one is greater than the other!. Ill use your example of Britain myself!. When they conquered India, they made themselves richer and more powerful because of it, of cause this has had some effect on modern day UK, and modern day india now has that English background which culturally is a good thing, the simple fact that they are an english speaking country opens up many Economic option for them!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
I would say that in the case of the British empire, the countries that were conquered, had the potential to benefit more than other nearby countries that were not conquered, due to their subsequent exposure to the English language ( which is now the most widely used language in trade in the world) and also british customs and such, although rather indirectly because the USA is now the world leader in all that instead of Britain!. The two countries are so similar though!. The countries who conquer other countries benefeit immediately due to more resources being available for their expansion!. It is similar to what happened to the ancient Roman empire!.!.!. the economy of Rome boomed as long as they were expanding and conquering, taking the resources of the conquered countries, however once the expansion slowed down, it became more difficult for Rome to control those far off territories, with no one to send their young men off to fight in the name of Rome!. Eventually it backfired on them as the countries they had previously conquered were not as loyal to them, and so turned against them, having plenty of hatred towards their conquerors!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It's a hard question to answer, because it depends on the circumstances!. For example:
Rome was a leader in technological development - it constructed Aqueducts for plumbing purposes, paved roads for more efficient trading and transportation, sewers to effectively remove waste, reducing disease!. Their political system revolved around the Senate, similar to our constitutional monarchies and republics of modern society!. When foreign nations were conquered, the residents were treated reasonably well if they were loyal and didn't revolt!. Architectural progression became apparent in these newly conquered towns, and their way of life improved greatly compared to before, especially the barbarian villages in France!.
Rome's expansion of territory poured money from taxes and economic funds into the treasury!. Increased mining and frequent farming practices contributed a lot!. This fuelled their forces to extend Roman borders further!. By allowing the people to assimilate and giving them the advantages of Roman rule, enemy settlements became very profitable after they were taken!. In any situation, money is key point in successful warfare!. Rome was also able to spread their Pagan beliefs (later Christianity), values, attitudes and customs throughout their states of the world influencing events to this day!. The Romans and their opposition both benefited!.
In other cases it can be very different!. The Gold horde (known as the Mongols), were a nomadic tribe of people that resided in the mountains near the Ural sea!. They were excellent cavalry commanders and used horseback archers to defeat their enemy!. In 1210 AD, the Mongols swept across Europe at a very fast rate under Batu, a legendary leader!. The Mongols simply sacked towns, pillaging, raping and massacring the occupants!. Huge wealth was obtained from this method and there was certainly no advantages for the Conquered!.Www@QuestionHome@Com