Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Bosh

Only very old textbooks or very badly-researched ones would repeat the thorougly-discredited story that the Muslims burned the library. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01303a.htm

I know who Aquinas is Do you know who Ibn Arabi was? Very impressive Neoplatonism, although just a touch abstruse...

Why are you posting what I already posted? Are you another one of these peeps who can't read?

I'm surprised you would chose a 3rd rate "philosopher" like Ibn Arabi when you could have should have chosen Ibn Rushd who preceded him and is considered to be on a par with Aquinas.

Arabi is on a par with Santayanna- you know, drug induced hallucinations.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Bosh
Well the library question is a bit complex since there was a series of destruction events since the thing was big and spread out, but there's no real evidence that the Muslims had anything to do with it. It was definately around after Ceasar though (follow my link).

As for Arabic translations, you're resorting to strawmen. I never said that the classical tradition died out completely in Christian Europe, just that it was stronger in the Mid-East (at least for a while). THat's why when Scholasticism got rolling many Christian scholars had to travel to Muslim Spain to increase the number of classical text that they had access to.

Ahh, I see you stand corrected after reading my links- good for you, you learned something.

Now see, I admitted I was wrong, posted links proving so- that also proved you wrong. BUt instead of being a "man", or at least an adult, you make a silly claim, then use my link to try to prove me wrong about the rest of it.

No wonder grade inflation passes for modern education:

http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i30/30b02401.htm

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Dumb Incans, they deserved to be conquered. I can't believe Atahualpa told his warriors to leave the weapons at home when meeting the Spaniards. The reason: political, he thought the Spanish would flee and he wanted them to flee from an unarmed Incan force so the even dumber Incan peasants would think Atahualpa had scared away the gods without weapons.

He could have easily finished off the Spaniards many times over before they even reached the capitol. At least Cortez had plenty of Indian allies in the war with the Aztecs. Less than 200 Conquistadors rode right into 80,000 Incans and captured the idiot running the show.

While not very pretty in the prose department, you make clear my points. Culture has a significant role to play in all historic moments- while not being the sole reason for success or failure, it is certainly a part of it that cannot be denied. Of course the same can be said for geography.

I suspect your point above, that I have quoted, is in a similar vein to what caused China's downfall as well as Rome and Egypt- perhaps all empires. Stuck in the status quo and unable to change and adept to the situation at hand, they were overcome by outside forces. In Rome, the populace had long since lapsed into a self induced coma. In Peru, pride and arrogance prevented them from doing the "intelligent" thing. IN China, I suspect it was about pride and a complete lack of understanding what it was they were facing- the Chinese had for several thousand years lived in a form of self disillusionment, that may have been based upon some reality initially, obviously no longer was.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex
How trite.

Just saying.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Just saying.

Okay, here's a pat on the head- good doggie, er good boy.

[Berzerker]

IW

The arms race began several billion years ago when a new type of bacteria discovered predation.

You've out done ER in the pickiness department I welcome you to the club

Gepap

After Atahualpa died and the Spanish had also killed Huascar (whom was a captive of Atahualpa when the Spanish took over) various Imperial generals did battle against the Spanish. The last Inca resistance in the Andes did not end until at least the 1570's. So it took about 40 years for the Spanish to actually pacify the Inca. Tupac Amaru (namesake of the other Tupac) was the last Inca who battled the Spanish.

And the Inca could have bought themselves much more time had they wiped out Pizzaro. They were out of the way and proven quite the match for the Spanish. Once word got back to Spain about an 80,000 man army that took out Pizzaro what Spanish monarch would be so eager to commit to conquering the Inca? It might have taken the entire Spanish army/navy and that would have been foolhardy given their much closer enemies.

While Diamond shows the importance of geography with relative isolation being worse in the long run, the Inca should have never lost until Spain could overcome the logistical nightmare created by that relative isolation. Poor leadership cost the Inca... And while Europeans were clearly armed better, the new world had the population if they just united (which makes germs the real culprit). They were more or less united down in S America, all they had to do was wipe out each Spanish army that reached them - and they could have easily with average leaders. It may not have sounded right, but the book should have been "Germs, Guns and Steel".

Pizzaro needed support from local indians to fight the long fight to pacify the country, specially once fighting broke out amongst his own men.

That help came after defeating Atahualpa, not before. Cortez had far more Indians in his army than Conquistadors - Indians fed up with the Aztecs.

ER

You:

Where in the following

Diamond mentioned the arms race in Europe/Spain leading to the guns and steel used to conquer the new world. When two of the main factors relate to arms, I dont know how you can say he "negated" it...

did I or Diamond say the arms race began in 700 AD?

The show was about Spain in the new world, did he really have to devote as much time explaining how arms developed from the stone age again? Hell, you said the arms race began in 3,000 BC and that isn't true. But you claim others said it began in 700 AD (and that ain't true either)?

While not very pretty in the prose department, you make clear my points.

Ah, sig material... I was trying to be a bit crude to display my utter amazement at the Inca leader, kiinda like a comedian's use of 4 letter words to enhance their observations. What I cant understand is how this clown could have won a civil war in the first place. Oh yeah, the clown leading the opposition was a relative.

Culture has a significant role to play in all historic moments- while not being the sole reason for success or failure, it is certainly a part of it that cannot be denied. Of course the same can be said for geography.

True, but this was just plain stupidity - the stupidity of one Incan leader and the stupidity of his generals agreeing to his stupidity. Culture may have played a role in producing that stupidity (inbreeding, religious beliefs), but since the notion of monarchies, kings, chiefs, etc (dictators) is found all over the place, it's more basic than culture...part of the human condition in general... People sacrificing freedom for security was common enough for Ben Franklin to warn against it.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Berzerker
IW

You've out done ER in the pickiness department I welcome you to the club

Gepap

And the Inca could have bought themselves much more time had they wiped out Pizzaro. They were out of the way and proven quite the match for the Spanish. Once word got back to Spain about an 80,000 man army that took out Pizzaro what Spanish monarch would be so eager to commit to conquering the Inca? It might have taken the entire Spanish army/navy and that would have been foolhardy given their much closer enemies.

While Diamond shows the importance of geography with relative isolation being worse in the long run, the Inca should have never lost until Spain could overcome the logistical nightmare created by that relative isolation. Poor leadership cost the Inca... And while Europeans were clearly armed better, the new world had the population if they just united (which makes germs the real culprit). They were more or less united down in S America, all they had to do was wipe out each Spanish army that reached them - and they could have easily with average leaders. It may not have sounded right, but the book should have been "Germs, Guns and Steel".

Other then the germs part, unless you mean those that made them stupid, I agree. Remember, even if it did kill half of them, they still had millions left with which to over come 160 Spaniards. There is no excuse for it. But Euros did pretty much the same every where they went- they had very limited numbers in Africa, India and China as well.

Europe lost 30% of it's population in the first three years of the plague alone. But their society did not break down. All things considered, it seems to have strengthened it. They were also fighting off an invasion which took the form of a giant pincers movement (quite cool for the time, actually, considering the scope and ambition of Islam's rulers)

That help came after defeating Atahualpa, not before. Cortez had far more Indians in his army than Conquistadors - Indians fed up with the Aztecs.

The brother did kill the brother, that was the reason Pizarro put him to death. And it does figure into the whole thing. As brothers, they should have been able to put away their differences for the sake of survival.

ER

Where in the following



did I or Diamond say the arms race began in 700 AD?

The show was about Spain in the new world, did he really have to devote as much time explaining how arms developed from the stone age again? Hell, you said the arms race began in 3,000 BC and that isn't true. But you claim others said it began in 700 AD (and that ain't true either)?

I took you to mean that the arms race began with either the war between the Western Caliphate and Castilian Spain or with the initial assault by Islam on Europe- my bad if that was not your intent.

Ah, sig material... I was trying to be a bit crude to display my utter amazement at the Inca leader, kiinda like a comedian's use of 4 letter words to enhance their observations. What I cant understand is how this clown could have won a civil war in the first place. Oh yeah, the clown leading the opposition was a relative.

Hehe- look at what the Romans did to one another. THe rulers of old and large empires were always out of touch with reality. Just look at the modern world and ask yourself how many politicians have a clue as to what is really going on "in the streets". "those that forget history are doomed to repeat it" is especially true in a society without a system of writing.

True, but this was just plain stupidity - the stupidity of one Incan leader and the stupidity of his generals agreeing to his stupidity. Culture may have played a role in producing that stupidity (inbreeding, religious beliefs), but since the notion of monarchies, kings, chiefs, etc (dictators) is found all over the place, it's more basic than culture...part of the human condition in general... People sacrificing freedom for security was common enough for Ben Franklin to warn against it.

I agree with all of that, but obviously the West learned something from the history of the Romans that these other peoples did not. Rome was the last culture where the ruler was venerated with god like status, after Constantine, rulers may have ruled by divine right, but they were not divine- there is a big difference. Consequently, the people around the kings of Europe understood that they had a right as well as a vested interest in maintaining the power and stability of the king, even when he was insane, by turning him into a figurehead or even assassinating them when necessary. In a way, the ruling aristocracies became an oligarchy which saw that their health and power was directly tied to the health and power of the state. I mean that they understood there would be no divine intervention to save them should the **** hit the fan.

And you know what? Sometimes I think the "people" were better off under that kind of system. The people belonged to the king, so to speak, and he/she had a vested interest in keeping them safe. Not so in today's world where our "rulers" are only too happy to sell out "joe blow" for a few bucks at election time.

[Epublius Rex]

Hey, you know that in the North, there really was no conquest as in South America until after 1865. Up until then, I really don't think we made a point of making war and conquering the Indians.

After that point, we had a military machine with nothing to do but conquer the West. I think of America as an empire ever since that time. Sadly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker

And the Inca could have bought themselves much more time had they wiped out Pizzaro. They were out of the way and proven quite the match for the Spanish. Once word got back to Spain about an 80,000 man army that took out Pizzaro what Spanish monarch would be so eager to commit to conquering the Inca? It might have taken the entire Spanish army/navy and that would have been foolhardy given their much closer enemies.

I think you ignore a variety of things.

First, why would any Emperor of a great Empire think a small band of men, even weird looking ones, was any real danger? Atahulapa was hubristic, but it was Hubris built out of the fact he was now the absolute ruler of the one state in his known world. Why shouldn;t these wierdo's be any different (the Inca's not knowing about what happened elsewhere)

Second, Once Pizzaro did what he did and the Inca;s fought back, Spanish weapons were able to save them- the Inca army forced the Spanish to hole up in an Inca fortress, but the Inca simply could not dislodge them, and the army melted away with time, through disease, so forth. So the fact is the Inca did try to fight back, and it wa then that Spanish techonlogical advantages showed.

While Diamond shows the importance of geography with relative isolation being worse in the long run, the Inca should have never lost until Spain could overcome the logistical nightmare created by that relative isolation. Poor leadership cost the Inca... And while Europeans were clearly armed better, the new world had the population if they just united (which makes germs the real culprit). They were more or less united down in S America, all they had to do was wipe out each Spanish army that reached them - and they could have easily with average leaders. It may not have sounded right, but the book should have been "Germs, Guns and Steel".

I find this view very strange.

First, over 75% of the Population of the Continents were collapsing due to disease. That kind of mortality shatters society, destroys the social fabric, collapses the economic situation/ In that climate "unity" will not appear, specially when local chiefs and lords can try to co-op the new rulers of the day.

You are right, disease won it for the Spanish- and that weapon was one that simply was too powerful to overcome then.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by GePap


I think you ignore a variety of things.

First, why would any Emperor of a great Empire think a small band of men, even weird looking ones, was any real danger? Atahulapa was hubristic, but it was Hubris built out of the fact he was now the absolute ruler of the one state in his known world. Why shouldn;t these wierdo's be any different (the Inca's not knowing about what happened elsewhere)

Second, Once Pizzaro did what he did and the Inca;s fought back, Spanish weapons were able to save them- the Inca army forced the Spanish to hole up in an Inca fortress, but the Inca simply could not dislodge them, and the army melted away with time, through disease, so forth. So the fact is the Inca did try to fight back, and it wa then that Spanish techonlogical advantages showed.

Either that, or they just weren't very smart, after all, they were still living in a neolithic culture. And in any case, 5 million minus 75% (although I thought it was 50% over time) still leaves 1,250,000 against 160. Yours and Diamonds theory fails again.

While Diamond shows the importance of geography with relative isolation being worse in the long run, the Inca should have never lost until Spain could overcome the logistical nightmare created by that relative isolation. Poor leadership cost the Inca... And while Europeans were clearly armed better, the new world had the population if they just united (which makes germs the real culprit). They were more or less united down in S America, all they had to do was wipe out each Spanish army that reached them - and they could have easily with average leaders. It may not have sounded right, but the book should have been "Germs, Guns and Steel".

I find this view very strange.

First, over 75% of the Population of the Continents were collapsing due to disease. That kind of mortality shatters society, destroys the social fabric, collapses the economic situation/ In that climate "unity" will not appear, specially when local chiefs and lords can try to co-op the new rulers of the day.

If all people and their cultures (which don't exist) are equal, then explain how Europeans could survive the plague and still defeat the Islamic invaders. If they could do it, so could the incas. It was 50-%, btw, not 75%- you are trying to make it sound as bad as Europe's fate under the plague.

[Epublius Rex]

Hey Gepap-

Explain how the English conquered India and China with such limited numbers- in real terms, even less then the Spanish in S. America. After all, there was no disease in India, and while you can and have pointed to the Opium wars and the attendant civil strife, that was long after England had already opened their doors and established their fate. And, in any case, the civil unrest was not as a large a problem as you make it out to be.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Bosh
Well the library question is a bit complex since there was a series of destruction events since the thing was big and spread out, but there's no real evidence that the Muslims had anything to do with it. It was definately around after Ceasar though (follow my link).

As for Arabic translations, you're resorting to strawmen. I never said that the classical tradition died out completely in Christian Europe, just that it was stronger in the Mid-East (at least for a while). THat's why when Scholasticism got rolling many Christian scholars had to travel to Muslim Spain to increase the number of classical text that they had access to.

I guess my whole attitude to the "Muslims saved the legacy of the West" semi-strawman is, so what? Why wouldn't they, for the vast majority it was their own legacy as well. Just because they converted to Islam and changed their names to Arabic names doesn't mean that the inhabitants of the former Greco-Roman empires were actually replaced by people from Arabia.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


False. No one else had the same chance to land on the Americas as Europeans, who had already done it by 1000ad given just how close it is as compared to how far away it was from the other advanced cultures.

Given how close Alaska is to the Asiatic mainland, I find this a curious statement, especially given that Chinese junks could even just by hugging the shore, reach East Africa.

Really, then, there should have been no difficulty in heading north past Kamchatka and on to the Aleutians and the Queen Charlottes, Vancouver Island, et cetera.

Polynesians made it as far as Madagascar and New Zealand and Easter Island- from starting points in Taiwan and Indonesia, for instance.

Europe did not "want" to colonize anything. Where the hell do you get that notion?

So when you say this I'm confused- clearly the Vikings and Normans did want to colonize, as did Viking kingdoms and Norman kingdoms, and no one is suggesting they weren't European.

In fact part of the reason Normans were so willing to colonize and conquer was because they were land hungry, but they were also very adaptable, as were indeed the Vikings- willing to marry local women from Ireland to Russia to Sicily and Greece and establish local dynasties.

I recommend John Julius Norwich's books on the kingdoms of the Normans in Sicily and Italy to you- one of the most splendid fusions of cultures of East and West, North and South, Christian, Jew and Muslim was to be found at the court of Palermo.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex


Can you read, did not I say "Yes there is evidence of trade, just as......"

the operative words here are "just as".

Sheesh, how did you ever manage to get through a book report...........

Possibly by giving proofs and references.

Where's your proof of Inca-Mayan trade ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex


And stop this absurd nonsense about the Arabs preserving European heritage, The Arabs are the ones who burned the library at Alexandria- because they thought it was all heresy.

Utter crap. This is a bit of old (presumably) Christian propaganda, similar to the stuff which used to be put about accusing the very monotheistic Muslims of being polytheists or idol worshippers.

So high a regard did the Muslim Arabs and Sassanids have for Greek learning that after the Greek Christian emperor Justinian closed down the school at Athens, the Sassanids set up two schools at Nisibis and Jundishapur where the learning and speculation could carry on. When the Arab forces conquered the Sassanid Empire, the schools were allowed to continue, staffed even though they were by Christian Nestorian monks. They spoke and wrote in Syriac, close enough to Arabic, and also translated the original Greek into Syriac, Old Persian, and Arabic.

So great was the classical learning held to be, that Aristotle was known as the First, or Great Teacher to Muslim civilization.

'We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and foreign peoples.'

al Kindi

This best expresses the Muslim and Arab approach to knowledge after the death of Muhammad. After all, they embraced Hindu mathematics and astronomy, Hellenic philosophy and science, Chinese science and technology and Iranian pre-Muslim science and culture.

I'm sure, with your love of 'alien cultures' it's something you definitely agree with....