History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The payments stopped, too:

 

[sydhe]

it must have been raining for a billion years , there must have been oceans for a long time and what was before the Pangea ? Any good links about a gif that shows the seperation of the continents and their travel to current locations ? Even lovelier would be an indication of the way they are likely to move in the future ..

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.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Pangea isn't history though, right?

 

[sydhe]

Pangea isn't history though, right?

Well, I haven't seen it around lately.

 

[jackelgull]

What happened to all the various Indian dynasties and aristocrats after independence?

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.

 

[daft]

Pangea isn't history though, right?

What? But of course it is!
Read up on your history.

 

[kiwitt]

Pangea isn't history though, right?

Correct!

History is the study of the past, particularly how it relates to humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

 

[daft]

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 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?

 

[daft]

the tale of Hornet comes to mind , where Americans failed to finish it off and it was left to Japanese destroyers to sink it . Japanese took over a lot of Russian battleships but ı guess those were all ships that were sunk while in port , easy to raise afterwards . ı think it's possible that a Russian battleship surrendered after battle but can't be sure without reference books . The latest capturing of a ship by boarding must be then around mid 1800s .

Russo-Japanese wars are a topic not very well known to outsiders, well, the likes of myself.

 

[jackelgull]

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?

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.

 

[daft]

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.

 

[daft]

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?

 

[Agent327]

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?

Yes.

Are they older than other pyramids?

Yes. (But see below.)

Was the Sphinx constructed around the same time as the 3 Great Pyramids?

Most probably.

Are the 3 Great Pyramids different from the other ones?, in what ways?

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.

Were they, or were they not, the resting places of Pharaohs?

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.

 

[Arakhor]

Most yes or no questions can be found out with just a little reading, say on Wikipedia.

 

[Domen]

Cheezy, I knew you would like it!

==============================

Agent327 and daft - isn't the step pyramid of Djoser older than the Three Great Pyramids ???

 

[Arakhor]

Pretty certainly, yes. Djoser belonged to the Third Dynasty, whilst Khufu came from the Fourth, I believe.

 

[r16]

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.

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 ?

Pangea isn't history though, right?

sorry , ı wouldn't know where else to ask .

Russo-Japanese wars are a topic not very well known to outsiders, well, the likes of myself.

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 .

 

[daft]

Agent327, thanks for the answers.

 

[daft]

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?

 

[Agent327]

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.

Agent327, thanks for the answers.

Another one of similiar type:

The Ancient Egyptian Labyrinth, visited and described by famous Greek historian Herodotus, is supposedly to be confirmed buried under the Egyptian desert and found by a 2008 Belgian expedition (Mataha expedition). Why is there no archeological work being done to excavate it? Or ist there?
Herodotus described the Labyrinth to be even more spectacular then the Pyramids of Giza.

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'.