Interesting History Questions

[SpyderEdgeForever]

One of my favorite topics of study is history, general and specialized, of all sorts. I am sure others here share that interest?

Along with the history of knives and edged tools/weapons, food history and travel history are two areas I am especially interested in, and I would like and welcome all of your feedback and views on these matters.


First, regarding travel:

Over the years I have come to the view that there was ALOT more ancient travel and interaction among the assorted people groups and nations than most moderns believe. For example, a basic one is the Vikings: For many years it was not officially acknowledged that the Norse and Scandinavian people had made it to the Americas, especially not the interior of what is now the USA, that was considered "historical heresy". Yet now, this appears to be accepted. Too many artifacts and evidences if Norse travel have been found. There are some guys that even found evidence of Viking-made iron and bronze smelters in different parts of the USA:

http://sherrycottlegraham.com/2014/08/1 ... n-america/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://ironageamerica.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I have also wondered (though I am not as big into the "What If" alternate history ideas as much as I used to be because I figure, what happened, happened, and what's the point of speculation too much about PAST "What Ifs?") how history would have been different if the American indian first nation tribes had developed a booming iron and steel and gun making industry before the European migrations of the Columbus and Post Columbus era had arrived? Would the Europeans have had to deal with them on more equal terms and been held back from major colonization and if yes, how would that have affected future and modern history?

For example, it has been shown that if you look at a map of the Earth, it is possible, once you have a basic seaworthy vessel and fleet of ships, to travel the ENTIRE DISTANCE around the world, without losing sight of land! At first I was skeptical about this but a knowledgeable friend explained how it would be done: The people/sailors would simply travel within the coastal regions of the world, and could start in the Middle East/Sumeria region, and by hugging coastlines, travel along every continent, and make their way up into the north and south polar regions, do alot of island hopping, and make it all the way around the world. I don't know, he and I may be wrong on this; I'd like someone to error-check this idea?

There have been found inscriptions and artifacts from a wide range of cultures in different places in America, such as ancient Israeli, Egyptian, Roman, and other things, ofcourse some of these are discounted and not accepted by alot of mainstream archaeology, some are accepted.

If people had seaworthy vessels and got the right winds and also had a galley (oars with men to drive them) they could definitely have travelled from the Pacific land masses to the North American, and from the Atlantic land masses, to North America.

2 Food history:

This is one of those that interest me. For example, who truly created the first sandwiches? The credit goes to the Earl of Sandwich, an English gambler/landholder who did not want to stop gambling as he ate and so had his cooks make sandwiches, a one-hand food. But honestly, we see bread/meat/cheese combinations in many cultures. I believe ancient people made some variation of pizzas and hamburgers (flat breads loaded with meats and cheeses and vegetables and olive oil etc).

what do you think?

[demoncase]

Living in (and growing up in) the precise place in the world where the Industrial Revolution started (I'm 20 miles from Ironbridge, where Abraham Darby created the very first iron bridge) I would say there are a series of 'starting conditions' required for an Industrial Revolution.

1. A lively international trade of import and export....I shy away from saying that you NEED an Empire to have an Industrial Revolution, but with one it means you grow a middle class (who are aspirational, and need a cheap way of emulating the goods and products of the upper classes), a supporting working class who need to be supplied with housing and food and a wealthier upper class.....When your industrial revolution begins, it's bound to people wanting to buy the things you make

2. An agricultural system that creates a surplus throughout the year. The Industrial Revolution overlapped with the Agricultural Revolution- something frequently forgotten but without an effective way of feeding all these mouths, nothing happens. Agricultural revolution means cities can grow because every man doesn't have to grow his own food any more.

3. Cities with middle class who want glass for more windows and drinking vessels- Glass was a status item due to it's cost. More demand for glass means you find ways of making it more quickly and effectively. This seems like a trifle but without an ability to make quality glassware, you cannot create the laboratory equipment needed to establish the scientific constants needed for understanding (say) steam engines and the related fields of pneumatics and hydraulics....A group of international professors walked through this in the UK a few years ago, at Oxford, and came to the measured conclusion that you simply cannot begin industrialising without a scientific understanding of the underlying principles- that means empirical testing to produce accurate measures- and that means labs- and that means glassware.

4. A centralised political system with the concept of a nation. Obvious really- everything needs to come to a central point to be applied consistently.

You suggest that the Native American nations as potential Industrial Revolution candidates.....I don't see it.
Now- look at the great Imperial civilisations throughout history- Ottoman, Roman, Greek and so on-
All of them had 2 out of three of these things I describe above. They certainly had the abilities with metals to have their own revolutions....So why didn't they have one?.
But the Romans and the Greeks didn't rate glass as more than a plaything....Their 'quality drinking vessels' were always glazed pottery.The Ottomans were the same.

In the 16th-18th centuries the British were locked out of the fine Chinese pottery market and Venetian glass was priced out of the market.....So we started blowing our own glass to make drinking vessels. And a blown glass is perfect for scientific equipment- glazed pottery, however beautiful, is not.

You want to build a world of cast iron- first you have to build a world of glass.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Case, I like your analysis, I think it hits the nail on the head, as they say. I have wondered about that connection between glass and metals/steel, before.

Also regarding England and the Industrial Revolution, the history of Sheffield steel fascinates me. They made the best steel and helped spark and start the American cutlery manufacturing industry. I noticed there are still some modern steel knife making companies over there but others have closed down.

Robert Mushet was also one of the pioneers of alloy steel, with his tungsten based air hardening steel.

[The Mastiff]

I have also wondered (though I am not as big into the "What If" alternate history ideas as much as I used to be because I figure, what happened, happened, and what's the point of speculation too much about PAST "What Ifs?") how history would have been different if the American indian first nation tribes had developed a booming iron and steel and gun making industry before the European migrations of the Columbus and Post Columbus era had arrived? Would the Europeans have had to deal with them on more equal terms and been held back from major colonization and if yes, how would that have affected future and modern history?

Despite modern revisionism and political correctness the pre-post Columbus era natives were mostly living a stone age existence in hunter gatherer small groups. Even the larger North American confederations like the Iroquois were not very advanced. In Central and South America the larger Mayan, Aztec, and Incan Empires at best worked copper?

They may have made some advancements in Astronomy and some mathematics yet remained primitives who worshiped the first Europeans as gods and when push came to shove pushed each other out of the way to help the new "gods" kill and enslave the pesky guys from the next village up. That was true back up in North America with very few exceptions as well even with the last tribes fighting, hiding or running away to protect their stone age culture.

Heck, Rome of Julius Ceasers time could have taken America of the 1500's in 10 years time from Ocean to Ocean. Without the europeans coming in to the Americas and bringing in Guns and steel the same could be said of "first nations" peoples of the late 1800's AD. Things just weren't changing much here.

[demoncase]

I have also wondered (though I am not as big into the "What If" alternate history ideas as much as I used to be because I figure, what happened, happened, and what's the point of speculation too much about PAST "What Ifs?") how history would have been different if the American indian first nation tribes had developed a booming iron and steel and gun making industry before the European migrations of the Columbus and Post Columbus era had arrived? Would the Europeans have had to deal with them on more equal terms and been held back from major colonization and if yes, how would that have affected future and modern history?

Despite modern revisionism and political correctness the pre-post Columbus era natives were mostly living a stone age existence in hunter gatherer small groups. Even the larger North American confederations like the Iroquois were not very advanced. In Central and South America the larger Mayan, Aztec, and Incan Empires at best worked copper?

They may have made some advancements in Astronomy and some mathematics yet remained primitives who worshiped the first Europeans as gods and when push came to shove pushed each other out of the way to help the new "gods" kill and enslave the pesky guys from the next village up. That was true back up in North America with very few exceptions as well even with the last tribes fighting, hiding or running away to protect their stone age culture.

Heck, Rome of Julius Ceasers time could have taken America of the 1500's in 10 years time from Ocean to Ocean. Without the europeans coming in to the Americas and bringing in Guns and steel the same could be said of "first nations" peoples of the late 1800's AD. Things just weren't changing much here.

Quite- It's one thing living in harmony with nature, having pretty solid agriculture and either trading with or subjugating the nearest other tribes....But the vital spark to drive even the Romans themselves to an Industrial Revolution was not there....Work copper, work iron- even make steel- all good. But until you start actually empirically measuring why things happen the way they do in a furnace: when you stretch beyond the chaos and superstition of alchemy to the order and reason of chemistry and physics- then you get an Industrial Revolution.

The question really is not "Which civilisations COULD have had an Industrial Revolution"
But:
"Those Civilisations which were otherwise advanced enough in mathematics and with enough surplus energy to create enourmous monuments- why did they NOT have an Industrial Revolution TOO?"

Why did we not have multiple industrial revolutions throughout the last 3000 years? Different question, same answer.

If it was simply (as some grade-school texts suggest) "The right time"- then why did it not happen in every nation at once?...Where was Feudal Japan's Industrial Revolution?....It didn't happen, indeed they actively resisted the results of the same for a very long time.

[tvenuto]

The answers you seek regarding industrial revolutions are contained within the book: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. The immensely overimplified synopsis is that Eurasia is an east/west continent and America is a north/south one. Ideas move east to west because plants, and thus food, grow the same at at similar latitudes. Trade food=trade ideas=advanced civilization and all that implies.

Regarding the topic of contact of diverse ancient peoples, you might enjoy the book: Salt, a World History by Mark Kurlansky, which is about how the production and trade of common salt shaped world history.

[SuckSqueezeBangBlow]

/


For example, it has been shown that if you look at a map of the Earth, it is possible, once you have a basic seaworthy vessel and fleet of ships, to travel the ENTIRE DISTANCE around the world, without losing sight of land! At first I was skeptical about this but a knowledgeable friend explained how it would be done: The people/sailors would simply travel within the coastal regions of the world, and could start in the Middle East/Sumeria region, and by hugging coastlines, travel along every continent, and make their way up into the north and south polar regions, do alot of island hopping, and make it all the way around the world. I don't know, he and I may be wrong on this; I'd like someone to error-check this idea?

I would think winds/food rations/cold/heat would make this impossible. I'll dig up this book I have on the history of maps, I think you would enjoy it. Australia would have been "discovered" much sooner had the Dutch and English shared their maps but of course the early traders were all privatised and these "secrets" helped big business.

[tvenuto]

I would think winds/food rations/cold/heat would make this impossible.

You are correct. Given how long it takes to sail places, you would need to stop quite frequently to re-provision. Not all places are/were amenable to this for various reasons: harsh climate, lack of natural harbor, wrong/short growing season, lack of edible plants/animals, hostile native population, and on and on. Many sailors have perished in sight of land, so strictly speaking that's not the biggest peril to overcome regarding sea-travel.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Thanks, those are great points. The issue of perishable vs storable food is a big one for long voyages.

[The Mastiff]

I had to mention what I think is another driver towards industrial revolution. Labor. When it no longer becomes inexpensive enough to use people faster and cheaper ways are found. That is a revolution we are still in the middle of. Ancient Rome had no great impetus towards industrializing because when needed they could go steal or trade for more slaves. In England, how much of the drive to industrialize things in the factories was the growing costs of labor? I saw the cost of labor generally destroy the auto industry in Michigan where and when I was growing up in Michigan. They closed shops and moved plants to where the cost of labor was cheaper, as well as began the use of robotics on the line in new auto plants.

[shunsui]

This one really makes you wonder.
https://youtu.be/nZXjUqLMgxM

3D view
https://youtu.be/MqhuAnySPZ0

[demoncase]

This one really makes you wonder.
Snip

3D view
Snip

A superb example- our Ancient Greek ancestors HAD the ability to create such complex computing devices....But they never had an Industrial Revolution- and these complex devices remained handmade by craftsmen, the preserve of the rich few as playthings.....