How were the incas and aztecs conquered easily by Conquistadors?
SuperOutland
Were the incas and aztecs just retarded or something? This is a
serious question, it just boggles the mind!
Neville Lindsay
"SuperOutland" <supero...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e91ad9af.04011...@posting.google.com...
> The conquistadors were small as atoms compared to a whole nation!!!
> Were the incas and aztecs just retarded or something? This is a
> serious question, it just boggles the mind!
How else do you subjugate native peoples - divide and rule, The Spanish had
loads of Indian allies.
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Madhusudan Singh" <spammers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:buarjl$fln3i$2...@ID-159130.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Friday 16 January 2004 23:49, SuperOutland (supero...@aol.com) held
> forth in soc.history (<e91ad9af.04011...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > The conquistadors were small as atoms compared to a whole nation!!!
> > Were the incas and aztecs just retarded or something? This is a
> > serious question, it just boggles the mind!
>
> can destroy a larger advanced civilization if it is peaceful.
Of course the Aztec and Incan empires were very bloodthirsty, which is why
the Spaniards had no trouble in getting Indian allies.
NL
mdgiles
Go read <i>Guns, Germs and Steel</i>.
Neville Lindsay
> On Saturday 17 January 2004 10:20, Neville Lindsay (nev...@bigpond.net.au)
> held forth in soc.history
> (<FocOb.16388$Wa....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
>
> Most historians agree that the Spaniards brought nothing but contempt and
> destruction for local traditions.
>
> To speak of a Dark Ages European "civilization" with a talent for
> Iniquisition as being somehow more advanced than an ancient civilization
> that had a well developed system of mathematics and astronomy only reveals
> more about you - that you consider people with ability to blow up and
> destroy to be more advanced than people who build.
>
> Happy reinventing !
Are you so stupid and uninformed that you do not know of the viciousness of
the Aztecs and their endless human sacrifices? Which they got from endless
war with their neighbours? And you call them 'peaceful'? Grow up.
NL
SuperOutland
empire. I might say the incas were retarded but if they were retarded
they wouldnt have stayed very large.
Hubbard C. Goodrich
> I'd jsut like to know how 177 conquistadors could conquor a whole
> empire. I might say the incas were retarded but if they were retarded
> they wouldnt have stayed very large.
Think disease and internal conflict prior to Spanish arrival.
(Disease -small pox - spread faster than the people.)
Hubbard C. Goodrich
Alex
> empire. I might say the incas were retarded but if they were retarded
> they wouldnt have stayed very large.
The incase were not retarded but there were factors which helped
Pizzaro. The country had been ruled by an usurper who hardly was
liked (he murdered a big portion of the ruling class) so there was
a 5th column among the "Incas" (ruling class).
Then, the subdued tribes (not "incas") did not have any
reason to fight against the Spaniards who would make them free from their
masters. There, of course, was a "personal" factor: Pizarro captured
Ataualpa and, as many other tyrants, he proved to be a coward: capitulated
without putting any resistance. Incas' Empire being a totalitarian state,
loss of the head of the state completely disorganized the whole system:
it took years to organize an armed opposition. Some secondary issues:
initially, Pizarro changed little in the existing social structure. The
incas remained a privileged class, the local tribal leaders remained on
their places, etc. So, for the most people, it was one tyrant replacing
another. Why would they care?
The firearms and diseases as a decisive factor are overrated. The Spaniards
had even greater advantage against some "wild" Indian tribes and could not
completely subdue them even in XVIII century.
Unknown
<spammers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday 17 January 2004 22:37, Neville Lindsay (nev...@bigpond.net.au)
>held forth in soc.history
>(<dcnOb.16832$Wa.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
>the Spaniards and their endless Iniquisitions ? Which they got from endless
>war with their endless thumping of their version of the Bible (like the sun
>going around the earth) ? And you call them 'advanced' ? Grow up.
Actually, I think both are true.
The Spanish were ruthless and brutal.
But, so where the Aztecs.
Neville is right that the Spanish had no difficulty in finding allies
in the indians that were being preyed upon by the Aztecs for
sacrificial victims.
It's difficult for me to get worked up over the demise of a culture
who sacrificed thousands of people to their gods in order to make it
rain.
On the other hand it's difficult to find a defense for the Spanish who
went around forcibly imposing their ideas on everyone who they could
bully into submission.
In my book they were both rather on the contemptible side.
Lamarr Edwards
Rather than being "peaceful", they were a very warlike culture, steeped
in perpetual citystate conflict.
Their religion gave the Spanish a distinct advantage. The Aztecs
believed that prophesied light complexioned, bearded gods, wearing suits
of light, were to arrive, at about the time the Spaniards arrived.
After giving the Spaniards a welcome worthy of gods, and believing they
were, the Spanish technology and tactics plus the misconception of the
Aztecs, carried the day. LE
Lamarr Edwards
intelectually advanced than the Spanish".
Well, how do you prove that statement ?
No new world civilization had the ability to navigate around the world,
or build a ship to do so.
No new world civilization had any weapons close to firearms.
Please tell me of the wheeled vehicles the new world civilizations had.
How about printing presses ?
I think your "undeniable " statement is easy to deny.
It all depends upon how you define " "intellectually advanced"
To me, the term encompasses many, many factors, religion, culture,
agriculture, technology, medicine, science, engineering, etc., etc.
In the final analysis, the Inca and Aztec cultures, as a result of their
brutal religion, based upon the daily sacrifice of many many people, and
the need for those thousands upon thousands to sacrifice, had an
internally destructive trait. Is that intellectually superior ? LE
SuperOutland
> Pizzaro. The country had been ruled by an usurper who hardly was
> liked (he murdered a big portion of the ruling class) so there was
> a 5th column among the "Incas" (ruling class).
> Then, the subdued tribes (not "incas") did not have any
> reason to fight against the Spaniards who would make them free from their
> masters. There, of course, was a "personal" factor: Pizarro captured
> Ataualpa and, as many other tyrants, he proved to be a coward: capitulated
> without putting any resistance. Incas' Empire being a totalitarian state,
> loss of the head of the state completely disorganized the whole system:
> it took years to organize an armed opposition.
Maybe, but how did he actually conquer them? He killed atahualpa, i
dont know the scenario of him capturing cuzco and finding a puppet
emporer, and that it took the spanish 30 years to completely subdue
the inca, but to fail to organize a revolt against a small band of
explorors is pretty pathetic.
Some secondary issues:
> initially, Pizarro changed little in the existing social structure. The
> incas remained a privileged class, the local tribal leaders remained on
> their places, etc. So, for the most people, it was one tyrant replacing
> another. Why would they care?
> The firearms and diseases as a decisive factor are overrated. The Spaniards
> had even greater advantage against some "wild" Indian tribes and could not
> completely subdue them even in XVIII century.
I dont know aobut disease, but I agree that firearms were not a
significantfactor. I dont consider it a factor at all because
firearms at the time(at least hand held ones) were a quantity weapon;
not a quality weapon. So if anything firearms make the conquest even
more stupifying.
SilentOtto
<spammers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday 21 January 2004 11:47, SilentOtto <> () held forth in
>soc.history (<keat00hftljpfevmk...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Actually, I think both are true.
>>
>> The Spanish were ruthless and brutal.
>>
>> But, so where the Aztecs.
>>
>> Neville is right that the Spanish had no difficulty in finding allies
>> in the indians that were being preyed upon by the Aztecs for
>> sacrificial victims.
>>
>> It's difficult for me to get worked up over the demise of a culture
>> who sacrificed thousands of people to their gods in order to make it
>> rain.
>>
>> On the other hand it's difficult to find a defense for the Spanish who
>> went around forcibly imposing their ideas on everyone who they could
>> bully into submission.
>>
>> In my book they were both rather on the contemptible side.
>
>Agree totally. However, it is undeniable that the civilizations of the New
>World were intellectually more advanced than the Spaniards.
I don't know about that.
How do you count people who sacrifice victims to their gods by cutting
out their still beating hearts and then tossing the rest of the body
down the stairs of their temple for the rest of the people to
cannibalize as intellectually more advanced?
While the Aztecs understood mathematics at this time, so did the
Spanish. Else they wouldn't have been able to build the ships that
they did and reliably sail them out into the endless tracts of the
deep ocean, get to where they wanted to go and get back again.
>And a case might also be made that the Incas were more peaceful than the
>Spaniards - just compare the areas either invaded.
Likely. While I'm not that well versed on the subject, I don't recall
hearing much about the Inca being particularly violent.
Alex
> > The incase were not retarded but there were factors which helped
> > Pizzaro. The country had been ruled by an usurper who hardly was
> > liked (he murdered a big portion of the ruling class) so there was
> > a 5th column among the "Incas" (ruling class).
> > Then, the subdued tribes (not "incas") did not have any
> > reason to fight against the Spaniards who would make them free from their
> > masters. There, of course, was a "personal" factor: Pizarro captured
> > Ataualpa and, as many other tyrants, he proved to be a coward: capitulated
> > without putting any resistance. Incas' Empire being a totalitarian state,
> > loss of the head of the state completely disorganized the whole system:
> > it took years to organize an armed opposition.
>
> Maybe, but how did he actually conquer them? He killed atahualpa, i
> dont know the scenario of him capturing cuzco and finding a puppet
> emporer,
This is not how it happened. By the time of Pizarro's appearence, Ataualpa
overthrew and kept hostage a legitimate Emperor. Ataualpa himself, being
a bastard, did not have any right to the throne, he was simply a successful
military leader. After capturing Huaskar (sp), he stared a methodic
extermination of all people with a greater right to the throne, which means
a big part of the incas (the ruling class), including women and children
(created one of the first death camps in a human history). As you understand,
he could not expect to be supported by a ruling class and there was an
unsolved issue of his own legitimacy with Huaskar still being alive. The
subdued tribes (not incas) did not have any reason to have sympathy to any
Inca. Which means that his supporting base was his army and the people
who, by one reason or another followed him. No real legality besides a
brutal force. Cortez captured him during their meeting (which was probably
a dirty trick) and this made situation very interesting: who would led
a resistance? Ataualpa ordered his followers to coroborate with the Spaniards
and for the rest of those who mattered Pizzaro was a savior against a
cruel usurper. Ataualpa took care of not having any serious alternative
leader and he even ordered to kill Huaskar (a legitimate, not "puppet"
Emperor). BTW, Pizarro did not "kill" Ataualpa. He was put on trial for
Huaskar's murder, proven guilty (OK, there is always an issue of a quality
of the court) and executed as a Spanish noble (garroted, IIRC).
At this point, almost everybody was reasonably happy.
> and that it took the spanish 30 years to completely subdue
> the inca, but to fail to organize a revolt against a small band of
> explorors is pretty pathetic.
An obvious question is why would they revolt? The ruling class (incas)
were free from the fear of Ataualpa's executioners and accomodated rather
nicely. Their noble status of "Inca" was recognized (as being a little
bit below the Spanish nobility) and their position in a society was intact
for quite a while. Children of the marriages of the Spaniards and Inca
women got status of the Spanish nobles (as Inca Garsilasio de la Vega).
The subdued tribes changed one boss to another and I doubt that the
Spaniards managed to organized the same level of exploitation as Incas.
Anyway, the local casics also remained a privileged class and kept most
of their power. They still were a force in XVIII during the upraising of
Tupak Amaru II. The very fact that there was too few Spaniards helped the
things: being so few, they changed very little until much more of them
came. Only when things started noticeably changing, the rebellion took
place (I suspect that the quarrels among the Spanish leaders also helped
the things).
One small episode may be interesting in the context of your question.
IIRC, it was described by Garsilasio de la Vega. During the customarily
parade of the subdued tribes (preserved by the Spaniards) one of the tribes
had been carrying a mocking effigy of the (already executed) Ataualpa.
The Incas who had the seats of honor side by side with the Spaniards jumped
from their places, took hold of the tribe's leader and started doing to him
exactly the same thing that Pratchett's Librarian was doing to the people
who called him a monkey: turned him upside down and kicked his
head on the ground until the Spaniards interfered. It was not a business
of the lesser people to mock an authority however bad this authority was.
The same Incas disliked memory of Ataualpa so much that nobody wanted to
talk to his children.
One more thing to keep in mind. Empire of the Incas was a totalitarian
state with a well-developed social hierarchy. In the states of this type
population tends to be rather indifferent to the changes on the top.
Look at the change of the leaders in the former SU. Did anybody care?
>
>
> Some secondary issues:
> > initially, Pizarro changed little in the existing social structure. The
> > incas remained a privileged class, the local tribal leaders remained on
> > their places, etc. So, for the most people, it was one tyrant replacing
> > another. Why would they care?
> > The firearms and diseases as a decisive factor are overrated. The Spaniards
> > had even greater advantage against some "wild" Indian tribes and could not
> > completely subdue them even in XVIII century.
>
>
>
> I dont know aobut disease, but I agree that firearms were not a
> significantfactor. I dont consider it a factor at all because
> firearms at the time(at least hand held ones) were a quantity weapon;
> not a quality weapon. So if anything firearms make the conquest even
> more stupifying.
Based on the Diaz' report about conquest of Mexico, a big part of the
long-range weapons were the crossbows, not the firearms. Two factors he
mentions time and again were the steel swords and the horses. Of course,
in the case of Pizarro, there was practically no fighting on the 1st stage
of a conquest.
SilentOtto
<spammers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday 22 January 2004 04:59, SilentOtto () held forth in soc.history
>(<fn7v00hi6cmq6bo97...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:50:24 -0500, Madhusudan Singh
>> <spammers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>Agree totally. However, it is undeniable that the civilizations of the New
>>>World were intellectually more advanced than the Spaniards.
>>
>> I don't know about that.
>>
>> How do you count people who sacrifice victims to their gods by cutting
>> out their still beating hearts and then tossing the rest of the body
>> down the stairs of their temple for the rest of the people to
>> cannibalize as intellectually more advanced?
>>
>
>When I compare them with people who torture their captives through some of
>the worst torture devices (drowning, iron maiden, etc.) ever invented to
>force them to recant their own beliefs and burn people at the stake in
>public, especially targetting women, I see little difference.
Well, I certainly wasn't trying to write a defense of Spanish conduct.
Like I said earlier, I see little difference between the two and
wouldn't assign either to a superior position over the other.
>Human life was cheap in those days, and various people reflected that.
>However, I find something extra vile and rotten about using a book to
>justify the cold well-defined sadistic methods of torture and public
>slaughter of people who choose to think for themselves.
There is little difference between that and the Aztecs slaughtering
people in the name of their god, which is exactly what they were
doing.
Were I forced to choose to end up in the hands of one group or the
other, I'd choose the Spanish.
At least there one had a chance of "converting" or otherwise weaseling
out of getting killed.
Not so the Aztecs. The only thing they were interested in was blood
to feed their god.
>YMMV.
>
>> While the Aztecs understood mathematics at this time, so did the
>> Spanish. Else they wouldn't have been able to build the ships that
>> they did and reliably sail them out into the endless tracts of the
>> deep ocean, get to where they wanted to go and get back again.
>
>The difference is that the early American civilization did not learn
>mathematics and astronomy from anyone. The Spaniards received their
>"knowledge" of mathematics and astronomy from the Arabs who in turn got it
>from the Indians.
Unless one subscribes to the theory that different groups of people
are superior to one another, I think one will find that people, by and
large, discover what they need to discover as a pressing need for that
knowledge arises.
This is almost always the case unless there is a crisis that doesn't
permit time to figure out what they need to know.
People make much of how the Aztecs didn't use the wheel, but they knew
of it's existence. Likely their lifestyle didn't require it's use in
a great way. On the other hand, their particular religious beliefs
encouraged a certain knowledge of mathematics, so they figured them
out.
The lifestyle and religion of the Spanish didn't really require a
knowledge of mathematics until one was trying to figure out how to get
ones ship from point A to point B across an endless tract of sea so
they could cash in on the spice trade.
Then knowledge of mathematics suddenly becomes of paramount
importance, and if the Spanish hadn't been able to borrow knowledge of
mathematics from the muslims, I've little doubt would have worked it
out for themselves.
They certainly worked out enough other problems associated with
reliably getting their ships around the world, like advanced hull
designs and how to put them together so they didn't fall apart in the
sorts of storms they were likely to encounter.
>Since some references to integral calculus appear in
>ancient Indian texts, the only original contribution made to mathematics by
>Europeans until the end of the dark ages appears to me to be the invention
>of logarithms. But that was not done by a Spaniard.
The only thing that says to me is that at the time Europeans were
dealing with problems that mathematics weren't particularly useful in
solving.
As European society became more technologically advanced and began
undertakings in which they found mathematics to be useful, they got
about the business of figuring them out in a big hurry and were quite
successful at it.
>I would rate creativity as the highest indicator of intellect.
Intellect, and thus creativity, is an individual attribute, not a
group attribute.
Groups can encourage or stifle intellectual curiosity, but that rather
depends on what a particular group finds useful for their collective
survival.
God only knows how many times some particularly bright individual
worked out a means of discerning something through mathematics, but as
the group didn't have any problems in which such knowledge was useful
in resolving, the knowledge died with the discoverer.
However, take that same groups and confront them with a problem in
which the same knowledge of mathematics is useful in solving,
suddenly such knowledge is important and thus isn't lost.
>Lets put it this way - the Spaniards invented the Iniquisition and were one
>of the inventors of the various torture devices. The American civilizations
>invented their own method of mathematics and astronomy.
I can only reference what I wrote before.
For example, when the Europeans got sick of their calendar getting out
of sink with the seasons every so many years, it lead to the people
like Copernicus and Kepler to figuring out how the solar system
actually works.
Discoveries on gravity had their roots in trying to figure out where
to point ones cannon to make a cannon ball go where it was wanted.
What's the old phrase? Necessity is the mother of invention.
>>>And a case might also be made that the Incas were more peaceful than the
>>>Spaniards - just compare the areas either invaded.
>>
>> Likely. While I'm not that well versed on the subject, I don't recall
>> hearing much about the Inca being particularly violent.
>
>Most likely not. While the Spaniards laid waste to the entire New world
>practically, invaded Britain, etc. in name of religion. The greed and
>rapaciousness of the two just cannot be placed in the same class.
The Spanish were playing in an entirely different environment where
successfully playing the game of power politics was extremely
important to their survival.
Population densities were much higher and there were a lot more people
around waiting to take advantage of weakness.
Land meant power, just as it does now, and power means strength.
Given that, it's hardly surprising that they had a rather rapacious
attitude toward those who were weaker than themselves.
I don't know about the Inca, except to note that they were known as an
empire and empires don't usually come about voluntarily.
I do know that the Aztecs certainly weren't especially charitable to
tribes that were weaker than themselves. Those tribes were their main
source of sacrificial victims.
SilentOtto
<spammers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday 22 January 2004 13:21, SilentOtto () held forth in soc.history
>(<vi101016e1egjifbf...@4ax.com>):
>
>
>>>
>>>When I compare them with people who torture their captives through some of
>>>the worst torture devices (drowning, iron maiden, etc.) ever invented to
>>>force them to recant their own beliefs and burn people at the stake in
>>>public, especially targetting women, I see little difference.
>>
>> Well, I certainly wasn't trying to write a defense of Spanish conduct.
>>
>> Like I said earlier, I see little difference between the two and
>> wouldn't assign either to a superior position over the other.
>
>I don't, per se. But as I stated in my initial post, the acquisitiveness and
>violence of the Spaniards was at a scale different from the American
>civilizations.
Mostly because they were larger groups to begin with and thus had more
muscle to throw around.
>Furthermore, there is the little matter of the invasion. The Spaniards, by
>invading lands that belonged to another placed themselves in a morally
>inferior position from the first instant.
I'll give you that point.
>Had the Aztecs invaded Spain, it would have been the other way round.
>
>>
>>>Human life was cheap in those days, and various people reflected that.
>>>However, I find something extra vile and rotten about using a book to
>>>justify the cold well-defined sadistic methods of torture and public
>>>slaughter of people who choose to think for themselves.
>>
>> There is little difference between that and the Aztecs slaughtering
>> people in the name of their god, which is exactly what they were
>> doing.
>>
>> Were I forced to choose to end up in the hands of one group or the
>> other, I'd choose the Spanish.
>>
>> At least there one had a chance of "converting" or otherwise weaseling
>> out of getting killed.
>>
>> Not so the Aztecs. The only thing they were interested in was blood
>> to feed their god.
>
>I do not agree (its a matter of opinion). I find something extra heinous
>about a system that forces you to change your beliefs in order to survive.
>At least the victims of the Aztecs died a physical death, the victims of
>the Spaniards died a spiritual and mental death before the uncertain
>prospect of survival could present itself.
Yea.
That's a value judgement.
>And it is not that all the converted Americans were spared by the Spaniards.
>I recently saw a documentary on PBS that detailed an account of a band of
>newly converted Americans that strayed into Mexico and were slaughtered by
>the Spaniards.
At that point was it still the Spaniards who were running the show?
There wasn't exactly any love loss between N. American Indians and
the Indians who were in Mexico.
>>>The difference is that the early American civilization did not learn
>>>mathematics and astronomy from anyone. The Spaniards received their
>>>"knowledge" of mathematics and astronomy from the Arabs who in turn got it
>>>from the Indians.
>>
>> Unless one subscribes to the theory that different groups of people
>> are superior to one another, I think one will find that people, by and
>> large, discover what they need to discover as a pressing need for that
>> knowledge arises.
>
>They do, but the creativity of people flourishes only a system that
>recognizes and rewards it. In so doing, that system (inevitably associated
>for a certain period of time with a certain body of people) becomes
>superior.
Rewards are based on need.
>Take the case of present day US. Despite the large scale erosion of civil
>liberties, it remains the most creative environment in which new ideas may
>be presented and developed. In that sense, it is superior to most other
>countries in the world today.
True.
However, again, that is in line with the goals of our society. We
reward new ideas because we realize that new ideas frequently lead to
new profits.
Societies reward or discourage such innovation based on their goals
and their goals are determined by their needs, perceived or actual.
>> This is almost always the case unless there is a crisis that doesn't
>> permit time to figure out what they need to know.
>>
>> People make much of how the Aztecs didn't use the wheel, but they knew
>> of it's existence. Likely their lifestyle didn't require it's use in
>> a great way. On the other hand, their particular religious beliefs
>> encouraged a certain knowledge of mathematics, so they figured them
>> out.
>
>As long as they found an effective method of transportation (considering the
>mountainous and heavily forested lands that they ruled over), I do not
>think that use or no use of the wheel is pertinent.
Nor do I.
>> The lifestyle and religion of the Spanish didn't really require a
>> knowledge of mathematics until one was trying to figure out how to get
>> ones ship from point A to point B across an endless tract of sea so
>> they could cash in on the spice trade.
>>
>> Then knowledge of mathematics suddenly becomes of paramount
>> importance, and if the Spanish hadn't been able to borrow knowledge of
>> mathematics from the muslims, I've little doubt would have worked it
>> out for themselves.
>
>But how many years would it have taken ? 20, 30, 500 ?
To answer this I'll reference the competition for Queen Anne's Prize,
which was offered in 1714 and was a Ł20,000 award to the first person
who discovered a reliable means of determining longitude at sea.
By 1759 two reliable means of making such a determination had been
discovered, one based on a mechanical clock developed by John Harrison
and the other based on selenographics developed by the Greenwich
observatory.
Certainly not the speed at which were accustomed to technological
change and discoveries, but not out of line with the rate of discovery
at the time.
> It took the Indians
>about 1000 years to develop the most complicated system of mathematics and
>the number system (that is incorrectly called the "Arabic" numeral system).
>Most of those concepts today form the basis of modern mathematics, and
>hence modern science (whether they are acknowledged or not is a different
>matter).
>
>Think about it. How much different would the picture of the world have been
>if India or China had industrialized themselves 200 years before they did ?
>Its like a butterfly effect, and the process of creative work is
>necessarily an incremental and slow one.
I think, to a point anyway, how slow or how fast progress is achieved
is directly related to the urgency that answers to certain questions
are needed.
The more something is needed, the more resources are put into the
problem and the faster a solution comes.
Personally, I don't consider the amount of elapsed time between the
discovery of mathematics and the Apollo project to be all that long
when placed in the context of total human history.
As a side note, that's one of the things I find absurd about the
arguments put forward by racists, who point to different states of
development between different peoples as evidence of superiority.
In the context of the entire history of Homo Sapiens, as of now some
160,000 years, the difference in technological advancement between the
most advanced people on earth and the most primitive shrinks to
statistical insignificance.
>>
>> They certainly worked out enough other problems associated with
>> reliably getting their ships around the world, like advanced hull
>> designs and how to put them together so they didn't fall apart in the
>> sorts of storms they were likely to encounter.
>
>The Vikings had a lead there, but let us not get into that.
They did at one point, but ok... Let's not go there.
>>
>>>Since some references to integral calculus appear in
>>>ancient Indian texts, the only original contribution made to mathematics
>>>by Europeans until the end of the dark ages appears to me to be the
>>>invention of logarithms. But that was not done by a Spaniard.
>>
>> The only thing that says to me is that at the time Europeans were
>> dealing with problems that mathematics weren't particularly useful in
>> solving.
>>
>> As European society became more technologically advanced and began
>> undertakings in which they found mathematics to be useful, they got
>> about the business of figuring them out in a big hurry and were quite
>> successful at it.
>>
>
>However, that glosses over the fact that these technological advancements
>would not have occured if they did not have the basic tools.
To take that chain of reasoning to it's logical extreme, we probably
have to thank the guy who figured out how to tame fire for everything.
Nobody knows who that was.
But more to the point, even if the basic tool were initially lacking,
I've little doubt that the Spanish could have developed them just as
the Indians did had the necessity presented itself.
>To give you a
>more modern (and less radical) example, consider the mass exodus of German
>scientists into the US and the UK (to a lesser extent) due to Hitler's
>madness ? Do you think that the US would have been able to send astronauts
>to the moon had Germans not suddenly gifted the cream of their science (the
>most advanced at the time) to the US ? Werner von Braun designed the
>rockets which took people to the moon.
Absolutely.
Von Braun's work speeded the process a bit, but we had all the
necessary components to develop such technology.
The only thing that was lacking was a pressing need to do so.
The Soviets provided that.
>Remove Hitler and what do you have ? The language of science of mathematics
>remains German as it was. Germans send a man to the moon sometime in mid
>1950's, while a certain large but technologically and scientifically
>deficient country called USA is trying to get the basics of rocketry
>correct.
We already had the basics correct.
Von Braun himself said that Robert Goddard, who is considered the
father of modern rocketry, was ahead of everyone.
He was accomplishing in the late 20's and early 30's what Von Braun
didn't accomplish until the early 40's.
It's almost ironic that Von Braun and Goddard reached similar
solutions to the problems associated with rocketry, even though their
work was completely independent.
Historically, Goddard's work wasn't given much priority because nobody
saw any practical applications for it.
Had the situation been different and the need more pressing, his work
would have been given a lot more attention and development would have
proceeded accordingly.
It would have been a 3 way space race rather than 2 way.
The biggest problem associated with getting into space for most
countries is paying for it, not the lack of ability to figure out how
to do it.
It's is a matter of having the resources to devote to expensive
experimentation, and a big part of freeing up such resources is a
pressing need to get there.
>Remember the UN would have never come into being if Hitler had not
>started the war, so the only way of exchange of ideas and peoples would
>have been of the slow conference to conference variety.
Had Hitler not started the war, much of the technological development
that occurred during the period would have been slower because there
wouldn't have been the same pressing need for such development to take
place.
It's comparatively rare that a single individual makes a profound
contribution to science that others aren't close to duplicating.
Off hand, I can't really think of anyone who we can say with certainty
provided a totally unique contribution to science.
Even when it comes to basic mathematics, each generation contains some
people who are heads above everyone else. If the guy who discovered
counting hadn't done so, there is little doubt someone else would
have.
The same is no doubt true of the rest of mathematics.
In Eurasia, India included, there is an unbroken chain of knowledge
about such things that goes back... I don't know how far.
While individuals may not have known how to make complicated
calculations, the cultural knowledge that the possibility existed to
do so has been wide spread for a long time.
This makes it easy to say, for example, that all Spanish knowledge of
mathematics was borrowed, and as far as it goes that's true.
But that isn't evidence that the Spanish were incapable of working
things out for themselves in the absence of knowledge of advanced
mathematics.
How many times have we studied ancient cultures and been surprised to
learn that they had discovered the same things we have?
When a need arises, people start working on the problem and the more
pressing the need the more people who work on it.
Take Einstein's theories for example. He put it all togethers first,
but there were others who were working toward similar explanations for
observed data.
If Einstein hadn't gotten it, I'm certain someone else would have.
The same goes for just about everything else. The Wrights were only
marginally ahead of others in figuring out how to fly. Edison barely
beat an Englishman to the light bulb. Bell only squeaked by someone
else in getting credit for the telephone.
I think that the greatest impetus for advancement is the need for a
problem to enter into the realm of the practical rather than remaining
theoretical.
Once that happens, solutions are usually found.
>>>I would rate creativity as the highest indicator of intellect.
>>
>> Intellect, and thus creativity, is an individual attribute, not a
>> group attribute.
>
>But the system that rewards and encourages the slow process of creative work
>is a group attribute.
Right, and that's based on the needs of the group.
>>
>> Groups can encourage or stifle intellectual curiosity, but that rather
>> depends on what a particular group finds useful for their collective
>> survival.
>
>Ancient Indians had little use for calculating the value of PI to 50 odd
>decimal places (or for choosing that the earth goes round the Sun and not
>the other way round). Some work (especially true in mathematics) is done
>for its pure creative value.
True.
But I think the greatest factor there is having the resources to
devote to pure research.
When Indians were developing mathematics, they were likely in a better
position than Europeans were to devote resources to such an endeavor.
Due to the spread of ideas, it became unnecessary for Europeans to
duplicate the research because someone else had already solved the
problem.
Later when Europeans got to the point that they had the resources to
spare, they weren't exactly lax about trying to discover how the world
works themselves.
>>
>> God only knows how many times some particularly bright individual
>> worked out a means of discerning something through mathematics, but as
>> the group didn't have any problems in which such knowledge was useful
>> in resolving, the knowledge died with the discoverer.
>>
>
>That is not always correct.
I think it's correct often enough for the point to stand.
>> For example, when the Europeans got sick of their calendar getting out
>> of sink with the seasons every so many years, it lead to the people
>> like Copernicus and Kepler to figuring out how the solar system
>> actually works.
>
>Hardly - they used to add extra days to make up for the difference.
Yes, until they decided that wasn't an adequate solution.
Then they fixed it properly.
>And many people like Copernicus paid for their impudence with their lives or
>very nearly so. Think where Europe might have been if you remove the
>medieval roman catholic church.
While the Church had a repressive influence, I'll point out that the
need for practical solutions to practical problems is exactly what
broke the monopoly on ideas that the Church held.
When technology reached a certain point, things could no longer be
explained within the context of Church doctrine.
People like Francis Bacon basically told the Church to go to hell, he
had a problem to solve and if the solution to that problem didn't fit
with Church doctrine, to bad for the Church.
>> Discoveries on gravity had their roots in trying to figure out where
>> to point ones cannon to make a cannon ball go where it was wanted.
>>
>
>Actually it was for calculation of planetary orbits (Kepler, Newton, etc.)
I'm going back a bit further. It was the science of ballistics that
first made it important to try and understand the nature of gravity
and it's effect on matter.
That was one of the things that prompted Galileo's early experiments
with falling bodies.
It was later that Newton successfully reconciled what had been
observed about the nature of gravity from the science of ballistics
and what had been observed about the nature of solar system by the
science of astronomy, Kepler's theories included, by developing a
theory that fit all of the observations.
The rest is history.
>> Given that, it's hardly surprising that they had a rather rapacious
>> attitude toward those who were weaker than themselves.
>
>I think that Columbus went out with a desire to find an western route to the
>then richest country in the world - India.
True.
But the Queen, who paid for the expedition, had other things in mind
for the wealth that a successful expedition of that nature would
bring.
>Hence, the unfortunate naming of native Americans as being "Indians". But in
>a way it was "good" - it saved the eastern coasts of Asia from an early
>onslaught of the relatively barbaric seafaring peoples of Andalusia. Only
>the Phillipines fell to the Spaniards eventually, but that gave the Asians
>time to preserve their civilizations, as also time to the Europeans to
>advance their civilizations to the level that such a meeting was not such a
>shock as it might have been. (Contrast that with the Arab conquest of
>Persia or the Spanish conquest of much of America).
That's hard to say.
I think it likely that the mainland peoples would have been more than
strong enough to successfully defend themselves against the sort of
power projection that the Spanish were capable of at the time.
I don't think the Chinese or the Indians would have been overawed by
guns or iron armor. Do you?
A couple of bloody noses, which is exactly what they would have gotten
had they tried to treat either of those populations as they did the
Amer-indians, might have taught the Spanish some better manners.
>> I do know that the Aztecs certainly weren't especially charitable to
>> tribes that were weaker than themselves. Those tribes were their main
>> source of sacrificial victims.
>
>There is something extra heinous about calculated savagery done in the name
>of some higher deity. YMMV.
Isn't that what the Aztec's were doing?
Stephen Graham
Madhusudan Singh <spammers-g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Furthermore, there is the little matter of the invasion. The Spaniards, by
>invading lands that belonged to another placed themselves in a morally
>inferior position from the first instant.
Given that the Aztecs were fairly recent invaders themselves (less than 200
years prior to the Spanish) and were a militarily aggressive and expansive
empire, what real difference was there?
They seem to be two equally unpleasant peoples.
--
Cybertimegoby
gods...as if by phrophesy.....and the horses were the clincher not to
mention ths startling shining steel armor of the conquistadors......its
a bit of an absurd story actually.
The reality was a bit different...both the peruvian empires and the
aztec empires were surrounded by a lot of disinfranchised tribes...many
of whom were little more than livestock waiting to be used as food in
the various sacrificial ritiuals (at least in the aztec empire) These
other tribes had different languages and customs and were ever happy to
join the smaller brigade of spanidards in attacking the very much hated
empire based in mexico city...(sorry im unfamiliar with the pizzaro
brothers story in peru)
Cortez was a tactical master in the art of warfare deceit and cunning.
Once i discovered the truth about the mass canibalism of aztec society I
started changing my mind about the horrible reputation cortez also
deserves and I think that it was more or less inevitable that the aztec
civilization was doomed. The enemies of the aztecs could not wait to
take several centuries of revenge on the aztec people. Cortez armed
them and organized them and when he came into mexico city...he
apparently made a few false promises to the people in charge. I think
having the armies of the aztec food supply surrounding mexico helped get
him into the center of things there....and he then took the center of
power and those people as hostages. the rest of the story is probably
true. Small pox then reduced most of the native population to a mass
die off for lack of immunity and those tribes foolish to make themselves
allies of cortez suffered the same fate of the die off from small pox
and other european diseases only to find the survivors become spanish
slaves. More and more spaniards arrived there after and slaves from
africa were also imported. the spanards had definate technological
superiority with muskets and such.
Im willing to bet that the real life three stooges could have over run
the aztecs in a short period of time. Aztec civilization was currupt
and immoral and very top heavy . if you go and look at the ancient
iconography you see that people dressed in the garb of serpents and
jaguars were the royals and the highest priests....these were the chief
canibals, Its interesting when you look at sacrifice in the ancient
meditaranian sea areas ..(not necessarily northern europe though) that
sacrifices of animals was part ritual and part butcher shop...no part of
most sacrificed animals was wasted. The same was going on in meso
america (not necessarsily peru)
there are some interesting things to think about here...the human
population of pre columbian meso america was perhaps higher than that of
europe at the time...mexico city had at least a million resients when
cortez arrived and that was just in the central city. prior to cortez
there were virtualy NO major domesticated animals in meso america and
one can imagine how over hunted mexico would have been with all so many
people who never developed any domestic animal cultures, save dogs.
dogs.
there were no llamas and no alpacas and no cows and no horses, no goats
, no sheep, no chickens, no pigs..
they did have deer and iguana, various water fowl fish and various
other wild creatures...but only dogs appear to be domesticated in pre
columibian times ....imagine now how you feed a non vegitarian
population of millions with out farms...hunting will quickly deplete
wild food sources in the immediate valley as it did not to mention that
the priests and royals probably gave wild animals protected status for
their own personal hunting enjoyment..a very similar hunting park thing
developed for royalty in europe at the same time...and later even became
the theadore roosevelt model for perseravation and national parks in
the usa...retention of hunting stocks...even the teddy bear is a
reference to a bear the president shot...
.the meso americans had an amazing array of developed horitcultural
food crops but no domestic animals save dogs....and their enemy
tribes....its was one ugly twisted society and cortez probably gave them
what they deserved.
So the real mystery of the aztecs is why their warrior class survived
as long as they did with so many enemies...christianity saved a few of
the aztecs from being sacrificed and eaten by neigboring tribes....that
was a great improvement....
I was recently reading that the story of abraham in the bible has a
strange little tale of abraham planning to sacrifice his son and he is
gathering fire wood for the sacrifice....this too could have been some
ancient evidence of canibalism....
GO TO HELL: http://www.hell.com
SilentOtto
<spammers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday 22 January 2004 22:13, SilentOtto () held forth in soc.history
>(<k7q010hu2v93sc856...@4ax.com>):
>
>>>I don't, per se. But as I stated in my initial post, the acquisitiveness
>>>and violence of the Spaniards was at a scale different from the American
>>>civilizations.
>>
>> Mostly because they were larger groups to begin with and thus had more
>> muscle to throw around.
>
>Was Spain more heavily populated than South America in pre-Spanish days ?
I'm not sure.
My guess is yes.
But even if they weren't, they were certainly more powerful than any
of the AmerIndian cultures.
Iron Armor and Horses are a great force multiplier.
>>>I do not agree (its a matter of opinion). I find something extra heinous
>>>about a system that forces you to change your beliefs in order to survive.
>>>At least the victims of the Aztecs died a physical death, the victims of
>>>the Spaniards died a spiritual and mental death before the uncertain
>>>prospect of survival could present itself.
>>
>> Yea.
>>
>> That's a value judgement.
>>
>>>And it is not that all the converted Americans were spared by the
>>>Spaniards. I recently saw a documentary on PBS that detailed an account of
>>>a band of newly converted Americans that strayed into Mexico and were
>>>slaughtered by the Spaniards.
>>
>> At that point was it still the Spaniards who were running the show?
>
>One might say the Mexicans, but these people were of almost the same stock
>as the Spanish royalty, with frequent contact with the Spanish govt.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but many are unaware of how little
Spanish blood the Mexicans actually have.
However, probably the most important thing is the cultural link, so
your point would still stand.
>> There wasn't exactly any love loss between N. American Indians and
>> the Indians who were in Mexico.
>>
>
>No, the people I refer to were ruling class Spanish descent Mexican
>generals.
Ok.
>>>They do, but the creativity of people flourishes only a system that
>>>recognizes and rewards it. In so doing, that system (inevitably associated
>>>for a certain period of time with a certain body of people) becomes
>>>superior.
>>
>> Rewards are based on need.
>
>That would not explain all the arts and humanities programs in US
>universities or the endowment for pure science (like QCD, string theory,
>etc.) or pure mathematics.
Pure research in the sciences is carried out because we've discovered
often enough that pure research leads to very unexpected and
profitable discoveries.
In the absence of that it's a measure of curiosity and leisure time.
All cultures possess curiosity, but not all possess leisure time.
Both must be present.
As to the arts, that is a universal human compulsion with no real
explanation.
All societies have art.
>>
>>>Take the case of present day US. Despite the large scale erosion of civil
>>>liberties, it remains the most creative environment in which new ideas may
>>>be presented and developed. In that sense, it is superior to most other
>>>countries in the world today.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> However, again, that is in line with the goals of our society. We
>> reward new ideas because we realize that new ideas frequently lead to
>> new profits.
>
>I do not see how funding liberal arts or pure science leads to any
>"profits".
Like I said above.
The arts are in a class by themselves.
Nobody knows why people feel compelled to create, but it's a universal
human trait.
>By the admission of people who work in the field of string
>theory, the work that they do is currently untestable, let alone
>exploitable.
The key there is "currently". We've been surprised often enough that
we realize that basic research has it's value, even though that value
may not be obvious.
>
>>
>> Societies reward or discourage such innovation based on their goals
>> and their goals are determined by their needs, perceived or actual.
>
>And I guess you will grant that pure academic endeavour is a form of
>perceived need :)
Yes. I will.
>>>But how many years would it have taken ? 20, 30, 500 ?
>>
>> To answer this I'll reference the competition for Queen Anne's Prize,
>> which was offered in 1714 and was a Ł20,000 award to the first person
>> who discovered a reliable means of determining longitude at sea.
>>
>> By 1759 two reliable means of making such a determination had been
>> discovered, one based on a mechanical clock developed by John Harrison
>> and the other based on selenographics developed by the Greenwich
>> observatory.
>>
>
>However, you ignore that the people who accomplished the above did not have
>to :
>
>1. Invent a suitable number system.
>2. Invent trigonometry or spherical trigonometry.
I'm not ignoring it.
I'm suggesting that those disciplines would likely been worked out by
the English once the need for them arose had they not been able to
borrow them from someone else.
>etc.
>
>Its easy to overlook the basic premises on which their work was based.
>
>>> It took the Indians
>>>about 1000 years to develop the most complicated system of mathematics and
>>>the number system (that is incorrectly called the "Arabic" numeral
>>>system). Most of those concepts today form the basis of modern
>>>mathematics, and hence modern science (whether they are acknowledged or
>>>not is a different matter).
>>>
>>>Think about it. How much different would the picture of the world have
>>>been if India or China had industrialized themselves 200 years before they
>>>did ? Its like a butterfly effect, and the process of creative work is
>>>necessarily an incremental and slow one.
>>
>> I think, to a point anyway, how slow or how fast progress is achieved
>> is directly related to the urgency that answers to certain questions
>> are needed.
>>
>> The more something is needed, the more resources are put into the
>> problem and the faster a solution comes.
>
>To the first order that is correct, but the pace of technological progress
>is itself proportional to the progress already made, as your example above
>implicitly implied.
>
>> As a side note, that's one of the things I find absurd about the
>> arguments put forward by racists, who point to different states of
>> development between different peoples as evidence of superiority.
>
>That is bunk. IMO such opinions are based on an innate tendency to filter
>out all the contributions made by other groups of people. Such stupidity is
>impossible if one really knows what came from where.
>
>I will not be surprised if the unwitting German contribution to modern US
>technological advancement is glossed over 50 years from now.
>
>>
>> In the context of the entire history of Homo Sapiens, as of now some
>> 160,000 years, the difference in technological advancement between the
>> most advanced people on earth and the most primitive shrinks to
>> statistical insignificance.
>>
>
>I do not think so. There are parts of Africa where you could find people
>living pretty much the same way as Stone Age humans lived.
That's rather my point.
My German ancestors were living much the same way 3000 years ago.
So, what's the difference between then and now? 2 percent?
Even taken to the extreme of the really ancient cultures, you're still
only talking about 5 percent or there about.
That's like saying that one child is superior to another because one
learned to read 5 years of age and the other at 5 years and 2 months.
I don't think many conclusion can be drawn from that.
>>>However, that glosses over the fact that these technological advancements
>>>would not have occured if they did not have the basic tools.
>>
>> To take that chain of reasoning to it's logical extreme, we probably
>> have to thank the guy who figured out how to tame fire for everything.
>
>No. One could possibly not credit that man or woman for inventing the number
>system. But to take anything other than a syncretic view of technological
>advancement is illogical, IMO.
I think it's clear that number systems were invented many times over
by a host of different peoples.
I agree with the syncretic view of technological development, but
there is likely a lot of synchronicity going on to.
>So, yes, it was an extreme all right, but not very logical :)
The point I was making is that everything is built on what comes
before, but that is no reason for us to believe that because one
person invented something first, that others would not have made the
discovery independently.
It's difficult to discern however, because once something really
useful has been discovered, it's rarely lost.
>>
>> Nobody knows who that was.
>>
>> But more to the point, even if the basic tool were initially lacking,
>> I've little doubt that the Spanish could have developed them just as
>> the Indians did had the necessity presented itself.
>
>It would have taken the Spaniards at least 500 years to go from the
>invention of the number system, trigonometry (another Indian contribution)
>to the invention of the method of calculating longtitudes.
>
>That would put the date of that invention at about 1900 AD. History would
>have been very very different.
>
>That is assuming that the Indians did not kick out the Islamic invaders and
>start on a global expansionist colonial system themselves :)
Why do you suppose it would have taken them 500 years to work it out?
We don't know precisely what the Indians were up to when they made
their discoveries.
For all we know a couple of bright guys worked it out over a weekend
of drinking beer because they had some pressing, but obscure, need for
doing to.
>>
>>>To give you a
>>>more modern (and less radical) example, consider the mass exodus of German
>>>scientists into the US and the UK (to a lesser extent) due to Hitler's
>>>madness ? Do you think that the US would have been able to send astronauts
>>>to the moon had Germans not suddenly gifted the cream of their science
>>>(the most advanced at the time) to the US ? Werner von Braun designed the
>>>rockets which took people to the moon.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> Von Braun's work speeded the process a bit, but we had all the
>> necessary components to develop such technology.
>>
>> The only thing that was lacking was a pressing need to do so.
>>
>> The Soviets provided that.
>
>Agreed. The space program was a vanity race between the US and the USSR. To
>see the effect of lack of competetion, look at the decrepit state of NASA
>today. No vision, just humdrum, unexciting work.
Agreed.
>>
>>>Remove Hitler and what do you have ? The language of science of
>>>mathematics remains German as it was. Germans send a man to the moon
>>>sometime in mid 1950's, while a certain large but technologically and
>>>scientifically deficient country called USA is trying to get the basics of
>>>rocketry correct.
>>
>> We already had the basics correct.
>>
>> Von Braun himself said that Robert Goddard, who is considered the
>> father of modern rocketry, was ahead of everyone.
>
>The nuclear weapons program (which the US initiated) would have been
>impossible without the help of the German refugees.
Not impossible.
More difficult.
>>
>> He was accomplishing in the late 20's and early 30's what Von Braun
>> didn't accomplish until the early 40's.
>>
>> It's almost ironic that Von Braun and Goddard reached similar
>> solutions to the problems associated with rocketry, even though their
>> work was completely independent.
>>
>> Historically, Goddard's work wasn't given much priority because nobody
>> saw any practical applications for it.
>
>Correct, but what is the use of a rocket if you cannot put a warhead at the
>end of it ? By firing a missile without a warhead, you might kill a dog or
>two (heard of the most unlucky dog in history - 1833 meteor shower ?), but
>not much more.
Well, I guess the people to ask about that would be the British, who
were on the receiving end of a lot of V-1's and V-2's.
I don't think they cared for them much.
Warheads don't have to be nuclear to be effective.
It's true that Germany didn't really have the scale of production to
use them effectively.
But, we did.
>>
>> It would have been a 3 way space race rather than 2 way.
>
>Even if we grant that (and I doubt that scenario very much), I will suggest
>the following timeline :
>
>No world war is fought initially because of a saner Hitler, who wants to be
>extra strong before starting a possible war.
>
>1941 - Germany detonates the first nuclear weapon. Japan attacks the US.
Sorry... No way...
Not unless Germany starts keeping it's theoretical physics secret
around the turn of the century or so, and in that case a lot of other
people are going to be looking for some answers on their own.
I've no reason to believe they wouldn't have worked things out.
Further, scientists or not, Germany had no where near the economy to
produce a nuclear weapon in that time frame.
One of the reasons that Hitler launched the war when he did was
because Germany was approaching bankruptcy and he needed what was in
Poland's treasure to pay for the war machine that he already had.
There is no way Germany could have kept such a project secret in
peacetime because it would have been a monumental drain on their
national resources.
In the meantime, the west would have gotten wind of the project and
dumped everything at our disposal into it.
Building the A-bomb was more an exercise in engineering than anything
else and we had plenty of capable engineers.
>1942 - Peenemunde is the site of the development of the first IRBM.
>1944 - Europe (as in the real timeline) splits into two camps - the
>appeasers (led by the Brits) and the opposers (led by the USSR). France,
>convinced that its territory would become the battlefield, signs a
>no-aggression pact with Hitler. In return for peace, it gives up its north
>African colonies to Germany. US and USSR overcome their ideological
>differences to jointly combat the Japanese empire and the emerging German
>power.
>1945 - At gunpoint, Hitler obtains Austria, Denmark, Poland, Sweden and
>Norway because no one is ready to fight him.
>1946 - The US-USSR alliance detonates its own first atomic bomb in eastern
>Russia. After a hard fight at two fronts, Japan surrenders.
>...
>
>Instead of the USSR being the target of encirclement, Germany takes its
>role. However, the primacy of German science ensures that Germans are the
>first to get to the Moon in 1955. US-USSR follow soon after in 1962.
>...
>
>We are writing in Deutsch today because it is the language in which all
>scientific work is done :)
>
>Wunderbar !
Hehe...
I don't think so Madhusudan.
>>
>> The biggest problem associated with getting into space for most
>> countries is paying for it, not the lack of ability to figure out how
>> to do it.
>
>That is true today, but you can try telling that to people who were sending
>Sputniks into space.
It was all a matter of finding the money to pay for the experiments
and engineers that solve the problems.
>
>>>Remember the UN would have never come into being if Hitler had not
>>>started the war, so the only way of exchange of ideas and peoples would
>>>have been of the slow conference to conference variety.
>>
>> Had Hitler not started the war, much of the technological development
>> that occurred during the period would have been slower because there
>> wouldn't have been the same pressing need for such development to take
>> place.
>
>Slower, perhaps, but it would have been almost completely German in nature.
>Since the Germans would have not fought anyone, no one else would have
>woken up to their threat until they were already a nuclear power.
No.
German society wasn't that closed nor could the German economy support
it being that closed.
Bright people over here and in France and England would have put two
and two together and realized what was going on.
I've no doubt about that.
>>
>> It's comparatively rare that a single individual makes a profound
>> contribution to science that others aren't close to duplicating.
>
>The early 20th century was known for many such individuals - Einstein,
>Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, etc. Barring one, all the above were
>Germans / lived close to Germany.
But in all those cases, others were working on the same problems.
They stopped when the Germans beat them to the punch.
Had they not learned of German discoveries they wouldn't have stopped
and I've no compelling reason to believe that they wouldn't have
succeeded.
The Germans weren't supermen nor were they any smarter than anyone
else.
The success they enjoyed was due to putting more emphasis on the
subject and spending more time at solving the problems.
But others were also interested in the answers and they would almost
certainly have been discovered independently.
>>
>> Off hand, I can't really think of anyone who we can say with certainty
>> provided a totally unique contribution to science.
>
>Einstein would be a necessary choice in that list.
He certainly comes to mind, but there were others who we're working on
the same problem and they had all the same building blocks he had
available.
Of course we can't know for certain, but had Einstein been prematurely
struck by a truck, it's almost inconceivable to me that someone else
wouldn't have worked it out.
Obviously that theoretical someone wouldn't be me.
>>
>> Even when it comes to basic mathematics, each generation contains some
>> people who are heads above everyone else. If the guy who discovered
>> counting hadn't done so, there is little doubt someone else would
>> have.
>>
>> The same is no doubt true of the rest of mathematics.
>
>However, the development of such concepts takes time. Its easy to talk of
>accelerating when you have the basic toolset ready.
Frequently time is a matter of the resources devoted to the problem
and resources are allocated on the basis of need.
It's not a panacea. Some things still defy solution. Especially if
there is a finite time limit to making the discovery.
>
>>
>> In Eurasia, India included, there is an unbroken chain of knowledge
>> about such things that goes back... I don't know how far.
>
>Its impossible to know, but the chain accelerates according to the length of
>the chain before it.
>
>Symbolically,
>
>dp/dt = c p
>
>where p = progress
>c = some constant
>
>=> p(t) = p0 exp(ct)
>
>p0 being another constant.
>
>> This makes it easy to say, for example, that all Spanish knowledge of
>> mathematics was borrowed, and as far as it goes that's true.
>>
>> But that isn't evidence that the Spanish were incapable of working
>> things out for themselves in the absence of knowledge of advanced
>> mathematics.
>
>It is not, but it certainly constitutes proof that the history of the world
>would have been radically different had the Spaniards had to do all the
>work that people before them did.
That's true of all cultures, isn't it?
Even the Indians who developed the advanced mathematics that you speak
of were building on past achievement to some degree.
>> How many times have we studied ancient cultures and been surprised to
>> learn that they had discovered the same things we have?
>
>Too often to feel smug about the current state of affairs.
That's for sure.
>>
>> When a need arises, people start working on the problem and the more
>> pressing the need the more people who work on it.
>>
>> Take Einstein's theories for example. He put it all togethers first,
>> but there were others who were working toward similar explanations for
>> observed data.
>>
>> If Einstein hadn't gotten it, I'm certain someone else would have.
>
>Not so with the Special theory. He faced almost universal ridicule for
>proposing it, and until Sir Arthur Eddington's 1919 experiment, it was just
>that - a theory. It explained the Michelson-Morley experiment, but that was
>a post-facto issue.
It's the only theory that explained all the pieces of the puzzle.
I can't believe another wouldn't have figured out how to put those
pieces together also.
It may have taken a few years, but I've little doubt that today we
would still have special relativity, even had Einstein not been the
one to discover it.
>>
>> The same goes for just about everything else. The Wrights were only
>> marginally ahead of others in figuring out how to fly. Edison barely
>> beat an Englishman to the light bulb. Bell only squeaked by someone
>> else in getting credit for the telephone.
>
>Macaroni I think. However, you are mixing up the difference between
>discovery and invention. In discovery, the final goal is not known,
>invention is by comparison, much easier.
>
>For instance, it was easier for Indians to come up with a number system, it
>was considerably harder to invent trigonometry or discover that the ratio
>of the circumference to the diameter was a constant.
>
>
>>>Ancient Indians had little use for calculating the value of PI to 50 odd
>>>decimal places (or for choosing that the earth goes round the Sun and not
>>>the other way round). Some work (especially true in mathematics) is done
>>>for its pure creative value.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> But I think the greatest factor there is having the resources to
>> devote to pure research.
>
>True. This is one of the prime reasons why India suffered a major decline
>once political instability set in with the later Hindu kings and invasion
>of India by Muslims. The concomitant development of a hidebound version of
>caste system along with the taboo on overseas travel only served to sound
>the death knell of Indian science.
>
>Take that away, and you might have India as a superpower today.
I'll accept that.
>In a sense, it was similar to 1930's Germany, only that there was no US to
>receive the fruits of Indian intellect. So it just died out.
There is no denying that the U.S. benefited form Germany's
intellectual flight.
But I don't accept that they were irreplaceable.
>> Later when Europeans got to the point that they had the resources to
>> spare, they weren't exactly lax about trying to discover how the world
>> works themselves.
>
>You will note that Spain and England had a stable political system that
>could even encourage such development.
Yes. That is certainly a factor.
>Which is why I see neo-cons with such trepidation - barring the short term
>moral and economic cost of that approach of fighting / displeasing almost
>everybody and allowing unrestricted free trade, there are longer term
>dangers to an approach that fritters away US intellectual capital until the
>point that the US loses its necessary primacy in the world.
>
>Values like separation of the religion from the state, guarantee of civil
>liberties, a non-intrusive government etc. were values that made this
>country what it is today. These are being lost now.
I know what you mean.
Here is an example. Some years back a scientist got curious as to how
bulls can maintain an erection, considering the huge size of their
member.
So, somehow he managed to get funding and look into the matter.
When I heard about that, I could almost see some conservative
congressman on the hill, with the paperwork for the funding in his
hand, raging against the stupidity of studying how bull get hard-ons.
Yet from that guys work, I wish I could recall his name, we got
viagra, a host of new blood pressure medications and a far better
understanding of how the human body regulates it's internal systems.
Those are the fruits of basic research. One never knows what will be
discovered.
Frequently, it's nothing particularly useful, but one never knows
until one has a look.
>>>> For example, when the Europeans got sick of their calendar getting out
>>>> of sink with the seasons every so many years, it lead to the people
>>>> like Copernicus and Kepler to figuring out how the solar system
>>>> actually works.
>>>
>>>Hardly - they used to add extra days to make up for the difference.
>>
>> Yes, until they decided that wasn't an adequate solution.
>>
>> Then they fixed it properly.
>
>It had worked for 500 years, who are we to say that it would have not worked
>indefinitely ?
Well, the Europeans decided that it wouldn't.
I'm not sure exactly what lead them to that conclusion, but it was the
Catholic Church that put Copernicus to the task of figuring out a
better system.
As it happens they didn't particularly like his answer, but that's the
way it goes.
>>
>>>And many people like Copernicus paid for their impudence with their lives
>>>or very nearly so. Think where Europe might have been if you remove the
>>>medieval roman catholic church.
>>
>> While the Church had a repressive influence, I'll point out that the
>> need for practical solutions to practical problems is exactly what
>> broke the monopoly on ideas that the Church held.
>
>Correct. Northern Europe broke away from the Church. The beginning of the
>decline of Spain can also be traced to this point in time.
Yea, they were slow in getting with the program.
>>
>> When technology reached a certain point, things could no longer be
>> explained within the context of Church doctrine.
>
>That had been true for a long time.
True, but it was starting to have a real practical impact.
>>
>> People like Francis Bacon basically told the Church to go to hell, he
>> had a problem to solve and if the solution to that problem didn't fit
>> with Church doctrine, to bad for the Church.
>>
>
>No wonder, he is seen as a positive force.
Yep... Hehe
>>>> Discoveries on gravity had their roots in trying to figure out where
>>>> to point ones cannon to make a cannon ball go where it was wanted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually it was for calculation of planetary orbits (Kepler, Newton, etc.)
>>
>> I'm going back a bit further. It was the science of ballistics that
>> first made it important to try and understand the nature of gravity
>> and it's effect on matter.
>>
>> That was one of the things that prompted Galileo's early experiments
>> with falling bodies.
>
>Galileo's early experiments were mostly to demonstrate the equivalence of
>falling of two bodies with different masses.
Right.
Gunners were discovering that when they aimed their guns, the shot
didn't hit where Aristotle said it should.
They wanted to know why because shot is expensive.
>> It was later that Newton successfully reconciled what had been
>> observed about the nature of gravity from the science of ballistics
>> and what had been observed about the nature of solar system by the
>> science of astronomy, Kepler's theories included, by developing a
>> theory that fit all of the observations.
>>
>
>I do not think so. The secular equations that described the planetary motion
>had a certain form. These forms were derivable for an inverse square law.
>
>You might want to read up some book like Goldstein's Classical Mechanics.
I don't recall all the details, but I know the science of ballistics
played a big role in prompting people to actually sit down and figure
everything out.
>>>I think that Columbus went out with a desire to find an western route to
>>>the then richest country in the world - India.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> But the Queen, who paid for the expedition, had other things in mind
>> for the wealth that a successful expedition of that nature would
>> bring.
>
>Wealth, being a versatile tool of power, is often an end in itself.
Well, power is the goal.
Wealth is the means.
>>
>>>Hence, the unfortunate naming of native Americans as being "Indians". But
>>>in a way it was "good" - it saved the eastern coasts of Asia from an early
>>>onslaught of the relatively barbaric seafaring peoples of Andalusia. Only
>>>the Phillipines fell to the Spaniards eventually, but that gave the Asians
>>>time to preserve their civilizations, as also time to the Europeans to
>>>advance their civilizations to the level that such a meeting was not such
>>>a shock as it might have been. (Contrast that with the Arab conquest of
>>>Persia or the Spanish conquest of much of America).
>>
>> That's hard to say.
>>
>> I think it likely that the mainland peoples would have been more than
>> strong enough to successfully defend themselves against the sort of
>> power projection that the Spanish were capable of at the time.
>>
>> I don't think the Chinese or the Indians would have been overawed by
>> guns or iron armor. Do you?
>
>Certainly not the Chinese who had invented gunpowder, but I am not so sure
>about the coastal Indians. They were a pacifist people at that time.
You don't suppose a meeting with the Spanish might have persuaded them
that in certain instances pacifism isn't always called for?
>>
>> A couple of bloody noses, which is exactly what they would have gotten
>> had they tried to treat either of those populations as they did the
>> Amer-indians, might have taught the Spanish some better manners.
>
>Very likely, but it would have ended with a large scale disruption of the
>Indian (and Chinese / Japanese) way of life.
Perhaps you're right.
Alternate history really isn't my forte.
>>
>>>> I do know that the Aztecs certainly weren't especially charitable to
>>>> tribes that were weaker than themselves. Those tribes were their main
>>>> source of sacrificial victims.
>>>
>>>There is something extra heinous about calculated savagery done in the
>>>name of some higher deity. YMMV.
>>
>> Isn't that what the Aztec's were doing?
>
>There is a difference in capturing some POW's in occasional wars and then
>killing them in the name of religion, and GOING OUT to seek "infidels" and
>heretics in the general populace with a fine tooth comb and then
>systematically torturing them and killing them in the name of religion.
Actually, the Aztecs were fighting wars specifically to get captives
to sacrifice.
That was a big part of the booty.
>Occasional savagery vs constant savagery.
I think the Aztecs were pretty constantly savage, considering how many
sacrifices their gods demanded.
One account suggest that they killed some 10,000 people in one spree.
Ken Sisby
Germs and Steel" . I forget the authors name but he won a Pulitzer prize.
Ken
"SuperOutland" <supero...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e91ad9af.04011...@posting.google.com...
SuperOutland
> Go read <i>Guns, Germs and Steel</i>.
I did. It provided perhaps the worst explanation i've ever read
SuperOutland
> There is a wonderful book that deals with this subject. The title is "Guns,
> Germs and Steel" . I forget the authors name but he won a Pulitzer prize.
>
> Ken
I looked it over it sucks. It provides a terrible explanation of how
the conquistadors conquered. his explanation was little more than a
fancy way of saying "it was inevetable", which while probably true, is
still a pretty retarded way to find an explanation.
Its nothing more than speculatory bullshit with some wishful thinking.
I didnt read the book overall but i didnt find it particularly
exceptional on how civilizations rise, or i would have bought it.
Ken Sisby
world, there is a similar climate stretching from northern India, through
the northern parts of the Middle East, throughout the entire Mediterranean
to Spain. Throughout this entire region the same plants and animals thrive
and have supplied a stable food source, thereby allowing many great
civilizations and empires to flourish. Agricultural and technological
advances in one area could easily be adapted to others. This was impossible
in the Western Hemisphere because of the North/South orientation of the
geography.
Added to this was the adaptation of a Chinese concoction that we call
gunpowder, but that they only used for firecrackers and the like. At the
time that Marco Polo brought gunpowder back to Europe, the crossbow was in
popular use. Someone put two and two together and guns emerged.
It is a fact that most of the population of the New World died of diseases
that Europeans and their Middle Eastern predecessors had caught from the
various animals that we domesticated. Since these animals did not exist in
the New World, the native people had no immunity to such diseases. I
believe that smallpox was the biggest killer.
The idea of the book is to show that the dominance of Europeans has nothing
to do with any kind of racial superiority. Rather it is because of
geography and the chance of being born in a region more supportive of
massive amounts of human beings. The author, Jared Diamond, has done
extensive field research on primitive cultures in Papua New Guinea and
various Pacific islands and is an expert in his field. If you read the book
with an open mind you will be fascinated by his thesis. He did not speak of
the inevitability of the conquest of the New World, rather he explained why
it was so easy and why it didn't happen the other way around. It's a very
scholarly work, backed up with a huge bibliography and decades of scientific
research.
Ken
"SuperOutland" <supero...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e91ad9af.04021...@posting.google.com...
SuperOutland
Duncan Craig
How did cortes know when to land? Coincidence? If that is a
coincidence then how did he know where to land, as well? Why was there
an ongoing battle for the Panuco rivermouth between Garay and Cortes?
Wake up. It was an inside job, a royal scam.