 |
| |
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bosh
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. |
Ahh, I see you stand corrected after reading my links- good for you, you learned something.
Now see, I admitted I was wrong, posted links proving so- that also proved you wrong. BUt instead of being a "man", or at least an adult, you make a silly claim, then use my link to try to prove me wrong about the rest of it.
No wonder grade inflation passes for modern education:
http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i30/30b02401.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
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. |
While not very pretty in the prose department, you make clear my points. Culture has a significant role to play in all historic moments- while not being the sole reason for success or failure, it is certainly a part of it that cannot be denied. Of course the same can be said for geography.
I suspect your point above, that I have quoted, is in a similar vein to what caused China's downfall as well as Rome and Egypt- perhaps all empires. Stuck in the status quo and unable to change and adept to the situation at hand, they were overcome by outside forces. In Rome, the populace had long since lapsed into a self induced coma. In Peru, pride and arrogance prevented them from doing the "intelligent" thing. IN China, I suspect it was about pride and a complete lack of understanding what it was they were facing- the Chinese had for several thousand years lived in a form of self disillusionment, that may have been based upon some reality initially, obviously no longer was.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
IW quote:
The arms race began several billion years ago when a new type of bacteria discovered predation. |
You've out done ER in the pickiness department  I welcome you to the club 
Gepap quote:
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. |
And the Inca could have bought themselves much more time had they wiped out Pizzaro. They were out of the way and proven quite the match for the Spanish. Once word got back to Spain about an 80,000 man army that took out Pizzaro what Spanish monarch would be so eager to commit to conquering the Inca? It might have taken the entire Spanish army/navy and that would have been foolhardy given their much closer enemies.
While Diamond shows the importance of geography with relative isolation being worse in the long run, the Inca should have never lost until Spain could overcome the logistical nightmare created by that relative isolation. Poor leadership cost the Inca... And while Europeans were clearly armed better, the new world had the population if they just united (which makes germs the real culprit). They were more or less united down in S America, all they had to do was wipe out each Spanish army that reached them - and they could have easily with average leaders. It may not have sounded right, but the book should have been "Germs, Guns and Steel".
quote:
Pizzaro needed support from local indians to fight the long fight to pacify the country, specially once fighting broke out amongst his own men. |
That help came after defeating Atahualpa, not before. Cortez had far more Indians in his army than Conquistadors - Indians fed up with the Aztecs.
ER
Where in the following
quote:
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... |
did I or Diamond say the arms race began in 700 AD?
The show was about Spain in the new world, did he really have to devote as much time explaining how arms developed from the stone age again? Hell, you said the arms race began in 3,000 BC and that isn't true. But you claim others said it began in 700 AD (and that ain't true either)?
quote:
While not very pretty in the prose department, you make clear my points. |
Ah, sig material... I was trying to be a bit crude to display my utter amazement at the Inca leader, kiinda like a comedian's use of 4 letter words to enhance their observations.  What I cant understand is how this clown could have won a civil war in the first place. Oh yeah, the clown leading the opposition was a relative.
quote:
Culture has a significant role to play in all historic moments- while not being the sole reason for success or failure, it is certainly a part of it that cannot be denied. Of course the same can be said for geography. |
True, but this was just plain stupidity - the stupidity of one Incan leader and the stupidity of his generals agreeing to his stupidity. Culture may have played a role in producing that stupidity (inbreeding, religious beliefs), but since the notion of monarchies, kings, chiefs, etc (dictators) is found all over the place, it's more basic than culture...part of the human condition in general... People sacrificing freedom for security was common enough for Ben Franklin to warn against it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
IW
You've out done ER in the pickiness department I welcome you to the club
Gepap
And the Inca could have bought themselves much more time had they wiped out Pizzaro. They were out of the way and proven quite the match for the Spanish. Once word got back to Spain about an 80,000 man army that took out Pizzaro what Spanish monarch would be so eager to commit to conquering the Inca? It might have taken the entire Spanish army/navy and that would have been foolhardy given their much closer enemies.
While Diamond shows the importance of geography with relative isolation being worse in the long run, the Inca should have never lost until Spain could overcome the logistical nightmare created by that relative isolation. Poor leadership cost the Inca... And while Europeans were clearly armed better, the new world had the population if they just united (which makes germs the real culprit). They were more or less united down in S America, all they had to do was wipe out each Spanish army that reached them - and they could have easily with average leaders. It may not have sounded right, but the book should have been "Germs, Guns and Steel". |
Other then the germs part, unless you mean those that made them stupid, I agree. Remember, even if it did kill half of them, they still had millions left with which to over come 160 Spaniards. There is no excuse for it. But Euros did pretty much the same every where they went- they had very limited numbers in Africa, India and China as well.
Europe lost 30% of it's population in the first three years of the plague alone. But their society did not break down. All things considered, it seems to have strengthened it. They were also fighting off an invasion which took the form of a giant pincers movement (quite cool for the time, actually, considering the scope and ambition of Islam's rulers)
quote:
That help came after defeating Atahualpa, not before. Cortez had far more Indians in his army than Conquistadors - Indians fed up with the Aztecs. |
The brother did kill the brother, that was the reason Pizarro put him to death. And it does figure into the whole thing. As brothers, they should have been able to put away their differences for the sake of survival.
quote:
ER
Where in the following
did I or Diamond say the arms race began in 700 AD?
The show was about Spain in the new world, did he really have to devote as much time explaining how arms developed from the stone age again? Hell, you said the arms race began in 3,000 BC and that isn't true. But you claim others said it began in 700 AD (and that ain't true either)? |
I took you to mean that the arms race began with either the war between the Western Caliphate and Castilian Spain or with the initial assault by Islam on Europe- my bad if that was not your intent.
quote:
Ah, sig material... I was trying to be a bit crude to display my utter amazement at the Inca leader, kiinda like a comedian's use of 4 letter words to enhance their observations. What I cant understand is how this clown could have won a civil war in the first place. Oh yeah, the clown leading the opposition was a relative. |
Hehe- look at what the Romans did to one another. THe rulers of old and large empires were always out of touch with reality. Just look at the modern world and ask yourself how many politicians have a clue as to what is really going on "in the streets". "those that forget history are doomed to repeat it" is especially true in a society without a system of writing.
quote:
True, but this was just plain stupidity - the stupidity of one Incan leader and the stupidity of his generals agreeing to his stupidity. Culture may have played a role in producing that stupidity (inbreeding, religious beliefs), but since the notion of monarchies, kings, chiefs, etc (dictators) is found all over the place, it's more basic than culture...part of the human condition in general... People sacrificing freedom for security was common enough for Ben Franklin to warn against it. |
I agree with all of that, but obviously the West learned something from the history of the Romans that these other peoples did not. Rome was the last culture where the ruler was venerated with god like status, after Constantine, rulers may have ruled by divine right, but they were not divine- there is a big difference. Consequently, the people around the kings of Europe understood that they had a right as well as a vested interest in maintaining the power and stability of the king, even when he was insane, by turning him into a figurehead or even assassinating them when necessary. In a way, the ruling aristocracies became an oligarchy which saw that their health and power was directly tied to the health and power of the state. I mean that they understood there would be no divine intervention to save them should the **** hit the fan.
And you know what? Sometimes I think the "people" were better off under that kind of system. The people belonged to the king, so to speak, and he/she had a vested interest in keeping them safe. Not so in today's world where our "rulers" are only too happy to sell out "joe blow" for a few bucks at election time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
Hey, you know that in the North, there really was no conquest as in South America until after 1865. Up until then, I really don't think we made a point of making war and conquering the Indians.
After that point, we had a military machine with nothing to do but conquer the West. I think of America as an empire ever since that time. Sadly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
And the Inca could have bought themselves much more time had they wiped out Pizzaro. They were out of the way and proven quite the match for the Spanish. Once word got back to Spain about an 80,000 man army that took out Pizzaro what Spanish monarch would be so eager to commit to conquering the Inca? It might have taken the entire Spanish army/navy and that would have been foolhardy given their much closer enemies. |
I think you ignore a variety of things.
First, why would any Emperor of a great Empire think a small band of men, even weird looking ones, was any real danger? Atahulapa was hubristic, but it was Hubris built out of the fact he was now the absolute ruler of the one state in his known world. Why shouldn;t these wierdo's be any different (the Inca's not knowing about what happened elsewhere)
Second, Once Pizzaro did what he did and the Inca;s fought back, Spanish weapons were able to save them- the Inca army forced the Spanish to hole up in an Inca fortress, but the Inca simply could not dislodge them, and the army melted away with time, through disease, so forth. So the fact is the Inca did try to fight back, and it wa then that Spanish techonlogical advantages showed.
quote:
While Diamond shows the importance of geography with relative isolation being worse in the long run, the Inca should have never lost until Spain could overcome the logistical nightmare created by that relative isolation. Poor leadership cost the Inca... And while Europeans were clearly armed better, the new world had the population if they just united (which makes germs the real culprit). They were more or less united down in S America, all they had to do was wipe out each Spanish army that reached them - and they could have easily with average leaders. It may not have sounded right, but the book should have been "Germs, Guns and Steel". |
I find this view very strange.
First, over 75% of the Population of the Continents were collapsing due to disease. That kind of mortality shatters society, destroys the social fabric, collapses the economic situation/ In that climate "unity" will not appear, specially when local chiefs and lords can try to co-op the new rulers of the day.
You are right, disease won it for the Spanish- and that weapon was one that simply was too powerful to overcome then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I think you ignore a variety of things.
First, why would any Emperor of a great Empire think a small band of men, even weird looking ones, was any real danger? Atahulapa was hubristic, but it was Hubris built out of the fact he was now the absolute ruler of the one state in his known world. Why shouldn;t these wierdo's be any different (the Inca's not knowing about what happened elsewhere)
Second, Once Pizzaro did what he did and the Inca;s fought back, Spanish weapons were able to save them- the Inca army forced the Spanish to hole up in an Inca fortress, but the Inca simply could not dislodge them, and the army melted away with time, through disease, so forth. So the fact is the Inca did try to fight back, and it wa then that Spanish techonlogical advantages showed. |
Either that, or they just weren't very smart, after all, they were still living in a neolithic culture. And in any case, 5 million minus 75% (although I thought it was 50% over time) still leaves 1,250,000 against 160. Yours and Diamonds theory fails again.
quote:
quote:
While Diamond shows the importance of geography with relative isolation being worse in the long run, the Inca should have never lost until Spain could overcome the logistical nightmare created by that relative isolation. Poor leadership cost the Inca... And while Europeans were clearly armed better, the new world had the population if they just united (which makes germs the real culprit). They were more or less united down in S America, all they had to do was wipe out each Spanish army that reached them - and they could have easily with average leaders. It may not have sounded right, but the book should have been "Germs, Guns and Steel". |
I find this view very strange.
First, over 75% of the Population of the Continents were collapsing due to disease. That kind of mortality shatters society, destroys the social fabric, collapses the economic situation/ In that climate "unity" will not appear, specially when local chiefs and lords can try to co-op the new rulers of the day. |
If all people and their cultures (which don't exist) are equal, then explain how Europeans could survive the plague and still defeat the Islamic invaders. If they could do it, so could the incas. It was 50-%, btw, not 75%- you are trying to make it sound as bad as Europe's fate under the plague.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
Hey Gepap-
Explain how the English conquered India and China with such limited numbers- in real terms, even less then the Spanish in S. America. After all, there was no disease in India, and while you can and have pointed to the Opium wars and the attendant civil strife, that was long after England had already opened their doors and established their fate. And, in any case, the civil unrest was not as a large a problem as you make it out to be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
False. No one else had the same chance to land on the Americas as Europeans, who had already done it by 1000ad given just how close it is as compared to how far away it was from the other advanced cultures.
|
Given how close Alaska is to the Asiatic mainland, I find this a curious statement, especially given that Chinese junks could even just by hugging the shore, reach East Africa.
Really, then, there should have been no difficulty in heading north past Kamchatka and on to the Aleutians and the Queen Charlottes, Vancouver Island, et cetera.
Polynesians made it as far as Madagascar and New Zealand and Easter Island- from starting points in Taiwan and Indonesia, for instance.
quote:
Europe did not "want" to colonize anything. Where the hell do you get that notion? |
So when you say this I'm confused- clearly the Vikings and Normans did want to colonize, as did Viking kingdoms and Norman kingdoms, and no one is suggesting they weren't European.
In fact part of the reason Normans were so willing to colonize and conquer was because they were land hungry, but they were also very adaptable, as were indeed the Vikings- willing to marry local women from Ireland to Russia to Sicily and Greece and establish local dynasties.
I recommend John Julius Norwich's books on the kingdoms of the Normans in Sicily and Italy to you- one of the most splendid fusions of cultures of East and West, North and South, Christian, Jew and Muslim was to be found at the court of Palermo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Epublius Rex
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.
|
Utter crap. This is a bit of old (presumably) Christian propaganda, similar to the stuff which used to be put about accusing the very monotheistic Muslims of being polytheists or idol worshippers.
So high a regard did the Muslim Arabs and Sassanids have for Greek learning that after the Greek Christian emperor Justinian closed down the school at Athens, the Sassanids set up two schools at Nisibis and Jundishapur where the learning and speculation could carry on. When the Arab forces conquered the Sassanid Empire, the schools were allowed to continue, staffed even though they were by Christian Nestorian monks. They spoke and wrote in Syriac, close enough to Arabic, and also translated the original Greek into Syriac, Old Persian, and Arabic.
So great was the classical learning held to be, that Aristotle was known as the First, or Great Teacher to Muslim civilization.
quote:
'We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and foreign peoples.' |
al Kindi
This best expresses the Muslim and Arab approach to knowledge after the death of Muhammad. After all, they embraced Hindu mathematics and astronomy, Hellenic philosophy and science, Chinese science and technology and Iranian pre-Muslim science and culture.
I'm sure, with your love of 'alien cultures' it's something you definitely agree with....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
From Wikipedia
quote:
Disease began to kill immense numbers of indigenous Americans soon after Europeans and Africans began to arrive in the New World, bringing with them the infectious diseases of the Old World. One reason this death toll was overlooked (or downplayed) for so long is that disease, according to the widely held theory, raced ahead of European immigration in many areas, thus often killing off a sizeable portion of the population before European observations (and thus written records) were made. Many European immigrants who arrived after the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of American natives assumed that the natives had always been few in number. The scope of the epidemics over the years was enormous, killing millions of people — in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas — and creating "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe."6
|
This matches other accounts I have read. There are journals kept by Spanish explorers moving north out of Florida coming on Native American communities where the huts have been stacked full of corpses, and there were not enough people left to dispose of the remains. The diseases were absolutely devastating. The Black Death changed European culture while killing just 30%, find me a culture that survived a 90% death rate without massive trauma, and then better yet find me one that survived a military assault after this devastation. I'll bet you cannot can up with one.
The diseases also fed into the European claim that the savages were wasting all this land, it was largely empty. If the Native Americans had been given a century or two to recover population levels, the history of the United States would be very different. To dismiss them as simply "Neolithic" shows such a lack of comprehension of their culture, and accomplishments, as to border on the absurd. And also shows a strong vein of racism - i.e. unless your civilization meets our standards, i.e. iron use you are savages. The Cherokee had more Democratic government and more rights for women than any of the invading European cultures. Who was more "civilized"? Now the question, "Who had better technology?" is neither a leading question, and the answer to that is also very simple and straight foward. Sadly, technology and numbers almost always prevail in warfare, no matter who is more "civilized."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
I guess my whole attitude to the "Muslims saved the legacy of the West" semi-strawman is, so what? Why wouldn't they, for the vast majority it was their own legacy as well. Just because they converted to Islam and changed their names to Arabic names doesn't mean that the inhabitants of the former Greco-Roman empires were actually replaced by people from Arabia. |
One could also point out that the Byzantines also preserved ancient science and culture, and passed it on to the Italians. By the time that Byzantium finally succumbed in the 15th century the western european renaissance had already begun. In fact universities began appearing in the 13th century. While it's true that these learning centers borrowed from the muslims of Spain, they also acquired knowledge from Byzatium.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Given how close Alaska is to the Asiatic mainland, I find this a curious statement, especially given that Chinese junks could even just by hugging the shore, reach East Africa.
Really, then, there should have been no difficulty in heading north past Kamchatka and on to the Aleutians and the Queen Charlottes, Vancouver Island, et cetera.
Polynesians made it as far as Madagascar and New Zealand and Easter Island- from starting points in Taiwan and Indonesia, for instance. |
And why on earth would the Chinese settle posts in Kamchatka, or Alaska? Even today those lands are at best sparesly populated. Any Chinese expedition that kept going north would have no lands of any worth to report. Why then keep going? It would make no sense to continue trying to make outposts in marginal lands. The economic cost wouyld not have been worth it. Besides, specially if hugging the coast those trips would have been long.
Going to east Africa made sense because between China and East Africa you get lands worth a damn. Warm lands with people and lots of possibly exotic and useful goods. The same can;t be said of going north, to waters that are far less friendly than those of the Indean Ocean, specially through a great deal of the year.
quote:
So when you say this I'm confused- clearly the Vikings and Normans did want to colonize, as did Viking kingdoms and Norman kingdoms, and no one is suggesting they weren't European.
In fact part of the reason Normans were so willing to colonize and conquer was because they were land hungry, but they were also very adaptable, as were indeed the Vikings- willing to marry local women from Ireland to Russia to Sicily and Greece and establish local dynasties.
I recommend John Julius Norwich's books on the kingdoms of the Normans in Sicily and Italy to you- one of the most splendid fusions of cultures of East and West, North and South, Christian, Jew and Muslim was to be found at the court of Palermo. |
No thanks. First, the Normans were conquering more than "colonizing" It's not like Siciliy was "empty" when the Normans arrived, and enither was the area that became Normandy. Heck, the Mongols did a hell of a lot more of that.
As for the Vikings-lets see, poor people in marginal lands set out to find new lands to settle-yup, sounds like some pressing cultural imperative as opposed to say some economic urge to export surplus people.
Sorry Molly, but the behavior of the Normans and Vikings is in no way trully "peculiar" nor is any cultural drive needed to explain what simple human greed and ambition would explain (ie. politics and economics)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Drake, if you read the references to "Neolithic", it is being abused to imply a more primitive culture instead of a more primitive technology. Just as the term "Savages" was used to describe the Native Americans, it is a loaded term. By the way, Native Americans did have various degrees of metal working, with wide-spread gold and silver extraction and smithing among the Aztec and Inca, while various North American nations engaged in copper smithing, including the Hopewell who actually mined copper. So not only is it a perjorative term in this context used to justify the treatment of those less "civilized" (note again the confusion of technology with culture), it is also inaccurate.
To use an inaccurate term, to justify (note - justify, not explain) the military defeat (and the resulting genocide) of a people is definitely racial. It's all in the context. Want me to go through the use of that, and other terms, historically, and their use in the justification of the treatment of Native Americans? I hold you in higher regard than ER, and I don't think you need a quick lesson in that, you are not that stupidly and willfully ignorant. I could go on for paragraphs, you know that, and I will cite in excrutiating, and boring, detail.
If you want to argue that the technological advantages of the Europeans were critical, I would agree. If you want to argue that the technological advantages of European culture made it superior, I will disagree. Technological advantages simply reflect the focus of the culture, and make it neither superior, or inferior. They do give it an edge in conflict that is often insurmountable, but I measure the value of a people not just in their ability to make war. Neither did Christ, nor Buddha. And now I'm throwing religion into the mix and adding a third dimension. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:33
|
|
quote:
Drake, if you read the references to "Neolithic", it is being abused to imply a more primitive culture instead of a more primitive technology. |
So? Stone-age cultures are more primitive than modern cultures. I have no idea why this is offensive to you...
quote:
Just as the term "Savages" was used to describe the Native Americans, it is a loaded term. |
The terms aren't similar in the slightest. "Savage" carries a tone of judgemental negativism that "neolithic" doesn't have.
quote:
If you want to argue that the technological advantages of the Europeans were critical, I would agree. If you want to argue that the technological advantages of European culture made it superior, I will disagree. |
I'm not arguing anything; can't really say I care about this discussion. I'm just wondering why a perfectly good word like "neolithic" has suddenly become politically incorrect...
Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 26-07-2005 at 13:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:33
|
|
Reguarding Epublius Rex's arguements..... about how Europeans not break down completely from diesase and warfare and that is the result of culture.
But I always thought that GGS's original arguements revolves of geological determination (okay, thats too strong a word), of culture development. Due to the fact that the Europeans went though thousands of years of new dieases from everywhere in the Asian continents and invaders from far and close, their culture and insistutions is less vulnerable to sudden and complete collapse from warfare and diesase as system thats vulnerable would have been replaced far eariler. The relatively isolated American agriculture civilization suffered from no outside attack and have much less culture and other resistance to them. An culture learns something about war after fighting from the Greeks, Romans, Huns, Mongols, Arabs, Vikings and each other endlessly.
quote:
Explain how the English conquered India and China with such limited numbers- in real terms, even less then the Spanish in S. America. |
The same way Napeleon and Hitler can conquer europe?
Just an small edge in brillance can do alot of things. Only that people are really quite equal most of the time.
Well, using dimaond's arguments, I'd say:
1. Both India and China had been isolated from the industrial revolution. The Europeans have been smacking their heads over with cannons and muskets for centuries, where those that fail to adopt would have been destoryed. India and China only had decades at best to adopt in your time frame, which wasn't enough, and give them an centuary they've both become powerful nuclear capable nations. However they are still Chinese and Indian rather than Europeans.
2. Neither really had is culture wiped out. For the most part it is only an replacement of high level government. In China, this was not even the case and they protected their geological integrity. Losing the navy and an few armies is enough to collapse an unstable government, but it is far from disloging an population and is insignificant in the long run.
quote:
If all people and their cultures (which don't exist) are equal, |
They are not equal as, an modern industrial state have an different culture from an stone age one, and an modern industrial state can defeat an planet of stone age people. However, the reason behind culture is evolution relative to environment (where geology is static and easier to study) rather than determinism due to current traits of any specific groups of people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
And why on earth would the Chinese settle posts in Kamchatka, or Alaska? Even today those lands are at best sparesly populated. Any Chinese expedition that kept going north would have no lands of any worth to report. Why then keep going? It would make no sense to continue trying to make outposts in marginal lands. The economic cost wouyld not have been worth it.
No thanks. First, the Normans were conquering more than "colonizing" It's not like Siciliy was "empty" when the Normans arrived, and enither was the area that became Normandy. Heck, the Mongols did a hell of a lot more of that.
As for the Vikings-lets see, poor people in marginal lands set out to find new lands to settle-yup, sounds like some pressing cultural imperative as opposed to say some economic urge to export surplus people.
Sorry Molly, but the behavior of the Normans and Vikings is in no way trully "peculiar" nor is any cultural drive needed to explain what simple human greed and ambition would explain (ie. politics and economics) |
Gosh, why did the Vikings keep going from the Orkneys and Shetlands to the Faeroes and Iceland and Greenland and the New World ?
Furs, narwhal tusks, whales, sealskins, polar bears, fish, walrus ivory.... trade is what you make of what you find, isn't it ? Especially if you can find items that are unavailable or rare where you come from.
And isn't that exactly what brought the expedition of Zheng He all the way to East Africa ? Of course, he was also a Muslim, and so knew of the trade routes to the south and south west thanks to the presence of fellow Muslim traders, but so far you haven't provided any evidence other than an assumption that Siberia and Kamchatka offer nothing worth trading for or buying as to why various Chinese dynasties may not have explored northern latitudes and hugged the coastline to Alaska.
You also seem to be making a distinction I didn't make- or at least assuming I made a distinction, and you are reducing the reasons waves of Vikings emigrated to just one- which isn't correct.
You seem also to be confused about what to colonize means- the Normans who settled in Sicily and Greece wanted to establish themselves there, to the extent of taking on the characteristics of the local inhabitants and intermarrying.
Main Entry: col·o·ny
Pronunciation: 'kä-l&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English colonie, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin colonia, from colonus farmer, colonist, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 a : a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state b : the territory inhabited by such a body
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...onary&va=colony
Main Entry: col·o·nize
Pronunciation: 'kä-l&-"nIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -nized; -niz·ing
transitive senses
1 a : to establish a colony in or on or of b : to establish in a colony
Exactly where on earth has been 'empty' for potential colonizers, except the odd islet in the Atlantic or Pacific, et cetera ?
Southern Greenland, I suppose, but that's where the Vikings developed a colony isn't it ?
Now you seem to be making a somewhat spurious distinction between conquering and colonizing with regard to the Normans.
Were the Normans colonizers, and does conquering preclude colonizing ?
Actually, no.
Main Entry: con·quer
Pronunciation: 'kä[ng]-k&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·quered; con·quer·ing /-k(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, to acquire, conquer, from Old French conquerre, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin conquaerere, alteration of Latin conquirere to search for, collect, from com- + quaerere to ask, search
transitive senses
1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms
2 : to overcome by force of arms
Having conquered, the Normans could colonize. Strangely enough this is what the Mongols did later, in southern Russia and the Khwarezm Khanate in Iran and Central Asia- where they formed the Khanate of the Golden Horde and the Il-Khanate.
quote:
While the Middle Ages in Ireland had witnessed the establishment of an Anglo-Norman COLONY, the native Irish lords had not been comprehensively CONQUERED and so Irish society and culture had remained predominantly Gaelic. |
http://www.thoemmes.com/dictionaries/irish_intro.htm
quote:
Stradling belonged to a leading Welsh family that allegedly could trace its origin to one of the original Norman COLONIZERS of Glamorganshire.... |
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/stradling/intro.html
quote:
How the early Norman COLONIZERS managed to make sense of this extraordinary apparition, what for them amounted to a novel and hybrid species, becomes quickly apparent as Gerald goes on with his account... |
http://web.mit.edu/lit/www/spotligh...les/gender.html
quote:
This book provides a selection from the abundant source material generated by the Normans and the peoples they CONQUERED. As this study demonstrates, few other medieval peoples generated historical writing of such quantity and quality. This book takes a wide European perspective on the Normans, assessing and explaining Norman expansion, their political and social organization and their eventual decline. The Normans in Europe explores such areas as....[..] the role of women and children in Norman society; the main chronicle sources for the history of the Norman INVASION and SETTLEMENT ; [...] ...the progress of the Normans amongst the first SETTLERS in Southern Italy and elsewhere in the Mediterranean. |
http://www.haskins.cornell.edu/Anon18-3.htm
My emphasis throughout.
I'll leave the last word on Norman Sicily to a Sicilian:
quote:
"Norman Sicily stood forth in Europe --and indeed in the whole bigoted medieval world-- as an example of tolerance and enlightenment, a lesson in the respect that every man should feel for those whose blood and beliefs happen to differ from his own." |
Palermo native, Vincenzo Salerno
http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art171.htm
But I do urge you to read 'The Normans in the South' and 'The Kingdom in the Sun'- well worth perusing.
 Attachment: normansiciliancoloniststomb.gif
This has been downloaded 35 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Drake - I just showed - the Native American's weren't stoneage, i.e. neolithic. They worked metal.  Thus, when ER uses that as justification for their defeat by the Europeans, implying that even without disease they would have lost - now he's playing the "superior European culture". Their culture was NOT superior, many of the Native American cultures had more freedom, more democratic elections, and did it over a larger area than some of the European countries (think of the Five Nations). Imagine the results of King Philip's War is the Seneca had let's say quadruple the number of braves. Or the fate of Roanke colony.
Primitive www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To...26Glossary.html
quote:
the first definition in Webster's Dictionary reflects the original Latin meaning, "of or existing in the beginning or earliest time or ages, ancient, original." Subsequent definitions, and the derogatory connotations of popular usage show the mutation of words in the English language as a means of stereotyping, labeling, and creating a dehumanized image of Aboriginal Indigenous people. |
That's not just my opinion. So if I call Japanese culture barbaric, citing everything that happened over WW2, and ignoring all the more civilized aspects, would I be correct? (and many people used exactly that straw man) Or if I called United States a genocidal nation, exceeding the Nazis atrocities, would you pick an argument with me?
Of course. I would be picking out single, accurate instances and using them to paint a distorted picture of the culture. Thus, when you or anyone pigeonholes a culture with a single word, in this case Neolithic, which is not even accurate, then yes the term is perjorative when it is being used to sum up a culture and paint a distorted and vastly over-simplified picture of it. Those cultures had certain superior aspects to the occupying and displacing European cultures (including farming techniques). They also had decidedly inferior iron working, chemical, and ocean-going technology, and their culture was decidedly inferior at the entire organization of a society behind total warfare, and industrial level plantation slavery and the brutal policies required to successfully implement that kind of farming technique (which is actually a very inefficient form of land use, but which generates more concentrated income for those who control the planation economy rather than a higher level of diffuse wealth for many smaller farms in the same land area).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
First, the Normans were conquering more than "colonizing" It's not like Siciliy was "empty" when the Normans arrived, and enither was the area that became Normandy. Heck, the Mongols did a hell of a lot more of that.
As for the Vikings-lets see, poor people in marginal lands set out to find new lands to settle-yup, sounds like some pressing cultural imperative as opposed to say some economic urge to export surplus people.
Sorry Molly, but the behavior of the Normans and Vikings is in no way trully "peculiar" nor is any cultural drive needed to explain what simple human greed and ambition would explain (ie. politics and economics) |
See, the more I think of this, the more strange your notions of what the Normans and Vikings did sounds. The idea that the Normans were 'more conquerors than colonizers' is really just so bizarre, as is the idea that the Vikings were the equivalent of 8th Century Okies.
Here's the settling of Normandy by Vikings:
"The west Frankish monarchy started the tenth century in a weak position. In 911 Charles III, unable to expel them, conceded lands in what was later called Normandy to the leader of the Norse (read: Viking) arrivals, Rollo.
Baptized the following year, Rollo set to work to build the duchy for which he did homage to the Carolingians; his Scandinavian countrymen (read: more Vikings) continued to arrive and settle there (read: colonize) until the end of the tenth century, yet soon became French in speech and law."
from: The Penguin History of Europe, by J. M. Roberts
" On Christmas Day 1066 Duke William of Normandy was acclaimed king in Westminster Abbey [...]
England received not just a new royal family but also a new ruling class, a new culture and language.
The result was that England and Normandy, once two separate states, now became a single cross-Channel political community, sharing not only a ruling dynasty, but also a single Anglo-Norman aristocracy.
The Norman Conquest of 1066 was followed by an Angevin Conquest of 1153-4; although this did not involve the settlement of a Loire valley aristocracy in England...
[...]
The Norman Conquest, in other words, ushered in a period during which England, like the kingdom of Jerusalem, can fairly be described as a part of France overseas, Outremer ; in political terms, it was a French colony (though not of course, one that belonged to the French king) until the early thirteenth century and a cultural colony thereafter."
John Gillingham, 'The Early Middle Ages' (1066-1290), Chapter 3 of the Oxford Illustrated History of Britain
quote:
Sorry Molly, but the behavior of the Normans and Vikings is in no way trully "peculiar". |
Gepap
And yet I can't recall my having suggested it was.
But you did suggest this:
quote:
Europe did not "want" to colonize anything. Where the hell do you get that notion? |
Umm, possibly from the European Vikings and Normans having colonized areas stretching from southern Greece and Palestine to Greenland ?
Attachment: thedanelaw.gif
This has been downloaded 33 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
First, the Normans were conquering more than "colonizing" It's not like Siciliy was "empty" when the Normans arrived, and enither was the area that became Normandy. Heck, the Mongols did a hell of a lot more of that.
|
Indeed they did:
'In Khorasan a refugee, asked to tell what had happened in Bokhara, replied with admirable succinctness:
"They came, mined, burnt, killed, plundered and left."
It was the authentic voice of those who had experienced the Mongols.'
from: 'The Mongol Empire', by Peter Brent
The Normans on the other hand...
quote:
Monreale is world-renowned for its cathedral, a dazzling mixture of Arab, Byzantine and Norman artistic styles framed by traditional Romanesque architecture, all combined in a perfect blend of the best that both the Christian and Muslim worlds of the 12th century had to offer. |
http://www.bestofsicily.com/monreale.htm
 Attachment: monrealecathedral.jpg
This has been downloaded 22 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
Sorry molly, but this is still all falling flat.
Hell, the Inca's colonized the whole of the Andes (certainly more space than what the Normans did) and they built roads, towns, and even carried out mass movements of populations.
Last time I looked the Arabs by your definition "colonized" a vast area outside the Arabian penninsula. Just look at their works in Spain. And then the Han Chinese, who colonized all of southern China and Taiwan.
The notion that territorial expansion is something that can be culturally linked to "Europeans" seems stange when so many clearly non-European people's have done it, around the world (like the Bantu colonizing all of Southern Africa).
So what exactly is you point? That Viking and NBOrman lords liked to take over new lands!? Wow, what a shocking cultural revelation, cause no non-European group of human beings have EVER done that...come on.
And as for thos Vikings, given that you are so bent on their "colonizing urge" Why did they stop, huh? Why weren;t they all over the Americas when they got so close? Did their "colonizing drive" have some sort of maximum distance from home or something?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-07-2005 05:33
Do you know who Ibn Arabi was? Very impressive Neoplatonism, although just a touch abstruse... 
|
