Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 171

Thread: What was the most significant Event in the History of Man?

  1. #61
    thus proving my point that we are lucky that the Nazi's are not in power
    thus proving nothing. The Russians were held economic and political hostage under control of the mongols for *centuries*. The exact same situation you describe, except it happened in this case.

    If the Nazi's came to power they would fall the same way the mongols did, but more expediently thanks to tech. I'd help see to it.

    Well I thank you for the "appeal to authority" but unless you are a expert in this field, you wield little influence on me.
    You're missing the point again -- that I know more about mongolian history that you. And not just because you've shown yourself to have a sketchy understanding, but because I actually take an interest!

    Accept it or not. Your insolence makes no difference to me.

    So taking over Poland in less then one month is worse then the Mongols taking over China over decades?
    The Chinese were highly sophisticated, they grossly outnumbered the mongolians, but most importantly, had the means to defend themselves. The poles had none of those things.

    And while the mongolians came damn close to bitchslapping the poles, Hitler couldn't even touch the Chinese.

    Oh -- and Nazi reign only lasted a few years. How long did the mongols rule, again? Again, the ratio of victory:Reign is much higher for the mongols.

    This does not prove that the Mongols were more efficient,
    #

    1. The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system.
    2. The ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation.

    Yes it does. Individuals make the whole, not the other way around. The mongols didn't need technology. They used raw human power and were unbelievable effient for their size and technology (they didn't have any!). As soon as Nazi tech fell apart, so did they. The Nazi's conquered far less, and lasted a much shorter time than the mongols, all while investing more time and energy into the input.

    Ghenghis conquered more with raw meat and tubers

    Hitler conquered less with tanks and guns

    >>Now who was more efficient?

    Yes the Nazi's had a large bureaucracy, but I think the bureaucratic disaster of the Yuan dynasty showed how shallow this argument really is.
    Beaurocracy has nothing to do with the argument that Ghenghis ruled his armies nearly singlehandedly, while Hitler needed entire cabinets and reptiloids.

    I love these infantile attempts to say I am a simpleton, it's really quite funny.
    You're a simpleton because you see the obvious, but not the profound. And also because you're blind to this.

    See Russia below

    to a man who was fighting campaigns half the time.
    During Peace:

    1)Hitler aimed his rallies at the people, in the presence of the armies
    2)Napoleon rallied his armies, though not televised, in the presence of the people (public areas.)

    During time between Battles:

    They both rallied.

    I really don't see the difference. Even if Hitler rallied a bit more, they both did it. No denying the fact.

    information could not be passed to others by illiterate means
    What!! This is even more outrageous than the first time you said it.

    Ideas need to be written down on paper to be communicated?

    I'd go for the opposite. Word of mouth has a deeper effect than written words because the ideas actually mean something to the person communicating. Espcially in times of war.

    Without a medium, there would be psychological effects to be had. The medium is the message.
    I assume you mean:
    Without a medium, there would be no psychological effects to be had.

    In any case, thats only true for the literal and the extreme. Both of which are completely irrelevant to history. Example: We're martians. If I carve 'I love you' into a piece of shit, you might take the opposite to be true. Over time, though, nobody cares about the piece of shit. They'd want to know about me, the person who carved "I love you" into it, and you for how you reacted to my gesture. The piece of shit only shows my level of sophistication with writing tools. Foreign audiences (those in the future)would not fully understand the cultural norms, or the implications of the piece of shit, aside from the universality that its not polite to give someone your fecal matter. THAT is history. No matter how illogical or weird it sounds, the best historians contradict themselves by being as objective as possible with those things (no matter how tough it is for you, Undecided.)

    Anyways, assuming as you do that written messages have a more profound effect than word of mouth, would you be prepared to knock off the psychological effect of Hitlers 'spoken' messages, even though no literal medium existed?

    USSR was competitive
    Umm..yes

    Like I said, 'intranational' competition. There were three teirs of goods: That which went to the people (crappiest,) that which went to nobility and army (~quality,) and that which went abroad (best.) People were competing within the country not for the best manufacturers, but for the best products.

    So yes, competition did exist within the USSR.

    USSR...
    ^^look above

    that goes without mentioning that a HUGE black market existed in Russia. One of the biggest in the world, at the time, and that the government allowed people to get away with underground trade/crimes - without making their knowledge visible - so that they could retain control. The mentality was 'let them think they're getting away with something'.

    Competition always exists, you infadelic marxist. You remind me a lot of Nico.
    Last edited by Xerxes; 01-29-04 at 08:38 PM.

  2. #62
    thus proving nothing.

    LOL!

    The Russians were held economic and political hostage under control of the mongols for *centuries*.

    Firstly Russia at the time simply did not exist, secondly the region was under the Yoke of the Mongols yes, but Russia was in no means what it was after the Mongol yoke. I am not even sure what you are trying to compare.

    If the Nazi's came to power they would fall the same way the mongols did, but more expediently thanks to tech. I'd help see to it.

    This is a position only shared by you, it is generally accepted that the Nazi's would easily maintain power. Secondly it is generally regarded that the Nazi's would go into a Cold War with the United States. The Mongols feel because of growing Mongol indifference and rebellion. In the Nazi's case not only would those two things not happen, they would be allowed to happen.

    You're missing the point again

    No I know what your point was, condensation, it has failed get over it.

    that I know more about mongolian history that you.

    I can go to the washroom...

    And not just because you've shown yourself to have a sketchy understanding, but because I actually take an interest!

    You do realize that reverting to this fallacy is actually making you lose this debate.

    Accept it or not. Your insolence makes no difference to me.

    I have not said anything insolent; it was your pseudo-intellectuality bombarding me with crap. Rather I was the one who was man enough to simply scoff...

    The Chinese were highly sophisticated, they grossly outnumbered the mongolians, but most importantly, had the means to defend themselves.

    Really? Then obviously you have little knowledge of the Song Empire. Not only was the Song militarily weak, they had little interest in the Mongols before it was too late. Not only was that but China divided into 4 states at the time making it significantly weaker. So the only over-simplification came from you.

    The poles had none of those things.

    The Teutonic knights were crap!

    And while the mongolians came damn close to bitchslapping the poles, Hitler couldn't even touch the Chinese.

    The Chinese were being dealt with anyways by the Japanese, Hitler never even expressed a desire in the region so illogical comparison.

    Oh -- and Nazi reign only lasted a few years. How long did the mongols rule, again? Again, the ratio of victory:Reign is much higher for the mongols.

    This is the tangent you are going on not me, not only is the length of time proving my point that the Nazi's were more efficient fighters then the Mongols. It also proves that the Mongols took significantly longer to do what did. What did Genghis do in 3 years, not much. What did Hitler do, take over vast majority of Europe, threatened the Middle East, and Invaded Africa. There just simply no comparison.

    Yes it does. Individuals make the whole, not the other way around. The mongols didn't need technology. They used raw human power and were unbelievable effient for their size and technology (they didn't have any!). As soon as Nazi tech fell apart, so did they. The Nazi's conquered far less, and lasted a much shorter time than the mongols, all while investing more time and energy into the input.

    The initial three years of Hitler's campaign simply proves otherwise. The Mongols were not efficient largely due to technology yes, and that's why there cannot be a comparison btwn the Mongols and the Nazi's other then on the premise of them both having a large empire. You are the one who is trying (in vain) to connect the Mongols with the Nazi's not only are they different epochs in history, they have different objectives.


    Ghenghis conquered more with raw meat and tubers

    Hitler conquered less with tanks and guns


    More is totally subjective, in terms of land mass surely, but if Hitler had nothing but the Steppes of Asia to cross he would have done it significantly faster as well. The comparison is illogical because the Nazi's not only had more topographic obstacles from Norway to Egypt, they also had large populated areas, and they had more concern for the locals. Efficiency is not merely slashing the entire city to smithereens, it involves being able to do more with less, more conquering less death.

    Now who was more efficient?

    The Nazi war machine way by far significantly more efficient:

    3 years:



    Mongols in 3 years:



    There simply just is no comparison.

    Beaurocracy has nothing to do with the argument that Ghenghis ruled his armies nearly singlehandedly, while Hitler needed entire cabinets and reptiloids.

    Bureaucracy has everything to do with it, a good bureaucracy means a efficient and effective rule of the land and it's subjects. Which the Nazi's have proven, Nazi military bureaucracy was exemplary, and it only further proves my point of great Nazi efficiency. The Mongols didn't survive because of the lack of good bureaucracy, but I bet you knew that.


    You're a simpleton because you see the obvious, but not the profound. And also because you're blind to this.

    Because when it is obvious it is correct. It's like me saying to you:

    You see the gun, but you don't see the other guns he could possibly have. There is simply no logic in your statements.


    1)Hitler aimed his rallies at the people, in the presence of the armies
    2)Napoleon rallied his armies, though not televised, in the presence of the people (public areas.)


    Unlike Hitler, Napoleon seized power, thus the French people did not grant Napoleon anything. In Nazi Germany the German ppl gave the Nazi's a resounding majority, and he was appointed into power. You are simply looking at one aspect of propaganda, which is rather limited.

    They both rallied.

    Rallied who? Hitler rallied the German People, Napoleon rallied the French troops there is a significant difference.

    Even if Hitler rallied a bit more, they both did it. No denying the fact.

    It is the intensity that escapes you.

    What!! This is even more outrageous than the first time you said it.

    Yes because you have shown it to be as such.

    Ideas need to be written down on paper to be communicated?

    I never said that, what I did say that it is almost impossible to have a propaganda machine when there is no written accounts.

    I'd go for the opposite. Word of mouth has a deeper effect than written words because the ideas actually mean something to the person communicating. Espcially in times of war.

    The "word of mouth" can be very easily discounted, and many people simply would not believe or care for some renegade telling them "stories". You cannot tell me in all seriousness that word of mouth is more effective then a visual.

    I assume you mean:
    Without a medium, there would be no psychological effects to be had.

    I wouldn't act like a smart ass I have noticed you’re vastly inferior writing skills as well:

    -and were unbelievable effient
    -Beaurocracy
    -No denying the fact
    - Espcially
    - singlehandedly
    - mongols
    - Ghenghis
    - teirs
    - marxist


    No matter how illogical or weird it sounds, the best historians contradict themselves by being as objective as possible with those things (no matter how tough it is for you, Undecided.)

    Being objective is to be disinterested something you from the outset have not been. Your and my stance is simply subjective views on history.

    Anyways, assuming as you do that written messages have a more profound effect than word of mouth, would you be prepared to knock off the psychological effect of Hitlers 'spoken' messages, even though no literal medium existed?

    The difference is that you are now comparing things again illogically. Hitler's words were Hitler's words, no one could deny it. So obviously the psychological effects were there, but to those who hear some town drunk talking about a Mongol, it doesn't arouse much. You have the problem of making up comparisons that simply aren't there.


    Like I said, 'intranational' competition. There were three teirs of goods: That which went to the people (crappiest,) that which went to nobility and army (~quality,) and that which went abroad (best.) People were competing within the country not for the best manufacturers, but for the best products.

    You do realize that the USSR hardly traded outside her economic bloc, and they were not in competition of each other, they merely complimented each others economy. The USSR was by no means competitive with anyone or anything economically. The USSR was producing crap all over the board, the only thing she exported was raw materials for hard currency, and in that she had little to no competition anyways.

    So yes, competition did exist within the USSR.

    And I went to the moon.


    [/B]that goes without mentioning that a HUGE black market existed in Russia. One of the biggest in the world, at the time, and that the government allowed people to get away with underground trade/crimes - without making their knowledge visible - so that they could retain control. The mentality was 'let them think they're getting away with something'.[B]

    The black market in the USSR was large but that does not mean that the USSR itself was competitive.

    Competition always exists, you infadelic marxist.

    Oh please spare me from more of your limited knowledge, it hurts to read.

  3. #63
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by Undecided
    The most important events in Western history would be:

    - Reformation
    - 30 Years War
    - Enlightenment
    - American Revolution
    - French Revolution

    Those 5 things made the West into what it is today, for better or for worse the leader.

    In the 20th century I would say the Treaty of Versailles was the most important thing to happen. It set the precedent until and exceeding our time.
    i think the treaty of westphalia is pretty darn important

  4. #64
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,006
    The invention of the chimney charcoal fire starter, which eliminated the need for lighter fluid when grilling.

  5. #65
    i think the treaty of westphalia is pretty darn important

    Yes you are correct, that's why I put the 30 years war. I should have mentioned the treaty instead of the war.

    I think most important technological invention is:

    - FIRE

    and for intelligence:

    -Printing press

  6. #66
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,006
    Might put the wheel up there somewhere.

  7. #67
    I wouldn't because the Inca's seemed to do very well without it. I think the wheel is over-rated.

  8. #68
    35 year old virgin
    Posts
    1,590
    Air Conditioning, now that's a biggie. Ever been in Charleston in August, or Memphis anytime between March and October?

  9. #69
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,006
    I wouldn't because the Inca's seemed to do very well without it. I think the wheel is over-rated.
    Bet they wished they had it.

    Air Conditioning, now that's a biggie. Ever been in Charleston in August, or Memphis anytime between March and October?
    Yes.

  10. #70
    Hey think about it, they made Machu Pichu without the ade of a wheel, they created a highway system without the wheel, they may have even flown, without the wheel.

  11. #71
    Rational Skeptic
    Posts
    3,929
    I think that events like learning to control fire or the development of language have a certain evolutionary inevitability about them. Same for the Renaissance, the industrial revolution, and various inventions.

    To me, significant or critical events are those turning points which might easily have turned out differently. For example, consider the following.
    • A few hundred Spartans held a huge Persian army at Thermopylae while the independent Greek City States put together an army capable of repelling the invaders. The Spartans might have lost their nerve, or the Persian army might have found the way around the pass and overwhelmed the Spartans sooner. If the Persian army had gotten past Thermopylae before the Spartans could get to that narrow pass, a few hundred men could not have held them back for several days. The Greek culture had a huge impact on subsequent developments in Europe. History would have been much different if the Persian army had overcome Greece one city at a time, which would have happened but for the Spartans.

    • In 732 Charles Martel (the Hammer) soundly defeated the Moors south of Tours, France. He not only beat them: He demoralized them. Martel always pursued defeated foes, attempting to wipe them out. The Moors never again ventured out of Spain into the rest of Europe. The Moors were a formidable foe, and that battle was not an easy victory for the Frankish forces. If Martel had lost, the Moors would have controlled almost all of Europe for at least 300-500 years, and might never have been ousted. The history of Europe and the development of the Americas would surely have been much different if the Islamic culture had dominated Europe.

    • The failure of the Spanish Armada. If Spain had successfully conquered England, they probably would have controlled most of the Americas.

    • Picket’s charge (or a different battle plan) might have been successful, winning the Battle of Gettysburg (Pennsylvania) for the south. The North might have been willing to negotiate a peace treaty rather than deal with a southern army so far north. At that time, the north was not gung ho for the war. The US could have ended up as two nations, both contending for the western territories.
    I like the above and perhaps other turning points as nominees for critical events.

  12. #72
    Dinosaur

    I couldn't agree with you more with these two events in history:

    -The Moors replusion from France.
    - The Spanish Aramada being defeated.

    What would have been the effects, as you said an Islamic Europe, and an Spanish America. Other things that I believe were vital to history are:

    - Ottomans failing to get Vienna.
    - Mongols not expanding further into Europe.

    The effects of both would have been disasterous for European culture, surely the enlightment would not have happened, and the Americas may have still been under native rule.

  13. #73
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    132
    i love that map!

  14. #74
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerxes
    To set the tone for this great new forum: What was the most significant event in the history of man?
    Long before man began. The existence of the universe in a form that would permit man to evolve at all.

  15. #75
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    77
    The concept of proof

  16. #76
    Rational Skeptic
    Posts
    3,929
    Undecided: The potential Mongol invasion of Europe and the Ottoman Empire being stopped at Vienna were surely important to the development of the western Technological cultures.

    I never thought about the Mongols and where they stopped their invasion of Europe. Did they lose some battle or merely decide to turn their attention elsewhere? How far into Europe did they get? Did they stop due to the death of Genghis Kahn and the subsequent disputes over who would take over?

    I have noticed references to the Ottoman Empire being stopped at Vienna. Do you have some good keywords to allow a search for this event?

  17. #77
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    132
    electricity for homo sapiens. (more of an invention) event would be hard to pin down one-- considering civilizations rise and fall all the time. To say one civ is better than another is wrong. Romans had their impact on the world, as well as the mongols or egyptians. Another thousand years the next civ will be talking about us and our acheivments.

  18. #78
    How about the invention of the internet by Al Gore???

    But seriously, partly agreeing with Undecided, I believe that the most significant event was the death of Jesus Christ because his death proves that human love can be unbounded and live forever.

  19. #79
    miraporvos that's really sad..you actually believe that.

  20. #80
    Registered Loser buffys's Avatar
    Posts
    1,624
    Spam.

    Meat ... IN A CAN. God damn brilliant. On top of that bit of genius the can is designed with an opener built in! Efficient AND nutritious.

    Moon landing? Birth of Christ? They're mere historical footnotes in comparison (not to mention the fact that neither event actually happened).
    Last edited by buffys; 04-23-04 at 11:46 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. By Plato in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 07-29-12, 02:58 PM
    Replies: 82
  2. By =SputniK-CL= in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 08-29-05, 11:19 AM
    Replies: 119
  3. By kmguru in forum Intelligence & Machines
    Last Post: 06-27-04, 02:28 PM
    Replies: 156
  4. By static76 in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 08-06-02, 08:49 AM
    Replies: 28
  5. By Porfiry in forum Hubble
    Last Post: 01-11-01, 07:17 PM
    Replies: 0

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •