On February 12 2011 05:44 DrTJEckleburg wrote: I'd like to bring up a new topic to this thread.
A common misconception in history is that the Aztec Empire fell to the Spaniards due to an alliance with the Tlaxcala, superior military technology, and pathogens such as smallpox brought over from Europe. Although these factors are certainly a part of the conquering, it's not unreasonable to assume that the cultural differences that we see between the Aztecs and the Spanish are a critical factor in this. The Aztecs would assume to fight honorably and to the death of course, however, Cortes besieged Tenochtitlan and this was simply a type of warfare that the Aztecs could not respond to. Many of the Aztecs simply starved to death because they could not leave the city and were not aware of why the Spanish were fighting in this manner.
Another example of this is taking prisoners; the Aztecs would often rout the Spanish and pursued them in an adrenaline rush of some kind. The ensuing results were often the Spanish stopping in their tracks and turning around to open fire on their pursuers. Captives were extremely valuable for the Aztecs as human sacrifice was still rampant in this community. Maybe it's not much different than people assume, but I think a lot of people believe that it was because of gunpowder and cannon that the Spanish were victorious. In addition, many Spanish weapons were adopted by the Aztecs by creating make-shift lances or simply using weapons off of dead Spaniards. There's no question that the Aztecs didn't have the opportunity to use the weapons of the Spanish. After all, the war lasted over two years, strategic and technological resilience had to have been developed by the Aztecs.
I think the biggest advance attributed to Spanish are not actually guns and cannons, but good iron/steel weapons, armors and horses. And of course much more advanced tactics. Pathogens probably not much since it was too short a time.
It is true that the weapons(swords, lances, etc) used by the Spanish were far superior to the Aztec weapons, however the Aztecs were able to re-used captured weaponry and create their own lances(strapping them to wooden poles, etc.) Not only that, but the city of Tenochtitlan was absurdly difficult to navigate by horse and the Aztecs created numerous traps and roadblocks that prohibited efficient uses of mounted troops.
That still leaves Spanish greatly superior armor. Also only the weapons stolen or taken from dead Spanish soldiers was (of course) of comparable quality. Any imitation that was locally produced would be very inferior as their metallurgy was just too far behind and they had too short time to adapt. But as in previous post I agreed with you on the fact that tactics also played greater role.
On February 12 2011 05:44 DrTJEckleburg wrote: I'd like to bring up a new topic to this thread.
A common misconception in history is that the Aztec Empire fell to the Spaniards due to an alliance with the Tlaxcala, superior military technology, and pathogens such as smallpox brought over from Europe. Although these factors are certainly a part of the conquering, it's not unreasonable to assume that the cultural differences that we see between the Aztecs and the Spanish are a critical factor in this. The Aztecs would assume to fight honorably and to the death of course, however, Cortes besieged Tenochtitlan and this was simply a type of warfare that the Aztecs could not respond to. Many of the Aztecs simply starved to death because they could not leave the city and were not aware of why the Spanish were fighting in this manner.
Another example of this is taking prisoners; the Aztecs would often rout the Spanish and pursued them in an adrenaline rush of some kind. The ensuing results were often the Spanish stopping in their tracks and turning around to open fire on their pursuers. Captives were extremely valuable for the Aztecs as human sacrifice was still rampant in this community. Maybe it's not much different than people assume, but I think a lot of people believe that it was because of gunpowder and cannon that the Spanish were victorious. In addition, many Spanish weapons were adopted by the Aztecs by creating make-shift lances or simply using weapons off of dead Spaniards. There's no question that the Aztecs didn't have the opportunity to use the weapons of the Spanish. After all, the war lasted over two years, strategic and technological resilience had to have been developed by the Aztecs.
I think the biggest advance attributed to Spanish are not actually guns and cannons, but good iron/steel weapons, armors and horses. And of course much more advanced tactics. Pathogens probably not much since it was too short a time.
It is true that the weapons(swords, lances, etc) used by the Spanish were far superior to the Aztec weapons, however the Aztecs were able to re-used captured weaponry and create their own lances(strapping them to wooden poles, etc.) Not only that, but the city of Tenochtitlan was absurdly difficult to navigate by horse and the Aztecs created numerous traps and roadblocks that prohibited efficient uses of mounted troops.
That still leaves Spanish greatly superior armor. Also only the weapons stolen or taken from dead Spanish soldiers was (of course) of comparable quality. Any imitation that was locally produced would be very inferior as their metallurgy was just too far behind and they had too short time to adapt. But as in previous post I agreed with you on the fact that tactics also played greater role.
Actually the Obsidian axes, spears and throwing weapons would have been as sharp or sharper than any metal weapon the Spanish were using. The spanish called the obsidian weapons of the aztec as "sharp enough to decapitate a man with one blow". While obviously the gunpowder weapons would have a significant advantage at first, the overwhelming numbers of the aztecs would have easily countered that. The most powerful weapon of the spanish was Smallpox, not guns horses or swords.
In regards to the Spanish defeat of the Aztec, everyone (except for TheGiftedApe) seems to really be downplaying the role of disease. Did superior weaponry and tactics play a role in the defeat of the Aztec? Definitely. But the fact that the native population had no immunity to European diseases caused them to spread rapidly throughout Mesoamerica. In many cases, disease reached and decimated villages before Europeans physically arrived in them.
To refute the claim that a couple of years is not enough time for the biological agents to work needs to look no further than Tenochtitlan and its surrounding cities. Within two years nearly 40 percent of the population had succumbed to smallpox. + Show Spoiler +
( "General History of The Things of New Spain." de Sahagun, Bernardino. The Human Record: Sources of Global History, Volume II. Andrea, Alfred J. and James H. Overfield. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. )
The Aztec could competitively fight with the Conquistadors. What they lacked in technology, they made up for in numbers. The initial force of Spaniards that Cortes had only numbered about 600. By the time he arrived in Tenochtitlan Cortes had an army of over 4,000. Most of his original 600 and numerous rival tribes that surrounded the Aztec and who were fighting for their own political gains. Even this army paled in comparison to the number of soldiers that the Aztec could field. Once disease started to spread and the numbers started to dwindle, Cortes had a much easier time conquering.
TL;DR: Disease was the main factor in Cortes' conquering of the Aztec empire. Without a quick and deadly series of epidemics his force (even with superior technology and horses) would have surely failed.
On February 12 2011 05:44 DrTJEckleburg wrote: I'd like to bring up a new topic to this thread.
A common misconception in history is that the Aztec Empire fell to the Spaniards due to an alliance with the Tlaxcala, superior military technology, and pathogens such as smallpox brought over from Europe. Although these factors are certainly a part of the conquering, it's not unreasonable to assume that the cultural differences that we see between the Aztecs and the Spanish are a critical factor in this. The Aztecs would assume to fight honorably and to the death of course, however, Cortes besieged Tenochtitlan and this was simply a type of warfare that the Aztecs could not respond to. Many of the Aztecs simply starved to death because they could not leave the city and were not aware of why the Spanish were fighting in this manner.
Another example of this is taking prisoners; the Aztecs would often rout the Spanish and pursued them in an adrenaline rush of some kind. The ensuing results were often the Spanish stopping in their tracks and turning around to open fire on their pursuers. Captives were extremely valuable for the Aztecs as human sacrifice was still rampant in this community. Maybe it's not much different than people assume, but I think a lot of people believe that it was because of gunpowder and cannon that the Spanish were victorious. In addition, many Spanish weapons were adopted by the Aztecs by creating make-shift lances or simply using weapons off of dead Spaniards. There's no question that the Aztecs didn't have the opportunity to use the weapons of the Spanish. After all, the war lasted over two years, strategic and technological resilience had to have been developed by the Aztecs.
I think the biggest advance attributed to Spanish are not actually guns and cannons, but good iron/steel weapons, armors and horses. And of course much more advanced tactics. Pathogens probably not much since it was too short a time.
It is true that the weapons(swords, lances, etc) used by the Spanish were far superior to the Aztec weapons, however the Aztecs were able to re-used captured weaponry and create their own lances(strapping them to wooden poles, etc.) Not only that, but the city of Tenochtitlan was absurdly difficult to navigate by horse and the Aztecs created numerous traps and roadblocks that prohibited efficient uses of mounted troops.
That still leaves Spanish greatly superior armor. Also only the weapons stolen or taken from dead Spanish soldiers was (of course) of comparable quality. Any imitation that was locally produced would be very inferior as their metallurgy was just too far behind and they had too short time to adapt. But as in previous post I agreed with you on the fact that tactics also played greater role.
Actually the Obsidian axes, spears and throwing weapons would have been as sharp or sharper than any metal weapon the Spanish were using. The spanish called the obsidian weapons of the aztec as "sharp enough to decapitate a man with one blow". While obviously the gunpowder weapons would have a significant advantage at first, the overwhelming numbers of the aztecs would have easily countered that. The most powerful weapon of the spanish was Smallpox, not guns horses or swords.
Sharpness is not the most important property of weapons, scalpels are not really good weapons. As far as I know smallpox did not really play the role in the conquest phase of the subjugation of Aztecs. You could make that argument about Incas, but even there I don't think it was any deciding factor. You should not underestimate Spanish total and 2000+ years worth weapons and tactics advantage that they had on Aztecs.
On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote: I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution.
He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God.
Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions.
You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]."
You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply:
Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered.
Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors?
Better source of what? He claimed the Bible said one thing. I proved that, in fact, it did not. Case closed.
But, as to your problem that the Bible contains hearsay: I think you fail to understand what hearsay actually means. The entirety of written history, once we read it, is hearsay!
You did prove nothing of the sort. Problem with the Bible is that it was written long after the events it describes happened and it is not corroborated by other sources. And of course contains so many false/vague information that it cannot be really taken too seriously.
You did prove nothing of the sort.
Listen, if you claim something that can be proven otherwise, here and now, and I prove it otherwise, then yes, I proved you wrong. Take for example, I say baseballs do not exist, and you show me a baseball. You've proven me wrong! No one has to believe it, but it does not change the truth.
You said the Bible did not say Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the Son of God. I showed that it does. That proves you wrong. There is no other possible way to look at it in the realm of logic.
Problem with the Bible is that it was written long after the events it describes happened
When else do you want history to be written? Before the events happen?!
and it is not corroborated by other sources.
The bible has more evidence for its historicity than, like I mentioned before, any other book before and most books after it was written. You cannot prove your claim. But I'd like to see you try. I'm not making this up, I really believe what I'm saying.
edit: If you want to see/read sources outside of the Bible that confirm its historicity I can post some, but it will take far too much time than I have now to look into it. I'll have to wait 'til I get home.
And of course contains so many false/vague information that it cannot be really taken too seriously
This is the true heart of the matter. You have assumed de novo that supernaturalism is not possible, therefore anything in the Bible that points to it is false. That is not a scientific way of thinking. Science assumes nothing and lets the facts speak for themselves.
Can people stop quoting and/or using wikipedia as a source of historical evidence, it discrediteds your argument completely. It is such a faulty site to source anything from.
On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote: I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution.
He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God.
Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions.
You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]."
You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply:
Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered.
Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors?
Better source of what? He claimed the Bible said one thing. I proved that, in fact, it did not. Case closed.
But, as to your problem that the Bible contains hearsay: I think you fail to understand what hearsay actually means. The entirety of written history, once we read it, is hearsay!
well put s('.^)d History was written, hearsay is more of gossip. Bible was written. whats interesting, is some of the remains from historical events that were noted in the Bible, example the Chariot wheels found at the bottom of the red sea.
I cannot be sure if this is sarcasm, but I guess not. Do you really not see any other way for that wheel to get there, than for some deity to part the sea
i heard a logical explanation from my theology teacher about the parting of the red sea story (im not saying it was proven but some sort of food for thought or theory) he said that the red sea was on low tide by the time the israelites crossed it and when the egyptians were crossing it, they were stuck on the mud and can't get out because of the armor they were wearing then drowned when high tide came
I didn't want to get into the religion debate but now that history is getting involved in it, I need to add my two cents.
The accuracy of any historical book is debatable, the accounts of Herodotus and other early historians are largely considered as accurate because we have found artifacts that support many of the events, places, and people that are described. When it comes to the Bible we have 3rd hand accounts (as the authors of the Gospels did not actually write them, the Gospels are accounts of their stories), a supernatural claim, and very little evidence to back it up. Does that mean that the Bible and Christianity are wrong? No, but to claim that the Bible is a more accurate source of history than most of the other works produced around the same time is simply not true.
On February 12 2011 07:39 Chodes wrote: Can people stop quoting and/or using wikipedia as a source of historical evidence, it discrediteds your argument completely. It is such a faulty site to source anything from.
You do realize that Wikipedia is sourced information?
On February 12 2011 07:53 RafikiSC wrote: I didn't want to get into the religion debate but now that history is getting involved in it, I need to add my two cents.
The accuracy of any historical book is debatable, the accounts of Herodotus and other early historians are largely considered as accurate because we have found artifacts that support many of the events, places, and people that are described. When it comes to the Bible we have 3rd hand accounts (as the authors of the Gospels did not actually write them, the Gospels are accounts of their stories), a supernatural claim, and very little evidence to back it up. Does that mean that the Bible and Christianity are wrong? No, but to claim that the Bible is a more accurate source of history than most of the other works produced around the same time is simply not true.
Here you go this is what is taught to Biblical scholars skip to 4.30 this is 1of 10 out of a longer video
On February 12 2011 07:39 Chodes wrote: Can people stop quoting and/or using wikipedia as a source of historical evidence, it discrediteds your argument completely. It is such a faulty site to source anything from.
You do realize that Wikipedia is sourced information?
The difference is that anybody can write it. Reading an actual peer-reviewed source straight from the horse's mouth is a much better approach. Using Wikipedia in history is a cardinal sin.
On February 12 2011 07:39 Chodes wrote: Can people stop quoting and/or using wikipedia as a source of historical evidence, it discrediteds your argument completely. It is such a faulty site to source anything from.
You do realize that Wikipedia is sourced information?
The difference is that anybody can write it. Reading an actual peer-reviewed source straight from the horse's mouth is a much better approach. Using Wikipedia in history is a cardinal sin.
But wiki is peer reviewed you can change it and you can look at the sources. Yes you should check the sources that Wikipedia links to but to say that it is discredited is lie. I wouldn't use it has a source of a term paper but it is a fairly reliable source for gathering information for a brief overview of a subject.
edit:when I read something on wikipedia I normally follow the sources at the bottom as well to see how credible they are.
On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote: I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution.
He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God.
Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions.
You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]."
You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply:
Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered.
Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors?
Better source of what? He claimed the Bible said one thing. I proved that, in fact, it did not. Case closed.
But, as to your problem that the Bible contains hearsay: I think you fail to understand what hearsay actually means. The entirety of written history, once we read it, is hearsay!
You did prove nothing of the sort. Problem with the Bible is that it was written long after the events it describes happened and it is not corroborated by other sources. And of course contains so many false/vague information that it cannot be really taken too seriously.
Listen, if you claim something that can be proven otherwise, here and now, and I prove it otherwise, then yes, I proved you wrong. Take for example, I say baseballs do not exist, and you show me a baseball. You've proven me wrong! No one has to believe it, but it does not change the truth.
You said the Bible did not say Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the Son of God. I showed that it does. That proves you wrong. There is no other possible way to look at it in the realm of logic.
Look up my response to your post in which you brought up the Bible citations.
The bible has more evidence for its historicity than, like I mentioned before, any other book before and most books after it was written. You cannot prove your claim. But I'd like to see you try. I'm not making this up, I really believe what I'm saying.
edit: If you want to see/read sources outside of the Bible that confirm its historicity I can post some, but it will take far too much time than I have now to look into it. I'll have to wait 'til I get home.
Some parts have supporting evidence some have not, in this context we were talking about Gospels, specifically about Jesus, so if you can post supporting sources for it I would love to see them.
And of course contains so many false/vague information that it cannot be really taken too seriously
This is the true heart of the matter. You have assumed de novo that supernaturalism is not possible, therefore anything in the Bible that points to it is false. That is not a scientific way of thinking. Science assumes nothing and lets the facts speak for themselves.
Ok two points. First I was not talking about supernatural stuff when I was talking about false information. Second scientific way of thinking is to not assume existence of something for which there is no proof, there is no proof for supernatural. EDIT: To clarify last sentence, it is scientific to assume non-existence if there is no evidence. It is actually rational and even logical.
On February 12 2011 07:12 RafikiSC wrote: In regards to the Spanish defeat of the Aztec, everyone (except for TheGiftedApe) seems to really be downplaying the role of disease. Did superior weaponry and tactics play a role in the defeat of the Aztec? Definitely. But the fact that the native population had no immunity to European diseases caused them to spread rapidly throughout Mesoamerica. In many cases, disease reached and decimated villages before Europeans physically arrived in them.
To refute the claim that a couple of years is not enough time for the biological agents to work needs to look no further than Tenochtitlan and its surrounding cities. Within two years nearly 40 percent of the population had succumbed to smallpox. + Show Spoiler +
( "General History of The Things of New Spain." de Sahagun, Bernardino. The Human Record: Sources of Global History, Volume II. Andrea, Alfred J. and James H. Overfield. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. )
The Aztec could competitively fight with the Conquistadors. What they lacked in technology, they made up for in numbers. The initial force of Spaniards that Cortes had only numbered about 600. By the time he arrived in Tenochtitlan Cortes had an army of over 4,000. Most of his original 600 and numerous rival tribes that surrounded the Aztec and who were fighting for their own political gains. Even this army paled in comparison to the number of soldiers that the Aztec could field. Once disease started to spread and the numbers started to dwindle, Cortes had a much easier time conquering.
TL;DR: Disease was the main factor in Cortes' conquering of the Aztec empire. Without a quick and deadly series of epidemics his force (even with superior technology and horses) would have surely failed.
Disease was certainly an important factor in the conquering of the Aztecs, but that isn't the point. The cultural differences of warfare is ultimately what turned the tide for the Spanish. You said yourself that 40% of the population of the city had died, okay well that still means nothing since there were millions of people in the empire as opposed to the meager amount of Spaniards. The Spanish remained absurdly outnumbered during the war; not to mention they lost soldiers which in turn gave the Aztecs superior weaponry as spoils of the corpse. Also, it's important to realize that Cortes' indigenous allies were also ravaged by the smallpox epidemic, so they too were lowered in number. These people regarded warfare as a sacred clash between tribes. Hit and run tactics, siege warfare, and surprise attacks were unheard of in the tribes of the Mexica.
Siege warfare was pivotal; it was the complete opposite of Aztec warfare: encircling a city and controlling the supply chain into the city with no intention of engaging the vastly superior Aztec army is what the Mexica could never understand.
On February 12 2011 07:39 Chodes wrote: Can people stop quoting and/or using wikipedia as a source of historical evidence, it discrediteds your argument completely. It is such a faulty site to source anything from.
You do realize that Wikipedia is sourced information?
The difference is that anybody can write it. Reading an actual peer-reviewed source straight from the horse's mouth is a much better approach. Using Wikipedia in history is a cardinal sin.
Its far more credible now than it used to be. Since it gets reviewed by so many people and since you are pretty much required to show sources, it can be fairly reliable. Obviously I wouldnt use the wikipedia page itself for a history thesis, but when it comes to online debates it should be fine.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.cougardistributions.com/images/Red_sea_1.jpg)
