Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

livius.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 150 posts

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#91

Post by EdwardDiego »

fsckboy wrote: post #24

I'm skeptical. No matter how good the Phoenician sailors were, it seems unlikely to me that they could have blithely sailed past Cape Bojador[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Bojador Maybe if they had small enough boats to stick close to the shore and portage. Seafaring on the Mediterranean is simply a lot less complex than it is on the open ocean. The European sailors were not able to pass this point till the 1…

Just because the Europeans couldn't get past Bogador, doesn't mean the Phoenicians didn't.

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#92

Post by canjobear »

mabbo wrote: post #61

> These men made a statement which I do not myself believe, though others may, to the effect that as they sailed on a westerly course round the southern end of Libya, they had the sun on their right - to northward of them. It's 600BC. The idea that the world is a sphere isn't accepted yet. Herodotus explicitly says he doesn't believe what these sailors said- that the sun was to the north. Yet we know that if a sailor…

Agreed. The sailors' claim is strong evidence that the voyage really happened. The fact that Herodotus doubts the claim shows that people were likely to doubt it, and so it's not the kind of thing someone would have made up. The only reason for the sailors to make such a potentially-discrediting claim is that it is true.

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#93

Post by canjobear »

benbreen wrote: post #78
pushswap wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Herodotus isn't considered reliable at all by historians in any of his writings whether his topic is close geographically or not. Thucydides is a far better option , being at the beginning of the record for the continuous record of reliable historical writing.

I'm a historian and I recently cited Herodotus in one of my forthcoming papers. Is he reliable? We certainly can't assume so. But the same goes for Thucydides and every other source from the ancient world. It's all about triangulating between different sources rather than relying on any one account. In my case, Herodotus was describing a Scythian practice (the use of cannabis) that we've been able to corroborate, in…

kánnabis also made it into Proto-Germanic, where it turned into *hanapiz and ultimately the modern English "hemp".

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#94

Post by generalizations »

herodotus wrote: post #87

"The Histories" by Herodotus is a wonderful read, but it really matters which translation you use. The is the one I read is translated by Robin Waterfield. https://www.amazon.com/Histories-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0... I also have a newer one translated by Tom Holland, and it seems to be a good choice too. This is how Robin Waterford translates the quoted section (Book Four, section 42): "After all, Libya is demonst…

> They made a claim which I personally do not believe, although someone else might - that as they were sailing around Libya they had the sun on their right.

I love this about Herodotus. He takes the accounts he's given and records them as they were given to him, without editorializing the parts which seem in-credible.

It often leads to fanciful stories, as another commentator mentioned, they get more fanciful the more indirectly they are sourced - but they also mean that no information is lost. In this case, the unbelievable information he left in the account becomes the information that lends it credibility.

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#95

Post by fallingfrog »

sthnblllII wrote: post #58
estaseuropano wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm currently reading Clive Pointing's 'World History - A new perspective'. >800 pages of well researched history with a large Eurasian focus (due to the availability of sources, not bias). He repeatedly makes the point that some technology that Europe 'discovered' in the 13-19hundreds was in fact known in china 1000+ years earlier. Most of recorded history Europe basically played no role whatsoever. A few examples t…

With all these advantages, why did the industrial revolution happen in Europe instead of Asia?

It’s such a good question, and it wasn’t just the industrial revolution either, a whole bunch of stuff happened in Europe- the development of calculus and physics, new ways of organizing politically, the university system, the new economic system of capitalism, fractional reserve banking, it’s crazy how much Europe changed while the rest of the world didn’t. It’s hard to point to any one thing. Part of it may have been that the rest of the world was sacked and conquered by the mongols, but Europe was spared.

If I had to pick one factor: I’d say the breakup of feudalism in Europe, in which a lot of hierarchies were thrown upside down, was probably the most important factor. If you read accounts of Chinese science, you often see things like “but then that fell out of favor in the court, and was abandoned.” In a society where everyone has a specific place, and roles and hierarchies are rigid, there isn’t much room for invention and change because it’s going to be seen as threatening rather than as an opportunity by the people one step above you. That would be my guess.

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#96

Post by mannykannot »

c06n wrote: post #79
Hemospectrum wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industrial revolution was as much a product of economics as technology. If wages for lower-class workers hadn't been nearly so high, the technology might have come and gone without making much of a ripple. In fact, there's an argument to be made that it once did exactly that. Steam-powered machines were known to the Romans, and seen as a stupid novelty. Disclaimer: I don't know English history well enough to put…

You are completely ignoring philosophy. It was the ideas of freedom, of the possibility of liberty for all, of equality of men, that made the whole enterprise possible. China had the tools, sure. But not the incentives. Their emperor could not let lose a zoo of creativity, for fear of destruction of the empire.

> It was the ideas of freedom, of the possibility of liberty for all, of equality of men, that made the whole enterprise possible.

So why did it start in Britain, rather than the United States or post-revolutionary France?

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#97

Post by anigbrowl »

c06n wrote: post #79
Hemospectrum wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industrial revolution was as much a product of economics as technology. If wages for lower-class workers hadn't been nearly so high, the technology might have come and gone without making much of a ripple. In fact, there's an argument to be made that it once did exactly that. Steam-powered machines were known to the Romans, and seen as a stupid novelty. Disclaimer: I don't know English history well enough to put…

You are completely ignoring philosophy. It was the ideas of freedom, of the possibility of liberty for all, of equality of men, that made the whole enterprise possible. China had the tools, sure. But not the incentives. Their emperor could not let lose a zoo of creativity, for fear of destruction of the empire.

Might want to read some more Chinese philosophy before drawing such conclusions.

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#98

Post by yongjik »

fallingfrog wrote: post #95
sthnblllII wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all these advantages, why did the industrial revolution happen in Europe instead of Asia?

It’s such a good question, and it wasn’t just the industrial revolution either, a whole bunch of stuff happened in Europe- the development of calculus and physics, new ways of organizing politically, the university system, the new economic system of capitalism, fractional reserve banking, it’s crazy how much Europe changed while the rest of the world didn’t. It’s hard to point to any one thing. Part of it may have be…

I think it's a hard question because a lot of different things happened in different regions - you can't just point to things that happened in Europe and say "This is why!"

As an example, China had imperial examination[1] for government jobs since 607 - a system not seen in the West until modern times. Ancient Rome built concrete buildings that their descendants couldn't replicate for centuries, yet they failed to start Industrial Revolution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#99

Post by aritmo »

sthnblllII wrote: post #58
estaseuropano wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm currently reading Clive Pointing's 'World History - A new perspective'. >800 pages of well researched history with a large Eurasian focus (due to the availability of sources, not bias). He repeatedly makes the point that some technology that Europe 'discovered' in the 13-19hundreds was in fact known in china 1000+ years earlier. Most of recorded history Europe basically played no role whatsoever. A few examples t…

With all these advantages, why did the industrial revolution happen in Europe instead of Asia?

The Antikythera Mechanism is a computer and was created in Ancient Greece around 100BC. That was a period of time before the Roman conquest of the known world. When there is an empire in power, things do not progress. The knowledge of that device got lost in history.

China has been an empire for much of her history. Being an empire does not help in the technological advancement. But fierce competition helps.

Re: Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC

#100

Post by anigbrowl »

mannykannot wrote: post #96
c06n wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely ignoring philosophy. It was the ideas of freedom, of the possibility of liberty for all, of equality of men, that made the whole enterprise possible. China had the tools, sure. But not the incentives. Their emperor could not let lose a zoo of creativity, for fear of destruction of the empire.

> It was the ideas of freedom, of the possibility of liberty for all, of equality of men, that made the whole enterprise possible. So why did it start in Britain, rather than the United States or post-revolutionary France?

Short answer, sea power drove technological innovation (reliable clocks etc) and a global empire gave Britain access to more raw material for textiles than it could process by ahd, so there was a huge incentive for automation. Also, plenty of domestic iron ore and coal deposits allowed rapid scaling and positive feedback loops. Much of the IR centered on the north of England because they had good ports and the coal and iron ore was right there and did not need to be transported very far. Northern England developed in significantly different economic and cultural directions from the more mercantilist southern part of the country, which differences persist to this day.
Post reply on HN