Not so much knowledge in history

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Most people don't know anything about the Persians other than that they lost a battle to the Spartans.
Most people don't know anything about the Egyptians other than that they had pharaohs and mummies.
Most people don't know where the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" comes from.
Most people don't know that the Chinese used primitive rockets in warfare during the middle ages.
And many people don't know that Russia was an ally of the United States in World War 2.

[General Appo]

And many people don't know that Russia was an ally of the United States in World War 2.

Now that is just upsettingly retarded and disturbingly ignorant.

[tls5669]

Most people don't know anything about the Persians other than that they lost a battle to the Spartans.
Most people don't know anything about the Egyptians other than that they had pharaohs and mummies.
Most people don't know where the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" comes from.
Most people don't know that the Chinese used primitive rockets in warfare during the middle ages.
And many people don't know that Russia was an ally of the United States in World War 2.

And many people don't know that Russia was an ally of the United States in World War 2.

World War 1 also.


And something Ive thought a lot about. There were a lot of early American civilizations, Mayans, Aztecs, Incans, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Olmecs, and Anastazi to name a few. They never really came out of the stone age, but they were as old as "Western" civilizations.


Ive always wondered why? When the Spaniards Invaded S. America and Mexico, what if those civs were in the bronze or iron age? Even in N. America in the 15th century, they were still in the stone age, 4500 years or so after the Sumerians came out of the stone age.

[Cullhwch]

World War 1 also.

That's.... complicated. Suffice it to say, the US was not allied with the Tsarist regime, and Kerensky's offensive petered out way too quickly for the Russians to be a major contributor to the Allies after the initial revolution. The United States severed diplomatic ties after the Bolsheviks took over. So the US was allied with Russia for about half a year.

[tls5669]

That's.... complicated. Suffice it to say, the US was not allied with the Tsarist regime, and Kerensky's offensive petered out way too quickly for the Russians to be a major contributor to the Allies after the initial revolution. The United States severed diplomatic ties after the Bolsheviks took over. So the US was allied with Russia for about half a year.

Russia was an "Ally" for all intense and purposes as in.


Allies

U.S
U.K
France
Russia
Italy
Japan
And associated empires



Central Powers

Germany
Austria-Hungary
Ottoman Empire
And associated empires

[||Lz3||]

Ive always wondered why? When the Spaniards Invaded S. America and Mexico, what if those civs were in the bronze or iron age? Even in N. America in the 15th century, they were still in the stone age, 4500 years or so after the Sumerians came out of the stone age.

But exceptional civilizations (tenochtitlan [Aztec capital] for example... the biggest city in the world with a population of 250'000, and with a fully operative aqueduct. If they had had somewhat less antiquated warfare tactics and if all the other towns and villages around them had not hated them so much… the Spaniards would have gotten their asses kicked. Iron weapons were important… but not the ONLY factor that caused the fall of the Aztec empire.

[Cbvani]

But exceptional civilizations (tenochtitlan [Aztec capital] for example... the biggest city in the world with a population of 250'000, and with a fully operative aqueduct. If they had had somewhat less antiquated warfare tactics and if all the other towns and villages around them had not hated them so much… the Spaniards would have gotten their asses kicked. Iron weapons were important… but not the ONLY factor that caused the fall of the Aztec empire.

Germs. Smallpox. Those killed native americans on both continents far more than a sword or bullet.

[Cullhwch]

Yeah, but the Spaniards' apparent invincibility (their armor was damn near impervious to anything short of bullets) WAS a major factor in their perceived godhood. If the Spaniards had been less well-armored, the initial battles against their future allies would have been disastrous. Had they been killed, the catalyst for the anti-Aztec revolt would have been extinguished.

[APX]

I have had a girl in history class claim that the Mayans could not have had slaves because there were no blacks in South America...

[penguinking]

I have had a girl in history class claim that the Mayans could not have had slaves because there were no blacks in South America...

How awful.

[keravnos]

I have had a girl in history class claim that the Mayans could not have had slaves because there were no blacks in South America...

Show her this, then.
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/collec..._art/55.14.php

[Dutchhoplite]

And i thought the Dutch educational system was abysmal ;)

Well, it's abysmal! I can only shake my head when i hear that would-be teachers are not able to spell or read properly

I always get the impression that historical education is purposefully neglected in Holland. The reason?? I actually don't know but i have the impression (again!) that a lot of Dutch politicians think that historical awareness could lead to unwanted nationalism.

[HunGeneral]

But exceptional civilizations (tenochtitlan [Aztec capital] for example... the biggest city in the world with a population of 250'000, and with a fully operative aqueduct. If they had had somewhat less antiquated warfare tactics and if all the other towns and villages around them had not hated them so much… the Spaniards would have gotten their asses kicked. Iron weapons were important… but not the ONLY factor that caused the fall of the Aztec empire.

Thats true. Like sad earlier by Cbvani germs and Smalpox surely decimetad the native Amercans.

About why they didn't make Iron weapons I heard of theories that clam it also had Geograpical reasons - since the american continent is somewhat divided by different climatical zones use of Animals and technologies could only spread at a slower rate if at all.(use of metals agriculture, keeping livestock and other Animals and writing didn't form in Europe but rather in the Middle east and later spread in Eurasia where it was perfected) Beside they believed obsidian to be effective enough so they didn't look for new Materials.

Tha fact that the natives weren't united against the "conquerers" also had an inpact - some sorcues mention that by the Time the Incas rebelled every Conquiztador was protected by 2-3 warriors from Native tribes allied to them.

[Zeibek]

Tha fact that the natives weren't united against the "conquerers" also had an inpact - some sorcues mention that by the Time the Incas rebelled every Conquiztador was protected by 2-3 warriors from Native tribes allied to them.

Not only that, but in the case of the Spanish conquest of Mexico Cortez and his men where by no means alone; the auxiliary troops they were able to muster from local Aztec vassal states (most notably Tlaxcalteca, which was allowed to remain independent so that they could be used in the flower wars) numbered in the thousands at first, and later on in their tens of thousands. Superior weaponry and protection did help the Spaniards, but the army of dissenting natives shouldn't be forgotten either.

As regarding to whether or not the Aztecs regarded Cortez and his lot divine has been questioned, or at least whether or not Montecuhzoma and his court bought it. I remember reading somewhere that an expedition of Spaniards in the Yucatan peninsula was told to go away because the Maya calendaer prophesized their arrival to be years later (this statement seems quite extraordinary so I'll try to source it). At least in the case of the Maya the Spaniards were seen as a tool for native political machinations rather than Gods.

[tls5669]

Thats true. Like sad earlier by Cbvani germs and Smalpox surely decimetad the native Amercans.

About why they didn't make Iron weapons I heard of theories that clam it also had Geograpical reasons - since the american continent is somewhat divided by different climatical zones use of Animals and technologies could only spread at a slower rate if at all.(use of metals agriculture, keeping livestock and other Animals and writing didn't form in Europe but rather in the Middle east and later spread in Eurasia where it was perfected) Beside they believed obsidian to be effective enough so they didn't look for new Materials.

Tha fact that the natives weren't united against the "conquerers" also had an inpact - some sorcues mention that by the Time the Incas rebelled every Conquiztador was protected by 2-3 warriors from Native tribes allied to them.

Men have always looked for ways to better their technologies, thats why we went from the stone age, to bronze age, to iron age, etc. I believe the downfall of some of those civs is human sacrifice, as in the POWs were sacrificed, it turned a lot of subjugated people against them.

And it still doesnt explain the "American" cultures, there were no great cities there (there were probably about 300,000 in mixed tribes), but yet they never advanced, past the stone age. I do believe the bow was a superior weapon to early firearms, it could fire faster and farther, but the arrowheads were still stone.

Their primary melee weapon was the tomahawk with a stone head, if they had just advanced to the bronze age, things would have been different.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

And it still doesnt explain the "American" cultures, there were no great cities there (there were probably about 300,000 in mixed tribes), but yet they never advanced, past the stone age. I do believe the bow was a superior weapon to early firearms, it could fire faster and farther, but the arrowheads were still stone.

Their primary melee weapon was the tomahawk with a stone head, if they had just advanced to the bronze age, things would have been different.

Actually, there were several large cities. Tenochtitlan was one such city, and then of course there were all of the various Inca strongholds. There were also large cities on the Southern Mississippi, such as Cahokia. There may well have been many more large cities that the Europeans never learned about because they might have been destroyed by disease. Tenochtitlan alone is said to have contained 200,000 people, possibly more.

Also, the Incas and possibly the Aztecs had started making weapons of copper shortly before the Europeans arrived.

[||Lz3||]

And it still doesnt explain the "American" cultures, there were no great cities there (there were probably about 300,000 in mixed tribes), but yet they never advanced, past the stone age. I do believe the bow was a superior weapon to early firearms, it could fire faster and farther, but the arrowheads were still stone.

I think he means the natives of the modern US (the so called "america", I hate that, america is the whole continent...<.<)

IIRC, the northen american settlements were small compared to the southamericans due to the lack of large agricultural lands. People from the north were esentially hunters... while southern cultures relied on agriculture, that's why the south was incredibly more advanced than the north.

About the spaniards...just a fact... during the siege of tenochtitlan, there were only 800 spaniards (80 horsemen , 13 bergantins, 600 foot soldiers)... now imagine that against 40'000 or so angry and desperate aztecs... ,even with armor, it would had been a suicide. However they had a lot of help of other cultures like the one from tlaxcala, wich provided them 24'000 allies. At the end hunger, thirst and disease forced the rendition of the biggest (and possibly most advanced) city in the world.

Native americans form Mesoamerica were highly advanced... but just not in weapons... their weapons worked for what they intended... capture soldiers and then sacrifice them, so...

I blame their religion... <.<, stupid sacrifices...

PS: spelling guides : Moctezuma, Conquistadores

[Irenaeus]

In my GCSE history course here in the UK, we studies 3 topics:

- The history of medicine
- The history of the indigenous Americans in modern-day USA
- The history of Northern Ireland

So I have an 'A' in GCSE history without being asked a single question on the Romans, despite them ruling most of my country for 300-odd years...

I have a vague memory of studying World War I when I was 14, and the Egyptians when I was 10. But I can't remember ever studying the Romans, Greeks, Persia, China, or anything like that.

Oh, and a funny story for you. One of my friends is from Nigeria, and he was surprised when I told him that no-one had successully invaded Britain since 1066 (though some have come close). He mentioned this to some Algerian friends of his, to which they said "That's not right! What about the Roman invasion in the 14th century!". The Romans never got near Nigeria, but my friend knew that was completely wrong. The Romans conquered the coastal bit of Algeria, surely they ought to have know vaguely when that was?

Just for a laugh, some researchers here in the UK asked lots of school children if they knew who Winston Churchill was. Well over half said he was famous for founding Churchill Insurance Ltd...