Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
The pyramids were built by aliens everyone knows that.

Illegal aliens.

From Mexico.

Frazzled, quit being all old man in here, nobody is talking about Las Vegas.

We all know Mexicans built the pyramids. Have you seen the pyramid of the of the sun and moon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Indians were savages (or noble savages) and didn't understand the concept of owning land.

While the evidence bears out the existence of early agricultural civilization in america pre-european colonisation, by the relevant time period that had been largely destroyed by plagues (which killed, by some estimates, 99 out of every hundred natives), and the survivors were thrown back to more primitive states, either nomadic hunting and gathering, or horticulturalism, neither of which deals with land in anything approaching the manner agricultural civilizations do. They were savages not out of some inherent and personal flaw, but because that's what humans develop as in the absence of ordered civilisation and, more importantly, the safety and comparative comfort it provides.

Not quite. there was still agriculture in the Azetc empire, among the Navajo, and in the Iroquois nations. They couldn't teach Pigrims how to grow corn without have a pretty keen grasp on it themselves.

What's more likely to happen is that after the collapse of the city states, there was a population explosion among prey animals. North America has a dearth of apex predators, because the natives killed the big ones. For the last 10,000, humans have been the only thing keeping deer and buffalo populations in check. It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.

Imagine you're in an apocalyptic wasteland. 95% of humanity died. Do you start building stuff from scratch, or do you loot everything you can from the ruins?

Yes, you cited two examples of tribes that existed effectively prior to the great plagues: the tribes greeting the Pilgrims, and the Aztecs. In fact these tribes are a case study in what happend. It actually supports the argument of great settlements prior to the coming of the plagues in many areas. Most of North America was not as developed, but there were still great settlements here. Even post initial disease waves-the Iroquis are an example.

Whats interesting is that there were rumors of great civilizations in the Amazons, that one Spanish explorer hdenoted massive cities with raised roads etc. Later these were completely discounted because the Amazon today is just jungle and a few tiny tribes. But they did some fancy spectral or radar work in one location, and you can clearly see the old road system. It was massive. I'll see if I can find something on it. Its breathtaking - kinid of like discovering Atlantis really existed.

EDIT: Here's a note:
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/external/amazon_cities_before_columbus.html

On a side I'll disagree about the dearth of predators. North America has/had a massive variety of bears including the giant grizzly bear. Mountain lions, and a variety of smaller cats, and wolves by the bushel. We also have a joyous number of alligators. We weren't the African Savannah (only Africa can be Africa), but we had a great share. Now in Central and South America you didn't have the big bears but you had the mighty jaguar (including black panther versions), and crocodiles.

There's actually a lot evidence to suggest that the American Great Plains were actually quite a bit like the African Savannah, including mammoths, giants sloths, and lions. Not mountain lions, but lions larger even then modern African lions. Also dire wolves and sabertooth tigers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_megafauna#North_America

Yeah, but that was long before Europeans arrived. The natives hunted most of the large herbivores to extinction and the large predators followed.

 Polonius wrote:
There's actually a lot evidence to suggest that the American Great Plains were actually quite a bit like the African Savannah, including mammoths, giants sloths, and lions. Not mountain lions, but lions larger even then modern African lions. Also dire wolves and sabertooth tigers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_megafauna#North_America

Oh yea. I believe the second largest mammalian predator was in North America: the short faced bear: twice the size of a Grizzly. YEA BABY!

Palindrome wrote:
The German 1st Cavalry Divison fought in Holland and France in 1940.

I did not know that, thanks.

The blitzkreig doctrine may not have explicitly existed but I think its a good description of the German's extensive use of mobility and concentrated armoured attacks with close combined arms support.

I see your point, but I think blitkreig means more than concentrated armour attacks. It requires some notion of breakthrough and exploitation of that breakthrough - something much closer the Russian concept of Deep Operations.

That was due to to British (and French) feats of arms

The escape was a remarkable achievement. That there were troops on the beach, free from German attack is due largely to the limitations in Geman planning and support equipment. To keep up with the tank push, the German infantry pretty much marched from German to the coast of France. The tanks meanwhile were close to running out of fuel.

Things that, had German High Command properly planned as part of a real blitzkreig operation, would not have happened.

Of course if the British and French high commands had been paying more attention to how the German army was evolving in the post war years France would probably never have fallen.

Yeah. Or if the Germans had opted for a repeat of the Schlieffen plan when they first planned to attack, it's likely their invasion would have stagnated and quickly run out of ammunition.

There's a lot of what-ifs for that early war period.

 sebster wrote:

The escape was a remarkable achievement

I meant the counter attack at Arras; it was only partially succesful at the local level, and casualities were very light in the scheme of things, but it scared the OKW enough that it made them pause long ehough to allow Dunkirk to happen.

 Polonius wrote:
Not quite. there was still agriculture in the Azetc empire, among the Navajo, and in the Iroquois nations. They couldn't teach Pigrims how to grow corn without have a pretty keen grasp on it themselves.

What's more likely to happen is that after the collapse of the city states, there was a population explosion among prey animals. North America has a dearth of apex predators, because the natives killed the big ones. For the last 10,000, humans have been the only thing keeping deer and buffalo populations in check. It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.

I included horticulture in there alongside hunting-gathering; which is basically agriculture but with smaller groups, and no real permanence of location for either fields or buildings. On a sidenote to that, it alwalys annoys me when people try to point at the native americans of that period (or really any horticulturalists) as some sort of eco-friendly ideal; they weren't, they just had an extremely low population density, and scaled up to modern population levels their lifestyle would be disproportionately ruinous.

Imagine you're in an apocalyptic wasteland. 95% of humanity died. Do you start building stuff from scratch, or do you loot everything you can from the ruins?

Exactly. In the absence of order imposed by civilization, and its attendant infrastructure and benefits, human instinct takes over. Which amounts to behavior akin to that exhibited by native americans once european colonisation was in full swing.

Palindrome wrote:
I meant the counter attack at Arras; it was only partially succesful at the local level, and casualities were very light in the scheme of things, but it scared the OKW enough that it made them pause long ehough to allow Dunkirk to happen.

Arguably, I guess. But a single counter attack causing a single day's delay at best, in the midst of a general route can't, I think, really be called a 'feat of arms'. I mean, de Gaulle forced a similar, short term result at Montcornet.

And what I've read elsewhere indicates the delay in the German advance was due more to the logistic shortfalls I mentioned above than the effect of that one counter attack..

 sebster wrote:


I see your point, but I think blitkreig means more than concentrated armour attacks. It requires some notion of breakthrough and exploitation of that breakthrough - something much closer the Russian concept of Deep Operations.

It does, but only the German armies were capable of launching succesful Blitzkreig style attacks in the early war period; quite simply no one else was properly set up for it, the other combatants lacked the strong armoured formations and/or lacked the cohesion to carry through with a fast breakthrough attack.

The term 'Blitzkrieg' was actually coined by an American (IIRC) journalist.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
It simply became easier to hunt and fish and gather than to farm. The early settlers consistently were shocked at how much game was present.

THis.

I'll also point out the extent of disease in North and South America is a heavily disputed issue on nearly all sides. Some historians point out that numerous wars fought between colonial powers and their allies with non-allied native groups would have been impossible if 99% of all natives got killed by disease. Trade routes in some regions were not developed enough to spread it, and in other areas, like the still existent Mayan culture, disease was present but didn't have a major impact despite fairly large settlements and extensive trade routes. No one can agree on how much the Aztecs suffered at the hands of disease or at the hands of their own internal and external political problems. Archeologists can't decide if the evidence they have supports massive death tolls or or minor ones. Most likely (as with all things) the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

While 99 percent is a bit of a stretch, and likely an overestimate, we know the population was significantly higher prior to european colonisation efforts (in North America, specifically). Not to say that they died off across the country all at once, but their population in any given area when settlers moved in was greatly reduced from earlier estimates. As it's not possible for this to have been the result of wholesale slaughter (not that massacres never happened, but they were on the scale of hundreds dead, not the hundreds of thousands or low millions it would have taken), disease or other fairly natural causes have to have been quite strongly present.

As for the peoples of central america: since we know romans made contact with them at least once (presumably the cause of the local prophecy regarding pale skinned gods crossing the seas in floating castles (or however the specifics went), if that's not an apocryphal story, that is), and we know that egypt had some small amount of transatlantic trade (tobacco leaves and traces of cocaine found in mummies), is it conceivable that the diseases that so ravaged some populations could have already been present in others, leaving them somewhat more resistant?

The thing is, though, we DON'T know that the Romans had contact with anyone in the Americas and the tobacco/coca findings are disputed. The "white men from the sea" thingie could easily be explained by the Vikings, who we DO know landed near Newfoundland some 400 years prior to Columbus.

I'd love to read more about the mummy thingie, but the only hits I get from Google gives me this kind of vibe:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The thing is, though, we DON'T know that the Romans had contact with anyone in the Americas and the tobacco/coca findings are disputed. The "white men from the sea" thingie could easily be explained by the Vikings, who we DO know landed near Newfoundland some 400 years prior to Columbus.

I'd love to read more about the mummy thingie, but the only hits I get from Google gives me this kind of vibe:

Finding where I read about the tobacco and cocaine in mummies, I get this and this as citations, though the second does make a point of listing possible non-transatlantic-trading-related causes. I do not know, and so cannot comment on, the reliability of those books as legitimate sources.

The only still existing citation for the roman contact appears to be this old NYTimes piece about what was apparently a roman vessel filled with jars manufactured on the atlantic coast of morocco being found off the coast of brazil in the eighties, before the site was covered in a large mound of silt because of the controversial implications it raised. Other things refer to roman artifacts found in pre-columbian sites, but no citations.

It's not that mind-boggling to assume that mediterranean vessels crossed the atlantic, galleys/biremes might be horribly unsafe in open ocean, but we know for a fact vikings crossed in the north atlantic, for all that they and their vessels would be suited to those rough waters than a mediterranean ship and crew.

There are nazi bunkers/tunnels that are still sealed after deliberate demolition or allied bombing, I don't think they are full of Maus tanks, secret weapons and zombies though.

There are some interesting stories about these sites but this is a thread debunking historical myths not furthering speculation based on dubious evidence...

I thought it was about common myths and the discussion thereof. That seems like the direction it's kept at, anyways.

As for the peoples of central america: since we know romans made contact with them at least once (presumably the cause of the local prophecy regarding pale skinned gods crossing the seas in floating castles (or however the specifics went), if that's not an apocryphal story, that is), and we know that egypt had some small amount of transatlantic trade (tobacco leaves and traces of cocaine found in mummies), is it conceivable that the diseases that so ravaged some populations could have already been present in others, leaving them somewhat more resistant?

While I don't know about all that, I have read one theory that goes like this:

Based on Archeological evidence we know that the Mayans and Incas may have suffered a few of their own plague epidemics before Europeans arrived (EDIT: And it is generally believed that the early Mississippi River civilization was wiped out in part by a plague of some kind and the Aztecs origins were not too disremoved from that region). It makes sense to assume that they may have had their own native endemic diseases. The Aztecs may have been suffering these at the same time when the Spanish arrived, introducing small pox and BAM. Double plague, one native, one foreign. It's like mixing chocolate with peanut butter... only deadly.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The thing is, though, we DON'T know that the Romans had contact with anyone in the Americas and the tobacco/coca findings are disputed. The "white men from the sea" thingie could easily be explained by the Vikings, who we DO know landed near Newfoundland some 400 years prior to Columbus.

I'd love to read more about the mummy thingie, but the only hits I get from Google gives me this kind of vibe:

Finding where I read about the tobacco and cocaine in mummies, I get this and this as citations, though the second does make a point of listing possible non-transatlantic-trading-related causes. I do not know, and so cannot comment on, the reliability of those books as legitimate sources.

The only still existing citation for the roman contact appears to be this old NYTimes piece about what was apparently a roman vessel filled with jars manufactured on the atlantic coast of morocco being found off the coast of brazil in the eighties, before the site was covered in a large mound of silt because of the controversial implications it raised. Other things refer to roman artifacts found in pre-columbian sites, but no citations.

It's not that mind-boggling to assume that mediterranean vessels crossed the atlantic, galleys/biremes might be horribly unsafe in open ocean, but we know for a fact vikings crossed in the north atlantic, for all that they and their vessels would be suited to those rough waters than a mediterranean ship and crew.

And at the narrowist point the Atlantic is only 1,770 miles accross, which isn't beyond the possibility of Roman era ships to cross.

The main issue with Roman contact is that its hard to conceive that the Romans or Egyptians could manage direct contact with the Americas without documenting it at all. The Roman empire is the point in history where we begin to find an abundance of primary sources for major events, and yet they might have crossed the Atlantic, brought back trade goods, and never mentioned it in any source material?

It's an odd quagmire.

EDIT: Also, the NY Times piece is on its face pretty incredible. Scam artists like that guy are a dime a dozen (maybe even a Nickle). The other two links certainly raise very interesting possibilities, but Occam's Razor being what it is, the simplest answer at the moment is simply contamination (thought the results of the test to me, seem to be enough to warrant keeping the door open).

It could easily get lost if the significance of the discovery was not known.

A Roman Expedition goes down the coast of Africa and turns west. After a few weeks they reach another land and spend several months exploring. They come back after some time.

The records mearely show they went south and found some stuff. The explicit details arn't super exciting so no big deal is made out of them. The records don't indicate to a modern reader what they did precisely.

People believed that the Battle of Hoth was a military incursion to break the rebellion, when in reality, as I understand it, they were really just after one guy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It could easily get lost if the significance of the discovery was not known.

A Roman Expedition goes down the coast of Africa and turns west. After a few weeks they reach another land and spend several months exploring. They come back after some time.

The records mearely show they went south and found some stuff. The explicit details arn't super exciting so no big deal is made out of them. The records don't indicate to a modern reader what they did precisely.

It's pretty hard to confuse south with west, and to go 1000+ miles by accident, and then make it back another 1000+ miles to get back where you started. The North Star was known to the Romans and used. EDIT: Though this could raise the possibility that if the ship ever existed, it could have been lost and drifted into those waters. A more likely possibility is that Robert Marx is spewing bull crap from his mouth in a attempt to get a book deal after becoming academically irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
People believed that the Battle of Hoth was a military incursion to break the rebellion, when in reality, as I understand it, they were really just after one guy.

Ha!

 Ahtman wrote:
People believed that the Battle of Hoth was a military incursion to break the rebellion, when in reality, as I understand it, they were really just after one guy.

... I see what you did there!

Myth: Tang was invented for the Astronaught program.
Fact 1: Tang predated the Astronaught program, but was made famous by being on board John Glenn's Mercury flight.
Fact 2: Wu Tang Clan is not affiliated with the Astronaught program or Tang the drink.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It could easily get lost if the significance of the discovery was not known.

A Roman Expedition goes down the coast of Africa and turns west. After a few weeks they reach another land and spend several months exploring. They come back after some time.

The records mearely show they went south and found some stuff. The explicit details arn't super exciting so no big deal is made out of them. The records don't indicate to a modern reader what they did precisely.

There's no evidence however in the Americas. Further, the suggestion that ships, designed for the the calm Mediterranean and were used to hug the shore predominantly with only small jumps across open water, and whom wrecked extremely easily in weather, would cross the Atlantic is a difficult concept at best.
This goes with "Aliens built the Mayan temples" stuff.

You rang?

I thought everyone accepted that Aliens had created the Mayan Temples...

No. It was the Free Masons. Clearly.

Based on Archeological evidence we know that the Mayans and Incas may have suffered a few of their own plague epidemics before Europeans arrived (EDIT: And it is generally believed that the early Mississippi River civilization was wiped out in part by a plague of some kind and the Aztecs origins were not too disremoved from that region).

Wait central Mexico and the Mississippii region are incredibly removed from each other, on the order of 2,200 miles.

The Mississippii tribes were wiped out by plagues, but those plagues came from Europe. Indeed Spanish conquistadores and explorers detailed some of these tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait central Mexico and the Mississippii region are incredibly removed from each other, on the order of 2,200 miles.

The Mississippii tribes were wiped out by plagues, but those plagues came from Europe. Indeed Spanish conquistadores and explorers detailed some of these tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture

I'm going way way way way back. The very earlist Mississippi civilization just disappeared around 500AD (?). The most ancient Aztec ancestors migrated southward from a region (southish)west of it.

I don't know if it's a myth or not, but i like to think that the Swiss banking system was a product of the Knights Templar. the story goes that apparently two Templars were on a horse (because you know when times get tough, Templars horsepool ) heading home to the Alps and one of them says to the other: "so we're broke and we have no lands or applicable skills."
the other says: "that's not true, didn't we have that banking system way back when? let's start it back up again here!" so they did just that and that was the beginnings of the Swiss Banking system. to me that's a plausible story, at least more plausible than anything else surrounding the Templars.

IDK if the story is true or not but the Templars did have a monopoly on Banking in the Latin controlled Levant, namely in Jerusalem so its not a totally far fetched idea.

That show QI and cracked.com have alot to answer for.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
There are nazi bunkers/tunnels that are still sealed after deliberate demolition or allied bombing, I don't think they are full of Maus tanks, secret weapons and zombies though.

This was the climax of an RPG I ran last summer.