Aug 22nd 2014, 20:51:09
it seems that things get rewritten to suit modern views or current political purposes.
If you think about the middle ages, much of what we originally thought we knew was based on writings from the renaissance who were actively trying to discredit it. The idea that they feared science or bathing are probably greatly overblown given use and development of weaponry (crossbows, and eventually firearms, and bigger and better ships to go looting with).
Recently I was watching a production on the history of wales (pre-roman) and there is now evidence to suggest that trade (and horny men) were the original reasons for exploration and that humans traded across eurasia even before the pyramids were built. Most warfare was local and tribal (until the romans for western europe or whatever powers squabbled in persia/middle east) but trade seems to have been far more global. Also a lot of trade was done via sea/rivers (although losing sight of the shoreline probably = detah).
Then I thought about what we know about native american culture pre-european. It was pretty much a similar situation in a way. They traded/were aware of most of north/south america in general and very similar to the above.
Relating to white men and diseases, was reading about the mongols basically spread the bubonic plague to europe :P Modern science has allowed us to figure out much more accurately what the plague would have been.
I dunno. I think what prompted my musings was comparing over time peoples views on ww1 and why it was fought.
Although for older events we relie on written sources which may/may not be entirely accurate and even though no one alive has any vested interest in who was right/wrong, there are still conflicting views.
Reminds me of an ancient battle between egypt and mesopotamia (I think) where we actually uncovered records of the battle from both sides and compared them.
If you think about the middle ages, much of what we originally thought we knew was based on writings from the renaissance who were actively trying to discredit it. The idea that they feared science or bathing are probably greatly overblown given use and development of weaponry (crossbows, and eventually firearms, and bigger and better ships to go looting with).
Recently I was watching a production on the history of wales (pre-roman) and there is now evidence to suggest that trade (and horny men) were the original reasons for exploration and that humans traded across eurasia even before the pyramids were built. Most warfare was local and tribal (until the romans for western europe or whatever powers squabbled in persia/middle east) but trade seems to have been far more global. Also a lot of trade was done via sea/rivers (although losing sight of the shoreline probably = detah).
Then I thought about what we know about native american culture pre-european. It was pretty much a similar situation in a way. They traded/were aware of most of north/south america in general and very similar to the above.
Relating to white men and diseases, was reading about the mongols basically spread the bubonic plague to europe :P Modern science has allowed us to figure out much more accurately what the plague would have been.
I dunno. I think what prompted my musings was comparing over time peoples views on ww1 and why it was fought.
Although for older events we relie on written sources which may/may not be entirely accurate and even though no one alive has any vested interest in who was right/wrong, there are still conflicting views.
Reminds me of an ancient battle between egypt and mesopotamia (I think) where we actually uncovered records of the battle from both sides and compared them.
you are all special in the eyes of fluff
(|(|
( ._.) -----)-->
(_(' )(' )
RUN IT IS A KILLER BUNNY!!!
(|(|
( ._.) -----)-->
(_(' )(' )
RUN IT IS A KILLER BUNNY!!!