+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Eyewitness to History (/thread-10314.html)
Eyewitness to History - pjnow - 09-05-2003
I beg to differ with most, if not all of you on this topic. Most have chosen events for which there are eyewitness accounts or at least generally accepted word of mouth accounts. I can read these and get a pretty good idea about how things went.
I'd prefer to witness things that we still have huge questions about ( never mind the Resurrection thing, that's a matter of faith you either believe or you don't ).
So here's my list:
1) The Big Bang - wouldn't you like to see where/when/how it all began?
2) Dinosaurs - any of them - What colour were they, what sounds did they make? All we currently have is a very small sample of bones, some skin and a bunch of widely varying educated guesses
3) The meteor strike that started the end of the age of dinosaurs.
4) The world of the Burgess Shale - described in Stephen Jay Gould's "Wonderful Life"
5) The Thera explosion
6) The first time a human decided to make/eat cheese - " Hey, Pistopheles let's milk that goat, let the milk go off, leave it out for a longish while and eat it when it solidifies, sound good? "
Eyewitness to History - MongoJerry - 09-05-2003
Rhydderch Hael,Sep 5 2003, 04:05 PM Wrote:But on that grace, that was the final step in establishing the USN as a naval powerâ the ultimate proving of its military prowress against a world-class navy. The first step was literally that first mission: the Barbary Wars.It was an interesting time in our young nation's history, but it hardly established the US's position as a naval power. After all, the British were still able to blockade American ports, resupply their troops in Canada, and sail into the Chesapeake Bay to burn down Washington DC all while fighting a war against Napolean. Now that's what I'd call naval power. The Constitution's victories were significant to the country simply because they were some of the only naval victories that the US had in that war. The USN didn't get in the same league as most European navies until the late 19th century. If you had to point to a war that established the US as "a world naval power," that would probably be the Spanish-American war where we were able to take Cuba and the Philippines from the Spanish and they didn't have the power to stop us. Still, the British remained far ahead of us in power in the beginning of the 20th century -- they had a navy that was more powerful than any two other countries combined at the start of WWI. The US didn't become the dominant naval power in the world until the middle of WWII.
Eyewitness to History - ShadowHM - 09-05-2003
pjnow,Sep 5 2003, 12:54 PM Wrote:I'd prefer to witness things that we still have huge questions about ( never mind the Resurrection thing, that's a matter of faith you either believe or you don't ).Hi
I would have gone for a few of those things too (watching that meteor strike from outer space would be awesome) but I got hung up on the word "historical" in the question.
All of the items you cited would, I think, fall in to 'pre-history'. But maybe I was just being too pedantic. :P
Although......I do agree with you on the Resurrection. Even if it did happen, I would still have to believe that he did it for me, and that is too far of a stretch for this cynic.
Eyewitness to History - Tal - 09-05-2003
ShadowHM,Sep 5 2003, 01:37 PM Wrote:I would have gone for a few of those things too (watching that meteor strike from outer space would be awesome) but I got hung up on the word "historical" in the question.Not too pedantic at all - that was precisely what I intended but did not adequately express in my original question. :)
All of the items you cited would, I think, fall in to 'pre-history'. But maybe I was just being too pedantic. :P
Eyewitness to History - Rhydderch Hael - 09-05-2003
Alas, I never spoke of the USN being the naval power, but a naval power. A contender. Someone who could come into the game and upest the balance where ever they cast their die. When, in the War of 1812, the Royal Navy issued the order prohibiting British commanders from engaging American warships if first unable to attain a 2:1 numerical superiority, that made American naval architecture, gunnery philosophy, and command style a significant factor to contend against in all future engagements.
The US Navy did not become the big dog on the block in 1812, but it surely proved to the rest of the neighborhood that it was not lounging around with the housecats.
Eyewitness to History - Raziel - 09-05-2003
Historical Moments I would love to see:
1) Just about anything during the rule of the five good kings of Rome. The empire at it's height. Preferably Marcus Aurelius, the last of the five good kings, before he handed it to his #$%&ed up son. (Yes, Gladiator has some vague connection to historical record.)
2) The construction of the pyramids in Egypt.
3) Atlantis - or at least, whatever the hell it really was.
4) The truth behind Arthur and the legend of Camelot, no matter how nondescript and grimy it may have been.
5) The eruption of the volcano somewhere near Papua New Ginuea around 545 AD that heralded the dark ages. (and made Krakatoa seem like a pop gun)
6) I'd like to witness Shakespeare, or whoever really wrote those epics, writing them.
7) The moon landing. Preferably from the moon itself :)
8) The defeat of the 300 spartans at Thermopylae. Alternatively, The Alamo, or Custer's Last Stand at Little Bighorn. You get the idea.
9) The sinking of the Hood and, later, the Bismarck.
etc..
Eyewitness to History - Occhidiangela - 09-05-2003
You don't need maritime dominance to be a naval power. You don't need command of the sea to be a naval power. You need to be able to create localized command of the Sea, which we were able to do as early as 1803, thanks to the frigates.
See Germany in WW I. A Naval power who never had command of the sea, and who tried and failed, although barely, in the Sea Denial mission via its Uboats. A Naval power up against The Naval Power.
Consider Russia 1905. A Naval Power who ran into another Naval Power, Japan, at the Tsushima Straights and Port Arthur, and lost rather badly in both fights. They were still a Naval Power, just as the Cowboys are still an NFL Team but not a championship team.
The early US Navy benifitted a great deal from its roots in the RN, insofar as falling in on shipyards already extant, expertise in shipbuilding in place, and a century long tradition as a maritime land: albeit, a colony.
The US Navy's first step as a Power was in the 1812 war, with mixed results, per comments on dealing with The Naval Power, it next in our own Civil War where the Anaconda Strategy used maritime power to choke off Confederate commerce. I'd agree that the Mahanian influence on Naval Policy from 1870's to 1900 led to TR's Great White Fleet, which established our Navy as a Major Maritime Power as a follow up to the defeat of Spain in Manilla and Santiago Harbor, so to a certain extent, I agree with you about when the USN became a "playoff calibre team." :)
Consider that Commodore Perry "opened Japan to trade" with a sailing ship armed with cannon in the 1850's, we were already a naval power. In those, days, though, no one could compete all that well with the RN.
See also Oliver Cromwell: "A man of war is the best ambassador."
And as to the salty old sailors of the early USN, some anonymous wag once said:
"I was born on the crest of a wave and rocked in the cradle of the deep. Seaweed and barnacles are me clothes; the hair on me head is hemp; every tooth in me mouth is a marlinspike; every bone in me body's a spar, and when I spits, I spits tar! I'se hard, I is, I am I are!"
Salty enough for ya? :D
Eyewitness to History - MongoJerry - 09-05-2003
I agree with you in all your points except this one:
Quote:You need to be able to create localized command of the Sea, which we were able to do as early as 1803, thanks to the frigates.
The USN couldn't stop the blockade of any single US port. How can you say that they were able to create even localized command of the Sea? The British had hundreds of ships in the American/Carribean theatre. The small number of US frigates were little more than minor irritants to the local British navy and their presence didn't cause any major shift in British strategy or deployments. Also, British navy captains were hardly afraid of US ships as the USS Chesapeake vs HMS Shannon battle shows (the keel of the Chesapeake is now a rafter in a pub in London). While the exploits of the fledgling USN may have provided an important morale boost to a young nation, the new frigates were largely strategically irrelevant and and their victories had little to do with the outcome of the war.
Eyewitness to History - Occhidiangela - 09-05-2003
You can be a Naval Power without winning the Naval campaign.
In 1803, our frigates were able to dictate certain activities on the high seas along the Barbary Coast in a finite time and space until a political aim was achieved. That is localized command of the Sea: Command of a sea area finite in duration, and lasting as long as the mission.
Sea Control? No, we did not have the resources that in 1803, nor in 1812. We could in 1812 defend a single harbor, or open or close a harbor here and there, thus exercising "localized command of the sea" but we had not the resources to exercise a more general mission of Sea Control versus that opponent: The Naval Power. That had to wait for the Civil War era and a less capable foe, the CSA. CSA could only exercise localized sea denial due to its resource limitations.
Frigates strategic relevance? Significant. I must disagree with you on that point. Ever heard of Mahan and Corbetts discussions of a Fleet in Being? There is also the critical political element of any victory being good for one's side. They did more than that, in that they were able to locally contest command of the sea, though due to resource limitations, not over a borad area. Had they been irrelevant, the RN would have approached Maritime Dominance: complete and uncontested use of the sea lanes. That is not shown by the historical record, though on the balance the RN certainly had their way more often than not.
I realize that I am using very fine, even arcanely doctrinal, definitions for my terms here, which may be a bit out of place on a general discussion board. In broad terms:
Maritime Dominance (I am not sure anyone has ever achieved this)
Command of the Sea
Sea Control
Sea Denial
Local command of the sea
Would be the heirarchy I would assign to the levels of exercising maritime power. It gets further complicated when you mix in air power as a factor: for example, you can use land based aircraft and missiles to exercise Sea Denial, particularly in narrow waterways.
Eyewitness to History - MongoJerry - 09-05-2003
Quote:They did more than that, in that they were able to locally contest command of the sea, though due to resource limitations, not over a borad area. Had they been irrelevant, the RN would have approached Maritime Dominance: complete and uncontested use of the sea lanes. That is not shown by the historical record, though on the balance the RN certainly had their way more often than not.
I guess we can agree to disagree, but I would say that the only reason that the RN didn't have complete Maritime Dominance in the North American/Caribbean theatre was because of the elements of the French navy that were in the area which were far more important and dangerous to the RN than a handful of American frigates.
Regarding Maritime Dominance and whether anyone has ever achieved it, yeah, I guess it'd depend on your definition. The British in the late 1800's were pretty close to it, though. And one could argue that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the mothballing of much of its fleet, the US has now come pretty close to it, too.
Eyewitness to History - Growler - 09-05-2003
Herodotus did a fairly good original account in The History of which the first line reads:
Quote:These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds.
Eyewitness to History - Count Duckula - 09-06-2003
I want to see how Stonehenge evolved. Most of the historical stuff I've read and seen about that Salisbury Plain pile of rocks tells me that there were different stages to how the rocks got there. Something like there was an outer ring, then an inner ring, then those great big slabs. I want to be able to go back and see it happening, and find out what exactly went on there. Equinox/eclipse rituals? Midsummer's eve traditions? Druids gathered around for that month's issue of Playpagan?
Eyewitness to History - whyBish - 09-06-2003
The eruption of lake taupo
Eyewitness to History - Rhydderch Hael - 09-06-2003
A handful of American frigates that outclassed European counterparts of the same type. White oak timbers, live oak tranverse runners. Immune to hogging. 24-pounder long guns instead of 18-pounders (admittedly to compensate for the fact that a comparable American 18-pounder would have been inferior to a European). Longer, faster, holding aloft more acreage than the European equivalents.
Eyewitness to History - Doc - 09-06-2003
Sorry to disapoint you Duckula, but Stonehenge has none of those noble purposes.
It was created long ago so trolls and giants had a place to hang their laundry out to dry. It's little more then an ancient laundrymat / singles meeting place for giantkind :lol:
And gee, I thought everybody knew that by now :D
Eyewitness to History - Haider - 09-06-2003
But it is a difference if you have to put your resources into a handful of military ships or into 900 of them. The US could build the best ships of their class (and time), the Royal Navy had to build average ships or had to rely on ships captured from the French (which where often superiorly built compared to RN ships).
Eyewitness to History - Haider - 09-06-2003
I would want to see the taking of power by Julius Gaius Cesear and thus the end of the Roman Republic - an event, which changed the course of the western world.
Eyewitness to History - Bun-Bun - 09-06-2003
I'd like to see the burning of the library at Alexandria, preferably with a fire extinguisher in hand. :) Really, though, I'd rather see Burning Day minus one year.
If I were to choose a battle to see, I'd pick Waterloo. Suspense, action, and some hills with good views of just about everything.
Eyewitness to History - Executor - 09-07-2003
Marshall announcing the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison. It might be a bit dry, but to be present at such a historic moment would keep me attentive, I think.
Eyewitness to History - channel1 - 09-07-2003
If it came down to changing one minor point in history, it would have been interesting to prevent General Isaac Brock's stupidly suicidal charge up Queenston Heights (13 October, 1812). The charge was okay, but for the most competent, in fact brilliant, General that the British had in Canada to lead it was a disastrously selfish bid for personal glory.
Had Brock not been killed, Prevost's non-aggressive stance would have been compensated, with the probable result that the Great Lakes would have been kept secure, and the British would have maintained control of them during the critical first winter, while additional ships were being built. Without an easy crossing, the Americans would have probably given up on that route of invasion, which was where their greatest successes were. They would probably have accepted peace in 1813, with no concessions on the part of the British. The Americans, at least, would have needed a different anthem. :) With less of a distraction in the colonies, Britain may have finished the business with Napoleon a bit more quickly.
Ultimately, the absence of a single super-power would probably have resulted in a much stronger global alliance, possibly able to dissuade the wars of the 20th century.
-rcv-