 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Not to question the valor of this one explorer (and, note that he was but one), there is much difference between travelling by boat in the sight of shore and do it without that safe spot |
Notice the date ecowitz?? How many hundred years later were the Portuguese?? And did they or did they not sail along the coast as well on the westside??
quote:
If I read you correctly, you are talking about both the Congo River (sailled by Diogo Cão) and the Cape of Good Hope (near the Cape City in South Africa, nowadays), crossed by Bartolomeu Dias (first), Vasco da Gama (when finnishing the Route to India) and Pedro Alvares Cabral (after oficialy discouvering Brazil), just to name a few. |
I read about all this a few years ago in a book called "The Great Discoveries", vol. I-VI, by dr. philos. Ørjan Olsen. Thanx for refreshing those names.
quote:
The Portuguese actually sailed completely around both Western and Eastern Coast of Africa. |
Didn't touch upon this.
quote:
Yes but it took too many years and he could not bring that much cargo. |
So? Please give me the date again and then tell me when the Portuguese decided to show up. How late again?
quote:
That's why Arabs kept controling the trade, until the Portuguese took over. |
Hanno was more about exploring I think. Especially the guy Solomon sent out.
BTW, there's a great muslim traveller in the 1300s. What was his name again? He travelled both by sea and land.
quote:
Now, I have to resent that!!!
What the hell do you mean with that?
Were they less ethical than others?
In which way? |
This is the part you claim not to understand, right? Are you saying those were nice lil' guyz? Many of these were poor criminals and a little murderous adventure out at sea was fun relaxation. Especially if they lustfully could strangle innocent and helpless natives. Ever read about your "great" fellow Portuguese, Vasco da Gama, and his wicked slaying ways.
I understand you feel a need to protect him, him being Portuguese and all, but hey, Germans don't defend Nazis who lived only 50  years ago. Still you wanna defend this coward who lived hundreds of years ago??
BTW, excuse me exaggerating a bit here, but it's useful for making the points stick out. Feel free not to be provoked  , but u will rite 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars-E
I vote for the Phoenicians who settled in what later became The Holy Land. Thus not Carthagian Phoenicians. The former might be the ancestors of the Philistines - the ancestors(?) of today's Palestinians - maybe in combo with descendants of Ismael - Arabs. That last part is the point where I'm most unsure. |
Carthage was a colony founded by the Poenicians. Actually it was founded by the neice of Jezebel (from the Bible, OT) who was some sort of Phoenician Royalty. The Phoenicians were related to the Canaanites, who were related to the Israelites, and they made a great living trading with Egypt a very long time ago. The Egyptians were their allies and propped them up from time to time whenever they were threatened by other ME powers. The Phoenicians went into decline because of the Greeks, especially Alexander who conquered not only every Phonecian city along the East Coast of the Mediteranean, but Egypt as well. Carthage became the last holdout of Phoenician culture until it too was destroyed, by the Romans. The Philistines btw were Greeks.
quote:
Originally posted by Lars-E
King Solomon sent out a Phoenician and he supposedly sailed all the way around Africa Around 1200 BC? |
I think it was later, and it wasn't King Solomon who sent the explorer out, but one of the Egyptian Pharoahs. The expedition was sent to map the North African coast westward. Two years later the returned, coming into the Red Sea.
I voted for the Polynesians, who sailed across, discovered and settled a vast area. No other group can claim to have explored more area by the same time in history as the Polynesians who sailed as far East as South America, as far West as Madagascar, as far south as New Zealand and Australia and as far North as the Central Pacific.
So far I think that the poll overrates the Vikings, who did sail in the open ocean, but didn't really cover much new ground and didn't manage to permanently settle much territory. The Dutch would have been a nice addition to the poll, but they were not as fortunate as a lot of nations due to their small numbers and need to defend themselves against numerous larger neighors by land.
The U.S. was a seafaring nation from the very beginning, and it produced the best sailors in the world qualitatively in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It's Navy was woefully small, yet the U.S. was able to capture 800 British ships during the War of 1812. Yankee Clipper Ships did a brisk business in the Asia trade in the 19th century, and American Naval technology was unsurpassed by the end of the civil war, at which point the Navy was mothballed and forgotten.
In World War II the U.S. perfected a number of naval warfare techniques and built the world's largest and most powerful navy by far. U.S. skills in Carrier operations were unsurpassed, as were U.S. amphibious warfare capabilities. This is still true today. Nonetheless the U.S. falls short in my book of several others, as naval power is only a part of the equation.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2002 23:10
) and it is massive, it took the ferry forever to get from one end of it to the passenger terminal, must be many kilometres across, perhaps even tens of kilometres...
(actually it was better price market stability).
|