What do we know about the Iroquois?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Let's see if I can salvage something from the mud.

First, I don't really care about "authority". I make my own judgements from the basic material I find and by applying logic. Too often have I seen authority figures, in any field, produce total gibberish. However, at least you did provide a source to back up your statements, while the vultures circling this debate merely screech. So for that I respect you. Nonetheless ...:

You also are displaying a disturbing tendency to introduce elements into the argument, and when I refute them making it sound like I brought them up as a point in my argument.

Where? And what do you think you refuted?

First, neither Roberts nor I made no claim that the Egyptians did not EMPLOY complex mathematics, masonry, surveying, etc. But the facts of history are that they did not propogate lasting cultural instutions beyond their controlled territory of the Nile. Had they not been so geographically isolated, it is unlikely they would have lasted for the 1000s of years they did. Proof? When they encountered civs that had the technology and means infiltrate their lands (Hyksos, Greeks, Romans), they crumpled easily. They had some very brief spurts of expansion, ...

So far we have no argument.

... but these always ended in failure and failed to spread their culture. Egyptian culture took root nowhere else but Egypt.

Here we do. Tell this to the Nubians, the Phoenicians, the Jews, the Arabs.

As Roberts points out quite correctly, Egypt was surpassed by CONTEMPORARY civs, not later ones. Sumeria, Babylon and Judea all possessed far more complex and influential cultural achievements, whether it be in literature, art, mathematics, architecture, religion or philosophy.

Comtemporary doesn't say much since the Egyptians were around for a long, long time. But I made no claim that the Egyptians were in any way superior in these
fields. I said they contributed - and to a different list of fields than you are mentioning here. So again, no argument.

Your claim the Egyptians invented irrigation is 100% false. They weren't the first to use irrigation, the Sumerians were, ...

Really? They only moved into the river region around 3500 BC. At that time the Egyptians (or their ancestors, if you wish) had already been living in Nile territory for quite a while. From 4000 BC the nomadic tribes in the region started to cluster, so it would make sense that around that time they discovered the basics of irrigation, as they had the need.

Contrary to what another poster said ...

I'm not responsible for what another poster said, so I'll skip this part.

As for the Iroquois, I think someone almost hit the nail on the head when they wondered if you were just trying to assert a position that is historically unsupportable.

Nope. Hopefully you were now able to find the links I gave.

Certainly, the Iroquois culture was unique and, when not confronted with significant outside forces, strong within its own realm.

You missed the parts where they chased off other, much larger tribes, in order to add to their hunting grounds. They didn't do so badly in the Beaver wars and in the Canadian war, too. In both cases diplomacy played an important role.

But just like with the Egyptians, the onset of much stronger cultures revealed their own culture's inherent weaknesses and allowed them to crumple before European civilization.

They never did. It was the Americans who beat them in the end, and by sheer numbers, not because they had a superior culture.

I say "weakness" not as a judgement call on the quality of their culture, merely on its influence and adaptability.

They were adaptable enough to quickly see the trade opportunities and to adopt guns. It was exactly this adaptability that started their Golden Age, during which they influenced all their neighbours.

One of the fundamental weaknesses of Egyptian civilization was its incredible resistance to change.

They still lasted a very long time, and aren't really that backward even today.

Any assertion the Iroquois have had any more than a miniscule impact on world history is baseless ...

Why? Show me where my sources go wrong or you will indeed seem like the
defender of the status quo, if that's what you call it.

European culture has proven to be, to this point, history's most invasive and overpowering force.

True. But they were not alone.

The Iroquois will not be high on that list, I guarantee you, for the vast majority of historians.

The list is really not that long, there is plenty of room for them in the top 16.

Well, I think that covered it. Yours would have been a good post had you dropped the attitude.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Boris, much of what you say is true, but to say that the Egyptians were surpassed by their contemporaries is problematic on various fronts.

#1--They not only used mathematics, astronomy, surveying, architecture, etc... they excelled at them. Study the Giza pyramid complex. It is, quite simply, a marvel of engineering. It is still not known how they accomplished such a task, and with such precision.

This is not true, I'm afraid. We know very much how they accomplished this task. They used monumental forces of labor, having nearly 50,000 slaves and other laborers employed for 20 years during the off-season of agriculture to build the Pyramids. The feat was one of mustering manpower, not miraculous engineering. The engineering involved was fairly simple, and the precision was based on very simple math and geometry. The astounding nature of the Pyramids is their scope and just how much resources went into them, both material and human. But when you are an isolated country with few external threats, mustering such manpower isn't all that much a problem...but still impressive. But not a technological feat.

There excellence in those fields you mentioned is debatable for two reasons. First, they did not enhance those fields one bit. Their astronomy was actually quite poor relative to other contemporary civilizations. Their architecture, mathematics and surveying techniques were not employed by any other cultures and never spread beyond the Nile. They excelled and them when it came to their huge public works, but failed to build on the knowledge of those fields. And, as said before, their methods in all of them were inferior to other contemporary civilizations. Babylonian mathematics put the Egyptians' math to shame.

Excelling at something is not the same as contributing to it and expounding on it in a way that makes an impact on the world.

It is not the fact that they were conquered, it was the fact that their weaknesses of culture A) prevented any meaningful internal change within the Kingdom for 1000s of years, B) prevented them from spreading their culture outside their borders, C) allowed other cultures (Greek particularly) to come in and swallow their own. The Egypt of 300 A.D. was vastly different from the Egypt of 600 B.C., but entirely do to external influences and conquests. Meanwhile, the Egypts of 4000 BC and 1000 BC were not at all different. This is indicative of a stagnant culture.

Your comment about being insular is the opposite of what I said, actually. It is not them being insular that lead to their cultural weakness, it was their cultural weakness that lead to their insularity and stagnation.

Please understand that I agree with most of your basic points

Understood. But I have to disagree with what you say. I certainly would keep the Egyptians in the game. In terms of the ancient cultures, they are just so widely known and revered. I just think there are a lot of misconceptions about how important Egyptian civilization was.

Cheers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange


Yeah, and to add...

Eratosthenes of Egypt theorized that the Earth was round, and tried to calculate the circumference based on limited data (the angle of the sun over two different cities in Egypt)

Estimated circumference: 43,000 km
Real polar circumference: 39,942 km

This was in 200 B.C.

BUT, in 200 B.C. Egypt had been conquered by the Greeks, thoroughly permeated by Greek culture, and Eratosthenes was an Egyptian of Greek descent. His calculations employed Greek mathematics, which was derived from Babylonian and Mesopotamian systems. Not the Egyptians.

Cheers.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by orange
Yeah, and to add...

Eratosthenes of Egypt theorized that the Earth was round, and tried to calculate the circumference based on limited data (the angle of the sun over two different cities in Egypt)

Estimated circumference: 43,000 km
Real polar circumference: 39,942 km

This was in 200 B.C.

Orange, Eratosthenes was Greek. He doesn't count as a Egypt scientist though he was born in Egyptian ground (in Alexandria, IIRC, a Greek foundation).

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Martinus
BTW, what is that Armada stuff? I thought it reffers to the Spanish Armada, but I am a Pole and was called the same. Anyone knows why?

Who knows, in the end she may pretend that we are all part of a Roman Catholic conspiracy!

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
BUT, in 200 B.C. Egypt had been conquered by the Greeks, thoroughly permeated by Greek culture, and Eratosthenes was an Egyptian of Greek descent. His calculations employed Greek mathematics, which was derived from Babylonian and Mesopotamian systems. Not the Egyptians.

On the flipside, Egyptian unit fractions were used in Hellenistic and even Roman administrative offices for many centuries. Math is not only used for Astronomy and Engineering, you know.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Martinus

And you still did not answer my question. What historical training do you have???

By the lack of answer I assume the answer is "none". You know what, it shows.

What's the meaning of this?

IMHO modern science is all about specialization. You or anyone else cannot know everything. Ribannah seems to know something about the Iroqouis. You may know a great deal on many historical topics, but this doesn't mean you know it all.
I guess you have somekind of historical degree but what historical periods did you specialize in? And what was the title of your exam project? It is very likely that you know a lot about these things, but less about everything else.

Also don't underestimate the knowledge of amateurs. Lots of great history books are published by people who have no degree in history. Sure, if you do have a degree you are more likely to know something, but this does not mean that others know nothing, especially not if they have focused on something specific.

A common saying is: "If you think you know it all - you know nothing."
Also if someone said something wrong or just a bit uncorrect, this doesn't mean that all they will ever say is wrong! There is never a good reason to gloat!

Please note Martinus that this message is not aimed at you only but everyone of you who believes they are the oracle of this site!

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Ribannah

while the vultures circling this debate merely screech.

Miss, your hipocrisy is limitless, uh? What's that, the latest version of your favorite punchline? Sorry, still no cigar. Very poor analogy indeed. Yo may have not noticed yet, but all these "vultures" circling around this thread were attracted by the insidious naturel of your posts. In other words, this is all your creation, Miss. Have the courage to acknowledge at least once that you were wrong in something!

I'm done with this. Lemme however add one last thing: web page links mean nothing if they come from unverified sources. It's amazing that you can ignore such an obvious fact. Put it blatantly clear, who assures me that the authors of the pages you are so eager to quote have the necessary training to know what they're talking about? Who assures me that you yourself have not authored some of these pages?

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Fiil

Please note Martinus that this message is not aimed at you only but everyone of you who believes they are the oracle of this site!

You're getting your facts wrong. It's precisely Miss Rib the one who believes to be the "oracle of this site". Look around, please

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Fiil
IMHO modern science is all about specialization. You or anyone else cannot know everything.

We have a saying over here: "A specialist is someone who knows everything about nothing."

[Ironwood]

I have something to say about this idea that the Iroqois constitution had a large influence on the American constitution and its copycats. I believe this is based upon the incorrect assumption that human government is purely an invention of the mind. I believe this is incorrect. In a large part, our governments are the product of our nature, a reflection of a means of dealing with the realities of being a social animal, that repeats itself endlessly throughout history.

Reality exists independently of the observer. It is the task of man to percieve it, not invent it.

What I percieve is that all forms of human government rest upon exactly one cycle of principles, the swing between "democracy" and "monarchy."

This can be seen in just about every tribal entity in existance or that ever existed. If you look at primative peoples all the way from the tribes of north america to the traditional patterns of the early romans, greeks, celts, slavs, etc. you see a clear pattern.

The prototypical tribal government consists of the following:

1. The Chief. This man, at the very least, has the loyalty of the young warriors in a time of war. The Iroqois weren't the only ones to have this. The old roman six month Dictator is comparable, as were the germanic warleaders to whom the warriors owed fealty. In a time of crisis, this man is obayed without question. In a time of peace, he is largely a figurehead.

2. Council of Elders. Basically a bunch of old men (sometimes women) who have old friends, are respected for their experience, and hold sway because people listen when they speak. The chief is expected to heed their advice.

3. The assembled tribe. Basically, the authority of the rest rests upon their complicity. If they are pissed at the rulers, all bets are off.

The American Constitution is similar to this system not, I believe, because we were somehow influenced by a neighboring tribe that employed this model, but rather because the founders sought to create a government that matched the reality of human relations as closely as they could. They were largely successful, though there are still problems that are testament to the limitations of human reason. Still, they did a bang up job.

When the cycles of peace a trouble become long, individual persons can forget the cycle and devote their lives to the ideals of the governments of peace and trouble. Monarchists justify one man rule through the troubles of the world that the rule of the many cannot handle. "Democratists" hold that monarchs more often rule for their own aggrandizement than for the benefit of the people.

At any rate, though the cycles of peace and war may be longer, and thus individuals cease to percieve it in their immediate surroundings, nonetheless, in times of peace, an influential group of men make many decisions, and the people as a whole largely do as they will, and don't take the man, whether he be king, supreme commander, lord, or chief, very seriously. In times of trouble, the big cheese does well to consult the influential men, but for the most part, he has the loyalty of all who care about the survival of the city, state, nation, tribe, whatever.

So whether Western society learned their forms of government from earlier european societies, or from observing the american tribes (the plains indians had a similar form to the Iroqois, if I remember my middle school education well enough... which I suspect is the limit of Ribbannah's education ), they both got it from the same source of knowledge: reality.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
You're getting your facts wrong. It's precisely Miss Rib the one who believes to be the "oracle of this site". Look around, please

You can always claim that I get your fact wrong, but not my own!

When I write everyone, I mean everyone. Of course this applies for Rib too!! It even sometimes applies to me!

Please ask before you shoot! I'm trying to be reasonable and I'm sure we agree on most things in the long run, so don't jump to conclusions.


In short: I meant everyone!

[orange]

I misread the post that I was quoting. I thought the post was supporting Greek thought being superior to Egyptian at the time. When I said "of Egypt" I didn't mean "an Egyptian" I meant he was in Egypt when he discovered it.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Fiil


What's the meaning of this?

IMHO modern science is all about specialization. You or anyone else cannot know everything. Ribannah seems to know something about the Iroqouis. You may know a great deal on many historical topics, but this doesn't mean you know it all.
I guess you have somekind of historical degree but what historical periods did you specialize in? And what was the title of your exam project? It is very likely that you know a lot about these things, but less about everything else.

Also don't underestimate the knowledge of amateurs. Lots of great history books are published by people who have no degree in history. Sure, if you do have a degree you are more likely to know something, but this does not mean that others know nothing, especially not if they have focused on something specific.

A common saying is: "If you think you know it all - you know nothing."
Also if someone said something wrong or just a bit uncorrect, this doesn't mean that all they will ever say is wrong! There is never a good reason to gloat!

Please note Martinus that this message is not aimed at you only but everyone of you who believes they are the oracle of this site!

I do not discount amateurs. But every one - be it amateur or proffesional has to conform to certain standards when making claims and theories. Among them are accountability and validity of your sources.

But it is Ribannah, not me who makes claims without any validated proof. I use the word "validated", because as far as weblinks are concerned, I could just "proove" to you that European Union is just a templar conspiracy and the pyramids were built by aliens - this, and more you can find on the web.

And you speak wisely about specialisation. Yet by specialising we cannot loose the broader picture. So do not attack me, as I simply started by refuting Ribannah's claims - the claims which anyone would simply find ridicuolous, and which basically rebuke all European achievements (she actually said Europe had no diplomacy or rhetorics in the middle ages). I asked about her training, because I have never seen anything like this.

And I am sorry, but if you find Ribannah's theses about European culture to be "a bit incorrect" than I have no comments really.

[Jay Bee]

Fiil,

Okay, then don't get my facts wrong this time I wasn't attacking you in any way. If you felt attacked by my post then I apologize. I know how difficult is to properly interpret the emotions behind a written text.

I think that, glaring exceptions aside, everyone here tries to be reasonable.