General History Questions thread

Users who are viewing this thread

There were attempts to build something bigger. The USCA was made up of seven modern countries but fell apart after Mexican occupation due to too many internal conflicts. Then there was Gran Colombia which basically got too big for it's boots and after loosing the Colombian-Peruvian war dissolved into Ecuador, Colombia, Panama and Venezuela.

I guess the governments didn't command the same sort of legitimacy that you had in the US for whatever reason.

Or maybe South America just sucks.
 
Most likely the regional powerbase wanted to keep their powers and so were against anything that went against that, such as a united spanish south america. Bolivar wanted a united league of some sorts but he didnt manage it.

In brazil it was different because of how the independence came to occur. It happened earlier than having all these separate regions boiling for independence with success. Those independency movements before the actual independence all failed quite rapidly. So when we actually got the independence it was something pushed down from Rio, not the other way around.

Even so there could have been quite a few more nations in brazil if it wasnt for Dom Pedro II the god Emperor or the Duke of Caxias, praetorian of Rio.
 
Argentina Chile Perú Bolivia Paraguay and Uruguay could have been one single country, they became autonomous when napoleon kidnapped some stupid king of spain. i have only a nebulous about what happened north of Perú, but what more or less happened was that the pro independence cause more or less developed from the autonomous government that were set up. They kind of claimed to represent the king, until the king was back on the throne, so they just declared independence there. Uruguay and Paraguay (actually montevideo and asunción) resisted Buenos Aires, that wanted to exert control over all that was the "Virreinato del río de la Plata" which encompassed modern Bolivia, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.
An army supposedly controlled by Buenos Aires, led by San Martín crossed the Andes into Chile, at that point held by Royalists, modern day Bolivia and Peru too. One victory followed by a defeat and another victory meant that Chile was now independent, then they embarked to Peru, and it was more or less the same story. at this point Bolivar also appears in the north, and the royalists are kind of sandwich'd.
So it could have been just one country, or bigger ones, but there was too much antagonism between cities, like montevideo and buenos aires, and lima , etc. it's no wonder that Argentina is a country with only one decent city and the rest is people shagging llamas all day, the modern day frontiers only show how far did local powers go before their spheres of influence clashed.
Also the brits were interested in the market, but didn't want silly stuff going on, so it was better to have smaller countries. they intervened for example in the war between Argentina and Brazil for Uruguay, and created uruguay so that the rio de la Plata becomes an international river, and british ships can go up
 
Wulfburk said:
Most likely the regional powerbase wanted to keep their powers and so were against anything that went against that, such as a united spanish south america. Bolivar wanted a united league of some sorts but he didnt manage it.

In brazil it was different because of how the independence came to occur. It happened earlier than having all these separate regions boiling for independence with success. Those independency movements before the actual independence all failed quite rapidly. So when we actually got the independence it was something pushed down from Rio, not the other way around.

Even so there could have been quite a few more nations in brazil if it wasnt for Dom Pedro II the god Emperor or the Duke of Caxias, praetorian of Rio.

But we had several independence movements in the 19th century, literally the only thing that kept the kingdom together was the army killing the separatists.
 
quick question:

in the jambu inscription, which is a legacy of Tarumanegara, which is an Indian culture kingdom of 4 ad
there was something written as follows:

Dashing, admirable and honest about his task is the peerless human leader known to Sri Purnawarman who once (ruled) at Taruma and whose famous armor is not penetrated by enemy weapons.

armor. never in any other statues or reliefs of indian culture, or atleast, indonesian indian culture did they depict any armors. it was always barechest, maybe a necklace or some kind of fancy glittering ornament, but i never saw where ones depict armor from that era.

my question, is what they ment by armour? did they call those ornament armour? or there is indeed an armour from that era that i happen to be have not stumbled yet? if thats the case, could you bring example? thanks in advance.
 
As early as the sixth and seventh centuries there was considerable trade emanating from Java, especially with China (for which records are better than for India). The archaeological evidence suggests that such trade goes back to the first century AD
Maybe he simply bought/was gifted an armor made in continental Asia. Artistic depictions aren't a reliable source, quite often the greeks painted themselves wearing only a helmet while carrying weapons, I don't think any warrior actually went to battle that naked :razz:
 
yalazur said:
quick question:

in the jambu inscription, which is a legacy of Tarumanegara, which is an Indian culture kingdom of 4 ad
there was something written as follows:

Dashing, admirable and honest about his task is the peerless human leader known to Sri Purnawarman who once (ruled) at Taruma and whose famous armor is not penetrated by enemy weapons.

armor. never in any other statues or reliefs of indian culture, or atleast, indonesian indian culture did they depict any armors. it was always barechest, maybe a necklace or some kind of fancy glittering ornament, but i never saw where ones depict armor from that era.

my question, is what they ment by armour? did they call those ornament armour? or there is indeed an armour from that era that i happen to be have not stumbled yet? if thats the case, could you bring example? thanks in advance.

Noble Indian leader in the "hypothetical"
scale armor of the 4th century BC...

sN5Hbx0.jpg

Armored elephant crew

UYMCqMx.jpg

dT38igm.jpg

zMRbfiY.jpg

fyaxhY5.jpg

h6yZINw.jpg

Chariot crew

vXzq57j.jpg

s4wLJAm.jpg

tc1HZqg.jpg

kushan empire, 30–375 AD

CLZXJLw.jpg

QKif4bR.jpg

ZtZRSAx.jpg

sNS7mqY.jpg

Nmk0bxx.jpg

ERqYiod.jpg

GfUS53Z.jpg

yqiLYnq.jpg

Imaginary portrait of Sri Purnawarman in scale armor

IJQuUl2.jpg
 
I was watching a programme about a Pals Battalion during the First World War and one of the fellas has a Brodie helmet with a front-to-back plume like those Tarleton or Bavarian helmets. What is it and what does it symbolise, if anything?
 
Angelsachsen said:
I was watching a programme about a Pals Battalion during the First World War and one of the fellas has a Brodie helmet with a front-to-back plume like those Tarleton or Bavarian helmets. What is it and what does it symbolise, if anything?
Do you have a pic? Could be just a trend used by a certain regiment/battalion reflected in plumes worn on ceremonial headdress.
 
I feel like that guy didn't live too long, jerry staring at a red plume hanging above the trenchline. He got bombed real quick.
 
Back
Top Bottom