The tolerance in question is more so feeling forced tbh
the conquered peoples were still mostly treated like shit (save for the rich ones like the greek phanariots or whatev was the name)
allowing those peoples to exist freely, but then making it clear you don’t like them or give a fuck about theur problems sows hate and makes those same peoples despise you even more
The mongols are really the only half-decent example here because genghis and his descendants were closer to a meritocracy than really anything since, and they actually cared about them for the most part (as far as i remember, though, feel free to correct me if im missing crucial stuff)
EnzoRaffa16 on
The phrase “for their time” comes to mind.
But then, a contemporary example of a “tolerant empire” for “our time” doesn’t really exist, does it?
It’s easier to conquer a people when you’re not actively enacting a policy of direct extermination, that’s all there ever is to “tolerant empires”. If you’re not willing to repopulate the area, you need to have the bare minimum of tolerance. Otherwise, you’ll rule over a desert.
carlsagerson on
Ah yes. The Umayyads. Famous for being so tolerant that the people revolted because of its Arab-Centrism.
Truely a bastion of tolerance back then./s
john_andrew_smith101 on
Tolerance was not used as a justification for conquest by these empires. It was used as a post facto justification by future historians as for why their conquest was “good”. Of course, this was mere propaganda; the actual tolerance of an empire can be determined by the level of civil strife in said empire. It’s typically pretty easy to notice.
jaehaerys48 on
The value of “tolerance” is in making immediate revolts less likely. The empires that were the most successful often practiced a mixture of tolerance and assimilation. Bring people under your rule, and then gradually absorb them into your culture. The latter was often not very pretty – I don’t want to make it sound that way – but it if done well, it was effective.
therealpaterpatriae on
Yeahhhhh depending on the caliph, they weren’t always tolerant. Especially when you had examples of religious and racial oppression
Metasenodvor on
ask balkans about turks being tolerant
IdioticPAYDAY on
>Umayyads
>Tolerant
Wtf is bro onto
Juel92 on
Tolerance is necessary once the empire gets big enough. But it’s not about ideology (honestly I’ve come to the conclusion that ideology isn’t functionally real) but just about efficency. Imagine having to oppress massive geographical areas with a relatively small core of soldiers. Just not feasible.
9 Comments
The tolerance in question is more so feeling forced tbh
the conquered peoples were still mostly treated like shit (save for the rich ones like the greek phanariots or whatev was the name)
allowing those peoples to exist freely, but then making it clear you don’t like them or give a fuck about theur problems sows hate and makes those same peoples despise you even more
The mongols are really the only half-decent example here because genghis and his descendants were closer to a meritocracy than really anything since, and they actually cared about them for the most part (as far as i remember, though, feel free to correct me if im missing crucial stuff)
The phrase “for their time” comes to mind.
But then, a contemporary example of a “tolerant empire” for “our time” doesn’t really exist, does it?
It’s easier to conquer a people when you’re not actively enacting a policy of direct extermination, that’s all there ever is to “tolerant empires”. If you’re not willing to repopulate the area, you need to have the bare minimum of tolerance. Otherwise, you’ll rule over a desert.
Ah yes. The Umayyads. Famous for being so tolerant that the people revolted because of its Arab-Centrism.
Truely a bastion of tolerance back then./s
Tolerance was not used as a justification for conquest by these empires. It was used as a post facto justification by future historians as for why their conquest was “good”. Of course, this was mere propaganda; the actual tolerance of an empire can be determined by the level of civil strife in said empire. It’s typically pretty easy to notice.
The value of “tolerance” is in making immediate revolts less likely. The empires that were the most successful often practiced a mixture of tolerance and assimilation. Bring people under your rule, and then gradually absorb them into your culture. The latter was often not very pretty – I don’t want to make it sound that way – but it if done well, it was effective.
Yeahhhhh depending on the caliph, they weren’t always tolerant. Especially when you had examples of religious and racial oppression
ask balkans about turks being tolerant
>Umayyads
>Tolerant
Wtf is bro onto
Tolerance is necessary once the empire gets big enough. But it’s not about ideology (honestly I’ve come to the conclusion that ideology isn’t functionally real) but just about efficency. Imagine having to oppress massive geographical areas with a relatively small core of soldiers. Just not feasible.