|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 50 of 79:
| 
Feb 15 23:03 UTC 2006 |
re #49
0_
\`. ___
\ \ / __>0
/\ / |/' /
/ \/ ` ,`'--.
/ /(___________)_ \
|/ //.-. .-.\\ \ \
0 // :@ ___ @: \\ \/
( o ^(___)^ o ) 0
\ \_______/ /
/\ '._______.'--.
\ /| |<_____> |
\ \__|<_____>____/|__
\____<_____>_______/
|<_____> |
|<_____> |
:<_____>____:
/ <_____> /|
/ <_____> / |
/___________/ |
| | _|__
| | ---||_
| |L\/|/ | | [__]
| \|||\|\ | /
| | /
|___________|/
|
richard
|
|
response 51 of 79:
|
Feb 16 01:15 UTC 2006 |
rcurl said:
"Who said cows were made by gods?"
some people believe it, in some cultures they WORSHIP cows as the
holiest of animals.
|
klg
|
|
response 52 of 79:
|
Feb 16 02:57 UTC 2006 |
No kidding.
|
bru
|
|
response 53 of 79:
|
Feb 16 06:20 UTC 2006 |
Cows MUST have been designed by God, because a cow offers EVERYTHING humand
need to make a society.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 54 of 79:
|
Feb 16 06:22 UTC 2006 |
The answer is "Hindus".
|
johnnie
|
|
response 55 of 79:
|
Feb 16 14:44 UTC 2006 |
>Cows MUST have been designed by God, because a cow offers EVERYTHING
>humand need to make a society.
Or, society naturally structured itself based on what was available.
|
keesan
|
|
response 56 of 79:
|
Feb 16 17:37 UTC 2006 |
How do you make a society out of a cow?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 57 of 79:
|
Feb 16 17:40 UTC 2006 |
Well, you'll need some steak sauce, of course...
|
marcvh
|
|
response 58 of 79:
|
Feb 16 17:42 UTC 2006 |
Well, certainly the societies that had cows readily available fared a lot
better than the societies where cows were absent.
|
keesan
|
|
response 59 of 79:
|
Feb 16 17:47 UTC 2006 |
Cows were not available to the Incas, Aztecs, or Mayans. I presume you are
referring only to agricultural societies, not pastoralists or gatherers.
Did the Mongols have cows? They took over half the civilized world. Cows
have been useful for plowing. Tropical agriculture does not use cows but
digging sticks.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 60 of 79:
|
Feb 16 17:57 UTC 2006 |
The Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans ate llamas. (Not to be confused with
Lorenzo Lamas)
|
tod
|
|
response 61 of 79:
|
Feb 16 18:02 UTC 2006 |
Camel hump is a delicacy in some places. Of course, sheep is the standard
fare but if you can get camel hump or llama then you're living large.
|
keesan
|
|
response 62 of 79:
|
Feb 16 18:17 UTC 2006 |
Llamas were used mainly as pack animals. Vicunas (closely related) provided
better wool. Are you sure the Mexicans had llamas? I know they had turkeys.
Turkeys don't make good pack animals, nor do guinea pigs.
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 79:
|
Feb 16 18:20 UTC 2006 |
THey make good lunchmeat packs, though.
Anytime you eat an animal that digests something more than once then you're
taking chances.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 64 of 79:
|
Feb 16 19:24 UTC 2006 |
Re #59: I'm not sure what you point is about bringing up societies which
were so weak that they could be conquered or destroyed by a tiny handful
of Spanish. But yes, it's a given that agricultural societies have become
much more powerful and dominant than hunter-gatherers.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 65 of 79:
|
Feb 16 19:31 UTC 2006 |
The Aztecs, Mayans and Incans probably didn't have cows- and look where
they are today...
|
bru
|
|
response 66 of 79:
|
Feb 16 19:34 UTC 2006 |
Just think of all the things we get from cattle. leather, meat, milk,
manure...
|
nharmon
|
|
response 67 of 79:
|
Feb 16 19:36 UTC 2006 |
...Cowpox
|
marcvh
|
|
response 68 of 79:
|
Feb 16 19:38 UTC 2006 |
...which is a big advantage when you're competing against a society
which has never been exposed to it and has no immunity. Think of it as
biological warfare.
|
keesan
|
|
response 69 of 79:
|
Feb 16 20:06 UTC 2006 |
The Mongols were not agricultural and they conquered a lot of people who were.
They had horses. Cows are not as fast.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 70 of 79:
|
Feb 16 20:09 UTC 2006 |
Military technology has been the largest determining factor when it
comes to which civilizations survive.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 79:
|
Feb 16 20:25 UTC 2006 |
Many great military conquests, such as the Spanish in the new world, had
permanent effects. Others, such as those of the Mongols or Alexander, were
just a flash in the pan; their military conquests were substantial but
where are they today?
Military technology determines who prevails in the short term in a
military conflict, but it does not exist in a vacuum. A society has to
exist to support the development and use of this technology.
"War is not so much a matter of weapons as of money." - Thucydides
|
kingjon
|
|
response 72 of 79:
|
Feb 16 20:28 UTC 2006 |
Didn't the Mongol conquest make a more significant, long-lasting impact in
China and the surrounding area?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 73 of 79:
|
Feb 16 23:39 UTC 2006 |
The Spaniards had an easy time conquering the Aztecs because their arrival
coincided with the Aztec expectatoin of the return to earth of their god
Quetzalcoatl at the same time - that plus European diseases. They were not
"great military conquests" - more plain good luck on the Spaniard's side. It
went similarly with the Incas.
Of course the superior Spanish weaponry played a role, but the Spaniards were
vastly outnumbered and could have been anihilated if the natives had been
better organized (and not decimated by disease).
|
keesan
|
|
response 74 of 79:
|
Feb 17 01:20 UTC 2006 |
The Mongol conquest had a major effect on most of Asia, for centuries, and
unlike the Spanish they did not accomplish their victory with the aid of
epidemics which wiped out up to 90% of the native population. They also did
not enslave the native population, but set up a very organized government.
|