Without this decision, at the very least most of the great explorers would have likely been Chinese, and quite realistically without this decision we'd all be having this discussion in Chinese, as they could easily have grown to become the first globe-spanning empire instead of the English.
Few people in the West realise how economically and technologically advanced China was by the 1400s. The Treasure Fleet was vast -- some vessels were up to 120 metres long. (Christopher Columbus's Santa Maria was only 19 metres.) A Chinese ship might have several decks inside it, up to nine masts, twelve sails, and contain luxurious staterooms and balconies, with a crew of up to 1,500, according to one description. On one journey, 317 of these ships set sail at once.
Under the command of the eunuch admiral Zheng He, the Chinese were routinely sailing to Africa and back decades before Columbus was even born. Yet they did not go on to conquer the world. Instead, the Chinese decided to destroy their boats and stop sailing West.
The Chinese fleets of that era were just mind-boggling in comparison to anything else on the seas. In fact the Chinese were so far ahead everyone else at that point, that somewhat paradoxically, it likely contributed to the idea that they COULD do this, that there was nothing out there that was worth the risks to central power.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Without this decision, at the very least most of the great explorers would have likely been Chinese, and quite realistically without this decision we'd all be having this discussion in Chinese, as they could easily have grown to become the first globe-spanning empire instead of the English.
The Chinese fleets of that era were just mind-boggling in comparison to anything else on the seas. In fact the Chinese were so far ahead everyone else at that point, that somewhat paradoxically, it likely contributed to the idea that they COULD do this, that there was nothing out there that was worth the risks to central power.
This is a fascinating topic that I had never considered!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
This is a fascinating topic that I had never considered!
There is a pseudo historian named Gavin Menzies who has forwarded crazy theories that the Chinese landed on North America and Africa during the Ming dynasty, and then also circumnavigated the globe.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
There is a pseudo historian named Gavin Menzies who has forwarded crazy theories that the Chinese landed on North America and Africa during the Ming dynasty, and then also circumnavigated the globe.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Don't know about Menzies, but the Chinese definitely sailed to Africa during the early Ming dynasty. Routinely even.
17 years after Challenger taught NASA the perils of it, the Columbia disaster happened.
Thanks for posting this. That was interesting. Also to Wormius for posting the link to Feynman's chapter in his book about being on the Challenger commission, thank you, all very interesting. I didn't know much about Feynman but it was incredible to read about him, and I always marvel and how smart some people are. What a gift that man's brain was.
The Sicilian Expedition (415-413BC): The Peloponnesian War between Athens and allies and Sparta and allies reached a turning point with the Athenian expeditionary force to Sicily. Athens had aligned itself with Sicilian city states against Syracuse and after a request for aid mobilized the expedition. The goals of the expedition were unclear from the start and posed significant risks sending a large force far from home with enemies in their rear. Despite initial success due to unprepared defenders the force quickly lost momentum due to incompetence in a divided leadership structure. The defences of Syracuse held while a Spartan force showed up in numbers to assist. Eventually the entire Athenian land and sea force was killed or captured into slavery. This loss was a significant portion of the overall Athenian forces and turned the war against them. Soon new allies joined the Spartans and 10 years later Athens surrendered.
Love ancient Greek history..yeah that was a massive blunder. Also late in the war, Athens sentencing several of their own naval commanders to death after a pivotal naval battle win (???) over Sparta, due to citizen claims of inappropriate conduct in battle during a session in the Athenian democratic process. Which essentially left them with no experienced naval commanders leading into another massive naval battle with Sparta, which effectively knocked Athens out of the war. The blunder was used as an example by non-democratic states for centuries after, as an example why democracy is ineffective.
I really hate the Spartans ha-ha, such meatheads. I also wonder how many people after the movie 300 who loved their defiance in the name of freedom against the Persians, realize those same Spartans less than a century later went crawling back to the Persians begging for help against fellow Greeks in the war (Athens was FAR superior to Sparta in naval warfare), and effectively sold Greek freedom to Persia in the process. Frauds.
EDIT: actually I just realized today is in fact the 2,424th anniversary of the Athenian surrender to Sparta, and end of the Peloponnesian War (and temporary end of democracy).
Last edited by Sainters7; 04-25-2020 at 07:32 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sainters7 For This Useful Post:
Regarding the Chinese stopping their ocean voyages this was definitely a huge blunder but I’m going to argue it was inevitable for European nations to colonise the world instead of the Chinese.
Europe is a fragmented continent made of multiple nations in direct competition with each other. At the start of the age of exploration they were all hungry for resources and looking for any competitive advantage possible. Once one nation found something the other European nations were quick to copy. Trade with the East Indies and eventual colonisation spread through Europe as a necessity of a Nation’s survival.
China on the other hand is a large unitary nation self sufficient in resources and controlled by one ruler. They just didn’t have the need to explore. Also, there is no competition to test ideas and keep the best ones, instead decisions are left up to the whims of one person. Even if the 1430 ban doesn’t go into place another leader later on may have made the same decision.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
The Vasa What started with church services and a festive atmosphere ended in a watery grave. It was the 10th of August 1628, when Vasa, the most powerful warship in the Baltic, foundered in Stockholm harbour before the eyes of a large audience, scant minutes after setting sail for the first time.
Spoiler!
It was mid-afternoon when at last it was time. After many delays, frustrations with the supply of guns, and a change of captain, the newly fitted out Vasa was anchored below the castle, with its cannon finally on board and the crew manning their stations. The quay was packed with people and the water teemed with small craft carrying people who wanted to watch the mighty war machine slip its moorings and sail from Stockholm.
The crew had been allowed to bring their families, as it was the ship's maiden voyage. The guests, including women and children, would disembark at the fortress of Vaxholm before the ship continued to the summer fleet base on the island of Älvsnabben in the Stockholm archipelago. There it would be the flagship of the reserve squadron, awaiting further orders as to whether to reinforce the blockade of Gdańsk in the stalemated, bloody war against Poland-Lithuania or to join the Swedish squadron protecting the German port of Stralsund. Only then would the ship's complement of marines, two companies of soldiers totalling 300 men and officers, come aboard. But the soldiers were never to set foot on Vasa.
10 August 1628 was a Sunday, and many of Vasa's crew had received communion earlier in the day. Hopes were high as people bid farewell or followed the ship from the key, but some aboard the ship were worried.
The catastrophe
Vasa cast off from the palace between four and five o'clock. Perhaps musicians struck up a suitably martial tune. Because the wind was from the south, the ship had to be warped with the help of anchors along the waterfront to the other end of the city island, to the place now called Slussen. Here, she could pick up the current that would take her down the harbour. As the ship found the current, the last warp was cast off, Vasa was freed from the land, four of the ten sails were set, and a salute was fired.
There was little wind under the bluffs of Södermalm, not even enough to pull the sheets of the sails taught, and Vasa drifted on the current, not answering her helm. A small gust filled the sails, and the ship heeled to port, but slowly, agonizingly recovered. As the ship passed the gap in the bluffs at Tegelviken, a much stronger gust pushed the ship so far over on its port side that water poured in through the open gunports on the lower gundeck. Vasa began to sink.
Pandemonium reigned on deck. The captain ordered the sheets cast off to spill the wind from the sails and the gunports closed. Vice Admiral Erik Jönsson ran below to make sure the cannon had not broken loose. Many threw themselves into the water, while those below decks struggled to make their way up wildly tilting ladders. Within minutes, the ship was on the sea bed at a depth of 32 metres. The masts stuck up above the surface, and many grabbed hold of them. Others were picked up by the small craft that had followed Vasa's shaky journey at close quarters. Some swam the 120 metres to the shore of Beckholmen.
More technology based I'll go with Next Computers, MS Zune, and MS Bob.
On the other hand, that led to the Vasa being on display in what I think could be the neatest tourist attraction on earth.
I can't wait to take my kids there.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
So I was thinking that sometimes when we talk about epic failures we do it from the standpoint of, wow this was a failure.
But sometimes I think that we have to think about it sometimes as wow that was fortunate.
So I'm going to add onto it.
Operation Barbarrosa, but it wasn't just the singular mistake of Hitler opening a massive war up on another front, He was already facing the allies in the West, and and in the South. But opening up a third front into the Soviet Union was a massive mistake that I'm sure that every member of the German Command Staff that was half way competent were muttering into their drinks every night that this was a stupid franking idea.
Lets face it, if Hitler would have fortified his forces to the West and to an extent the South and continued to keep Stalin neutralized via diplomacy in the East we would be living in a far different world today. In fact the biggest massive mistake was not offering the Russians even more aid and reassuring worlds. At some point we would have seen the American's probably key focus on the Japanese who were the bigger threat, and England would have been left hanging by itself.
But there were a lot of mini mistakes that made this an even more painful mass error on the Soviets part.
Originally the plan for Barbarossa was simple. Slice off a huge piece of the pie in Russia, drive on the Oil rich Caucasus and the rich farm lands of the Western Soviet Union. But Hitler's ego got the best of him here, and he wanted to take Moscow and Stalingrad and Leningrad especially. Hitler took a extremely powerful invasion force and split it to try to destroy cities that he didn't need to destroy. Tactically the German's should have taken the Oil and taken the agricultural wealth, and fortified. Instead they ended up falling into the trap of Stalin's strategy of destroying everything of use, and falling back. This did two things.
The German's expected that the Soviets would collapse after a few solid blows, so they didn't have a good logistical plan for a long war and a long drive. By over reaching the weather flipped to winter, and while common military logic states that you should avoid winter warfare and use those months to fortify and build up your supplies for a spring offensive, Hitler and the General Staff were too enamored with the concept of initiative and speed, and by following that doctrine they played into Stalin's hands.
The other massive mistake. People need to remember that the average peasant in Western Russia hated Stalin and the Soviet Government, they were brutal and merciless to their own people who save themselves as enslaved. So when Hitler's forces started taking territory the Russian's greeted the advancing army as liberators. Hitler and the German's due to their racial policies enslaved them, starved them, worked them to death or just plain murdered them. Hitler threw a massive opportunity out the window in terms of being able to supply his troops, and add to his manpower. What had been succesful for Hitler in the past was he was able to appeal to certain groups of people to join his cause and you got German Military formations of different nationalities. if he would have said, we're going to topple Stalin it might have been the same thing. Instead his actions galvanized the Western Russians to Stalin so when he did the scorched earth policy they were too happy to comply to hurt the hated germans. It also created groups of partisans that harrassed and slowed down any resupply effort.
The German shortsightedness and poor strategies and I'm going to call it victory fever caused the utter destruction of entire army groups that could have been used in the defense of the West.
Lets also not forget the fear of Hitler by his General Staff. Hitler had peculiar sleeping habits, he liked to stay up late watching movies and sleep in late. So on the early morning when the D-Day invasion took place the General Staff was terrified, though there were reports of ships hitting the beaches and a need to move the German reserves to re-enforce the beaches, including a powerful tank regiment, the commanders refused to do anything without Hitler's permission, and nobody wanted to wake him up, maybe because the little psychopath just was crabby in the morning.
The re-enforcements were eventually moved, but it was long after the allies had established a foothold on the beaches and they began to re-enforce the landings.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The declaring war on America was another Hitler blunder. It wasn’t required by the Axis pact and provided FDR with his justification for the Germany first strategy.
I’ll also add I’m not sure if fortifying eastern and southern defences instead of Barbarossa was an option for the Nazis. Their economy was a house of cards reliant on constant expansion. I’m thinking a better option in 1941 is to invaded Turkey with the intention of using it to take over the British oil fields in Iraq and Iran. It was a logical step after taking over the Balkans. The Turks and the small British force in the Middle East would have been no match for the Wehrmacht resulting in a crippling blow to the British and being able to open up a 2nd Caucus front during the inevitable USSR confrontation.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
Last edited by FireGilbert; 04-26-2020 at 03:26 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
The passengers of the Carlson got into lifeboats, then some got onto ice floes after, rather than the sinking ship maneuvering and docking with an iceberg.
Assuming you mean "Carson" I had a cousin on that ship and they absolutely didn't watch that ship go down siting on thin ice as there was no ice flow because it was early summer, from her recollection after the collision the captain ordered full stop and while taking on water he ordered full reverse to get close to the very burg that the 350 ft ship hit, you're right about using the lifeboats to transfer everyone off the boat. but that's common sense to use lifeboats as that would be a tough jump from a large ship onto an iceburg, fortunately the weather was nice because she waited 5 hours to be rescued.
Regarding the Chinese stopping their ocean voyages this was definitely a huge blunder but I’m going to argue it was inevitable for European nations to colonise the world instead of the Chinese.
Europe is a fragmented continent made of multiple nations in direct competition with each other. At the start of the age of exploration they were all hungry for resources and looking for any competitive advantage possible. Once one nation found something the other European nations were quick to copy. Trade with the East Indies and eventual colonisation spread through Europe as a necessity of a Nation’s survival.
China on the other hand is a large unitary nation self sufficient in resources and controlled by one ruler. They just didn’t have the need to explore. Also, there is no competition to test ideas and keep the best ones, instead decisions are left up to the whims of one person. Even if the 1430 ban doesn’t go into place another leader later on may have made the same decision.
Well, this is what eventually happened, and I agree that it does show the risks of a centralized system, but I think you're still oversimplifying things.
When everything hangs on the whims of one person, what if that one person has the mindset of someone like Alexander the Great? Conquest for it's own sake, spreading the "superior" Chinese way of life all through the world?
When you consider how long it took for the Europeans to gather the manpower and the ships to truly start colonizing the world, you might argue the Chinese could have had a headstart of at least a hundred years. The largest Chinese fleet moved possibly as much as 100,000 men. For that era, it's just a staggeringly large number.
For comparison, the largest battle of that era in Europe was likely the Battle of Grunwald (aka First Battle of Tannenberg, 1410, between Poland-Lithuania and German-Prussian Teutonic knights). The number of combatants in that battle is estimated to be between 30,000 to 60,000. That's both sides combined.
Theoretically speaking the Chinese could have shown up in Europe with armies as big as anything the Europeans could field, backed by a navy vastly superior in numbers (and possibly in technology) and carrying enough gold and trade goods to buy their way into the hearts of the local merchants and mercenaries.
Let's also remember just how much ahead the Chinese economy was at that point. Lets consider that 400 years later the economy of the British empire almost collapsed once they started regular trade with China... because they had so little to offer to the Chinese, and the Chinese had so much. They had to save that day through the Opium wars, which they won in large part because of their vastly superior navies. If we assume the Chinese had kept steadily developing their naval tech, it's really unlikely the British could have won a naval war on the shores of China.
Let's also remember that the opium mentioned in those wars came from Asia. Even if the Chinese didn't have interest in colonizing the backwater lands of Europe, if we assume that the Chinese had kept building up their seatrade around Southern Asia, there's no way the British could have ever colonized for example India, "The pearl of the Empire". There would have been a larger, richer empire right next to it that would never have allowed it to happen.
So it's not just the opportunity for colonization that was lost. The Chinese literally banned seavoyages. Their superior navy was scrapped, generations worth of shipbuilding knowledge was lost permanently and international trade took a massive step back.
One of the most interesting speculations here is of course that one of the presumed main reasons why the Chinese banned seavoyages was that the central power was worried about the growing power of merchants. If you take a look at the history of Europe, the nobility was of course right to be worried.
Even if we assume the Chinese never really developed a taste for colonization, just not going to the extreme of literally banning seavoyages would likely have lead to a completely different Chinese history, one with a rising powerful merchant class driving innovation and demanding reformations, much the same way they did in Europe.
That's why the Chinese decision to ban seavoyages in 1430 is my go-to suggestion for a lynchpin moment in history. Without this decision, world history would likely have been changed to a point where it would be barely recognizable.
The Chinese never did get around to colonizing or even trading with America, but they could have and absolutely would have eventually, and at least for the western side they'd have been there way before the Europeans. If the emperors hadn't banned it that is.
EDIT:
Obviously this is all purely speculative and shouldn't be taken very seriously.
Last edited by Itse; 04-26-2020 at 05:57 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
One of the most interesting speculations here is of course that one of the presumed main reasons why the Chinese banned seavoyages was that the central power was worried about the growing power of merchants. If you take a look at the history of Europe, the nobility was of course right to be worried.
Even if we assume the Chinese never really developed a taste for colonization, just not going to the extreme of literally banning seavoyages would likely have lead to a completely different Chinese history, one with a rising powerful merchant class driving innovation and demanding reformations, much the same way they did in Europe.
I'm with FireGilbert on this one. The rulers of rich, centralized states have a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo. From the standpoint of a Chinese ruler of that era, any dramatic change in the economic or social structure can only be bad news - a threat to the regime that relies on the existing systems for all of its power. So innovation and change is suppressed as a defence mechanism.
Same thing happened with the Ottoman Empire. In 1550 it was more technologically advanced, military powerful, and rich than any country in Europe. By 1800 it was a feeble backwater. Because once the Ottoman Empire was past its first flush of expansion, the rulers locked down trade, science, etc. so no reconfiguration of power could challenge the regime.
The European experience was different. As FireGilbert says, Europe was coherent enough to share technological and economic innovations, but fragmented enough that it was impossible for a single power to control it for long. So when social changes happened locally, like the ability of a merchant class to shake off the yoke of the central monarchy in England, it was hard to stamp out. And the countries that took advantage of that innovation out-competed their rivals and spurred more innovation.
Very specific and peculiar conditions led to the remarkable expansion of European powers and ideas. I don't think the choices of any given Chinese emperor could have changed that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I’m thinking a better option in 1941 is to invaded Turkey with the intention of using it to take over the British oil fields in Iraq and Iran. It was a logical step after taking over the Balkans. The Turks and the small British force in the Middle East would have been no match for the Wehrmacht resulting in a crippling blow to the British and being able to open up a 2nd Caucus front during the inevitable USSR confrontation.
Except the terrain and infrastructure in Turkey is even worse for mechanized operations by an invader than in Russia. And Turkey didn't have a modern army, but it had a large one, and the experience of WW1 suggests it would have fought hard on home soil.
Think of how difficult it would be to build and sustain a supply line through the Balkans, over the Aegean, through a hostile Turkey that almost no paved roads, etc.
It's a cool counterfactual (and one I've tried several times in wargames), but I think the Germans would have bogged down in Turkey just as they did in the Caucasus.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 04-26-2020 at 07:48 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
In WW1 they fought right up until 11am on Armistice Day despite knowing the day before that the Germans were going to surrender. The Armistace was signed at 5am but for symmetry, was not announced until 11am. Over 3,000 died in those 6 hours.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
That's usually the case in most cases, sides will fight right up until the clock sweeps the dial on any cease fire because at that point you're fighting for position and gains that will become a key part of any finalized peace negotiation.
On top of that you can't turn off the taps on hate.
Stalin kept charging down even after Japan surrendered because he knew that he needed strategic real estate in the upcoming great cold hate.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I can't believe I am saying this but, in Hitler's defence his first plan was not to take Moscow, he always saw the oil as the prize, it was his chief of Staff Halder that took forces away from the Army Group South and turned Army Group Center into the strongest thrust.
I would add the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan is a modern epic fail, bled them white, never took the country, eventually brought down Communist Russia completely while also creating Islamic extremism that sucked the US into an equally pointless war in the region that has bled them white and may have set the table for their downfall.
A sort of twofer epic fail
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/f6/1c/f61c6b5c-1d4d-4341-b438-60706e3bebc3/vasa3.jpg)
I had a cousin on that ship and they absolutely didn't watch that ship go down siting on thin ice as there was no ice flow because it was early summer, from her recollection after the collision the captain ordered full stop and while taking on water he ordered full reverse to get close to the very burg that the 350 ft ship hit, you're right about using the lifeboats to transfer everyone off the boat. but that's common sense to use lifeboats as that would be a tough jump from a large ship onto an iceburg, fortunately the weather was nice because she waited 5 hours to be rescued.
