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

When Orcs Were Real

treeofwoe.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 231 posts

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#91

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

poisonarena wrote: post #67
soapdog wrote: post #24

> Europeans defeated indigenous peoples throughout history, by superior technology and numbers. Oh boi, not this horrible and flawed argument again. People have learned nothing from recent research into the impact of diseases in that history? Popular books like "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and "1491" give you a view into these matters and provide one with references for their sources for research. This idea of "Europe w…

"Oh boi, not this horrible and flawed argument again" Starting out with your point written like this seems aggressive and patronizing. "This idea of "Europe won because it is good at tech" really needs to die. " Because you don't like it? I disagree. Spanish Conquistadors were some of the greatest and most experienced warriors in all of history, and were trained veterans of the reconquest of Spain from the Moors. Why…

>> 168 Spanish vs 3000-8000 Incan warriors

Actually, those were not warriors. Note the listings of the Stength of the belligerents in the information box, on the right of the article (on the right as seen in a PC browser):

>> 3,000–8,000 unarmed personal attendants/lightly armed guards [2]

The opening paragraph of the wikipedia article also makes it clear that the "battle" was more like a slaughter:

>> The Battle of Cajamarca also spelled Cajamalca[4][5] (though many contemporary scholars prefer to call it Massacre of Cajamarca)[6][7][8] was the ambush and seizure of the Inca ruler Atahualpa by a small Spanish force led by Francisco Pizarro, on November 16, 1532. The Spanish killed thousands of Atahualpa's counselors, commanders, and unarmed attendants in the great plaza of Cajamarca, and caused his armed host outside the town to flee.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#92

Post by nradov »

axguscbklp wrote: post #60
soapdog wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might enjoy reading 1491 and learning more about the cultures of the Americas. There is way more there than "tech from 1500 BC", and I don't feel like just quoting from the book because I want people to go read it. It is important to realise that there are recent estimates that mention 9 out of 10 people all over the Americas dying of diseases. Remember that diseases travel faster than European invaders, so by th…

I think that the native Americans would have managed to learn how to use European technology just fine, but I think that it would have been hard for them to build the necessary infrastructure to mass-produce it in time. Maybe if they had managed to ally with one group of Europeans long enough to hold the others off and give them the needed time, it would have worked.

At the time European technology wasn't mass produced either. Technological artifacts were still hand made one at a time by artisans.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#93

Post by peeters »

So even if we accept everything being said of the Neanderthals, this is left completely undefended:

> Why does every culture have legends of monstrous humanoids, and why are they are always depicted as fearsome and dangerous? Because the legends were real. The orcs were real.

Is the author really suggesting that these stories are the product of an unbroken chain of 50,000 years of oral tradition? If not, what do events from 50,000 years ago have to do with myths from 2000-6000 years ago?

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#94

Post by midjji »

It makes for a good story to be sure, but probably little else. Much like the popular myth of the noble savage influencing academics of the time, contemporary popular disdain for the people and cultures of the past colors many contemporary academics.

Another weird thing, So we have found evidence of the feathers of dinosaurs, but not the fur of something from 40k years ago? that seems rather unlikely. In this case, the absence of evidence for fur is evidence of its absence, much like the absence of worked neanderthal clothing is. A better simpler explanation would be, they had decent subdermal isolation and brown fat. While most people today think humans cant work outside on a typical winter day in northern europe without clothes, they are just wrong. Go to any country with a snowy winter and ask the first person you meet if they have that one friend or acquaintance who goes about in shorts and tshirt during winter, who seems just absurdly resistant to cold in general. They will give you a name. Luck, ample food and cold growing up, and you too could be walking barefoot through the snow with me, feel the refreshing -5 C wind on your chest when snowboarding in a tshirt, and alway be told you everytime you leave somewhere that you arent wearing enough jackets, pants, scarfs, gloves, and hats.

Besides its unnecessary for the story being told. Humans lived next to chimps and gorillas for millenia and they are furry, cannibalistic, violent tribal monsters. Fitting the story of orcs and goblins even better. But even that is unnecessary, people just like making shit up, but people are also terrible at actually doing that. So almost everything looks like a human or animal or combination.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#95

Post by PicassoCTs »

beaconstudios wrote: post #72
soapdog wrote: post #24

> Europeans defeated indigenous peoples throughout history, by superior technology and numbers. Oh boi, not this horrible and flawed argument again. People have learned nothing from recent research into the impact of diseases in that history? Popular books like "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and "1491" give you a view into these matters and provide one with references for their sources for research. This idea of "Europe w…

Why not both? The Conquistadors had guns and steel armour and swords, versus the Mesoamericans' copper, bronze and obsidian weapons plus bows & atlatls. Technologically, the Spanish had the advantage, and won militarily. In addition, the indigenous population was ravaged by disease brought by the colonisers. Having better weapons is not an argument to ethnic superiority. It comes down to geography and history. The my…

Heavily forested is a culture attribute. If you have iron weapons, your land is not heavily forested.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#97

Post by poisonarena »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #91
poisonarena wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Oh boi, not this horrible and flawed argument again" Starting out with your point written like this seems aggressive and patronizing. "This idea of "Europe won because it is good at tech" really needs to die. " Because you don't like it? I disagree. Spanish Conquistadors were some of the greatest and most experienced warriors in all of history, and were trained veterans of the reconquest of Spain from the Moors. Why…

>> 168 Spanish vs 3000-8000 Incan warriors Actually, those were not warriors. Note the listings of the Stength of the belligerents in the information box, on the right of the article (on the right as seen in a PC browser): >> 3,000–8,000 unarmed personal attendants/lightly armed guards [2] The opening paragraph of the wikipedia article also makes it clear that the "battle" was more like a slaughter: >> The Battle of…

>> 3,000–8,000 unarmed personal attendants/lightly armed guards [2]

Wikipedia said they had Knives and ropes

Almost all medieval battles end with routes and slaughter. What I am saying is 168 were able to take 5000 prisoners without the help of advanced technology?

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#98

Post by PicassoCTs »

nradov wrote: post #92
axguscbklp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the native Americans would have managed to learn how to use European technology just fine, but I think that it would have been hard for them to build the necessary infrastructure to mass-produce it in time. Maybe if they had managed to ally with one group of Europeans long enough to hold the others off and give them the needed time, it would have worked.

At the time European technology wasn't mass produced either. Technological artifacts were still hand made one at a time by artisans.

Not really true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism#History

There were lots of artisans, but mercantilism the early stages already had state-run factories for cannons and other "central" managed technology.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#99

Post by poisonarena »

shakow wrote: post #85
poisonarena wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who trained Cortes? The Spanish developed tactics for decades and decades, building knowledge from previous wars and conquests.

It does not make any sense. To this measure, every last soldier in a European army until post-WWII era should be a highly trained veteran.

I think you are missing the point entirely, I am saying that there is a thing called collective military knowledge, The Spanish had experience in fighting wars for many years. This knowledge of tactics and techniques is passed on through training.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#100

Post by gpm »

midjji wrote: post #94

It makes for a good story to be sure, but probably little else. Much like the popular myth of the noble savage influencing academics of the time, contemporary popular disdain for the people and cultures of the past colors many contemporary academics. Another weird thing, So we have found evidence of the feathers of dinosaurs, but not the fur of something from 40k years ago? that seems rather unlikely. In this case, t…

> So we have found evidence of the feathers of dinosaurs, but not the fur of something from 40k years ago? that seems rather unlikely

Does it? Dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions years, that's a lot of time for things to be preserved. Neanderthals for hundreds of thousands of years, that's not nearly as much.

Sure, fur/feathers is less likely to be preserved for 65 million years (+ however far into the mesozioic you go) than 40 thousand years (+ however far back into the history of neanderthals you go), but by how many orders of magnitude? Is it enough to make up for the many orders of magnitude difference in the number of times it could be preserved?

Post reply on HN