abnormal swabbie action?
- Thread starter Happy
- Start date
- Status
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Oh, I'm sure he wasn't a saint... but that's not an excuse to blame him for the invasion of America. Preacher used the word "machinations" to describe Columbus' actions, and that word carries with it roughly the same connotations as the phrase "evil scheme" would. And that, when used to describe someone who did nothing more than (re)discover a continent, is pathetic and laughable.
Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
1) To be clear: I'm not pinning ALL the blame on him. But you can't credibly deny that he was largely to blame for the initial wave of genocide/etc. What followed that was simply "more of the same" from his European buddies. All I'm sayin' is he didn't do an entire race of people any favors.. It's been pointed out elsewhere that there were others who came here BEFORE Columbus. Note that there was not a wake of genocide and conquest that followed in *their* footsteps.
2)...Guess that makes him a pretty sucky mariner, then: He wasn't even CLOSE to India. And, I refute the notion that he "didn't even want to initiate" the events that followed: History sez otherwise.
3) America wouldn't've been "in his way" if he knew where the h*** he was going, the schmuck!
4) In my book, any organized plan to decimate or wipe out an entire people so you can savage their land and natural resources (not to mention occupy their homeland) pretty much qualifies as an "evil scheme"...
If the shoe fits...
BTW--how would you like it if I should go over and "discover" your backyard?...I think you get my (continental) drift....
Ghost
Emperor
Yeah Quarto is right.
Don´t forget that Columbus was the only *Conquistador* (Conqueror) who wanted to make peace with the natives, You can´t compare Columbus witth Pizarro or Cortez even more Columbus wasn´t a military he was a Sailor an adventurer but Pizarrro and Cortez were from the Military.
You are so wrong Preacher, he wanted to find a new way to India not to travel around Afica (the common route)like the others. that is the thing he wanted a new route only for Spain
Don´t forget that Columbus was the only *Conquistador* (Conqueror) who wanted to make peace with the natives, You can´t compare Columbus witth Pizarro or Cortez even more Columbus wasn´t a military he was a Sailor an adventurer but Pizarrro and Cortez were from the Military.
You are so wrong Preacher, he wanted to find a new way to India not to travel around Afica (the common route)like the others. that is the thing he wanted a new route only for Spain
Ghost
Emperor
No, what i mean by saying that he was a Civilian, is that Columbus mission was a diplomatic-comercial travel-embassy, just like Marco Polo, not a military one, of course i agree with you about Pizarro and Cortez.
And here we also don´t *celebrate* the *12 of October* this change comes since the 500 aniversary aprox.
And here we also don´t *celebrate* the *12 of October* this change comes since the 500 aniversary aprox.
Ghost
Emperor
No, No...
First , this may sound stupid but Colombus *discovered* America (i know about the Vikings..) in his 1st voyage to India, later he discovered the north part of south-america (Venezuela,Colombia).
His idea was to find a new Trade route to India, because the Africa route was used mainly by the enemy of Spain, Portugal
Even more Columbus died thinking that he found a route to India, he always thought that America was the India ! (or at least an uncharted part of the India )
Um, no. I hate to say, that if Europeans had arrived, their diseases had assuredly come with. (The problem with traveling at the time was the food/water shortages and disease. It's months of voyage, not a week.) While yes, he DIDN'T know he was bringing the disease, the fact that he sees 2/3 of the population die doesn't mean he doesn't see an opportunity. I mean, he's not lobbing diseased bodies or anything around to spread it, but when you see such a famine (all the more if it's not affecting you, or at least on that scale)-it'd be foolish to think he wouldn't capitalize on the opportunity.
I don't think counting a, rough calculation, million soldiers on the side of the Aztecs is "having most of the empire on his side." While peasantry may well have indeed been on his side, that has little to do with the concept of him having a military force that large against him. It doesn't make much sense to think that his conquest of them was because "the empire was on his side." That much of an army against yours doesn't constitute them NOT having a chance at stopping him.
~In responce to the other question that came up here, most people don't know it-but the people that actually DID come to trade in both America and the Indies, especially the Indies, had little the natives wanted. (Broken glass, etc.) One Portugese ship had nothing of worth to the natives, but sold a few of their cannons to recieve a ton of spices and silks. (Which was easily a match for the price of the cannons.)
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
Uggg yes... why are we talking about stuff I learn in school... Icky yucky...
Make it go away.
Wing Commander is good... Lets see... Hmmm It's LOAF's B-day ... so everyone should be partyin! Birthday's Rock!
Make it go away.
Wing Commander is good... Lets see... Hmmm It's LOAF's B-day ... so everyone should be partyin! Birthday's Rock!
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Skyfire, European diseases were undoubtedly already spreading in the Carribean and in Brazil, but they didn't reach the Aztecs yet, because diseases don't spread instantly. It wasn't like that Simpsons episode where Homer goes back in time, sneezes on something, and all the dinosaurs drop dead 
.
As for the empire being on his side, you have to consider that the Aztecs were a hated minority. It was like the early Roman republic, when Rome ruled Italy but only Romans were citizens (when Hannibal came along, it wasn't Hannibal per se that Rome was worried about). Naturally, most people were very unhappy with the Aztec tribe, and seized the chance of ridding themselves of their rule. And these people were not mere peasants - we're talking about a tribal society where each tribe had its own warriors. I'd give you some details of what happened, but my best source of info (the memoirs of Bartolme Diaz, who was there with Cortez) happens to be out of the house, and since I read it two years ago, I can't remember all the details.
And now, Preacher. I'll limit myself to mocking one particularly sad extract from your post, and then I'll get to the point.
That brief example unfortunately is about as logical as your comments get. That you hate Columbus, that's obvious enough... what isn't quite so obvious is *why*, considering that you haven't posted a single decent argument. "History sez otherwise" is cute, but utterly meaningless unless you back it up with proof.
That Columbus sailed for India, blissfully unaware of America's existence is common knowledge. That his goals in India were trade is also a well-documented fact. You see, Columbus was a merchant (NOT a conquistador). He was interested in trading stuff, because it's a convenient way of making money... and oddly enough, doesn't involve genocide. The Portuguese had the eastward route monopolised, so, armed with the as-yet purely-theoretical knowledge that the Earth is round, Columbus decided to try the westward route. Upon arrival in what he thought was India, he set about... uh... trying to trade with the natives, apparently. Isn't that odd? So, please, Preacher, why don't you enlighten us about this evil plan Columbus had?
...The thing that I really hate about this glorious era of "political correctness" that we find ourselves living in is that if I was to say, for example, that the Aztecs were bloodthirsty savages who murdered thousands of people almost daily, I'd be accused of racism... but somebody like Preacher can come along claiming that Columbus had an evil plot to wipe out the American natives, and most people won't see anything wrong with him saying that
. The fact that Columbus was a brave pioneer who dared to oppose the idea of Earth being flat, and actually tried to prove that it wasn't, seems lost.
.As for the empire being on his side, you have to consider that the Aztecs were a hated minority. It was like the early Roman republic, when Rome ruled Italy but only Romans were citizens (when Hannibal came along, it wasn't Hannibal per se that Rome was worried about). Naturally, most people were very unhappy with the Aztec tribe, and seized the chance of ridding themselves of their rule. And these people were not mere peasants - we're talking about a tribal society where each tribe had its own warriors. I'd give you some details of what happened, but my best source of info (the memoirs of Bartolme Diaz, who was there with Cortez) happens to be out of the house, and since I read it two years ago, I can't remember all the details.
And now, Preacher. I'll limit myself to mocking one particularly sad extract from your post, and then I'll get to the point.
Why don't *you* try sailing westwards from Spain to Asia without running into America? I'm afraid it's a rather difficult thing to do.
That brief example unfortunately is about as logical as your comments get. That you hate Columbus, that's obvious enough... what isn't quite so obvious is *why*, considering that you haven't posted a single decent argument. "History sez otherwise" is cute, but utterly meaningless unless you back it up with proof.
That Columbus sailed for India, blissfully unaware of America's existence is common knowledge. That his goals in India were trade is also a well-documented fact. You see, Columbus was a merchant (NOT a conquistador). He was interested in trading stuff, because it's a convenient way of making money... and oddly enough, doesn't involve genocide. The Portuguese had the eastward route monopolised, so, armed with the as-yet purely-theoretical knowledge that the Earth is round, Columbus decided to try the westward route. Upon arrival in what he thought was India, he set about... uh... trying to trade with the natives, apparently. Isn't that odd? So, please, Preacher, why don't you enlighten us about this evil plan Columbus had?
...The thing that I really hate about this glorious era of "political correctness" that we find ourselves living in is that if I was to say, for example, that the Aztecs were bloodthirsty savages who murdered thousands of people almost daily, I'd be accused of racism... but somebody like Preacher can come along claiming that Columbus had an evil plot to wipe out the American natives, and most people won't see anything wrong with him saying that
. The fact that Columbus was a brave pioneer who dared to oppose the idea of Earth being flat, and actually tried to prove that it wasn't, seems lost.Originally posted by Quarto
Skyfire, European diseases were undoubtedly already spreading in the Carribean and in Brazil, but they didn't reach the Aztecs yet, because diseases don't spread instantly. It wasn't like that Simpsons episode where Homer goes back in time, sneezes on something, and all the dinosaurs drop dead
As for the empire being on his side, you have to consider that the Aztecs were a hated minority. It was like the early Roman republic, when Rome ruled Italy but only Romans were citizens (when Hannibal came along, it wasn't Hannibal per se that Rome was worried about). Naturally, most people were very unhappy with the Aztec tribe, and seized the chance of ridding themselves of their rule. And these people were not mere peasants - we're talking about a tribal society where each tribe had its own warriors. I'd give you some details of what happened, but my best source of info (the memoirs of Bartolme Diaz, who was there with Cortez) happens to be out of the house, and since I read it two years ago, I can't remember all the details.
Oh, I agree with you-it's not like they just teleport, but you can't forget that Coretz wasn't the ONLY person to get there. In a 20 year period, 95% of the population had been killed through war and disease. (While that wouldn't have had a "oh, let's go attack the huge populace that died from plague" attitude, it still would have affected the war effort.)
Actually, the people weren't really afraid of an uprising, so much as Hannibal. Due to the fact that he defeated all the armies in his way excluding a single legion within Rome, they had very good reason to be worried as well. (And in the early days, we have to remember that the Romans were not nearly as hated as they were during the Imperialist days. The Republic actually was relatively loved by the people, as it forced the upper classes to make more headway for the populace, so that they could win the vote(and favor) of both commoners, and noblemen. It was only that Hannibal did not attack, for some reason, and was called back to Carthage that saved the Romans-not some saving grace that didn't lead to a revolution. (Else Rome would not have been able to form the military force that destroyed the Carthagenian navy, nor eventually took the capital.)
I completely agree, the actual ruling class was small, and despised, and it was tribal-however, the Aztecs were the ruling class, making the people peasants. (Your "peasants" may have been warriors, but are not generally formed into that category anymore.)
~I'd actually love it if you can get that book around and send an e-mail of some info. My knowledge of Latin American history is relatively limited, I'd love to know more about it!~
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
What in the world are you guys talking about? I am just wondering cuz I wanna be in on it too. 
pygmypiranha
Vice Admiral
What the heck is this about War Elephants anyhow? First you guys are talking about Columbus and now this... you have me completely lost... - Status