|
|
Post by Newan on Mar 19, 2015 14:45:53 GMT -5
Yeah there's winners America won the war of independence Yeah I think most wars have clear winners and if a side achieves what it set out to do in a war they are a winner to me. I agree every war has winner not always the ones fighting in the front lines sometimes countries win just from economy being boosted due to sides looking elsewhere for trade. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 15:46:30 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Mar 19, 2015 15:46:30 GMT -5
Yeah there's winners America won the war of independence So what did they win? The right to call a certain piece of dirt the United States of America? I guess that makes up for 100.000 deaths. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 17:14:35 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Mar 19, 2015 17:14:35 GMT -5
Yeah there's winners America won the war of independence So what did they win? The right to call a certain piece of dirt the United States of America? I guess that makes up for 100.000 deaths. Yup it does  |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 17:20:56 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on Mar 19, 2015 17:20:56 GMT -5
Yeah there's winners America won the war of independence Yeah I think most wars have clear winners and if a side achieves what it set out to do in a war they are a winner to me. Yes but WWI definitely wasn't one of those wars. |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Mar 19, 2015 17:24:04 GMT -5
Yeah there's winners America won the war of independence So what did they win? The right to call a certain piece of dirt the United States of America? I guess that makes up for 100.000 deaths. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 20, 2015 20:14:16 GMT -5
Post by Star on Mar 20, 2015 20:14:16 GMT -5
The start of WWI is almost humorous if you think about it. All the alliances led to it. Alliances meant to protect one another eventually led to everyone being involved in the Great War. Plus the Balkans (powder keg) sparked it all. I still find WWI interesting though, just like most things pertaining to history.
|
|
|
|
History
Mar 20, 2015 20:17:26 GMT -5
Post by Star on Mar 20, 2015 20:17:26 GMT -5
Yeah there's winners America won the war of independence So what did they win? The right to call a certain piece of dirt the United States of America? I guess that makes up for 100.000 deaths. They won their freedom from Britain, which earned them a new life (and eventually created a "land of opportunity"). Considering what they set out to do, Americans gained victory when they won their independence. Of course, much happened between then and now and thousands of causalities aren't good at all, but I think it's safe to say most would still say that was a price the colonists were willing to pay to gain freedom. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 21, 2015 8:29:12 GMT -5
Post by bobafett590 on Mar 21, 2015 8:29:12 GMT -5
Yeah I think most wars have clear winners and if a side achieves what it set out to do in a war they are a winner to me. Yes but WWI definitely wasn't one of those wars. Well it was, the Entente pretty much achieved what they set out to do for the most part. |
|
|
|
History
May 6, 2015 18:06:25 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on May 6, 2015 18:06:25 GMT -5
thought maybe we could put topics on this one to keep it active
|
|
|
|
History
May 6, 2015 18:20:52 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on May 6, 2015 18:20:52 GMT -5
thought maybe we could put topics on this one to keep it active Hmm... This is too recent to be considered history in my opinion... but that's just my opinion. This seems more like a political poll... but we can just discuss this. I'm far from an expert on this war... but I don't think Western interference in the middle-east or war in general can be justified. |
|
|
|
History
May 6, 2015 18:33:09 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on May 6, 2015 18:33:09 GMT -5
thought maybe we could put topics on this one to keep it active Hmm... This is too recent to be considered history in my opinion... but that's just my opinion. This seems more like a political poll... but we can just discuss this. I'm far from an expert on this war... but I don't think Western interference in the middle-east or war in general can be justified. Yeah, maybe a bit further back on the next one. |
|
|
|
History
May 7, 2015 7:24:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on May 7, 2015 7:24:53 GMT -5
On the poll, I say yes because Hussein was trying to take over another country and attempts had been made to resolve it peacefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on May 7, 2015 8:01:14 GMT -5
On the poll, I say yes because Hussein was trying to take over another country and attempts had been made to resolve it peacefully. Which country exactly? It's a bit hypocritically though. The US helped Hussein to invade Iran just a few years earlier... |
|
|
|
History
May 7, 2015 9:57:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on May 7, 2015 9:57:09 GMT -5
On the poll, I say yes because Hussein was trying to take over another country and attempts had been made to resolve it peacefully. Which country exactly? It's a bit hypocritically though. The US helped Hussein to invade Iran just a few years earlier... Kuwait. Kuwait was a peaceful country though, unlike Iran. And Hussein was pretty much just jealous of Kuwait's oil. |
|
|
|
Post by bobafett590 on Jul 20, 2015 8:42:15 GMT -5
Conquering Europe was a brilliant feat. A bigger feat than defeating a single, disorganised enemy (led by incompetent generals) with foreign armies helping you. He still only had a very small core army, most people where just too fearful to actually fight. Napoleon conquests are no Alexander or Genghis Khan and those two only got stopped when they died of non battlefield related deaths. Those two generals would never have got so far if, like Napoleon, they found themselves under attack by numerous powerful nations the moment they took power. Napoleon led a poor (like, almost bankrupt), chaos-ridden nation and destroyed the armies of his enemies with ease and spread social reform throughout Europe. Napoleon was defeated because he was constantly having to fight off huge coalitions of Great Powers. Besides, that's kind of a straw-man argument and is detracting from the main point. Napoleon's Grand Armee of 800,000 troops would make short work of Washington's 40,000 strong Continental Army. No question. I guess you could say he would eat them for (continental) breakfast!  . (Yeah, I thought this discussion would be better placed on this thread rather than Mos Eisley.) |
|
|
|
History
Jul 20, 2015 9:09:05 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Jul 20, 2015 9:09:05 GMT -5
He still only had a very small core army, most people where just too fearful to actually fight. Napoleon conquests are no Alexander or Genghis Khan and those two only got stopped when they died of non battlefield related deaths. Those two generals would never have got so far if, like Napoleon, they found themselves under attack by numerous powerful nations the moment they took power. Napoleon led a poor (like, almost bankrupt), chaos-ridden nation and destroyed the armies of his enemies with ease and spread social reform throughout Europe. Napoleon was defeated because he was constantly having to fight off huge coalitions of Great Powers. Besides, that's kind of a straw-man argument and is detracting from the main point. Napoleon's Grand Armee of 800,000 troops would make short work of Washington's 40,000 strong Continental Army. No question. I guess you could say he would eat them for (continental) breakfast! . (Yeah, I thought this discussion would be better placed on this thread rather than Mos Eisley.) But 800 000 is also already one of the largest at the time when a lot of European powers have already seen there best days. Also Washington isn't someone who engaged in conquest, so I'm not sure that's a fair thing to compare to. |
|
|
|
History
Jul 20, 2015 9:20:19 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Jul 20, 2015 9:20:19 GMT -5
He still only had a very small core army, most people where just too fearful to actually fight. Napoleon conquests are no Alexander or Genghis Khan and those two only got stopped when they died of non battlefield related deaths. Those two generals would never have got so far if, like Napoleon, they found themselves under attack by numerous powerful nations the moment they took power. Napoleon led a poor (like, almost bankrupt), chaos-ridden nation and destroyed the armies of his enemies with ease and spread social reform throughout Europe. Napoleon was defeated because he was constantly having to fight off huge coalitions of Great Powers. Besides, that's kind of a straw-man argument and is detracting from the main point. Napoleon's Grand Armee of 800,000 troops would make short work of Washington's 40,000 strong Continental Army. No question. I guess you could say he would eat them for (continental) breakfast! . (Yeah, I thought this discussion would be better placed on this thread rather than Mos Eisley.) The total military strength of the French at the time was 7,5 million. |
|
|
|
History
Jul 20, 2015 9:21:26 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Jul 20, 2015 9:21:26 GMT -5
Those two generals would never have got so far if, like Napoleon, they found themselves under attack by numerous powerful nations the moment they took power. Napoleon led a poor (like, almost bankrupt), chaos-ridden nation and destroyed the armies of his enemies with ease and spread social reform throughout Europe. Napoleon was defeated because he was constantly having to fight off huge coalitions of Great Powers. Besides, that's kind of a straw-man argument and is detracting from the main point. Napoleon's Grand Armee of 800,000 troops would make short work of Washington's 40,000 strong Continental Army. No question. I guess you could say he would eat them for (continental) breakfast! . (Yeah, I thought this discussion would be better placed on this thread rather than Mos Eisley.) But 800 000 is also already one of the largest at the time when a lot of European powers have already seen there best days. Also Washington isn't someone who engaged in conquest, so I'm not sure that's a fair thing to compare to. Well, he conquered the US from the UK. Napoleon only engaged in conquest because the other European nations wanted to destroy him for his enlightened ideas. So he spread those ideas over Europe, planting the seeds for modern democracy. |
|
|
|
History
Jul 20, 2015 12:43:43 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Jul 20, 2015 12:43:43 GMT -5
But 800 000 is also already one of the largest at the time when a lot of European powers have already seen there best days. Also Washington isn't someone who engaged in conquest, so I'm not sure that's a fair thing to compare to. Well, he conquered the US from the UK. Napoleon only engaged in conquest because the other European nations wanted to destroy him for his enlightened ideas. So he spread those ideas over Europe, planting the seeds for modern democracy. He liberated the U.S. from the UK for being idiots |
|
|
|
History
Jul 20, 2015 13:01:39 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Jul 20, 2015 13:01:39 GMT -5
Well, he conquered the US from the UK. Napoleon only engaged in conquest because the other European nations wanted to destroy him for his enlightened ideas. So he spread those ideas over Europe, planting the seeds for modern democracy. He liberated the U.S. from the UK for being idiots Just like Napoleon liberated Europe from the absolute monarchists and extreme conservatives. |
|
|
|
History
Aug 17, 2015 3:40:54 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Aug 17, 2015 3:40:54 GMT -5
So yeah when I was in Newfoundland my family told me a lot about our history (some of which I already knew). But seems my family had a decent impact on the Provinces history, couple of them where Bounty Hunters who worked towards wiping out the Beothuk natives, ironically they housed the last one and kept her as a servant till she died of natural causes. Then his son was apart of the government and everything. There’s also a mountain named after some of my ancestors I wonder if it’s for the politician or for the bounty hunters lol… Anyways some of them are on Wikipedia and some other Canadian heritage sits.
But yeah just wondering does anyone have any cool stuff they know about there family history?
|
|
|
|
History
Aug 17, 2015 11:36:05 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on Aug 17, 2015 11:36:05 GMT -5
So yeah when I was in Newfoundland my family told me a lot about our history (some of which I already knew). But seems my family had a decent impact on the Provinces history, couple of them where Bounty Hunters who worked towards wiping out the Beothuk natives, ironically they housed the last one and kept her as a servant till she died of natural causes. Then his son was apart of the government and everything. There’s also a mountain named after some of my ancestors I wonder if it’s for the politician or for the bounty hunters lol… Anyways some of them are on Wikipedia and some other Canadian heritage sits. But yeah just wondering does anyone have any cool stuff they know about there family history? I'm related to Grover Cleveland if you know who that it is. |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2015 19:33:32 GMT -5
Post by Star on Aug 30, 2015 19:33:32 GMT -5
So yeah when I was in Newfoundland my family told me a lot about our history (some of which I already knew). But seems my family had a decent impact on the Provinces history, couple of them where Bounty Hunters who worked towards wiping out the Beothuk natives, ironically they housed the last one and kept her as a servant till she died of natural causes. Then his son was apart of the government and everything. There’s also a mountain named after some of my ancestors I wonder if it’s for the politician or for the bounty hunters lol… Anyways some of them are on Wikipedia and some other Canadian heritage sits. But yeah just wondering does anyone have any cool stuff they know about there family history? I'm related to Grover Cleveland if you know who that it is. lol you serious? |
|
|
|
History
Aug 31, 2015 8:33:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Aug 31, 2015 8:33:13 GMT -5
I'm related to Grover Cleveland if you know who that it is. lol you serious? Yeah. |
|
|
|
History
Sept 6, 2015 13:48:33 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Sept 6, 2015 13:48:33 GMT -5
So, this may be something interesting to discuss: If you could create a new calender, where would you make it start and why?
|
|
|
|
History
Sept 6, 2015 14:11:59 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Sept 6, 2015 14:11:59 GMT -5
So, this may be something interesting to discuss: If you could create a new calender, where would you make it start and why? I'd keep it the same, no need to mess with something that works perfectly fine |
|
|
|
History
Sept 6, 2015 16:11:04 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Sept 6, 2015 16:11:04 GMT -5
So, this may be something interesting to discuss: If you could create a new calender, where would you make it start and why? I'd keep it the same, no need to mess with something that works perfectly fine Well, imagine there wasn't any calender then. Where would you make it start? |
|
|
|
History
Sept 6, 2015 16:22:49 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Sept 6, 2015 16:22:49 GMT -5
I'd keep it the same, no need to mess with something that works perfectly fine Well, imagine there wasn't any calender then. Where would you make it start? Then there would probably be no need for a calender at all then if there wasn't one all this time but if there wasn't one it would be logical to start it on the day I came up with the idea as I wouldn't know how many days, weeks, months, years came before since there was no calender.... |
|
|
|
History
Oct 22, 2015 20:08:21 GMT -5
Post by Star on Oct 22, 2015 20:08:21 GMT -5
Here's a question: Some early explorers felt it was their duty to spread their religion around the world. Because of their religious zeal, however, many native peoples died and several civilizations were destroyed. Were the actions of these European explorers justified or no?
Also, religious zeal was sometimes an excuse for the real motives of certain explorers as shown in the phrase "God, glory, and gold".
|
|
|
|
History
Oct 23, 2015 19:51:08 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Oct 23, 2015 19:51:08 GMT -5
Here's a question: Some early explorers felt it was their duty to spread their religion around the world. Because of their religious zeal, however, many native peoples died and several civilizations were destroyed. Were the actions of these European explorers justified or no? Also, religious zeal was sometimes an excuse for the real motives of certain explorers as shown in the phrase "God, glory, and gold". The strong prevailed and the weak failed... This is the cycle of life. Basically like the food chain, in this case the Europeans and their ships, guns, etc where at the top and the Natives where at the bottom. But I would not say the European colonization was based on religious means (that came after) it was because they desired to expand and find more resources to improve themselves. Europeans took an interest in Canada for its vast amount of furs and later other resources such as Gold, Diamonds, Coal, etc the European priority was not in religion. The Spanish where the main religious people of the Europeans. The English and French not so much |
|
. 
it’s been quite a while. I’ve been pretty good, how about yourself?
Sept 30, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Nov 11, 2024 16:43:58 GMT -5
Nov 11, 2024 16:43:58 GMT -5