Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Greek influence in china?

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 3:04:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I've always been fascinated in qin shi huang. However this article is absolutely riveting if more evidence bears fruit on a Hellenic China connection (it's not that far of a reach: Greeks did stay behind and work for Porus in India 100 years prior).
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2016 12:41:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 3:04:48 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I've always been fascinated in qin shi huang. However this article is absolutely riveting if more evidence bears fruit on a Hellenic China connection (it's not that far of a reach: Greeks did stay behind and work for Porus in India 100 years prior).

You forget to link the article, I think, but I read something on Sino-Hellenic cultural exchange in Bactria a while ago, if I recall correctly. We like to think of the world in a compartmentalized way, but that's just a simplification. It's fun to look how messy history was, how interconnected and complicated. Things like this challenge our conception of what 'Greece' and 'China' were, and helps to undermine problematic historical abridgement. It reinforces Butterfield's observation:

'The historian seeks to study change taking place in the past, to work out the manner in which transitions are made, and to examine the way in which things happen in this world. If we could put all the historians together and look at their total cooperative achievement they are studying all that process of mutation which has turned the past into our present. And from the work of any historian who has concentrated his researches upon any change or transition, there emerges a truth of history which seems to combine with a truth of philosophy. It is nothing less than the whole of the past, with its complexity of movement, its entanglement of issues, and its intricate interactions, which produced the whole of the complex present; and this, which is itself an assumption and not a conclusion of historical study, is the only safe piece of causation that a historian can put his hand upon, the only thing which he can positively assert about the relationship between past and present. When the need arises to sort and disentangle from the present one fact or feature that is required to be traced back into history, the historian is faced with more unravelling than a mind can do, and finds the network of interactions so intricate, that it is impossible to point to any one thing in the sixteenth century as the cause of any one thing in the twentieth. It is as much as the historian can do to trace with some probability the sequence of events from one generation to another, without seeking to draw the incalculably complex diagram of causes and effects for ever interlacing down to the third and fourth generations. Any action which any man has ever taken is part of that whole set of circumstances which at a given moment conditions the whole mass of things that are to happen next. To understand that action is to recover the thousand threads that connect it with other things, to establish it in a system of relations; in other words to place it in its historical context. But it is not easy to work out its consequences, for they are merged in the results of everything else that was conspiring to produce change at that moment. We do not know where Luther would have been if his movement had not chimed with the ambitions of princes. We do not know what would have happened to the princes if Luther had not come to their aid.

The volume and complexity of historical research are at the same time the result and the demonstration of the fact that the more we examine the way in which things happen, the more we are driven from the simple to the complex. It is only by undertaking an actual piece of research and looking at some point in history through the microscope that we can really visualize the complicated movements that lie behind any historical change. It is only by this method that we can discover the tricks that time plays with the purposes of men, as it turns those purposes to ends not realized; or learn the complex process by which the world comes through a transition that seems a natural and easy step in progress to us when we look back upon it. It is only by this method that we can come to see the curious mediations that circumstances must provide before men can grow out of a complex or open their minds to a new thing. Perhaps the greatest of all the lessons of history is this demonstration of the complexity of human change and the unpredictable character of the ultimate consequences of any given act or decision of men; and on the face of it this is a lesson that can only be learned in detail. It is a lesson that is bound to be lost in abridgement, and that is why abridgements of history are sometimes calculated to propagate the very reverse of the truth of history. The historian seeks to explain how the past came to be turned into the present but there is a very real sense in which the only explanation he can give is to unfold the whole story and reveal the complexity by telling it in detail. In reality the process of mutation which produced the present is as long and complicated as all the most lengthy and complicated works of historical research placed end to end, and knit together and regarded as one whole.'
-Herbert Butterfield -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2016 2:27:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/27/2016 12:41:46 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/12/2016 3:04:48 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I've always been fascinated in qin shi huang. However this article is absolutely riveting if more evidence bears fruit on a Hellenic China connection (it's not that far of a reach: Greeks did stay behind and work for Porus in India 100 years prior).

You forget to link the article, I think, but I read something on Sino-Hellenic cultural exchange in Bactria a while ago, if I recall correctly. We like to think of the world in a compartmentalized way, but that's just a simplification. It's fun to look how messy history was, how interconnected and complicated. Things like this challenge our conception of what 'Greece' and 'China' were, and helps to undermine problematic historical abridgement. It reinforces Butterfield's observation:

'The historian seeks to study change taking place in the past, to work out the manner in which transitions are made, and to examine the way in which things happen in this world. If we could put all the historians together and look at their total cooperative achievement they are studying all that process of mutation which has turned the past into our present. And from the work of any historian who has concentrated his researches upon any change or transition, there emerges a truth of history which seems to combine with a truth of philosophy. It is nothing less than the whole of the past, with its complexity of movement, its entanglement of issues, and its intricate interactions, which produced the whole of the complex present; and this, which is itself an assumption and not a conclusion of historical study, is the only safe piece of causation that a historian can put his hand upon, the only thing which he can positively assert about the relationship between past and present. When the need arises to sort and disentangle from the present one fact or feature that is required to be traced back into history, the historian is faced with more unravelling than a mind can do, and finds the network of interactions so intricate, that it is impossible to point to any one thing in the sixteenth century as the cause of any one thing in the twentieth. It is as much as the historian can do to trace with some probability the sequence of events from one generation to another, without seeking to draw the incalculably complex diagram of causes and effects for ever interlacing down to the third and fourth generations. Any action which any man has ever taken is part of that whole set of circumstances which at a given moment conditions the whole mass of things that are to happen next. To understand that action is to recover the thousand threads that connect it with other things, to establish it in a system of relations; in other words to place it in its historical context. But it is not easy to work out its consequences, for they are merged in the results of everything else that was conspiring to produce change at that moment. We do not know where Luther would have been if his movement had not chimed with the ambitions of princes. We do not know what would have happened to the princes if Luther had not come to their aid.

The volume and complexity of historical research are at the same time the result and the demonstration of the fact that the more we examine the way in which things happen, the more we are driven from the simple to the complex. It is only by undertaking an actual piece of research and looking at some point in history through the microscope that we can really visualize the complicated movements that lie behind any historical change. It is only by this method that we can discover the tricks that time plays with the purposes of men, as it turns those purposes to ends not realized; or learn the complex process by which the world comes through a transition that seems a natural and easy step in progress to us when we look back upon it. It is only by this method that we can come to see the curious mediations that circumstances must provide before men can grow out of a complex or open their minds to a new thing. Perhaps the greatest of all the lessons of history is this demonstration of the complexity of human change and the unpredictable character of the ultimate consequences of any given act or decision of men; and on the face of it this is a lesson that can only be learned in detail. It is a lesson that is bound to be lost in abridgement, and that is why abridgements of history are sometimes calculated to propagate the very reverse of the truth of history. The historian seeks to explain how the past came to be turned into the present but there is a very real sense in which the only explanation he can give is to unfold the whole story and reveal the complexity by telling it in detail. In reality the process of mutation which produced the present is as long and complicated as all the most lengthy and complicated works of historical research placed end to end, and knit together and regarded as one whole.'
-Herbert Butterfield -

My bad: http://www.history.com...

And yes, I agree. Many don't realize the eastern martial arts were also of Greek origin. Some Greeks stayed behind after Alex best proud. All were impressed with him. They yaight the Indians pancrade, wrestling, boxing. Indians continued developing for another 500 years then bodhidharma travelled to china and taught multiple temples, including shaping. Then china exported to Japan, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, etc... each adapting to their culture ... hence tae Kwon do, karate, krabikabong, muaythai,Silat, eskrima, etc...