Pharaoh vs Plantation Tycoon
Istvan
Many times when people express their awe or amazement
regarding the egyptian monuments I can't help but wonder,
how much of it stems from simplistic "WOW look at size of those
things" thoughts and how much of it relies on any
understanding of the historical contingency.
To me egyptian monuments are examples of arrogance,
disregard and exploitation of other people. Symbols of
enslaving others by making tens of thousands of them work
for dozens of years with the goal of building something
for somebody else that's bigger than what the previous
fella had. That's some noble goal.
For God's sake, these people haven't even had the wheel
discovered yet, (and here the in-game videos
make a huge misinterpretation), they could only slide these
huge blocks, and one can only imagine their enormous efforts.
In Pharaoh of course you only click, so any historical
lesson is totally trivialized.
I wonder, is there any difference between Pharaoh and
a game named Plantation Tycoon, in which you would have to
carefully manage the quality of the human material and the
ferocity of the slave-drivers so that to maximize the cotton
output?
You tell me.
Istvan.
Thomas Page
> [...]
> a game named Plantation Tycoon, in which you would have to
> carefully manage the quality of the human material and the
> ferocity of the slave-drivers so that to maximize the cotton
> output?
Who cares? Hey, if you got to have "relations" with the slave women I'm
sure Plantation Tycoon would be a smash with the Wal-Mart crowd. It
could be the first red-neck strategy game. Sounds like a great project
for the soon-to-be-out-of work guys at Xatrix.
--
----
T
blac...@anti-social.com
ICQ# 42258259
Bane
> regarding the egyptian monuments I can't help but wonder,
> how much of it stems from simplistic "WOW look at size of those
> things" thoughts and how much of it relies on any
> understanding of the historical contingency.
>
> To me egyptian monuments are examples of arrogance,
> disregard and exploitation of other people. Symbols of
> enslaving others by making tens of thousands of them work
> for dozens of years with the goal of building something
> for somebody else that's bigger than what the previous
> fella had. That's some noble goal.
The Egyptians accomplished quite a number of other things besides building
monuments, Istvan. They were superb mathematicians (as the pyramids
suggests), astronomers/navigators, chemists and more.
> For God's sake, these people haven't even had the wheel
> discovered yet, (and here the in-game videos
> make a huge misinterpretation), they could only slide these
> huge blocks, and one can only imagine their enormous efforts.
> In Pharaoh of course you only click, so any historical
> lesson is totally trivialized.
We don't know how the pyramids were built - we can only guess. Actually, we
can't even be hundred percent sure that the Egyptians even built them, as
there are no records of any such project being undertaken by them. And as
for the wheel, the Egyptians had chariots - quite a thing to pull off if you
haven't invented the wheel, wouldn't you agree..?
> I wonder, is there any difference between Pharaoh and
> a game named Plantation Tycoon, in which you would have to
> carefully manage the quality of the human material and the
> ferocity of the slave-drivers so that to maximize the cotton
> output?
>
> You tell me.
One difference would be that such a game would be set in the 19th century,
some 5 or so millenia later. Don't be so quick judging other
civilizations...
Regards,
Bane
Grimfarrow
Istvan wrote:
> I wonder, is there any difference between Pharaoh and
> a game named Plantation Tycoon, in which you would have to
> carefully manage the quality of the human material and the
> ferocity of the slave-drivers so that to maximize the cotton
> output?
>
> You tell me.
>
> Istvan.
Dude, get over it.
Every single primitive civilization used people in one way or
another.
Gladiators in Rome.
The Great Wall in China
Colossus at Rhodes
......how about the use of slave labor not so long ago in the US?
or the colonization by Europeans?
Judge your own culture first before slamming others.
Grimfarrow
Holly E. Ordway
>> To me egyptian monuments are examples of arrogance,
>> disregard and exploitation of other people. Symbols of
>> enslaving others by making tens of thousands of them work
>> for dozens of years with the goal of building something
>> for somebody else that's bigger than what the previous
>> fella had. That's some noble goal.
The workers who built the pyramids were not slaves, as was once believed.
Nile farming was very seasonal, and the workers worked on the pyramids
during the off-season for farming, not the whole year. IIRC recent studies
show that the conditions were pretty good (ie. they lived in worker towns
with all the normal amenities during the season that they were called to
work on the pyramid). Sure, it was probably obligatory, but societies do
tend to require service from their people in areas that are important to
the culture. (The draft, jury duty...)
The ancient Egyptians obviously felt that building the pyramids was
important to their culture and religion -- regardless of whether someone
*now* feels that it was not a worthwhile goal, it was worthwhile to *them*.
And those pyramids have done some of what they were originally intended
for: they have preserved the memory of the ancient Egyptians and their
deeds far into the future. That's an accomplishment to be admired.
Cheers,
Holly
sunfy82
Marketing Weasel
research, people still express opinions and myths as facts.
On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:01:46 -0500, Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
>Many times when people express their awe or amazement
>regarding the egyptian monuments I can't help but wonder,
>how much of it stems from simplistic "WOW look at size of those
>things" thoughts and how much of it relies on any
>understanding of the historical contingency.
Actually, the size IS the wondrous thing, considering they were built
without the benefit of a working MATH system, let alone construction
equipment.
If you learn your history from "Prince of Egypt" then you can be
shocked, but in RL pyramids were constructed by citizens. Very few
slaves had anything to do with the construction of the monuments.
Working on the monument was a religious task, like a pilgrimage to
Mecca. After all, they were doing it at the command of their God.
Actually, an interesting aside here as to "why" the building of
pyramids. We all know that the Nile flooded for months at a time
during the summer, which meant that all the farmers had nothing to do
until the flood receeded. I think there was a very practical reason
underlying the construction of the monuments. A smart Pharaoh would
quickly realize that having a large percentage of their population out
of work for months every year would cause no end to unrest in their
city. They needed something to occupy their people's time until the
flood plain could be worked again. What better way than a huge civic
project? The scope of the projects assured that people wouldn't be
idle in the summer for many years, all the while feeling like they
were pleasing their gods.
It's much more intersting to discuss actual history than common
misconceptions.
>For God's sake, these people haven't even had the wheel
>discovered yet, (and here the in-game videos
>make a huge misinterpretation), they could only slide these
>huge blocks, and one can only imagine their enormous efforts.
They used logs to roll the blocks on. Where in the in-game videos do
you see wheels, except on the chariots which came along much later
than the monuments?
>In Pharaoh of course you only click, so any historical
>lesson is totally trivialized.
I think in this day and age, any history lesson is valuable. - Weasel
T R U S T T H E W E A S E L
Marketing Weasel, Impressions Games
(http://www.impressionsgames.com)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pharaoh - Fall 99 from the makers of Caesar III
http://www.pharaoh1.com
Christoph Nahr
Weasel) wrote:
>Actually, the size IS the wondrous thing, considering they were built
>without the benefit of a working MATH system, let alone construction
>equipment.
I agree with the rest of your post but your remark about the math
system is quite wrong. Of course the Egyptians had mastered all the
geometrical calculations required to build a pyramid (or else they
wouldn't have managed to build it -- you don't make huge monuments
just with guesswork!).
What they did not have was the modern formalisation of mathematics in
the form of a system of proposition and proof. They probably had the
same mathematical insights as Euclid but did not integrate them into a
deductive system. Nor did they have to; such philosophical toys are
no aid in the construction of buildings anyway.
--
Chris Nahr (christo...@uumail.xxde, remove xx to reply by e-mail)
Please reply either on Usenet or by e-mail but not both!
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and Star Chess, a strategy game with source code and AI documentation
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
>I wonder, is there any difference between Pharaoh and
>a game named Plantation Tycoon, in which you would have to
>carefully manage the quality of the human material and the
>ferocity of the slave-drivers so that to maximize the cotton
>output?
>
>You tell me.
>
>Istvan.
Pharoah has big impressive looking monuments.
Quatoria
--
In the pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
In the practice of Tao,
every day something is dropped.
Less and less do you need to force things,
until finally you arrive at non-action.
When nothing is done,
nothing is left un-done.
-Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Marketing Weasel
>On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 18:36:46 GMT, alex.r...@sierra.com (Marketing
>Weasel) wrote:
>
>>Actually, the size IS the wondrous thing, considering they were built
>>without the benefit of a working MATH system, let alone construction
>>equipment.
>
>I agree with the rest of your post but your remark about the math
>system is quite wrong. Of course the Egyptians had mastered all the
>geometrical calculations required to build a pyramid (or else they
>wouldn't have managed to build it -- you don't make huge monuments
>just with guesswork!).
>
>What they did not have was the modern formalisation of mathematics in
>the form of a system of proposition and proof. They probably had the
>same mathematical insights as Euclid but did not integrate them into a
>deductive system. Nor did they have to; such philosophical toys are
>no aid in the construction of buildings anyway.
No disagreement there, Chris. I probably should have clarified what I
meant by "MATH system." It's not very different from what you call the
"formalisation of mathematics in the form of a system of proposition
and proof."
- Weasel
Marketing Weasel
<sen...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>I highly recommend that you head down to you local library and take out
>some books on the amazing, admirable society of Ancient Egypt.
>
>You just might learn something.
>Stephen.
I don't think Istvan is uneducated - he's just a professional Devil's
Advocate. ;-)
Dan Abbott
news:7tj51k$pgb$2...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
> I find this post extremely disappointing. Please take the time to
> learn a little about the Egyptian culture before you make such disparaging
> remarks against them.
>
> Firstly, the monuments of Egypt were NOT built by slaves, which is a
> common misconception.
How do you know that?
> The evidence suggests that they were built by
> seasonal workers, as someone else here has pointed out.
Plantations were farmed by seasonal workers, too. Ain't much cotton to pick
in the winter time...
> >making tens of thousands of them work
> >for dozens of years with the goal of building something
> >for somebody else that's bigger than what the previous
> >fella had. That's some noble goal.
>
> Again, this shows a total lack of knowledge of Ancient Egyptian history.
> This was a very collective minded society,
Really? I thought it was authority-minded.
!Individualism != Collectivism
> not the individualism that we
> live by today. It was not a case of simply "building a bigger monument"
than
> the one before. That is utter crap.
What was it then? I tend to agree with the Romans in thinking the pyramids
were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind. Instead of
building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all of which
would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand castles made
out of stone.
> I highly recommend that you head down to you local library and take out
> some books on the amazing, admirable society of Ancient Egypt.
>
> You just might learn something.
> Stephen.
Cheers,
-Dan Abbott
abb...@dakota.net
Istvan
Marketing Weasel wrote:
> >I highly recommend that you head down to you local library and take out
> >some books on the amazing, admirable society of Ancient Egypt.
>
>
> he's just a professional Devil's Advocate. ;-)
I wouldn't have expected weasels, especially the marketing ones to
think this way... unusual and encouraging, hey weasel, did you know
that this cute-pie Whats-her-name Fiorina, Hewlett Packard CEO started as a
marketing weasel?
Other than that, I stick with my no wheels and rolling logs opinion,
in sand they wouldn't roll anyway...
Istvan.
Jeff Vitous
3000 years ago with a modern civilization is absurd. Failure to consider
history within its own context will lead to invalid conclusions.
--
Jeff Vitous
je...@wargamer.com
Director, Special Projects Development
www.wargamer.com
Great Battles Section - www.wargamer.com/greatbattles
Dragoon Section - www.wargamer.com/dragoon
Fighting Steel Section - www.wargamer.com/fs
Age of Sail Exhibition - www.wargamer.com/aos
Istvan <ial...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:37FCA7CA...@prodigy.net...
>
> Many times when people express their awe or amazement
> regarding the egyptian monuments I can't help but wonder,
> how much of it stems from simplistic "WOW look at size of those
> things" thoughts and how much of it relies on any
> understanding of the historical contingency.
>
> To me egyptian monuments are examples of arrogance,
> disregard and exploitation of other people. Symbols of
> enslaving others by making tens of thousands of them work
> for dozens of years with the goal of building something
> for somebody else that's bigger than what the previous
> fella had. That's some noble goal.
>
> For God's sake, these people haven't even had the wheel
> discovered yet, (and here the in-game videos
> make a huge misinterpretation), they could only slide these
> huge blocks, and one can only imagine their enormous efforts.
> In Pharaoh of course you only click, so any historical
> lesson is totally trivialized.
>
Stephen Redwood
learn a little about the Egyptian culture before you make such disparaging
remarks against them.
Firstly, the monuments of Egypt were NOT built by slaves, which is a
common misconception. The evidence suggests that they were built by
seasonal workers, as someone else here has pointed out.
>making tens of thousands of them work
>for dozens of years with the goal of building something
>for somebody else that's bigger than what the previous
>fella had. That's some noble goal.
Again, this shows a total lack of knowledge of Ancient Egyptian history.
This was a very collective minded society, not the individualism that we
live by today. It was not a case of simply "building a bigger monument" than
the one before. That is utter crap.
I highly recommend that you head down to you local library and take out
some books on the amazing, admirable society of Ancient Egypt.
You just might learn something.
Stephen.
Thomas Page
> > Firstly, the monuments of Egypt were NOT built by slaves, which is a
> > common misconception.
>
> How do you know that?
It's a theory that's gaining more and more credibility, although
personally I'm not interested in the subject beyond how it affects the
game.
> Plantations were farmed by seasonal workers, too. Ain't much cotton to pick
> in the winter time...
Never spent a Christmas in Georgia I assume.
> Really? I thought it was authority-minded.
>
> !Individualism != Collectivism
I can't stand it when people use "!=" in a sentence. This isn't CS 101.
> What was it then? I tend to agree with the Romans in thinking the pyramids
> were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind. Instead of
> building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all of which
> would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand castles made
> out of stone.
And yet, the Roman Empire fell as well. Plus, the stupidest waste of
energy in the history of mankind was Dominion.
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
>And yet, the Roman Empire fell as well. Plus, the stupidest waste of
>energy in the history of mankind was Dominion.
Somebody never played Outpost.
Stephen Redwood
+AD4-were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind. Instead of
+AD4-building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all of which
+AD4-would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand castles made
+AD4-out of stone.
Heh, the Egyptians were a very symbolic people. They didn't build things
just
for their functional use, but for their symbolic meaning.
We should at least +ACo-try+ACo- to understand that, not just say they were stupid
because they are different to us.
Read any recent archeological book/journal, and you will see that the
pyramids
were not built by slaves.
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
True, In the very least, though, at the bone marrow, deepest
subconscious sense, something in the psyche looks at those sand
castles..those massive, enduring, mysterious sand castles, and says
"Wow." I think the ability to build something that endures deserves at
least a small amount of respect. For all of the romans road building
and conquest, they fell, the same as the egyptians, as all
civilizations do.
Paul Murray
>What was it then? I tend to agree with the Romans in thinking the pyramids
>were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind. Instead of
>building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all of which
>would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand castles made
>out of stone.
The same argument applies to the huge amounts of effort put into
building churches/cathedrals throughout most of history.
-Paul Murray
Damocles
wrote:
>
>Many times when people express their awe or amazement
>regarding the egyptian monuments I can't help but wonder,
>how much of it stems from simplistic "WOW look at size of those
>things" thoughts and how much of it relies on any
>understanding of the historical contingency.
>
>To me egyptian monuments are examples of arrogance,
>disregard and exploitation of other people. Symbols of
>enslaving others by making tens of thousands of them work
>for dozens of years with the goal of building something
>for somebody else that's bigger than what the previous
>fella had. That's some noble goal.
>
The pyramids weren't built by slaves. The Pharaoh was a god and
building pyramids to honor their life and death was as an aspect of
Egyptian religious belief. It was no more the work of slaves than the
gothic cathedrals of medieval Europe, made under similar conditions
and for similar reasons.
Marketing Weasel
wrote:
>I wouldn't have expected weasels, especially the marketing ones to
>think this way... unusual and encouraging, hey weasel, did you know
>that this cute-pie Whats-her-name Fiorina, Hewlett Packard CEO started as a
>marketing weasel?
>
>Other than that, I stick with my no wheels and rolling logs opinion,
>in sand they wouldn't roll anyway...
Nah, won't get me onto the hardware side. I think if I ever left the
games industry I'd shrivel up and die.
/emo tips hat to Istvan
Vorlin
Heck, it applies to -everything-. I mean, you are 100% guaranteed going to
die, so every effort you make is a 'waste of energy', practically speaking.
Fortunately, I've never been a very practical person. :)
Robear
Istvan wrote:
>
> Marketing Weasel wrote:
>
> > >I highly recommend that you head down to you local library and take out
> > >some books on the amazing, admirable society of Ancient Egypt.
> >
> >
> > he's just a professional Devil's Advocate. ;-)
>
> I wouldn't have expected weasels, especially the marketing ones to
> think this way... unusual and encouraging, hey weasel, did you know
> that this cute-pie Whats-her-name Fiorina, Hewlett Packard CEO started as a
> marketing weasel?
>
> Other than that, I stick with my no wheels and rolling logs opinion,
> in sand they wouldn't roll anyway...
>
> Istvan.
They didn't move them on sand, they used crushed-stone roadbeds with
(perhaps) wooden rollers. They've been found. (The roadbeds). The issue is
which method was used on the slopes, not how it was done.
Similar techniques were used in other civilizations and have been
tested with unskilled labor quite successfully.
--
David Pipes
-----------------
ICQ 23347222
-----------------
Robear
Dan Abbott wrote:
>
> Stephen Redwood <sen...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:7tj51k$pgb$2...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
> > I find this post extremely disappointing. Please take the time to
> > learn a little about the Egyptian culture before you make such disparaging
> > remarks against them.
> >
> > Firstly, the monuments of Egypt were NOT built by slaves, which is a
> > common misconception.
>
> How do you know that?
Examination of living quarters, contemporary inscriptions, analysis
of food and drink, large areas with individual tombs, and layout of
the support cities. It's pretty well established. There's also
no evidence that the Jews were there, as the Bible suggests.
> > The evidence suggests that they were built by
> > seasonal workers, as someone else here has pointed out.
>
> Plantations were farmed by seasonal workers, too. Ain't much cotton to pick
> in the winter time...
Seasonal workers != slaves
> > >making tens of thousands of them work
> > >for dozens of years with the goal of building something
> > >for somebody else that's bigger than what the previous
> > >fella had. That's some noble goal.
> >
> > Again, this shows a total lack of knowledge of Ancient Egyptian history.
> > This was a very collective minded society,
>
> Really? I thought it was authority-minded.
Wrong.
> !Individualism != Collectivism
So? Red does not equal blue, but that does not affect the argument either.
> > not the individualism that we
> > live by today. It was not a case of simply "building a bigger monument"
> than
> > the one before. That is utter crap.
>
> What was it then? I tend to agree with the Romans in thinking the pyramids
> were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind. Instead of
> building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all of which
> would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand castles made
> out of stone.
Again, the reason is not in any way rational. They acted on their religious
beliefs. We have to take that into account, just as we do for odd behaviors
engendered by current religious thought.
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: Actually, an interesting aside here as to "why" the building of
: pyramids. We all know that the Nile flooded for months at a time
: during the summer, which meant that all the farmers had nothing to do
: until the flood receeded. I think there was a very practical reason
: underlying the construction of the monuments. A smart Pharaoh would
: quickly realize that having a large percentage of their population out
: of work for months every year would cause no end to unrest in their
: city. They needed something to occupy their people's time until the
: flood plain could be worked again. What better way than a huge civic
: project? The scope of the projects assured that people wouldn't be
: idle in the summer for many years, all the while feeling like they
: were pleasing their gods.
Keynes would be proud. :)
Personally, I think Keynes should be raised from the dead,
dragged out into the street, and shot, but I admit I'm biased.
In any case, I also agree with the Romans: if you're going to
do make work projects, at least try to make useful things.
Monuments may be cool, but they don't improve *your* life
much.
: It's much more intersting to discuss actual history than common
: misconceptions.
Unless you're on alt.folklore.urban..
Regards,
martinl
Marketing Weasel
wrote:
>Personally, I think Keynes should be raised from the dead,
>dragged out into the street, and shot, but I admit I'm biased.
They tried to do that with me here until I promised to go by Marketing
Weasel when I post. :)
>In any case, I also agree with the Romans: if you're going to
>do make work projects, at least try to make useful things.
>Monuments may be cool, but they don't improve *your* life
>much.
OTOH, the Pharaohs that had the monuments built thought they had a
practical use too. To them it was all part of the admission into the
afterlife. No monument - no eternal bliss, just rotting in a box until
the the bugs eat your body. That's quite an incentive, and in their
perspective a very practical application.
If there ANYTHING you would not do if you truly believed you could get
a first-class ticket to Eden? - Weasel
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
>
>If there ANYTHING you would not do if you truly believed you could get
>a first-class ticket to Eden? - Weasel
>
>T R U S T T H E W E A S E L
>
>Marketing Weasel, Impressions Games
>(http://www.impressionsgames.com)
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Pharaoh - Fall 99 from the makers of Caesar III
> http://www.pharaoh1.com
abb...@dakota.net
Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...)
wrote:
> >What was it then? I tend to agree with the Romans in thinking the
pyramids
> >were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind.
Instead of
> >building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all of
which
> >would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand castles
made
> >out of stone.
>
> subconscious sense, something in the psyche looks at those sand
> castles..those massive, enduring, mysterious sand castles, and says
> "Wow." I think the ability to build something that endures deserves at
> least a small amount of respect. For all of the romans road building
> and conquest, they fell, the same as the egyptians, as all
> civilizations do.
"This too shall pass."
But how did civilizations spend their time on earth?
The Roman monuments that survive today (to the best of my knowledge)
are:
A wall for defense
many aqueducts to let the people drink
roads, so that all may move swiftly
Coliseums for the enjoyment of the hoi polloi
The Egyptian monuments that survive today:
Statues of gods, to frighten the people
Crumbling towers with a huge base to glorify the rulers
A half-man half lion, to glority a ruler
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
abb...@dakota.net
> >What was it then? I tend to agree with the Romans in thinking the
pyramids
> >were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind.
Instead of
> >building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all of
which
> >would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand castles
made
> >out of stone.
>
> building churches/cathedrals throughout most of history.
I don't know much of islamic history, so I'll constrain my remarks to
the European cathedrals.
Most of the European cathedrals were not built in a gradual process,
but were made after the beginning of the Reformation. They were
inspired by the Concil of (I think it's Turin), which concluded that to
preserve Roman Catholicism, the following must be done:
1) The natives of the New World must be converted, and this is to be
done by the Society of Jesus ("Jesuits")
2) Books that are heretical must be banned
3) Cathedrals should be built to impress the people of the power of God
and the Church
Cathedrals were built as part of a culture war to preserve the rulers
and save the souls of the people. Pyramids were built to lionize
despots.
Cheers,
-Dan Abbott
abb...@dakota.net
abb...@dakota.net
wrote:
> >>What was it then? I tend to agree with the Romans in thinking the
> pyramids
> >>were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind.
Instead of
> >>building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all
of which
> >>would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand
castles made
> >>out of stone.
> >
> >The same argument applies to the huge amounts of effort put into
> >building churches/cathedrals throughout most of history.
>
going to
> die, so every effort you make is a 'waste of energy', practically
speaking.
What a horrible thought!
Though we may all die, certainly the best way to use our energy is to
improve our lives. By building roads, aquaducts, etc. the Romans did
this, and these very practical improvements had the side-benefit of
helping the people as well. The Egyptians chose to embrace death.
> Fortunately, I've never been a very practical person. :)
Cheers,
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
>In article <m3j9NzpffisvqG...@4ax.com>,
> Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...)
>wrote:
>> >What was it then? I tend to agree with the Romans in thinking the
>pyramids
>> >were the stupidest waste of energy in the history of mankind.
>Instead of
>> >building roads, or strengthening the army, or lowering taxes (all of
>which
>> >would have helped the rules and the people), they built sand castles
>made
>> >out of stone.
>>
>> True, In the very least, though, at the bone marrow, deepest
>> subconscious sense, something in the psyche looks at those sand
>> castles..those massive, enduring, mysterious sand castles, and says
>> "Wow." I think the ability to build something that endures deserves at
>> least a small amount of respect. For all of the romans road building
>> and conquest, they fell, the same as the egyptians, as all
>> civilizations do.
>
>"This too shall pass."
>
>But how did civilizations spend their time on earth?
>
>The Roman monuments that survive today (to the best of my knowledge)
>are:
>
>A wall for defense
>many aqueducts to let the people drink
>roads, so that all may move swiftly
>Coliseums for the enjoyment of the hoi polloi
>
>The Egyptian monuments that survive today:
>
>Statues of gods, to frighten the people
Veneration of Dieties = Attempt to frighten the populace? That means,
then, that european cathedrals and american churches exist to frighten
the people? I think you've got just a smidge of cultural bias working
here, Abbot.
>Crumbling towers with a huge base to glorify the rulers
>A half-man half lion, to glority a ruler
Quatoria
shadows
[snip]
>The Egyptian monuments that survive today:
>
>Statues of gods, to frighten the people
I'm not sure I've seen statues of Egyptian gods. At least not big
enough to frighten people. Pyramids were tombs for the after life,
not monuments. They had statues of pharaohs in them. The Pharaoh
would start his first day at work by planning his funeral (literally).
>Crumbling towers with a huge base to glorify the rulers
Crumbling towers? Where?
>A half-man half lion, to glority a ruler
Hmm. Somehow I don't think the rulers needed "glorification." We're
talking sancity of royal blood type of era.
--
Thamer Al-Herbish <URL http://www.whitefang.com/>
I'm working on "Buccaneer Heroes"
Hardy! Har Har! Matey. <URL: http://www.whitefang.com/bh/>
Christoph Nahr
>I don't know much of islamic history, so I'll constrain my remarks to
>the European cathedrals.
Unfortunately, you don't know much about them either.
>Most of the European cathedrals were not built in a gradual process,
>but were made after the beginning of the Reformation.
Rubbish. Reformation started around the 16th century (Martin Luther's
theses: 1517). Roman Catholic churches had been built continuously
ever since the days of the Roman empire. Many of the famous
cathedrals were at least started well before the 16th century. (e.g.
Cologne: begun in the 13th century; Chartres: begun & completed in
the 13th century)
>Cathedrals were built as part of a culture war to preserve the rulers
>and save the souls of the people. Pyramids were built to lionize
>despots.
You are clueless and full of anti-religious propaganda. I suggest you
pick a history book sometimes. Even a good encyclopedia would do.
--
Chris Nahr (christo...@uumail.xxde, remove xx to reply by e-mail)
Please reply either on Usenet or by e-mail but not both!
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and Star Chess, a strategy game with source code and AI documentation
Steve Kostoff
>> The same argument applies to the huge amounts of effort put into
>> building churches/cathedrals throughout most of history.
>
>the European cathedrals.
>
>inspired by the Concil of (I think it's Turin), which concluded that to
>preserve Roman Catholicism, the following must be done:
>
>1) The natives of the New World must be converted, and this is to be
>done by the Society of Jesus ("Jesuits")
>2) Books that are heretical must be banned
>3) Cathedrals should be built to impress the people of the power of God
>and the Church
Actually, no. Cathedral building was going on long before the (Counter-)
Reformation. When the Protestant Reformation got underway, cathedral/church
architecture changed in order to make them more visually pleasing - so that
fence-sitters could be convinced of the beauty of the Catholic Church as
opposed to the sparse ugliness of Protestant places of worship <g>. These
are your baroque churches, some examples I've seen are the Dom in Fulda,
Germany or the Cathedral in Salzburg (was it the Dom there too? I forget).
Very beautiful, ornate, fancy, very "light" when compared to the older
gothic and romanesque cathedrals.
(FWIW, I think that the gothic cathedrals are spiritually much more
impressive, but YMMV I suppose <g>)
As far as the process being gradual, it was. It took ages to finish a major
cathedral! Over a century in most cases, and some, several centuries, like
the Dom in Koeln, Germany, which wasn't finished until the 19th century
(admittedly, construction was stopped for most of the time interval).
>Cathedrals were built as part of a culture war to preserve the rulers
>and save the souls of the people. Pyramids were built to lionize
>despots.
>
Well the first part is at least partly true. The second also, I suppose. But
depending on your point of view, there's little to no difference between the
rationales for the two.
Steve Kostoff
Steve Kostoff
>>the European cathedrals.
>
>
>>but were made after the beginning of the Reformation.
>
>theses: 1517). Roman Catholic churches had been built continuously
>ever since the days of the Roman empire. Many of the famous
>cathedrals were at least started well before the 16th century. (e.g.
>Cologne: begun in the 13th century; Chartres: begun & completed in
>the 13th century)
There's the Speyer Dom (Romanesque) which was begun in the 8th or 9th
century, I think.
Steve Kostoff
Christoph Nahr
<j.s.k...@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>There's the Speyer Dom (Romanesque) which was begun in the 8th or 9th
>century, I think.
According to the dtv Lexikon, the Dom was built 1030-1061 and
reconstructed after a fire in the 12th century. Maybe you were
thinking of the Aachener Münster whose core had been completed by 800
(it was Charlemagne's chapel who is also buried there). The rest of
the munster was begun in 1355. Still well before the Reformation. :-)
Stephen Botha
(snip)
: I wonder, is there any difference between Pharaoh and
: a game named Plantation Tycoon, in which you would have to
: carefully manage the quality of the human material and the
: ferocity of the slave-drivers so that to maximize the cotton
: output?
: You tell me.
: Istvan.
Hmmm... I guess you will never play;
Panzer general (Nazis)
Allied general (Every side comitted atrocities)
CIVilization 2(any civ in it never did anything wrong???)
Can you name any country who has never done anything wrong?
If we played only games about 'nice' people, I guess we'rd all
be playing smurf general or something.
SB
Grimfarrow
Xander wrote:
> I LOVE IT!!!! Our next City Building game could be called Papa Smurf,
> and you could build mushrooms, while amassing armies to battle
> Gargomel. Of course with only one Smurfette, it'd be a challenge to
> grow your population beyond what, 100? And...
>
> Uh, I'm going to stop right here because I'm showing entirely too much
> knowledge about Smurfs.
>
> - weasel
LOL!
For a weasel, you sure are one heck of a guy!
Your enthusiasm is slowly persuading me to consider Pharoah,even
though I am still very, very bitter about Black Monday
and the recent catastrophe.
Grimfarrow
Holly E. Ordway
>Though we may all die, certainly the best way to use our energy is to
>improve our lives. By building roads, aquaducts, etc. the Romans did
>this, and these very practical improvements had the side-benefit of
>helping the people as well. The Egyptians chose to embrace death.
The ancient Egyptians did not embrace death. They embraced a belief in the
afterlife. The pyramids (and, incidentally, all sorts of tombs for lower
and middle-class people) were not intended to glorify death, but to provide
the inhabitant with a nice life in the afterlife. In the tombs,
archaeologists have discovered all sorts of household implements,
clothing, and food, all intended for use in the afterlife, as well as
dioramas depicting daily life in miniature. Nor was the afterlife
restricted to humans only; cats were also frequently mummified.
In fact, it might be more accurate to say that the ancient Egyptians loved
life so much that their conception of an afterlife was to keep going just
as they had been while alive :)
It is possible to denigrate any culture's choice of what to put its energy
toward. One could say that the Roman colisseums were worthless because they
were used for gladiatorial combat, but that's just a modern judgment. It's
more meaningful to try to understand what these things meant to the people
of the time. Those people shared many of the same fears, desires, and hopes
with us in the present day, but also differed in many ways. That's what
makes history interesting.
Cheers,
Holly
holly-...@home.com
Steve Kostoff
><j.s.k...@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>>There's the Speyer Dom (Romanesque) which was begun in the 8th or 9th
>>century, I think.
>
>According to the dtv Lexikon, the Dom was built 1030-1061 and
>reconstructed after a fire in the 12th century. Maybe you were
>thinking of the Aachener Münster whose core had been completed by 800
>(it was Charlemagne's chapel who is also buried there). The rest of
>the munster was begun in 1355. Still well before the Reformation. :-)
>--
Thanks for the reality check, Christoph :). I don't know why I remembered it
as being older than it is, perhaps it's because anything older than the 18th
century for an American is *really old* and thus sort of blends into the
mists of time ;-). Still, it's older than the average I think... and
definitely before the Reformation! <g>
I have visited the Muenster in Aachen. I really miss this about Europe, all
these really old and marvelous specimens of architecture. Most of the
churches around where I live are modern and feature a hideous, plastic
McArchitecture :-P. I think even if one is not religious, you can't fail to
feel a real spiritual quality generated by these grand old buildings.
Especially the gothic churches. Standing in the middle of the nave with
light pouring through giant stained glass windows - it gives a really
otherworldly feeling. And going back to the original example of the
Pyramids, certainly structures such as that must have played a very
important spiritual role in the lives of the people. People today
underestimate the importance of this in early cultures, jaded and numbed as
we are by wonder after technological wonder. Simply comparing the pyramids
to aquaducts and such on a utilitarian basis shows this, I think.
Steve Kostoff
Christoph Nahr
<j.s.k...@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I have visited the Muenster in Aachen. I really miss this about Europe, all
>these really old and marvelous specimens of architecture. Most of the
>churches around where I live are modern and feature a hideous, plastic
>McArchitecture :-P.
Oh, we have those too. Ugly concrete cubes with crosses on top (or
else you'd mistake them for a waste disposal facility).
>I think even if one is not religious, you can't fail to
>feel a real spiritual quality generated by these grand old buildings.
>Especially the gothic churches. Standing in the middle of the nave with
>light pouring through giant stained glass windows - it gives a really
>otherworldly feeling.
Absolutely. The architectural data of these buildings doesn't convey
the experience of actually visiting them. Huge halls of stone,
generating a grave silence where every sound you make is magnified.
And everywhere the vastness is full of intricate detail that makes you
wonder how they ever managed to create even one pillar, let alone the
whole cathedral. I think these churches are very carefully designed
to stretch human perception to its limits -- yet they are not just
"huge" in a meaningless way, as a radio tower or a skycraper which
might be twice as high but leave you indifferent inside.
>And going back to the original example of the
>Pyramids, certainly structures such as that must have played a very
>important spiritual role in the lives of the people. People today
>underestimate the importance of this in early cultures, jaded and numbed as
>we are by wonder after technological wonder. Simply comparing the pyramids
>to aquaducts and such on a utilitarian basis shows this, I think.
Maybe it's rather because modernity has not created any spiritually
important buildings, except perhaps stadiums during a pop concert.
There's just empty vastness and pure utility. I don't even think
modern technology is perceived as a series of wonders by the average
man. I tend to think that we actually rank lower on the scale of
humanity than the great pre-modern civilisations. They were acutely
aware that their desires and beliefs were different from their
everyday reality, and so they gave their beliefs lasting expressions
in the form of buildings. Now we're living in a quasi-barbarian state
where warm water and electricity are taken for granted, as if they
were natural phenomena, and buildings are as naked and cave-like as
possible. Technology has turned us back into cavemen...
Jabba
news:3xEFOKvxT72lDT...@4ax.com...
> >I think even if one is not religious, you can't fail to
> >feel a real spiritual quality generated by these grand old buildings.
> >Especially the gothic churches. Standing in the middle of the nave with
> >light pouring through giant stained glass windows - it gives a really
> >otherworldly feeling.
>
> Absolutely. The architectural data of these buildings doesn't convey
> the experience of actually visiting them. Huge halls of stone,
> generating a grave silence where every sound you make is magnified.
> And everywhere the vastness is full of intricate detail that makes you
> wonder how they ever managed to create even one pillar, let alone the
> whole cathedral. I think these churches are very carefully designed
> to stretch human perception to its limits -- yet they are not just
> "huge" in a meaningless way, as a radio tower or a skycraper which
> might be twice as high but leave you indifferent inside.
>
This is poetry....
> Maybe it's rather because modernity has not created any spiritually
> important buildings, except perhaps stadiums during a pop concert.
> There's just empty vastness and pure utility. I don't even think
> modern technology is perceived as a series of wonders by the average
> man. I tend to think that we actually rank lower on the scale of
> humanity than the great pre-modern civilisations. They were acutely
> aware that their desires and beliefs were different from their
> everyday reality, and so they gave their beliefs lasting expressions
> in the form of buildings. Now we're living in a quasi-barbarian state
> where warm water and electricity are taken for granted, as if they
> were natural phenomena, and buildings are as naked and cave-like as
> possible. Technology has turned us back into cavemen...
And this is deeply said, too, no kidding.Sometimes, rarely , I get
astonished by the quality of the peoples you got to "know" on these
newsgroups.One would rather expect super-geeks with rigid opinions in
totally contrats with the mainstream thinking.The above mails could easily
make it into "National Geographics" for example...
Which takes me back to "Pharaoh".Maybe you don't know, but the latest
opinions are that the pyramids wer NOT build with slaves , rather by free
workers.I've seen several documentaries on "Discovery Channel" and also read
it in a lot of history magasins:it looks like the pyramids were huge
national - the term is a bit thin , I know - projects , something like
Hitler's freeeways or the Hoover Dam- where the state used a lot of
unemployed work hand to very low costs.The neighbouring cities and
communities had to supply the workers with food and the every egyptian town
or village had to sent its share of workers for a stage at the pyramids(-or
temples ,or statues).Of course they were doing the low work and there was a
core of experimented constructors which lived their life working for these
pyramids.So the biblical visions of thousands of slave tortured for
senseless constructions may be (again) greatly corrupted.You cannot build
*that* with uninteressed poor instructed and poor supplied slaves, that is
my opinion.
Regards,
Jabba.
Ezra Denney
Cathedrals were built as part of a culture war to preserve the rulers
and save the souls of the people. Pyramids were built to lionize
despots.
Cheers,
-Dan Abbott
Dan,
Actually, the egyptians felt just as strongly about their "culture
war.." and the main duty of Pyramids & temples was to provide the very
same effect you assign to cathedrals.. "preserve rulers (ed- literally!)
and save the souls of the people." Admittedly, their efforts mainly
benefited the rich and upper class citizens, but I think the same could
pretty safely be said about the Church.
Besides, there seems to be a rather egotistical sense of "our religion"
saving the people's souls & "their religion" did not. from their point
of view (in every social strata) their religion was predicated on saving
their souls. Everything you did on the earth was to prepare for the
after-life.
Comparative religion is a slippery slope, and I (being a
non-practitioner) do not presume to make a value judgement on one over
the other. Both had the same goal (ie save people's souls) and both went
about it according to their civilization's ethics & beliefs. Neither was
wrong, both simply existed...
Wow, that was vague enough to be a college lecture...
Right, back to work.
Yours,
Ezra F. Denney
PS- My writing is full of my own ideas & opinions & has nothing to do
with the Federal Reserve System (so if interest rates go up again, don't
go blaming Pharaoh...)
Steve Kostoff
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:36:43 -0700, Ezra Denney
><Ezra....@sf.frb.org> wrote:
>
>>PS- My writing is full of my own ideas & opinions & has nothing to do
>>with the Federal Reserve System (so if interest rates go up again, don't
>>go blaming Pharaoh...)
>
>
>What do you do?
>
>I mean, do you manage the country's economy, and then go home and
>manage ancient Egyptian economy for fun? How does it compare?
>
>I'm intensely curious. :)
>
>- Weasel (desperately trying to think of how to turn this into a PR
>angle...)
You are one dedicated, tireless weasel, Weasel! ;-)
Steve Kostoff
Ezra Denney
>
>What do you do?
>
>I mean, do you manage the country's economy, and then go home and
>manage ancient Egyptian economy for fun? How does it compare?
>
>I'm intensely curious. :)
>
>- Weasel (desperately trying to think of how to turn this into a PR
>angle...)
Alas, Weasel (or should that be Mr. Weasel..) I am but a drone here at
the Fed. A pointless cog in the massive machine that is Greenspan
land... I pretty much jockey my desk & have absolutely no involvement in
the US economy (other than stimulating it by buying fine products like
Pharaoh)(how was that? Think I have a future in the attractive career of
Weasel-dom?)
Sorry to disillusion you as to my importance. I do enjoy the chance
Pharaoh gives me to screw someone elses economy up as badly as my
personal one!
Yours,
Ezra Denney
PS- My thoughts are my own & should in no way be taken as a formal
recomendation of Pharaoh by the Federal Reserve (and wouldn't that be a
marketing coup...)