The Most Important Year in History
- Thread starter Whomp
- Start date
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
What overdramatic, rhetorical nonsense. Of course they're human; of course they're important.
But, discovering Australia simply didn't have the same impact on the world as a whole as the discovery of the Americas, did it?
Did he bring back potatoes, tomatoes, corn and so on and completely revolutionize agriculture globally? End the famines that appeared as regularly as clockwork in Europe and Asia, and cause them to become infrequent and exceptional events?
Any new nations arise as a result?
No. So no.
It's not the "Eureka" factor that would make any particular event influential. It's what concrete changes and consequences occurred. All Eric's discovery of the Americas led to was some stories about Skraelings, and maybe a dozen boatloads of cod and lumber. And some tourism revenue for Newfoundland, centuries later.
Important, sure, but it still pales in comparison. A new way to get spices that can already be gotten is just not the same as doubling the number of domesticated plant species for agriculture.
Menzies is a very popular fringe whacko. His books come off the paperback rack at the supermarket, not university press. There's no peer review; it's just a crazy idea pumped out to the gullible because it has the appeal of novelty for novelty's sake. The theory doesn't hold up to rigorous historical examination, and even if it did, its importance is VERY limited. The important thing about the European discovery of the Americas was not having some special "Eureka!" moment. That's not important. The important things were that, tragic as it was, they settled the Americas and profoundly impacted the nature of two entire continents; and of the entire planet, both hemispheres. Two entire continents leapt from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic to the Early Modern/Preindustrial in the blink of an eye, dozens of new nations were born, and, in both hemispheres, mankind's repertoire of domesticated species expanded immensely, in a way that hadn't occurred since the agricultural revolution itself.
Nothing you've mentioned comes close to this level of impact. Unification of China - big impact? Absolutely. But did it affect people in Ireland? Or West Africa? No, except perhaps in the sense of the Lorenz butterfly ("does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?"). And even in that sense, its impact was limited; half of the planet couldn't be affected by anything that happened in the Old World until it was discovered. But when the Americas were discovered, no peoples on the entire planet were unaffected, and they were all affected directly. Not only did it propel the industrial revolution and lead to Europe's ascendancy and colonization of the globe (including Africa and Asia), but Africans were growing corn, the Irish were growing potatoes, Thais took up smoking ... on and on and on. Its impact reached into every aspect of daily life for everyone in the world, within the space of a century and not in any manner like the Lorenz buttefly, but directly.
As an example of just how profound the impact was, wherever you are in the world, the next time you are on a bus, or in a classroom or theatre or something, look at the person on your left, the person on your right, and the person directly in front of you. All of them are direct products of the discovery and colonization of the Americas; they wouldn't exist without it. Because of the new crops and medicines introduced (to both hemispheres) the global population, which had increased only modestly since 500 BC, fluctuated alot, and tended to bottleneck at about half a billion, suddenly exploded.
That is to say, the next 11 people you see, and 11 out of every 12 thereafter, are all products of this event.
well, while I wouldn't say Lief Ericson's landing was more important than Columbus', it did set the tone for many indian wars to follow.
White men butchered Indians circa 1000ad + oral tradition = Indians butcher white men in the 1600s, and then retaliation comes along and boom we got ourselves an on-and-off war for almost 300 some years...
White men butchered Indians circa 1000ad + oral tradition = Indians butcher white men in the 1600s, and then retaliation comes along and boom we got ourselves an on-and-off war for almost 300 some years...
1215: The year people made the soveriegn subject to the law, not the other way around
1945: The year people made nations accountable to the world
1945: The year people made nations accountable to the world
Huayna Capac357
Deity
What overdramatic, rhetorical nonsense. Of course they're human; of course they're important.
But, discovering Australia simply didn't have the same impact on the world as a whole as the discovery of the Americas, did it?
Did he bring back potatoes, tomatoes, corn and so on and completely revolutionize agriculture globally? End the famines that appeared as regularly as clockwork in Europe and Asia, and cause them to become infrequent and exceptional events?
Any new nations arise as a result?
No. So no.
It's not the "Eureka" factor that would make any particular event influential. It's what concrete changes and consequences occurred. All Eric's discovery of the Americas led to was some stories about Skraelings, and maybe a dozen boatloads of cod and lumber. And some tourism revenue for Newfoundland, centuries later.
Important, sure, but it still pales in comparison. A new way to get spices that can already be gotten is just not the same as doubling the number of domesticated plant species for agriculture.
Menzies is a very popular fringe whacko. His books come off the paperback rack at the supermarket, not university press. There's no peer review; it's just a crazy idea pumped out to the gullible because it has the appeal of novelty for novelty's sake. The theory doesn't hold up to rigorous historical examination, and even if it did, its importance is VERY limited. The important thing about the European discovery of the Americas was not having some special "Eureka!" moment. That's not important. The important things were that, tragic as it was, they settled the Americas and profoundly impacted the nature of two entire continents; and of the entire planet, both hemispheres. Two entire continents leapt from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic to the Early Modern/Preindustrial in the blink of an eye, dozens of new nations were born, and, in both hemispheres, mankind's repertoire of domesticated species expanded immensely, in a way that hadn't occurred since the agricultural revolution itself.
Nothing you've mentioned comes close to this level of impact. Unification of China - big impact? Absolutely. But did it affect people in Ireland? Or West Africa? No, except perhaps in the sense of the Lorenz butterfly ("does the flap of a butterflys wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?"). And even in that sense, its impact was limited; half of the planet couldn't be affected by anything that happened in the Old World until it was discovered. But when the Americas were discovered, no peoples on the entire planet were unaffected, and they were all affected directly. Not only did it propel the industrial revolution and lead to Europe's ascendancy and colonization of the globe (including Africa and Asia), but Africans were growing corn, the Irish were growing potatoes, Thais took up smoking ... on and on and on. Its impact reached into every aspect of daily life for everyone in the world, within the space of a century and not in any manner like the Lorenz buttefly, but directly.
As an example of just how profound the impact was, wherever you are in the world, the next time you are on a bus, or in a classroom or theatre or something, look at the person on your left, the person on your right, and the person directly in front of you. All of them are direct products of the discovery and colonization of the Americas; they wouldn't exist without it. Because of the new crops and medicines introduced (to both hemispheres) the global population, which had increased only modestly since 500 BC, fluctuated alot, and tended to bottleneck at about half a billion, suddenly exploded.
That is to say, the next 11 people you see, and 11 out of every 12 thereafter, are all products of this event.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I once too was ensnared by Menzies's opiate of "facts," but then I discovered this site:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=91
It debunks in highly checkable fashion every single point.
And then, by the same site, there's this:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=87
Which does the same, except criticising the linguistic rubbish. Read them, and you will be convinced, based on facts, not mass market fiction.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Uh... what?
The UN; before that there was no power greater than the nation (the league of nations had no enforcement)
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Neither does the U.N. Notice how a lot of the world still sucks?
Technically it does - it's the concept rather than what actually happens (and the UN is pretty good at its job when it has decent officers on the ground)
LightSpectra
me autem minui
And that doesn't count for the League of Nations, why? More importantly, that counts at all, why? The only significant branch of the U.N. is the World Health Organization. Beyond that, it has less influence on world events than the Church of Scientology.
Panopticon
Utilitarian
I agree with much of this, and I would suspect the political and economic trends which 1776 brought into being and supported were more important among the peoples of the West as a whole than the preceding ideological trends, particularly if you see WWI as the beginning of the modern era.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
err... not really.
The Vikings had just one violent encounter with the natives in Newfoundland. A small Dorset party showed up to trade, they were exchanging stuff, and then a bull brought by the Norse got loose. The Dorsets were terrified, and took off running. For 3 weeks, no Dorsets were seen.
After 3 weeks, hundreds of Dorset whalers show up and start throwing harpoons, with (by the sounds of things) the float-bladders still attached. The Norse were terrified; they thought the float-bladders were particularly frightening. Eiriksaga says, "There was a heavy shower of missiles, for the Skrælings had warslings too. Karlsefni and Snorri could see the Skrælings hoisting up on poles ball-shaped objects the size of a sheep's paunch, and blue-black in colour, which they sent flying inland over Karlsefni's troop, and it made a hideous noise where it came down. Great fear now struck into Karlsefni and all his following, so that there was no other thought in their heads than to run away up along the river, for they had the impression that the Skræling host was pouring in upon them from all sides. They made no stop till they came to some steep rocks, and there put up a strong resistance.
Freydis came out-of-doors and saw how they had taken to their heels. 'Why are you running from wretches like these?' she cried. 'Such gallant lads as you, I thought for sure you would have knocked them on the head like cattle. Why, if I had a weapon, I think I could put up a better fight than any of you!'
They might as well not have heard her. Freydis was anxious to keep up with them, but was rather slow because of her pregnancy. She was moving after them into the forest when the Skrælings attacked her. She found a dead man in her path, Thorbrand Snorrason--he had a flat stone sticking out of his head. His sword lay beside him; she picked it up and prepared to defend herself with it. The Skrælings were now making for her. She pulled out her breasts from under her shift and slapped the sword on them, at which the Skrælings took fright, and ran off to their boats and rowed away.
Not much of a butchery - rather, a bunch of men peeing themselves and running away, until they're saved by a pregnant woman. And another bunch of men fleeing in terror from a pregnant women.
They had some other encounters with the Dorset in Greenland, and they seemed to get along fairly well. About 1200 AD, though, the Inuit, spreading east from their origin in Siberia since 500 AD, arrive in Greenland, and soon after, like everywhere else the Inuit spread, the Dorset mysteriously disappear - and so do the Norse, in Greenland.
Racsoviale
Smoke me a kipper!
I have always been fascinated by the person(s) who thought up the entire process of baking inorder to tell the rest of the gang how to make an eatable sustance out of tall grass.
the entire thought-process behind this and the end product being quite a lot of different tasty eatable types of bread makes me vote for the year bread was invented.
the entire thought-process behind this and the end product being quite a lot of different tasty eatable types of bread makes me vote for the year bread was invented.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
That's definately a good one.
Of course, wild wheat seeds were already an edible substance before they started baking it. The seeds weren't like the seeds on lawn-grass. More like flax seeds. It was probably eaten raw for quite some time before anyone thought of baking it. Actually, it was probably eaten raw since the dawn of the species.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,350
Neither was a new concept. Democracy (slaves excluded, I know...
) had been practiced in several republics for many centuries before. And nations somewhat (depending on the nation!) accountable to higher powers also had an old tradition, back to the middle ages, or even to the early "roman system" during the II and I centuries B.C. in the Mediterranean.At least the UN attempts to join both things. But I guess that there's still a long way to go.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Also ... in 1945 ... nations weren't made accountable at all. Losers were held accountable. Stalin wasn't exactly hauled up in front of the Nuremburg judges for the atrocities committed by the NKVD or the conquest of half of Europe.
Bowsling
Deity
personally, I'd have to say 1519, the year of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, which opened the door to later Spanish conquests, and inspired Pizzaro.
Also, Charles I of Spain also receives the crown of the Holy Roman empire as Charles V, although this event is less significant
Also, Charles I of Spain also receives the crown of the Holy Roman empire as Charles V, although this event is less significant
Whomp...my hero...
I'd go with 1492 if I had to pick one. The opening of the Americas was a truly global paradigm shift.
Candidate for 'the most important year in history'...a year you don't actually know.I'm using an approximate one there
Similar threads
