21-07-2005 06:46									#391
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: The very idea that Meiji was a mere figurehead is completely alien to me. It shouldn't be; the vast majority of emperors in Japanese history were mere figureheads. They were technically always the legitimate rulers of Japan, but real power usually rested in the hands of the shoguns or other military leaders. The Meiji period was no different.

Out of curiosity, since your knowledge is deep, how much truth was there in the movie "Last Samurai", assuming you have seen it? I don't mean with regard to TC's character, but the civil war in Japan and how it ended in the movie, versus the real world.

	21-07-2005 07:07									#392
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Quite an interesting view. in the 16th century, Morocco fought twice againt the subsaharian Songhai empire. On the first time Morocco lost the battle. On the second time (1591), Morocco won against a similar Songhai army. The main difference was that Morocco used guns that second time. Besides, bows came into use in Subsaharian Africa, at least in western Africa. It was used for hunting an for war (though I do not know to what extent the bow was used vs the spear)

You haven't answered my other post in response to this yet but, something else just occurred to me about weaponry.

It was long held that Custer was was annihilated so quickly because he was so overwhelmed, but many people never really believed that.

Forensics and more in depth study revealed that the reason why Custer could not keep them at bay and went down so fast was because the Sioux had significant numbers of repeating rifles while Custer's men still had only breechloaders- single shot rifles. The amount of firepower the Indians were able to deliver is what overwhelmed Custer's forces, not the sheer number of indians, most of whom still had muskets or bows.

Anyhow, both posts were meant as food for thought. I don't think muskets were as determinative in the early conquest of the Americas as Diamond makes them. Considering the forest in the NE and the jungle in the South. Rather I think the Indian's lack of cohesive social organization beyond the immediate tribe was the real determining factor.

	21-07-2005 07:09									#393
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The movie didn't deal with the civil war; it dealt with the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877. It's very loosely based on real people and events.

	21-07-2005 07:14									#394
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Dumb Incans, they deserved to be conquered. I can't believe Atahualpa told his warriors to leave the weapons at home when meeting the Spaniards. The reason: political, he thought the Spanish would flee and he wanted them to flee from an unarmed Incan force so the even dumber Incan peasants would think Atahualpa had scared away the gods without weapons.

He could have easily finished off the Spaniards many times over before they even reached the capitol. At least Cortez had plenty of Indian allies in the war with the Aztecs. Less than 200 Conquistadors rode right into 80,000 Incans and captured the idiot running the show.

	21-07-2005 07:16									#395
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Institutional arrangements play an important role in decisions indeed. However, the question we are adressing here (I think) is not whether culture is the only thing that matters (even Epublius disagrees with the idea), but whether things are geographically determined. I'd say that the example of Poland goes contrary to your own argument. Previously in the thread, you argued that China was flat, and that allowed a strong centralized government. Yet, Poland is flat, and had a crippled institutional order, subjected to the abomination that is the Liberum Veto. The geographic argument does not compute.

This is a very weak way of looking at this. Poland is flat, but it is part of a large, flat area, allowing for people and armiers to move about freely.

China's north, were the culture and state we call China was created, is also flat. BUt it is protected from any other large agricultural civs by plenty of steepes, MOuntains, jungles, and Deserts.

Poland as a political unity grew in an area rife with them. China did not, China's growth was relatively isolated-it certainly knew of the foreign world and traded and such, but during its formative stage it was pretty much the only large agricultural civlization in its entire neighborhood. China's eneimes were nomadic tribes, not ohter vast and great civlizations.

The Poland point is to illustrate the weakness of the cultural arguement specially sicne no one here yet has defined culture. Is the political framework existing at the time part of "culture"? After all, had China had, as she had had in the past but did not have in 1838, a strong, popular and Han dynasty in power in Beijing, could she have modernized? Of what is the Taiping rebels had won and ovethrown the Empire? Was China's political state in 1839 somehow "culturally" decided?

(and no, Spiff, I am not claiming it was geographically decided either. You seem to have a very myopic and imcplete view of this "Gepapism" you speak of.)

	21-07-2005 07:20									#396
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Epublius Rex Anyhow, both posts were meant as food for thought. I don't think muskets were as determinative in the early conquest of the Americas as Diamond makes them. Considering the forest in the NE and the jungle in the South. Rather I think the Indian's lack of cohesive social organization beyond the immediate tribe was the real determining factor.

I'm inclined to agree with you for North America (though the organization of Indians was more complex than you make it look). But that wouldn't explain how easily the Spanish conquered two great empires and a slew of urbanised vassals. These cultures were clearly far beyond tribal.

And even though the Aztecs vassals have turned against them, I still don't understand how the Spanish could have so easily subjected the remaining vassals.

	21-07-2005 07:24									#397
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I'm inclined to agree with you for North America (though the organization of Indians was more complex than you make it look). But that wouldn't explain how easily the Spanish conquered two great empires and a slew of urbanised vassals. These cultures were clearly far beyond tribal. And even though the Aztecs vassals have turned against them, I still don't understand how the Spanish could have so easily subjected the remaining vassals.

Maybe the massive collapse of society as plague ravaged all large Indian societies, killing far more than half of all people, had something to do with it.

Again, Maybe if Atahualpa had not just finished a civil war with his brother Huascar because pox had killed the Inca before then Pizzaro might not have had the luck he had.

	21-07-2005 08:22									#398
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I'm inclined to agree with you for North America (though the organization of Indians was more complex than you make it look). But that wouldn't explain how easily the Spanish conquered two great empires and a slew of urbanised vassals. These cultures were clearly far beyond tribal. And even though the Aztecs vassals have turned against them, I still don't understand how the Spanish could have so easily subjected the remaining vassals.

Well, as you note, in the case of the Aztecs, the were hated by everyone so it was easy enough for Cortez to secure allies.

Most Mesoamericans were not in cities though, most were living a tribal existence in the jungles and along the water ways and coastal areas. In both cases, the empires extracted huge sums from those around them- making them hated entities. I do not discount the ability of the Spanish in conducting a crude form of Machiavellian diplomacy with the smaller tribes in order to get the large empires.

Nor do I discount the advantage they had with horses- the horse was the great military advantage of early indo-europeans as they spread out from the Caucasus.

However, the opposing tribes were bought much too easily by outside invaders. The Romans were very adept at such maneuvers, but over time the barbaric tribes caught on. The indians did not seem to until it was far too late- Little Big Horn being an example of what would have worked had it happened in 1650 instead of 1870 whatever. I just don't think they were capable of rapid change. More importantly with the Inca, they involved themselves in a civil war at the worst possible time. I think they sowed their own seeds of destruction, just as the Aztecs did by their savage rule of the surrounding tribes.

In other words, they, like Rome and Egypt before that, were ripe for conquest- they were not a unified people with a central purpose- the Spanish were, as were the English to the North.

Likewise, the same can be said of China. Steeped in ancestor worship and a religion/cultural belief-philosophy which emphasized simplicity, statism and servitude, the Chinese could not adapt and overcome what they were hit with.

There is something to the idea that Gepap states in that they were isolated once the mongols had conquered them. Japan and Korea did not have the ability to invade them at that point= 1600's, but oh my what a fool Japan made of them in the 1930's.

How does culture figure into the rise and fall of great empires? In the beginning they are filled with a belief in their own supremacy and their inevitable right of conquest. In the end, they become fat and lazy, too quick to hire out the fate of the empire to foreign entities. Egypt with the slave stock. Rome with the barbarians and former slave stock. England with it's former colony- America. Russia with it's former serfs. Aztecs with their vassals who hated them- very similar to Rome entrusting it's fate to the barbarians.

Now America is beginning to crumble. We may just live long enough to see it begin in earnest. But all of the tell tale signs are there. We, and the West in general, are a people without a purpose. We have become fat and lazy (literally) and no longer have the zeitgeist that the founding peoples had carried with them from Europe. Increasingly, we are utilizing foreign peoples for our labor and also increasingly entrusting our security to them.

This part of culture, what it imparts to a people's view of themselves is a critical part in the making of history.

	21-07-2005 08:30									#399
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Maybe the massive collapse of society as plague ravaged all large Indian societies, killing far more than half of all people, had something to do with it. Again, Maybe if Atahualpa had not just finished a civil war with his brother Huascar because pox had killed the Inca before then Pizzaro might not have had the luck he had.

Even so, they still had millions to Pizzarro's 160. They sowed the seeds of their own destruction with civil war and abusive taxes. Neither Pizzaro nor Cortez could have pulled it off without Indian allies.

Again, a lack of cohesiveness is central. Beyond that, they were, of course, primitives in their technology. They were essentially still living in the stone age.

As I have said, Europe suffered immense carnage from the plague- society did not break down. Europe, at the time of the plague's first appearance, was fighting the invasion forces of both the Western and Eastern Caliphates on two fronts. And they had no clear technological advantage over Islam. What they did have was political cohesiveness within their nations and a sense of having to stick together in the face of the foreign enemy. And that larger cohesiveness is what saved Europe more then once from Islamic rule.
Islam was at first the more powerful of the two regions. Overtime Europe overcame Islam and by the 20th century was able to easily dominate it. Though that was already set in stone by the mid 1800's.

	21-07-2005 08:41									#400
	Increase Your PM Length

Addendum to the Incas, et al-

Remember, Cortez and Pizzaro were merely the first assault of a sustained invasion. European invasions have all followed a general format over the millennia. A relatively small invasion force with a mission and cohesiveness invades and destroys the primary army of native defense. Followed by some form of occupation and a growth of military force. The disarming of the native populace followed by their eventual co-option into the new form of governance. You do not need all of the people, just a enough to make it work- maybe 10 to 15% of the native population. As I pointed out a while back, when India had over 300 million people, it took less then 3 million English men, women and children to maintain the Empire there. A bare 10%. Simply amazing. It took even less to subdue China, and disease was not a factor there.

The next step is assimilating the masses into the new culture.

SOmething else in all this again. IN all of these essentially Asian empires that were conquered, the nobility all thought they were gods. That's something europeans had left behind 1500 years earlier. I cannot help but wonder if that venality didn't contribute to their downfall.

	21-07-2005 08:55									#401
	Got spare money?

You know, something that Diamond and some of you negate is the simple fact that Europe was under near constant invasion by outside forces for almost all of the last 5,000 years. That alone may have tempered them into the mighty force they later became.

And stop this absurd nonsense about the Arabs preserving European heritage, The Arabs are the ones who burned the library at Alexandria- because they thought it was all heresy.

It was Thomas Aquinas who translated the Greek properly and thus preserved it in the vaults of the Vatican. The Arabs deliberately translated it in a sloppy way to avoid offending the Koran. The pollution was so extensive that it was incomprehensible from it's original meaning.

Once again, culture was a determining factor.

	21-07-2005 09:01									#402
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Example:

Rome was not a military power per se until Hannibal invaded. During the course of the Carthaginian wars, Rome was forged into the military power that allowed it to conquer the Western world. They survived an immense onslaught through cohesiveness and brain power.

What makes a people great is how they deal with extreme adversity. Not how easily they maintain control over primitive masses.

	21-07-2005 09:43									#403
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Maybe if Atahualpa had not just finished a civil war with his brother Huascar because pox had killed the Inca before then Pizzaro might not have had the luck he had.

The guy was stupid, that and only that explains how he lost...well...lost so fast. The tide against the new world was unstoppable, but the Inca were nicely positioned to fend off the Spanish for decades or even centuries had they wiped out the Spanish force.

quote: They sowed the seeds of their own destruction with civil war and abusive taxes. Neither Pizzaro nor Cortez could have pulled it off without Indian allies.

Pizzaro had very little help from Incan enemies, they rode into town and the dumb mayor handed them the keys to the kingdom.

quote: You know, something that Diamond and some of you negate is the simple fact that Europe was under near constant invasion by outside forces for almost all of the last 5,000 years. That alone may have tempered them into the mighty force they later became.

Diamond mentioned the arms race in Europe/Spain leading to the guns and steel used to conquer the new world. When two of the main factors relate to arms, I dont know how you can say he "negated" it...

	21-07-2005 10:19									#404
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Diamond mentioned the arms race in Europe/Spain leading to the guns and steel used to conquer the new world. When two of the main factors relate to arms, I dont know how you can say he "negated" it...

He mentions it, but he failed to see it as a cultural and not a geographical triumph. It took a lot of self control on the part of European kings who liked to make war on one another. Though, before the advent of Martin Luther, the Vatican held some control over warfare in Europe- threatening excommunication for those kings who conducted unjust wars. Religion is culture. It was the means by which the loose alliances against the invaders were held together.

By contrast, the Indians in the New World repeatedly sold each other out. I disagree that it was inevitable in the short term. Eventually, yes, Europe would have had the means to launch an unstoppable invasion force, but it did not have those means in 1600. They could have fought it off for perhaps 200 years, by which time they may have been able to come to some mutual agreement that allowed them more sovereignty then they got.

	21-07-2005 10:42									#405
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I am making a point here- in that Europeans responded in a laudable manner with the invasion attempts over time. Even the Goths came together with the Romans to defeat the Huns. Before that, the Greeks got together to get rid of a trade rival- the Trojans. The Greeks also used natives to defeat the Egyptians, and so forth. There is a pattern that was not evinced by other peoples- especially Asians in general. And in that pattern is shown a propensity to invent new and more powerful engines of war. Faster, better, more powerful. But beyond the weapons were the tactics employed. You have to admit, Europeans raised the art of war to a science- far surpassing the Chinese "Art of War". And Europeans were quick to make alliances in order to harness more manpower.

Here is an example:

The horse, which was gradually bred larger and larger until it achieved the size of the War Horse- the modern day work horse. Many people make the point- a valid one, that compared to Arabians, they were slow and cumbersome. But they miss the point of what they were intended for. Europeans bred them big enough to wear 200 pounds of armor. That made them more resistant to arrows and also added more weight to them- they were not intended for horse to horse fighting in battle. What they did with them is get them up to speed and plow the now 2,000 lbs of flesh and steal into the massed troops- opening up holes in the enemy lines.

The war horse was the forerunner of the tank.

Guns were the answer to armor, cannons the answer to fortified positions.

The Sythians had bronze weapons, the horse and the chariot, later they came up with the saddle and the stirrup and a horse big enough to ride. The Hittites the iron sword and shield and iron clad wheel. The Greeks had their ships- fast and low on the water and the phalanx. The Romans had Greek fire and the turtle. The English had the long bow and eventually their navy. America had steal ships first and the submarine and later the repeating firearm, including the gatling gun. The Germans had the steal rifled cannon that could throw a shell far enough that the enemy could not see where it came from. The British the tank. The Germans the rocket and jet. The Americans the intercontinental ballistic missile.

The arms race didn't begin in 700 AD, it began in 3,000 BC.

	21-07-2005 12:03									#406
	Put an end to popups!

quote: The arms race didn't begin in 700 AD, it began in 3,000 BC.

Who said it began in 700 ad?

	21-07-2005 16:47									#407
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I thought the arms race took off in the 50's

	21-07-2005 17:11									#408
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The arms race began several billion years ago when a new type of bacteria discovered predation.

	21-07-2005 18:26									#409
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker The guy was stupid, that and only that explains how he lost...well...lost so fast. The tide against the new world was unstoppable, but the Inca were nicely positioned to fend off the Spanish for decades or even centuries had they wiped out the Spanish force.

After Atahualpa died and the Spanish had also killed Huascar (whom was a captive of Atahualpa when the Spanish took over) various Imperial generals did battle against the Spanish. The last Inca resistance in the Andes did not end until at least the 1570's. So it took about 40 years for the Spanish to actually pacify the Inca. Tupac Amaru (namesake of the other Tupac) was the last Inca who battled the Spanish.

quote: Pizzaro had very little help from Incan enemies, they rode into town and the dumb mayor handed them the keys to the kingdom.

Pizzaro needed support from local indians to fight the long fight to pacify the country, specially once fighting broke out amongst his own men.

	21-07-2005 18:49									#410
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Huh, so know I know where "Tupac" came from.

	21-07-2005 19:03									#411
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Anyone remembers that song "Pizarro at Cuzco" from Colonization?

*whistles*

	21-07-2005 19:15									#412
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: And stop this absurd nonsense about the Arabs preserving European heritage, The Arabs are the ones who burned the library at Alexandria- because they thought it was all heresy.

You are surprisingly ignorant. It was destroyed by Christians during a particularly nasty outbreak of anti-Arian riots. And the Arabs did a whole lot to preserve Classical learning, many of the classic texts we possess today are only available through Arabic translations and the extent to which Neo-Platonism penetrated Arab philosophy is quite amazing.

	21-07-2005 19:26									#413
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

nm

	21-07-2005 21:01									#414
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Bosh You are surprisingly ignorant. It was destroyed by Christians during a particularly nasty outbreak of anti-Arian riots. And the Arabs did a whole lot to preserve Classical learning, many of the classic texts we possess today are only available through Arabic translations and the extent to which Neo-Platonism penetrated Arab philosophy is quite amazing.

Prove your assertions- I have the text books here on my shelfs backing me up.


I guess, as usual, you know little about the Western philosophers of the Middle Ages:

http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Marit...xt/stthomas.htm

	21-07-2005 21:03									#415
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Who said it began in 700 ad?

You:

quote: quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Diamond mentioned the arms race in Europe/Spain leading to the guns and steel used to conquer the new world. When two of the main factors relate to arms, I dont know how you can say he "negated" it...

	21-07-2005 21:08									#416
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap After Atahualpa died and the Spanish had also killed Huascar (whom was a captive of Atahualpa when the Spanish took over) various Imperial generals did battle against the Spanish. The last Inca resistance in the Andes did not end until at least the 1570's. So it took about 40 years for the Spanish to actually pacify the Inca. Tupac Amaru (namesake of the other Tupac) was the last Inca who battled the Spanish. quote: Pizzaro had very little help from Incan enemies, they rode into town and the dumb mayor handed them the keys to the kingdom. Pizzaro needed support from local indians to fight the long fight to pacify the country, specially once fighting broke out amongst his own men.

It would seem that PBS itself disagrees with you on who killed Huascar:
http://www.pbs.org/conquistadors/pi...izarro_i00.html

As well as others:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/H/Huascar.asp

	21-07-2005 21:27									#417
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Bosh You are surprisingly ignorant. It was destroyed by Christians during a particularly nasty outbreak of anti-Arian riots. And the Arabs did a whole lot to preserve Classical learning, many of the classic texts we possess today are only available through Arabic translations and the extent to which Neo-Platonism penetrated Arab philosophy is quite amazing.

Well, you are simply wrong with the Arabic translations. Your version presumes and pretends there was no knowledge of the Greeks in antiquity during the middle Ages- completely forgetting the existence of the Roman Church before the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Augustine was writing in Africa before the advent of Islam.

As for the debate on who burned the Library, it appears we are both wrong:

http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm

"The story that Theophilus destroyed a library is clearly a fiction that we can very precisely lay at the door of Edward Gibbon. It is in his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that we first find the allegation made. Gibbon seems mainly concerned to clear the Arabs of the responsibility of destroying the library and allows his marked anti-Christian prejudice to cloud his better judgement. His excellent footnotes show he had exactly the same sources as we do but drew the wrong conclusions. The story has recently been popularised by Carl Sagan who includes it in Cosmos. He spices the story up with a role for the murdered philosopher Hypatia, even though there is no evidence connecting her to the library at all."

As well as:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01303a.htm

"After Aristarchos the importance of the library began to wane. In 47 B.C. Caesar was compelled to set fire to his fleet to prevent its falling into the hands of the Egyptians. The fire spread to the docks and the naval arsenal, and destroyed 400,000 rolls. It is most probable from the statement of Orosius that these were not in the library itself, but had been removed from it preparatory for shipment to Rome, a view confirmed by the statement of the author of the "Bellum Alexandrinum " that Alexandria was built in such a way as to be safe from a great conflagration. Seneca and Gellius also speak only of the burning of manuscripts, though the latter represents the destruction as complete. Less carefully, Plutarch and Dio Cassius speak of the burning of the library, but had this been the case we should find mention of it in Cicero and Strabo."

Above also confirmed in the first link.

	21-07-2005 21:31									#418
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Prove your assertions- I have the text books here on my shelfs backing me up.

Only very old textbooks or very badly-researched ones would repeat the thorougly-discredited story that the Muslims burned the library. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01303a.htm

quote: Up to the time of Gibbon, the generally accepted version of the destruction of the library was that, on the capture of the city by the Mahommedans in A.D. 642, John Philoponos, having formed a friendship with their general Amrou, asked for the gift of the library. Amrou referred the matter to the Caliph Omar and received the answer: If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless, and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed. Accordingly, they were employed in the baths as fuel, and lasted six months. This story is now generally discredited, chiefly because it rests only on the authority of Abulpharagius, a writer six centuries later, while earlier writers, especially Eutychius and Elmacin, make no mention of it. Besides, the act is contrary to Mohammedan custom; John Philoponos lived about a century before the capture of the city, and the statement of the time the rolls lasted as fuel is preposterous. Finally, there is the evidence given above for the earlier destruction of the library.

quote: I guess, as usual, you know little about the Western philosophers of the Middle Ages:

I know who Aquinas is Do you know who Ibn Arabi was? Very impressive Neoplatonism, although just a touch abstruse...

	21-07-2005 21:35									#419
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat The arms race began several billion years ago when a new type of bacteria discovered predation.

How trite.

Lets just say that humans stole the world from the cockroaches and should give it back. After all, we got lucky when some fish managed to walk up right out of the ocean. If it hadn't walked out of the ocean at that precise geographical location, it would have fallen down, been washed back into the sea by the next wave and gone back to swimming for good.

See, it was all geography all along. Not to mention the bacteria that happened when "lightening struck water in the primordial ooz".

	21-07-2005 21:40									#420
	Increase Your PM Length

Well the library question is a bit complex since there was a series of destruction events since the thing was big and spread out, but there's no real evidence that the Muslims had anything to do with it. It was definately around after Ceasar though (follow my link).

As for Arabic translations, you're resorting to strawmen. I never said that the classical tradition died out completely in Christian Europe, just that it was stronger in the Mid-East (at least for a while). THat's why when Scholasticism got rolling many Christian scholars had to travel to Muslim Spain to increase the number of classical text that they had access to.