Eating steak before a chess match
Alex Dvorak
a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
energy during the later parts the game.
A couple questions/points:
1)
I always thought that since it is tough meat since i always order
"well done", that it requires a lot of energy for your body to digest
it and would cause fatigue. But I guess since he has really good
opening preparation, he does not need much energy in the beginning.
Does it matter how it is cooked (rare, medium, well) ?
2)
Doesn't steak have a lot of fat and cholesterol? If you are eating
this every other day during a tournament like Corus or Linares, aren't
you going to gain a lot of weight and cholesterol. Chess is not the
most physically sport in the world and since you are just sitting
there, your body is not burning those calories??
3)
Do you think this is a good idea? I guess it follows the ideas from
the atkins diet where you have to limit the amount of carbohydrates
you eat. That way your body justs burns fat and proteins.
I usually like eating soup and a sandwich before a match because helps
you feel better and clears your mind. But i guess it makes you sleepy
because it has carbohydrates. Perhaps eating candy bars during a
match is a bad idea and would be better idea to eat fresh fruit or
vegetables since they have fiber too and would take longer to digest
and get absorbed by your body.
thanks
Angelo DePalma
Eating a lot of carbs before a game will give you an insulin rush, then
tiredness. It's a much better idea to eat a steak than, say, cereal.
adp
"Alex Dvorak" <advo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7b6fa43.04011...@posting.google.com...
Harold Buck
In article <c7b6fa43.04011...@posting.google.com>,
advo...@yahoo.com (Alex Dvorak) wrote:
> I read in a book that Garry Kasparov usually eats a giant steak before
> a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
> energy during the later parts the game.
What book?
> 1)
> I always thought that since it is tough meat since i always order
> "well done",
Well done meat is usually tougher than medium. All the juice gets cooked
out when you do well done.
> 2)
> Doesn't steak have a lot of fat and cholesterol?
Yes, especially the more tender cuts. But eating cholesterol doesn't
raise your cholesterol as previously thought. Eating fat--particularly
saturated fat--does.
> 3)
> Do you think this is a good idea?
No.
> I guess it follows the ideas from
> the atkins diet where you have to limit the amount of carbohydrates
> you eat. That way your body justs burns fat and proteins.
The Atkins diet is a proven way to temporarily lose weight. However,
losing weight does not equal being more healthy.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
Harold Buck
> I read in a book that Garry Kasparov usually eats a giant steak before
> a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
> energy during the later parts the game.
That sounds like how football players used to eat steak before games.
They'd finish the game and the steak would still be in their stomachs.
Protein and fat are not ready energy sources. Carbohydrates are, which
is why they are the staple of the endurance athlete's diet. I did
Ironman Wisconsin in September, and I didn't see anyone eating steak in
the morning, but I did see people wolfing down sports bars, sports gels,
sports drinks, bagels, and other good sources of simple and complex
carbs.
I don't know how this applies to chess endurance, but I do know the
brain runs on glucose (a carb) and that's why endurance athletes can't
think clearly if they run out of glycogen (muscle fuel) during endurance
events.
The short answer: I can't think of any good reason to eat steak before
playing chess, other than that you wanted to eat a steak and it fit into
your diet.
Angelo DePalma
"Harold Buck" <no_one...@attbi.com> wrote :
> But eating cholesterol doesn't
> raise your cholesterol as previously thought. Eating fat--particularly
> saturated fat--does.
What on earth do you think fat is? It's the glyceryl (and some other) esters
of fatty acids and cholesterol. If you eat "cholesterol" you're essentially
eating fat.
> The Atkins diet is a proven way to temporarily lose weight.
See recent studies. It is not temporary, and works better than isocaloric
"balanced" diets.
> losing weight does not equal being more healthy.
Medical researchers, and many doctors (some grudgingly), now believe that
being overweight is the #1 health risk facing humans today. More serious
than smoking, drinking, or any other vice. Short of starvation or eating
unhealthy crap like potato chips and soda, any way you can lose weight is
better than staying fat.
Angelo
michael adams
Very interesting young Dvorak. Do you know if Garrick specifies a 'cut'.
IE - for example does he prefer 'fillet' over 'T - bone', NY prime flesh
or a bbq variation thereof? - Eating red meat before an important fight
is a time honoured ritual among World champs. C. Chaplin (the famous
English born clown) for example, abjured alchohol & loved eating fillet
steak/ medium-rare - every day in his success, with attendant child
bride..
StanB
> 1)
> I always thought that since it is tough meat since i always order
> "well done", that it requires a lot of energy for your body to digest
> it and would cause fatigue. But I guess since he has really good
> opening preparation, he does not need much energy in the beginning.
> Does it matter how it is cooked (rare, medium, well) ?
Nope. Just tear off it's horns, wipe it's ass, and throw it on the plate.
> 2)
> Doesn't steak have a lot of fat and cholesterol? If you are eating
> this every other day during a tournament like Corus or Linares, aren't
> you going to gain a lot of weight and cholesterol. Chess is not the
> most physically sport in the world and since you are just sitting
> there, your body is not burning those calories??
A fat ass helps you stay balanced on the chair.
StanB
Jud McCranie
>I read in a book that Garry Kasparov usually eats a giant steak before
>a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
>energy during the later parts the game.
My chess teacher would not eat or eat very lightly at a tournament.
His reason is that it takes blood away from the brain to digest food.
Myself, I eat normally because I can't play if I'm hungry.
-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.
Jerzy
news:38g900d26ouhmte6d...@4ax.com...
> >I read in a book that Garry Kasparov usually eats a giant steak before
> >a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
> >energy during the later parts the game.
>
> My chess teacher would not eat or eat very lightly at a tournament.
> His reason is that it takes blood away from the brain to digest food.
> Myself, I eat normally because I can't play if I'm hungry.
Chess tournament is a diet itself. Chessplayers can lose on weight over 10
kg after such events ;-)
So Kasparov is apparently afraid of losing the kilos and energy as well.
The other problem is eating during the game. Last year during my last OTB
game in Prague my opponent surprised me not only by an original novelty in
the opening but by eating his breakfast during the game as well. I needed a
victory badly but I was unable to play. I don`t know which of these two
things disturbed me more. Probably eating ;-) After the game my opponent
excused for his misbehaviour and turned out to be after all a nice young
man. He even invited me to a chess tournament in Karlovy Vary where he was
an organizer. However it didn`t change the result : the fifth consecutive
draw in the tournament ;-)
Regards,
Jerzy
Bob Musicant
> I read in a book that Garry Kasparov usually eats a giant steak before
> a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
> energy during the later parts the game.
<snip>
Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
designate as 1000 A.D.
http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
Bob Musicant
Flobby Bischer
worst smelling flatuence possible. Opponents love it.
Jerzy
news:yocNb.1248$c1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I recommend eating lots of beens, beer, and other things that will cause
the
> worst smelling flatuence possible. Opponents love it.
That`s right Flobby, opponents will especially love huge amount of beer in
your body during the game ;-)
Regards,
Jerzy
Alex Dvorak
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/linares2001/r08lin.html
Go to the 4th or 5th paragraph that starts "All very entertaining
stuff. But some of the recent food scares..." It says that Kasparov
ate steak before games but now eats chicken due to Mad Cow disease
back in 2001.
Harold Buck <no_one...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<no_one_knows-9604...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
Alex Dvorak
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/linares2001/r08lin.html
Go to the 4th or 5th paragraph that starts "All very entertaining
stuff. But some of the recent food scares..." It says that Kasparov
ate steak before games but now eats chicken due to Mad Cow disease
back in 2001.
"Bob Musicant" <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<WU9Nb.31293$G04.6...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
Alex Dvorak
This talks about Kasparov eating raw steak before a game:
Harold Buck
"Jerzy" <jci...@poczta.fm> wrote:
> "Jud McCranie" wrote in message
> news:38g900d26ouhmte6d...@4ax.com...
>
> > >I read in a book that Garry Kasparov usually eats a giant steak before
> > >a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
> > >energy during the later parts the game.
> >
> > My chess teacher would not eat or eat very lightly at a tournament.
> > His reason is that it takes blood away from the brain to digest food.
> > Myself, I eat normally because I can't play if I'm hungry.
>
> Chess tournament is a diet itself. Chessplayers can lose on weight over 10
> kg after such events ;-)
I've heard of losing on time, but never losing on weight.
David Richerby
> This talks about Kasparov eating raw steak before a game:
It's really only necessary to post things once, you know.
Dave.
(Of course, I'm just asking for the kind of software error that causes
this to be posted twice.)
--
David Richerby Enormous Hungry Wine (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a vintage Beaujolais but it'll eat
you and it's huge!
Jerzy
> I've heard of losing on time, but never losing on weight.
>
Seems like you are a language purist ;-)
Anyway, thanks for correcting me.
Regards,
Jerzy
Harold Buck
"Jerzy" <jci...@poczta.fm> wrote:
I only did it because I thought it was funny in this case; I normally
don't bother correcting grammar on Usenet unless there's humor value.
Jerzy
>
>
> I only did it because I thought it was funny in this case; I normally
> don't bother correcting grammar on Usenet unless there's humor value.
It was my straightforward translation of Polish expression "stracic na
wadze". For me it`s funny to say "lose weight" = "stracic wage" if you know
what I mean ;-)
As a matter of fact after having played in chess tournament in Prague I put
on my weight ;-)
Pls correct me if I made a mistake ;-)
Regards,
Jerzy
Nick
message news:<Gwz*yI...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
> Alex Dvorak <advo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This talks about Kasparov eating raw steak before a game:
>
> It's really only necessary to post things once, you know.
Dear Mr Richerby:
I know that, but the unpredictable gods at Google don't always know that.
> (Of course, I'm just asking for the kind of software error that causes
> this to be posted twice.)
Quite so, or not posted at all (as has happened to my attempted posts).
--Nick
Sam Sloan
<musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
>New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
>designate as 1000 A.D.
>http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
>
>Bob Musicant
This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
Sam Sloan
Harold Buck
nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk (Nick) wrote:
Yeah, but it averages out to everything being posted once.
Liam Too
They should outlaw eating beans before the game. FIDE should put beans
in their list of drugs.
Lance Smith
Nick
message news:<40058f1b...@ca.news.verio.net>...
> "Bob Musicant" <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> > Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
> > New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
> > designate as 1000 A.D.
> > http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
>
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
When supposedly "there was a jump from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300",
what happened to everyone outside of Europe? Did they also have a jump,
or did they have to wait until it was their turn again? :-)
Sam Sloan could begin by reading some scholarly books about European history
(A.D. 300 - 1300). Most scholars should lack the time, energy, and inclination
to respond to such a ludicrous Eurocentric 'millennium denial' hypothesis.
--Nick
Nick
> In article <bu32fj$d01$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> "Jerzy" <jci...@poczta.fm> wrote:
> > Chess tournament is a diet itself. Chessplayers can lose on weight
> > over 10 kg after such events ;-)
>
> I've heard of losing on time, but never losing on weight.
In weightlifting competitions, if two athletes end up having lifted equal
totals of weights, then the lighter athlete is placed ahead of the heavier one.
--Nick
C Pfromm?r
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
> <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
>>New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
>>designate as 1000 A.D.
>>http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
>>
>>Bob Musicant
>
> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
We could spend two seconds on the thought, in which areas Garry Kasparov
is an expert (hint: former chess champion) and in which areas he is layman.
Christoph
Nick
news:<WU9Nb.31293$G04.6...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> news:c7b6fa43.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > I read in a book that Garry Kasparov usually eats a giant steak before
> > a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
> > energy during the later parts the game.
>
Dear Mr. Musicant:
Yes, but there's an interesting story about preparing for an important
competition by eating steak.
As I recall, about ten years ago an international marathon race (offering
first prizes--separately for the men and the women runners--of USD 50000
and a new car) was held in Europe. For the women's race, the media interest
focussed on the 'mysterious' Chinese women runners who were coached by
Ma Junren (a controversial figure even in China). Amidst many colourful
rumours of exotic training diets and the alleged use of banned drugs, some of
these Chinese women had recently shattered world records in distance running.
On the evening before the race, many of the world-class marathon runners
were in the same local restaurant, attempting to load up on carbohydrates.
Then the Chinese women runners walked in and sat down. Everyone else turned
his or her attention to what those runners (whose successes had been attributed
by the media to their exotic training diets) would order. Much to nearly
everyone's surprise, the Chinese women runners ordered large steaks!
Immediately, several other world-class marathon runners disregarded their
own carefully made preparations, cancelled their orders, and demanded that
they be served *exactly* what the Chinese women runners had ordered.
The women's marathon was won by Wang Junxia (who later became an Olympic
champion in the 5000 metres race), and the other Chinese runners did well.
Could the orders of steak have been an athletic psychological gambit? :-)
By the way, during his 1971 match with Tigran Petrosian, Bobby Fischer
extolled the quality of Argentina's steaks.
--Nick
Julian Richards
>When supposedly "there was a jump from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300",
>what happened to everyone outside of Europe? Did they also have a jump,
>or did they have to wait until it was their turn again? :-)
>
>Sam Sloan could begin by reading some scholarly books about European history
>(A.D. 300 - 1300). Most scholars should lack the time, energy, and inclination
>to respond to such a ludicrous Eurocentric 'millennium denial' hypothesis.
This missing 1000 years is one hell of a millenium, even in Europe.
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
Bob Musicant
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6655d472.04011...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
Interesting story. I immediately wondered whether the Chinese team went
back to their hotel rooms, gagged up the steak, and had a hearty meal of
rice and steamed vegetables. Now THAT would be a gambit.
Valente Silva
I live and I was born in Portugal, a country whose "funding fathers" dates
from XI and XII century. The country was funded legally in 1143 in a well
preserved document. In Portugal any kid with 7 or 8 years learn in school
dates like 1128 - 1143 - 1179 etc. There are millions of books written about
the period 300-1300 and millions of written documents exist in Europe, old
buildings, artifacts. etc. Near any small town or village in Europe have
written documents and material vestiges from the period 300-1300.
I have a better theory, chess Grand Masters era ended in 1972 after Fisher
retired from chess, after that all off them are computer robots.
Mark J
One example is Islam, which was developed in the 7th Century. There
are records of Islamic history (including European Islamic conquests
beginning in the 10th or 11th Century) that cover the supposedly
missing years from that point on. New Chronology is BS.
Mark
Dick Wisan
>
>This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
>Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
>know little did not exist at all.
Well, plenty of people in SHM will tell you there was no such thing
as Dark Ages.
> In other words, there was a jump
>from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
but, not for that reason.
>
>While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
>prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
>thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
Impossible. How could it be wrong? There was no such thing as a
thousand-year period in anybody's history were basically nothing
happened. On the other hand, if there were, why would anybody
assign numbers like 300-1300 to it? If there were such a period,
it would be very very dark, much too dark to be numbered.
Is that how the reasoning goes?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Bob Musicant
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:40058f1b...@ca.news.verio.net...
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> happened. <snip>
Don't tell that to the Christians. It was early in the 300s that Emperor
Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.
Other notable non-events during this period include:
The fall of the Western Roman Empire, 476
The Persian and Byzantine empires went to war, 539
Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina, 622 (Year 1 in the Islamic calendar)
Arabs conquered Jerusalem, 637 (following their conquest of Syria, Persia,
and Egypt)
Arabs began their takeover of North Africa, 670
Arabs conquered Spain, 711
Charles ("the Hammer") Martel halted the westward advance of the Arabs at
the Battle of Tours, 732
Reign of Charlemagne 771-814
Danish attacks on Britain, 800s
By and large, the 900s were indeed kind of slow, with the most notable
development, from a Eurocentric point of view, being the beginning of the
Christian re-conquest of Spain.
Of course, things picked up again in the 1000s, what with William conquering
England in 1066, and Pope Urban II's call for a crusade to take the Holy
Land from the Moslems, 1095, and the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in
1099.
Need we continue? And of course this says nothing about what was going on
in the great eastern centers of civilization, India, China, and Japan.
You and Garry should stick to chess.
Bob
nowonmai
Uh..The Wandering of the Nations? The Norman Conquest? The
crusades???
Does Kasparov actually believe this crap? He's not playing chess, he
believes in crackpot notions (they can't even be called theories).
Shades of another former champion (shudder)...
Sam Sloan
>In a message dated 1/14/04 2:59:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>
>
>>
>>
>> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
>> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
>> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
>> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>>
>> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
>> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
>> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>> happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>>
>
>
>ECJ
They have a big article on Carbon-14 dating. See
http://www.new-tradition.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm#
Essentially, they say that Carbon-14 dating was calibrated using
objects of "known age". If it turns out that those objects are really
a thousand years younger than previously believed, that causes the
re-calibration of everything else to the dates they suggest.
I am not advocating their theory. I am simply stating that there is no
evidence that I know of that disproves it. For example, they state
that the pyramids of Egypt were built in 800 to 900 AD. I agree that
this seems ridiculous. However, the pyramids are still a mystery.
Nobody has been able to prove how they were built.
Lonnie Kwartler (who teaches high school history and has obviously
encountered this theory before) correctly points out that this is a
Russian theory. Garry Kasparov did not invent it. The developers of
this theory were Nicolai A. Morozov and Anatoly T. Fomenko. Kwartler
says that the Russians figure that since they have no knowledge of
their own history (having been overrun by the Mongol Hordes) that
nobody else does either.
I have a personal obsorvation about this. I have been researching my
own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?
Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
wrong.
Sam Sloan
Jerzy
> > Could the orders of steak have been an athletic psychological gambit?
:-)
>
> <snip>
>
> Interesting story. I immediately wondered whether the Chinese team went
> back to their hotel rooms, gagged up the steak, and had a hearty meal of
> rice and steamed vegetables. Now THAT would be a gambit.
>
AFAIR the secret of successes of Chinese runners was then "turtle`s soup"
and other `specialities` of Chinese cuisine, at least they claimed so ;-)
Regards,
Jerzy
Jerzy
news:37a58e25.04011...@posting.google.com...
> They should outlaw eating beans before the game. FIDE should put beans
> in their list of drugs.
>
I don`t know Liam but I suppose such a claim could have many supporters here
;-)
Regards,
Jerzy
Bob Musicant
> At 07:49 PM 1/14/2004 EST, chess...@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/14/04 2:59:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >sl...@ishipress.com writes:
I have a personal obsorvation about this. I have been researching my
own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?
> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
> wrong.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam,
Well, yes, royalty probably did keep better records than commoners. On the
other hand, there is a very detailed record of England's inhabitants during
the reign of William the Conqueror: "The Domesday book was commissioned in
December 1085 by William the Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. The
first draft was completed in August 1086 and contained records for 13,418
settlements in the English counties south of the rivers Ribble and Tees (the
border with Scotland at the time)." http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/
What do you mean by "proof"? I cannot prove to you that the American Civil
War occurred. All I know is a lot of people have written a lot of books
about this possibly mythical event, and that the U.S. government has
designated a lot of locations around the eastern half of the country as
battlefield sites.
Bob
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>
> <snip>
>
> Interesting story. I immediately wondered whether
> the Chinese team went back to their hotel rooms,
> gagged up the steak, and had a hearty meal of
> rice and steamed vegetables. Now THAT would be
> a gambit.
Portuguese runners, including the 1984 LA Olympic gold
medalist in marathon, Carlos Lopes, were fond
of eating large steaks on a daily basis, also
before the race.
It is all individual, plus whatever your digestive
system has adjusted too.
Regards,
Wlod
PS. I used to compete in weekend road races in
1983 and 1984. When you are around amateur runners
(they don't even have to participate in the road
races) then you learn all about the anatomy, about
what can go wrong (answer: everything), about health
problems... Even chess players are not as sickly as
joggers. That's judging from the conversations alone.
They were also quite preoccupied with their diet (not me :-),
while one of the better among us had a distinct belly
(not too bad), and proclaimed that his goal is pleasure,
that's why he was running. Since food was pleasure to him
too he was not about to make any food concessions for the
sake of running.
Sam Sloan
<musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
>> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
>> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
>> wrong.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>Sam,
>
>Well, yes, royalty probably did keep better records than commoners. On the
>other hand, there is a very detailed record of England's inhabitants during
>the reign of William the Conqueror: "The Domesday book was commissioned in
>December 1085 by William the Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. The
>first draft was completed in August 1086 and contained records for 13,418
>settlements in the English counties south of the rivers Ribble and Tees (the
>border with Scotland at the time)." http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/
>
>What do you mean by "proof"? I cannot prove to you that the American Civil
>War occurred. All I know is a lot of people have written a lot of books
>about this possibly mythical event, and that the U.S. government has
>designated a lot of locations around the eastern half of the country as
>battlefield sites.
>
>Bob
Of course, I know that the American Civil War took place because when
I was a boy growing up in the South there were people still alive who
had been alive during the war and would talk about it as though it had
happened last week.
Similarly, when I was researching my book "The Slave Children of
Thomas Jefferson" I read over a thousand letters hand-written by
Thomas Jefferson himself on the original paper and ink used by Thomas
Jefferson.
However, going back to the Doomesday Book, it is my understanding (and
I could be wrong) that there are no surviving examples of the book or
even surviving pages of the book. How do we know today, more than 900
years later, what the book really contained?
Another question: Is it not noteworthy that all the surviving ancient
books that we can read today were written in Latin? Why not in
English, German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language. Their theory
is that all the great books, including the Bible, the works of Plato,
Homer and so on were all written by Italians in the 14th, 15th and
16th Centuries. I agree that this seems like a crack-pot theory, but
what is the proof that this is wrong?
As an example, the following question will often appear on a high
school history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me
your ears?"
The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
But we know of course that Marc Anthony did not really say that. This
is pure fiction, written by William Shakespeare. However, the fiction
written by Shakespeare has been accepted as historical fact in the
minds of many if not most. How can we be entirely sure that similarly
the Bible for example was not an original fictional work created by a
13th century Italian author?
By the way, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that raises
another question, because those in possession of the scrolls have to
date refused to reveal their contents. What do they have to hide?
Sam Sloan
W Johnson
> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong.
>
the Domesday book?
Will
Sam Sloan
>Sam, what about the Greek Thales measuring the height of the pyramids by
>using shadows. That occurred over 2000 years ago.
>
>Yours, Larry
The answer to this question is at their website
http://www.new-tradition.org
"Serious scientific facts have been collected in this book which prove
that as early as the 12th century A.D, all of Eurasia was pagan, and
human sacrifice and slavery prospered in Europe.
We shall cite a multitude of evidence which testifies that all
"ancient" manuscripts are literary works of the 15th and 16th
centuries and that there never was in reality an "ancient" Rome and
Greece as modern historical science teaches us.
We have collected the conclusions of dozens of scholars from various
countries, who say irrefutably that the most ancient monument of
mankind, the pyramids of Egypt, were constructed in the period between
the 10th and 13th centuries A.D., that is as recently as 800 - 900
years ago."
Please understand again that I am not advocating this. I am just
reporting that Garry Kasparov believes this.
Sam Sloan
nowonmai
The American civil war never happened. I am Curly Howard of the Three
Stooges reincarnate. There is an invisible magic elf on my shoulder.
Prove that I'm wrong.
Liam Too
Yep, especially to the ones who had a bad experience on a farting opponent. <bg>
Regards, Lance
Renia
>
> However, going back to the Doomesday Book, it is my understanding (and
> I could be wrong) that there are no surviving examples of the book or
> even surviving pages of the book. How do we know today, more than 900
> years later, what the book really contained?
Domesday Book does survive and is in the Public Record Office in London.
I'm surprised you don't know that.
Facsimile copies with translations published by Phillimore are available
plus hosts of other translations.
Renia
marshall kirk
as tho' I were trying to withhold information) why there aren't any
records of, say, births, marriages, and deaths for an early period in
a given area, was usually some version of this: why SHOULD there be
records? What motivation, precisely, did people have in (say)
15th-century England, or much later on the American frontier, to write
down on a piece of paper the fact that a child had been born, along
with name, date, and place? People don't do much, especially as a
general practice, without some compelling reason. From the point of
view of the Church, there was great theological motivation to
*baptize* a child -- the putative salvation of its immortal soul (also
putative) -- but markedly less motivation to write down the mere fact
that this had been done, unless and until circumstances arose in which
it became important (again, probably for reasons connected with the
application of canon law to situations in need of adjudication)) to
prove, by appeal to written record, that the ceremony had been
performed. (And even then, I can see no good reason to keep such
records long after the deaths of all the baptizees recorded, unless
such evidence was needed for determination of consanguinity among
their descendants.) IIRC, the order for the uniform recording of
English baptisms in uniform parochial registers, beginning in, I
think, 1538 or so, emanated from the court of Henry VIII, not the
Church as such (tho' the difference may be a bit moot), and *his*
motivation here was probably at least in part related to the need to
pin down the demographics relevant to realistic possibilities for
taxation, the Tudors being awfully interested in money. (Ditto for
censuses.) Why, indeed, should farmers in colonial New England have
taken hours off from their hard and pressing rural work to make a trek
to the town clerk, just to have him write down in a book the fact that
they'd sired yet another child -- especially when (a) they may have
had to pay for the 'service,' and (b) they'd often already had the kid
baptized, anyway? What was 'in it' for them? We've got so used,
today, to having to fill out a form every time we use the john that
it's become second nature, and it doesn't seem to occur to people to
realize that the real question is not why paper records are in short
supply for early periods, but why there are even so many of them.
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<40058f1b...@ca.news.verio.net>...
Renia
> My reply to library patrons who'd ask me (often a little accusingly,
> as tho' I were trying to withhold information) why there aren't any
> records of, say, births, marriages, and deaths for an early period in
> a given area, was usually some version of this: why SHOULD there be
> records?
In England, it became compusory to keep Parish Registers from 1538.
Prior to this, it was up to the individual incumbent but not all priests
immediately complied with this. Many of the early registers, however,
have been lost, for a variety of reasons. Missing ones still turn up in
the stranges of places, usually in private hands.
The priests were also supposed to send copies of the registers to the
Bishop, known as Bishops' Transcripts, but the survival of these is much
more spasmodic and the information in them can vary from what appears in
the PRs. The bulk of the material in the IGI comes from printed BTs.
Prior to this, any such records were for inheritance or breeding
purposes and if lucky, the researcher might find such material hidden in
the family papers of the aristocracy.
You do mention some of this in your wordy and paragraph-free monologue,
the rest of which I have snipped.
Renia
Erik Toussaint
> Another question: Is it not noteworthy that all the surviving ancient
> books that we can read today were written in Latin?
Not really, I think. During those so called 'dark ages' most europeans
were illiterate. Those ancient texts were preserved in the libraries of
monasteries (sp?). They were copied by christian (catholic) monks, who
used Latin as their formal language.
But apart from that, I don't think there are only Latin texts. Some
others like Greek, Hebrew and the likes must have remained, although I'm
not 100% sure of that.
> Why not in
> English,
Beowulf, the oldest known text in (Old) English, dates from before the
tenth century, if I'm to believe this website:
http://www.enotes.com/beowulf/
> German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language.
There also exist ancient Chinese texts.
> Their theory
> is that all the great books, including the Bible, the works of Plato,
> Homer and so on were all written by Italians in the 14th, 15th and
> 16th Centuries. I agree that this seems like a crack-pot theory, but
> what is the proof that this is wrong?
What would you accept as proof?
But I don't think you should ask for proof that this theory is wrong,
instead ask for proof that this theory is valid. That is how a
scientific way of researching history is supposed to work.
> As an example, the following question will often appear on a high
> school history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me
> your ears?"
>
> The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
>
> But we know of course that Marc Anthony did not really say that.
We can be pretty sure that he didn't say it like this, in English. I'm
not sure if we can know if he never said this in Latin, unless a
complete and reliable transcription of all the speeches he ever gave exists.
> This
> is pure fiction, written by William Shakespeare. However, the fiction
> written by Shakespeare has been accepted as historical fact in the
> minds of many if not most.
This is a problem of education of the masses, not a real problem of
scientific historic research.
> How can we be entirely sure that similarly
> the Bible for example was not an original fictional work created by a
> 13th century Italian author?
This depends upon your faith in the currently used methods of dating
ancient texts. I believe that recently texts have been found which date
back to the first century AD, which contain parts of Bible texts.
> By the way, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that raises
> another question, because those in possession of the scrolls have to
> date refused to reveal their contents. What do they have to hide?
Weren't there rumours that they contained 'shocking' facts about the
origin of christianity, whatever that may mean?
Erik.
Liam Too
>> I have a personal obsorvation about this. I have been researching
my
> own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
> all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
> back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
> not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
> 1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
> of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
> impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
> example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
> we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?<<
There's something about the 16th century that makes people doubt about
the events taking place. This is the same reason why a lot of people
and scholars have debated the real authorship of the Works of William
Shakespeare. Non-believers of the Bard from Stratford said that he is
illiterate, how can he have written the canon of Shakespeare. True,
the Kings School in Stratford that Shakespeare purportedly went to
school to, do not have a record of all the pupils in that school in
the 16th century. This has become the basis of the proponents of the
Marlovians, Baconians, Oxfordians, etc., that William Shakespeare of
Stratford did not write the Shakespearean canon.
>
>
> What do you mean by "proof"? I cannot prove to you that the American Civil
> War occurred. All I know is a lot of people have written a lot of books
> about this possibly mythical event, and that the U.S. government has
> designated a lot of locations around the eastern half of the country as
> battlefield sites. Bob<<
The books of Qumran that was unearthed decades ago serve as the
authenticator of the Bible. The books of historians who were there
during the American Civil War said it all. If Sam Sloan will not
accept these proofs, then I don't know what kind of proof will he
accept.
Lance Smith
John Lamont
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
> <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
> >New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
> >designate as 1000 A.D.
> >http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> >
> >Bob Musicant
>
> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>
> Sam Sloan
In fact it is thought among many historians that the "dark" ages
really weren't quite as dark as we are usually led to believe, just
that the traditional institutions of society were mainly run by the
Catholic church, which had it's own views on things, and since it
controlled pretty much all of Europe nobody saw any real reason to
change. Europe was forced to advance though, Spiritually,
Scientifically, and otherwise due mainly to rise of Protestantism and
the threat, whether real of perceived, of the Ottoman Empire and other
Muslim encroachment into Europe.
In the aftermath of the Roman Empire, I suppose you could view
the Middle ages as a move away from citizen governments to a more
spiritually bound type of system. It doesn't mean the people
themselves were any more pious, just that they were willing to let
their lives be directed by their Fuedal Lords, who in turn were held
in check (theoretically) by the church.
In a sense the Dark Ages were really more a period of stagnation
where society naturally "regressed" from the "golden" era of Rome and
Greece as widespread empires dissolved but in terms of proletariat
rights and other modern ideas of a "cultured" society I wouldn't say
peasants were any better or worse off than any other time in history
before say 1700-1800 AD.
John Lamont
> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
> wrong.
>
> Sam Sloan
There are many Churchs and Christian religious objects that can be
proved date-wise to come from before 1000 AD even without
carbon-dating. The Dead Sea Scolls for example, which are obviously
related to the bible, show signs of metal fatigue on the copper that
could not occur naturally in only 500 or so years.
Simon Pugh
<sl...@ishipress.com> writes
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
><musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
>>New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
>>designate as 1000 A.D.
>>http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
>>
>>Bob Musicant
>
>This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
>Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
>know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
>from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
>While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
>prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
>thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>
>Sam Sloan
>
Isn't this blown out of the water by the eclipses, both solar and lunar,
that are recorded during the period that supposedly doesn't exit. A
quick play with Starry Night and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle should
convince anyone.
--
Simon Pugh
Remove X for email
Doug McDonald
>
>
> Need we continue? And of course this says nothing about what was going on
> in the great eastern centers of civilization, India, China, and Japan.
>
And even more telling, since it is quite sure that there was no
conspiracy, the civilization in Guatemala and Mexico, though this
poops out well before 1300.
You simply can't get rid of those 1000 years without
screwing up the eclipse tables. Everybody's eclipse
tables agree, by the way.
Doug McDonald
wth...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu
> At 07:49 PM 1/14/2004 EST, chess...@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/14/04 2:59:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >sl...@ishipress.com writes:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> >> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> >> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> >> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
> >>
> >> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> >> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> >> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> >> happened.
Your instincts were correct. No such period existed.
Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
> >>
> >> Sam Sloan
> >>
> >
> >Um...Carbon-14 dating?
> >
> >ECJ
>
> They have a big article on Carbon-14 dating.
That is certainly not a "big article". Just a few
incorrect claims.
See
> http://www.new-tradition.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm#
>
> Essentially, they say that Carbon-14 dating was calibrated using
> objects of "known age".
In the first place it is not necessary to calibrate
C-14. Uncalibrated C-14 dates are approximate, but
reliable enough to refute the missing one thousand
year theory. Not to mention dating old kingdom
Egyptian works to 900 AD.
In the second place C-14 can be and is calibrated against
tree ring records, which themselves can be dated by simple
counting with an error rate of about 2% (due to missing
rings, mostly).
Hundreds of large volcanos erupted in this interval, leaving
detectable ash on the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
These can also be dated (and C-14 has absolutely nothing to
do with this) and compared with historical and other
records. Again, no thousand year gap.
Finally, objects can be dated by other means (thermoluminescence
dating, fission track dating, even amino-acid dating) and these,
oddly enough, also fail to show a 1000 year gap
If it turns out that those objects are really
> a thousand years younger than previously believed, that causes the
> re-calibration of everything else to the dates they suggest.
No. There is a huge difference in C-14 activity between
objects dating from 300 and those from 1300. Much, much
more than differences in calibration can account for.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Bob Musicant
<snip>
> Another question: Is it not noteworthy that all the surviving ancient
> books that we can read today were written in Latin? Why not in
> English, German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language. Their theory
> is that all the great books, including the Bible, the works of Plato,
> Homer and so on were all written by Italians in the 14th, 15th and
> 16th Centuries. I agree that this seems like a crack-pot theory, but
> what is the proof that this is wrong?
>
> As an example, the following question will often appear on a high
> school history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me
> your ears?"
>
> The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
>
> But we know of course that Marc Anthony did not really say that. This
> is pure fiction, written by William Shakespeare. However, the fiction
> written by Shakespeare has been accepted as historical fact in the
> minds of many if not most. How can we be entirely sure that similarly
> the Bible for example was not an original fictional work created by a
> 13th century Italian author?
>
> By the way, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that raises
> another question, because those in possession of the scrolls have to
> date refused to reveal their contents. What do they have to hide?
>
> Sam Sloan
From the website of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem:
"The Shrine of the Book was erected in 1965 for the preservation and
exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As the fragility of the scrolls makes it
impossible to display them on a continuous basis, a system of scroll
rotation has recently been developed. After a scroll has been exhibited for
3-6 months, it is removed from its showcase and placed temporarily in a
special storeroom, where it is given a "rest" from exposure. Scrolls that
had been removed from exhibition are replaced by other authentic scroll
fragments."
http://www.imj.org.il/eng/shrine/scrollsondisplay.html
Soren Larsen
news:nRKG9UE+...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk
Or the good calibration of the C14 dates you get with wood dated
by dendrochronology.
Soren Larsen
marshall kirk
unless the poster has a multiple personality, or is addressing
multiple *points* in a previous post (which I was not), what he writes
is inevitably going to be monologue.
I don't paragraph where no paragraph is really called for --
especially in a post to a discussion forum. (Nor do I spend a great
deal of effort proofreading -- again, because it's a mere post in a
discussion forum, not a solicited article for the latest _Encyclopedia
Britannica_. My standard of editorial accuracy is more than adequate
for the immediate purpose.)
Wordy? That's a matter of opinion and taste, which we clearly don't
share. I use such words -- and such illustrations -- as seem likely
to express my position with maximum clarity. If posts here have a
characteristic fault, it's precisely that they often *aren't* "wordy"
enough for the reader to be clear as to the author's intent. Your
"snipped" version is a telling example, as it leaves what is now a
somewhat cryptic remark dangling in mid-air, *sans* illustration ...
and also pares away some of the same additional points *you* make --
some of which, you're so gracious as to admit, I do mention. (Your
own first paragraph could stand some clarification, since it's not
clear whether, by "early registers," you mean prior to or following
1538. If you do mean "prior to," as your wording suggests, the
statement that "many ... have been lost" is a whopping
understatement.)
In any event, who died and made you Editor-in-Chief?
Additional information is welcome, but pointless venom isn't. Your
last remark is snotty and hateful, like all too much of what I read
here. Fortunately, I'm no more obliged to read you in future than you
were to read me. (You weren't, you know. If you dislike what I have
to say, and the way I say it, so intensely, why do you bother reading
it?)
--mk
Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message news:<bu6ciq$m06$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>...
Simon Pugh
<soh...@tiscali.dk> writes
Or the precession of the equinoxes. :-)
Nick
message news:<bu5ibt$9ho$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...> news:PslNb.36725$G04.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...(to Nick):
> > Interesting story. I immediately wondered whether the Chinese team went
> > back to their hotel rooms, gagged up the steak, and had a hearty meal of
> > rice and steamed vegetables. Now THAT would be a gambit.
>
> AFAIR the secret of successes of Chinese runners was then "turtle`s soup"
> and other `specialities` of Chinese cuisine, at least they claimed so ;-)
Dear Jerzy,
Actually, that's what Ma Junren (their controversial coach) claimed,
perhaps because he was hoping to sell his special brand of turtle soup
(with endorsements by his famous women runners) to the general public.
Later, nearly all of his women athletes of that time, including Wang Junxia
(the greatest runner among them), decided to quit training under Ma Junren.
As I recall, several of the women denounced their former coach for his abusive
training practices and his financial exploitation of their athletic successes.
--Nick
Nick
> > While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to prove
> > it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a thousand-year
>
> Don't tell that to the Christians.
Dear Bob,
Yes, it might be prudent not to mention some historical events to them. :-)
> It was early in the 300s that Emperor Constantine made Christianity
> the religion of the Roman Empire.
>
> Other notable non-events during this period include:
> The fall of the Western Roman Empire, 476
> The Persian and Byzantine empires went to war, 539
> Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina, 622 (Year 1 in the Islamic calendar)
> Arabs conquered Jerusalem, 637 (following their conquest of Syria, Persia,
> and Egypt)
> Arabs began their takeover of North Africa, 670
> Arabs conquered Spain, 711
> Charles ("the Hammer") Martel halted the westward advance of the Arabs at
> the Battle of Tours, 732
> Reign of Charlemagne 771-814
> Danish attacks on Britain, 800s
> By and large, the 900s were indeed kind of slow, with the most notable
> development, from a Eurocentric point of view, being the beginning of the
> Christian re-conquest of Spain.
> Of course, things picked up again in the 1000s, what with William conquering
> England in 1066, and Pope Urban II's call for a crusade to take the Holy
> Land from the Moslems, 1095, and the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in 1099.
A 'Millennium denial' hypothesis seems even harder to accept than
a 'Holocaust denial' hypothesis (which also is ludicrous).
> Need we continue? And of course this says nothing about what was going on
> in the great eastern centers of civilization, India, China, and Japan.
Yes, as I already have observed, the 'Mathematics of the Past' article by
Garry Kasparov is based on an *exclusively* Eurocentric distortion of history.
> You and Garry should stick to chess.
Ah, but since when have Garry Kasparov and Sam Sloan been 'stick(ing)
to chess'? :-)
--Nick
Nick
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:45:32 GMT, "Bob Musicant" wrote to Sam Sloan:
> > (snipped)
> > What do you mean by "proof"? I cannot prove to you that the American Civil
> > War occurred. All I know is a lot of people have written a lot of books
> > about this possibly mythical event, and that the U.S. government has
> > designated a lot of locations around the eastern half of the country as
> > battlefield sites.
>
> I was a boy growing up in the South there were people still alive who
> had been alive during the war and would talk about it as though it had
> happened last week.
By his standards of 'historical evidence', however, how could Sam Sloan
*prove* that those witnesses were *not* part of a conspiracy to lie to him?
> (snipped)
> Another question: Is it not noteworthy that all the surviving ancient
> books that we can read today were written in Latin?
It's not 'noteworthy' because it's not true.
> Why not in English, German, Spanish, Chinese or any other language.
English, German, and Spanish are languages that developed after ancient times,
which, according to a conventional western European historical view, might be
said to have concluded with the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476.
Here's a link to a British Library website about the world's earliest dated
printed book, the Diamond Sutra (AD 868), which is a translation of a Sanskrit
text into Chinese:
http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/diamond.html
> Their theory is that all the great books, including the Bible, the works of
> Plato, Homer and so on were all written by Italians in the 14th, 15th and
> 16th Centuries. I agree that this seems like a crack-pot theory, but what
> is the proof that this is wrong?
Some classical Greek texts became known again to the Europeans of the
Renaissance after they had been translated from Arabic (Arab scholars had
translated them earlier from Greek) into Latin.
> As an example, the following question will often appear on a high school
> history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me your ears?"
Really? On a "high school *history* exam" as distinguished from a "high
school *English literature* exam"? What kind of United States high school
did Sam Sloan attend?
> The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
Who otherwise may be known in history as Marc *Antony*. :-)
> But we know of course that Marc Anthony did not really say that.
Of course, the historical Marc Antony did not even speak English, which did
not yet exist as a language. But the dramatic character of 'Marc Antony'
did say that in the play, 'Julius Caesar'.
> This is pure fiction, written by William Shakespeare.
Ah, evidently Sam Sloan would dispute the 'anti-Stratfordians'!
> However, the fiction written by Shakespeare has been accepted as
> historical fact in the minds of many if not most.
But not by professional scholars who have devoted their careers to
studying what they believe are 'historical facts'.
> How can we be entirely sure that similarly the Bible for example was not
> an original fictional work created by a 13th century Italian author?
> By the way, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that raises
> another question, because those in possession of the scrolls have to
> date refused to reveal their contents. What do they have to hide?
Who knows? Perhaps the secret of how to play chess perfectly? :-)
--Nick
Erik Toussaint
>>As an example, the following question will often appear on a high school
>>history exam: "Who said, Friends, Romans Countrymen, Lend me your ears?"
>
> Really? On a "high school *history* exam" as distinguished from a "high
> school *English literature* exam"? What kind of United States high school
> did Sam Sloan attend?
>
>>The answer is, of course, Marc Anthony.
>
> Who otherwise may be known in history as Marc *Antony*. :-)
Or Marcus Antonius. Why is it that some Roman names get shortened like
this in the English language? And if it happens, why doesn't it happen
consistently? Why is it Julius Caesar and not July Caesar then?
Erik.
Alex
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
> <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
> >New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
> >designate as 1000 A.D.
> >http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> >
> >Bob Musicant
>
> This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all.
With Kasparov's one and only more or less history-related reference being
Gibbon, his general knowledge of history probably could be safely
described as "nonexisting" so what he contends or not contends to, outside
chess area is of no importance. :-)
>In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
IMO is article shows nothing besides two things: (a) he is more or less
oblivious of a history in general and (b) the primitive mathematical
models do not work for forward or backward projections. Following the
same methods, Marx predicted that industrialization will result in an
explosive growth of the number of factory workers. Which did not happen.
K's speculations regarding the Roman technology do not really work: there
was no "progress" (in Kasparov's meaning) over couple thousands years of
Ancient history. Egypt had a well-developed technology and probably
something impressive can be diffed from the Ancient China as well. Still,
all these millenias did not result in a working steam engine or in Newton's
mathematics (not to mention a simple "0"). Maybe somebody added all these
millenias as well?
>
> While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> prove it wrong.
This is not a "totally c-p theory". I read a book where author, using
the same theory, "proved" that actually the Mongols did not exist at all
(no Karakorum, no conquest of China, etc.) and were, in a reality, just
the Russian princes fighting each other (and invading Western Europe
trying to help Friederich II against the Pope). Of course, author
convenienly ignored a massive archeological evidience, etc. Very convenient
method. :-)
>It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> happened.
"Nothing" means "no events worth mentioning" or "no ballistic missiles
had been developed"? :-)
> Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
CAn anybody (including Kasparov) prove that it is correct?
Alex
> Sam Sloan sl...@ishipress.com says...
> >
> >This is a very interesting and thought provoking article. Essentially,
> >Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> >know little did not exist at all.
>
> as Dark Ages.
Of course. There was "A Period of Insufficient Illumination" because
electricity was out for a while (breakage in the system due to the
destructive and, I'd say "barbaric" actions, of the overzealous
environmentalists) and everybody had to use the candles and torches.
WHen all the wires had been fixed, there was a beginning of "Enlightnment".
>
> > In other words, there was a jump
> >from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> but, not for that reason.
And for much longer: "Enlightnment" started only in mid XVIII.....
>
> >
> >While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> >prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> >thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> >happened. Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>
> Impossible. How could it be wrong? There was no such thing as a
> thousand-year period in anybody's history were basically nothing
> happened.
Nothing? It probably took a lot of effort for Austrians
to fake this old imperial crown they are exibiting...
>On the other hand, if there were, why would anybody
> assign numbers like 300-1300 to it?
The important question is "when exactly and by whom these numbers were
assigned"? It must be some sinister international plot (with Jews having
a calendar of their own, we can probably exclude a notion that this was,
as always, a Jewish plot :-) ).
To think about it, it is rather simple (except for a coordination of the
efforts). This was a plot of the tax collecting services. You just filled
a tax form for the year 301 and .... bams!.... It's year 1300 and you
owe the taxes and penalties for 1,000 years!
>If there were such a period,
> it would be very very dark, much too dark to be numbered.
Of course, this is absurd. Why exactly 1,000 years and not 900 or 1,200?
If Mongolian invasions are qualified as "nothing", there was definitely
nothing worth mentioning for another hundred years or so.
Renia
to read hugely long paragraphs. Makes the reader want to skip it.
Renia
Renia
Because of Shakespeare.
Renia
benjo maso
> Their theory is that all the great ancient historical works we have
> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
> wrong.
And I guess those 15th and 16th century Italians also wrote all the
documents from the Middle Ages. Do you realise how much there are left?
Hundreds of thousands, all written by hand. Must have been quite busy chaps,
those Italians. Quite clever as well, because those documents are not only
written in Latin (but a Latin which was developing all the time so that 13th
century Latin is quite different from classic Latin), but also in Greek,
Chinese, Japanese, Sanskrit, Arabic and from 1100 on also in French, German,
Anglo-Saxon, Spanish, Catalan, Flemish, Portuguese, etc. with all kinds of
regional differences). And what's more, those Italians not only must have
written all those documents, but also hidden a lot of them, because most of
them have been only discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries. No wonder
that 15th and 16th century Italy was in decline - economically and
politically. Instead of fighting wars or producing goods, the whole
population must have spent its time to this all compassing conspiracy.
Benjo Maso
Bob Musicant
"Nick" <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6655d472.04011...@posting.google.com...
Good point. Do you think the Wall Street Journal knows that a member of
their editorial board is such a crackpot in this realm? Would they care?
Bob
StanB
> Of course, I know that the American Civil War took place because when
> I was a boy growing up in the South there were people still alive who
> had been alive during the war and would talk about it as though it had
> happened last week.
Bullshit.
StanB
michael adams
>
> At 07:49 PM 1/14/2004 EST, chess...@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/14/04 2:59:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >sl...@ishipress.com writes:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> >> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
> >>
> >> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> >> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Um...Carbon-14 dating?
> >
> >ECJ
>
> http://www.new-tradition.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm#
>
> Essentially, they say that Carbon-14 dating was calibrated using
> a thousand years younger than previously believed, that causes the
> re-calibration of everything else to the dates they suggest.
>
> evidence that I know of that disproves it. For example, they state
> that the pyramids of Egypt were built in 800 to 900 AD. I agree that
> this seems ridiculous. However, the pyramids are still a mystery.
> Nobody has been able to prove how they were built.
>
> Lonnie Kwartler (who teaches high school history and has obviously
> encountered this theory before) correctly points out that this is a
> Russian theory. Garry Kasparov did not invent it. The developers of
> this theory were Nicolai A. Morozov and Anatoly T. Fomenko. Kwartler
> says that the Russians figure that since they have no knowledge of
> their own history (having been overrun by the Mongol Hordes) that
> nobody else does either.
>
> I have a personal obsorvation about this. I have been researching my
> own family history and genealogy. I have been able to research almost
> all branches of my family tree back to about 1600 and in some cases
> back to about 1500. However, earlier than that there is a brick wall,
> not only for me but for everybody. Nobody can go back to before about
> 1500 unless they can prove descent from Royalty or from the patriarchs
> of the Bible. Why is that? What happened in 1500 which makes it
> impossible to go back earlier than that? Did they have no paper for
> example or any way to keep records? If that is the case, then how can
> we read Caesar's Gallic Wars or Plato's Republic?
>
> today including the Bible are fiction composed by Italians in the 15th
> and 16th Century. Again, I would like to see some proof that this is
> wrong.
>
Would you?. Well let me tell you 'everybody' has a prob. comprehending
the history of the human race circa. 2000 (bc). Jewish records clearly
state for example that 4000 yrs. before the advent of Jeezus (4000bc -
in effect) the Babylon was an enclave Hebrew!..
sandirhodes
"nowonmai" wrote
>
> The American civil war never happened. I am Curly Howard of the Three
> Stooges reincarnate. There is an invisible magic elf on my shoulder.
>
> Prove that I'm wrong.
Of course, everyone knows this.
Tony Lew
> michael adams <no...@tinshed.com.au> wrote in message news:<4004A7...@tinshed.com.au>...
> > Alex Dvorak wrote:
> > >
> > > I read in a book that Garry Kasparov usually eats a giant steak before
> > > a chess match. The logic was that it would give him long lasting
> > > energy during the later parts the game.
> > >
> > > A couple questions/points:
> > >
> > > 1)
> > > I always thought that since it is tough meat since i always order
> > > "well done", that it requires a lot of energy for your body to digest
> > > it and would cause fatigue. But I guess since he has really good
> > > opening preparation, he does not need much energy in the beginning.
> > > Does it matter how it is cooked (rare, medium, well) ?
> > >
> > > 2)
> > > Doesn't steak have a lot of fat and cholesterol? If you are eating
> > > this every other day during a tournament like Corus or Linares, aren't
> > > you going to gain a lot of weight and cholesterol. Chess is not the
> > > most physically sport in the world and since you are just sitting
> > > there, your body is not burning those calories??
> > >
> > > 3)
> > > Do you think this is a good idea? I guess it follows the ideas from
> > > the atkins diet where you have to limit the amount of carbohydrates
> > > you eat. That way your body justs burns fat and proteins.
> > >
> > > I usually like eating soup and a sandwich before a match because helps
> > > you feel better and clears your mind. But i guess it makes you sleepy
> > > because it has carbohydrates. Perhaps eating candy bars during a
> > > match is a bad idea and would be better idea to eat fresh fruit or
> > > vegetables since they have fiber too and would take longer to digest
> > > and get absorbed by your body.
> > > thanks
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > Very interesting young Dvorak. Do you know if Garrick specifies a 'cut'.
> > IE - for example does he prefer 'fillet' over 'T - bone', NY prime flesh
> > or a bbq variation thereof? - Eating red meat before an important fight
> > is a time honoured ritual among World champs. C. Chaplin (the famous
> > English born clown) for example, abjured alchohol & loved eating fillet
> > steak/ medium-rare - every day in his success, with attendant child
> > bride..
>
> This talks about Kasparov eating raw steak before a game:
>
> http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/linares2001/r08lin.html
>
> Go to the 4th or 5th paragraph that starts "All very entertaining
> stuff. But some of the recent food scares..." It says that Kasparov
> ate steak before games but now eats chicken due to Mad Cow disease
> back in 2001.
No wonder his games become chicken shit lately.
Bill Brock
>
> > While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> > prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> > thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>
> Don't tell that to the Christians. It was early in the 300s that Emperor
> Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.
>
> Other notable non-events during this period include:
> The fall of the Western Roman Empire, 476
> The Persian and Byzantine empires went to war, 539
> Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina, 622 (Year 1 in the Islamic calendar)
> Arabs conquered Jerusalem, 637 (following their conquest of Syria, Persia,
> and Egypt)
> Arabs began their takeover of North Africa, 670
> Arabs conquered Spain, 711
> Charles ("the Hammer") Martel halted the westward advance of the Arabs at
> the Battle of Tours, 732
> Reign of Charlemagne 771-814
> Danish attacks on Britain, 800s
> By and large, the 900s were indeed kind of slow, with the most notable
> development, from a Eurocentric point of view, being the beginning of the
> Christian re-conquest of Spain.
> Of course, things picked up again in the 1000s, what with William conquering
> England in 1066, and Pope Urban II's call for a crusade to take the Holy
> Land from the Moslems, 1095, and the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in
> 1099.
>
> in the great eastern centers of civilization, India, China, and Japan.
>
>
Wow, think of Islamic history: from Hegira to Spanish conquest is
already fast in uncompressed time. What would that be in compressed
time, twenty minutes? Maybe some local version of post-Big Bang
inflation was at work?
Were this theory true, inshallah, the occulted Imam Mahdi might be
youngish, well under seven hundred years old. Sorta like the occulted
Aragorn of Arathorn.
Sam Sloan
Humans have been on this Earth for three million years. Humans have
almost always buried their dead, for the simple reason, as any soldier
who has experienced combat will tell you, the stench of a dead body is
so horrible that nobody can stand it. So, there are graves going back
thousands of years, long before there is any written record of the
people in those graves.
Similarly there are thousand year old buildings. The Buddhist stupas
at Bamyan, Afghanistan which were destroyed by the Taliban were
reliably dated to about 200 AD, so we know that Buddhism existed at
that time. We also know that the Great Walls of China were built.
(There are many walls, not just one, and I have been there.)
As you correctly point out, the Muslims have kept very reliable,
detailed and accurate records of their history, starting from 632 AD.
The names and dates of every great Khalif and Iman have been
preserved.
The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware
that there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose
names are not found in history books? The only way we know of the
existence of many Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a
coin dug up in the ground. This proves that there are big gaps and
errors in the generally recognized history of Rome.
Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
question is whether the great literary works from that time are really
two thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The
Bible, the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of
Plato, Aristotle and Socratese, works of Homer, and the great plays
such as Oedipus Rex and so on.
How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ? Why is it that no
physical paper and writings from 0 have survived. We have been told
that the great works were copied and recopied by Monks. Is that really
true? Do we have any evidence or proof to support this?
Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to
1500 ? Do we have any real evidence either for or against that
hypothesis?
Sam Sloan
At 04:24 PM 1/15/2004 +0100, Kaarlo Schepel wrote:
>Dear Sam,
>
>A.D. = the year of our Lord Jesus Christ. The problem with most people who
>try to cast doubt on historical facts that have been taught in Universities
>in Europe for hundreds of years, is that they are non-believers. The years
>have been counted by the Christians who lived through the Dark Ages, year
>in, year out. If you ask astronomers, they will be able tell you that the
>Star of Bethlehem (probably Saturnus, Jupiter standing in the star
>constellation of Pisces) really occurred in 7 B.C. as described in the New
>Testament.
>
>You are a non-believer (Christian) but you believe in the Quran. And in Arab
>countries history was meticulously retained too by the great Arab
>civilisation in their universities. Many of those years were obviously not
>that interesting (more in Egypt and the Middle East than in Europe), and
>almost all of those were written about by hand. I think it is better that
>you have a decent talk with a few historians, and a few theologians who have
>spent all their lives working with this kind of material. Or art historians
>who devote all their lives digging through original manuscripts. THat is if
>you have any doubt.
>
>This kind of nonsense propagated by Kasparov (and the Russian 'historians'
>quoted previously) are not that different from the nonsense by neo-nazi's
>and fervent arab-nationalist who try to 'prove' that the holocaust never
>happened.
>
>At least you do not doubt (I think) that Gutenberg invented the
>book-printing art around 1450, nor that Martin Luther existed and rebelled
>against the Pope in 1517 (I have a website about in Dutch, shortly with an
>English version). Nor that you doubt that the Renaissance occurred. What
>about all those churches of which we can prove that they were built way back
>to 900 - 1100. Here in our village, the church dates back to 1170. All those
>books printed since the 15th century, all those paintings hanging in
>art-galleries and musea. Nor that Constantinopel (Istanbul) fell to the
>Turks in 1453. All of the Greek writings (including the Greek New Testament)
>from ancient history were preserved in Istanbul, and then came to the west.
>All that music written down and going back to the 11th and 12th century.
>
>You as a Muslim should know better. The Muslim Faith has been alive and well
>since the days of Muhammad.
>Why do you give this such a wide coverage ?
>
>Well, yes, Belarus, Lithuania and the Baltic states were still pagan in the
>11th century. What does that prove ?
>When the English (British) finally decided to adopt the Gregorian Calendar
>on 02 September 1752, although Pope Gregory XIII published his bull
>abolishing the Julian calendar dating back to Julius Caesar already in
>February 1582. The argument used in the House of Commons was: we are running
>behind. And we do not want to have the same calendar as those barbarian
>Russians ! (The countrymen of Garry Kasparov retained the Julian Calendar
>until 1917 !!). The Russian Christmas is still celebrated today on 06
>January (Twelfth Night/ Epiphany).
>
>Do we need to listen to Kasparov, who is (or at least was many years -
>certainly in the Soviet years) a bit paranoid as you very well know. Why
>don't you read e.g. just the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject of
>Calendars instead of thinking of a 1000-year Conspiracy. I agree that a few
>people on this chat-site are lunatics. But - to lightly alter a coined
>phrase - why make absolutely sure that we all know you are a lunatic too, by
>giving this theory such a prominent place ?
>
>kaarlo schepel (the netherlands)
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <sl...@ishipress.com>
>Newsgroups:
>rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,soc.g
>enealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
>To: <fide-...@yahoogroups.com>; <che...@yahoogroups.com>;
><samsche...@yahoogroups.com>; <sloansc...@yahoogroups.com>;
><sl...@ishipress.com>; <schi...@best.com>; <che...@hearn.nic.surfnet.nl>;
><kis...@yk.rim.or.jp>
>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:06 PM
>Subject: [fide-chess] Re: Garry Kasparov and the missing One Thousand Years
>
>
>> At 04:10 PM 1/15/2004 +0800, Larry Parr wrote:
>> >Sam, what about the Greek Thales measuring the height of the pyramids by
>> >using shadows. That occurred over 2000 years ago.
>> >
>> >Yours, Larry
>>
>> The answer to this question is at their website
>> http://www.new-tradition.org
>>
>> "Serious scientific facts have been collected in this book which prove
>> that as early as the 12th century A.D, all of Eurasia was pagan, and
>> human sacrifice and slavery prospered in Europe.
>>
>> We shall cite a multitude of evidence which testifies that all
>> "ancient" manuscripts are literary works of the 15th and 16th
>> centuries and that there never was in reality an "ancient" Rome and
>> Greece as modern historical science teaches us.
>>
>> We have collected the conclusions of dozens of scholars from various
>> countries, who say irrefutably that the most ancient monument of
>> mankind, the pyramids of Egypt, were constructed in the period between
>> the 10th and 13th centuries A.D., that is as recently as 800 - 900
>> years ago."
>>
>> Please understand again that I am not advocating this. I am just
>> reporting that Garry Kasparov believes this.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
>
> >> Isn't this blown out of the water by the eclipses, both solar and
> >> lunar, that are recorded during the period that supposedly doesn't
> >> exit. A quick play with Starry Night and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
> >> should convince anyone.
I recently read an article stating eclipses are not a good means for
setting up a historic time frame because they are cyclic events.
> Or the precession of the equinoxes. :-)
This one is *much* better. Currently the proponents of cutting the
history off a couple hundred or a thousand years have a very hard time
explaining historical reports of astronomical one-time events, like
the occultation of Spica by the moon reported by the ancient greek
astronomer Hipparchos.
Modern retro-computations are able to confirm the Spica occultation
did happen at the time it was reported. Mathematicians of the 14th or
15th century, the time where the alleged invention of medieval history
had happened had neither the data nor the astronomical model to assume
such an occultation ever had happened nor less than ever could have
put it on the correct retro-time.
Claus-Juergen
Chris Bennett
thread to SHM, where it properly belongs. So this time I'll blast to the
listening universe and hope that people will respect the Follow-up.
In short: Claus is on the right lines, but we can do much better than this
single observation which is, after all, only known to us through the
supposedly forged literary tradition. We possess extensive and detailed
astronomical records from Babylonia in the period 300 BC to 0. They were dug
up out of the ground in the last century, and they are written in Akkadian
cuneiform, whose very existence was unknown in the 16th century. They
therefore cannot possibly have been forged by fanatical Italian conspirators
in the 16th century, even if those forgers had a miraculous knowledge of
astronomical theory and access to the buried temple of Esagila in a remote
Ottoman province. They also dovetail with similar records provided by
GrecoRoman horoscopes on Egyptian papyri for the early centuries AD.
The totality of the historical and astronomical data in these records
confirm conclusively that the Hellenistic and Roman periods belong where
they have always been placed. Therefore the following period from 300 AD to
1300 AD existed. QED.
Chris
"Claus-Jürgen Heigl" <un...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote in message
news:400811D0...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
benjo maso
(snip)
>
> Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
> question is whether the great literary works from that time are really
> two thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The
> Bible, the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of
> Plato, Aristotle and Socratese, works of Homer, and the great plays
> such as Oedipus Rex and so on.
>
> How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
> literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
> there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
> time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ?
Who told you that there was "virtually nothing" between A.D. 0 and 1500?
There is a lot (cf the books of Peter Dronke, for instance). It's true that
the first centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire most literature is
more or less religious and that there isn't much "fiction" or poetry (but
there is some). The reason is simple: for economic and social reasons there
was hardly an audience. Except the clergy almost nobody could read or write.
Most litereray works were orally transmitted (but fortunately sometimes
written down, like Beowulf ). But as soon as the towns came to new life and
courts becamse more and more important (end of the 11th century), literature
was flourishing again (to give you an idea: there have been preserved about
2500 poems in Occitan, written between 1100 and 1300).
> Why is it that no physical paper and writings from 0 have survived.
Because they were written on papyrus which can stand use for only 300 years
and can be only preserved under exceptional circonstances (in the desert for
instance).
> We have been told that the great works were copied and recopied by Monks.
Is that really true?
Yes.
> Do we have any evidence or proof to support this?
Yes. Because most of them were not written on papyries anymore, but on
parchment, a lot of those copies have survived The earliest are dating from
the 4th and 5th century. It's true that between 500 and 750 hardly any Roman
or Greek literature had been copied, but it was considered to be pagan
anyhow. Some of the earlier manuscripts were washed or rubbed off to make
room for Christian texts, but thanks to infra-red and digital enhancement
techniques it's nowadays possible to recover the erased texts - with
remarkable results.
>
> Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
> ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to
> 1500 ?
No. It's complete nonsense.
Do we have any real evidence either for
None.
or against that
> hypothesis?
An overwhelming amount.
Benjo Maso
Bob Bennett
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:38 GMT, "Bob Musicant"
> <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of so-called
> >New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the time that we
> >designate as 1000 A.D.
> >http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> >
> >Bob Musicant
>
> Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages" about which we
> know little did not exist at all. In other words, there was a jump
> from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> prove it wrong. It has always seemed strange that there was a
> thousand-year period in European history where basically nothing
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam,
You are funny. You are Mohammed Ismail Sloan, a Sunni Muslim and even
a haji. I didn't think that muslims consider 300-1300 to be "Dark" at
all, as much of the history of your religion fall into this period.
Do you think that Mohammed the Prophet is an Italian creation? I
think your fellow muslims might consider that to be heresy.
Bob Bennett
Mike Murray
wrote:
>You are funny. You are Mohammed Ismail Sloan, a Sunni Muslim and even
>a haji. I didn't think that muslims consider 300-1300 to be "Dark" at
>all, as much of the history of your religion fall into this period.
>Do you think that Mohammed the Prophet is an Italian creation? I
>think your fellow muslims might consider that to be heresy.
And then a fat watta good his chess skill will do him.
wth...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu
>
> The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware
> that there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose
> names are not found in history books?
Coins were not only issued by emperors. Pretenders
to the throne, who sometimes ruled substantial fragments
of the empire for years, issued their own coins. As
did other individuals. And non-imperial coins circulated.
The only way we know of the
> existence of many Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a
> coin dug up in the ground. This proves that there are big gaps and
> errors in the generally recognized history of Rome.
No, we have a complete chronology of the Roman Emperors.
Heck, I think we even have a complete list of the Consuls.
>
> Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
> question is whether the great literary works from that time are really
> two thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The
> Bible, the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of
> Plato, Aristotle and Socratese,
Actually we have no works by Socrates. He wrote nothing.
works of Homer, and the great plays
> such as Oedipus Rex and so on.
>
> How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
> literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
> there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
> time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ?
Zero to 1492 is just too easy. Let's take 400 to 1400. In
that time, in Europe alone, were written:
The Divine Comedy, the Decameron, the Canterbury Tales,
Froissart's chronicles, the works of Petrarch, of Saint
Thomas Aquinas (heard of him?), Bede's "Ecclesiastical
history of the Church of England", Beowulf, Augustine's
"City of God", Boethius's "consolations of philosophy",
the philosophical works of John Duns Scotus, Michael
Psellus' "lives of the twelve Caesars", Anna Commena's
"Alexiad", Procopius's "secret history", "The Green Knight",
the various tales of King Arthur, the romance cycle centered
on Charlemagne, Asser's "Life of King Alfred", Cassiodorus'
"History of the Goths", the "Nieblungenleid", the poetry
of Wolfram von Eschenbach ("Parzival" and so on), the
elder Eddas, Icelandic sagas.
And that's just from Europe (ignoring the vast Arab
literature of the time), and only a selection of the
little I can recall - and I'm no expert on late classical
or Medieval literature. And I could extend that list
easily.
So the claim that "virtually nothing" was written in this
era is based on nothing more than ignorance.
Why is it that no
> physical paper and writings from 0 have survived.
Paper burns nicely. As well as the dead sea scrolls
there is a copy of Luke that dates from about 135,
and probably much else I am unaware of.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
iain wallace
<wth...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:yv7z65fb...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu...
> sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
> ...Zero to 1492 is just too easy. Let's take 400 to 1400. In
> that time, in Europe alone, were written:
>
An alternative view is that it was written by an unknown author pretending
to be Asser, this person being called the pseudo-Asser in order to
distinguish him from the real thing. However, still written long before
1400.
Iain.
Tom Klem
>
> >
> > The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware
> > that there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose
> > names are not found in history books?
>
> Coins were not only issued by emperors. Pretenders
> to the throne, who sometimes ruled substantial fragments
> of the empire for years, issued their own coins. As
> did other individuals. And non-imperial coins circulated.
>
>
> The only way we know of the
> > existence of many Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a
> > coin dug up in the ground. This proves that there are big gaps and
> > errors in the generally recognized history of Rome.
>
> No, we have a complete chronology of the Roman Emperors.
> Heck, I think we even have a complete list of the Consuls.
>
> >
> > Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
> > question is whether the great literary works from that time are really
> > two thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The
> > Bible, the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of
> > Plato, Aristotle and Socratese,
>
> Actually we have no works by Socrates. He wrote nothing.
>
Probably correct, though we do have his speech before Athens at the time of
his trial. Most likely compiled by his student(s).
I believe this work is commonly referred to as "Socrate's Apology", and it's
a dusey.
It's the one that begins:
" How you, O Athenians, have been affected by my accusers,
cannot tell; but I know that they almost made me forget who I
was so persuasively did they speak; and yet they have hardly
uttered a word of truth. But of the many falsehoods told by"
Nick
message news:<f8e58188.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of
> > > so-called New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the
> > > time that we designate as 1000 A.D.
> > > http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> >
> > Essentially, Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages"
> > about which we know little did not exist at all.
>
> With Kasparov's one and only more or less history-related reference being
> Gibbon, his general knowledge of history probably could be safely described
> as "nonexisting" so what he contends or not contends to, outside chess area
> is of no importance. :-)
But does the "Wall Street Journal" know that what Kasparov contends
'outside chess...is of no importance'? :-)
> > In other words, there was a jump from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
>
> IMO is article shows nothing besides two things: (a) he is more or less
> oblivious of a history in general and (b) the primitive mathematical
> models do not work for forward or backward projections. Following the
> same methods, Marx predicted that industrialization will result in an
> explosive growth of the number of factory workers. Which did not happen.
>
> K's speculations regarding the Roman technology do not really work: there
> was no "progress" (in Kasparov's meaning) over couple thousands years of
> Ancient history. Egypt had a well-developed technology and probably
> something impressive can be diffed from the Ancient China as well.
For an introduction to the extraordinary history of Chinese science and
technology, one may read:
"The Genius of China: 3000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention"
by Robert Temple (introduced by Joseph Needham)
"It ('The Genius of China') is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of
my 'Science and Civilisation in China', published by the Cambridge University
Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which
fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press.
The extraordinary inventiveness, and insight into nature, of ancient and
medieval China raises two fundamental questions. First, why should they
have been so far in advance of other civilisations; and second, why aren't
they now centuries ahead of the rest of the world?..."
--Joseph Needham (October 1985, 'The Genius of China', p. 6)
> Still, all these millenias did not result in a working steam engine or in
> Newton's mathematics (not to mention a simple "0"). Maybe somebody added
> all these millenias as well?
"The essential design of the steam engine, lacking only the crank-shaft, was
invented in China before the steam engine existed. It was a water-powered
flour sifting and shaking machine which operated in reverse mode to the later
operation of the steam engine: instead of the piston of the steam engine
working the wheels on a vehicle, the Chinese machine had wheels which were
worked by rushing water in order to power pistons. The crank-shaft could not
be incorporated in the Chinese machine because it is a Western invention which
the Chinese never had. But it was not necessary.
The machines in question were south of the city of Ching Ming Ssu at the
Buddhist monasteries of Loyang. They are mentioned in a book entitled
'Description of the Buddhist Temples and Monasteries of Loyang', dating from
about 530 AD. These machines worked on the reciprocating principle of a
piston being moved by a connecting rod attached to a crank (powered by a
water wheel).
This principle came to be used more widely in connection with the metallurgical
industry. A water-powered device of this kind was found to be the most
efficient and labour-saving way to work the giant bellows of blast furnaces....
This, then, was one of the secrets of Chinese metallurgical supremacy. For
we know from another source that by driving the pistons from the smaller wheel
on the machine, which spun fifteen times faster than the large driving-wheel,
the pistons fanning the smelting fires could work at an enormous rate. The
blast would have been continuous, since from the fourth century BC the Chinese
had used the double-acting piston bellows for this purpose. Consequently, the
Chinese had prodigious energies harnessed to provide fully automated continuous
air blasts for their metallurgical operations by the sixth century AD. No
wonder this was the century which also saw the development of the steel
co-fusion process! The excellent steel which the Chinese had been producing
for several centuries previously provided the necessary bearings and parts
to produce tolerance for such hard-working machinery.
It was seven hundred years before water power in Europe was to be harnessed
for bellows, in the thirteenth century. In 1757, John Wilkinson patented a
hydraulic blowing-engine which was essentially identical to that described
by Wang Chen in 1313, except for the addition of a crank-shaft by way of
refinement. In 1780, James Pickard patented a steam engine using essentially
this apparatus in reverse, that is, power from the piston driving the wheel
rather than vice versa. Pickard's patent forced James Watt (who was barred
from this standard technique by not having the patent) to invent the
sun-and-planet gear for his own steam engine. *These European designs were
all derived, through various intermediaries such as Agostino Ramelli (1588),
from those of China.*"
--Robert Temple (The Genius of China, pp. 64-5)
In short, the Chinese had invented the steam engine's essential design long
before the Europeans were able to add the crank-shaft to that design and
thereby gain the credit (in Eurocentric books) for having invented the steam
engine's complete design all by themselves.
> > While this seems to be a totally crack-pot theory, I am unable to
> > prove it wrong.
>
> This is not a "totally c-p theory". I read a book where author, using the
> same theory, "proved" that actually the Mongols did not exist at all (no
> Karakorum, no conquest of China, etc.) and were, in a reality, just the
> Russian princes fighting each other (and invading Western Europe trying to
> help Friederich II against the Pope). Of course, author convenienly ignored
> a massive archeological evidience, etc. Very convenient method. :-)
For an alternative view by an academic historian about a similar subject:
"Nomads and Crusaders: AD 1000-1368" by Archibald Lewis
> > It has always seemed strange that there was a thousand-year period in
> > European history where basically nothing happened.
>
> "Nothing" means "no events worth mentioning" or
> "no ballistic missiles had been developed"? :-)
Perhaps Sam Sloan meant that 'nothing happened' then in his own life? :-)
> > Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
>
> CAn anybody (including Kasparov) prove that it is correct?
Garry Kasparov's FIDE rating (a statistical measure of strength) in chess
is higher than ours. What more 'proof' need we expect? :-)
--Nick
Mark J
>
> The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware
> that there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose
> names are not found in history books? The only way we know of the
> existence of many Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a
> coin dug up in the ground. This proves that there are big gaps and
> errors in the generally recognized history of Rome.
You make the following suspect assumptions in this paragraph.
1) no histories of the sort you refer to were written.
We have no idea of what was written and subsequently lost.
Speculation is useless, but any assertion that something was not
written is an argument from silence, not exactly the sort of argument
to bet the farm on.
2) If histories were written, they would have survived.
In medieval europe, most of the educated class was connected with the
church. Their activities and concerns dictated which earlier European
works (of which the Arabs were unaware) would survive. Members of the
church heirarchy were obviously more concerned with spiritual issues
than they were with pagan history. Even if someone found it worthy to
recopy decaying ancient historical records, though, there are always
the problems of plundering, conquest, fire, flood, mold, and other
methods of destruction that could have wiped out the evidence that
such activities happened.
> Why is it that no
> physical paper and writings from 0 have survived.
The dead sea scrolls exist and are from around that time. They were
kept in about as close to perfect conditions as are possible (dark
storage in low humidity). Look at the condition in which they were
found--not good at all--many had crumbled into small bits. Paper is
destroyed by fire, flood, high humidity (which breeds mold), usage
over time, and more. The surprising thing is not fact that little
paper has survived more five hundred years, but rather that we have
any paper left that is that old.
> Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
> ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to
> 1500 ? Do we have any real evidence either for or against that
> hypothesis?
No, it isn't reasonable. The Arabs knew of many ancient European
writings long before the 14th century. For example, Algebra was
invented by medieval arabs who knew of ancient Greek math works. and
what about medieval Jewish writings? For example, Rashi, the most
important medieval Jewish commentator, lived in 11th century France.
His commentaries were known by Spanish Jews of the 12th to 15th
century. Did the Italians have Jews make him up, and all the Spanish
texts too? Why would these nefarious Italians have cared to let the
Jews in on their conspiracy; after all, Jews were not exactly a
favored minority in Italy at any point.
Sam, you've gotten many good responses in this thread about why the
new chronology theory is crap. It's time to hang it up.
Mark
marshall kirk
Roman historians whose works once existed, but are now known only from
chance mention in some other historian whose works do survive.
Specific examples: Gregory of Tours, writing about 580, quotes short
verbatim extracts from the late IIIrd-/early IVth-century histories of
Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus and Sulpicius Alexander. Those extracts
suggest that the original works were highly detailed, and their loss a
sore blow. More tellingly, Ammianus, writing perhaps around 390, and
the so-called Augustan History, perhaps of roughly the same date (tho'
it claims to be around eighty years older), mention the historical
work (probably of the early IIIrd century) of Marius Maximus -- the
former, to complain that Marius Maximus is all that the once-educated
class of aristocrats feels like reading, the latter, to complain of
the *excessive detail* of this historian. (I feel his posthumous
pain.) It sounds very much as tho' Marius Maximus was a potentially
precious source, once existing in at least hundreds, and perhaps
thousands, of copies -- yet AFAIK, not a single copy exists.
Consider, finally, the Roman historians who *do* survive, but in some
cases *via* a single, incomplete, or textually corrupt copy.
I'm also a little unsure about the idea of Roman Emperors known *only*
from coins, and never mentioned in a single written source. I can
easily think of a chain of overlapping histories that, I think, name
them all (and I'm not even a specialist). Not that it would make your
argument much stronger, but ... could you give an example?
iceb...@my-deja.com (Mark J) wrote in message news:<ba107a46.04011...@posting.google.com>...
Doug McDonald
>
>
> "The essential design of the steam engine, lacking only the crank-shaft, was
> invented in China before the steam engine existed. It was a water-powered
> flour sifting and shaking machine which operated in reverse mode to the later
> operation of the steam engine: instead of the piston of the steam engine
> working the wheels on a vehicle, the Chinese machine had wheels which were
> worked by rushing water in order to power pistons. The crank-shaft could not
> be incorporated in the Chinese machine because it is a Western invention which
> the Chinese never had. But it was not necessary.
>
Tha's absolutely totally silly. The essential mechanical quality
of the steam engine is the conversion of heat into work. What
you describe is something FAR less important!
But what really what was NECESSARY for the West to be better was
a man named Sadi Carnot, not anything mechanical. Did the Chinese
look at whatever they had and try to improve it? Did they invent the
steam engine itself? Did they look at it and invent the
refrigerator?
That last is CRITICAL! The number one thing to come out
of steam engines was the understand of thermodynamics, especially
entropy.
What you quote is a typical silly attempt at trying to make
a civilization better than they were.
> In short, the Chinese had invented the steam engine's essential design
No .... that is the conversion of heat into motion, in a continuous
cyclic fashion. Early steam engines lacked the cyclic part, so
they had to carry vast amounts of water.
Doug McDonald
Sam Sloan
follows:
You are correct that my ancestry is Christian and more than that were
religious ministers and preachers. My first Swedish ancestor to arrive
in America was Peter Cassel who was my great-great-grandfather and who
in 1845 led a group from Kisa, Ostergotland, Sweden and established
the first Swedish settlement West of the Mississippi, near what is now
Fairfield, Iowa.
However, my first ancestor to arrive in America was David Graham who
was also a religious minister and who in 1772 arrived from Ireland in
Charleston, South Carolina on the ship Pennsylvania Farmer.
Peter Cassel, my great-great-great-grandfather, was named after his
ancestor Peter Cassel who was the riding master of King Erik XIV
(1533-1577) of Sweden.
I have recently discovered that I am descended from King Erik XIV of
Sweden on my father's side (who I did not even previously know was
even part Swedish). Peter Cassel and David Graham were both from my
mother's side.
However, King Erik XIV of Sweden (who is regarded as having been the
first King of Sweden) was murdered in 1577 by poisoning on orders of
his half brother, who became the next King of Sweden, so my immediate
ancestors were not royalty at all but were very common average people.
My point here is that even though I know the name of my
great-great-great-great-grandfather, David Graham from Ireland, and I
know the dates of his birth and death and the name of the ship he
arrived on, that is all I know. I have not been able to find out the
names of his parents. In fact, nobody that I know with Irish ancestory
can go back further than the first immigrant who came from Ireland to
America. I do not know whether the Irish did not keep records, or
destroyed them, or are simply not releasing them.
On my Swedish side, even though King Erik XIV of Sweden was the king,
all I or anybody else knows is the names of his grandparents. His
grandfather was Erik Johansson Vasa (1470-1520). That is just about
the oldest ancestor I have established. A few of my ancestors, all
Swedish, are slightly older.
My point is that the historical record of my family peters out at
around 1492, the date that Columbus discovered America. This is not
only true for me but true for everybody. Nobody can trace their family
history much before 1492. It seems that there are no cemeteries, no
gravestones and no cemetary markers much before 1492. Of course,
people were buried before that time, but their graves were apparently
unmarked.
Is it not remarkable that the history of chess can only be reliably
traced to that time? The modern form of chess, with the strong queen
and bishop, developed in 1497, just about the same time. We believe
that chess is much older, but have no solid proof. In 1985, when I was
researching my monograph "The Origins of Chess", I was shocked to
discover that all the ancient references to chess cited by H.J.R.
Murray were pure fabrications. H. J. R. Murray cites two works from
the seventh century and two more from the ninth century, which he
claims contain references to chess. Murray says that references to
chess are contained in Harshacharita by Bana and in Vasavadatta by
Subhandu. Murray also says that references to chess can be found in
the Kharnamak, the Shatranj Namak, the Shah Namak and in the works of
Al Berumi.
All of these citations by Murray are fake. None of these works contain
any reference to chess.
This discovery, that nobody has bothered to check the citations by
Murray, has led me to wonder about other commonly held beliefs.
One of the main criticizisms to the article by Kasparov concerns the
fact that the Soviet Union was the biggest fabricator of history.
Whenever a Soviet political leader fell from favor, he was either
murdered or sent to Siberia and his picture was airbrushed from all
photographs. In short, he ceased to exist. In addition, the Soviets
were noted for claiming that everything worth inventing had been
invented by a Russian. The electric lightbulb was not invented by
Edison. It was invented by a Russian. Every chess opening was invented
by a Russian, too. Benko did not invent the Benko Gambit. It was
invented by a Russian. The Pirc Defense was not invented by Pirc. It
was invented by a Russian, too. Since they could not find any Russian
who played the Pirc Defense before Pirc did, they claimed that it had
been invented by a previously unknown Russian named Ufmsted, who had
played something similar. Since they could not find anybody who played
the Benko Gambit before Benko did, they named it after a river, the
Volga.
You are correctly pointing out that the same old Soviets who re-wrote
history, who denied the existence of people who existed, and who
claimed that they had invented everything, are now claiming that the
entire History of Europe before about the year 1400 is fake.
Your point is well taken. Almost all of the proponents of the
so-called "New Tradition History" are former Soviets, including
Nicolai A. Morozov and Anatoly T. Fomenko, as well as Garry Kasparov
and several others.
This, however, does not mean that their theories, however crack-pot as
they may seem, can be rejected out of hand.
To cite as an example, when I was a little boy the theory that Africa
and South America had once been united but had drifted apart was
regarded as a crack-pot theory. It was not until the 1960s that the
theory of continental shift began to be accepted into the mainstream.
Now, it is regarded as scientifically proven fact.
As I understand it, the "New Tradition History" does not claim that
all ancient history is fake. It does not dispute the Arab or Chinese
histories, not does it claim that all the European Histories are fake.
What is does claim is that the histories of Ancient Greece and Rome
are fake. This includes Biblical History, because the Bible comes to
us primarily through Greek and Latin Sources.
Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, not only has an authoratative
translation never been published, but the scholars who devoted their
lives to working on the scrolls are either dead or are very old now.
The scrolls are said to date from 200 AD and were written by an
off-beat sect, not a main-stream group. From this we already know that
what they contain is different from what is found in the traditional
Bible.
You also keep asking me what is my agenda. The answer is I do not have
any. I first read the essay by Kasparov a few years ago. I dimissed it
as crack-pot, especially because I know Kasparov quite well and he is
a cracked-pot. However, when I read it again last week, it did seem to
provide an answer to some questions I had been asking recently in
other areas, and so I decided to consider it more carefully.
Sam Sloan
At 11:30 AM 1/17/2004 +0100, Kaarlo Schepel wrote:
>Sam,
>
>Pete's answer below is of course brilliant.
>
>The main point for you from a personal edge must be:
>
>'Do I want to see all sides of the argument. Or am I biased as a Muslim against Christianity.'
>
>You converted to Islam, you are not a second or third generation Muslim. As you claim your ancestry to (mostly) Sweden, most of your ancestors have a Christian heritage going back to the 10th century.
>Bonifatius e.g. was (probably) a monk from Ireland who converted whole tribes in the Netherlands and Germany in the 8th century. He founded such diverse churches as Arnstadt
>(celebrating its 1,300 years founding in 2004), the great Cathedral of Erfurt and a few churches in e.g. Friesland (Frisia).
>The church in this village had a forerunner dating back to 780, founded by a
>disciple of Bonifatius by the name of Ludger. It was (probably) a wooden structure on a previous
>Germanic place of worship that goes back to about the first century A.D. The excavations
>proving these things are still being made annually in this province.
>
>When we talk about church history (Italy and even France), then we talk
>about written records.
>
>If as you state "As you correctly point out, the Muslims have kept very
>reliable, detailed
>and accurate records of their history, starting from 632 AD. The names and
>dates of every great Khalif and Iman have been preserved.",
>
>why can't you just try to read Catholic church history - without bias. Why
>should the Khalif have
>existed but their counterparts - the popes of the Vatican been invented by
>the Italians ?????
>Their records in the Vatican, the records of Synods and Church Councils have
>been just as
>meticulously if not better preserved.
>
>We all know that the greatest falsifiers of history, who basically invented
>a new way to rewrite it - whenever
>another top party member was banished to Siberia or (most of the time)
>murdered, were the Soviets. You
>should not be surprised to find a few (probably) atheïst and fervent
>anti-Christian historians - now embraced
>by G.K. to try to eradicate Christinaity from history.
>
>So, Sam, quite honest. Tell us: What is your agenda ? Do you try to promote
>these ideas, because you had several terrible religious (Christian) lunatics yourself ? I sympathize with
>what happened to you(r family), but what does it have to do with Christ, who (probably) was born in 7 B.C.
>(astronomists) and died in 26 - age 33. He is absolutely blameless, and is a saint/ prphet even for
>Muslims. Read your Quran.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>kaarlo schepel
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <PTam...@aol.com>
>To: <fide-...@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 2:39 AM
>Subject: Re: [fide-chess] Re: Garry Kasparov misses One Thousand Years
>asLarrymissed t...
>
>
>OK, Sam, maybe this will give you a better idea of the "dark ages." Just the
>highlights. I'm sure I left stuff out.And there was no year "0" , btw. I
>put
>where you could find some stuff according to sources (books at hand), but
>really all you have to do is go over to the Cloisters. You know where that
>is.
>
>The "Dark Ages" Light It Up:
>
> 77 Pliny’s Natural History, oldest extant
>encyclopedia
>200-300 Codex form of book invented; mostly vellum
>300-400 Two oldest extant Greek vellum codices of
>Scripture: Codex Vaticanus , acquired by Vatican library ca. 1448; Codex
>Sinaiticus; purchased by British Museum from Russia, 1933 for $500,000
>360 Scrolls begin to be replaced by books
>390 St. Augustine apologizes for having to use
>vellum instead of papyrus to write a letter on
>383-405 St. Jerome translates Bible from Hebrew &
>Greek
>into Latin:Vulgate
>411-13 Pelagius, British theologian affirms freedom
>of will
>413-26 St. Augustine, Civitas Dei
>490 Dracontius of Carthage: De laudibus Dei
>494 Pope Gelasius: list of proscribed
>books-earliest known instance
>496 Gelasian Missal, instruction book on Mass
>celebration
>500 Codex Bezae, New Testament in Greek and
>Latin
>500 Johannes Stobaios of Macedonia: anthology
>of
>Greek lit.
>500 Aristainetos Eletter on life in Alexandria
>500(approx.) Dionysius the Areopagite and his neo-Platonic
>writings
>520(app) Priscian’s systematic grammar
>523-24 Boethius: Consolatio Philosophiae
>529-34 Institutes, Digests, and Codex Justinianus
>issued
>540-604 Pope Gregory: orders chants collected,
>arranged: Antiphonarium
>547 Gildas: De Excidio Britanniae
>550 Oldest extant ms. of Gothic writing, Codex
>Argentus, preserved at Upsala University, Sweden, written in silver letters
>on purple dyed parchment.
>583 Cassiodorus(490-583), Ostografia
>586 Echmaiadsin Evangliar, Byzantine-Armenian
>ms.
>594 Gregory of Tours died, author of Historiae
>Francorum
>598 First English school at Canterbury
>622 Isidore, Bishop of Seville: Etymologiae
>632 Georgios Pisides: The Hexameron, poem on
>the
>creation of the world
>635 Irish school of writing enters England
>(BTW,
>there’s a great book on Ireland keeping learning alive in so-called “Dark
>Ages E
>670 Codification of the law of the Visigoths in
>Spain
>685 Ravenna Cosmography, a catalog of all known
>countries,towns,rivers
>695 Law code of King Wihtred
>700 Lindisfarne Gospels, illuminated monastic
>ms.
>716 Codex Amiatinus, transcript of Vulgate
>Bible, preserved in Laurentian Library
>731 Venerable Bede: Historia Ecclesiastica
>742-814 Charlemagne
>750-800 Cynewulf: Elene, Juliana, The Ascension, Fates
>of the Apostles
>766-782 Aethelbert and Alcuin make York a center of
>learning
>790 Libri Carolini by Carolingian divines;
>Frankish Court school
>799 Paul the Deacon died, author of Historia
>Langobardorum
>829 End of the Annales Regni Francorum
>(official
>chronicle)
>840 Einhard died, official biographer of
>Charlemagne
>840-930 Hucbald of Flanders reforms in notation of
>music (followed “soon Eby Guido de Arezzo and then 300 years later by Franco
>de
>Cologne with notation reforms)
>842 Oaths of Strasbourg, first record of final
>separation of French and German languages
>865 Otfrid of Weissenburg: Diatessaron in
>German
>verse
>867 Johannes Scotus: Peri physeon merismou
>883 Notker Balbulus: Gesta Karoli
>890(app) Cantilene de Ste. Eulalie, first French poem
>893 Asser, Bishop of Sherborne: Life of Alfred
>the Great
>930 Ekkehard of St. Gallen: Walter of
>Aquitaine(epic poem)
>960-980 Hrotsvit of Gandersheim: six Christian plays
>961-971 Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona: Antapodosis,
>History of Otto I
>965-967 Widukind of Corvey: Saxon History
>966 Flodoard of REims died, Annals, History of
>Reims Church
>971 Blickling Homilies
>990-1020 Aelfric the Grammarian, Abbot of Eynsham:
>Homilies, Latin Grammar, Glossary
>1000-1010 Chanson de Roland
>1005-1020 Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham: English translations
>of the Bible
>1010 Richer of St. Remy died, author of Historia
>Remensis Ecclesiae
>1050(app) Moors introduce paper-making into Europe thru
>Spain & Sicily
>1050 Radulfus Glaber died, author of Historiae
>sui
>Temporis. Ruodlieb,first German novel of chivalry
>1060 Ekkehard IV of St. Gall, died, author of
>Casus Sancti Galli
>1075 Adam of Bremen: History of the Hamburg
>Church
>1077 Lampert of Hersfeld died, author of Annals
>1086 Domesday Book
>1104 Oldest known European decorated leathe
>binding 7th-10th cent., is in this year taken from the coffin of English
>monk St.
>Cuthbert; preserved at Stonyhurst College, Lancashire.
>1109 Anselm of Canterbury died, author of Cur
>Deus
>Homo, Monologion, Proslogion
>1115 Chancellor Bernard reorganizes Chartres
>school
>1137-1158 Otto, Bishop of Freising, author of De duabus
>civitatibus, Gesta Friderici I.
>1141 Thierry establishes scientific and classical
>studies at Chartres school
>1142 Peter Abelard died, author of Sic et non
>1143 William of Malmesbury, died, author of Gesta
>Pontificum Anglorum, Gesta Regum Anglorum
>1147 Geoffrey of Monmouth: Historia Regum
>Britanniae
>1151 Xativa, Spain: paper mill
>1154 Edrisi: Geography. End of the Anglo-Saxon
>Chronicle
>1155 Wace: Roman de Brut
>1159 John of Salisbury: Policraticus (on
>statesmanship, dedicated to Thomas Becket)
>1140-1160 Peter Lombard, teacher at Paris University
>1160-1170 Walter Map, Anglo-Latin lyrical poet
>1167-68 Oxford University founded
>1190(app) Chrestien de Troyes died, author of Lancelot,
>Yvain, Guillaume d’Angleterre, Perceval
>1191-1204 Nibelungenlied
>1202-1204 Siena Univ. founded, Vicenza Univ. founded,
>Fibonacci introdues Arabic numerals in Europe.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Of course, nobody would claim that those thousand years did not exist.
>Humans have been on this Earth for three million years. Humans have almost
>always buried their dead, for the simple reason, as any soldier who has
>experienced combat will tell you, the stench of a dead body is so horrible
>that nobody can stand it. So, there are graves going back thousands of
>years, long before there is any written record of the people in those
>graves.
>
>Similarly there are thousand year old buildings. The Buddhist stupas at
>Bamyan, Afghanistan which were destroyed by the Taliban were reliably dated
>to about 200 AD, so we know that Buddhism existed at that time. We also
>know that the Great Walls of China were built. (There are many walls, not
>just one, and I have been there.)
>
>As you correctly point out, the Muslims have kept very reliable, detailed
>and accurate records of their history, starting from 632 AD. The names and
>dates of every great Khalif and Iman have been preserved.
>
>The same cannot be said if the Romans or the Italians. Are you aware that
>there are ancient Roman Coins depicting Emporers of Rome whose names are
>not found in history books? The only way we know of the existence of many
>Roman Emporers is that their picture is found on a coin dug up in the
>ground. This proves that there are big gaps and errors in the generally
>recognized history of Rome.
>
>Although we know that people were alive two thousand years ago, the
>question is whether the great literary works from that time are really two
>thousand years old. There are many great works from that time: The Bible,
>the Gallic Wars by Caesar, the Orations of Cicero, the works of Plato,
>Aristotle and Socratese, works of Homer, and the great plays such as
>Oedipus Rex and so on.
>
>How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of literature
>from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then there was virtually
>nothing for about 1500 years until just about the time that Columbus
>Discovered America in 1492 ? Why is it that no physical paper and writings
>from 0 have survived. We have been told that the great works were copied
>and recopied by Monks. Is that really true? Do we have any evidence of
>proof to support this?
>
>Is it not a reasonable hypothesis that all the great literary works of
>ancient history were actually written by Italians in around 1400 to 1500 ?
>Do we have any real evidence either for or against that hypothesis?
>
>Sam Sloan
>
>At 04:24 PM 1/15/2004 +0100, Kaarlo Schepel wrote:
>>Dear Sam,
>>
>>A.D. = the year of our Lord Jesus Christ. The problem with most people who
>>try to cast doubt on historical facts that have been taught in Universities
>>in Europe for hundreds of years, is that they are non-believers. The years
>>have been counted by the Christians who lived through the Dark Ages, year
>>in, year out. If you ask astronomers, they will be able tell you that the
>>Star of Bethlehem (probably Saturnus, Jupiter standing in the star
>>constellation of Pisces) really occurred in 7 B.C. as described in the New
>>Testament.
>>
>>You are a non-believer (Christian) but you believe in the Quran. And in
>Arab
>>countries history was meticulously retained too by the great Arab
>>civilisation in their universities. Many of those years were obviously not
>>that interesting (more in Egypt and the Middle East than in Europe), and
>>almost all of those were written about by hand. I think it is better that
>>you have a decent talk with a few historians, and a few theologians who
>have
>>spent all their lives working with this kind of material. Or art historians
>>who devote all their lives digging through original manuscripts. That is if
>>you have any doubt.
Renia
> My point here is that even though I know the name of my
> great-great-great-great-grandfather, David Graham from Ireland, and I
> know the dates of his birth and death and the name of the ship he
> arrived on, that is all I know. I have not been able to find out the
> names of his parents. In fact, nobody that I know with Irish ancestory
> can go back further than the first immigrant who came from Ireland to
> America. I do not know whether the Irish did not keep records, or
> destroyed them, or are simply not releasing them.
One of the problem with Ireland, is that many records have been
destroyed. For example, all the Irish wills were destroyed in 1922 by a
bomb in Dublin. The same bomb affected the existence of a lot of other
Irish records.
Of potential interest for you, however, are the records of the Graham
family available from the Public Record Office in Belfast, Northern Ieland.
http://proni.nics.gov.uk/records/private/graham.htm
The Graham Papers (D/812, MIC/305 AND T/3263)
Q
> The Graham papers comprise c.4,700 documents and c.95 volumes, 1741,
1777 and 1791-1957, and consist primarily of: title, deeds, leases,
wills, accounts, correspondence, etc, 1741, 1777 and 1791-1957, relating
to Graham property in and around Lisburn, Co. Antrim, and in Belfast;
correspondence and diaries of Dr James Graham and Colonel James Graham,
1819-1905, including some family letters, but chiefly concerned with Dr
and Colonel Graham's service in India and with the Indian Mutiny; and
correspondence and diaries of Captain D.C. Graham, including
descriptions of Captain Graham's experience during the 1914-1918 War,
when he served with the Royal Engineers in France. The Graham family
originated in Scotland and settled in Ulster, probably at Lisnastrain,
outside Lisburn, some time in the 17th century.
UNQ
You have probably seen the following in the IGI, interesting because it
has the S on the end of the name:
119. ANDREW GRAHAMS - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Christening: 18 SEP 1755 Donaghmore, Tyrone, Ireland
Renia
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in
> message news:<f8e58188.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> > sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in
> > message news:<40058f1b...@ca.news.verio.net>...
> > > "Bob Musicant" <musi...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Complete nonsense. Of course, GK also subscribes to the belief of
> > > > so-called New Tradition history that Jesus was actually born at the
> > > > time that we designate as 1000 A.D.
> > > > http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
> > >
> > > This is a very interesting and thought provoking article.
> > > Essentially, Garry Kasparov contends that the so-called "Dark Ages"
> > > about which we know little did not exist at all.
> >
> > With Kasparov's one and only more or less history-related reference being
> > Gibbon, his general knowledge of history probably could be safely described
> > as "nonexisting" so what he contends or not contends to, outside chess area
> > is of no importance. :-)
>
> But does the "Wall Street Journal" know that what Kasparov contends
> 'outside chess...is of no importance'? :-)
Sorry, I probably should add "and business". To be completely objective,
a couple decades ago he was, alledgedly, dating one of the most beautiful
Soviet actresses so we should add "and women". Well, it would be safer to
reformulate my statement: "what he contends to in tha area of a history..."
:-)
>
> > > In other words, there was a jump from about A.D. 300 to about A.D. 1300.
> >
> > IMO is article shows nothing besides two things: (a) he is more or less
> > oblivious of a history in general and (b) the primitive mathematical
> > models do not work for forward or backward projections. Following the
> > same methods, Marx predicted that industrialization will result in an
> > explosive growth of the number of factory workers. Which did not happen.
> >
> > K's speculations regarding the Roman technology do not really work: there
> > was no "progress" (in Kasparov's meaning) over couple thousands years of
> > Ancient history. Egypt had a well-developed technology and probably
> > something impressive can be diffed from the Ancient China as well.
>
> For an introduction to the extraordinary history of Chinese science and
> technology, one may read:
> "The Genius of China: 3000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention"
> by Robert Temple (introduced by Joseph Needham)
>
> "It ('The Genius of China') is, in its own way, a brilliant distillation of
> my 'Science and Civilisation in China', published by the Cambridge University
> Press, a work which will be complete in some twenty-five volumes and of which
> fifteen have now appeared or are passing through the press.
>
> The extraordinary inventiveness, and insight into nature, of ancient and
> medieval China raises two fundamental questions. First, why should they
> have been so far in advance of other civilisations; and second, why aren't
> they now centuries ahead of the rest of the world?..."
>
> --Joseph Needham (October 1985, 'The Genius of China', p. 6)
Indeed. And why, knowing a gunpowder ages before Europeans, weren't they
ages ahead in a defelopment of the firearms? :-)
Or why and how the Incas, who formally had been still in a (developed but
still) stone age, managed to build a network of the roads all over their
empire.
BTW, IIRC, the Romans had been widely using a concret so should we assume
that ACTUALLY "the gap" was until XIX century and all these Middle Ages,
Renaissance, Enlightment, etc. are simply invention of the Victorians?
Even simpler example. With all known well-developed civilizations of a
Mediterranian who long did it took to start using an arch in theconstructions?
IIRC, the Romans were the 1st who started using it extensively so what
would it be, 2,000 years?
[]
> > > It has always seemed strange that there was a thousand-year period in
> > > European history where basically nothing happened.
> >
> > "Nothing" means "no events worth mentioning" or
> > "no ballistic missiles had been developed"? :-)
>
> Perhaps Sam Sloan meant that 'nothing happened' then in his own life? :-)
To think about it, can he produce any serious proof of his own existence?
:-)
>
> > > Can anybody provide proof that Garry's theory is wrong?
> >
> > CAn anybody (including Kasparov) prove that it is correct?
>
> Garry Kasparov's FIDE rating (a statistical measure of strength) in chess
> is higher than ours. What more 'proof' need we expect? :-)
Damn, I should pay more attention to Madonna's views on US politics! :-)
Alex
If to follow Sam's logic, it's all more complicated: the Russian
oligarphs bribed Italian Mafia to remove a 1,000 years from European
(only European, everybody else allowed to have their history) to avoid
a prosecution for the massive tax evasions. This theory HAS to be true
because his source is a high school history teacher and who would doubt
qualification of an American school educator? :-)
Sam Sloan
>Sorry, I probably should add "and business". To be completely objective,
>a couple decades ago he was, alledgedly, dating one of the most beautiful
>Soviet actresses so we should add "and women". Well, it would be safer to
>reformulate my statement: "what he contends to in tha area of a history..."
>:-)
Who was that Soviet actress? Do you know? Was that one of his wives,
because I know one of them?
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
Bingo! This certainly helps me, because I am virtually certain that I
am descended from the Grahams you have just cited, or at least
everything fits.
Sam Sloan
benjo maso
> Is it not remarkable that the history of chess can only be reliably
> traced to that time? The modern form of chess, with the strong queen
> and bishop, developed in 1497, just about the same time. We believe
> that chess is much older, but have no solid proof. In 1985, when I was
> researching my monograph "The Origins of Chess", I was shocked to
> discover that all the ancient references to chess cited by H.J.R.
> Murray were pure fabrications. H. J. R. Murray cites two works from
> the seventh century and two more from the ninth century, which he
> claims contain references to chess. Murray says that references to
> chess are contained in Harshacharita by Bana and in Vasavadatta by
> Subhandu. Murray also says that references to chess can be found in
> the Kharnamak, the Shatranj Namak, the Shah Namak and in the works of
> Al Berumi.
>
> All of these citations by Murray are fake. None of these works contain
> any reference to chess.
Chess was one of the favorite passtimes for at 12th and 13th century french
courts, which is many, many times mentioned in contemporary literature. They
even knew the story how the inventor of the game as a reward asked for (one
corn grain on the first square, two on the second, four on the third).
Benjo Maso
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>You have probably seen the following in the IGI, interesting because it
>has the S on the end of the name:
>
> 119. ANDREW GRAHAMS - International Genealogical Index
>Gender: Male Christening: 18 SEP 1755 Donaghmore, Tyrone, Ireland
>
>Renia
No. I had not seen this before and thank you very much. It is possible
or even likely that this is my great-great-great-grandfather.
My great-great-great-grandfather was Andrew Graham who was born in
Ireland in "About 1753". His mother was Janet and his father was David
Graham. This Andrew Graham was born 18 SEP 1755 and his mother was
Jane and his father was James Grahams. In spite of the two years
difference in dates, the difference between Janet and Jane and the
difference between David Graham and James Grahams, there is enough
similarity that further checking is appropriate.
One possibility concerns the fact that my Andrew was the eldest of
eight children. When a man died it was customary for his brother to
marry the widow. So, it is possible that James died and David the next
brother married Jane or Janet. The fact that Andrew had a different
father from the others was just never mentioned.
Sam Sloan
Graeme Wall
Claus-Jürgen Heigl <un...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Simon Pugh wrote:
> >
> > >> Isn't this blown out of the water by the eclipses, both solar and
> > >> lunar, that are recorded during the period that supposedly doesn't
> > >> exit. A quick play with Starry Night and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
> > >> should convince anyone.
>
> I recently read an article stating eclipses are not a good means for
> setting up a historic time frame because they are cyclic events.
Surely cyclic (and highly predictable) events are just what you need for a
historic time frame.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Graeme Wall
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
[snip]
>
> How is it possible that there was such a great outpouring of
> literature from a few hundred years around 300 BC to 0 AD and then
> there was virtually nothing for about 1500 years until just about the
> time that Columbus Discovered America in 1492 ?
Christopher Columbus didn't discover America.
Sheila J
I've always wondered why in every movie, when they are portraying
'medieval chess' they use the Lewis set. From what I understand, that
wasn't chess at all. Am I wrong?
--
Also say to them, that they suffre hym this day to wynne his spurres,
for if God be pleased, I woll this journey be his, and the honoure thereof.
Edward III, at some point...
Nick
message news:<40094A0D...@scs.uiuc.edu>...
> Nick wrote:
Please read my earliest post in this thread to find the relevant scholarly
references that I cited, which Doug McDonald completely snipped.
> > "The essential design of the steam engine, lacking only the crank-shaft,
> > was invented in China before the steam engine existed. It was a
> > water-powered flour sifting and shaking machine which operated in reverse
> > mode to the later operation of the steam engine: instead of the piston of
> > the steam engine working the wheels on a vehicle, the Chinese machine had
> > wheels which were worked by rushing water in order to power pistons. The
> > crank-shaft could not be incorporated in the Chinese machine because it is
> > a Western invention which the Chinese never had. But it was not necessary.
Doug McDonald completely snipped what I wrote next : the explanation of why
'it was not necessary' (for the Chinese applications) by Robert Temple, which
was endorsed by Joseph Needham, the eminent British scholar of Chinese science
and technology. Please read my earlier post in this thread to find that
explanation or, better yet, read my source of reference on your own.
I quoted that excerpt from 'The Genius of China' by Robert Temple (p. 64),
whose contents were taken from the definitive scholarly work, 'Science and
Civilisation in China' by Joseph Needham (et al), which is being published
in many volumes by Cambridge University Press.
> Tha's absolutely totally silly. The essential mechanical quality
> of the steam engine is the conversion of heat into work.
> What you describe is something FAR less important!
Evidently, Doug McDonald has misunderstood Robert Temple's explanation
(which I quoted), or he has decided to distort it.
> But what really what was NECESSARY for the West to be better was a man
> named Sadi Carnot, not anything mechanical.
As far as I can tell, Doug McDonald seems motivated by some desire to assert
the superiority of Western civilisation over Chinese civilisation throughout
history. Would Doug McDonald happen to believe that all Chinese are incapable
of producing any original technological advances?
> Did the Chinese look at whatever they had and try to improve it?
That ignorant question may be answered by reading 'The Genius of China'
or, more comprehensively, 'Science and Civilisation in China'.
> Did they invent the steam engine itself? Did they look at it and invent the
> refrigerator? That last is CRITICAL! The number one thing to come out
> of steam engines was the understand of thermodynamics, especially entropy.
Did Europeans happen to invent paper, printing, gunpowder, or any of the
many other things that the Chinese did?
> What you quote is a typical silly attempt at trying to make a civilization
> better than they were.
The late Joseph Needham's scholarly reputation should be able to withstand
Doug McDonald's ignorant attack.
Here's a link to an obituary of Joseph Needham (1900-1995):
http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/iiasn5/eastasia/needham.html
As far as I can tell, Doug McDonald seems like an ignorant Eurocentric writer
who prefers to dismiss any evidence that does not conform to his dogmatic
beliefs about the instrinsic superiority of Western civilisation throughout
all of history.
> > In short, the Chinese had invented the steam engine's essential design
My statement was based on Robert Temple's account of Joseph Needham's works.
> No .... that is the conversion of heat into motion, in a continuous cyclic
> fashion. Early steam engines lacked the cyclic part, so they had to carry
> vast amounts of water.
Here's a link to the Needham Research Institute, a centre for the study of
East Asian science, technology, and medicine (the home of the continuing
'Science and Civilisation in China Project'):
http://www.nri.org.uk/index.htm
--Nick
Doug McDonald
>
> Doug McDonald <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
> message news:<40094A0D...@scs.uiuc.edu>...
> > Nick wrote:
>
> Please read my earliest post in this thread to find the relevant scholarly
> references that I cited, which Doug McDonald completely snipped.
>
> > > "The essential design of the steam engine, lacking only the crank-shaft,
> > > was invented in China before the steam engine existed. It was a
> > > water-powered flour sifting and shaking machine which operated in reverse
> > > mode to the later operation of the steam engine: instead of the piston of
> > > the steam engine working the wheels on a vehicle, the Chinese machine had
> > > wheels which were worked by rushing water in order to power pistons. The
> > > crank-shaft could not be incorporated in the Chinese machine because it is
> > > a Western invention which the Chinese never had. But it was not necessary.
>
> Doug McDonald completely snipped what I wrote next : the explanation of why
> 'it was not necessary' (for the Chinese applications) by Robert Temple, which
> was endorsed by Joseph Needham, the eminent British scholar of Chinese science
> and technology. Please read my earlier post in this thread to find that
> explanation or, better yet, read my source of reference on your own.
Why "it was not necessary" for the Chinese invention is of course
completely immaterial. What IS material is that the invention
WAS NOT A STEAM ENGINE. It did not not have THE eseential element:
the conversion of heat into motion.
Learn to read. Learn to think and to reason.
>
> I quoted that excerpt from 'The Genius of China' by Robert Temple (p. 64),
> whose contents were taken from the definitive scholarly work, 'Science and
> Civilisation in China' by Joseph Needham (et al), which is being published
> in many volumes by Cambridge University Press.
>
> > Tha's absolutely totally silly. The essential mechanical quality
> > of the steam engine is the conversion of heat into work.
> > What you describe is something FAR less important!
>
> Evidently, Doug McDonald has misunderstood Robert Temple's explanation
> (which I quoted), or he has decided to distort it.
No, in fact not. I simply point out THAT IT WAS NOT A STEAM ENGINE,
and never had the possibilities of a true heat engine.
>
> > But what really what was NECESSARY for the West to be better was a man
> > named Sadi Carnot, not anything mechanical.
>
> As far as I can tell, Doug McDonald seems motivated by some desire to assert
> the superiority of Western civilisation over Chinese civilisation throughout
> history. Would Doug McDonald happen to believe that all Chinese are incapable
> of producing any original technological advances?
>
No, I simply state fact: The importance of the steam engine for
the west cannot be overstated. The critical part of that
importance was that it was a heat engine ... which the Chinese
thing was not.
>
> Here's a link to an obituary of Joseph Needham (1900-1995):
> http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/iiasn5/eastasia/needham.html
>
It's immaterial.
> As far as I can tell, Doug McDonald seems like an ignorant Eurocentric writer
> who prefers to dismiss any evidence that does not conform to his dogmatic
> beliefs about the instrinsic superiority of Western civilisation throughout
> all of history.
>
> > > In short, the Chinese had invented the steam engine's essential design
That is FALSE .... one absolute essential to a steam engine is the
conversion of HEAT to MOTION.
Quoting names can't change that.
Doug McDonald