this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
1234 points (98.4% liked)
Humor
7450 readers
420 users here now
"Laugh-a-Palooza: Unleash Your Inner Chuckle!"
Rules
Read Full Rules Here!
Rule 1: Keep it light-hearted. This community is dedicated to humor and laughter, so let’s keep the tone light and positive.
Rule 2: Respectful Engagement. Keep it civil!
Rule 3: No spamming!
Rule 4: No explicit or NSFW content.
Rule 5: Stay on topic. Keep your posts relevant to humor-related topics.
Rule 6: Moderators Discretion. The moderators retain the right to remove any content, ban users/bots if deemed necessary.
Please report any violation of rules!
Warning: Strict compliance with all the rules is imperative. Failure to read and adhere to them will not be tolerated. Violations may result in immediate removal of your content and a permanent ban from the community.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If history was written exclusively by the victors, the Khans would be considered one of the greatest empires of all time. However, the Mongolians didn't really have a pronounced aristocracy class that focused on arts/writing, and so most of our records regarding their conquests are written by Chinese and European scholars, a.k.a. the losers.
That's a huge one, thanks
But the Mongols willingly assimilated into Chinese culture for ease of administration, becoming the Yuan Dynasty. So a lot of the 'Chinese' sources were written by people of Mongol ancestry, or people who worked for them.
Not sure this is a great example for your point, given that in between then and now Europe conquered most of the world. I don't think it'd be hard to argue that in the long term they were the "victors" and as such their great opponents and fears became The Enemy in the history books.
This only really works as a counter-point if you interpret it overly literally as only referring to the winners of a particular conflict, whereas in my experience at least, this isn't what most people repeating the sentiment actually mean. Usually it's something more akin to "history is often written and taught in a way that furthers the goals of the current hegemon," that's just not quite as snappy.
I'm guessing the issue that makes people talk past each other when talking about this idea is that it's most famously used in reference to World War II where "winner of the conflict" and "leader of the global order" were about as close to the same thing as they have ever been.