1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

Discussion in 'World History' started by Flying Pig, Jan 22, 2017.

  1. Marla_Singer

    Marla_Singer United in diversity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,941
    Location:
    Paris, west side (92).
    From my understanding, the 1904 Entente Cordiale between France and Britain was widely the result of their Empires overstretching. It was mutually beneficial for both to cooperate in their global colonial ruling as that was a lot more economically efficient to work as a peaceful alliance rather than it would have been otherwise. Both powers could mutually benefit of the facilities of one another to master sea trade as a kind of unrivaled cartel. Bringing Germany to the game was clearly not in their interests.

    As a matter of fact, it seems so obvious when you think about it that we can hardly understand the logic of the "Britain and the US should have allied with Germany instead of France" usual narrative. Behaving aggressively towards France would have really endangered trade flows in the British Empire.
     
  2. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish By any means necessary

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    8,436
    Gender:
    Male
    Roosevelt and Stalin were both attacked first. That changes things immensely. Stalin, in particular, had pretty much no choice whatsoever.
     
  3. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,946
    Location:
    Scotland
    Churchill didn't chose to go to war, either. He wasn't even a member of the government until after the war began, and before assuming the premiership, he was First Lord of the Admiralty, a position essentially equivalent to the Secretary of the Navy in the US; an important office in wartime, but by no means the natural successor to a resigning premier. He was only appointed prime minister nine months into the war, and was able to assume and then remain in office because he reflected the mood in parliament, which was in favour of continuing the war. If he had changed his mind, assuming no major deviations from actual history, parliament could have replaced him with somebody who was more determined to continue. Roosevelt or Stalin, while certainly bound by circumstances not of their own making, had a greater degree of personal authority over whether their countries remained in the war and on what terms, because they could not simply be replaced if they contradicted their respective legislatures.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  4. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,778
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I don't think Stalin had much choice.
     
  5. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,946
    Location:
    Scotland
    Probably not, but it was his choice not to have, if that makes sense. Churchill wasn't simply constrained by circumstances, he was constrained by parliament; if they were in favour of continuing the war and he was not, he would have been removed, before it ever reached the point of discovering whether peace was on the table.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  6. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,778
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I generally agree. Churchill was for standing against Hitler but afaik there was no real peace party in Britain other than Mosley's gang and they were pretty thoroughly discredited by then anyway.
     
  7. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A

    FDR really didn't have a say either. While it's true that he could only really have been removed from office had he lost election in 1940 or 1944, it's also true that Congress declares war. And while the president in commander in chief, the actual running of the war was done by the Army and the Navy, with the money appropriated by Congress. Now given that the national mood was overwhelmingly for the war, had there been a president in office at the time who was not actively supporting the war efforts, he could have, and ultimately would have, been removed. Congress does have that power.

    Before Pearl Harbor, the general consensus in the US was against the war. After Pearl Harbor, the country as a whole wanted to get in on the killing, as fast and completely as possible.
     
    hobbsyoyo and caketastydelish like this.
  8. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,168
    the media would be surely moving the decision to war . Wasn't the USN in undeclared war against the Germans from maybe April 1941 ?
     
  9. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A

    FDR was responsible for the USN involved in anti-submarine warfare against the Germans before the US entered the war. So it's not like he wasn't pro-war. He wanted the US in it in alliance with Britain. But his was not the majority opinion before Pearl Harbor.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  10. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,168
    ı would say that's over-estimating the power of the Isolationists . This despite it was like real hard in the Congress and the like . This despite me long "favouring" the idea that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbour to happen and he got away with it only through being a Navy man . His underlings could not believe that it could be happening , and like once again it revolves around the oaths the really honourable men take and follow .
     
  11. Absolution

    Absolution Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    582
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    When seeing how the Indus Valley history is presented around the web, I sometimes see attempts for conrete description about the social construct of the settlements and the regional system as a whole.
    It always gets me wondering - do we even know that it was in some level a single culture?

    Considering the vast time-frame and territory that is counted as "Indus Valley Civilisation", isn't it highly probable that different groups of peoples, "religions", "nations", or social constructs existed throughout it?
    How does the archaeology help decide on this case?

    If comparison is relevant, I would calrify myself by presenting two "models":
    - The Nile River model - a single (or one prominent) culture with a mostly unified linguistic and religious tradition (Egypt), which defined most of what we would credit to the Nile River Civilisation.
    - The Mesopotamian model - generally started with one specific culture (Sumer), which influenced other various peoples of the wider area (Elam and northern Semites), and later being totally replaced by newer cultures of the more recent Mesopotamian periods (Babylonians, Assyrians, Mittani).

    Is it likely that the Indus Valley Civilisation actually resembled the latter, contrary to the way it is mostly presented? Or can we simpy know nothing?
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  12. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A

    This is going to depend on how much archeological work has been done there. This is certainly an extremely ancient center of human settlement. And, because of that, has most likely had a lot of groups of people moving across it, taking it from others, killing past groups, or merging with them. But to separate out what has happened, that takes a lot of work. And you'll have to dig into who has done, or tried to do, that work.

    The Nile Valley is unusual in being isolated by geography from invading groups. So a continuation of 1 culture is much more likely there.
     
  13. Owen Glyndwr

    Owen Glyndwr La Femme Moderne

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,670
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Certainly. You have to work with the evidence you have, and we only really have access to material culture that was left behind. Similarities in structures, urban organization, weapons/jewelry, pottery, artistic motifs, etc. certainly speak to either a homogenous culture, or else multiple cultures linked to a productive or cultural hegemon. However that says nothing to the granular realities - absent written records we have no way of really knowing cultural demographic details, language, political realities at the ground level, etc. We do know a great deal about the Indus River Valley Civilization - the archaeological record they left behind is quite rich - but the reality is that until we decode those artifacts which academics in the field are speculatively identifying as a robust writing system - we won't know those granular details definitively.

    We can only work with what we have, and as you note, attempts to align material culture/archaeological findings with reconstructive linguistic or comparative religious work has historically been a fraught endeavor (see the attempts to place the Proto-Germanics or Proto-Indo-Europeans in the archaeological record for examples of this). But that being said, I don't think you'll find a credible academic in these fields that doesn't explicitly note the inherently speculative nature of that sort of work.
     
    Absolution likes this.
  14. Absolution

    Absolution Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    582
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    Can Rurik be seen as Samo of the East Slavs?
    A Germanic foreign trader who lead the local Slavs into forming their first political state or empire.
    Anything inaccurate in this comaprison?
     
  15. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,946
    Location:
    Scotland
    Rurik is semi-fictional at best. He doesn't appear in the historical record until centuries after his supposed lifespan, and narratives of his life serve primarily to glorify and legitimise the ruling dynasty. It's not uncommon for powerful families in this period to invent fanciful biographies of their patriarchs, if not simply inventing the patriarch altogether.
     
    hobbsyoyo and Ajidica like this.
  16. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,986
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    Its my understanding that the Conservatives first choice would've been Halifax, an appeaser, but he was unwilling to accept the post. Both the Liberals and Labour expressed a preference for Churchill and he was popular in the country because of his anti-appeasement stance. The Conservatives had a large majority so in theory they could've chosen somebody else.
     
  17. Michkov

    Michkov Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,376
    Whatever happened to the various Spanish Christian Kingdoms? In all the histories of Spain they get joined under a single Monarch in the late 1400s and never really mentioned again. Are they still an entities today or where they destroyed somewhere along the line?
     
  18. Josu

    Josu King

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    725
    Location:
    Bilbao, Basque Country
    Some historians would say that Castile and Aragon joined to form Spain in 1479 with the wedding of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, while others would say that they were joined in same dinasty but they were different crowns, so different kingdoms, until the Nueva Planta decrees in early XVI century

    Kingdom of Asturias transitioned into the Kingdom of León in 924.
    As a simplified explanation, Kingdom of Leon joined to Castile in 1230.

    Regarding Kingdom of Navarre, the Upper Navarre, in the south of Pyrenees, was invaded by the forces of Castile and Aragon in 1512. It was considered a Kingdom ruled by a viceroy appointed by the Spanish monarch. After the first Carlist war kingdom was abolished and a chartered province was set up
    The Lower Navarre, in the north of the Pyrenees, dinasty was joined to French Monarchy when King Henry III of Navarre inherited the French throne as Henry IV of France, continued independent, until 1789, when the kingdom was abolished.

    Asturias, Navarre, Aragon and Castile-Leon are currently autonomous communities in Spain
     
    Owen Glyndwr and hobbsyoyo like this.
  19. JohannaK

    JohannaK Careless Whisperer

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    13,929
    Location:
    Last Christmas
    The case of Aragon is interesting because on top of the Kingdom of Aragon was the Crown of Aragon, which was a dynastic union unto itself of Aragon and Catalonia at first, then of those plus Valencia and Mallorca, then also Sicily and Naples, Sardinia, Athens...

    Each territory had its laws and constitutions, and the king needed their respective Estates General (knows as Corts or Cortes, that is to say Courts), with their representatives of the clergy, the nobility, and the royal chartered towns, to levy the taxes for his wars and affairs, with the Estates General progressively extracting more laws and privileges feom the king in exchange. It was a very interesting proto-parliamentarian confederation thingy.

    These local laws and customs did not go away upon the union of Isabella and Ferdinand. In fact, there was an agreement somewhere that if Ferdinand sired an heir after Isabella's passing, it would be this one who would inherit the Crown of Aragon, thereby separating the two realms again. If I remember correctly, he did have a child of a second wife, but it died in infancy, plus he had to take over as regent of Castile when his daughter Juana was locked up and his son-in-law died of smallpox, or something of the sort.

    In any case, the laws and constitutions of all these disparate realms remained in effect until the decrees of Nueva Planta erased them at the conclusion of the War of the Spanish Succession, where precisely the territories of the Crown of Aragon all chose to support the Habsburg claimant against the Bourbon king and lost. In the intervening 200 years, the particular constitutions and institutions of these realms became a bit of a nightmare to the Castilian administrators at the court who very openly sought to eradicate them and assimilate them to the political and legal system of Castile.

    The paradigm here is the Count-Duke of Olivares in the early-mid 17th century, whose schemes ended up with the 19-year War of the Reapers in Catalonia in 1640, the revolt and secession of Portugal and its Empire, and widespread unrest elsewhere. Still today the limits of many of Spain's autonomous communities are a vestige of those old realms' borders. Some of them, to this day, are still less than joyous to be a part of Spain.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  20. Absolution

    Absolution Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    582
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    Browsing the Wikipedia artcile about Stephen I of Hungary, I noticed that many of his contemporary depictions show his head surrounded by a red circle that looks like a hollow. He and his dead son are the only two to have that circle in those paintings.
    What is that?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_I_defeats_Kean_(Chronicon_Pictum_041).jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...g_of_Vazul_(above)_(Chronicon_Pictum_044).jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_I_intercepts_Gyula_(Chronicon_Pictum_040).jpg

    Even a later portrait of him as a Saint and a modern national Statue show a similiar red hollow.
     

Share This Page