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

151–160 of 231 posts

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#151

Post by JoeAltmaier »

littlestymaar wrote: post #54

> and carried off and raped our women. (How did you think the Neanderthal DNA got into our genome?) I don't know if Neandertals were rapist, but given the behavior of Sapiens, it wouldn't be completely surprising if it was in fact the opposite: Sapiens abducting Neandertal females and raping them…

One data point: a Homo Sapiens settlement with a child burial who was 1/8 Neanderthal. May have been born in the settlement? That original mother may have been of the settlement. Anyway three generations of mixed heritage, and still worth burying with reverence.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#152

Post by jacobolus »

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…

> chimps and gorillas for millenia and they are furry, cannibalistic, violent tribal monsters

Gorillas are largely vegetarian, and generally peaceful. Humans are much better example of “violent tribal monsters” than gorillas.

Cf. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1977/12/25/t...

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#153

Post by reducesuffering »

turtle_san wrote: post #126
ohples wrote: post #117

TIL what "InfoGalactic" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day#Infogalactic After clicking some of the links in this article I went to what looked very much like wikipedia, so much so i went on a typical half hour wikipedia-dive, but wasn't actually wikipeida (I have a big monitor and the links I clicked all directed to subsections of articles so I didn't see the info-galactic logo at the top). Really puts this ar…

I am glad InfoGalactic exists and try to tell other about it. It grows tiring, the character assassinations of right-wing biographies on wikipedia, for example controversies are presented in the opening paragraphs instead of being a sub-section. For example from the opening paragraph of Vox Day: >>Theodore Robert Beale (born August 21, 1968), also known as Vox Day, is an American far-right activist,[2] writer, musici…

“Right wing character assassinations” ha! That wiki description is light on him. Due some diligence and visit his blog linked on the wiki page. 15 minutes should tell you plenty enough, from his own words, about the type of vile person that started InfoGalactic. It’s far more biased than wiki, and is meant to spread literal far right propaganda. It is not a reasonable devil’s advocate other-side take.

Examples: hates Jews, black people, basically any nonwhite. Wants America to deport everyone immigrated post-1960 and to reinstate a Christian theocracy, even though he lives in Italy. Wanted Trump to overturn election and become dictator to bring in this theocracy.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#154

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

poisonarena wrote: post #97
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

Because the majority were civilians incapable of putting up a fight.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#155

Post by whakim »

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…

The fur thing just isn't compelling. Hominims lost their fur prior to developing tools in order to develop sweat glands all over their body, allowing them to expel heat better than their prey (and so hunt by literally chasing an animal until it got hyperthermia). Neanderthals may have been hairier to help in colder climates, but it's pretty remiss of the article to not mention that losing fur was one of the key developments in hominim evolution.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#156

Post by krapp »

gpm wrote: post #144
krapp wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is about the same IIRC.

Googled this, quite a bit less is shared with a chimp. https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-ot...

If you consider 98.8% to be quite a bit less than 99.7% then fair enough. It's still a lot.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#157

Post by daveFNbuck »

roenxi wrote: post #6
shp0ngle wrote: post #2

The first comment on the substack links to this article, from 2010, that basically refutes this theory and this book. https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2010/10/killer-neandertal...

"Proves" and "refutes" are both pretty vague words in a historical context. In my experience when historians say "I will prove this to you" they typically mean "not only is it a good story, but unusually I have at least 1 piece of actual evidence". So in the loose world of history where nobody has any idea, maybe the idea is refuted. Realistically, probably both posts are wrong but we'll never know about which aspect…

If 10,000 years is too long to ever know what really happened, then we can dismiss the idea that stories from less than 10,000 years ago accurately reflect the reality of more than 40,000 years ago.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#158

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

beaconstudios wrote: post #105
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting what you say about the wheel because the narrative I've heard is instead about gunpowder: the Conquistadores had gunpowder weapons that frightened the Aztecs and dispersed their armies without a fight, even though they had numbers on their side. I've also heard the same thing about horses: the Aztecs were afraid of horses and so broke and run at the sight of the Spaniards on horses. These are not v…

I think La Noche Triste speaks to the superiority of infantry with melee weapons to cavalry with muskets in close quarters urban fighting. Tenochtitlan was an absolute maze, and the Aztec defenders knew it well because it was their home. I do agree that the alliance with Tlaxcala is underplayed in the pop culture understanding of the conquest.

I don't remember this very well and my copy of Bernal Diaz's memoir is half a continent away, but I think that most of Cortes men were not "cavalry" as such. Some had horses but most were on foot. Also, I seem to remember the Aztecs that attacked them in Tenochtitlan were basically a mob at that point, armed with makeshift weapons. It goes without saying that they had the advantage of knowing their own city better than the enemy, but the general point is that they didn't fear the guns and horses of the Spaniards as much as is commonly believed.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#159

Post by poisonarena »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #154
poisonarena wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

Because the majority were civilians incapable of putting up a fight.

How do you even know that? Text says they were armed with knives. And what do you mean "civilians" in this context? The article lists them as armed belligerents.

Re: When Orcs Were Real

#160

Post by beaconstudios »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #158
beaconstudios wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think La Noche Triste speaks to the superiority of infantry with melee weapons to cavalry with muskets in close quarters urban fighting. Tenochtitlan was an absolute maze, and the Aztec defenders knew it well because it was their home. I do agree that the alliance with Tlaxcala is underplayed in the pop culture understanding of the conquest.

I don't remember this very well and my copy of Bernal Diaz's memoir is half a continent away, but I think that most of Cortes men were not "cavalry" as such. Some had horses but most were on foot. Also, I seem to remember the Aztecs that attacked them in Tenochtitlan were basically a mob at that point, armed with makeshift weapons. It goes without saying that they had the advantage of knowing their own city better th…

Yeah that's fair, and I can believe its a lot less likely to damage morale if you have the Spaniards on the run, on home turf.
Post reply on HN