General History Questions thread

Users who are viewing this thread

crodio said:
What changes had the term "nation" suffered through history to this day?
Will national states in the old world die with the coming of equality?
Had you asked that question 6 years ago when I was going through a "Hippie" phase fuelled by the typical lack of knowledge a teenager has regarding politics (some of which never actually grow out of), I would've said yes, without a doubt.

Nowadays it seems like a distant thing despite everything being aimed at that.
And I'm glad for it.
 
Skot the Sanguine said:
Interesting view of supranational.  I always envisioned entities like the EU, African Union, or Asia Cooperation Dialogue as steps towards future continental or regional entities.

That's the traditional scifi view but i doubt the EU or any equivalent will ever have the political power to maintain extraterrestrial colonies or affect popular ideology or whatever. Not to mention the fact that your average dude doesn't relate to supranationalism on an emotional level. Nobody's going to self-immolate or take to the countryside with a sniper rifle if the EU gets merged with some central Asian league; it's too vague. Even at their light-handed level, almost everyone wants the evil EU to back off their precious nation-states.
 
jacobhinds said:
Skot the Sanguine said:
Interesting view of supranational.  I always envisioned entities like the EU, African Union, or Asia Cooperation Dialogue as steps towards future continental or regional entities.

That's the traditional scifi view but i doubt the EU or any equivalent will ever have the political power to maintain extraterrestrial colonies or affect popular ideology or whatever. Not to mention the fact that your average dude doesn't relate to supranationalism on an emotional level. Nobody's going to self-immolate or take to the countryside with a sniper rifle if the EU gets merged with some central Asian league; it's too vague. Even at their light-handed level, almost everyone wants the evil EU to back off their precious nation-states.

Actually I'm pro-EU. Belgium's politics suck.  :lol:
 
jacobhinds said:
I'm pro-EU too, but the vast majority of people are on a scale of full-farage to i-don't-know\care-what-the-EU-does. By being so light-handed and neutral they've made no friends, unfortunately.

And UK politics sucks pretty hard too.  :razz:
It certainly does. I'm pro-EU but I also know quite a few people who are either anti-EU and want out (I think we'd lose more than we'd gain by leaving) or are apathetic.
 
What was the biggest battle among Indians (as in northern native americans)? I mean one tribe / confederacy against another one, not against Europeans / US. Also, did indians field infantry?
 
I don't know what was the largest Native-vs-Native battle but they did use infantry a plenty, considering that Europeans brought horses to the Americas.

So the stereotypical image of an Apache warrior on horseback is a depiction of 19th century far more than it is of any earlier time period.
 
jacobhinds said:
I'm pro-EU too, but the vast majority of people are on a scale of full-farage to i-don't-know\care-what-the-EU-does. By being so light-handed and neutral they've made no friends, unfortunately.

And UK politics sucks pretty hard too.  :razz:

Most EU countries don't have more than a third of the population (there's about three or four, one of course being the UK) that are actually anti-EU. The big exception is Greece, where they're very angry about Germoney or something and about 50% of the population hates the EU.

Don't recall figures for approval, but obviously the other approximately >66.666% of the population is split between apathy and varying degrees of approval.
 
BenKenobi said:
What was the biggest battle among Indians (as in northern native americans)? I mean one tribe / confederacy against another one, not against Europeans / US. Also, did indians field infantry?
360px-Flag_of_the_Iroquois_Confederacy.svg.png


:arrow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

:arrow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Expansion

A001259-01.jpg

A001259.jpg
A001259-02.jpg

iroquois-indians.jpg

img245-jpg.18318

-8.JPG

-1.JPG

-3.JPG

-7.JPG

-2.JPG

-6.JPG

iroquois_confederacy1335540765215.gif

gZ5p0qe.jpg

-4.JPG

-5.JPG

324px-Flag_of_the_Comanche_Nation.svg.png


:arrow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche

:arrow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_history#Comanche_expansion:_1700-1800

tTqz8T3.jpg
ComancheWarriorbyGeorgeSStuart.jpg

%3F17.jpg

-4.JPG

-1.JPG

-8.JPG

%3F%3F%3F.%3F%3F%3F.07.jpg

-7.JPG

-3.JPG

-5.JPG

-2.JPG

-6.JPG

Jhessail said:
So the stereotypical image of an Apache warrior on horseback is a depiction of 19th century far more than it is of any earlier time period.
:idea:

gTT7riB.jpg
 
The Huron and Iroquois hated each other and often came to blows during the 1700's and probably earlier.  My guess is that there were some larger clashes during the period, but as is often the problem with oral tradition, details are lacking.  I doubt any of these came to be much bigger than war parties of a couple hundred attacking a village or something.
 
Ililsa said:
Most EU countries don't have more than a third of the population (there's about three or four, one of course being the UK) that are actually anti-EU. The big exception is Greece, where they're very angry about Germoney or something and about 50% of the population hates the EUeveryone that's not Greek.

I fixed that for you, having inside info and all. Sadly, it is true. Half of them(I'm not putting myself among those guys) hates the EU for reasons and the other half hates everyone because "Greek master-race". Anyway, the real funny(or sad, it depends on how you see it) is that most people despise Germany and other loan-giving countries for wanting to get back their money and at the same time adores, or just tolerates positively our nation leaders, who were idiots or worse, sold enough to take loans with extensive interest they knew ew couldn't cover,  for the "Nation's benefit".

Having said that, German banks and subsequently goverment, is indeed to blaim. The following is from "Der Spiegel"(I've read it in the Economist, though):
Germany is coming across like a know-it-all in the debate over aid for Greece, while its own government did not achieve a budget surplus during the era of 1970 to 2011, although a budget surplus indeed was achieved by Germany in all three subsequent years (2012–2014) – with a spokesman for the governing CDU party commenting that "Germany is leading by example in the eurozone – only spending money in its coffers". A Bloomberg editorial, which also concluded that "Europe's taxpayers have provided as much financial support to Germany as they have to Greece", stated the German role and posture in the Greek crisis thus:

In the millions of words written about Europe's debt crisis, Germany is typically cast as the responsible adult and Greece as the profligate child. Prudent Germany, the narrative goes, is loath to bail out freeloading Greece, which borrowed more than it could afford and now must suffer the consequences. […] By December 2009, according to the Bank for International Settlements, German banks had amassed claims of $704 billion on Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, much more than the German banks' aggregate capital. In other words, they lent more than they could afford. [… I]rresponsible borrowers can't exist without irresponsible lenders. Germany's banks were Greece's enablers

So, basically, we're a nation of freeloaders, but we're allowed and indeed encouraged to be so, for foreign benefit. Can't really say what I dislike more, my country or others. :???:
 
YourStepDad said:
Thanks, although isn't the flintlock replacing the matchlock attributed to the late 17th century?

It took a great deal of time to completely make the transition over. Despite the recognized superiority of the flintlock and other designs matchlocks were still used by European armies up until about 1720. Even after that they were still used by civilians for some time. When civilians became militia they sometimes had to supply their own arms. Pirates also may have used them. Some obsolete arms also were kept in reserve in armories for a very long time as a hedge against demand for arms being greater than what can be supplied in a short time. The flintlock also of course continued to develop over time as well and new models were developed and adopted well into the 19th century.

My point is that it was a long process for each technology to be discovered, mature, become widely adopted, completely replace older technology, be further improved, have improvements adopted, and so on.  It was not unusual to have several generations of technology coexisting for decades. The cost and logistics of replacing arms is a challenging task even today. When you are an empire spread across the globe where transport is slow and many threats are natives with technology that is much further behind it takes a while for widespread adoption to occur even if supply is able to keep up with demand and there are no budget constraints.


BenKenobi said:
What was the biggest battle among Indians (as in northern native americans)? I mean one tribe / confederacy against another one, not against Europeans / US.

We only have limited evidence for events in precolonial times but if I had to hazard a guess it would be one of the battles between the Aztecs and the Tarascan state or perhaps one of the other states as the Aztecs expanded. There was one battle in 1479 where 50,000 Tarascans engaged an invasion of 32,000 Aztecs and won with over 90% of the Aztecs killed or captured. That makes that battle even bloodier than the infamous Battle of Antietam during the U.S. Civil War. Even the surviving captured prisoners were often publicly executed during these expansion wars as well as the small scale Flower Wars.
 
Skot the Sanguine said:
The Huron and Iroquois hated each other and often came to blows during the 1700's and probably earlier.  My guess is that there were some larger clashes during the period, but as is often the problem with oral tradition, details are lacking.  I doubt any of these came to be much bigger than war parties of a couple hundred attacking a village or something.

It would have been extremely rare for "war parties" to be larger than a couple dozen men. During their "war" with the Iroquois, the Cherokee would famously send a single man hundreds of miles to attack Iroquois villages and then escape before they realised it. The thing is that proper wars were nearly non-existent among the woodland tribes of the North-East. The only times they would have mobilised proper war parties was when fighting along side Europeans. When fighting each other it was almost always a case of some brash youths ignoring the peace treaties made by the elders and gathering a few others youths to raid a perceived enemy in the name for glory or, occasionally, captives to replenish dwindling populations.
 
Oh yes, I realize that, I was saying the couple hundred was the maximum.  Most tribes, even confederations like the Iroquois, were not usually capable of fielding great numbers of men.
 
Docm30 said:
Agreed. It's about time the US invades Europe.

That would be a realy dumb move considering how things went in Vietnam,Iraq and Afganistan.

It seems like the US military is good at beating other armies but really bad at gaining the civilian support needed for an succesfull ocupation.

And yeah, I think you're just being funny. I hope.
 
Back
Top Bottom