|
cheetah7071 posted:Columbus is one of the strongest candidates for "id he hadn't done it, someone else would have" imo Is 3000 miles of empty ocean a good route?
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Is 3000 miles of empty ocean a good route? No, but the fact Columbus was able to convince Spain that it was shows just how desperate they were
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
The problem with the "someone else would've done it" thing is that okay, fair enough, but someone else doing it can be a huge difference in how history plays out. Columbus is good because absolutely someone else would have been the first to come back to Europe with a report. You can also make both arguments with him. Either some other huge dickbag goes over to the Americas and starts slaughtering and enslaving everyone, and there's not much of a difference. Unless, say, that dickbag was French and now you have France as the world's most powerful empire. Do they behave differently with it? Do their rivalries make a different world order? France and the Ottomans were close allies, do you have an opening here for a Muslim power in the Americas? There's also a possibility that someone who was not The Worst went to the new world, and the relationship between the native peoples and the Europeans was not slaughter and mayhem from day one. Would that have altered how things went in the Americas? I don't know, but nobody does since that didn't happen. It could have. The point is, someone like Columbus is important both for what he did and for what larger world forces he represented. To ignore either is to dismiss key information to understanding what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:
To be fair 90+% of the population dying off from accidentally introduced plagues is pretty much inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Weren't the Taino more or less directly wiped out by Columbus?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
I have never seen this thread be so amateur in its discussion and this is coming from half a decade of reading/posting in it. Also I have completely insane opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:To be fair 90+% of the population dying off from accidentally introduced plagues is pretty much inevitable. True, but many of those states and cultures could have recovered had they not been steamrolled by the Spanish when they were vulnerable. You can imagine a world where the Spanish who were vehemently against being violent to the native people won out and there's still an Inca state today. It's probably not very likely, but I've never believed history is determinative and things happened the way they did because that was the only way they could. Imagine if the Vikings had brought the plagues back in 1000, and by the time Columbus shows up the Americas have already been through the apocalypse and recovered, now with disease immunity. Arglebargle III posted:Weren't the Taino more or less directly wiped out by Columbus? Yep. Bartholomew de las Casas describes it in detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I have never seen this thread be so amateur in its discussion and this is coming from half a decade of reading/posting in it. Also I have completely insane opinions. You are kinda being a huge dick right now so I wouldn't expect people to argue in good faith. I still haven't seen you attempt to make a point, you're just saying it is impossible for individuals to be important and everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:True, but many of those states and cultures could have recovered had they not been steamrolled by the Spanish when they were vulnerable. You can imagine a world where the Spanish who were vehemently against being violent to the native people won out and there's still an Inca state today. It's probably not very likely, but I've never believed history is determinative and things happened the way they did because that was the only way they could. Yeah, there are a lot of ways things could potentially shake out in the post-apocalyptic Americas, especially if they don't have foreigners immediately coming in and steamrolling the survivors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Wow this thread is five years old as of a few weeks ago, that's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Wow this is gonna sound dumb but I always thought France and Ottomans was just like an EU4 thing but I guess they were cool Why is that? Tiny derail I'm sorry but I gotta know
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
It's odd to embrace the fact that historical subjects have agency but then reject that agency when it's applied to the personal level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
verbal enema posted:Wow this is gonna sound dumb but I always thought France and Ottomans was just like an EU4 thing but I guess they were cool I think it's because France was literally surrounded by the Habsburg empire, which controlled northern Italy, Austria (which was larger then), Spain, and parts of the low countries (not to mention lots of other stuff which wasn't adjacent to France). Allying themselves with the Habsburg's enemies makes a lot of sense
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
My understanding of this comes entirely form 1491, but in that he talks about there being successive waves of the plagues over the course of centuries, it wasn't just a one and done event. And the idea of a "benevolent" colonizer coming in and not taking advantage of the situation seems kinda unlikely too. Maybe it didn't have to be as bad as it was under the Spanish, but I don't think things could have ever turned out well for the native American societies really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:You are kinda being a huge dick right now so I wouldn't expect people to argue in good faith. I still haven't seen you attempt to make a point, you're just saying it is impossible for individuals to be important and everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. I apologize, GF, I have nothing but the greatest respect for you. I have strong opinions, and I don't always express them in the best way. I have been trying to say that the study of history has moved on from a 'people and places' sort of narrative to the study of things like ice cores, tax rolls, cultivation patterns, and the use of certain words over time. I had no idea that fully discredited "Great Man" theory was so prevalent in this thread and I was genuinely shocked. I apologize to you for my words. I apologize for how they were expressed. I do not apologize for the ideas behind them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Wow this thread is five years old as of a few weeks ago, that's awesome. At the very beginning you were talking about how the widespread lorica segmentata idea was a myth and agreeing that the Roman Empire lasted till 1453 so 5 years later I still think you're a good person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I apologize, GF, I have nothing but the greatest respect for you. I have strong opinions, and I don't always express them in the best way. I have been trying to say that the study of history has moved on from a 'people and places' sort of narrative to the study of things like ice cores, tax rolls, cultivation patterns, and the use of certain words over time. I had no idea that fully discredited "Great Man" theory was so prevalent in this thread and I was genuinely shocked. I apologize to you for my words. I apologize for how they were expressed. I do not apologize for the ideas behind them. Still doing the straw man thing I see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:23
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I apologize, GF, I have nothing but the greatest respect for you. I have strong opinions, and I don't always express them in the best way. I have been trying to say that the study of history has moved on from a 'people and places' sort of narrative to the study of things like ice cores, tax rolls, cultivation patterns, and the use of certain words over time. I had no idea that fully discredited "Great Man" theory was so prevalent in this thread and I was genuinely shocked. I apologize to you for my words. I apologize for how they were expressed. I do not apologize for the ideas behind them. Your grip on historiography is not what you think it is. Your take is very absolutist, as well as being outdated, and your grip on what great man history is itself loose (Great Man history is about individual as driver). You're describing one particular type of history -- one that is not held up by historians to be a definitive way of doing history; history is a house of many mansions. Great man history is gone - outside of popular history - but there is a methodological freedom to explore the role of individuals and elite groups within a well established socio-economic context, with attention to a wide range of factors - particularly in a field like military history, which is what this sprouted from. A good examplar would be the debate over the causes of the abolition of slavery which had been long assumed to have been caused by the diminishing profitability of slavery by Marxist historians, a claim which is now utterly abandoned in favour of the examination of the ideology of key groups of abolitionists and the social contexts that informed those views.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
No one is arguing 'great man' theory you clod. People are just rejecting a strict marxist / trends/forces interpretation as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:No one is arguing 'great man' theory you clod. People were literally talking about how Alexander the Great made things happen and engaging in if x then y what-ifs. It wasn't subtle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:31
|
|
Take another example: you'll find in the work of G I T Machin a description of the passage of the 1832 reform act in Britain, which long had been claimed to be a victory for mass participation. What is less well understood is that that passage was secured by an ultra-Tory who only favoured expanding the franchise because he believed a more representative House of Commons would never have voted to repeal Catholic disabilities, as parliament had in 1829. One will not have understood the passage of that piece of legislation in ignorance either of the mass movement of chartists, or that intricate piece of elite politicking - and the counterfactual questions you might ask about a Britain that doesn't do electoral form in 32 are endless, if pointless.Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:People were literally talking about how Alexander the Great made things happen and engaging in if x then y what-ifs. It wasn't subtle. You should consider that when people give casual and short replies they're not going to do a long and deliberate methodological throat clearing every time. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Koramei posted:My understanding of this comes entirely form 1491, but in that he talks about there being successive waves of the plagues over the course of centuries, it wasn't just a one and done event. There seems to have been a massive wave of initial plagues that wiped out the majority of the Americas in the 1500s, but they did continue popping up over time. Places like Mexico and the Amazon were almost entirely depopulated by 1600, while the evidence is that before 1500 there were tens of millions living there. The speed of the spread of disease is actually a piece of evidence some Americas archaeologists use to try to reconstruct how extensive trade routes were. I agree that in all likelihood any European power would've been giant pricks given all the evidence. But I can imagine scenarios more like the colonization of Asia where native states are subjugated to the Europeans for a while but not entirely eliminated, and eventually regain independence. There are some societies in the Pacific Northwest that have survived largely intact because the Europeans took so long to get there. That could've been more widespread. And there were Spanish who were extremely upset at how the colonizers were treating the natives. They even successfully lobbied the king of Spain to make it a capital crime to kill or enslave any Americans. There just wasn't any way to enforce it. Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I apologize, GF, I have nothing but the greatest respect for you. I am not respectable. We all post like dicks sometimes, just wanted to point out that's why people weren't taking it well.  The amount of historical arguing I've read has made me a very middle of the road wishy-washy every viewpoint has some relevant things to contribute guy. I do not get why so many historians have such extremist, exclusionary views about why poo poo happens. I really do think the truth is in the middle for the vast majority of those giant knock-down academic arguments, and the fact that historiography and historical interpretation change so much over time is good evidence for the fact that understanding people and events isn't a science and there's no point in getting invested in the One True Historical Fact because that doesn't exist. Certainty in history is limited to things that you can document with physical evidence, like a pyramid or whatever. Everything else is going to have at least a little interpretation in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Take another example: you'll find in the work of G I T Machin a description of the passage of the 1832 reform act in Britain, which long had been claimed to be a victory for mass participation. What is less well understood is that that passage was secured by an ultra-Tory who only favoured expanding the franchise because he believed a more representative House of Commons would never have voted to repeal Catholic disabilities, as parliament had in 1829. One will not have understood the passage of that piece of legislation in ignorance either of the mass movement of chartists, or that intricate piece of elite politicking - and the counterfactual questions you might ask about a Britain that doesn't do electoral form in 32 are endless, if pointless. You talk like any future historian in 500 years isn't going to just draw a direct line from Peterloo to 1832 and ignore the subtleties in between.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:35
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:You talk like any future historian in 500 years isn't going to just draw a direct line from Peterloo to 1832 and ignore the subtleties in between. I have more faith in my colleagues in the academy than you, apparently.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I have more faith in my colleagues in the academy than you, apparently. 500 years is a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:39
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:500 years is a long time. You're describing a pattern of academic behaviour that historians who work today try to avoid, and assuming that future historians will be less attentive than those working today. Just bizarre.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You're describing a pattern of academic behaviour that historians of 500 years ago from now already try to avoid, and assuming that future historians will be less attentive than those working today. 2517 British History class: "British people were upset about their under-representation in Parliament." 10 future PowerPoint slides about rotten boroughs accompanied with narration about how wacky some of them were. "So, they rioted, and the Peterloo Massacre happened." "But soon after, reform measures were passed." It would be awful and not represent the situation accurately but I don't find it implausible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Even the best historians have to start out as dumb kids in high school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:People were literally talking about how Alexander the Great made things happen and engaging in if x then y what-ifs. It wasn't subtle. I was doing exactly what I claimed to do: posting a thing I had heard and asking the thread's opinion. I'm not a historian, just a dude who likes to read history books during my bus commutes. Apparently I brought up something which is a contentious point and it wasn't my intent to start an argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:47
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:2517 British History class: You're ascribing high-school or early undergrad levels of historical analysis to professional historians.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I was doing exactly what I claimed to do: posting a thing I had heard and asking the thread's opinion. I'm not a historian, just a dude who likes to read history books during my bus commutes. Apparently I brought up something which is a contentious point and it wasn't my intent to start an argument. Chill man, there's always something to start an argument. Also Alexander was a chump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I was doing exactly what I claimed to do: posting a thing I had heard and asking the thread's opinion. I'm not a historian, just a dude who likes to read history books during my bus commutes. Apparently I brought up something which is a contentious point and it wasn't my intent to start an argument. Your post was totally fine and good and what the thread's for. But there are some land mines that start arguments. History is one of the fields that attracts people who enjoy arguing about interpretive points and various minutae.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Please. By that point in the future they've all migrated to Prezi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You're ascribing high-school or early undergrad levels of historical analysis to professional historians. My point was that, over time, as records are lost and events fade into the rearview, professional levels of historical analysis become basic. Not through any fault of theirs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:59
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:My point was that, over time, as records are lost and events fade into the rearview, professional levels of historical analysis become basic. Not through any fault of theirs. There's a lot of very questionable assumptions here: that records will be lost to a similar degree to pre-information age civilizations is a spurious claim, as is the under-estimation of how good our records are of some things even in the distant past (let alone 500 years ago where there's tons of good records for all sorts of poo poo). In any event, I think this is a mischaracterisation of history that works in periods with poor records (say, the early medieval world) which often very conspicuously describes its own limitations and uses a very wide range of source materials to overcome the lack of texts, most notably archaeology. This is just another straw man. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:My point was that, over time, as records are lost and events fade into the rearview, professional levels of historical analysis become basic. Not through any fault of theirs. people on this very forum professionally analyze the records of 1600s mercenary companies to trace the intricate details of the lives of random nobodies who shot pistols out of bar windows for fun
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There's a lot of very questionable assumptions here: that records will be lost to a similar degree to pre-information age civilizations is probably the most spurious claim. In any event, I think this is a mischaracterisation of history that works in periods with poor records (say, the early medieval world) which often very conspicuously describes its own limitations and uses a very wide range of source materials to overcome the lack of texts, most notably archaeology. We're already having problems with recordkeeping in the digital age with changing formats and the shelf life of certain things and, again, who knows what could happen in 500 years. I am not attacking you personally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:06
|
|
It's also very worthwhile to observe that proximity to an event in the past demonstrably does not lead to a better history nearly so much as methodological rigour.Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:We're already having problems with recordkeeping in the digital age with changing formats and the shelf life of certain things and, again, who knows what could happen in 500 years. I am not attacking you personally. I don't think you are, but to the extent that you do reply to me, you've ignored the bulk of the argument in favour of nitpicking about minutiae - though in any event I don't think you'd find a lot of support for your argument that we'll have fewer or even similar volumes of records of today than we do for 500 years ago, barring apocalypse. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:people on this very forum professionally analyze the records of 1600s mercenary companies to trace the intricate details of the lives of random nobodies who shot pistols out of bar windows for fun Fuckin' nerds, you mean
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Only true nerds like Hegel, I didn't even need to know about the mercenaries.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:10
|
|