That makes it worse. You've caught the infection! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is a selective reading. You did not take the other parts of the paragraph from where you quoted my sentence. As far as I understand you are attacking just for the sake of attacking. Until you put your own single event with your reasons behind it (as it was stated in the beginning of the thread, I will suspect your intentions.
See posts 9 and 25. I regard this as a fairly light-hearted thread involving no very deep research or discussion, but I do take issue with your own choice, baftan. The pious-sounding Declaration of Independence was a rationalisation for a power-seizure by a gang of lawyers, land-owners and terrorists. But please read its actual wording: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled . . . do . . . solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; . . . " Note: "states" is plural. The intention was to create thirteen independent states. By the following year, it was settled that the states would be loosely confederated according to a set of Articles which used the Union of Utrecht (1579) as a model. Yet just a dozen years later, the independence of the individual states for which the Revolution had been fought was usurped by the Federal Constitution.
"set of Articles which used the Union of Utrecht (1579) as a model"... And you are not doing any research! I didn't make any research: Thread basically says "most important event" according to you, and asks for why? Simple as that. Put your important event first, then you can be taken into seriously (but you don't want it, do you) when you attack others. You are still trying to prove that the Decleration was not important historic event. OK, but what is yours? How am I gonna compare my suggestion with yours? I can not, because you are resisting to put one. Or maybe you assume that people might not find it interesting or important. Is that so?
And I thought everyone know that the Articles of Confederation were modelled on the Union of Utrecht! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Most important event (as I suggested in posts 9 and 25): Colon's failed 1492 expedition to Japan. (You accuse me of attacking others, baftan. No! That sounds much too serious. I am just a little mocking of the US-centric posts that tend to appear on sciforums!)
I made my research this time. Yes there are some claims: But apart from some similarities in "stylistic artistry", there is no conclusive evidence on the direct effects of Union of Utrecht in American Declaration of Independence. Plus there is 200 year between those two events. This makes a great difference, because year 1579 minds were lack of philosophical concepts such as rationalism, liberty, secularism, individual centric political perspective and revolution. All these concepts were developed –or evolved-during these 200 years of difference. All in all, it is a romantic choice to find similarities between these two agreements. Even actors were totally different: In Utrecht the feudal power hubs were trying to hold on to the system with fancy union titles without knowing what type of era was about to come. In America, colonial subjects were closing the age of feudalism for eternity, and they had no clue about what type of era was about to come, obviously for different reasons... I am not claiming that Union of Utrecht was not important for Holland, Europe or World political history. I am just saying that (a) I don't see any direct or indirect effects of Union of Utrecht in last 1000 year history of the world. (b) There is no evidence that American Declaration was affected by Utrecht. I agree that the famous failed Japan (some people say India) journey made a great impact on last 1000 years and maybe even further. Maybe the idea behind the importance of discovery will take us to other galaxies. However, just because of the accidental nature of this event, I accepted it under the category of invention. And invention was especially excluded the initial thread. I also think that it was the idea ,which was born in Europe and executed in America, has made a greater impact than the discovery of the actual territory. Yes I agree that the existence of this land provided a base for the new and fresh revolutionary ideas. Anyway, it is arguable. However while you were after to tease those “American-Mad Myopic Yankees”, you also put two America related options. If that so, yes, I am still accusing you for attacking others for the sake of attacking...
Union of Utrecht! The Twelve Year Truce of 1609 essentially marked the end of the Dutch struggle for independence and a pause in one of history's longest running conflicts, The Dutch Revolt. As Peter Geyl puts it, the truce marked "an astonishing victory for the Dutch". They gave up no land and did not agree to halt their attacks on Spanish colonies and the Spanish trade empire. In return the Spanish granted the United Provinces de facto independence by describing them as "Free lands, provinces and states against who they make no claim" for the duration of the truce.
The pivotal battle of Ain Jaloot in the year 1258 AD. The first defeat of the Mongols since the beginning of their conquests. In Ain Jaloot in Syria, Sultan Qutuz and Baybars succeeded in defeating a more numerous and better equipped Mongol army under Hulagu Khan. This was also during the progress of the Crusades, hence the Muslim armies were engaged with wars on two fronts by two enemies during this time. This battle signified the eventual downfall of the Mongols, and resulted in several changes. The liberation of the Middle East and Central Asia, reinvigoration of resistance movements in Muslim and Christian kingdoms occupied by the Mongols, the conversion of numerous Mongol and Turkic tribes to Islam, the eventual breakup of the Mongol military might, and the rise of three great Muslim successor empires from the Mongols and Turks: Ottoman Empire, Safavi Empire, and Mughal Empire.
baftan, you take me too seriously! I have no wish to offend, but as a Brit I am often amused by the US-centricity of posts concerning whole-world matters. I am sure you are absolutely right about the differences between the Union of Utrecht and the Articles of Confederation, and now know far more about it than I ever did! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Lighten up! :m: My own choice concerned the discovery of the American continent(s) -- not of "America". To me, 1492 is the most important date in the last thousand years because the arrival of Europeans in the Americas [1] signalled the start of the largest culling of human population in history as the diseases of the Old World ravaged the inhabitants of the New, and [2] from that time the histories of the Old World and the New were united into a single current, and each dramatically changed as a result. You speak of the "accidental nature" of this event. Don't you see; that is precisely what MAKES an event historically significant . . . that it didn't have to happen . . . that it was a turning point not a continuum. (I don't think I follow what you say about considering it an invention.)
Since you used this symbol everything changes my friend, everything is OK now... I don't mind about your choices, I only reacted to the idea that I was understood as an American, or supporter of an America, just because I found an importance in subject event. But you see, you are something you know: You enjoy to attack, maybe without realising it. You are somehow trying to end this "taken too much seriously" issue. But corrective attitude interferes the situation and you end up saying "the discovery of the American continent(s) -- not of "America". I think an exclamation mark would well suit the end of this sentence. What do you expect me to say: "I am sure you are absolutely right about the differences between the Union of Utrecht and the Articles of Confederation, and now know far more about it than I ever did!". I will collect myself, take a deep breath and say that "this is not an attack". I am willingly lying to myself. I am not here for this. I will just repeat that you still did not present your "important event" within the criteria -certain questions stated in the initial thread. Respect.
DiamonDHearts, I believe that there are some inaccuracies: It was not their first defeat, but probably the first decisive one. I am pretty sure that at the time of the battle the Great Khan Mongke died, forcing Hulagu to return with the bulk of his army. I do not recall who actually remained as the leader of the actual battle. I do not know about the equipment but I recall that the number were roughly even, though some sources actually stated that the mongol army was outnumbered.
