GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>

Thorin: Dame hobbit slew me once, a looong time ago... Are you still a greedy bastard of a dwarve?

</STRONG>

Most likely.

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>Minerva: You are my most precious ancient enemy. Avast! Stand back, and draw thy blade!
</STRONG>

Am I? I didn't know that...

Originally posted by Minerva:
<STRONG>Am I? I didn't know that... </STRONG>

Quite a compliment. He could have claimed you were his most inexpensive ancient enemy, sort of a foe armored in rhinestones.

Hi WitchKing, Don't know you but I will try to answer what I think from what I have learned. First premise the Western Europeans were not supremely superior in terms of resources culture whatever, the fact that the Europeans colonized first is a article of random chance. There have been other possibilities, there is some evidence that the Incans were beginning to build ships for the crossing of oceans, ten years or more perhaps it would have been the Incans. Also not well know but before Portugal even got started the Chinese were already exploring on their own campaign of expansion, they had already reached the tip of South Africa way before Henry the Navigator had even started. Then the Chinese Emperor died and the accountants forbidded the ships to go any further. So it is historical chance that it was not the other way around. Also there is a lot of evidence to support the Chinese having discovered America before the Vikings, on the western coast, similiarities in writing and so forth.

As to your second question, it is probably both, probably some common ancestor came out of Africa and we separate evolution depending on the environment we evolved in, however the fact we can crossbreed suggests
to me that we came out of Africa relatively recently, rather than earlier and then evolved some minor differing racial characteristics.

@WitchKing

Question2: these last couple of years or so a new theory about the origin of life has been introduced in astronomy, stating that life originated in one place in our Galaxy and spread out from that birth place to other parts. The thought behind this is the fact that the chance for life developing on a planet is VERY small, making the chance of life developing in different parts of the Galaxy, independent of each other, even smaller. Tests with bacteria have been conducted, and it appears that bacteria can survive "lift-off" from one planet, and an impact on another planet, provided that they are properly shielded within the meteorites used for interstellar travel. Last year a project has been set up here in Holland at Leiden University that'll be dealing with this theory in more detail...

Waverly: Sounds like environmental determinism if you ask me, and I probably agree, though not the way you present it. I would say the extra 100,000 years of history in the Old World had a lot to do with building up enough population pressure to force certain technological achievements - ship building, guns, toilet paper, that kind of thing. In so far as the population is an aspect of the environment....

As I understand it, at the time the Spanish came into Peru, the Inca were in the middle of civil war between two ruling brothers. The Spanish were able to take advantage of the chaos and could make their conquest. If the Incas had firmer political control at the time, Pizzaro probably wouldn’t have stood a chance and the politics of South America might have had a very different look. Nevertheless, this doesn’t account for the decimating affects of disease on the American populations, which was really the European’s greatest weapon - arguable bourn of high population densities as well.

Gwalch, that argument works best for the new world, and we should both be able to agree that the western hemisphere was not the only focus of expansionism. Even when looking only there, I’m not sure I would agree that the new world suffered any type of time penalty. It’s not like folks meandered over during the iron age. At the time people first crossed over into N. America, the people of Europe would not have been recognizably more advanced.

As for population driving advancement, India succumbed to British rule despite having a large, long standing population. I believe they simply weren’t driven the way the Europeans were to militarize or be conquered.

Your point about disease is a very good one. I believe it was not only the large population centers, but the trade and contact between them that gave Europeans the advantage in resistance.

Re-reading: I think we mostly agree, though I would put the pressures of potentially hostile neighbors and the means to combat them through militarism and technology higher on the list than simply population density.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Waverly ]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Quite a compliment. He could have claimed you were his most inexpensive ancient enemy, sort of a foe armored in rhinestones.</STRONG>

He could, indeed. We know what this particular Witch King is capable of.

Waverly: You make some good points, but I may not have explained myself well enough. I’m saying that the technological advancement that allowed peoples of the Old World to travel to the New World first had nothing to do with the length of occupation of each respective region, but rather with the population density. True, about 12000 years ago when the New World was first being populated, the relative technologies were about equal (Clovis lithic technology compared to some similar Stone Age technology in the Old World), but the relatively few small bands of humans who came across the Bering Strait were a miniscule population compared to major population zones in the Old World. The Old World had a huge head start on its population. The greater population density pressured Old World peoples to create greater and greater technologies to cope. Agriculture solved their problems for a while, but also gave rise to larger populations. Eventually expansion of territory was the chosen option, giving rise to greater mobility and antagonism. Therefore ships and guns.

Meanwhile in the New World, humans were spread out, population less dense. The carrying capacity of the land was not immediately stressed, and there was no impetus for technological advancement. State level societies developed much later. Humans tend to resist change, and will usually opt for less-complex organizational systems if they can. An example would be how sedentary tribes along the Missouri were willing to become nomadic hunters and gatherers on the Great Plains again as soon as the horse was introduced by the Spanish (moving into territory decimated by disease and moving out of territory that was being pressured by expansion from the east). Without the population pressure early on, stale level societies developed later, and were technologically behind the times by A.D. 1500.

On the other hand, you appear to claim that some peculiar Old World climate, geography, and distribution of resources gave rise to a more aggressive and expansionist group of cultures. I would disagree. The New World had its share of comparable climates, geographies, and resources, and the cultures were certainly antagonistic enough. Maya, Inca, Olmec, Moche, and Aztec cultures were certainly capable of conquering, with lots of fun looting and pillaging.

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>Kid###: Hey man, hope things are well with you. Never besmirch the True Name of a goat.

Thorin: Dame hobbit slew me once, a looong time ago... Are you still a greedy bastard of a dwarve?

Weasel: Wow, you're still around, I'm amazed, though obviously I shouldn't be. I didn't follow your Mars comment though...How's life with you Weasel, things pretty good?

Minerva: You are my most precious ancient enemy. Avast! Stand back, and draw thy blade!

-==-==--=-=-
damn hobbit</STRONG>

@Goat Lover : Still crreping around here, alas I got lesser time to SPAM now

Gwalch: I don’t think the population alone would be enough of a driver without the unique geography of Europe. As I pointed out, in the East, higher populations certainly led to the advancement of agriculture, but there was an element missing. There was not the constant friction between relatively evenly matched cultures in close proximity. If we use your model alone, there should have been dense population centers giving rise to colonial powers in other parts of the globe, no? There is something unique to Europe aside from its population centers.

The new world has a temperate climate, abundant resources, and varied geography, but it what it did not have was culturally distinct groups of people behind defensible borders yet in close proximity. Isolate these groups further, and their advancements become less martial. Remove the barriers altogether, and find a single dominant culture emerge. I think you are correct that the dense population of these areas is a large factor, but it couldn’t have been the only factor.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Waverly ]

Out of Africa? Not sure about the human race (which WK isn't part of) but the old FDL certainly originated out of my @$$.

Waverly: I see your point now. The areas that gave rise to state-level civilizations in the New World were relatively small in a geographic sense. Mexico and Central America are circumscribed by oceans on either side, while Peru and to a lesser extent Columbia and Equador had an ocean and the Andes/Amazonian Rainforest to contend with. Not much chance for rival states to pop up right next door. I agree.

However, I still think that the greater population allowed complex societies to develop sooner in the Old World. Sumaria rose to fame sometime around 4000 B.C.? Pre-dynastic Egypt in 3500 B.C? But in the New World the Olmecs showed up about 1500 B.C. I think that if the two hemispheres had been on equal populational footing and thus with equal social complexity, the New World might have given the Old World a run for its money. Who would have conquered whom?

But then, your point above still raises a good question. Would the New World civilizations have had a long-term history of exploration and conquest even given equal complexity? Considering your geographical model above, no.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>...but the old FDL certainly originated out of my @$$.</STRONG>

Speak ill not of FoulDwimmerlaik, and stop spamming up my thread. If you've nothing nice to say, put your fingers back in your mouth and shut up

Gwalch, Waverly:

The Maya weren't really an antagonistic society. In fact, their culture is the prime example supporting the theories you are agreeing upon. They were a society rich and culture and dense in population, however, with no immediate neighbors and all the resources at their disposal, expansion was not even a thought. They really had no competitors, no cultural tension. Once the Aztecs got large enough, they had plans for the Maya which didn't really matter because the Spaniards were on the way.

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>Speak ill not of FoulDwimmerlaik, and stop spamming up my thread. If you've nothing nice to say, put your fingers back in your mouth and shut up </STRONG>

@WK : you better make your mind which identity you'll use.....I bet Sleepo will delete one of them real soon

Originally posted by Witch King:
<STRONG>Speak ill not of FoulDwimmerlaik, and stop spamming up my thread. If you've nothing nice to say, put your fingers back in your mouth and shut up </STRONG>

Well I have nothing to say...... oh almost forgot - WB Witch King