202. thomasd - Feb. 1, 1999 - 6:17 PM PT
Re. 201 -
You & Cook may have a case there, PE, now that I've read those posts.
203. RyckNelson - Feb. 1, 1999 - 8:17 PM PT
Sitting Bull
Mahatma Gandhi
The entire tribe of Kayans, maybe that will get them noticed. They are the tribal peoples of the millenium.
Pablo Picasso
Matisse
Octavio Paz
Mozart
Genghis Khan
Shakespeare
Sacagawea(sp?)
PE, Appears logical to see your pick. For overall choice the "Great Khan" is hard to deny. Ghengis Khan is certainly legendary.
My list above is only slightly altered.
204. luthercalvin - Feb. 1, 1999 - 8:55 PM PT
Well, it looks like the question of who was the most important woman of the millennium is settled then too.
And that would be the woman that gave birth to Genghis Khan!
205. patsyrolph - Feb. 1, 1999 - 9:06 PM PT
Possibly some of you remember that I was named Granny Chingis when I was in Mongolia. Therefore I will expect some millennial honor and pomp if my grandson in chosen POM.
206. trouserpIlot - Feb. 1, 1999 - 9:16 PM PT
Don't count me out yet, folks. I still have 333 days to make my mark (or a year and 333 days, if you believe Irving and Arthur C. Clarke, et al.).
207. patsyrolph - Feb. 1, 1999 - 9:23 PM PT
trouser,pay no attention to the missing zero people. You have 333 days. I know you can do it.
208. Msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 6:37 AM PT
Just for the record...
I agree with everything Patsy says. Always.
I have also been pursuaded that GKhan is the person of the millennium by PE.
I have nothing else to add.
209. Msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 6:38 AM PT
persuaded, that is.
210. Wombat - Feb. 2, 1999 - 7:52 AM PT
TD:
The British colonization of North America took place during the reign of James I.
211. msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:06 AM PT
No offense to anyone,
but Ghandi is really a very poor suggestion as person of the millennium. I disagreed with him being chosen as person of the century, and I certainly think any expansion to the millennium fails completely.
212. msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:07 AM PT
And is it Gandhi?
Oh well, whatever.
213. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:55 AM PT
Gandhi's influence on the civil disobedience doctrine has nothing on Thoreau.
214. marjoribanks - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:05 AM PT
Nonsense. Gandhi put the principles of civil disobedience into action, its absurd to say that Thoreau was/is more influential.
215. msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:06 AM PT
Well, neither were influential enough to be considered either person of the century OR millennium.
216. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:08 AM PT
marjori: by that argument, Lenin was more influential than Marx, and I recall that you pushed Marx and never mentioned Lenin earlier.
217. marjoribanks - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:08 AM PT
MsIT,
Pity you're in the minority about POC at least. The Fraysters have spoken - Gandhi won. Nyah nyah.
218. TheDiva - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:13 AM PT
You're ALL full of hot air.
Louis Armstrong is the person of the millenium.
219. msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:13 AM PT
That's because you stuffed the ballot box.
That vote was bogus. I dare someone to actually reveal how Gandhi won.
220. marjoribanks - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:15 AM PT
Rask,
Marx has lasting influence, in any number of areas. Who reads Lenin anymore?
In any case, the context is totally different from the one you created. Gandhi wrote lasting and relevant texts (as did Thoreau) but also set a crucial example in applying the techniques of civil disobedience and non-violence to successful political movements. Gandhi is still read, and those techniques are still applied by movements of conscience all over the world. Thoreau's influence is a literary afterthought.
221. marjoribanks - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:19 AM PT
By the way, you'll all be happy to learn that the Fray voting for POM (Person of the Millennium) is being conducted at my website. The current standings:
Mohandas Gandhi (191)
Indira Gandhi (12)
Genghis Khan (8)
Sonia Gandhi (Psocko)
222. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
Hmmm.
Thoreau/Gandhi analogous to Marx/Lenin?
A very bad analogy. Leninism is merely one offshoot of Marxism, but there are other descents. The whole movement of democratic socialism and social democracy is also Marxist. And they arguably are still quite influential.
223. msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
See???!
Ballot stuffing....
224. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:22 AM PT
marzipranks has a website? That URL doesn't work.
225. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:31 AM PT
Pseudo: I viewed the analogy as appropriate for the discussion at hand because marjori was (ad is) claiming that Gandhi was more important as a follow up writer and implementer of the ideas begun by Thoreau. This is very similar to what Lenin did. In fact, I would argue that Lenin was more influential since he changed crucial concepts of Marxism (the vanguard party, forcing the worker's revolution, etc.) which were vital to letting it grow to the influence it had on the 20th century. Jesus and St Paul would be another matched pair. Which was more influential?
226. marjoribanks - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:33 AM PT
Doesn't work? That's odd, 21 new votes have been registered just today for Mohandas Gandhi. I'll accept your vote for Genghis Khan over the Fray.
Revised totals for Official Fray Person of the Millennium.
Mohandas Gandhi (212)
Indira Gandhi (12)
Genghis Khan (7)
Sonia Gandhi (Psocko)
227. CoralReef - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:36 AM PT
Any votes for Nehru? Surely he gave us a cool jacket that affected the sixties and the sixties affected the world.
228. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
Skolnik: It is not contradictory or strange to believe simultaneously that Marx was more important than Lenin and that Gandhi was also more important than Thoreau.
229. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:44 AM PT
Pseudo: I am perfectly open to the possibility that Gandhi was more influential than Thoreau. I am saying that marjori's argument that subsequent writings and implementation is insufficient.
230. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:53 AM PT
POM- George Washington. Washington set the standard for modern democratic leadership. The rebirth of democratic government is the most important event of the millenium, and Washington was the leader in both the success of the revolution and the establishment of a democratic model for the executive. His voluntary limitation of his presidency to two terms and his farewell address set the course for the most powerful nation and ideals of the millenium.
231. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
Rather :". I am saying that marjori's argument that subsequent writings and implementation *constitute greater influence* is insufficient."
232. marjoribanks - Feb. 2, 1999 - 10:04 AM PT
Rask,
Don't indulge in idle provocation. Kindly show how and why Thoreau was more influential than Gandhi, who as you know was Fray Person of the Century and is fast on his dandi march to official Fray POM.
233. msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 10:10 AM PT
NOT!
Irving,
Please identify how and why Gandhi (??!) was chosen as POC here in the fray.
This has to be the result of that idiotic balloting system put in place.
Who the HELL voted for Gandhi other than Marj?
Btw, I guess if one can argue Gandhi was influential enough to be POC, then one can certainly argue (on just as flimsy a basis) that Washington was POM.......
234. CoralReef - Feb. 2, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT
Well, MsIT, there are two ways to look at this...on the one hand does balloting have the final word? If so, then I only see a small handful of people in this thread having "voted" for Monsieur G Khan. Or is it the strength of argument, the perception of having won a debate? In that case, perhaps G. Khan has won, but then so did Gandhi in the potc thread.
235. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 10:19 AM PT
marjori: I never claimed that Thoreau was more influential than Gandhi. I claimed that "Gandhi's influence on the civil disobedience doctrine has nothing on Thoreau". Thoreau came up with the concept and had strong influence on the methods of Gandhi, King, and many protest movements around the world. He is still widely read, at least in the U.S. "Civil Disobedience" was assigned reading in my high school.
But I do think our discussion touched off an interesting side issue. Who is more influential, in general, the theorist or the practitioner? Earlier, there was an argument that inventors cannot be touted since there inventions probably would have been created shortly anyway.
Does the same hold for philosophers or religious figures? If Marx hadn't come along, would someone like Lenin invented him, or devised the theory himself? Would Gandhi's (or King's) tactics have differed if Thoreau had never been born?
If not, we are left with people who act (Genghis), people who make life worth living for their creations (Shakespeare) and people who create an idea that no one else would ever have thought of (religious figures - I don't think you can argue that Islam would have come into existance without Mohammed).
236. msivorytower - Feb. 2, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
CR
There were some very persuasive arguments for Hitler and Churchill, particularly. I remember no comparable arguments for Gandhi at all. That is, based on fact of influence rather than emotionalism.
I can't believe Gandhi actually was voted the POC in that thread.
237. CoralReef - Feb. 2, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
Message #236 The voting system was so complicated that I didn't vote. Others may not have either. If I had it would have been for Truman as 1, then Hitler, with Gandhi down around number 10 or so.
238. CalGal - Feb. 2, 1999 - 10:29 AM PT
I really thought it ended up being Edison.
239. justlooking - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:14 AM PT
How can there be a POM? No one exists in a vacuum. Most ideas are developed in congruence or opposition to other trains of thought. Leaders are only powerful if they speak for or compel behavior from followers. What kind of concept is POM?
240. CoralReef - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:19 AM PT
Neil Armstrong existed in a vacuum.
[RIMSHOT]
241. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:24 AM PT
justlooking: yeah, but it is fun to debate anyway.
242. justlooking - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:30 AM PT
OK, then how about Einstein?
243. trouserpIlot - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:31 AM PT
marj, this is quite curious, for I too have been keeping a tally of Fray POM votes on *my* website, and here's the Top 10 so far:
1. Genghis Khan
2. trouserpIlot
3. Charles Oakley
4. Pope Pius IX
5. Ugueth Urbina
6. Jonas Salk
7. Cardinal Richelieu
8. Lao-tse
9. Mindy Cohn
10. Albert Belle
Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm beginning to suspect some sort of fraud, as Mindy Cohn didn't even finish in the Top 20 for POC.
244. bubbaette - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:31 AM PT
I cast my vote for Johann Gutenburg.
245. CoralReef - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:32 AM PT
just looking: perhaps you might want to widen it up by choosing who you think was most important in which category?
246. trouserpIlot - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
BTW, the actual survey numbers and methodology can be found here.
247. fakedout - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT
I think Steve Jobs might as well be in the top 20, after all, he took the computer out of the C prompt and into something real. Isn't that more important than inventing a car or a bomb?
248. bubbaette - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
But without affordable and mass-producable printed materials, non of the rest would have happened.
249. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
justlooking: Einstein was the choice of the magazine/newspaper which provoked this thread. I think the general consensus here was that his accomplishments, as well as those of any other scientist, paled in comparison to Isaac Newton.
250. TheDiva - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
L o u i s A r m s t r o n g
you're all philistines (note small p) for thinking otherwise.
251. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:11 PM PT
I proudly cast my vote for Kirby Puckett.
It'll be another millenium before the Twins win another Series.
252. Jenerator - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
On my list for "Person of the Millennium" are Gutenburg, Newton, and Luther.
253. CoralReef - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
Vandross pales beside Armstrong, jenerator.
254. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
All of this talk about Gutenberg is making me ill. Haven't you people seen his crappy Police Academy movies?
Or has that joke already been done?
255. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
MsIT- Washington is certainly not the intellectual favorite of the American revolution, or admittedly was he the intellectual force behind the revolution. Nevertheless, he accomplished Jefferson's ideals. There was certainly a good deal of deification of Washington- witness Parson's Weem's fable etc., but his return to Mt.
Vernon and relinquishment of power was as revolutionary an act as the separation from England.
Any exercise in POM is reductivist, but I think that Washington is the best embodiment of the fundamental change in the world in the millenium- the notion of government limited by natural rights of individuals. Modern capitalism and democracy are premised on assumptions that did not exist in reality prior to Washington.
The divine right of kings or the right of conquest formed the basis of all power for the remainder of the millenium. Natural law as the basis of government and economics is triumphing globally now, and is shaping the next technological revolution we're playing on. His influence, though not as intellectually appealling as Jefferson's, is greater. Many had advocated the ideals embodied in the American revolution, but none had practiced those ideals prior to Washington.
256. Jenerator - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
Rask,
You crack me up!;-)
257. TheDiva - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
Might as well make it a hat trick.
Newton is only POTM in Las Vegas. The Blue Hair crowd just goes wild for him.
258. luthercalvin - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
Excellent choices in Message #252 All in my top five.
259. bubbaette - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
Don't forget about Tom Jones.
260. Raskolnikov - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:35 PM PT
Bubba: yes, Albert Finney was quite good in that.
261. BonJour - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:40 PM PT
Diva: Yes, Louis Daniel Armstrong. With dazzling virtuosity on the trumpet and an innovative singing style, Satchmo was the fountainhead of a thoroughly original American sound.
Other great American musicians of the 20th century:
Bob Dylan; Frank Sinatra; Duke Ellington; Quincy Jones; Robert Johnson; The Gershwins brothers; Cole Porter; Rodgers & Hammerstein; and Marvin Gaye.
Have I missed anyone?
262. bubbaette - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:40 PM PT
From what I've heard, POTM wrt Tom Jones refers to the Pecker On That Man.
263. TheDiva - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:40 PM PT
Oh, and in 'Scrooge', too.
264. TheDiva - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
My God, BonJour, FINALLY someone who understands!
Bird
Prez
Billie
Ella
Basie
Monk
Mingus
Bessie
265. Jenerator - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
Whoever invented the ball-point pen is on my list too.
266. TheDiva - Feb. 2, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
And also whoever invented the busy mom's best friend, Lunchables.
267. Jenerator - Feb. 2, 1999 - 1:00 PM PT
Let's not forget Q-tips!
268. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 2, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
Wasn't it Ken Burns who said that at the next millenium the USA will be remembered for three things, the constitution, baseball and jazz? Then Louis Armstrong is the man.....
269. TheDiva - Feb. 2, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
ANOTHER CONVERT!
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
Three, count 'em, THREE votes for POPS as POTM.
270. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 2, 1999 - 2:13 PM PT
It's just simply more fun to cheer for Louis than all of the rest of the serious stuff. Besides, he stands over the seminal years of jazz like a giant.
271. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 2, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
Now to take a whack at some other popular favorites-
Gengis Khan- lasting legacy- altered cavalry tactics, knocked out western half of Roman Empire. We don't follow his tactics anymore, we don't follow his philosphy, religion, system of government or speak his language. Damned important for a time, but faded fast.
Gutenberg- popularized eastern invention of movable type? Someone would have gotten here from there sooner or later.
Newton- Hard to argue with, save for the fact that his reality has been shattered by the new physics. The argument for him may be made for Einstein in the same mode.
272. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 2, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
Jonesatlaw (Message #271)
Re Genghis Khan
See Message #201 in order to correct your ignorance about Genghis Khan.
And Genghis Khan and the Roman Empire of the West were separated by about 800 years of time.
Re Gutenberg
He didn't popularise an Eastern invention. The one in China was at least a millenium earlier and was forgotten.
Re Newton
What nonsense. "His reality" has not been shattered at all. Newtonian physics is very much alive. We have only realised that NP doesn't apply to very large or very small scales. That's it.
273. luthercalvin - Feb. 2, 1999 - 5:51 PM PT
"Gutenberg- popularized eastern invention of movable type? Someone would have gotten here from there sooner or later."
The "someone would have gotten there sooner or later" argument is spurious. We can't deal with hypotheticals here, we must deal with historical fact to make our determination. Had Gutenberg not done it but someone else, then that someone else would be on the list. It is as simple as that.
With your "logic" above, you could discount virtually everybody because "somebody else" would have ended up doing it in time anyway.
274. trouserpIlot - Feb. 2, 1999 - 5:52 PM PT
Rask, re your Message #254...
Please see my Message #108.
275. jkuzmak - Feb. 2, 1999 - 6:06 PM PT
A POEM FOR THE GREAT AND ABSTRACT KHAN
...The Greeks knew him as Pterseus the Destroyer, the Gorgon-slaying warrior-prince from Asia, remote ancestor of the destroyers Alexander, Pompey and Napoleon.
Swordsman of the narrow lips,
Narrow hips and murderous mind
Fenced with chariots and ships,
By your joculators hailed
The mailed wonder of mankind,
Far to westward you have sailed.
You it was dared seize the throne
Of a blown and amorous prince
Destined to the Moon alone,
A lame, golden-heeled decoy,
Joy of hens that gape and wince
Inarticulately coy.
You who, capped with lunar gold
Like an old and savage dunce,
Let the central hearth go cold,
Grinned, and left us here your sword
Warden of sick fields that once
Sprouted of their own accord.
Gusts of laughter the Moon stir
That her Bassiarids now bed
With the unnoble usurer,
While an ignorant pale priest
Rides the beast with a man's head
To her long-omitted feast.
--courtesy of Robert Graves and Uzmak of the Steppe
276. thomasd - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:07 PM PT
Hawkwind is probably the best space-rock band of the last millennium.
277. darkviolet - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:24 PM PT
Pseudoerasmus -
Re: Message #272
Do any women make your list of the 100 most significant people of this millennium?
278. darkviolet - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:28 PM PT
thomasd -
Re: Message #276
I've never heard of Hawkwind. What does space-rock sound like? Where is the band from?
279. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:39 PM PT
Message #277
I don't have a top 100, so I wouldn't know.
I really can't think of any woman from the millenium remotely as significant as Genghis Khan, Newton and the like.
280. CIGARLAW - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:58 PM PT
Dom Perignod
281. darkviolet - Feb. 2, 1999 - 8:59 PM PT
Re: Message #279
What are you counting as "significant?" What criteria are you using?
282. DaveCook - Feb. 2, 1999 - 9:57 PM PT
My nomination for Woman of the Millenium (A 1 in a 1000 Gal?) is Cici the Empress Dowager for presiding over the complete collapse of the Qing dynasty.
283. trouserpIlot - Feb. 2, 1999 - 10:15 PM PT
Cici... wasn't that a song by Maurice Chevalier?
284. Wombat - Feb. 3, 1999 - 10:50 AM PT
TD:
I agree with you about Hawkwind. One of my best friends palled around with Stacia, who used to dance (topless) on stage while they played.
285. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 3, 1999 - 1:17 PM PT
Pseudo- WRT Gengis Khan- I plead early onset Alzheimer's in regard to Bysantium vs the West.
WRT to Newton-Einstein- you oversimplify. Yes, Newtonian mechanics explains most of commonly observed reality. Yet some of the most fundamental assumptions, time is a constant, for example, no longer apply. What is the Newtonian solution for whether light is fundamentally a wave or particle? What is the Newtonian model for solar energy?
286. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 3, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
Jonesatlaw: But why are those questions relevant to the importance of Newton in this millenium? And how do they detract from the fact that a huge swath of everyday physical reality is explained by Newtonian mechanics, optics and the like?
287. darkviolet - Feb. 3, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
Hmmm, reading about early American history and the Louisiana Purchase, I've realized I have no idea how Napoleon fits into the the historical picture of this millennium. Does anyone here consider him among the couple dozen most significant people of the last 1000 years? Let's see, who was the ruling monarch in England in 1803, anyway?
288. thomasd - Feb. 3, 1999 - 4:41 PM PT
Re. 278 -
darkviolet -
Hawkwind hails from Great Britain.
Wombat -
Cool. I've got Hawkwind live on laserdisc, but, unfortunately, not with Stasia.
289. Wombat - Feb. 4, 1999 - 6:54 AM PT
Dark Violet:
Yes, Napoleon would be on my list of significant personalities for the millenium. The King of England in 1803 was nominally George III, but he was suffering from spells of dementia that made it impossible for him to rule. His son (who would become George IV) ruled as Regent when his father was incapable.
TD:
Which incarnation of Hawkwind do you have on laserdisk? Does it include Lemmy and Nik Turner?
290. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 4, 1999 - 7:32 AM PT
Psuedo- my history prior to the Glorious Revolution is so atrophied and out of date that I have confabulated Gengis Khan into being a Hun. I am embarassed.
That being said I cling to that last shred of sense from my previous post. Gengis Khan's effects faded fast. He leaves little legacy. By the 14th century his empire is fragmented. The remnants disappear at the opening of the 17th.
However, I light of my previous blunders, I leave the field to you.
291. marjoribanks - Feb. 4, 1999 - 7:37 AM PT
Jones,
Vote Gandhi.
292. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 4, 1999 - 7:42 AM PT
I think the fact that Genghis Khan's dynasty faded soon after he left the scene but the *effects* of his conquests lived on and on speaks strongly to the fact that he himself had a great impact. We can say of a lot of the discoveries mentioned in this thread "well, someone else would have done it." This is patently not true of Genghis Khan's achievements.
293. pellenilsson - Feb. 4, 1999 - 9:50 AM PT
I too tend to think that PE's promotion of Genghis is persuasive. At one time I thought of nominating Suleiman the Magnicicient, the Turkish Sultan who brought the empire to its apogee. The empire was important while it existed but even more so when it started to erode ("the sick man of Europe"). The results are still with us in the form of the great messes of the Balkans and the Middle East. PE argues that the Turks moved in on the power vacuum created by the demise of Genghis, so Genghis - or, rather, the absence of Genghis - would have been the agent. This may be true or not; it is certainly plausible.
In the science category I nominate Johannes Kepler (1571-1626) the discoverer of the laws of the motion of the planets. At the time the idea that the planets moved in perfect circles had been established for nearly 2000 years. It had axiomatic value. Kepler's greatness is that he managed to break away from this deep-held convention and check out if the orbits might be elliptical, which they were (and are). In doing so he broke Aristotle's authority in the natural sciences. Much of Newton's work on gravity was aimed at explaining Kepler's laws. It might be said also of Kepler that if he had not done it somebody else would have. No doubt, but when? These great leaps of imagination do not occur often.
294. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:07 AM PT
"PE argues that the Turks moved in on the power vacuum created by the demise of Genghis, so Genghis - or, rather, the absence of Genghis - would have been the agent."
First of all, there were two Turkic groups, the Seljuks and the Ottomans. The Seljuks had hit upon a stalemate with the Byzantine Empire and by the 13th century were going nowhere. By exploding out of the steppes, the Mongols did three things, historically well-established: (1) they forced a second, more deadly exodus of Turkic tribes out of Central Asia and toward the Levant, an unintended vanguard of their invasion; (2) they utterly destroyed the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum (Anatolia) in 1243, paving the way for the rise of the feeble Ottomans; and (3) they utterly destroyed the Seljuk sultanate of Persia.
Frankly, I don't understand why everyone is focusing on the Mongol contribution to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. It's undeniable and important, but the role of the Mongols in accidentally nurturing the Age of Exploration is the more important contribution.
295. cllrdr - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT
Hey Pseudo -- did you ever hear that old Second City sketch where Severn Darden played a University of Chicago student named Genghis Khan?
296. Jenerator - Feb. 4, 1999 - 10:36 AM PT
I'm sorry, but anyone who nominates Judy Garland as "Person Of The Millennium" is a dork.
297. darkviolet - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:46 PM PT
Wombat -
Re: Message #289
There was so much going on in Europe and North America during the first ten years of the nineteenth century that it's difficult to guess how much the differences made by one person might have affected history. I can see that in the process of making himself Emperor, Napoleon undoubtedly had a lot of influence on the political geography of of Europe. I'm curious about how his impact on Britian and Spain influenced their posture toward the United States. It appears to me so far that the continental United States, even with Louisiana included, could have divided into three or four distinct countries had a successful U.S. exploration of the continent not been accomplished when it was.
298. darkviolet - Feb. 4, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
In my little campaign on Sacagawea's behalf, it's fairly easy to show that Lewis and Clark's expedition would have failed to reach the Pacific Coast without her help. It isn't so easy to determine whether another exploration of the contenint would have had the same results as Lewis and Clark's did had their's failed.
Reading history is such a slog.
299. pellenilsson - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Pseudoerasmus Message #294
Why all this fretting about the different Turkish tribes? All this is perfectly well known. The point I was trying to make is that a Turkish empire came into being after the demise of Genghis. It caused trouble to Europe when it was established but its dismemberment caused even more trouble which is with us today and by "us" I don't mean Europe alone.
"Frankly, I don't understand why everyone is focusing on the Mongol contribution to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire."
I admit that I have not read all posts in this thread but I have only seen one that does the above and that one is posted by you. Maybe you would like to expand on "everyone"?
300. Wombat - Feb. 4, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
Neither France nor Spain had the resources to support any kind of colony in the face of British and US hostility, not to mention that of the colonials themselves.