Richard Bulliet - History of the World to 1500 CE (Session 4) - New Civilizations, 2200-250 B.C.E

[@sabrinalambert4997]

@ nevenskito. . . if you are still looking for The One Donkey Solution, it looks like he did eventually get it published. Its available for purchase at Amazon or Barns & Noble (and I'm sure at other various bookstores). Unfortunately, I do not have a copy or I would be glad to share it with you.

[@pookietheimpaler]

Is there any way we could get some of the readings for this course as well? I'd like to read that segment from his book on animals, and the cosmogonist theories of some of these peoples. It would be nice to follow along with the text.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

The textbook he has mentioned editing and co-writing is (I think) The Earth and Its Peoples: a Global History. It’s currently in its 7th edition.

[@sandramian9547]

His book on animals is called Hunters, Herders and Hamburgers. It’s amazing!

[@hishamassiarchitecture]

this to me= learn before you fall asleep.

[@wah_shee_4826]

Yay !!! Bed time! 😁

[@Faidros62]

Could it be as simple as the Europeans originally preferred four wheels because of the need of bringing in hay for the winter. Hay does not weigh much but are very bulky. With a two wheel chariot you would need to spend more time transporting and could use less time harvesting. With a four wheel vehicle you could load a massive amount of hay. The amount of hay would not have been a problem for the oxen because of the relatively low weight.

[@AprilSV83]

Take a drink every time he says, "Uh."

[@markstuber4731]

I've always read the reason why they used chariots in war, is because horses had to be bred to be big enough for a person to ride. In the meantine, they hitiched horses closer to the size of their smaller wild ancestors to chariots.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

It might be better to say that horses had not yet been bred for size. It’s a subtle difference in wording. That said, to understand the development of horse use in warfare, we have to look at their use and how that use developed. A chariot drawn by horses is a mobile platform that allows for both archery and hand to hand combat while on the move. Before the invention of stirrups, fighting from horseback was not stable. With a few exceptions, mounted archers would have to dismount. Even famous horse archers would stop their horses, then fire their volleys of arrows, and then move away when attacked by foot soldiers. It’s not until the development of the stirrup that you really see mounted combat.

[@tachtruth]

Horses had to be bred to be robust enough to ride in the "control position", just right behind the shoulder, about the first millennium by the Steppes People. Before then riders rode on the rump of the animal making weapon use a bit shaky.

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

12:00 - I have an idea. Maybe the iraqis imported wheels. In an area that lacks logs, wheels are needed to help move along heavy objects. Wheels are lighter to transport than logs too. So there was some empire that cut down trees outside of iraq, made wheels and then imported them in.

[@tachtruth]

The famous Lebanese cedar.

[@stefanschnabel2769]

Friction is proportional to the normal force. Double the number of wheels and you get half the normal force for each. The idea that two wheels mean double friction is just wrong.

[@Lcrymlgy]

you don't seem to follow the fact that wheels were terribly heavy, as were the axles and the carts, and that if you're using four wheels it means you're trying to move more load, and that you don't get a stronger power source to go along with all that

[@stefanschnabel2769]

Then perhaps take four animals for pulling? Also, at some point wheels were no longer sliced oak trees and much lighter. Regardless, maybe four wheels are a bad idea. I don't think so and he is not convincing. Whatever. I'm just stating that his argument concerning friction is wrong.

[@Lcrymlgy]

teaming animals to pull is hard. It took humans a while to be able to do it. Also, one of his points you can't argue a lot with is that it requires fairly flat ground, right? The one point where I *do* think he's wrong is that even if pulling high loads on four wheels is inefficient in terms of force needed, the trade benefits of hauling large amounts of cargo are pretty obvious

[@nevcheart]

does anyone have the donkey novel?:)

[@buddythatcher5421]

Why are there so many wheels under modern heavy haulers. Wouldn't one just build a stronger wheel?

[@buddythatcher5421]

+Buddy Thatcher To conserve fuel that is.

[@t.a.m.4663]

Redundancy

[@BluJean6692]

I'm not an engineer but I think the idea is to distribute the weight/force more evenly, one wheel would have all the friction and strain as well.

[@michaelccozens]

I wonder about his comments on 4-wheeled vehicles. One situation where I can see an advantage over 2-wheeled iterations would be in the transport of relatively low-density goods - that would be a case where the need for more space on the vehicle could outweigh the disadvantage of increased friction due to load limits being restricted by volume instead of weight. I wonder if there's any evidence that trade in Western Europe tended to involve more low-density products than in "2-wheel" areas?

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

49:00 - Hey, it's like Sid Meir's Civilization. You get the shitty tech so you can get the better tech that comes after later on, but first you have to suffer through several hundred years of being at the lower rung.

[@bredmond812]

no. it is not like that. in Sid Meyer's Civilization, we have a notion of the progress of technology. When things were invented in the past, they couldnt see where the technology would lead 100 years better. They probably said "thank heavens I have this new technology so that i dont have to to all that suffering anymore. Now life is better."

[@tarjei99]

Making a nave involves splitting the tre trunk lengthwise. This reduces the amount of work significantly. I would not be surprised if they made the wheels the same way. An Ox for transportation over distance is not viable because it eats more than it can pull. A pack horse can carry about the same as two porters. The cost is the same, so neither is really viable. Only expensive stuff is viable with animal transport. E.g. salt. Notice that for transport you need ships or barges to transport economically viable quantities.

[@tedcathigh]

quite interesting

[@Dualhammers]

We tried changing the Calendar once during the French Revolution. It was an awful idea. The point being that we have a system to which all our historical records have been tied since the creation of the Gregorian Calendar. It's easier to use a religion neutral term (BCE) than trying to rewrite all the records. If you're volunteering to do all the work then by all means go for it.

[@bolsasnara3746]

what BCE stands for? (I’m not english speaker)

[@sandramian9547]

@@bolsasnara3746 Before the Common Era.

[@JoPrair]

@Slacktoo "Biased"? If there is a scientific, none-biased, Anglo-Saxon name for "Tuesday" not based on old fairy tales and does not require more then one word such as "the second day of the work week" I would be very interested to know. Also only Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, are named after the old Gods: Odin, Thor and Freya respectively. If I did not completely miss interpreted your post sir, I believe you contradicted yourself there.

[@elmerhabavilo3841]

"Everyone in the world figured that out over time except the Europeans"... 34:15.... One day I'd like my Mexican people to be mocked by a respected professor to a multiracial classroom and no one says so much as a peep because they know my people has dominated in the history of the world, and that for other races to even bear hearing about it, my people have to be made fun of a bit

[@roomi2354]

oh no, the europeans couldn't figure a thing out and now you don't feel superior anymore. it can't be true, Europeans are the best race, must just be propoganda or political correctness bs.....racist jackass

[@bredmond812]

I had to come back to this comment. I am on session 7, and he has had fun things to say about a lot of different people. So, even though he hasn't said anything about Mexicans yet, some of the peoples he has joked about fit the indirect description you are going for.

[@sincitycapital]

F*ck off

[@InfiniteUniverse88]

In the 18th century, there were up to 500 horses used to pull coal out of mines. To suggest that several animals cannot work together to pull an object such as a cart is ludicrous.

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

They hired a bunch of mac guys. "Aesthetics sell! Change it and we'll get a bigger demographic!"

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

Well I've stuck it out for four lectures and I'll probably come back but I'm going to have to find a lecture series where the lecturer's delivery doesn't make me want to fall asleep.

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

AquiredCents I can't understand how you can say "These aren't lectures".

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

AquiredCents I wasn't arguing semantics I was questioning the truth of what you said. No I don't feel better for arguing with you, my heart sinks when I read comments like yours because I realise I'm facing a confused person who can't think logically and who is biased and unable to see any fault in what they say, and I know I won't have full self-respect if I just let it pass but I can guess it's going to be a world of frustration to take you on because you're probably not amenable to rational discussion. Exhibit A: You say "These aren't 'lectures'", then next comment say "That wasn't even the point I was trying to make". Exhibit B: You say "He interacts while he talks", as if that means he's not lecturing, or that these are not lectures. Believe me, lots of lecturers interact while they talk, lots of lectures involve interaction as well as talking. Exhibit C: You 'Like' your own comments.

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

AquiredCents Well at least you've admitted you had an ego problem, I guess that's progress. But of course we have to have the criticisms at the end, follow by the contradictory 'have a good day'. Apparently I was pointing out 'crap', yet it's the same as what you were pointing out... even tho we've been arguing and claiming different things. Apparently I've been childish, but you don't specify how, so it just hangs there, oh but 'have a good day'. "It isn't just 'lectures', it's a college course" So? What made my original post incorrect? How was it being a college course relevant? How have you established the relevance? You slide around and even when you admit things you claim other things at the same time. You state falsehoods and then when they're pointed out you try and avoid admitting anything and you restate it and carry on as if I 'should have known what you meant' or something. You admit you 'had' an ego problem and then continue to show evidence of it at the end of the same post.

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

AquiredCents Ah, the 'nobody cares' line. :) The truth of which is completely belied by your bothering to post the very reply in which you say it. And similarly the "there is nothing to debate here' line - even as you continue to argue. And yes, it's 'arguing with idiots' territory alright. No, it's not ego for me, it's an irritation with stupidity, bluster, evasiveness and indeed 'ego' or pride in others that gets in the way of their being honest with themselves as well as someone they're arguing with. I hate people pretending things or making out false things to be true, sometimes I can't walk away especially if it's been specifically directed at me. I talked about lectures, you denied they were lectures, I said I couldn't understand how you could say that, you accused me of arguing semantics, I pointed out I was interested in the question of the truth of what you said, you finally admit it's 'lecturing' and feel the need to 'reiterate' - "It isn't just lectures, it's a college course", as if that means you weren't wrong in what you first said. I knew perfectly well it was a college course, I could read the titles and I found it via a playlist from Columbia University's account, how in the fliping hell does this mean these are not 'lectures' he's giving? This is what I mean by 'sliding around'. You said something wrong, then you couldn't admit it when pressed. You had to try and find some way to slide out of admitting you'd stated a falsehood. I couldn't care less what else you 'meant', if you meant something else, say something else, don't say what you say and then expect me to understand a different thing! It's just petty pride/embarrassment-based evasiveness, I can't stand it. *Don't ever pretend to me*, and don't expect me to put up with it - or to go away, or let you off the hook, or anything!

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

AquiredCents Just to tidy up some loose ends, because I really don't understand what you were driving at 1. "That wasn't even the point I was trying to make". So what was the point you were trying to make? 2. "I've ... never considered my college professors as lecturing to the class." In my university, and pretty much any British one, the main course content is called 'lectures' and most of the teaching staff are 'lecturers'. Only a handful are professors, they have to be appointed to that post. Is it different over there? And in my philosophy course there was a lot of interaction, one lecturer told us he preferred to be interrupted with questions and it kind of didn't work for him if he wasn't. It's still called a lecture. 3. What are the fallacies and ad hominem attempts? Sure I made comments about what it felt like to start arguing with you but it was based on the posts you'd already made, plus a reply you made to someone else on a different thread. Sure some of it could still be wrong about you, so enlighten me. 4. "you only regurgitate what seems relevant to YOU" How is that not true about you also? And why is it not a reasonable thing to do in an argument? 5. "I did quote 'lectures' for a REASON" Then tell me what. 6. "The fallacies I pointed out" What fallacies I pointed out? You mentioned that you thought I'd made some, you didn't say what they were. At least you've stopped liking your own comments, that's also progress.

[@aigerimdyikanbaeva6567]

Theodore Bestor is the best whale

[@jenniferlacex]

My god the people at KZbin have serious creative confidence problems, they can't leave the format alone for even a few months! It must seriously stroke a series of fat egos on a cyclic corporate rotation as the changes work their way through some sickeningly flimsy committee or interface-governing body...It's like visiting a library that can't decide on a floor-plan layout for the stacks and the index formatting! Don't 'fix' it if it ain't broke folks!!

[@ssrobot4809]

I guess the people in the class have to learn history of civilizations from the actual readings. I can't imagine their exams being about wheels. Dude gets so stuck on one topic and goes for an hour.

[@LibertyPlease1]

Huhwhy

[@mlk0655]

WHy can't he pronounce wHeel properly.

[@Zontago]

wheels are stupid inventions?

[@gussetma1945]

No one ever explains why the North American Indians never even invented a wheelbarrow. They did have draft animals. They had two legged draft animals. They had the horse and ox from the Spaniard for 3 centuries and they still never adopted the wheel. Heap dumb? What you thinkem?

[@buddythatcher5421]

No wonder he parses every word. You have to too make the case that one of the greatest inventions was stupid. LOL

[@buddythatcher5421]

+Buddy Thatcher I would argue that it is smart to load any freight once and let the ox do the extra work that more wheels entails. Why take a chance that you may have to do the work twice? I am not religious but I refuse to make up half baked crap ideas just to make Europeans look "stupid".

[@rodallwright6187]

Must be the worst presentation and dresser ever, if I was at Columbia I would be seeking return of my course fee!