Top 12 Events in Millenium
Caroline E. Bryan
were to try to illustrate the 12 most important events or developments in
history insofar as the change from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. goes. I came
up with the following events, in no particular order:
1. the European discovery and colonization of the Western Hemisphere
2. the Industrial Revolution
3. the opening of China to European trade
4. the discovery of the causes of disease
5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side you're on)
6. the Renaissance
7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
8. the invention of the printing press
9. the abolition of slavery
10. the Norman Conquest
11. the Crusades and the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and Oceania
12. the Battle of Lepanto
*this barely squeaks in; the first parliamentary democracy was the Icelandic
Althing which started, I think, about 1000 A.D.
The above list is necessarily Euro- and/or Americentric, because that is the
world *I* live in. But I think that most of the things on the list above
have profoundly affected the lives of most of the human population -- things
are different now just about everywhere because these 12 things happened.
I'd be interested in what *real* historians (I'm just a lowly geology major
and software q.a. person who likes to read) think are the Top Twelve Of The
Hit Parade from 1000 A.D. to today are, and why what I missed had a more
profound effect on today's world than what I suggest above. Frothers-at-
the-mouth may email to /dev/null, but if the sane among us would rather not
post, you may email to me at the address below and I will post a summary
when the traffic dies down. If you do email, please say so if you would
like to be attributed.
Carrie c...@rechenau.unify.com x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI. -- Anon. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Stuart Sechrest
>I was idly speculating what a calendar for the year 2000 would show if it
>were to try to illustrate the 12 most important events or developments in
>history insofar as the change from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. goes. I came
>up with the following events, in no particular order:
>
> 1. the European discovery and colonization of the Western Hemisphere
> 2. the Industrial Revolution
> 3. the opening of China to European trade
> 4. the discovery of the causes of disease
> 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side you're on)
> 6. the Renaissance
> 7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
> 8. the invention of the printing press
> 9. the abolition of slavery
>10. the Norman Conquest
>11. the Crusades and the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and Oceania
>12. the Battle of Lepanto
This might be interesting, but the items listed above are generally not
``events,'' but long range processes. The items that can be construed as
events include only #8, #10, and #12. Only #12 can be marked on a calendar.
You might try to think more in terms of specific events, but the problem
with events is that their actual results are hard to fathom. It is
impossible to know what else might have happened.
If Columbus's ships had been sunk in a hurricane on the way back to Spain,
he would be forgotten, but the Portugese would probably have reached South
America within 25 years. The results would probably have been the same.
So does Columbus's landfall deserve to be on the list in place of #11?
On the other hand, a volcano exploded in Java in 1815, sending huge amounts
of ash into the air. The resultant global cooling resulted in poor
harvests, wide-spread starvation, and the rapid spread of Cholera throughout
the world. The incidence of Cholera was mapped in London and seen to be
linked to well locations. Thus, for the first time, people understood a
major mechanism by which disease spread. So does this volcanic eruption
deserve to be on the list in place of #4?
--Stuart Sechrest
Gary Hewitt
>were to try to illustrate the 12 most important events or developments in
>history insofar as the change from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. goes. I came
>up with the following events, in no particular order:
>
> 1. the European discovery and colonization of the Western Hemisphere
> 2. the Industrial Revolution
> 3. the opening of China to European trade
> 4. the discovery of the causes of disease
> 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side you're on)
> 6. the Renaissance
> 7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
> 8. the invention of the printing press
> 9. the abolition of slavery
>10. the Norman Conquest
>11. the Crusades and the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and Oceania
>12. the Battle of Lepanto
>when the traffic dies down. If you do email, please say so if you would
It won't die down - and it seems that Macedonia has opened a whole new
can of worms.
It is interesting that most of these are compressed between the years of
say, 1500 and 1800, with very little "late modern" history of importance
(except the discovery of the causes of disease).
It seems to me that one could say that the Battle of Midway or the
Battle of Britain or D-Day were as important as Lepanto -- though
probably both the Axis and the Turks would have been defeated somewhere
else, if not there.
Here we are on a computer network -- I'm sitting at home typing onto a
7-pound computer communicating worldwide -- maybe
computers/tele-communications/etc. should count for something -- they've
changed enormously the way just about everything workds.
The internal combustion engine is one of my favorites for transforming
utterly the way at least the industrialized world goes together.
But foremost would have to be the "green revolution" that has allowed
population levels to explode over the last 50 years -- that is, enormous
increases in agricultural productivity that seem to just keep on coming.
Just a few cents.
Gary
P.S. Uh-oh, I mentioned "turks" -- will this produce a response from
our Eliza/Argic? Maybe the turks _did_ win the battle of lepanto.
--
++====+========+==========+=======+===++
|| | Gary| L. Hewitt| | || HELP! I've been imprisoned
|| glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du || by my .signature! HELP!
++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Clayton Cramer
# I was idly speculating what a calendar for the year 2000 would show if it
# were to try to illustrate the 12 most important events or developments in
# history insofar as the change from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. goes. I came
# up with the following events, in no particular order:
#
# 1. the European discovery and colonization of the Western Hemisphere
# 2. the Industrial Revolution
# 3. the opening of China to European trade
# 4. the discovery of the causes of disease
# 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side you're on)
# 6. the Renaissance
# 7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
# 8. the invention of the printing press
# 9. the abolition of slavery
# 10. the Norman Conquest
# 11. the Crusades and the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and Oceania
# 12. the Battle of Lepanto
#
# *this barely squeaks in; the first parliamentary democracy was the Icelandic
# Althing which started, I think, about 1000 A.D.
#
# The above list is necessarily Euro- and/or Americentric, because that is the
# world *I* live in. But I think that most of the things on the list above
# have profoundly affected the lives of most of the human population -- things
# are different now just about everywhere because these 12 things happened.
#
# Carrie c...@rechenau.unify.com x6244
I think that I wouldn't put #9 in the list, simply because slavery
has been replaced in some parts of the world with a system which
has some strong similarities: Communism. The workers of China
are freer than chattel slaves, but not dramatically freer.
I think one fundamental development that needs to be included is
the invention of firearms, which played a part in the destruction
of feudalism, because it no longer required professional armies
to defend a city or a kingdom from marauders. Firearms drastically
reduced the level of training and skill required to make an effective
soldier, compared to sword, crossbow, long bow, and other traditional
weapons.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Joseph Askew
>In article <8770...@Unify.Com> dbrus.Uni...@unify.uucp (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>I was idly speculating what a calendar for the year 2000 would show if it
>>were to try to illustrate the 12 most important events or developments in
>>history insofar as the change from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. goes. I came
>>up with the following events, in no particular order:
>> 1. the European discovery and colonization of the Western Hemisphere
>> 2. the Industrial Revolution
>> 3. the opening of China to European trade
I think this should not be on the list. China was never closed to European
trade so it could not be openned. And even if it was, forcing an illegal
trade in addictive drugs on a weaker nation is hardly something people
should boast about.
>> 4. the discovery of the causes of disease
>> 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side you're on)
This is a purely local affair with no interest to nonEuropeans (ie 90% of
the planets population) And as someone on the other side, I object to the
word Schism, greedly local bullies forcing a new 'religion' down the throats
of their reluctant subjects is hardly a Schism. The Great Protestant Terror
perhaps (and I am only half kidding too!)
>> 6. the Renaissance
What makes this important to the rest of humanity?
>> 7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
>> 8. the invention of the printing press
This predates 1000AD I forget when the Koreans first started using movable
type but I believe it was before the Yi dynasty which puts it before 1000AD
>> 9. the abolition of slavery
>>10. the Norman Conquest
Seee point 6.
>>11. the Crusades and the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and Oceania
>>12. the Battle of Lepanto
Joseph Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32 Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
Jim Mann
> In article <1993Feb2.2...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
sech...@cairo.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest) writes:
> >In article <8770...@Unify.Com> dbrus.Uni...@unify.uucp
(Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>
> >>I was idly speculating what a calendar for the year 2000 would
show if it
> >>were to try to illustrate the 12 most important events or
developments in
> >>history insofar as the change from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. goes.
I came
> >>up with the following events, in no particular order:
>
> >> 1. the European discovery and colonization of the Western
Hemisphere
> >> 2. the Industrial Revolution
> >> 3. the opening of China to European trade
>
> I think this should not be on the list. China was never closed to
European
> trade so it could not be openned. And even if it was, forcing an
illegal
> trade in addictive drugs on a weaker nation is hardly something
people
> should boast about.
Who was boasting? The original post said these were important
events that shaped today's world, not that they were good
or bad.
> >> 4. the discovery of the causes of disease
> >> 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side
you're on)
>
> This is a purely local affair with no interest to nonEuropeans (ie
90% of
> the planets population) And as someone on the other side, I object
to the
> word Schism, greedly local bullies forcing a new 'religion' down
the throats
> of their reluctant subjects is hardly a Schism. The Great
Protestant Terror
> perhaps (and I am only half kidding too!)
The history of Europe had a profound effect on the rest of
the world (both good and bad). Any event that had such a major
effect on Europe therefore had ramifications on the rest of
the world.
>
> >> 6. the Renaissance
>
> What makes this important to the rest of humanity?
So, the art and literature produced in the Renaissance is of
no interest to non-Europeans? Or the flowering of
discovering and the search for knowledge, which changed the
face of the globe, was only of interest in Europe?
>
> >> 7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
> >> 8. the invention of the printing press
>
> This predates 1000AD I forget when the Koreans first started using
movable
> type but I believe it was before the Yi dynasty which puts it
before 1000AD
>
> >> 9. the abolition of slavery
> >>10. the Norman Conquest
>
> Seee point 6.
Without the Norman conquest, Britian would have developed
differently. We may not have had a world-wide British Empire,
which again would have made the modern world very different.
--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
pues...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
and one I think you should definatley put is
the Revolutionary War.
Gordon Pueschner.
MURTAZA HASAN
>>
>
stuff deleted...
>But foremost would have to be the "green revolution" that has allowed
>population levels to explode over the last 50 years -- that is, enormous
>increases in agricultural productivity that seem to just keep on coming.
>
>
Just a note: There was an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail about
this revolution. It seems it is in trouble, since the earth's population
is growing by about 100 million a year, just as most Third world
countries are loosing millions of acres of land to erosion. Chemical
fertilizers are eating away at arable land.
And we already know the effect pesticides have on the ecosystem.
The Globe says, "Now many scientists and agronomists say the Green Revolution
is on the wane."
As for the future, the Green revolution can't promise us anything
without a lot of risk: by developing high yield genetically engineered crops,
we increase the risk of wiping out entire harvests with a single disease.
This could cause widespread famine, and instability.
The problem is that we will add a billion( thats 1,000,000,000!) more
rice eaters to the world in the next decade, which will require poor countries
to increase their food production by 50%. Farm yields have peaked in many
areas, though, and the capital and environmental costs of irrigation,
fertilizers, etc. will make any increases impossible for all but the world's
richest.
So the Green revolution isn't over. It has tremendous challenges to solve.
The survival of the poor people of the earth depends upon whether we can
pull off another revolution, with a planet that's less fertile,
less rich and less peaceful than it was 40 years ago.
I can't see a happy ending to this story.
>Gary
--
Hasan Murtaza
"St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the
Great who asked him "how he dares molest the sea." "How dare you
Charles R. Hohenstein
of nuclear weapons rank a little higher than the Battle of Lepanto? And
doesn't the fall of Byzantium belong in there somewhere too?
tra...@fnala.fnal.gov
>
> What about the end of the world in 1999? 8-) Seriously, though,
> anyone think there could still be a top event of the millenium in the
> years that are left in it?
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
> Steve Creps, Indiana University
> cr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
o Destruction of the state of Israel by a pre-emptive Islamic nuclear strike,
leading to a multi-megaton Arab-Israeli nuclear war.
o First contact with extraterrestrial intelligence.
o First cure a for viral disease.
o First genetic manipulation of a human embryo.
o Dissolution of the papacy/end of organized Christianity.
o Universal gender equality legislated in all nations.
o Dissolution of the nation-state in favor of UN-sponsored govt.
o Discovery of 'unlimited, cheap' energy source.
o End of Capitalist system due to worldwide economic crises.
o ????End of scientific method???????
o Rise of India/China/Japan to global dominance.
-Mike Traynor
NNN NN DDDD Mike Traynor (ND '86)(Rice '94?) ||| Amiga 500 owner ///
N N N DR D Fermilab PO Box 500 MS 221 E683 ||| w/MMR 13 Meg RAM ///
N NN D RD Batavia IL, 60510 USA //|\\ 190 Meg HD \\\///
NN NN DDDD (708) 879-6095 [ans. mach.] /// \\\ 14.4Kbps modem\XX/
Steve Creps
Francois Velde
>12 - Execution of Louis XVI: victory of the proletariat.
Beg your pardon? Who won what with that execution?
--
Francois Velde
tra...@fnalo.fnal.gov
> In article <1993Feb4...@fnala.fnal.gov> tra...@fnala.fnal.gov writes:
> #o Destruction of the state of Israel by a pre-emptive Islamic nuclear strike,
> #leading to a multi-megaton Arab-Israeli nuclear war.
>
> How is Israel going to fight after it's been destroyed?
Just the land and people--the missiles can still fly.
scl...@milori.ccit.arizona.edu
take a stab at it here. BTW, if we limit this to 10 items, maybe we
can get Dave Letterman's suggestions 8^}
1 - Destruction of Hiroshima by nuclear device. Leads to fear and
loathing of a type and scale previously reserved for myth.
2 - Pope calls for the first crusade, 19092 (?). Spreads Islamic
science and art to a rather unappreciative Europe.
3 - Fleming discovers penicillin.
4 - Marty Luther nails a poster to a door. Gets the log rolling on
the question of individual rights.
5 - French troops land on American soil to battle English in that
revolutionary war. Leads to Constitution, etc.
6 - 1885, European powers divide up Africa. :(
7 - Battle of Marston Moor in English Civil War, another nail in the
coffin of monarchy by divine right.
8 - 1905, Einstein explains the photoelectric effect, paving way for
quantum mechanics, transistors, etc.
9 - Recall of the Chinese fleet from further exploration toward Europe,
ca. 1440. Possibility the biggest "might-have-been" of the
millenium.
10 - Execution of Montezuma, signalling how things would be for the
inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere to the present.
11 - Newton publishes the Principia, establishing the link between
physical law and mathematics as universal principals.
12 - Execution of Louis XVI: victory of the proletariat.
Feel free to replace some of these with more important events. No
doubt a few matters of historical knowledge evaded me :)
C.S. Cornuelle
b...@sclera.physics.arizona.edu
Doug Krause
Chris Brewster
All these lists seem to have omitted the most obvious of all: Columbus's
initiation of European contact with the Americas. In the same year,
Spain united to become the most powerful nation for a century or two,
and expelled the Moors and Jews, having huge long-term effects in
disseminating knowledge. Spain was the place to be in 1492, as long as
you weren't being exiled.
Chris Brewster
c...@cray.com
Jim Mann
> 12 - Execution of Louis XVI: victory of the proletariat.
First off, whether or not the overthrow of Louis was a
victory for the proletariat, his execution certainly wasn't.
Louis himself was a monarch who had agreed to several
constitutional reforms, and who was actually widening
individual rights in France. Bad luck, in the form of
bad weather driving up grain prices, as well as foreign
affairs breaking the treasury, however, convinced various
elements to overthrow him. (See the book Citizens, which
is a very good history of the French Revolution. Sorry,
but I'm drawing a blank on the author's name right now.)
Jim Mann
Various reactionary elements in France won the right to
execute a whole lot of other people, perhaps?
Actually, I find it interesting that the French Revolution made
this top 12 list, but not the American Revolution which
inspired it.
Caroline E. Bryan
>>I was idly speculating what a calendar for the year 2000 would show if it
>>were to try to illustrate the 12 most important events or developments in
>>history insofar as the change from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. goes. I came
>>up with the following events, in no particular order:
>>
>> 3. the opening of China to European trade
>> 7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
>>10. the Norman Conquest
>>11. the Crusades and the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and Oceania
>>12. the Battle of Lepanto
>
>This might be interesting, but the items listed above are generally not
>``events,'' but long range processes. The items that can be construed as
>events include only #8, #10, and #12. Only #12 can be marked on a calendar.
That's why I wrote "events or developments". If one's calendar is not too
fine-grained, I would assume that the Battle of Hastings could also be marked
on a calendar (#10); and possibly even #3, #7, and #8.
>If Columbus's ships had been sunk in a hurricane on the way back to Spain,
>he would be forgotten, but the Portugese would probably have reached South
>America within 25 years. The results would probably have been the same.
>So does Columbus's landfall deserve to be on the list in place of #11?
Pehaps in place of #1, but as you say, if his discovery had not been followed
up by colonization he'd be in the same boat (as it were) as Amerigo Vespucci.
Perhaps the founding of the first successful non-native colony in the
Americas should be the marker event? And which was this colony?
>On the other hand, a volcano exploded in Java in 1815, sending huge amounts
>of ash into the air. The resultant global cooling resulted in ... the rapid
>spread of Cholera throughout the world. The incidence of Cholera was mapped
>in London and seen to be linked to well locations. Thus, for the first
>time, people understood a major mechanism by which disease spread. So does
>this volcanic eruption deserve to be on the list in place of #4?
I had read about that mapping but was unaware that it was the first time dis-
ease was correctly linked to something. That's what happens when a ex-geology
major writes a list like this ;o). I think rather than the volcanic eruption
(after all, volcanos have erupted before and since without people discovering
something that changed the course of history as a result) the incident of the
mapping of the cholera outbreaks could be the replacement for the vaguer #4.
Anyone know the name of the doctor who did the work, and a more precise date?
Carrie c...@rechenau.unify.com x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Test everything; retain what is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Peter D. Hampe
>In article <1993Feb3.0...@Princeton.EDU> glhe...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Gary Hewitt) writes:
>>>
>>
> stuff deleted...
>>But foremost would have to be the "green revolution" that has allowed
>>population levels to explode over the last 50 years -- that is, enormous
>>increases in agricultural productivity that seem to just keep on coming.
>>
I think that along with the 'green revolution' is the death rate decline
resulting from western ideas of sanitation _and_ the development of
anti-disease-pathogen-and-vector-chemicals. The MedicalRevolution made
the GR necessary; longer average life expectancies mean you have to
feed more people longer.
>>
>"St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the
>Great who asked him "how he dares molest the sea." "How dare you
What is the rest of this quote?
chus
pyotr
--
py...@halcyon.com MKA Peter D. Hampe
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight.
Close enough!
Peter D. Hampe
>In article <C1xq7...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, cr...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>>
>> What about the end of the world in 1999? 8-) Seriously, though,
>> anyone think there could still be a top event of the millenium in the
>> years that are left in it?
>>
I'm not sure if these are viewed as good things, or just
MondoWorldShakingEvents.
>o Destruction of the state of Israel by a pre-emptive Islamic nuclear strike,
>leading to a multi-megaton Arab-Israeli nuclear war.
>o First contact with extraterrestrial intelligence.
>o First cure a for viral disease.
>o First genetic manipulation of a human embryo.
>o Dissolution of the papacy/end of organized Christianity.
Of course, there are those who were / are expecting this to
happen Any Day Now. Usually they are called fundies.
>o Universal gender equality legislated in all nations.
>o Dissolution of the nation-state in favor of UN-sponsored govt.
>o Discovery of 'unlimited, cheap' energy source.
cold fusion, or working tritium | deutrium fusion?
>o End of Capitalist system due to worldwide economic crises.
Not on my list of Good things.
>o ????End of scientific method???????
Would go hand in hand with the above, or the first item.
A Great Simplification would solve some of the world's
problems from the human race. Of course that might happen
as a result of contact with the aliens.
>o Rise of India/China/Japan to global dominance.
> -Mike Traynor
Peter D. Hampe
>In article <20...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
>jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>> In article <1993Feb2.2...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
>sech...@cairo.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest) writes:
>> >In article <8770...@Unify.Com> dbrus.Uni...@unify.uucp
>(Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>
>> I think this should not be on the list. China was never closed to
European >> trade so it could not be openned. And even if it
was, forcing an illegal >> trade in addictive drugs on a
weaker nation is hardly something >people >> should boast about.
>Who was boasting? The original post said these were important
>events that shaped today's world, not that they were good
>or bad.
As the original poster stated: this list is Western European in
perspective. There may have been trade with China et al,
but the average trader wasn't aware of it till the 18th Century.
>> >> 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side
>you're on)
>>
>> This is a purely local affair with no interest to nonEuropeans (ie
90% of >> the planets population)
Except that it had tremendous impact on those non-europeans. The
weakening of the English Monarchy as a result of the comflict between
it and a largely Reform Parliment. The idea that each person had a
calling, and some were secular, and one should do ones best at ones
calling. i.e. the "Protestant Work Ethic".
Of course the mission societies that spread out from Europe,
taking literacy, modern medicine (sic) and advanced cultural ideas
are being over looked.
And last but not least - the Council of Trent redefined the
Roman Catholic Church in terms of its traditions and in terms
of what it wasn't. (They were not Lutherans nor Calvanist.)
>> And as someone on the other
side, I object >to the >> word Schism, greedly local bullies
forcing a new 'religion' down >the throats >> of their
reluctant subjects is hardly a Schism. The Great Protestant
Terror >> perhaps (and I am only half kidding too!)
This happened on both sides. Charles of Moravia said that his
people would be Roman Catholic or leave the country. So the
Moravians left the country, another different religious dispora.
>The history of Europe had a profound effect on the rest of
>the world (both good and bad). Any event that had such a major
>effect on Europe therefore had ramifications on the rest of
>the world.
Right you are.
>> >> 6. the Renaissance
>>
>> What makes this important to the rest of humanity?
>So, the art and literature produced in the Renaissance is of
>no interest to non-Europeans? Or the flowering of
>discovering and the search for knowledge, which changed the
>face of the globe, was only of interest in Europe?
The Renaissance came about as the Europeans discovered
how backwards they were in relation to a) the Muslims
b) their own cultural heritage caused a great catchup
and leap forward.
>>
>> >> 7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
>> >> 8. the invention of the printing press
>>
>> This predates 1000AD I forget when the Koreans first started using
>movable
>> type but I believe it was before the Yi dynasty which puts it
>before 1000AD
>>
>> >> 9. the abolition of slavery
>> >>10. the Norman Conquest
>>
>> Seee point 6.
>Without the Norman conquest, Britian would have developed
>differently. We may not have had a world-wide British Empire,
>which again would have made the modern world very different.
As an exercise, consider the impact on the 100 Years war
if the throne of France and England would have been united.
There would have been no 100 years war, ergo no Agincourt
ergo no Henry V.
Consider what would have happened if William had said
first and Harold had beaten him before marching
north to duke it out with Harald (of Norway) and losing
to him instead. England would have been more Scandanavian
than European, and english would be even *more* germanic
than it is.
As it is: if there had been no Norman Conquest, the Brits would
have behaved very differently in every subsequent interaction
with the outside world. The alternatives are really different.
that's enough for this post.
I've my own list.
chus
pyotr
John McCarthy
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Kenn Barry
I'm amazed no one has mentioned the Moon landing.
Kayembee
Vladimir Zhivov
>[]
> I'm amazed no one has mentioned the Moon landing.
> Kayembee
Not the moon landing, but the development of space flight as a whole -
perhaps Sputnik in 1957, if you are looking for a specific event. I
think manned landings on individual planets are not especially
significant (it's mostly a PR thing); the development of a permanent
space station would be far more important.
- Vladimir
Gary Livingston Hewitt
>The author of _Citizens_ is Dennis Sciama.
The author of _Citizens_ is Simon Schama, also author of some other
interesting books.
Dennis Sciama writes on astrophysics.
Gary
--
+-------------------------------+
| Gary L Hewitt | THIS SPACE FOR RENT
|glhe...@phoenix.princeton.edu |
+-------------------------------+
Andrew Sung Hyun Kim
>>In article <8770...@Unify.Com> dbrus.Uni...@unify.uucp (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>> 8. the invention of the printing press
>
>This predates 1000AD I forget when the Koreans first started using movable
>type but I believe it was before the Yi dynasty which puts it before 1000AD
Just a minor correction.....
Movable metal type was first accepted to be used in printing in
1234 during the Koryo dynasty. This was at the latter end of this
dynasty. Also established was a national office of printing house
which oversaw casting and printing of books.
Recent discoveries indicated that above date can be pushed back about
thirty years or so. However, the first use of movable printing
was invented in China using clay.... this practice did not last very long
and was abandoned for obvious reasons.
Andrew Sung Hyun Kim Office (708)-491-5294
1849 Asbury Ave. Evanston IL. 60201 Home (708)-570-0584
and...@eecs.nwu.edu and...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Rats E.sir
"Man's world is manifold, and his attitude are manifold. What is manifold is
often frightening because it is not neat and simple. Men prefer to forget
many possibilities are open to them. They like to be told that there are two
worlds and two ways. This is comforting because it is so tidy." W. Kaufmann
MURTAZA HASAN
>
>>"St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the
>>Great who asked him "how he dares molest the sea." "How dare you
>
>What is the rest of this quote?
>
Sorry about that, didn't realize Pnews only allowed 4 lines
in a signature.
Here is the whole thing...
"St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the
Great who asked him "how he dares molest the sea." "How dare you
molest the whole world?" the pirate replied: "because I do it with a
little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great
navy, are called an Emperor."
Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors.
"A terrorist is not just someone with a gun or a bomb, but also
someone who spreads ideas that are contrary to Western and Christian
civilizations.
JORGE RAFAEL VIDELA, President of Argentina, 1976.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Hasan Murtaza | "Madness is something rare in individuals-
Engineering Science | but in groups, parties, peoples,
Toronto | ages, it is the rule."
mur...@ecf.toronto.edu | ( Nietzsche , Beyond Good & Evil)
Robert Parson
> The author of _Citizens_ is Dennis Sciama.
Simon Schama.
MURTAZA HASAN
Re the top 12 events in the millenium, past or future:
I think one important revolution was missed: the Islamic
revolution in Iran. It has the potential for affecting MANY more
people than the French revolution, and the American revolution
combined. There are 1,000,000,000 muslims in the world, and Iran is
supporting grassroots Islamic revolutions everywhere from Sudan,
ALgeria, Egypt, Bosnia to the former Soviet Union, and maybe in the
future, in Xinjiang China.
If Nostradamus is indeed correct, much of the rest of the
century will be spent in war with the Muslims and the East. The CIA
has said that Iran is trying to become a regional power, and they
expect a confrontation with it within 2-5 years.
Here is an article by Kalim Siddiqui, of the Muslim Institute in
London, from the book 'Issues in the Islamic Movement, 1980-1981'.
*******
"For the first time in modern history the Islamic movement is in
control of a territory and is trying to establish an Islamic State
there. This change is significant enough for the prevalent
'international system' of nation-States to feel threatened.
"The contemporary 'world order' has been created by the west
through two hundred years of imperialist rule and many wars,
including two world wars, among competing imperialists. This 'world
order' has been created largely at the expense of Islam. The world
of Islam has been parcelled into small nation-States. These
nation-States have been awarded a dubious 'independence' and a
fraudulent 'sovereignty'. In fact, these nation-States are neither
Muslim nor 'Islamic'; they and their rulers, as well as their
political, social, and economic systems, are creations of
imperialism, and serve the purposes of the imperialist powers.
These nation-States do not belong to the mainstream of Islamic
history. They are a symbol of our decline, defeat, and
dismemberment. They are a product of our era of humiliation and
subservience. 'Independence' and 'sovereign equality' in the
international system, enshrined in the United Nations, in fact,
means permanent dependence. For Muslims, the entire world order as
it exists today is unacceptable. It must be changed."
One of the things the west wanted the fabulous riches of the east
for, was to launch a crusade against Islam, and break it's monopoly
on world trade. This led to European expansion in the world, and the
imposition of a European order on the Islamic world.
Surely the beginning of the Islamic revolt against this order is as
important as the events which led to the triumph of that order in the
first place!
Michael J Freeman
Some years ago PBS ran a series called "The Day the
Universe Changed". Very interesting in the details and also
in the format. The episodes always began with the events leading
up to the Day, and then the consequences of what happened that
made it so important in the big picture.
I think this talk into the "12 most important events" is
basically a waste of breath because it's very hard to decide when
some give "event" really began or ended (such as the contention
many make that WWII began (was inevitable) the minute the treaties
at the end of WWI were signed). The selections of the "industrial
revolution" and such are another good example. You can say the
industrial revolution "began" with the invention of the steam engine,
freeing factories to be located anywhere, or with the ending of open
grazing fields in Britian, leading many poor to the cities to work in
factories, etc. [My facts may be misconstrued, but I believe my point is
still valid.] "Events" can not be discussed with any utility seperate
from the events that led up to them, and lead away from them.
And this all, of course, ignores the necessity of defining
what one means by "important".
Basically, give it up, folks.
Living better through chemistry,
Mike "Pi" Freeman
mjf...@cs.tamu.edu
Keith Allan Schneider
(like the defeat of the Spanish Armada) that could have dramatically
altered the world today had they occurred differently? Or do you want great
landmark events (like Sputnik) that paved the way for a new era?
Great discoveries? Concepts (separation of church and state)?
Hmm... I have been reading some of the posts on this thread, but I'm
not certain that everyone has the same types of events in mind...
keith
Michael Goldman
>2 - Pope calls for the first crusade, 19092 (?). Spreads Islamic
> science and art to a rather unappreciative Europe.
>4 - Marty Luther nails a poster to a door. Gets the log rolling on
> the question of individual rights.
>7 - Battle of Marston Moor in English Civil War, another nail in the
> coffin of monarchy by divine right.
>10 - Execution of Montezuma, signalling how things would be for the
> inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere to the present.
>12 - Execution of Louis XVI: victory of the proletariat.
I left out the ones I agree with, but I note that most
of the posters have been (IMHO) very Euro-centric. What
ever happened within Christianity is irrelevant to 80-90%
of the world. The "Protestant" work ethic someone earlier
posted and individual rights didn't come full blown out
of Luther's or Calvin's head. Catholics aren't lazy
utopian communists needing a religious leader to make them
hard-working capitalists. Most of these ideas are inevitable
trends developing along with the rise of trade and industrial
development, which in turn is a solution to the Malthusian
problem of increasing population needing increasing
resources. (Colonialism and infanticide are some alternate
solutions.)
A study of the history of China should cause a little
re-evaluation of the importance of Europe, but since
much of it is written from a European perspective, maybe
not. Arab traders had a vigorous trade with China going
back to before 1000 AD, so opening China to trade as an
earlier post stated is silly.
The Aztecs were overthrown by an army of their subject
peoples (who hated the Aztecs for their constant levies
of tens of thousands for human sacrifice) lead by a few
Spaniards.
The Mayans were in the middle of a civil war as were the
Incas. The Spanish mostly stood by and watched or joined
1st one side and then the other.
Since Mayan is widely spoken as a primary language in
the Yucatan, as are the pre-Columbian languages in the
areas of the old Inca area I don't know that the Spanish
introductions have really had that much impact on most of
the people in those areas.
I don't think we'll really know what were the important
processes (marked by events, perhaps) of the period
1000-2000 CE until perhaps 3000 CE.
- Michael Goldman
--
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
Disclaimer: All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
<sun!sono!miklg> or [mi...@acuson.com]
Michael Goldman
>perspective. There may have been trade with China et al,
>but the average trader wasn't aware of it till the 18th Century.
^European
> And last but not least - the Council of Trent redefined the
>Roman Catholic Church in terms of its traditions and in terms
>of what it wasn't. (They were not Lutherans nor Calvanist.)
Not a real issue for 95% of the world's population.
> As an exercise, consider the impact on the 100 Years war
>if the throne of France and England would have been united.
>There would have been no 100 years war, ergo no Agincourt
>ergo no Henry V.
So?? At this point, who cares? Nationalism developed
mostly along linguistic lines, so France and England
were bound to separate.
>Consider what would have happened if William had said
[deleted]
>than European, and english would be even *more* germanic
>than it is.
Again, who outside of linguists, would care?
>As it is: if there had been no Norman Conquest, the Brits would
>have behaved very differently in every subsequent interaction
>with the outside world. The alternatives are really different.
Compared to Catholic France or Spain, or Orthodox Russia?
Maybe because I've been reading a lot of Chinese history
lately I'm a little more aware of the irrelevance of European
history to much of the world.
Joseph Askew
>I would think WW1 and WW2 would be on there or at least together
>and one I think you should definatley put is
>the Revolutionary War.
Which Revolutionary War are we referring to? If it is the American
Revolutionary War then why? There can be few RW's that have had less
of an impact outside the country of origin than that one. The Wars
after the French Revolution have undoubtedly had a much greater
impact. One could argue that the suppression of the Paris Commune
had a greater impact. Certainly the English Civil War with it's
implications for Parliamentary Democracy had a bigger influence on
the world. Historically (ie before this century) there have been
few countries with less influence on the rest of the world than the
United States. Don't ocnfuse what is important to you (and arguably
what is important now) with what is important to the rest of the
world for all time!
Joseph Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32 Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
John McCarthy
Whatever happened within Christianity is irrelevant to
80-90% of the world.
This is a mistake in so far as what happened within Christianity
contributed to the expansion of Western power throughout the world
and to the spread of Christian ideas throughout the world. Some
events are magnified by others. For example, around the time of
Newton, a Japanese mathematician developed some ideas of integration,
but present-day Japanese mathematics is descended from Newton
via the 19th century importation of Western ideas and not from
Newton's contemporary Japanese.
Aristotle and Galileo's reaction to his ideas are more important in
China today than any similar ideas that might have been developed in
China at the time of Aristotle.
Keith Allan Schneider
[...]
> Since Mayan is widely spoken as a primary language in
> the Yucatan, as are the pre-Columbian languages in the
> areas of the old Inca area I don't know that the Spanish
> introductions have really had that much impact on most of
> the people in those areas.
Well, European disease wiped out the vast majority of native American
populations. Surely there was *some* impact.
keith
Peter D. Hampe
>>[]
what should be noted is how the US developed all that wondeful
technology - and then walked away from everything. Biggest
rejection of a technology since the Japanese gave up the gun.
Unless the US instigates a Space _Program_ (and the Shuttles are
more "Winnebagos in Space" than a serious program) the half
dozen camping trips on the moon will be the Norse Vinland of
the future: they were there, but nothing came of it.
Keith Allan Schneider
>In article <1993Feb4.1...@cnsvax.uwec.edu> pues...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>I would think WW1 and WW2 would be on there or at least together
>>and one I think you should definatley put is
>>the Revolutionary War.
>Which Revolutionary War are we referring to? If it is the American
>Revolutionary War then why? There can be few RW's that have had less
>of an impact outside the country of origin than that one. The Wars
>after the French Revolution have undoubtedly had a much greater
>impact. One could argue that the suppression of the Paris Commune
>had a greater impact. Certainly the English Civil War with it's
>implications for Parliamentary Democracy had a bigger influence on
>the world. Historically (ie before this century) there have been
>few countries with less influence on the rest of the world than the
>United States. Don't ocnfuse what is important to you (and arguably
>what is important now) with what is important to the rest of the
>world for all time!
Well, I didn't see the original post of this thread, but to what end
should these 12 important events relate? Just to how the power structure
of the world is *now*, or how it will be in the next 1000 years, ...?
I still don't know what is meant by the "top 12" events... The top
12 most dramatic, or the ones that changed the world the most?
keith
Michael Goldman
>Michael Goldman writes:
> Whatever happened within Christianity is irrelevant to
> 80-90% of the world.
>This is a mistake in so far as what happened within Christianity
>contributed to the expansion of Western power throughout the world
>and to the spread of Christian ideas throughout the world. Some
I don't know that Christianity is a pre-condition for
imperialism. Romans, Arabs, and Turks (etc., etc.) seem to
have managed to conquer wide areas without the benefit of
Christianity as a guiding moral force. Europeans would
have expanded if they had stayed Druid, and the discoveries
non-Christian civilizations (eg, algebra by the Moslems)
are indications of the possibilty of spreading knowledge
without Christianity.
Mary Bellmar
>The author of _Citizens_ is Dennis Sciama.
The author is Simon Schama.
Mary
Clayton Cramer
> 10 - Execution of Montezuma, signalling how things would be for the
> inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere to the present.
>
Are you thinking of the Inca Emperor? The text I'm reading for History
of Mexico asserts that Moctezuma (preferred transliteration now, I
guess) was killed by a rock thrown by his own side.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
The American political system is so corrupted by special interest power that
it is beyond repair.
Yannis Schoinas
>py...@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>> As an exercise, consider the impact on the 100 Years war
>>if the throne of France and England would have been united.
>>There would have been no 100 years war, ergo no Agincourt
>>ergo no Henry V.
> So?? At this point, who cares? Nationalism developed
> mostly along linguistic lines, so France and England
> were bound to separate.
Hmm... I seriously doubt that this is true. One of the earliest
`nations' in Europe, France, was not linguistically unified when
the notion of a french nationality emerged. Was the language spoken
in Aquataine[sp?] or English closer to the Burgudian language?
Yannis.
Jim Mann
> Maybe because I've been reading a lot of Chinese history
> lately I'm a little more aware of the irrelevance of European
> history to much of the world.
European history had a profound impact (both in positive and
negative ways) on the history of much of the rest of the world.
If nothing else, the European colonial empires changed the face
of the world. Moreover, these developments made the world
much more interconnected. China today would be very
different from what it is if not for interactions with Europe,
as would Japan. Granted, for much of their history they
were separate, but the events of the last 150 years or so
have removed much of that separation.
--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Mike Fester
How about letting me add my $0.02 here.
If the concept of the list is "what will have the greatest carry-over effect
into the NEXT century?", what about the discovery of genetic material, and
its subsequent characterization and deliberate manipulation? I would think
that has rather profound implications.
(I'd also add, invention and mass production of the internal combustion engine).
Mike
--
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.
Mike Fester
>
>>2 - Pope calls for the first crusade, 19092 (?). Spreads Islamic
>> science and art to a rather unappreciative Europe.
>>4 - Marty Luther nails a poster to a door. Gets the log rolling on
>> the question of individual rights.
>>7 - Battle of Marston Moor in English Civil War, another nail in the
>> coffin of monarchy by divine right.
>>10 - Execution of Montezuma, signalling how things would be for the
>> inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere to the present.
>>12 - Execution of Louis XVI: victory of the proletariat.
>
> I left out the ones I agree with, but I note that most
> of the posters have been (IMHO) very Euro-centric. What
> ever happened within Christianity is irrelevant to 80-90%
> of the world. The "Protestant" work ethic someone earlier
> posted and individual rights didn't come full blown out
> of Luther's or Calvin's head. Catholics aren't lazy
> utopian communists needing a religious leader to make them
> hard-working capitalists. Most of these ideas are inevitable
> trends developing along with the rise of trade and industrial
> development, which in turn is a solution to the Malthusian
> problem of increasing population needing increasing
> resources. (Colonialism and infanticide are some alternate
> solutions.)
I agree with you on 10 and 12, and maybe 7. However, if the purpose of the list
is to help determine what will be the biggest influences into the next
millenium, I think it is not unreasonable to see things as more "Euro-centric".
Certainly, Europe did far more to spread its culture to other parts of the
world than did others (with the decline of the Moslem empires). for the non
"Euro-centric" events, perhaps the (relatively peaceful) opening of Japan to
the outside world, and the (projected) emergence of China and India will have
more profound effects into the next millenium than we now imagine, but it is
too soon (or perhaps, too late in the current millenium) to tell. Perhaps there
is in sub-Sahara Africa, a leader who will drive his/her nation into full
modernization with much in the way of non-European culture about it, but we
cannot (yet) measure such an impact in its nascence.
> I don't think we'll really know what were the important
> processes (marked by events, perhaps) of the period
> 1000-2000 CE until perhaps 3000 CE.
Shouldn't stop us from trying, though.
Joseph Askew
try and sort them out but don't blame me if I get the attributions
wrong from time to time.
>jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>>jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>sech...@cairo.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest) writes:
>>(Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>> I think this should not be on the list. China was never closed to
>>> European
>>> trade so it could not be openned. And even if it
>>> was, forcing an illegal
>>> trade in addictive drugs on a
>>> weaker nation is hardly something people
>>> should boast about.
>>Who was boasting? The original post said these were important
>>events that shaped today's world, not that they were good
>>or bad.
Explain how forcing 'an illegal trade in addictive drugs on a weaker
nation' counts as an important event. As I said China was open to
foreign trade, what it was not open to was an illegal narcotics trade.
In short this is a non-event, although arguably if the British Americans
and French had not gone to war to protect their drug barons their
economies would have collapsed so maybe it shoudl be included just not
the way it was previously phrased.
>As the original poster stated: this list is Western European in
>perspective. There may have been trade with China et al,
>but the average trader wasn't aware of it till the 18th Century.
I am sorry? Not until the 18th Century? When the China trade was
providing 10% of the British Governments tax revenue? I think
someone might have noticed!
>>>>> 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side
>>>>> you're on)
>>> This is a purely local affair with no interest to nonEuropeans (ie
>>> 90% of the planets population)
>Except that it had tremendous impact on those non-europeans.
How did the Reformation have any impact on nonEuropeans? How many
of them became Protestants? Do you think that the rise of Britian
or Holland depended on them being Protestant as opposed to near the
sea (and with no great land wars to fight when they didn't want to)
>The
>weakening of the English Monarchy as a result of the comflict between
>it and a largely Reform Parliment.
But was this caused by the 'Reformation' or by the growing power of
nonTraditional power bases (to get really Marxist for a moment)? To
what extent did the Reform Parliaments reflect religious lunacy as
opposed to the growing wealth and influence of peopel who were excluded
from the pre-existing governing bodies?
>The idea that each person had a
>calling, and some were secular, and one should do ones best at ones
>calling. i.e. the "Protestant Work Ethic".
Someone who still believes in the Protestant work ethic?
> Of course the mission societies that spread out from Europe,
>taking literacy, modern medicine (sic) and advanced cultural ideas
>are being over looked.
Which places did Protestant missionaries take literacy? Not China, not
India, a few Pacific islands and African tribes perhaps. Totally marginal
in the global scheme of things I would say (especially as in Africa they
tried to replace African languages with English/Dutch etc). The one great
piece of encouraging literacy wasdone in Vietnam by Catholic missionaries
and even there the people weren't illiterate they just had a very clumsy
system. As for modern medicine, you may well get me started on my 'doctors
are useless' rant, but I think we might well both agree that medicine had
neglible impact on the rest of the world until the present century and what
impact they might have had was more than compensated for by the spreading
of disease by these same missionaries - a process which the US continues
today among South American Indian tribes. As for advanced cultural ideas
I am just beside myself to hear what these might be and what the link with
Missionaries is.
> And last but not least - the Council of Trent redefined the
>Roman Catholic Church in terms of its traditions and in terms
>of what it wasn't. (They were not Lutherans nor Calvanist.)
I might agree with this. The question really is, so?
>>The history of Europe had a profound effect on the rest of
>>the world (both good and bad). Any event that had such a major
>>effect on Europe therefore had ramifications on the rest of
>>the world.
> Right you are.
Not exactly. Any European event which caused an effect on the rest
of the world that would not have happened any other way is important.
Thus the French Revolution is probably globally important as it has
had a big impact and that impact would not have happened if the
Revolution had not happened. The Protestant 'Reformation' is IMHO not
important at all as there is no subsequent event that you can say
happened just because the 'Reformation' did. This perhaps is a bit
too controversial for us to agree on, but the Renaissance is prehaps
less so. Who seriously thinks the Spainish would not have reached
America if the Italians weren't painting pretty pictures? Or the
Portuguese India? What subsequent event can be said to depended on
the Renaissance having happened? In short an important European
event is not necessarily an important global event. The Thirty Years
War leaps to mind, very important in Europe, not the slightest interest
elsewhere.
>>> >> 6. the Renaissance
>>> What makes this important to the rest of humanity?
>>So, the art and literature produced in the Renaissance is of
>>no interest to non-Europeans? Or the flowering of
>>discovering and the search for knowledge, which changed the
>>face of the globe, was only of interest in Europe?
It is of course of interest to many people just not important!
Non-Europeans might like Raphael's paintings but their history
has not been determined by the fact they were painted. As for
the search for knowledge, if this is a side reference to the
discovery of America then I would strongly disagree that the
two were connected in any way. Money was what sent ships out
to sea not the abstract love of knowledge! (Compare with the
Moon missions, love of knowledge might be nice but people don't
spend much money on it compared to real wealth creation and
national prestige. Which was more important, beating the Russians
or learning something new?)
>The Renaissance came about as the Europeans discovered
>how backwards they were in relation to a) the Muslims
>b) their own cultural heritage caused a great catchup
>and leap forward.
Really? Well that was a nice little explaination of a serious
historic event. Despite the fact the Moslems had passed their
peak and Europeans were less able to learn about them. I might
agree on the second point perhaps but noone would say the Europeans
made a leap forward as compared with the Ancient World. Still what
has this to do with the Chinese?
>>> This predates 1000AD I forget when the Koreans first started using
>>>movable
>>> type but I believe it was before the Yi dynasty which puts it
>>>before 1000AD
I am glad noone caught me on this because I have yet again made
a mistake on Korean history, the Yi dynasty came to power in 1392.
Sorry bad mistake on my part. I still stand by the movable type but.
>>>>>10. the Norman Conquest
>>Without the Norman conquest, Britian would have developed
>>differently. We may not have had a world-wide British Empire,
>>which again would have made the modern world very different.
Let me stress the word *may*. We might well have. The world might
be a different place or it might not. This does not really count
as an event of globe shaking importance if we can't even agree on
the outcome! Someone else may have done what the British did or
they may not. It is like the Saxon conquest or the execution of
Mary Queen of Scots. Many many events have lead us to where we
are today, that does not make them all important. What if Henry
VIII had kept his 'love dart' to himself, thus not developed
serious diseases and thus produced a son and did not need to
divorce poor Catherine? Can we say that Henry's syphilis is
as important as the Norman conquest?
>As it is: if there had been no Norman Conquest, the Brits would
>have behaved very differently in every subsequent interaction
>with the outside world. The alternatives are really different.
If Elizabeth I had been a male heir or if she gave a f*ck for
international law and common decency the world might have been
different. What makes the Norman conquest more important than
101 other 'maybes'?
Joseph Askew
>jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>In article <1993Feb4.1...@cnsvax.uwec.edu> pues...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>>I would think WW1 and WW2 would be on there or at least together
>>>and one I think you should definatley put is
>>>the Revolutionary War.
>>Which Revolutionary War are we referring to? If it is the American
>>Revolutionary War then why? There can be few RW's that have had less
>>of an impact outside the country of origin than that one.
>Well, I didn't see the original post of this thread, but to what end
>should these 12 important events relate? Just to how the power structure
>of the world is *now*, or how it will be in the next 1000 years, ...?
This is a fiendishly good question. What do we mean by important? I am
not sure I can answer that all by myself, perhaps it needs a consensus
decision by the whole group. If we think of an event in the past which
has shaped the way the world is today then we might consider it important,
but only if the way the world is depended directly on that event. The
rise of Christianity is an example. It is very important in Western
Civilisation but there is little that you can say happened just because
some country was Christian. On the other hand there is such a pervading
'smell' of Xian thought and culture generally in all that has happened
or written or thought up that you could claim that it was an improtant
event. Personally I opt for the first definition which is that you need
to show a causal link between an event and the outcome. I don't think
anything can be said about the next 1000 years so it would be better
just to describe what has lead us to this point not where we will be
later on!
Joseph Askew
>vzh...@alfred.carleton.ca (Vladimir Zhivov) writes:
>what should be noted is how the US developed all that wondeful
>technology - and then walked away from everything. Biggest
>rejection of a technology since the Japanese gave up the gun.
I am sorry, when did the Japanese give up the gun? I must have
missed that one because I could have sworn they didn't.
>Unless the US instigates a Space _Program_ (and the Shuttles are
>more "Winnebagos in Space" than a serious program) the half
>dozen camping trips on the moon will be the Norse Vinland of
>the future: they were there, but nothing came of it.
Can I make my favourite comparison with the expeditions of Cheng Ho?
Perhaps this could be a thread to itself. The Ming dynasty finally
gave up because it didn't pay. There was nothing out there they wanted
or could make a profit on. I was told once that in relative terms it
cost the Dutch as much to send a ship to China as it did to send a man
to the Moon. I am not sure about that but it is true that the Dutch
managed to pay for their trips! Perhaps it could be said that if the
Moon *was* made of green cheese we might have a base there already
John McCarthy
the _Declaration of the Rights of Man_. Unfortunately, while some
of Jefferson's phrases got in, their support for individual freedom
was overwhelmed by Rousseauist notions of "popular will" which were
used to justify the terror.
Francois Velde
>+>France being France, there was a lot of dissension around the
>+>organization of the commemoration. The government would have
>+>nothing to do with it (although polls indicate that the French
>+>would acquit him today), and even refused to let a mass be
>+>held in Notre Dame. Even the royalists were not agreed, as there
>+>are at least 3 royalist movements I know of: the legitimists
>+>(who root for the duke of Bourbon, cousin of the king of Spain),
>+>the orleanists (who support the count of Paris, descended from
>+>the duke of Orleans who voted for the death of Louis XVI), and
>+>some sundry groups (including leftist royalists).
>
> Do the Bonapartists(?) count as royalists or do they
>get classified as somthing else?
Heavens no! they are Bonapartists... The current pretender is the
Prince Louis Napoleon, descended from Napoleon's brother Jerome
(there are no direct legitimate descendants of Nap. I or III; there
was a more senior branch of the Bonaparte family in the US, but it
died out in 1945 and was never recognized in France anyway).
He's considerably less conspicuous than his "colleague" the count
of Paris, although he does attend the yearly mass in memory of
Napoleon I (at St Louis des Invalides where he is buried, May 5).
>I'm also sort of curious as to what a leftist royalist exactly is?
So am I... I never read any of their manifestos. They want to establish
a monarchy (with which king I don't know) but they have a liberal
agenda, geared toward social justice. They try to pass off as less
nostalgic than the other royalists, and offer a plausible alternative
to the Republic. That's my guess.
Someone once did a typology of the French conservative parties into
legitimists, orleanists and bonapartists: not that the parties
believed in the restoration of any throne, but the characteristics
of their philosophies were reminiscent of those three branches of
royalism. Legitimists are very conservative socially, for a strong
state, respect of traditions (Church, Army...) only a mild
commitment to free markets, and none to democracy: their view of the
state is authoritarian. Orleanists have a more relaxed attitude,
more interested in fostering wealth and favoring the bourgeoisie,
a stronger commitment to market economy: their view of the state
is discreet. Bonapartists appeal to the populist tradition, try
to transcend classes by going directly to the people (both
Napoleon I and III were endorsed by referendums), and more
preoccupied with the prestige and standing of France: their
view of the state is paternalist: democracy is viewed essentially
as a means to lend the ruler legitimacy, not as a means to hold
government accountable. The neo-Gaullists fit well in that 3d category.
The first category is not well represented nowadays; the second
corresponds to the center-right.
--
Francois Velde
Keith Allan Schneider
>I think one fundamental development that needs to be included is
>the invention of firearms, which played a part in the destruction
>of feudalism, because it no longer required professional armies
>to defend a city or a kingdom from marauders. Firearms drastically
>reduced the level of training and skill required to make an effective
>soldier, compared to sword, crossbow, long bow, and other traditional
>weapons.
I thought that gunpowder was developed earlier...
keith
Gadfly
pars...@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
> > The author of _Citizens_ is Dennis Sciama.
> Simon Schama.
And quite an unabashed monarchist he is. I wish Francois Velde
would post more about the French Revolution. I have made a
hobby of studying it, but M. Velde is writing a book on it,
and being French, he grew up with its legacy. Something I
was not aware of (until corresponding with Francois) was the
extent to which academia influenced the historical accounts
and theories. For most of this Century French universities
have been dominated by Marxists, whose hero in the whole
affair is Robespierre. As the Marxists lost their grip,
there has been a rather drastic reaction, so now we get a lot
of "Gee, Louis wasn't such a bad guy after all, and even if he
was, they didn't have to kill him." It seems to be a search
for some consensual hero; there is none.
The French Revolution wasn't at all like the American, which
was mostly a war of independence which left most political
and social structures untouched. And although the fomenters of
the French Revolution may have gotten some psychological boost
from the American experience, it was hardly an important factor.
The French raised xenophobia to such a high art that I doubt
too many of them cared what happened in the New World (and the
lack of interest in emigration was a significant cause in
France's losing its colonies there).
*** ***
Ken Perlow ***** *****
10 Feb 93 ****** ****** 22 Pluviose An CCI
***** ***** gad...@ihspc.att.com
** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Francois Velde
>> Simon Schama.
>
>And quite an unabashed monarchist he is. I wish Francois Velde
>would post more about the French Revolution. I have made a
>hobby of studying it, but M. Velde is writing a book on it,
Don't get me started...
On Louis XVI: I was in Paris last month, around January 21, the
anniversary of Louis XVI's execution. A private ceremony was
organized by the Action Francaise (a monarchist group famous in
the 1930's), on site at the place de la Concorde (place de la
Revolution in those days). At 10:22 AM, a silent minute was
observed by those in attendance. The US ambassador laid a wreath.
Many people then brought white lilies to the area marked out
on the ground as the spot where the scaffold stood, while
Cherubini's Requiem Mass for Louis XVI blared over the
loudspeakers. Later, mourners could walk a few blocks to
the Chapelle Expiatoire, built on the site of Louis XVI's
burial, to sign the register (every year the duc of Bourbon,
head of the Capetian family, attends a mass in that chapel,
but I don't know whether he was there or not: the line was so
long I did not try to go in).
France being France, there was a lot of dissension around the
organization of the commemoration. The government would have
nothing to do with it (although polls indicate that the French
would acquit him today), and even refused to let a mass be
held in Notre Dame. Even the royalists were not agreed, as there
are at least 3 royalist movements I know of: the legitimists
(who root for the duke of Bourbon, cousin of the king of Spain),
the orleanists (who support the count of Paris, descended from
the duke of Orleans who voted for the death of Louis XVI), and
some sundry groups (including leftist royalists).
>And although the fomenters of
>the French Revolution may have gotten some psychological boost
>from the American experience, it was hardly an important factor.
>The French raised xenophobia to such a high art that I doubt
>too many of them cared what happened in the New World (and the
>lack of interest in emigration was a significant cause in
>France's losing its colonies there).
That's unfair. La Fayette's rise in 1789 was meteoric, due
essentially to his being the Hero of Two Worlds. Had he been
smarter, he could have taken over the Revolution completely
(as it was, he had to wait 41 years before he could make his move).
Many young officers had gone over to America to fight as
volunteer "freedom fighters" (pardon the expression), before
the French king sent troups. The same officers, older but
still liberal, played a great role in the first stage of the
revolution, as deputies to the National Assembly. They were
influenced by what they saw in the US, as they were trying to
draw up a new constitution (the notion itself of writing
down a new text was rather novel). Recall that Ben Franklin
had been the toast of Paris society in 1777-78, Thomas Jefferson
ambassador from 1784 to 1789, and the amazing Gouverneur Morris,
ambassador from 1789 to 1794, spent his time chatting with the
luminaries of the time, and corresponding with George Washington
(who thought the whole thing much too democratic for his taste).
But, clearly, that initial influence faded pretty fast.
--
Francois Velde
David H. Thornley
>cra...@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>I think one fundamental development that needs to be included is
>
>I thought that gunpowder was developed earlier...
>
I've got my facts straight, firearms were invented in the 1300s or so.
Gunpowder isn't dramatically useful without guns. The guns are every
bit as important as Cramer says.
DHT
Joseph Askew
>>perspective. There may have been trade with China et al,
>>but the average trader wasn't aware of it till the 18th Century.
> ^European
Actually even 'European' doesn't quite make it. The Dutch had been trading
with China since the 1600's, their high point came in the 1620's. It was a
serious sized trade too - important enough for the Dutch to fight over. The
Spainish and Portuguese had been there even longer - the reason the Spainish
kept the Philippines was for the China trade so it must have been sort of
important for them too (although Chinese competition to and from Manila
drove them out of the trade directly as the Dutch were driven out of the
Java-China trade). As for the British the China trade was providing 10%
of the British exchequers revenue in the form of excise on tea. The trade
was so big that the British economy was threatened with collapse as they
made nothing the Chinese wanted leading to a massive drain of silver. To
compensate for this the British invented the Opium trade which in turn
made a major part of the Indian revenue. One seventh I think. Also at
this time the British East India Comapny was returning (by law) 10%
profits to its shareholders making it one of the best investments in
town. In short the China Trade was of importance to all the European
countries involved and in the case of the Brits of vital importance
for her economy.
> Maybe because I've been reading a lot of Chinese history
> lately I'm a little more aware of the irrelevance of European
> history to much of the world.
That's telling them! :-) Only too true though. Who cares about the
Norman Conquest in comparison with the Manchu victory? I know which
one effected more people!
Michael L. Le Houllier
>In article <1993Feb4.1...@cnsvax.uwec.edu> pues...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>Which Revolutionary War are we referring to? If it is the American
>Revolutionary War then why? There can be few RW's that have had less
>of an impact outside the country of origin than that one. The Wars
>after the French Revolution have undoubtedly had a much greater
>impact. One could argue that the suppression of the Paris Commune
>had a greater impact. Certainly the English Civil War with it's
>implications for Parliamentary Democracy had a bigger influence on
>the world. Historically (ie before this century) there have been
>few countries with less influence on the rest of the world than the
>United States. Don't ocnfuse what is important to you (and arguably
>what is important now) with what is important to the rest of the
>world for all time!
Realizing that this group seems rather Eurocentric (no flames please),
IMHO, the most important event of the millenium was the expansion of
the Mongol Empire. It not only changed the course of Chinese history
(the largest nation on earth), it affected regions as far as Japan,
Indonesia, Palestine and Central Europe and indirectly Western Europe.
Again, all IMHO.
God bless,
--
Michael Le Houllier * John 3:16 * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili
(m_le...@oz.plymouth.edu.us) * Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
EXPOS/BLUE JAYS '93 World Series * HABS/NORDS '93 Adams Div. Final
Don't blame me, I voted for Bush!!! Kemp/Quayle in '96
Michael L. Le Houllier
>In article <8770...@Unify.Com>, dbrus.Uni...@unify.uucp (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
># I was idly speculating what a calendar for the year 2000 would show if it
># were to try to illustrate the 12 most important events or developments in
># history insofar as the change from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. goes. I came
># up with the following events, in no particular order:
>#
># 1. the European discovery and colonization of the Western Hemisphere
># 2. the Industrial Revolution
># 3. the opening of China to European trade
># 4. the discovery of the causes of disease
># 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side you're on)
No way. This didn't even affect all of the Christian world, let alone
the world as a whole.
># 6. the Renaissance
># 7. the development of parliamentary democracy*
># 8. the invention of the printing press
The printing press wasn't even invented in this millenium. It was
invented in 9th or 10th century Korea. Whichever century it was, both
of those are in the last millenium.
># 9. the abolition of slavery
Absolutely disagree
># 10. the Norman Conquest
Not than important
># 11. the Crusades and the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and Oceania
># 12. the Battle of Lepanto
>#
># *this barely squeaks in; the first parliamentary democracy was the Icelandic
># Althing which started, I think, about 1000 A.D.
>#
># The above list is necessarily Euro- and/or Americentric, because that is the
># world *I* live in. But I think that most of the things on the list above
># have profoundly affected the lives of most of the human population -- things
># are different now just about everywhere because these 12 things happened.
>#
># Carrie c...@rechenau.unify.com x6244
>
>I think that I wouldn't put #9 in the list, simply because slavery
>has been replaced in some parts of the world with a system which
>has some strong similarities: Communism. The workers of China
>are freer than chattel slaves, but not dramatically freer.
>
>I think one fundamental development that needs to be included is
>the invention of firearms, which played a part in the destruction
>of feudalism, because it no longer required professional armies
>to defend a city or a kingdom from marauders. Firearms drastically
>reduced the level of training and skill required to make an effective
>soldier, compared to sword, crossbow, long bow, and other traditional
>weapons.
The above list is way too Euro-centric. I would definately include the
Mongol Empire, the conquest of China by the Manchus in 1642 and the
Meiji Restoration in Japan beginning in 1868 (or 1878 - I can't
remember which)
God bless,
Michael Le Houllier
Vladimir Zhivov
>In article <20...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>In article <1993Feb4.1...@cnsvax.uwec.edu> pues...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>
>>Which Revolutionary War are we referring to? If it is the American
>>Revolutionary War then why? There can be few RW's that have had less
>>of an impact outside the country of origin than that one. The Wars
>>after the French Revolution have undoubtedly had a much greater
>>impact. One could argue that the suppression of the Paris Commune
>>had a greater impact. Certainly the English Civil War with it's
>>implications for Parliamentary Democracy had a bigger influence on
>>the world. Historically (ie before this century) there have been
>>few countries with less influence on the rest of the world than the
>>United States. Don't ocnfuse what is important to you (and arguably
>>what is important now) with what is important to the rest of the
>>world for all time!
>Realizing that this group seems rather Eurocentric (no flames please),
>IMHO, the most important event of the millenium was the expansion of
>the Mongol Empire. It not only changed the course of Chinese history
>(the largest nation on earth), it affected regions as far as Japan,
>Indonesia, Palestine and Central Europe and indirectly Western Europe.
I would tend to agree, except that you left out a couple of vital
regions profoundly affected by the Mongol expansion - Russia (Kievan
Rus') where Moscow became the center of power, Central Asia and
Persia.
- Vladimir
no one of consequence
]In article <1993Feb8.0...@nwnexus.WA.COM> py...@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
]>vzh...@alfred.carleton.ca (Vladimir Zhivov) writes:
]
]>what should be noted is how the US developed all that wondeful
]>technology - and then walked away from everything. Biggest
]>rejection of a technology since the Japanese gave up the gun.
]
]I am sorry, when did the Japanese give up the gun? I must have
]missed that one because I could have sworn they didn't.
Hmm.. <wracking brains for that reference>
There was a period in Japan (Meiji Restoration?) when muskets were available
but they were outlawed because they were not considered 'true weapons.'
This lasted up til when the U.S. forced them to open trade ports. Then the
Japanese basically crash-started an industrial revolution and became a major
power in their area, later the world.
I think that was what happened.
Anyone have corrections?
--
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Patrick Chester wol...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|"If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here?" |
|Everything your side says is Truth. All else is Propaganda.... |
|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Lance Visser
+>France being France, there was a lot of dissension around the
+>organization of the commemoration. The government would have
+>nothing to do with it (although polls indicate that the French
+>would acquit him today), and even refused to let a mass be
+>held in Notre Dame. Even the royalists were not agreed, as there
+>are at least 3 royalist movements I know of: the legitimists
+>(who root for the duke of Bourbon, cousin of the king of Spain),
+>the orleanists (who support the count of Paris, descended from
+>the duke of Orleans who voted for the death of Louis XVI), and
+>some sundry groups (including leftist royalists).
Do the Bonapartists(?) count as royalists or do they
get classified as somthing else?
I'm also sort of curious as to what a leftist royalist exactly
is?
Peter D. Hampe
>cra...@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
True - but at first it was used in cannons w/ ROF in rounds
per day. Good for seiges, NG for anything more mobile.
What broke the feudal military were the introduction
of the Swiss pike, and _trained_ infantry. Pikemen
were able to overcome the mounted knight through discipline
and were a whole lot cheaper to field.
As the metalurgy improved the 'gunnes' became more portable
(the arberesqes were crew served weapons) - and more reliable.
With the development of the flintlock - a reasonably priced
effective firearm was in the field.
Crossbows easier to use than longbow - not unlike using
rifle. Point and shoot. The cross bow's slow ROF was
what held it back.
>keith
chus
pyotr
--
py...@halcyon.com MKA Peter D. Hampe
Never pass up a change to kiss a Beeping Sleuty.
Especially if you are a Hung and Pransome Yince.
Peter D. Hampe
>>>>>>10. the Norman Conquest
>>>Without the Norman conquest, Britian would have developed
>>>differently. We may not have had a world-wide British Empire,
>>>which again would have made the modern world very different.
>Let me stress the word *may*. We might well have. The world might
>be a different place or it might not. This does not really count
>as an event of globe shaking importance if we can't even agree on
>the outcome! Someone else may have done what the British did or
>they may not. It is like the Saxon conquest or the execution of
>Mary Queen of Scots. Many many events have lead us to where we
>are today, that does not make them all important. What if Henry
>VIII had kept his 'love dart' to himself, thus not developed
>serious diseases and thus produced a son and did not need to
>divorce poor Catherine? Can we say that Henry's syphilis is
>as important as the Norman conquest?
>>As it is: if there had been no Norman Conquest, the Brits would
>>have behaved very differently in every subsequent interaction
>>with the outside world. The alternatives are really different.
>If Elizabeth I had been a male heir or if she gave a f*ck for
>international law and common decency the world might have been
>different. What makes the Norman conquest more important than
>101 other 'maybes'?
>Joseph Askew
If the Normans hadn't come over with William there would have been
no Henry viii to have caused the question of Elizabeth's role.
On the other hand, if not for the >Protestant Reformation, there
would have been only the teritorial ambitions of the English
taking them in to Ireland, and not the religious ones as well.
Clayton Cramer
> cra...@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #the invention of firearms, which played a part in the destruction
# #of feudalism, because it no longer required professional armies
# #to defend a city or a kingdom from marauders. Firearms drastically
# #reduced the level of training and skill required to make an effective
# #soldier, compared to sword, crossbow, long bow, and other traditional
# #weapons.
#
# I thought that gunpowder was developed earlier...
#
# keith
Yes, it was. While the Chinese made use of gunpowder as a pyrotechnic
and incendiary, I am unware of any Chinese use of gunpowder as a
projectile propellant. I read a book a couple of years ago about
Chinese contributions to world technology published in the PRC that
took the position that the Chinese failed to exploit this use of
gunpowder, and that the Europeans were the first to do so -- to the
detriment of monarchism and feudalism in Europe.
Clayton Cramer
> For most of this Century French universities
> have been dominated by Marxists, whose hero in the whole
> affair is Robespierre. As the Marxists lost their grip,
I am not surprised that Marxists would have Robespierre as a
hero -- a man who gave noble speeches quoting Beccaria against
capital punishment, and ran the Reign of Terror until his
own head rolled in the basket.
> there has been a rather drastic reaction, so now we get a lot
> of "Gee, Louis wasn't such a bad guy after all, and even if he
> was, they didn't have to kill him." It seems to be a search
> for some consensual hero; there is none.
I think there is one hero, or at least martyr -- Lavosier, the
chemist. His death was pointless, and deprived the world of a
great scientist then in his prime.
> The French Revolution wasn't at all like the American, which
> was mostly a war of independence which left most political
> and social structures untouched. And although the fomenters of
> *** ***
> Ken Perlow ***** *****
An important point often overlooked.
Peter D. Hampe
>In article <1993Feb8.0...@nwnexus.WA.COM> py...@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>>what should be noted is how the US developed all that wondeful
>>technology - and then walked away from everything. Biggest
>>rejection of a technology since the Japanese gave up the gun.
>I am sorry, when did the Japanese give up the gun? I must have
>missed that one because I could have sworn they didn't.
my understanding of the occasion was that after the foreigners
had been ejected in the early 1600's, the use of the musket
was rejected by the Samuri as 'not honorable'. Not much chnace
of skill, practice and technique making the difference, either.
Rusty memory tells me that one of the Shoguns gathered all the
nmuskets and had them melted down and cast into a large Buddah.
This might have had a influence on the above development (nothing
like makeing a virtue out of necessity.)
>>Unless the US instigates a Space _Program_ (and the Shuttles are
>>more "Winnebagos in Space" than a serious program) the half
>>dozen camping trips on the moon will be the Norse Vinland of
>>the future: they were there, but nothing came of it.
>Can I make my favourite comparison with the expeditions of Cheng Ho?
>Perhaps this could be a thread to itself. The Ming dynasty finally
>gave up because it didn't pay. There was nothing out there they wanted
>or could make a profit on. I was told once that in relative terms it
>cost the Dutch as much to send a ship to China as it did to send a man
>to the Moon. I am not sure about that but it is true that the Dutch
>managed to pay for their trips! Perhaps it could be said that if the
>Moon *was* made of green cheese we might have a base there already
There are a number of relevant cliches here; how if one tenth the
interest in the human breast had go into space programs, we'd be
honeymooning around Jupiter. That if half the effort that goes into
seeling hamburgers had gone into a space program, we'd have hamburger
stands all over the moon.
Yankee traders took two year (plus) trips to Cathay and still turned
a profit. A lot of Hawaiian sandlewood trees went to China in
New Englander holds as well. And the Queen's cut from Drakes
round the world cruise paid the National Debt, leaving everybody
else a pile of money.
My gripe is that we don't know what's out there, and are not
interested in outfitting an explorers to go and find out.
It appears that the mountain is not going to come to Mohammed...
Michael L. Le Houllier
I agree. My mentioning of the extant of Mongol wasn't meant to be all
inclusive. It was only meant to mention the periphery.
Evidence of Mongol influence is still seen today in Russia.
>
>- Vladimir
Jim Mann
you're on)
>
> No way. This didn't even affect all of the Christian world, let
alone
> the world as a whole.
>
the power structure in Europe. The course of events for
Europe and the rest of the world would have been far different
had Europe remained Catholic.
Keith Allan Schneider
>Realizing that this group seems rather Eurocentric (no flames please),
>IMHO, the most important event of the millenium was the expansion of
>the Mongol Empire. It not only changed the course of Chinese history
>(the largest nation on earth), it affected regions as far as Japan,
>Indonesia, Palestine and Central Europe and indirectly Western Europe.
Is this "an event"?
keith
MURTAZA HASAN
>
>Yes, it was. While the Chinese made use of gunpowder as a pyrotechnic
>and incendiary, I am unware of any Chinese use of gunpowder as a
>projectile propellant. I read a book a couple of years ago about
>Chinese contributions to world technology published in the PRC that
>took the position that the Chinese failed to exploit this use of
^^^^^^^^
>gunpowder, and that the Europeans were the first to do so -- to the
>detriment of monarchism and feudalism in Europe.
More like they succeeded in not exploiting this use of gunpowder.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Hasan Murtaza | "Madness is something rare in individuals-
Engineering Science | but in groups, parties, peoples,
Toronto | ages, it is the rule."
mur...@ecf.toronto.edu | ( Nietzsche , Beyond Good & Evil)
Keith Allan Schneider
>As the metalurgy improved the 'gunnes' became more portable
>(the arberesqes were crew served weapons) - and more reliable.
>With the development of the flintlock - a reasonably priced
>effective firearm was in the field.
>Crossbows easier to use than longbow - not unlike using
>rifle. Point and shoot. The cross bow's slow ROF was
>what held it back.
The crossbow rate of fire is probably similar to a flintlock's, no?
keith
Francois Velde
>> For most of this Century French universities
>> have been dominated by Marxists, whose hero in the whole
>> affair is Robespierre. As the Marxists lost their grip,
>
>I am not surprised that Marxists would have Robespierre as a
>hero -- a man who gave noble speeches quoting Beccaria against
>capital punishment, and ran the Reign of Terror until his
>own head rolled in the basket.
I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, about the Marxists or
Robespierre. We need not look far to find ambivalent behavior toward
the death penalty. Why, our own Attorney-General-designate is against
the death penalty, but as State prosecutor in Florida, she requested
(and obtained) the death penalty for dozens of people.
In 1791, the Constituant Assembly was rewriting the penal code, and
the question of abolishing the death penalty came up (I wonder when
was the first time it came up in the US). Robespierre made a vibrant
plea for abolition, but the death penalty was maintained (but reduced
to a single, painless mode of execution, in contrast with the numerous
and gruesome methods used under the Old Regime). This was 2 years
before the terror, when the King was still alive and reigning. The
matter was one of principle, and R. truly thought the death penalty
was barbaric and ineffectual in a civilized society.
In 1793-94, he presided over the Terror, which used the death penalty
on a grand scale. The operating concept by then was the urgency and
exceptional circumstances of wartime. Not that I am justifying the
Terror, but I don't see a major contradiction in R.'s positions.
The leaders of the Terror adhered to a number of principles which they
thought could not be implemented until peace-time.
Even the US, which I consider to be the society where one is
(relatively) safest from the intrusions of a police state, suspended
the civil rights of German-Americans in 1917 and Japanese-Americans
in 1941. This only to say that wartime does strange things to peoples.
>I think there is one hero, or at least martyr -- Lavosier, the
>chemist. His death was pointless, and deprived the world of a
>great scientist then in his prime.
There were several scientists on the Committee of Public Safety,
which was the executive of the Terror, and they pleaded for a
reprieve, on the basis that his scientific achievements overwhelmed
any guilt he might bear, but in vain. Lavoisier was a Farmer General,
i.e. part of a syndicate which farmed out tax collection under the
Old Regime (tax collection was done by the private sector, the
proceeds turned over to the Crown after deduction of expenses and
profits). He profited nicely from the Old Regime's fiscal system,
and was seen during the Terror as one of the oppressors of the people
(the Farmers' profits were determined as follows: a 6-year contract was
signed, which specified the minimum amount of taxes to collect, which
the Farmers pledged to pay. Any sums beyond that munimum were theirs
to keep, providing them quite an incentive to collect taxes. The courts
were available to limit their greed in the most extreme cases; but it
is easy to see how a Farmer General could develop a reputation for
being a leech of the working stiff).
There were many such pointless deaths. Condorcet is another example:
mathematician, philosopher, political scientist (author of the
well-known voting paradox), who committed suicide soon after his
arrest in 1794. Malesherbes, a brilliant jurist who had the courage
to be Louis XVI's lawyer, and that was not forgiven. Chenier, a
poet, who wrote some of his best verses hours from the scaffold.
Not to mention the many unknown, but innocent people.
>> The French Revolution wasn't at all like the American, which
>> was mostly a war of independence which left most political
>> and social structures untouched. And although the fomenters of
>
>An important point often overlooked.
Indeed, in France some wonder why it is called the American Revolution
(in French, it is called the War of Independence): not enough bloodshed
to qualify as a true revolution :-)
--
Francois Velde
Daniel U. Holbrook
>
>Why not just "the engine"? The steam engine was responsible for the
>Industrial Revolution (factories became possible with such a power
>source) and also was used in trains and steamboats for transportation.
>The gasoline engine was just a variation on the theme. Of course,
>the gasoline engine made airplanes possible...
Well now let's not get hasty here - there were certainly factories
before there were steam engines powering them - water power predominated
until well into the 19th century. In the US, it was not until the late
1800s that steam horsepower in use was larger than water horsepower. As
for the steam engine being responsible for the Industrial Revolution
(however you might want to define that) this is obviously nonsense.
Made factory location independent of streams and rivers, sure, which
certainly contributes to the spread of industry, but "made it possible?"
Nope.
Dan
Carnegie Mellon University
History
"Inter urinam et fecam nascimur"
Some Roman wise guy
Gary Livingston Hewitt
most significant things in this millenium. Life in 1900 for the
majority of the worlds' people didn't differ that much from life in 1500
-- most were farmers, most lived in rural areas, etc. Sometime in the
next few years, the majority of people will live in cities, completely
unattached to agricultural production, causing political, economic,
environmental, social, etc. repercussions. And I think you can put it
on a calendar, too -- maybe not a day, but certainly a year, when some
line crosses another, probably between now and 2010 or so. Oops --
that's not in this millenium...!
My personal top x list of the millenium (euro-centered, for sure,
but...), of things that can be localized at least to a year, would be:
1. Internal combustion engine
2. Mega-urbanization (some measure could be found, I think, that would
put this sometime in the middle of the '80s, arbitrary I know but I
think we'll all realize how significant soon enough). Though it
happened in different places at different times -- it just got to the
rest of the world in the last couple of decades.
3. Marconi's radio experiments.
4. Semiconductor chips, or maybe transistors, depending how I feel.
5. Discovery of TB bacillus by Koch, 1882.
5 -alternate: discovery of pennicilin and other effective antibiotics
5 -alternate #2: the development of antibiotic resistant strains of all
our usual diseases, probably by 1998 or so will kill us all ?
6. Wealth of Nations published 1776, announcing the eventual triumph of
capitalism -- more as a symbol than a momentus event.
7. Bill Clinton tokes and chokes, 1970 (couldn't resist)
8. Smallpox, measles and yellow fever introduced to the Americas and
potatoes, corn, peppers introduced to the Old WOrld, 1492-1520 or
so.
As you see, most of these are within the last 100 years .... I suppose
every generation thinks that theirs has changed life more than any has
before it, but I still think that life is incomparable to life 100 years
or 150 years ago, where life 150 years ago had something in common with
life 300, even 500 years ago. The original list struck me, in that
almost everything on it happened between 1500 and 1800, except 3 things
(as I remember). Here's going for the 20th century!
Gary
--
+-------------------------------+
| Gary L Hewitt | THIS SPACE FOR RENT
|glhe...@phoenix.princeton.edu |
+-------------------------------+
Keith Allan Schneider
>My personal top x list of the millenium (euro-centered, for sure,
>but...), of things that can be localized at least to a year, would be:
>1. Internal combustion engine
Why not just "the engine"? The steam engine was responsible for the
Industrial Revolution (factories became possible with such a power
source) and also was used in trains and steamboats for transportation.
The gasoline engine was just a variation on the theme. Of course,
the gasoline engine made airplanes possible...
>2. Mega-urbanization (some measure could be found, I think, that would
>put this sometime in the middle of the '80s, arbitrary I know but I
>think we'll all realize how significant soon enough). Though it
>happened in different places at different times -- it just got to the
>rest of the world in the last couple of decades.
This was a result of the industrial revolution.
>3. Marconi's radio experiments.
>4. Semiconductor chips, or maybe transistors, depending how I feel.
Definitely (probably transitors)
>5. Discovery of TB bacillus by Koch, 1882.
>5 -alternate: discovery of pennicilin and other effective antibiotics
>5 -alternate #2: the development of antibiotic resistant strains of all
> our usual diseases, probably by 1998 or so will kill us all ?
Well, some sort of disease protection...
>6. Wealth of Nations published 1776, announcing the eventual triumph of
> capitalism -- more as a symbol than a momentus event.
Hmm.. how about just the "Democracy Revolutions"?
>7. Bill Clinton tokes and chokes, 1970 (couldn't resist)
>8. Smallpox, measles and yellow fever introduced to the Americas and
> potatoes, corn, peppers introduced to the Old WOrld, 1492-1520 or
> so.
This falls in line with the Discovery of America.
>As you see, most of these are within the last 100 years .... I suppose
>every generation thinks that theirs has changed life more than any has
>before it, but I still think that life is incomparable to life 100 years
>or 150 years ago, where life 150 years ago had something in common with
>life 300, even 500 years ago. The original list struck me, in that
>almost everything on it happened between 1500 and 1800, except 3 things
>(as I remember). Here's going for the 20th century!
I agree that most of the more important things happened within the last
200 years.
Here's my list of stuff:
1. The Crusades
2. Invention of firearms (c. 1300?)
3. "Discovery" of America (1492)
4. Democratic Revolutions (late 1700's - mid 1800's)
5. Steam Engine
6. Disease prevention stuff
7. Electricity (1800's)
8. Gasoline Engine (late 1800's)
9. Radio
10. The World Wars (mid 1900's)
11. Nuclear Fission (1945)
12. Transitors
13. Space Flight (1950's)
uh oh... I seem to have 13. Which one needs to go... I guess I could
just combine the Steam engine and IC engine in to "engines"...
oh well.
keith
Michael Goldman
>In article <1993Feb12.0...@oz.plymouth.edu>
>m_le...@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>> ># 5. the Protestant Reformation/Schism (depending on which side
>you're on)
>>
>> No way. This didn't even affect all of the Christian world, let
>alone
>> the world as a whole.
>>
>It DID effect all the Christian world. More importantly, it changed
>the power structure in Europe. The course of events for
>Europe and the rest of the world would have been far different
>had Europe remained Catholic.
So far, this is on the order of "Is - isn't - is ..."
Simply by way of explanation, could someone point out
how the existence of Protestants affected Orthodox
Christians?
Also, I would be gratified if someone could point out
how the histories of China, India, and the Islamic
areas were affected by Protestants differently than
by countries that were Catholic. In the case of India
this would need to be hypothetical, but still, given
the imperialism of France, and the southern thrusting
of both Orthodox Russia, and Buddhist China, one might
argue geography being more central than religion. Also,
in the case of India, one should note the Moslem Turks
predated the Protestant English by several centuries and
left a lasting impact.
This argument would need to show that Protestant countries
were uniquely <whatever>. Since in CHina, all the western
powers, Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and agnostic
(i.e., the US), were all pretty rapacious, this would
take some doing, but I am still capable of listening
with an open mind (I hope), so I await the thesis
development.
- Michael Goldman
--
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
Disclaimer: All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
<sun!sono!miklg> or [mi...@acuson.com]
Joseph Askew
>In article <21...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>In article <1993Feb8.0...@nwnexus.WA.COM> py...@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>]>vzh...@alfred.carleton.ca (Vladimir Zhivov) writes:
>>>Biggest
>]>rejection of a technology since the Japanese gave up the gun.
>]I am sorry, when did the Japanese give up the gun? I must have
>]missed that one because I could have sworn they didn't.
>There was a period in Japan (Meiji Restoration?) when muskets were available
>but they were outlawed because they were not considered 'true weapons.'
Not exactly. During the Wars that lead up to the reunification of Japan
under the Tokugawa's Japan experienced its first real taste of warfare.
up till then War had no been dissimilar to knightly jousts (if you'll
forgive the simile - it is not quite right). With the savage civil wars
came the promotion of the able (as opposed to the well born) and the
wholesale conscription of mass armies. This lead to what is called 'the
rule (oppression) of the low over the high' which means basically that
the peasants killed quite a lot of Lords they didn't like and worse low
born people attained positions of real power - usually by assassinating
their rightful fuedal master. When central authority was reestablished
the Shogun decided this would never happen again and so engaged on 'sword
hunts'. This disarmed everyone except the Samurai (many of whom had been
born peasants but had joined up or been conscripted). With the new castles
the division of Japanese society into two groups was made 'permanent'. This
is not quite the same as a banning of guns! What happened was with the new
peace Japan had no need of new weapons and the government was dead set against
them as they might upset the power balance between Tokyo and the provincial
Lords (many of whom came from older families than the Tokugawas and owed
alliegance to previous claimants to the 'throne'). This meant the technology
stagnated - it wasn't abolished it just did not progress.
Robert Parson
Some people have mentioned the Mongol Conquests. How about taking another
tack on this, and listing the _end_ of nomadic invasions from Central
Asia? This was of supreme significance for Europe, South-Central, and
East Asia, as it brought to an end a pattern that had lasted for 2000 years
or so. Critical events here would be Ivan IV's conquest of Kazan in the
16th century, and the early Qing Emperors' successful campaigns against
the Mongols. (The Qing themselves were the last in the series of invaders
from the steppes.) In both cases, artillery made the difference.
Robert
Cameron Laird
>I still think that the green revolution and its concomitants are the
>most significant things in this millenium. Life in 1900 for the
>majority of the worlds' people didn't differ that much from life in 1500
>-- most were farmers, most lived in rural areas, etc. Sometime in the
.
.
>1. Internal combustion engine
>2. Mega-urbanization (some measure could be found, I think, that would
>put this sometime in the middle of the '80s, arbitrary I know but I
>think we'll all realize how significant soon enough). Though it
>happened in different places at different times -- it just got to the
>rest of the world in the last couple of decades.
>3. Marconi's radio experiments.
>4. Semiconductor chips, or maybe transistors, depending how I feel.
>5. Discovery of TB bacillus by Koch, 1882.
>5 -alternate: discovery of pennicilin and other effective antibiotics
>5 -alternate #2: the development of antibiotic resistant strains of all
> our usual diseases, probably by 1998 or so will kill us all ?
>6. Wealth of Nations published 1776, announcing the eventual triumph of
> capitalism -- more as a symbol than a momentus event.
>7. Bill Clinton tokes and chokes, 1970 (couldn't resist)
>8. Smallpox, measles and yellow fever introduced to the Americas and
> potatoes, corn, peppers introduced to the Old WOrld, 1492-1520 or
> so.
politicians much squishier than in my ancestors'
days of turnips and cabbage]
.
.
.
... but not oral contraceptives?
The one lacuna on these lists that has most surprised
me is "nationalism". I take the summary
modern world = nationalism + science stuff
much more seriously than the silly Leninist slogan
about electrification.
--
Cameron Laird
cla...@Neosoft.com (claird%Neoso...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
cla...@litwin.com (claird%litwi...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
Cameron Laird
rather than artillery, but I'd be interested in
the proximate events; were there particular bat-
tles that were conclusive, in your view, or did
the firearm-equipped empires simply start winning
all the skirmishes and reconnaissance encounters?
.
.
.
I keep running across vague references to some
explicit "sphere-of-influence" sort of partition
which the Manchus made early on with the Romanovs,
that supposedly left the mounted Central Asians
without a safe refuge. Before I exert the energy
to track this down on my own, does anyone here
have any pointers?
Cameron Laird
>jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Feb8.0...@nwnexus.WA.COM> py...@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>
>>>what should be noted is how the US developed all that wondeful
>>>technology - and then walked away from everything. Biggest
>>>rejection of a technology since the Japanese gave up the gun.
>
>>I am sorry, when did the Japanese give up the gun? I must have
.
.
See
Perrin, Noel
1979 Giving up the gun: Japan's reversion to
the sword, 1543-1879. D. R. Godine, Boston
Heikki T. Suopanki
After reading this newsgroup the only conclusion is that the most important
event in Millenium is the Turkish genocide on Armenians....
-Heikki
--
"If two men are having a fight and the wife of one tries to
help her husband by grabbing hold of the other man's
genitals, show her no mercy; cut off her hand."
- Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Vladimir Zhivov
>After reading this newsgroup the only conclusion is that the most important
>event in Millenium is the Turkish genocide on Armenians....
>-Heikki
That is why the mighty administrator gave us the (k)ill option - I use
it liberally, thus missing the "significant" debate.
- Vladimir
Michael Goldman
>In article <1993Feb7.1...@acuson.com> mi...@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>>py...@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>>>perspective. There may have been trade with China et al,
>>>but the average trader wasn't aware of it till the 18th Century.
>> ^European
>Actually even 'European' doesn't quite make it. The Dutch had been trading
>with China since the 1600's, their high point came in the 1620's. It was a
I believe Delftware was produced as a cheap substitute for
the plates brought from China.
There was also a flourishin trade in the Indian Ocean with
the Chinese introducing the compass to Arab traders around
the 12th century. And of course the Silk Road was a major
trading route until the world-wide dessication process made
it too difficult, by eliminating many of the water supplies
around teh 10th century.
Nestorian and Manichean Christianity flourished in China
from about 635 to 840 or so.
Chinese clashes with Arabs over possession of Turkestan
lead to the introduction of paper to the Arabs around
650 CE through a prisoner captured by the Arabs. Paper
was invented in China about 0 CE.
In short, it is hard to find a period when China wasn't
involved with other countries.
>serious sized trade too - important enough for the Dutch to fight over. The
>Spainish and Portuguese had been there even longer - the reason the Spainish
>kept the Philippines was for the China trade so it must have been sort of
>important for them too (although Chinese competition to and from Manila
I have read that 20% of the gold and silver the Spanish got from
the Americas ended up in China via Manila. THe Seville depression
in 1620 contributed to economic dislocation in China
which in turn contributed partly to the rebellions which lead to
the fall of the Ming and the accession of the Manchus. The Manchus
are responsible for China having its present form which is twice
the area of Ming China.
>drove them out of the trade directly as the Dutch were driven out of the
>Java-China trade). As for the British the China trade was providing 10%
>of the British exchequers revenue in the form of excise on tea. The trade
>was so big that the British economy was threatened with collapse as they
>made nothing the Chinese wanted leading to a massive drain of silver. To
>compensate for this the British invented the Opium trade which in turn
Minor point here, but the Portugese actually started selling
opium to China in 1588. THe British inherited the Moghul
monopoly on opium processing within their Indian areas, and
certainly promoted selling it to China, but don't get credit for
inventing the trade.
>made a major part of the Indian revenue. One seventh I think. Also at
>this time the British East India Comapny was returning (by law) 10%
>profits to its shareholders making it one of the best investments in
>town. In short the China Trade was of importance to all the European
>countries involved and in the case of the Brits of vital importance
>for her economy.
>Joseph Askew
Michael Goldman
>I still think that the green revolution and its concomitants are the
>most significant things in this millenium. Life in 1900 for the
The problem with the "green revolution" is when did it start?
With the invention of the steel plow? With the use of horses
instead of oxen to pull the plow, the introduction of Indonesian
rice to China in the 10th centure CE which doubled the growing
seasons, the introduction of the newly discovered potatos, and
sweet potatos of America to Europe and Asia, greatly increasing
nutrition per acre?
I think that is my problem with most "events" listed. They were
all parts of ongoing processes. When did the industrial revolution
start? With the introduction of the loom? We have several processes
which have been ongoing for all of history. The conversion from
hunter to farmer, from nomad to town-dweller, the spread of central
political authority, the increase of world-wide trade, the
intermingling of peoples, the development of ever larger forms
of representative democracy, the development of scientific
method, and mathematical reasoning.
Another problem with choosing any event is the perspective of
1993. If it were 1593, we would be considering much more
of what formed Spain, since it dominated much of the world of
that period. Nowadays, who cares. While for Anglophones, the
reverse is true.
Gerry Palo
>(in French, it is called the War of Independence): not enough bloodshed
>to qualify as a true revolution :-)
>
>--
>
> Francois Velde
That is the point. The war was for independence, but the new order
that it established was revolutionary, not only in the form of it but
in the peaceful manner of its implementation. It set a precedent for
the future.
The American Revolution cannot be separated from the establishment
of the U.S. Constitution, which gave birth to a whole new social and
political order, not based on rank and privilege, and which actually
succeeded in surviving and becoming a model for the modern world.
The French revolution attempted to destroy the old order but the
new French constitution became the terror and led to reaction and
leftist terrorism. It became a model for totalitarian revolutionaries
and for people who equate revolution with bloodshed.
I suppose both revolutions deserve a place on the list, but leave it
to the French to require terror as an essential ingredient for a
revolution and to fail to see the longer lasting impact on history
of what was initiated with the "bloodless and minor American War
of Independence". (Smiley face noted, however).
Rudolf Steiner pointed out in his expositions on the "Threefold Social
Order" that the French revolution failed in its objectives of establishing
"Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" because it attempted to combine them into
a unified state organism. Had they been allowed to form into seperate and
independent entities it would have succeeded and the whole course of
European history in the nineteenth century would have been transformed.
It might be interesting to make a list of the things that almost happened
but _didn't_ quite make it but would have had the greatest impact on
history.
Gerry Palo (73237...@compuserve.com)
Mike Fester
The point is NOT that the Protestants were uniquely <whatever>, but that they
developed into a viable challange to the Catholic Church. This allowed nations
a certain amount of independance from a 'foreign' power; The Vatican. This, in
turn, allowed alliances which would have been banned under the older, monolithic
system. From that point on, Europe would begin to push outward at a much more
rapid rate than they might have otherwise. Clearly, this affected the other
nations/areas you mention.
Consider it, perhaps, this way. Had there NOT been the Himalayas between India
and China, there would have been much more contact between those two
civilizations, for better or worse. It is entirely possible that China, because
it now had a powerful entity on its border, would have looked outward, rather
than falling inward in countless rebellions. India, too, may have pushed outward
rather than taking the Moslem invasions, may have initiated the "Hindu/Budda -
ization" of the Middle East and points west. All this, because (perhaps) they
would have been in constant competition with another power.
We can't know any of this, of course (which means I can't be "proven" wrong :-))
but I think the important thing is not WHICH entity developed, but that
there did develop a strong (and antagonistic) counter force which kept the
entire continent from falling back in on itself.
Mike
--
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.
Gary L Hewitt
>glhe...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
>
>>I still think that the green revolution and its concomitants are the
>>most significant things in this millenium. Life in 1900 for the
>
> The problem with the "green revolution" is when did it start?
> With the invention of the steel plow? With the use of horses
> instead of oxen to pull the plow, the introduction of Indonesian
> rice to China in the 10th centure CE which doubled the growing
> seasons, the introduction of the newly discovered potatos, and
> sweet potatos of America to Europe and Asia, greatly increasing
> nutrition per acre?
>
think that if you graphed either agricultural output/acre, or even more
significantly, agricultural output/agricultural worker, that one would
find a few increases in the period 1000-1900, coinciding with the events
mentioned above; but that these would seem insignificant with the
increases in agricultural productivity of the last 50 years. Thus I
would have to put that revolution in the context of 20th-century
history, and at no other time.
Gary
--
Gary L Hewitt glhe...@phoenix.princeton.edu
"To sum up all; there are archives at every stage to be look'd into, and
rolls, records, documents, and endless genealogies -- In short, there is
no end of it." --Laurence Sterne, _Tristram_Shandy_
Gary L Hewitt
> all parts of ongoing processes. When did the industrial revolution
> start? With the introduction of the loom? We have several processes
> which have been ongoing for all of history. The conversion from
> hunter to farmer, from nomad to town-dweller, the spread of central
> political authority, the increase of world-wide trade, the
> intermingling of peoples, the development of ever larger forms
> of representative democracy, the development of scientific
> method, and mathematical reasoning.
Reminds me of my basic historical truisms that you can put into any
historical argument: The Middle Class was Rising. It was a time of
great social stress. Not to mention (for US historians), "It varies
from state to state." :-)
The point of the original post (a productive one, I would add), was to
identify events that might be deemed significant. Of course, one can
always argue that the pre-conditions of an event "over-determine" it, or
that an event would have happened in another form if it hadn't happened
the way it did. We only get one history, so one can never know.
On the other hand, focusing on events sometimes can allow us to analyze
these processes with a little more precision than we might otherwise be
able to do. Sometimes a counter-factual argument can sharpen one's
senses (and whenever we make an "event" kind of argument, it is
implicitly a counter-factual). What if, say, dynamite ahdn't been
invented; what if the Spanish Armada defeats the English; what if...
I suppose the criterion that should identify an "event" is whether one
can construct a proper counter-factual argument: by this standard, "the
Green revolution (for example!) fails, I think: Imagine the premise,
"The green revolution didn't happen." What would that mean? Nothing, I
guess. Try this out for size: "No artificial fertilizers could be
successfully developed." If one decided (on examination) that
artificial fertilizers determined the green revolution more than other
things, then you could decide that that was the important event (for
example).
>
> Another problem with choosing any event is the perspective of
> 1993. If it were 1593, we would be considering much more
> of what formed Spain, since it dominated much of the world of
> that period. Nowadays, who cares. While for Anglophones, the
> reverse is true.
True enough -- but the same thing that hopelessly perverts any kind of
historical objectivity also makes historians at least somewhat relevant
to the times they live in. Again, in 1593 the Armada's defeat (for the
Egnlish) was crucial; though if you think of it, imagine the
consequences of a unified Spanish and English crown for the history of
this hemisphere?
Serdar Argic
>After reading this newsgroup the only conclusion is that the most important
>event in Millenium is the Turkish genocide on Armenians....
Just love it. Well, apparently we have another son of Dro 'the Hitlerian'
to publicly expose and humiliate. If you feel that you can simply act as
an Armenian governmental crony in this forum you will be sadly mistaken
and duly embarrassed. This is not a lecture to another historical revisionist
and a genocide apologist, 'suopanki,' but a fact.
By the way, the Roman poet Petroni's definition of an Armenian is:
"Armenians too are human beings, but at home they walk on their
fours."
The Russian poet Lermantof's definition has yet another approach:
"You are a slave, and a coward. You are an Armenian."
I will dissect article-by-article, paragraph-by-paragraph, line-by-line,
lie-by-lie, revision-by-revision, written by those on this net, who plan
to 'prove' that the Armenian genocide of 2.5 million Turks and Kurds is
nothing less than a classic un-redressed genocide. We are neither in
x-Soviet Union, nor in some similar ultra-nationalist fascist dictatorship,
that employs the dictates of Hitler to quell domestic unrest. Also, feel
free to distribute all responses to your nearest ASALA/SDPA/ARF terrorists,
the Armenian pseudo-scholars, or to those affiliated with the Armenian
criminal organizations.
Armenian government got away with the genocide of 2.5 million Turkish men,
women and children and is enjoying the fruits of that genocide. You, and
those like you, will not get away with the genocide's cover-up.
"Within a few months after the war began, these Armenian guerrilla
forces, operating in close coordination with the Russians, were
savagely attacking Turkish cities, towns and villages in the east,
massacring their inhabitants without mercy, while at the same time
working to sabotage the Ottoman army's war effort by destroying roads
and bridges, raiding caravans, and doing whatever else they could to
ease Russian occupation. The atrocities committed by the Armenian
volunteer forces accompanying the Russian army were so severe that the
Russian commanders themselves were compelled to withdraw them from the
fighting fronts and sent them to rear guard duties. The memoirs of many
Russian officers who served in the east at this time are filled with
accounts of the revolting atrocities committed by these Armenian
guerrillas, which were savage even by relatively primitive standards of
war then observed in such areas.[1]"
[1] "Journal de Guerre du Deuxieme d'Artillerie de Forteresse Russe
d'Erzeroum," 1919, p. 28.
Serdar Argic
'We closed the roads and mountain passes that
might serve as ways of escape for the Turks
and then proceeded in the work of extermination.'
(Ohanus Appressian - 1919)
'In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists
a single Turkish soul.' (Sahak Melkonian - 1920)
Ken Mcvay
>After reading this newsgroup the only conclusion is that the most important
>event in Millenium is the Turkish genocide on Armenians....
I was unaware that any such genocide had been established. The mutlu-unit
certainly seems to be having a problem in that regard...
--
The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher
(604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island
with public access UseNet and Internet Mail
Lance Visser
+>Just love it. Well, apparently we have another son of Dro 'the Hitlerian'
+>to publicly expose and humiliate. If you feel that you can simply act as
+>an Armenian governmental crony in this forum you will be sadly mistaken
+>and duly embarrassed. This is not a lecture to another historical revisionist
+>and a genocide apologist, 'suopanki,' but a fact.
The above is generated by a person who is so certain of the material
he posts that he fears to put his own name on it, refuses to put his real
site name in the articles. He is forced to hide behind the name "Argic",
just as he used to hide behind the name "Multu".
+>By the way, the Roman poet Petroni's definition of an Armenian is:
+>"Armenians too are human beings, but at home they walk on their
+> fours."
+>The Russian poet Lermantof's definition has yet another approach:
+>"You are a slave, and a coward. You are an Armenian."
Good to see you resorting to blatent racism. Its real proof that
you have run out of ideas.
+>I will dissect article-by-article, paragraph-by-paragraph, line-by-line,
+>lie-by-lie, revision-by-revision, written by those on this net, who plan
+>to 'prove' that the Armenian genocide of 2.5 million Turks and Kurds is
+>nothing less than a classic un-redressed genocide.
You have yet to prove your number of 2.5 million. The numbers
you have presented do NOT add up and you refuse to present how you come
to your number of 2.5 million. The only way you get to 2.5 million is
to count every person who died in turkey from whatever cause during the
first world war as being killed by an Armenian.
You have yet to explain why your "source" (McCarthy) presents
numbers for Muslims "deaths" which you believe and you quote, but also
contains numbers for non-Muslim deaths which you have called "lies".
Your sources seem to be selectivly correct.
+>We are neither in
+>x-Soviet Union, nor in some similar ultra-nationalist fascist dictatorship,
+>that employs the dictates of Hitler to quell domestic unrest.
Turkey is not ruled by such people, but you who are calling yourselves
Argic ARE ultra-nationalistic fascists. Dare you answer the long-standing
question of what you think the "real" borders of turkey should be? How
much of Europe, Asia and North Africa are you claiming besides your stated
claims on Greece, Armenia and Northern Iraq?
Daniel Cohen
>That is the point. The war was for independence, but the new order
>that it established was revolutionary, not only in the form of it but
>in the peaceful manner of its implementation. It set a precedent for
>the future.
>
>The American Revolution cannot be separated from the establishment
>of the U.S. Constitution, which gave birth to a whole new social and
>political order, not based on rank and privilege, and which actually
>succeeded in surviving and becoming a model for the modern world.
Hey, when did Ollie North get Usenet access??? Do I hear "God Bless
America in the background?
Daniel Cohen Department of Computer Science
Email: d...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Queen Mary and Westfield College
Tel: +44 71 975 5245/4/9 Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK
Fax: +44 81 980 6533 ******* Hit the North!!! *******
micheal bloomberg
>There was a period in Japan (Meiji Restoration?) when muskets were available
>but they were outlawed because they were not considered 'true weapons.'
>This lasted up til when the U.S. forced them to open trade ports. Then the
>Japanese basically crash-started an industrial revolution and became a major
>power in their area, later the world.
>I think that was what happened.
>
>Anyone have corrections?
Yep.
The Meiji Restoration was at the end of the nineteenth century, after Commodor
Perry forced the Japanese to open their ports(what a hero!)
If I understand your attempted reference, you are talking about the late
sixteenth or early seventeenth(someone help me with this) century when the
Tokugawa regime decided that the westerners were corrupting the acient and
obviously superior culture of the Japanese and they drove out all of the
Europeans (except for an annual trading ship of the Portuguese), killed most
of the Christians, and actively suppressed European influence, including
muskets, etc. Given the Samurai affection for the bow, the gun probably would
have been popular if not for the fact that it was extremely inaccurate and
only usefull in large numbers.
I'll repeat the call (as if it's needed), any corrections?
>--
>/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
>|Patrick Chester wol...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
>|"If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here?" |
>|Everything your side says is Truth. All else is Propaganda.... |
>|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
>\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
--
Micheal Bloomberg; University of Nebraska-Lincoln; m...@hoss.unl.edu
"Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises"
-Samuel Butler
Stuart Sechrest
>
>If I understand your attempted reference, you are talking about the late
>sixteenth or early seventeenth(someone help me with this) century when the
>Tokugawa regime decided that the westerners were corrupting the acient and
>obviously superior culture of the Japanese and they drove out all of the
>Europeans (except for an annual trading ship of the Portuguese), killed most
>of the Christians, and actively suppressed European influence, including
>muskets, etc. Given the Samurai affection for the bow, the gun probably would
>have been popular if not for the fact that it was extremely inaccurate and
>only usefull in large numbers.
>
>I'll repeat the call (as if it's needed), any corrections?
> Micheal Bloomberg; University of Nebraska-Lincoln; m...@hoss.unl.edu
The following is from memory, but I think is roughly correct:
First, in the sixteenth century, Japan was subjected to almost constant
civil war. Towards the end of the century much of Honshu (the big island)
was united under Oda Nobunaga. His son was deposed by Hideyoshi Toyotomi,
who extended the centrally controlled areas.
In this period Westerners, first the Portugese and Spanish, then the Dutch
and English showed up. They introduced Western military technology,
including guns.
Hideyoshi undertook to stabilize the political situation around 1590. He
decreed that samurai, would have to choose between moving to a city, where
they would be vassals to a lord, or giving up their swords. Castles outside
of cities were pulled down. Thus, the warrior class would be separated from
independent bases of operation in the countryside, and rebellion would be much
more difficult. (After 1868, most city castles were pulled down for the
same reason.)
Around 1604, Tokugawa Ieyesu deposed Hideyoshi's son. He continued with
Hideyoshi's stability inducing policies. The Tokugawa family, consequently
stayed in power until 1868. To increase stability, they turned hostile
to Westerners, eventually allowing only the Dutch to have even limited
access to Japan, turned hostile to Christianity, and decided that guns had
to be eliminated. Thus, the removal of guns was only one of a number of
related stability-oriented policies at the start of the Tokugawa shoganate.
--Stuart Sechrest
Robert Parson
cla...@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
> I would have said "demographic inevitability"
> rather than artillery, but I'd be interested in
> the proximate events; were there particular bat-
> tles that were conclusive, in your view, or did
> the firearm-equipped empires simply start winning
> all the skirmishes and reconnaissance encounters?
> .
My impression is, more the latter. On the Russian side, there were
occasional early victories over the Golden Horde (Dmitri Donskoi,
Ivan III - actually Ivan III and the Mongols never actually came to
battle but Ivan made his point), but from the capture of Kazan in the
mid-16th century on the Mongols were in decline (though they held out
in the Crimea for a long time.) On the Chinese side, the Ming not only
expelled the descendent of Kublai, they mounted some successful campaigns
into the heart of Mongolia. But these also were temporary victories, it
was only under the Manchus that the Chinese started winning systematically.
The (amazingly rapid) Russian settlement of Siberia in the late 16th -
early 17th century must have played a role also - outflanking the steppes
on the North, in a way.
John McCarthy
We'll keep the red, white and blue flag flying here.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Serdar Argic
the x-Soviet Armenian Government?
Cameron Laird
>In article <1993Feb16.1...@acuson.com> mi...@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>>glhe...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
.
.
>Leaving aside the more philosophical problem of event vs. process, I
>think that if you graphed either agricultural output/acre, or even more
>significantly, agricultural output/agricultural worker, that one would
>find a few increases in the period 1000-1900, coinciding with the events
>mentioned above; but that these would seem insignificant with the
>increases in agricultural productivity of the last 50 years. Thus I
>would have to put that revolution in the context of 20th-century
>history, and at no other time.
.
.
It's a big, big story. I'll introduce a very few measure-
ments, which perhaps will be useful.
Average maize yields in the United States doubled between
1850 and 1950, and then doubled again between 1950 and 1985.
1986 was a record year, with an aggregate national average
of 86 bushels per acre. Interestingly, early settlers in
east Texas claimed yields almost exactly the same, on virgin
soil in the 1820s. I have some questions about the compara-
bility of the numbers (mostly having to do with such issues
as water content, ...), but 75 bushels/acre was *not* uncom-
mon on new ground in the nineteenth century. This decade,
yields have climbed to an average of 106-122 bushels/acre.
Myself, I date the Green Revolution from the end of World
War II, but there's a bit of ideology in that.
Clayton Cramer
> In <1993Feb16.1...@digi.lonestar.org> gp...@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
> >That is the point. The war was for independence, but the new order
> >that it established was revolutionary, not only in the form of it but
> >in the peaceful manner of its implementation. It set a precedent for
> >the future.
> >
> >The American Revolution cannot be separated from the establishment
> >of the U.S. Constitution, which gave birth to a whole new social and
> >political order, not based on rank and privilege, and which actually
> >succeeded in surviving and becoming a model for the modern world.
>
> Hey, when did Ollie North get Usenet access??? Do I hear "God Bless
> America in the background?
>
> Daniel Cohen Department of Computer Science
Mr. Cohen seems to be unaware of how much influence the ideas of
the American Revolution influenced Europe. For example, the notion
that members of minority religions have an equal right to vote,
hold public office, and enjoy the same civil liberties as the
majority religion, is an idea of our revolution. Britain adopted
this idea later.
The notion of promoting military officers based on merit, not based
on family background, is an American idea, adopted by Britain much
later.
The notion of free speech AS AN END IN ITSELF, while imperfectly
protected even today, was a revolutionary idea when it was
introduced. Britain had it much later, and in some senses, has
a less free press today.
The notion that tax dollars should not be used to fund a particular
religious group, is an American idea. Britain was considerably
behind (and still is behind) the U.S. on this.
Obviously, not every idea that now comprises liberal democracy
came from the U.S., and many of these ideas had been discussed
and considered in Europe before hand -- but to pretend that
there is something silly or crooked about asserting that the
American Revolution did not play a major part in testing and
validating the applicability of these ideas is stupid.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
The American political system is so corrupted by special interest power that
it is beyond repair.