History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

It's all part of deep trouble in Italy between supporters of the Pope and of the Emperor. The Hohenstaufen were both Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of Sicily. When the king of Sicily died, the Pope excommunicated the heir apparent which I think was illegitimate and them gave it to a member of French royalty, a d'Anjou. The King of Aragon, however, married some Hohenstaufen with rights to the Sicilian throne. There was a revolt in the island of Sicily in favour of the Catalan (although the title was King of Aragon, later also King of Valencia and Mallorca, they were from the union of the realms to the 15th Century of the House of Barcelona) king, and the subsequent war between Aragon and France saw Sicily proper come under Aragonese rule (King of Sicily was thus another title added to the Aragonese ruler). A couple centuries later, Naples would also become tied to Aragon, and then to Spain until the War of Spanish Succession.

Since I was no doubt proven right about the existence of the Great Labyrinth, I offer you another question to ponder:

The Sumerian King's List.
Pre-Great Flood Kings on the List are stated to have ruled for thousands of years each.
The authenticity and age of the tablets cannot be disputed.
So why were the ancient Sumerians writing such baloney?

I suggest you open up your horizons and your minds, think: why would the Ancients lie to us? What the heck for?

I leave you to wonder and perhaps visit some of the alternative/conspiracy sites on the net, there are lots of them.

Copernicus, Darwin, they (and many others) were believed to be heretics, dismissed by the "Scientists" or in power religious zealots of their time.

The mission of people such as myself, is to break the old and considered the "only possible truth" stereotypes regarding (ancient) history.

Now, I bid you all, adieu!

PS. Only by opening up of one's mind and accepting that which might have seemed impossible just a decade ago a new knowledge might be discovered.

daft said:

The Sumerian King's List.
Pre-Great Flood Kings on the List are stated to have ruled for thousands of years each.
The authenticity and age of the tablets cannot be disputed.
So why were the ancient Sumerians writing such baloney?

Click to expand...

Because (a) it's mythology and (b) perhaps they thought it was true?

The concept of ancients living for hundreds or even thousands of years is not limited to Sumeria. You can find remnants of it from the Bible to China. So yes, mythology. What we call myths today were once held to be sacred truths.

JohannaK said:

It's all part of deep trouble in Italy between supporters of the Pope and of the Emperor. The Hohenstaufen were both Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of Sicily. When the king of Sicily died, the Pope excommunicated the heir apparent which I think was illegitimate and them gave it to a member of French royalty, a d'Anjou.

Click to expand...

The first is not quite correct. It was mostly between the pope(s) and the Hohenstaufen, as part of the Investiture struggle. At least one pope made it his goal to destroy the Hohenstaufen. This policy succeeded, with the (unintended?) result of making the H. Roman empire permanently politically impotent. So while the choice of emperor became subject to both internal and external pressures, the hold of Italian or even Roman factions on the papal dignity continued unabated.

I admit I'm only somewhat knowledgeable about the conflict itself rather than its causes.

Think outside a box!

If you follow only what's written and what you believe to be truth, it's like being a hamster, busy running his wheel inside his cage, assured of abundance of food, readily available for playtime for his master.

However, what the hamster fails to see is that a chunk of the cage, free of chains and restrictions, is open and it's located just above his head.
Outside the chain of restrictions there is a forest, full of natural wonders and wildlife, however, the hamster is stubborn, it will not look up, won't acknowledge the wonders awaiting him outside his cage.

Do not be a become mindless pets of popular history!

Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsqG8DKq8vA

Whatever happened to the the Nazi Armored Train supposedly found in Poland?
Why is no one here talking about this? I mean, it was supposed to be filled with gold, and other valuables and been recently found by two treasure seekers, a German and a Pole, in the Nazi made tunnels in vicinity of Walbrzych, Poland.

maybe because they didn't find anything but expect a handy contribution to whatever noble cause being espoused at the time ? 300 tons of gold and diamonds will not be left unattented , Germans would have arrived by the thousands in the '90s to dig it out .

The Galileo Fallacy doesn't count as a good reason to believe something.

coming right after mine and failing to grasp much of the article linked , allow me to repeat it that ı find it singularly unlikely that murderous bunch of thugs better known as the Nazis , who survived through Gehlen's adoption by the likes of the OSS , would fail to keep tabs on a 190 or 200 meter long train buried under and smuggle the contents piece by piece .

and today's noble cause being the image of that 3 year old Syrian dead on the beach . Average week has almost 5 or 10 casualties his size through out the Mediterrenaen but he is on the front pages this week . Only after Russia declines it has "volunteers" in Syria - ot in the already established BMP vehicles but in MiGs . So that an operation / intervention can be mounted now that nobody has bulging checkbooks to settle all those victims . And this has got nothing to do with that kid ending up dead on a beach in Turkey , now that it's galling already that "businesses" in Turkey are sewing sponges to supposed livevests to save production costs and selling them at the regular inflated prices to all those people trying to cross the Aegean .


edit : Ohh , maybe that was for post #806 .

Probably stupid questions that I have pondered -

How did China end up having a such a large population even in antiquity? I mean, it has always had this massive population and I'm not sure how they were able to support it or what conditions led to it. Is there anything that the historical record can show us to in this regard? (I.E. did they have better agricultural practices? Better governance? Better climate?)

I *think* (but may be wrong) that China has a (very roughly speaking) similar climate to much of North America. Yet their population soared and while Pre-Columbia, the population of North America was substantial, I don't think it came close to what China boasted. And with a few notable exceptions, it wasn't an urbanized society. So how did China get to be the way it is, in essence?


Another question -

How did non-European cities in antiquity handle sanitation and such? It seems as if European cities post-Roman era forgot all about sanitation techniques and once they reached a certain population size, they had waves of epidemics and lots of disease that kept their populations in check. I know that in other areas of the world there was large cities in antiquity and yet they seemed to avoid the kinds of plagues and disease that so troubled Europe.

(and I do realize the bubonic plague was a whole other thing and that cities all across the world suffered, though Europe seems to have been hit especially hard because of the above).

hobbsyoyo said:

Probably stupid questions that I have pondered -

How did China end up having a such a large population even in antiquity? I mean, it has always had this massive population and I'm not sure how they were able to support it or what conditions led to it. Is there anything that the historical record can show us to in this regard? (I.E. did they have better agricultural practices? Better governance? Better climate?)

Click to expand...

Modern population growth really only takes off with industrialization. That said, there's really not much difference between China and India, except (I know less of Indian rivers) that the major Chinese rivers often changed course. Agricultural subsistence depended on good harvests and flooding and crop failures would often cause famines. It's major accomplishment that China today can feed its population.

hobbsyoyo said:

I *think* (but may be wrong) that China has a (very roughly speaking) similar climate to much of North America. Yet their population soared and while Pre-Columbia, the population of North America was substantial, I don't think it came close to what China boasted. And with a few notable exceptions, it wasn't an urbanized society. So how did China get to be the way it is, in essence?

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you wish to compare China to pre-Columbian America. although there were agriculturists in North America hunting and gathering would have been preponderant well past Columbus. Not only would total popualtion be far below China's, so would population density due to the complete lack of (major) cities = with the notable exception of Cahokia.

hobbsyoyo said:

Another question -

How did non-European cities in antiquity handle sanitation and such? It seems as if European cities post-Roman era forgot all about sanitation techniques and once they reached a certain population size, they had waves of epidemics and lots of disease that kept their populations in check. I know that in other areas of the world there was large cities in antiquity and yet they seemed to avoid the kinds of plagues and disease that so troubled Europe.

(and I do realize the bubonic plague was a whole other thing and that cities all across the world suffered, though Europe seems to have been hit especially hard because of the above).

Click to expand...

Not all across the world. Not even all across the Old World .

Sanitation conditions until well into industrial times were generally atrocious - especially when compared to the Roman world. Only in the 19th century did some knowledge about hygiene begin to spread, but industrialization caused major hygiene problems again. But even in and following WW I most casualties were due to disease, not combat.

Agent327 said:

Modern population growth really only takes off with industrialization. That said, there's really not much difference between China and India, except (I know less of Indian rivers) that the major Chinese rivers often changed course. Agricultural subsistence depended on good harvests and flooding and crop failures would often cause famines. It's major accomplishment that China today can feed its population.

Click to expand...

Didn't China more or less always have a massive population relative to any other place even in antiquity? Good point with India - the same question applies.

Obviously there are other areas of the planet that are great for agriculture but as you note, population growth didn't take off in most places until Industrialization. All I am asking is why it seems there was very large populations in China (and India) pre-industrialization? If it all comes down to good harvests, then why didn't other places in the world which were equally capable of good harvest have such large populations?

I don't understand why you wish to compare China to pre-Columbian America. although there were agriculturists in North America hunting and gathering would have been preponderant well past Columbus. Not only would total popualtion be far below China's, so would population density due to the complete lack of (major) cities = with the notable exception of Cahokia.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not really comparing them on a societal level as much as I getting at the climates are somewhat similar and therefore both areas could (and do now) support massive agriculatural cultivation. Yet China had this massive population and the other other continent didn't. But I think your point about hunting and gathering being predominant explains a lot. But it also begs the question, why was Cahokia really the only big city and why didn't more people in NA pick up an agrarian lifestyle and instead stuck with hunting and gathering whereas the Chinese went the other route?

Not all across the world. Not even all across the Old World .

Sanitation conditions until well into industrial times were generally atrocious - especially when compared to the Roman world. Only in the 19th century did some knowledge about hygiene begin to spread, but industrialization caused major hygiene problems again. But even in and following WW I most casualties were due to disease, not combat.

Click to expand...

So most cities in antiquity had no sanitation systems? Even the ones outside of Europe (like in China, India and elsewhere)?

hobbsyoyo said:

Didn't China more or less always have a massive population relative to any other place even in antiquity? Good point with India - the same question applies.

Click to expand...

Why would you assume that? For one, we don't have accurate statistical data for this. All population estimates for antiquity are basically (more or less) educated guesses. An example: the population of the Roman empire has been estimated to be anything from 25 to 100 million.

hobbsyoyo said:

Obviously there are other areas of the planet that are great for agriculture but as you note, population growth didn't take off in most places until Industrialization. All I am asking is why it seems there was very large populations in China (and India) pre-industrialization? If it all comes down to good harvests, then why didn't other places in the world which were equally capable of good harvest have such large populations?

Click to expand...

See above.

hobbsyoyo said:

Sorry, I'm not really comparing them on a societal level as much as I getting at the climates are somewhat similar and therefore both areas could (and do now) support massive agriculatural cultivation. Yet China had this massive population and the other other continent didn't. But I think your point about hunting and gathering being predominant explains a lot. But it also begs the question, why was Cahokia really the only big city and why didn't more people in NA pick up an agrarian lifestyle and instead stuck with hunting and gathering whereas the Chinese went the other route?

Click to expand...

A very interesting question. At a very basic level agriculture is very labour intensive. This has only changed with the advent of industrialization, but in large parts of the world it is still the case today. So you can get your daily food by hunting and gathering for a few hours or by labouring 8 or more. So it does seem to end up being a societal question. Because in switching to an agricultural lifestyle you are giving up quite a lot, but getting labour specialization in return. (Of course there's a mediate position for pastoralists or semi-nomads.)

hobbsyoyo said:

So most cities in antiquity had no sanitation systems? Even the ones outside of Europe (like in China, India and elsewhere)?

Click to expand...

I can't say for certain, because I'm mostly familiar with Greco-Roman society. (But even in Rome conditions for the lower strata were far from pleasant.) I don't really know about hygiene conditions in China or India.

Agent327 said:

Why would you assume that? For one, we don't have accurate statistical data for this. All population estimates for antiquity are basically (more or less) educated guesses. An example: the population of the Roman empire has been estimated to be anything from 25 to 100 million.



See above.

Click to expand...

Ok, that's totally fair. (Don't shoot me when I say this)
But I was watching History Channel's 'The History of All of Us' and they threw around very large numbers for the population for pre-industrial China. Don't get me wrong, I knew how crappy HC shows are and I take everything with a massive grain of salt but I was led to believe there was some certainty in the size of the population in pre-Industrial China and that error brackets on the population estimates for Rome weren't that huge.

I stand corrected.

A very interesting question. At a very basic level agriculture is very labour intensive. This has only changed with the advent of industrialization, but in large parts of the world it is still the case today. So you can get your daily food by hunting and gathering for a few hours or by labouring 8 or more. So it does seem to end up being a societal question. Because in switching to an agricultural lifestyle you are giving up quite a lot, but getting labour specialization in return. (Of course there's a mediate position for pastoralists or semi-nomads.)

Click to expand...

Ok, cool.

I can't say for certain, because I'm mostly familiar with Greco-Roman society. (But even in Rome conditions for the lower strata were far from pleasant.) I don't really know about hygiene conditions in China or India.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your answers!

China and India benefited early from rice cultivation. When growing rice in a suitably wet environment, the yield per acre is high. And the high yield of the cultivation supports high populations.

Early China also had irrigation and benefited from the loess replenishing the soil. They also don't seem to have had the salinization problem Mesopotamia had. They also gradually moved south, where rice flourishes, and had a large area suitable for culivation.

They also moved north (although a bit later). Lets just say the population expanded, allowing absorption of previously non-Chinese areas - such as most of current South China (previously inhabited by Thai peoples) and Manchuria.

Cutlass said:

China and India benefited early from rice cultivation. When growing rice in a suitably wet environment, the yield per acre is high. And the high yield of the cultivation supports high populations.

Click to expand...

You might have a valid point here, but I'm not sure if rice yield compares favourably to the other domesticated grains. As a rule though, agriculture supports higher populations than pastoralism/semi-nomadism.

Agent327 said:

Why would you assume that? For one, we don't have accurate statistical data for this. All population estimates for antiquity are basically (more or less) educated guesses. An example: the population of the Roman empire has been estimated to be anything from 25 to 100 million.

.

Click to expand...

I think it can be reasonably said, though, that a majority of people have lived in Asia for all of recorded human history - the late 19th century was the time at which the majority was at its smallest, because the population of Europe had grown so dramatically. Part of this, of course, is to do with the fact that China and India are simply much bigger than the other entities (eg. 'France', 'Western Europe', and so on) with which they're usually compared. The population of the Roman empire at its height is usually given as about 60 million, with a maximum of one million living in the city of Rome itself at its peak under Augustus, which makes it the largest city (in Europe if not the world) in history until London surpassed that mark in the early 19th century. You're right that these are reasonably vague estimates, but I don't think they're quite as imprecise as that - certainly if we're thinking of the order-of-magnitude level of precision that sets Chinese and Indian population estimates apart from those of almost all other states.

That may (or may not) be true, but demographically it makes more sense to compare India (no historical demographical data whatsoever AFAIK) and China to Europe, not individual European countries. Also, while India is simply a subcontinent, China has been expanding more or less continuously until the 19th century. (In other words 'China' in 2,000 BC was a lot smaller than China today.)

At any rate, I was merely advising caution with regard to demographical guesses as to historical populations. They may be educated guesses, but hard data are few and far between and often extremely localized.