Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Donnie, of course your reasons form the basis for the division between North and South. But based on everything, what did the North hope to gain from the war? As Buggfuzz said, “Lincoln made a statement that if he could save the Union and free no slaves he would do so.” So why was it so important that the Union be preserved – particularly at the price of war? I'm sure that fresh in Lincoln's memory would have been the warring of European countries that had largely passed America by for some 50 years or so by the time he took office. Did Lincoln simply believe that America would succumb to the same endless intra-continental bickering that plagued its neighbors to the east? Or did Lincoln see the potential danger of some foreign invader which might be victorious if the country was split into two?It just seems like the willingness to go to war over secession seems misplaced, unless there was some dire need for it. Unlike today, I imagine that the North/South cultural divide was much more extreme than today, so a break up of the United States then would not be quite as surprising as a break that were to occur now.
It's really fascinating when we think about the kinds of advancements made by prior ages based on the technology that man possessed at some point in time. I can say that each age is the master of its own technology; no matter how primitive we may think early man was, I think that we would have a hard time keeping up with him if we had to use the resources available in his time.This is why, as you mentioned, a modern scholar's version of a Roman structure or engineering feat would very well fall flat. How long would it take modern man to build the Pantheon again if he could only use Roman-era tools? How about Hadrian's Wall? These were significant feats that the Romans built, even by today's standards. That's why they exist today, even if in ruins. Even things that are more modern, such as St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (~16th Century), are still used today, despite their age. Meanwhile, a house that was built in 1950 could very well be falling apart some 56 years later. Some of the feats of previous ages are truly amazing.
So you do agree that the purpose of the Civil War was not to end slavery.But if it was mostly economic, does this mean that the North's underlying fault was greed? Surely the Union and the CSA could have existed side by side. They would have been the best of trading partners; the North would have exported iron and coal materials, and perhaps assembled clothes; the South would have exported agricultural goods, perhaps oil, and clothing raw materials. Did the North simply not want to bother with this?On a related note, what if Washington, D.C. were in a Southern state (or deeper in Southern territory)? How would this have tempered Lincoln's views? Would he have felt less need to maintain the Union?
You bring up some good points, Wmlambert. In what respect are we judging villainy? We can't judge a person moral culpability, but we can judge actions to be objectively good or evil. It is somewhere in there that we make our assessments.Most likely, this will be in numbers of deaths, but then again, this depends on motives, circumstances, and so forth. Although I have no figures as to the number of deaths that General Lee and his army were responsible for, I can imagine that number to be quite high. As far as I know, he is not, however, considered a villain, nor was he ever. Sherman's actions, however, caused great bitterness, and I believe those feelings still exist today.Margaret Sanger and her movement will likely cause the downfall of Europe over the next hundred years or so. Will we ever consider the birth control movement to be a nefarious institution? As you said, "the winners get to write history".
I'll add another movie to this list. It was brought up over in a thread on the IMDB.com forum, where I am a member. The movie is The Brothers Grimm. I won't go into all th details explained over at IMDB, but here's a sample:
The only one in the village who knows the forest is the trapper, a typical 20th century feminist named Angelika, "The Cursed One" who's mere mention causes even the priest to cross himself. Unlike the other villagers, Angelika is not afraid of the forest because, unlike the other villagers, Angelika is not a Christian.
The theme of Christian=bad, Modern-thinker=good is rehashed again and again in historical films. While I don't think that it was the primary thrust of The Brothers Grimm, I do think that the cumulative effect of many films which repeat the same message is going to have an influence on mainstream culture.
I see that what was supposed to be a background story to keep things interesting has overtaken the point of the question. That said, Spartans would be no match for modern weapons and would provide no help. I would, however, love to have seen Athens during its golden age, perhaps sometime during the time of the Pelopponesian War. Greece itself is beautiful, and I can imagine what it looked like in its splendor.
I had the opportunity to visit the Mayan ruins at Tikal, Guatemala, some years ago. It was really an amazing place. Lots of temples and other structures made of stone in the middle of this hot and humid jungle, in a somewhat remote area. In itself, the jungle was uncanny – walking through it reminded me of something out of Predator, as the sounds made by insects gave off an eery background drone. The monkeys would also throw thing from the trees at us while we walked the trail. I can't imagine how the Maya were able to survive in such a location, but obviously they did it somehow. I almost lost my leg after it got infected - I was racing a friend up one of the Tikal temples, and the steps are rather high. Toward the top, I hit my shin hard on one of the steps and it broke the skin (it got infected a day or two later when I took a dip in a lake).Anyway, a trip to see the Mayan ruins at Tikal is well worth it.
While viewing this stirring dialogue, it has occured to me that there is no one American who can claim the title of worst historical villain. I don't really know why this is, but it is becoming clear that while there are despicable group actions, ocasionally vengeful military leadership, hateful individuals of relatively limited power; there is no one who stands out in my mind as a horrifying villain. Sure, there have been USAmerican leaders who had bad motives, or tried to do bad things, but our government is generally too decentralized, our politics too fragmentary, and our decisions based too much on our own image, or reputation. It is a scary thing to think about, but what if we are relatively guileless only because we conform too much?
I think this has to do with a number of things:
- America is a rather young nation. Some of the foreign atrocities mentioned in this thread go back centuries.
- News reporting and information flow is more efficient in leading economies, such as the United States; it would be more difficult to cover up large-scale human rights violations.
- It's more difficult to commit atrocities when you're the world's leading economy. The U.S. economy is a global economy, meaning foreign bodies invest in and depend on us. Any major atrocities would hurt the pocket book of American businesses.
- Laws set in place and the framework established by Enlightened forefathers have helped to reduce corruption and lawlessness.
- America is, and has been, a politically stable country for the majority of its 200+ years of existence. Atrocities will be more likey in areas of political instability or political tyranny.
I don't think I would say that America is too decentralized. Rather, I think it comes down to a matter of accountability.
Good point. I'm not sure, but it was probably the MiG-21, which was first built around 1960. I'm saying this because the Arrow was scrapped in 1959.
That's a good choice, Cousin Avi. The Baths were open to all Roman citizens, so rich and not-so-rich would have visited there. I think it was amazing how the water arrived through aqueducts and was heated below the Baths in a system of pipes and ancient water heaters. On the program I was watching, it was shown how this was down with the help of servants or slaves working in down below the baths, keeping the fires burning and ensuring things were in order.The ruins of the Baths of Caracalla still exist today. Has anyone here visited them? I studied in Rome for a semester but never saw them.
Maybe goto 1632?
Excellent choice, indeed. The year 1632 ~ around the time the Taj Mahal began, as well as Venitian opening of the Church of Santa Maria delle Salute. Also the year of the births of John Locke and Spinoza.As discussed in another thread, this year would have seen colder temperatures than normal in Europe; perhaps more snow in England and even the freezing of the canals in Venice.Notable rulers include Charles I in England, Louis XIII in France, and Gustavus Adolphus in Sweden.
I would agree with johnnyjmboy, and I was going to mention that beforehand. The dropping of the first atomic bomb really signaled an end not only to old war tactics, but also the beginning of a new geo-political framework. Although conventional weapon wars still cover the globe, we have not seen wars on the scale of a continental one since WWII. This is quite impressive, given the nature of conflicts that plagued Europe through the 19th Century and in centuries earlier. Today, the ultimate political concern of world superpowers is the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons. This will not change until some nation actually attacks another with such weapons, at which point we'll have problems of global proportions - a possible "Extinction Level Event".
What about Thermopylae Phid? Slowing the persian advance gave the Greeks time to regroup and prepare a larger force that ultimately defeated the Persians.
Yes, that is a good choice of significant battles, and a dramatic one at that - and it enabled the Salamis Battle, and is remembered with this:
Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie
There was this battle in pre-history when the new-men who were using weapons and tools drove the old-men out of the choicer hunt-and-gathering areas. This allowed the less numerous but more sapient men to flourish and eventually outnumber the old men. The outcome was the gradual elimination of the older, less successful lines of Early man.
Wmlambert, if you are saying that the most significant battle was one done by cave men, you could very well be correct. The earlier the battle occurred in human history, the more "significant" it would have been, as it would have more chance at changing the future course of world events.Another battle worth mentioning as being significant, even if not as significant as some others, is the defeat of the Spanish Armada. My understanding is that we'd all be writing in Spanish if the English had lost that battle. Also, the way the New World was developed would be radically different had the Spanish won.
Donnie, another great choice of significant battles. I do question, however, that the Edict of Milan “made Christianity official religion of the Roman World.” Rather, I think that it gave all religions neutral status. From Wikipedia:
The "Edict of Milan" (313) declared that the Roman Empire would be neutral with regard to religious worship, officially ending all government-sanctioned persecution, especially of Christianity.
The article goes on to say:
It gave to Christianity (and any other religion) a status of legitimacy alongside of paganism, and, in effect, disestablished paganism as the official religion of the Roman Empire and its armies.
Regardless, the outcome of the battle you mentioned surely shaped Western Civilization as we know it today.
That's a great question. And your choice of battles is a good one.I might say the Persian Wars between the Greeks and Persian Empire was the most significant. Because it happened ~500 to ~460 B.C., it preceeded a number of Greek marvels in philosophy, such as Plato and Aristotle (who later influenced Aquinas and however many others); had the Persians won, Greek culture could very well have been diluted or wiped clean. Of course, it was the Roman Empire that later consumed Greek culture and made it its own; the Romans even used Archimedes' inventions to add to their army or engineering wealth. Without Greece, could Rome have achieved the greatness it did?To give a more narrow answer, within the Persian Wars, it looks like the Battle of Salamis was the most significant of all.
