[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It is the frequency of the violence - Frankopan states the historical records shows that with the civilizations of the east, after the violence there were prolonged (or longer in comparison to the western world) of peace. It's in his book - more examples and more explanation with citations so perhaps you would enjoy the read (and different perspective).

I'm not disputing that Europe had fewer periods of peace than Asia. I'm pointing out that there were prolonged periods of peace in Eastern civilizations because states were more centralized and their hierarchies were locked down. The more powerful and autocratic the state, the less internal violence there is in a society. It's not a matter of culture or morality.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

In the East with the silk roads trade and exchange were carried out amongst differing cultures.

And those trade routes were notoriously plagued with lawlessness and banditry once they passed out of sight of a city. One of the reasons goods that passed between Europe and East Asia were so valuable is because of the extraordinary danger involved in the commerce.

And where do the Mongols, Turks, etc. fit into this peaceful exchange among different cultures? The Mongol invasions of China and the Middle East were, on a per capita basis, the most bloody episodes man has ever inflicted on man, and Asia has been the locale of most of the worst violent catastrophes in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_death_toll

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

-PS: those crusaders were not gallant knights fighting for their faith (as described) rather low lifes, that had no prospects and were looking for some redemption or getting absolved from their crimes.

I never suggested the crusaders were gallant knights. They were mostly brutes looking for land and loot. That doesn't make the people they were fighting noble - after all, they had conquered that same patch of territory only a few generations before. Is religious jihad a more honourable motive for conquest and subjugation than larceny?

The more we try to turn history into a morality play, the less we understand. Humans don't conquer and massacre and enslave because their particular culture is morally tainted. They conquer and massacre and enslave because they're humans.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The carnage they wrought was unique.

Unique in what way? That strip of land, the Levant, has been conquered (with all the massacre, rape, and despoliation that entails) by Assyrians, Hittites, Israelites, Egyptians, the Sea Peoples, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Sassanids, Arabs, and Ottomans.