It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

African history

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cachibatches


Sorry, but you're the one not seeing the forrest for the trees here. You're focusing on Greece's lack of fertile farmland to the detriment of all other resources. Yes, their wealth was built on trade but to obtain that trade required a navy. You can't have a navy without lumber, without a way to feed your standing armies and navy, to pay them and to cloth them, you simply don't have them. You're neglecting the big picture and focusing on specific details.

As for Rome being reliant on Egyptian grain... not anywhere near to the extent you seek to insist. Rome stretched from North Africa (Carthage) to Britannia long before the death of Caesar, the triple alliance, civil war and eventual ascendency of Augustus. They did quite well for hundreds of years prior to incorporating Ptolemaic Egypt into the blossom of Rome.

As to your thoughts on domestication in Africa, particularly Zebras... morphological similarities are where their affinity with Equus ends. Taming them has only happened on a small scale and domestication has never been successful. They've never been ridden, they are morphologically too small to support the weight of a grown man. Sure, with several thousand years of selective breeding it could have been accomplished similarly to horses, but Zebra have some unique personality traits as a result of their close quarters contract with predators and created a unique set of behaviors not found in horses. When a horse is spooked, it kicks randomly and tries to get away. When a zebra gets scared or kissed off and kicks, it looks down between it's legs, aims, and goes for the head. Just to provide context, Zebras kill lions with kicks to the head, either immediately or because they break the lions jaw and it starves to death. No horse has ever killed a lion! And even "tame" zebras will inflict vicious bite wounds on their handlers. They are simply far more aggressive than horses and have a social hierarchy based on dominant females. Horses have no such thing. To keep comparing the Zebra to a horse and insist it should have been easy is born of notnloking at all of the facts.

And just to quickly touch on your hypothetical evolutionary scenarios... it's a really over simplified and dumbed down approach by saying tribe A went north into Europe, tribe B. Went East into Asia, Tribe C. Went to the Americas and so on and so forth. We know by studying genomics that human migrations and admixture events are a much more complicated scenario than what you are describing in vastly over simplified terms.





You are simply repeating things that are factually incorrect, and I can only repeat myself so many times.

A) Greece has notoriously poor soils. This is why they became colonizers. Fact. It is NOT debated by historians.

Egypt was the most fertile land of the ancient Mediterranean world. Fact.

Egypt became the bread basket of the Roman empire. When grain shipments from Egypt were held held up from Egypt, civil unrest ensued due to the empire's dependence. They "did quite well" before the empire as it became was guilt. Fact. None of this is debated by historians.

Zebras have been both tamed and bred by Europeans, meaning that they can be domesticated. FACT. If it had been done thousands of years ago, there would be docile breeds due to selection. FACT. That is how genetics works. Indeed, there used to be a more docile sub-species that is not extinct.

These are just things that you need to research.
edit on 23-7-2017 by cachibatches because: adding points.




posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
You seem to be confusing the end result with the initial conditions. As I recall, the OP discussed the initial conditions and not what happened 5,000 years later.


A) Greece has notoriously poor soils. This is why they became colonizers. Fact. It is NOT debated by historians.


I'm not sure what you mean by "colonizers" here. What era and which Greek groups are you talking about?



Egypt became the bread basket of the Roman empire. When grain shipments from Egypt were held held up from Egypt, civil unrest ensued due to the empire's dependence.

Grain shipments to Rome itself, not to the empire See Wikipedia - bot other sources go along with this.) The empire itself didn't depend on Egyptian grain (Wikipedia, for convenience which also mentions that they exported grain an that grain came in and moved through the Silk Road.)

Re zebras: I agree with Peter Vlar, having done some research on this topic recently. Rothschild only used them as carriage animals because they were not sturdy enough to ride nor could they be driven past other zebras (source) There are hybrids that are more suitable but these aren't pure zebras and in some cases are very far removed from zebra parents.

See also Slate - I have other links from people who have owned them and sell them that say basically the same thing.


Do you have some links to back your frequent statements about historians? Peter and I always appreciate a good link.
edit on 23-7-2017 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: cachibatches

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cachibatches


Sorry, but you're the one not seeing the forrest for the trees here. You're focusing on Greece's lack of fertile farmland to the detriment of all other resources. Yes, their wealth was built on trade but to obtain that trade required a navy. You can't have a navy without lumber, without a way to feed your standing armies and navy, to pay them and to cloth them, you simply don't have them. You're neglecting the big picture and focusing on specific details.

As for Rome being reliant on Egyptian grain... not anywhere near to the extent you seek to insist. Rome stretched from North Africa (Carthage) to Britannia long before the death of Caesar, the triple alliance, civil war and eventual ascendency of Augustus. They did quite well for hundreds of years prior to incorporating Ptolemaic Egypt into the blossom of Rome.

As to your thoughts on domestication in Africa, particularly Zebras... morphological similarities are where their affinity with Equus ends. Taming them has only happened on a small scale and domestication has never been successful. They've never been ridden, they are morphologically too small to support the weight of a grown man. Sure, with several thousand years of selective breeding it could have been accomplished similarly to horses, but Zebra have some unique personality traits as a result of their close quarters contract with predators and created a unique set of behaviors not found in horses. When a horse is spooked, it kicks randomly and tries to get away. When a zebra gets scared or kissed off and kicks, it looks down between it's legs, aims, and goes for the head. Just to provide context, Zebras kill lions with kicks to the head, either immediately or because they break the lions jaw and it starves to death. No horse has ever killed a lion! And even "tame" zebras will inflict vicious bite wounds on their handlers. They are simply far more aggressive than horses and have a social hierarchy based on dominant females. Horses have no such thing. To keep comparing the Zebra to a horse and insist it should have been easy is born of notnloking at all of the facts.

And just to quickly touch on your hypothetical evolutionary scenarios... it's a really over simplified and dumbed down approach by saying tribe A went north into Europe, tribe B. Went East into Asia, Tribe C. Went to the Americas and so on and so forth. We know by studying genomics that human migrations and admixture events are a much more complicated scenario than what you are describing in vastly over simplified terms.





You are simply repeating things that are factually incorrect, and I can only repeat myself so many times.


Or you can support your assertions with citations. Simply writing fact in all caps doesn't make something a fact. I'm not repeating anything incorrect. I'm sorry that you disagree, but it's not up to me to disprove your thesis. It's up to you to support it.


A) Greece has notoriously poor soils. This is why they became colonizers. Fact. It is NOT debated by historians.


Again, citations please. Please reread what I wrote about Greece. You can not build ships of the type built by the Greeks (though as Byrd points out, your rather ambiguous on the time frame you are referencing so I'm not sure if you're referencing Bronze Age or Iron Age Greece)) without the resources to do so. That my friend is a fact. You can not feed, cloth and supply an army without the resources already in place. Military tactics 101. Supply lines are vital, without them you fail just as the Persians did unde Xerxes. And where did the geeks colonize again? You're not talking about any particular time frame and are throwing around wild overgeneralizations


Egypt was the most fertile land of the ancient Mediterranean world. Fact.


Perhaps you could explain then, why the North African provinces provided twice the amount of grain that Egypt did after annexation by Augustus. You're also completely ignoring the first 700 years of Roman history where a large amount of grain was supplied by Sicily and Sardinia prior to Egyptian annexation. This can all be found in multiple sources of contemporary Roman writers, including Josephus.


Egypt became the bread basket of the Roman empire.


Again, even after annexation by Augustus, North African provinces supplied twice the grain that Egypt did. And this applied to the city of Rome and nearby areas. Not the entire Republic/Empire ( you aren't being specific as to time frames so I don't know which periods you're referring to and you're all over the place).


When grain shipments from Egypt were held held up from Egypt, civil unrest ensued due to the empire's dependence.



They "did quite well" before the empire as it became was guilt. Fact. None of this is debated by historians.


Yelling that it's a fact and saying historians support it is rubbish without citations. I've read what Josephus and others have to say, the actual Roman sources. What are your sources? If I'm wrong, I'm always happy to learn something. IF you can provide links to support your blustering.


Zebra have been both tamed and bred by Europeans, meaning that they can be domesticated. FACT.


Taming and domestication are two drastically different things. They've been tamed and bred in Africa as well. They still haven't been domesticated. And again, Zebras are too small to suppprt a human rider and they have a very strict female driven social hierarchy. If a female lower on the totem pole were to try to move past a female in higher social standing, there would be an all out attack by the higher ranking female. This was all proven by the 2nd Baron Rothschild when he tried to domesticate them himself. He was a little eccentric and whacky, but a hell of a zoologist.


If it had been done thousands of years ago, there would be docile breeds due to selection. FACT. That is how genetics works.


That's exactly what I said above. FACT


Indeed, there used to be a more docile sub-species that is not extinct.


Used to be implies they no longer exist. Not extinct means they're still here. I think you're a little confused. Are you referencing the hybridization experiments to create more docile forms of zebras? Those aren't actually zebras though.


These are just things that you need to research.


I've done the research and my answers are based on many years of both formal and autodidactic education. You're the one making the claims. The onus lies with you to support them. FACT



new topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join