Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Minister of Truth, The Anonymous, Primavera, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Niche Political Commentor, Superfreak, volsrock, Yurt, Earl, Lord Yurt, saltydancin, OG Yurt, serenity, Yakuda, ParachuteAdams and lichlord


Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: 4 key turning points in Western history

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    80,252
    Thanks
    27,657
    Thanked 38,972 Times in 30,346 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,295 Times in 2,252 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    One of the most remarkable elements of the story I recently heard is that the Spanish could not retreat back through the English Channel, so they had to head north to Scotland into the treacherous waters of the North Sea, then down into the North Atlantic around past Ireland, before making it back to Spain.

    Supposedly, more Spanish ships were lost on this ill fated attempt to get back to Spain, than were lost in the battle itself.
    Agreed on all points. Again, was it bad luck or piss poor planning? Poor planning would mean the Spanish were aware of the geography and seasonal weather.

    A missing part of that story is that hundreds of Spaniards washed up on the shores of Ireland where Elizabeth had ordered all of them executed on sight although it's suspected some remained alive and settled in Ireland.

    https://www.theirishstory.com/2015/0.../#.Ye_8lP7MK00
    Crawling ashore, half drowned, malnourished and in no fit state to resist, the survivors, about 300 men, were massacred at Spanish Point by both Irish forces raised by the O’Briens and English soldiers led by the Sherriff, Boetius Clancy.
    "know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Dutch Uncle For This Post:

    Cypress (01-25-2022)

  3. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    42,993
    Thanks
    23,811
    Thanked 32,997 Times in 17,254 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 2,566 Times in 2,310 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Agreed on all points. Again, was it bad luck or piss poor planning? Poor planning would mean the Spanish were aware of the geography and seasonal weather.

    A missing part of that story is that hundreds of Spaniards washed up on the shores of Ireland where Elizabeth had ordered all of them executed on sight although it's suspected some remained alive and settled in Ireland.

    https://www.theirishstory.com/2015/0.../#.Ye_8lP7MK00
    Crawling ashore, half drowned, malnourished and in no fit state to resist, the survivors, about 300 men, were massacred at Spanish Point by both Irish forces raised by the O’Briens and English soldiers led by the Sherriff, Boetius Clancy.
    My understanding is that having been beaten in battle already, and failing to link up with Spanish land forces in the Netherlands as had been previously planned, the Spanish felt trying to run the heavily-defended channel back to Spain would risk utter destruction.

    The circuitous route around Scotland and Ireland was felt to be their only chance for survival.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Dutch Uncle (01-25-2022)

  5. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    80,252
    Thanks
    27,657
    Thanked 38,972 Times in 30,346 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,295 Times in 2,252 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    My understanding is that having been beaten in battle already, and failing to link up with Spanish land forces in the Netherlands as had been previously planned, the Spanish felt trying to run the heavily-defended channel back to Spain would risk utter destruction.

    The circuitous route around Scotland and Ireland was felt to be their only chance for survival.
    That's my understanding as well which points out that a lot of these "turning points" involved luck.

    You and I had a previous discussion about the rise of certain personalities and how they changed the world. Consider a totally secular Jesus; Judea was full of religious people** running around and it wasn't short of Jews who hated the Romans. If conditions are ripe for change, then I believe change will happen. Not because of divine intervention but because the odds increase enough that it does happen. If not that day, then sometime in the next ten or so years.

    Consider the US and slavery; slavery was ending in the industrialized world. Even if Lincoln never invaded the South, US slavery would eventually have ended...probably within the century due to prevailing religious views.

    Therefore, while it can be truthfully said that Lincoln ended slavery in the US, it can't be said that without him slavery would have continued forever.


    **John the Baptist being one of the nuttiest. In those times being "touched" meant "touched by the gods (or God)". Julius Caesar was thought be "touched" due to his epilepsy (or mini-strokes).

    "In the ancient world, epilepsy was described as the ‘sacred disease’, and it was associated with divine possession. Some historians have argued that Caesar may have encouraged people to believe he did have epilepsy because it might have made him seem more God-like. Indeed, he may well have believed this himself."
    "know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

  6. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    42,993
    Thanks
    23,811
    Thanked 32,997 Times in 17,254 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 2,566 Times in 2,310 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    That's my understanding as well which points out that a lot of these "turning points" involved luck.

    You and I had a previous discussion about the rise of certain personalities and how they changed the world. Consider a totally secular Jesus; Judea was full of religious people** running around and it wasn't short of Jews who hated the Romans. If conditions are ripe for change, then I believe change will happen. Not because of divine intervention but because the odds increase enough that it does happen. If not that day, then sometime in the next ten or so years.

    Consider the US and slavery; slavery was ending in the industrialized world. Even if Lincoln never invaded the South, US slavery would eventually have ended...probably within the century due to prevailing religious views.

    Therefore, while it can be truthfully said that Lincoln ended slavery in the US, it can't be said that without him slavery would have continued forever.


    **John the Baptist being one of the nuttiest. In those times being "touched" meant "touched by the gods (or God)". Julius Caesar was thought be "touched" due to his epilepsy (or mini-strokes).
    I think history is generally driven by the prevailing conditions of society, economics, politics, resources

    But I also think exceptional individuals can modify the trajectory of history, for better or for worse: Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler.

    As to slavery, I think a lot of people, particularly blacks, were not willing to wait for 50 to 100 years to see if slavery would end voluntarily.

    Unfortunately, we also probably needed to finally settle the question of whether we were a nation, or just a confederation of states.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Dutch Uncle (01-25-2022)

  8. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    80,252
    Thanks
    27,657
    Thanked 38,972 Times in 30,346 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,295 Times in 2,252 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I think history is generally driven by the prevailing conditions of society, economics, politics, resources

    But I also think exceptional individuals can modify the trajectory of history, for better or for worse: Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler.

    As to slavery, I think a lot of people, particularly blacks, were not willing to wait for 50 to 100 years to see if slavery would end voluntarily.

    Unfortunately, we also probably needed to finally settle the question of whether we were a nation, or just a confederation of states.
    Agreed on variables.

    Agreed some people rise to the occasion. Right time, right place. My point is that if Jesus, Gandhi or Buddha died at birth, someone else would have risen to help spread the wisdom of enlightened thinking.

    So killing 2% of the US population, over 600,000, people was worth not waiting?

    Disagreed that resolving the "One Nation" vs. "confederation of states" was a major problem but I'd like to see your reasoning.
    "know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Dutch Uncle For This Post:

    Cypress (01-25-2022)

  10. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    42,993
    Thanks
    23,811
    Thanked 32,997 Times in 17,254 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 2,566 Times in 2,310 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Agreed on variables.

    Agreed some people rise to the occasion. Right time, right place. My point is that if Jesus, Gandhi or Buddha died at birth, someone else would have risen to help spread the wisdom of enlightened thinking.

    So killing 2% of the US population, over 600,000, people was worth not waiting?

    Disagreed that resolving the "One Nation" vs. "confederation of states" was a major problem but I'd like to see your reasoning.
    Until 1865, there was still an open question whether we we a unified nation, or a confederation of states.

    I do not think questions about hypothetical alternative histories is good historical analysis.

    In 1861 there was no indication that the South would voluntarily give up slavery. All indications were that they were becoming more recalcitrant.

    No guarantee can be offered that the South would voluntarily end slavery in five years, ten years, or 20 years. It's cold comfort to black people to tell them to endure another 50 years of slavery.

    If the question is a simple mathmatical construct of human suffering, the violence of the war has to be balanced against decades more of rape, enslavement, brutalization, and torture of millions of Americans of African descent.

    Not to mention the damage to the moral standing and reputation of the United States by being the last remaining major country employing chattel slavery.

    Even the autocratic Tsar gave up serfdom in 1861.

  11. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    80,252
    Thanks
    27,657
    Thanked 38,972 Times in 30,346 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,295 Times in 2,252 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Until 1865, there was still an open question whether we we a unified nation, or a confederation of states.

    I do not think questions about hypothetical alternative histories is good historical analysis.

    In 1861 there was no indication that the South would voluntarily give up slavery. All indications were that they were becoming more recalcitrant.

    No guarantee can be offered that the South would voluntarily end slavery in five years, ten years, or 20 years. It's cold comfort to black people to tell them to endure another 50 years of slavery.

    If the question is a simple mathmatical construct of human suffering, the violence of the war has to be balanced against decades more of rape, enslavement, brutalization, and torture of millions of Americans of African descent.

    Not to mention the damage to the moral standing and reputation of the United States by being the last remaining major country employing chattel slavery.

    Even the autocratic Tsar gave up serfdom in 1861.
    Hence the name, "The United States of America" not "Republicanland" or "Washington".

    You've seen people become entrenched; that was happening on both sides of the equation in 1861. Regardless, Lincoln ordered the attack instead of other methods.

    As discussed earlier, certain times, certain people produce certain results. Consider this hypothetical:

    Al Gore became President in January 2001. Would he have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11 or done nothing as Republicans later claimed? I have no doubt the immediate result would have been the same; overwhelming US force into Afghanistan.

    Would Gore have followed that with Iraq? I strongly doubt it. There was no need to invade. Carpet bomb a few "palaces" maybe, but not spill American blood and treasure by doing to Iraq what Japan did to the US on December 7, 1941.

    Different times, different people, different results, yes, but in the end wasn't al-Qaeda's days numbered because of their ideology?
    "know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

  12. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    42,993
    Thanks
    23,811
    Thanked 32,997 Times in 17,254 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 2,566 Times in 2,310 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Hence the name, "The United States of America" not "Republicanland" or "Washington".

    You've seen people become entrenched; that was happening on both sides of the equation in 1861. Regardless, Lincoln ordered the attack instead of other methods.

    As discussed earlier, certain times, certain people produce certain results. Consider this hypothetical:

    Al Gore became President in January 2001. Would he have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11 or done nothing as Republicans later claimed? I have no doubt the immediate result would have been the same; overwhelming US force into Afghanistan.

    Would Gore have followed that with Iraq? I strongly doubt it. There was no need to invade. Carpet bomb a few "palaces" maybe, but not spill American blood and treasure by doing to Iraq what Japan did to the US on December 7, 1941.

    Different times, different people, different results, yes, but in the end wasn't al-Qaeda's days numbered because of their ideology?
    I think Gore would have launched some type of attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    I do not think Gore would have ordered an invasion and occupation of Iraq, especially since UN inspectors were on the ground and investigating.

    Al Qaeda was a criminal organization, not a legitimate religious movement 98 percent of Muslims wanted a part of.

    Criminal organizations have a limited shelf life, but it still matters who you put in charge of taking out a criminal organization
    Last edited by Cypress; 01-25-2022 at 11:56 AM. Reason: Typo

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Dutch Uncle (01-25-2022)

  14. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    80,252
    Thanks
    27,657
    Thanked 38,972 Times in 30,346 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,295 Times in 2,252 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I think Gore would have launched some type of attack on Al Qaeda in Iraq.

    I do not think Gore would have ordered an invasion and occupation of Iraq, especially since UN inspectors were on the ground and investigating.

    Al Qaeda was a criminal organization, not a legitimate religious movement 98 percent of Muslims wanted a part of.

    Criminal organizations have a limited shelf life, but it still matters who you put in charge of taking out a criminal organization
    Carpet bombing is fine although a lot of that "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was bullshit. Cut off the head of the snake and the entire body dies.

    All those camps ran on money/supplies. Kill off their supplies and they wither on the vine.

    FWIW, once motivated to do so, the FBI will kill off the white supremacists in much the same way; identify the sources of money and charge those people with facilitating terrorism.

    Joe Bob and Billy Jo will soon run out of meth and ammo.
    "know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Dutch Uncle For This Post:

    Cypress (01-25-2022)

Similar Threads

  1. Dow falls 1,191 points -- the most in history
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 10-23-2020, 10:54 AM
  2. Conservative Turning Points Co-Founder ALSO dead from COVID
    By LV426 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-30-2020, 08:07 PM
  3. Key turning points in modern history
    By Cypress in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-2019, 10:07 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 09:10 AM
  5. Obama won vermont, leading in Texas by 10 points, losing Ohio by 20 points
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-05-2008, 01:13 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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