Discussion in 'World History' started by Plotinus, Sep 24, 2014.
Pangaea wasn't the first time all (or at least most) of the continents gathered together. Earlier there were Rodinia, Columbia, and Kenorland. There were a couple of other "supercontinents" before then, but they were much smaller, since the continental crust was stlll forming. There's a roughly 500 million year supercontinent cycle starting roughly 3 - 3.5 billion years ago. We have a few hundred million years before we get the next Pangaea.
Pangea isn't history though, right?
Well, I haven't seen it around lately.
Well, first they had to decide whether their kingdom belonged to India or Pakistan which is what the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan was all about. The rulers wanted to be a part of India but the populace supported being a part of Pakistan. Some, like Hyderabad declared themselves a part of neither and had their independent states annexed by the Indian army, which was decently armed due to World War 2. See Hyderabad. But yes, many did become politicians until they were supplanted by former Bollywood actors.
And India handled the affair with great tact, it is one of the things I'll give the government credit for- it understands how to run a federal system.
And I believe the descendants of the Nizam of Hyderabad while not the richest people in the world as their ancestor had been are still doing pretty well for themselves.
What? But of course it is!
Read up on your history.
What about the Sikhs?
Isn't the formation of all those nations thanks in part to the British? I mean, before they appeared in the area there was just India, or am I wrong?
Russo-Japanese wars are a topic not very well known to outsiders, well, the likes of myself.
Eh, you're right and you're wrong. At the time of British imperialism in India, there was nominally a central government in the Mughal empire, but the real power lay in the hands of local rulers, who vied with one another for power with the central government feebly protesting. The British got their start as mercenaries selling their soldiers to local princes in exchange for land. And the British often bribed the army of their enemies to turn on their leader. The concept that Britain invaded and defeated a central government o win India is a story that severely overestimates British competence imo. Much of the British empire came about haphazardly and in India this is no exception.
Thanks, I have little knowledge of India's past, I appreciate it.
Questions about The 3 Great Pyramids:
The Three Great Pyramids of Giza are larger and much better constructed than any other ancient Egyptian Pyramids, is this correct?
Are they older than other pyramids?
Was the Sphinx constructed around the same time as the 3 Great Pyramids?
Are the 3 Great Pyramids different from the other ones?, in what ways? Were they, or were they not, the resting places of Pharaohs?
Yes. (But see below.)
They were constructed over an extended period of time, construction being begun years in advance of the pharaoh's expected death. Prior to the Great Pyramid some efforts to construct a pyramid-type building were undertaken. (Notably the so-called bent pyramid.) Later pyramids were generally much smaller in size, probably because of the time and effort invested in the first three. The first three pyramids were all constructed during reigns of pharaohs that happened to live long enough to see contruction completed. Also, of course, this was a very rich period in ancient Egyptian history. (Literally.) This may also have played a part in later pyramids being much smaller in size.
Yes. They are to date the most giant tomb structures ever built. Each pyramid was provided with ample religous structures to keep the memory of the deceased pharaoh alive (who upon death supposedly became a god - a transition from what he was during life: 'the living god'.) The sphinx was probably a part of one such religious complexes. surrounding the entire complex (including the pyramid itself) would be a wall with one or more entrances. So in ancient times the whole pyramid complex would have been even larger than what can be seen today.
More information on the pyramids wikipedia page.
Most yes or no questions can be found out with just a little reading, say on Wikipedia.
Cheezy, I knew you would like it!
Agent327 and daft - isn't the step pyramid of Djoser older than the Three Great Pyramids ???
Pretty certainly, yes. Djoser belonged to the Third Dynasty, whilst Khufu came from the Fourth, I believe.
thanks for the information . So it seems the present continents can be dated back to 3 billion years ago and they were still "recognizable" with close enough shapes , is that so ?
sorry , ı wouldn't know where else to ask .
as much ı am , though they were a prime reason why Russia turned on easier conquests , besides joining the Anglo-French pact of destruction against us which necessitated the incapacitation of Germany first .
Agent327, thanks for the answers.
What caused the global drought which caused the collapse of the old Egyptian Kingdom? (in around 2200-2300 BC)?
Why did the Ancient Egyptians abandon the construction of Pyramids? Any approximate dating?
A global draught? I'm beginning to wonder where you get your information... The Ancient Kingdom didn't collapse at all: central authority gradually eroded, a feature typical of the so-called Intermediate Periods, when rival power centres (usually provincial) expanded at the cost of the central pharaonic one.
Never heard of this. The 'Labyrinth' was the name give to the palace of Knossos, which, obviously, is not in Egypt. And yes, it has already been 'excavated'. The labys (axe) was a symbol often used by Minoans, hence the name 'labyrinth'.
Separate names with a comma.