 |
Castle Paradox
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Newbie_Power

Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1762
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was talking about Native Americans, in response to Camdog's comment.
I only now figured out the bigger discussion was about the Aztecs. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
J.A.R.S. In umbram deo, ex nihilo...

Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 451 Location: Under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
in which case they didn't have fortifications by the way. These big maian temples didn't serve defensive purposes... Nor did they use the bow as an offensive method for that matter, which makes it well... actually, it puts all other native americans out of the topic  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Newbie_Power

Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1762
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
This topic is just becoming confusing...
What the heck is everyone talking about? I am assuming that Native North American Indians were mentioned, but then somebody is going to smack me with "Native American can refer to South America as well!" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
J.A.R.S. In umbram deo, ex nihilo...

Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 451 Location: Under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
as far as I'm concerned, we were talking about bows, since it is the closest tie we had to the actual topic name... bows used as weapons, aka not as hunting weaponry. The north american indigene did never really use the bow for war, don't get me wrong, thety were fans of tomahawks in the Cris tribes and all, but they truly fought with axes more than bows, and later on, with guns... bows never really made it into their arsenal, so whatever movie you see where they use a bow is just wrong... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Newbie_Power

Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1762
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just going to stop debating. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Rinku

Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 690
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Aztecs did sacrifice a lot of people, and eat their remains, largely because they didn't have much meat, but also because they felt that the sun wouldn't rise the next morning unless it received huge periodic human sacrifices. Most of their wars were intended to capture sacrifices, and they usually invaded small outlaying tribes and brought back a few thousand people at a time. I researched them a bit for ZfRT, which has a similar premise (where they sacrifice people to the turtles rather than to the sun). _________________ Tower Defense Game |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Camdog
Joined: 08 Aug 2003 Posts: 606
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rinku wrote: | I don't mean house walls, I mean city walls. Obviously it's easy to build a wall out of leather or even wood, but building a wall out of brick or stone was utterly beyond the technology of most Native American tribes. The Aztecs and such could do it of course, but they weren't really a tribe, but a civilization. |
Fair enough, though I had no way of knowing "no walls" meant, "no walls, except for leather and wood walls, or other kinds of walls built by native americans which don't count, since they were native american civilizations, not tribes."
J.A.R.S. wrote: | Defend? now you'd be wrong. It was used offensively in Europe much before people considered it a defensive weapon... of course, it depends in whose eyes you stand...
And Camdog, there is a difference between walls and fortifications. Archeology teaches us that the walls erected by such civilization in early times (before using the bow and opaline axe as weapons) were simply walls against wind and sun, and not to repel invasions. Of course, if you take a closer look at the Aztec, it was pretty early in their history that this switch occured, though, for the Maian, archeologist are not even sure they ever considered defending themselves at all... |
WHAT |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Rinku

Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 690
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the context of the discussion, it was clear that walls was meant in the sense of defensive fortifications.
And about the Mayans -- the reason they didn't consider defending themselves is probably because they had no strong neighbors, so they never bothered setting up a real army. Lesson learned. _________________ Tower Defense Game |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
J.A.R.S. In umbram deo, ex nihilo...

Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 451 Location: Under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
agreed
and we were using the bow cause we were talking bout ranged/melee stances in combat I believe. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Camdog
Joined: 08 Aug 2003 Posts: 606
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rinku wrote: | In the context of the discussion, it was clear that walls was meant in the sense of defensive fortifications. |
Aztec, Mayan, Pueblo. (Yes, yes, 'civilization', not tribe, but that distinction certainly wasn't clear, since you made it up).
Rinku wrote: | And about the Mayans -- the reason they didn't consider defending themselves is probably because they had no strong neighbors, so they never bothered setting up a real army. Lesson learned. |
J.A.R.S. wrote: | agreed
and we were using the bow cause we were talking bout ranged/melee stances in combat I believe. |
Are you guys seriously arguing that the Mayans never thought about defense? Their capital city was built in the middle of a lake (ie GIANT MOAT), and then further fortified by city walls. It could be argued that their military success came from their ability to launch war campaigns from such a fortified position.
Also, they had plenty of strong neighbors. Early in their history they were the little kid on the block, in fact. Keep in mind that their culture lasted a long time, so political conditions varied greatly over the course of their existence.
Sorry to throw this topic so far off, but damn people, these are Native Americans we're talking about, not Neanderthals. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
J.A.R.S. In umbram deo, ex nihilo...

Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 451 Location: Under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Camdog wrote: | Rinku wrote: | In the context of the discussion, it was clear that walls was meant in the sense of defensive fortifications. |
Aztec, Mayan, Pueblo. (Yes, yes, 'civilization', not tribe, but that distinction certainly wasn't clear, since you made it up).
Rinku wrote: | And about the Mayans -- the reason they didn't consider defending themselves is probably because they had no strong neighbors, so they never bothered setting up a real army. Lesson learned. |
J.A.R.S. wrote: | agreed
and we were using the bow cause we were talking bout ranged/melee stances in combat I believe. |
Are you guys seriously arguing that the Mayans never thought about defense? Their capital city was built in the middle of a lake (ie GIANT MOAT), and then further fortified by city walls. It could be argued that their military success came from their ability to launch war campaigns from such a fortified position.
Also, they had plenty of strong neighbors. Early in their history they were the little kid on the block, in fact. Keep in mind that their culture lasted a long time, so political conditions varied greatly over the course of their existence.
Sorry to throw this topic so far off, but damn people, these are Native Americans we're talking about, not Neanderthals. |
Sorry but the mayan capital was uphill. The aztecs were on a moat because they had been chased there by populations (which didn't survive them long). I think you're mixing up the two atm. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Rinku

Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 690
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't make up the distinction between civilization and tribe. The basic difference is: civilizations live in cities, usually several cities under one government, and tribes are nomadic; civilizations feed themselves primarily with agriculture, whereas tribes rely primarily on hunting, gathering, and herding.
I didn't mean that they never thought about defense; they had defenses against the local barbarians, but I don't think they ever engaged in a war with another civilization. I suspect what happened was that they had some defenses set up to defend themselves against tribes, then a really smart tribal leader formed a large enough invasion force to get through that defense. It happened to China (with the Mongols and Genghis Khan) too. _________________ Tower Defense Game |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Drizzle Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003 Posts: 432
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | tribes are nomadic |
This isn't necessarily true. There are tons of tribes with sedentary lifestyles. I think the distinction between civilization and tribe (although I'm sure there could be some overlap) has to do more with size and level of advancement relative to other peoples. Not to mention that when we say tribes, we're usually talking about people of the same racial makeup, while this is not true of civilizations. For most civilizations, their size has to with unification or absorption of another culture. Like in Ancient Greece, Athenians and Spartans would consider themselves entirely different people and even had different central leadership. And the Roman addition of foreigners into the Senate is also a good example. Not only were foreigners included in Roman civilization, but also in Roman government. And even the Romans began as a non-sedentary tribe with no women, and had to trick the sabine women into marrying them. (And by trick I mean rape)
In any case, my anthropology teacher always warned me to be careful when using two words like "tribe" and "civilization" exclusively, because they aren't always exclusive.
I hope I don't regret getting into this one. And I know, I'm sorry that this is off topic. _________________ My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Rinku

Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 690
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The borders overlap, but the borders of most things overlap: green can overlap with blue, sometimes you can't really say whether a color is blue or green, but the names still mean something.
I'm not sure there are sedentary tribes in the sense of permanent structures. I'm sure that there are tribes that stay in the same place from year to year or from decade to decade, but I don't think there are tribes that have been in the same place for hundreds of years, usually they move around as their food source does (whether it's hunting, gathering, or shepherding, conditions like droughts and such affect the locations that they can live in). So I think food source is the best way to measure it, rather than nomadic vs cities, but that has fuzzy borders too (unless you tie it down to whether or not a people have knowledge that planting seeds produces food, which is surprisingly hard to figure out, considering it might be months before you see any growth). _________________ Tower Defense Game |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Camdog
Joined: 08 Aug 2003 Posts: 606
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
J.A.R.S wrote: | Sorry but the mayan capital was uphill. The aztecs were on a moat because they had been chased there by populations (which didn't survive them long). I think you're mixing up the two atm. |
Oh snap, you're right. Still, it seems a bit strange to suggest that any dominant civilization never considered defense. As far as I know, that's never been true, ever.
Rinku wrote: | I didn't make up the distinction between civilization and tribe. The basic difference is: civilizations live in cities, usually several cities under one government, and tribes are nomadic; civilizations feed themselves primarily with agriculture, whereas tribes rely primarily on hunting, gathering, and herding. |
I think the problem is this is basically an incorrect definition. I was taking it to mean any group of people with a coherent society. Other definitions imply fuzzy adjectives like "more advanced" or "more cultured," but I don't think the word ever implies anything about the structures people live in or how much they move around. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|