Historical Nexus Points

[Markdoc]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

While we are talking about the Chinese in the 15th century. What if the Chinese had (as Menzies contends) reached the pacific coast of North America in the early 1420's? What if' date=' by say 1430, they had got as far as Mexico and begun trading with the Indians there ? By the time the Spanish arrive in the 1500's it is possible that there is a state in western Mexico with advanced metallurgy,composite bows , advanced Chinese Medecine and gunpowder weapons which might even have been able to defeat the Spanish invasion of 1519 ![/quote']

 

It's possible to speculate, but Menzie's book is now known to be a mixture of fable and wishful thinking spiced up with the odd fact - his book might be better entitled '1421 - The Year China Discovered its Immediate Neighbours'. There is decent evidence (as the poster above mentions) that the treasure fleet reached the Middle East and they may even have reached the eastern African coast, but China already had somewhat desultory trading relations with India and the Middle East. There's no evidence at all that they got any further than that.

 

My own take on the Spanish Armada and the Mongol invasions is that neither of these were nexus points and that ultimate failure was pretty much assured in both cases, even if it need not have been quite so dramatic as it actually was.

 

For the spanish armada, it's important to recall that they didn't just sit off Portsmouth with the hands in their pockets - they attempted (three times) to to bring battle to the english fleet but were unable to deal with the rapid and unpredictable currents (the Portsmouth race). Eventually they tried to send the galleases across the race, since being oared, they could cope with it, but these were also the most lightly armed of the spanish ships and were easily disabled by the English who not only outranged them, but had a useful technical edge - the wheeled gun carriage - which gave them a rate of fire 5 to 6 times that of the spanish.

 

Even if the Spaniards had succeeded in blockading or destroying the English fleet, and landing their army, it would have faced an uphill task, despite being the finest army in the world at the time. The technology of the day was simply not up to supplying and reinforcing an army of that size by sea.

 

That goes double for the Mongols: the reason they used so many jerry-built and poorly supplied ships was simply due to the fact that a navy large enough to transport and support such a large army did not exist: they used what they could build or scrounge. And remember, unlike the Spanish, they did land in force - and after 2 months of fighting, had still been unable to cut their way out of the beachhead. The Kamikaze probably did save that part of Japan from a nasty ravage, but even if it hadn't, I doubt the outcome would have been very much different - it would merely hav ebeen delayed. There's no way the army could have been supplied by sea and an army that large would have had to split up to live off the land, giving away their one advantage over the Japanese. There's a big diffence between running a land campaign and an amphibious invasion. Look at Japan's own marine invasion under Hideyoshi - despite over-running Korea in an exemplary fashion, the Japanese were defeated largely by their inability to keep the armies supplied by sea.

 

cheers, Mark

[death tribble]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

It's possible to speculate' date=' but Menzie's book is now known to be a mixture of fable and wishful thinking spiced up with the odd fact - his book might be better entitled '1421 - The Year China Discovered its Immediate Neighbours'. There is decent evidence (as the poster above mentions) that the treasure fleet reached the Middle East and they may even have reached the eastern African coast, but China already had somewhat desultory trading relations with India and the Middle East. There's no evidence at all that they got any further than that.[/quote']

 

I would not mind seeing a cite on the evidence against.

[Markdoc]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

I would not mind seeing a cite on the evidence against.

 

Ooh, where to start?

 

Here's a good place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1421_Hypothesis

 

Yeah, I know it's wiki, but the links go directly to sources discussing the errors.

 

Or you can try: http://thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=91 which goes through in detail providing evidence of fudging with links to original sources.

 

The short version is that the "ancient chinese map" showing a detailed picture of the world has been carbon-dated to the late 18th or early 19th century and there's no evidence that it is, as claimed a copy of a much older map - it is now believed to be a copy of a contemporary European map - which is exactly what it was previously believed to be.

 

All of the "ancient chinese artifacts" - like the so called "Gympie Pyramid" in Australia turn out to be ordinary houses, vinyards, etc. One of the "authorities" Menizies cites - Rex Gilroy - now believes the "chinese" "Gympie pyramid" to have been built by Pharonic Egyptians, maybe Sumerians, or possibly UFOs. You can find his illuminating website on the scandalously-ignored flourishing of early Egyptian (or possibly Sumerian) culture on Australia's Eastern seaboard in the period before Christ here http://www.rexgilroy.com/uru_chapter16.html

 

I must admit I particularly like his description of the previously unknown race of giants who roamed Australia for millions of years (possibly building Pyramids as they went) here:http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/lifescience/PhysicalAnthropology/AbnormalStatures/ThereWereGiants/ThereWereGiants.htm

 

OK, that's Gilroy, who is clearly such a loon as to deserve his own Canadian coin - but the fact that Menzies refers to him as "a respected australian historian" rather undermines any respect for his own research, no? Especially as he cites Gilroy's work multiple times.

 

In an area where I have a little professional expertise - MtDNA tracing, Menzies is regarded as a clown, if he is considered at all. Menzies claims that DNA from populations including Greenlanders show traces of Chinese intermingling. In fact, no such evidence exists - and the considerable volume of evidence that does exist directly refutes his claims, see for example http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:10924403.

 

There's plenty more, but I guess you get the drift. Plenty of the people Menzies cites are complete whackos, but harmless enough for all that. I'm personally not sure whether Menzies is a whacko or merely a smart chap, who realised he could earn some cash and a little fame by writing a "controversial" book.

 

cheers, Mark

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

 

Chernobyl disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl%27_Accident

 

Watergate scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

 

Indian independence movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement

 

Xinhai Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution_%28China%29

 

 

 

Cheers

 

QM

[Cancer]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

I had a stray association along these lines last night.

 

There were no major hurricanes (on either the Gulf or Atlantic coasts) during the American Civil War.

 

Posit one at the right place and time (your choice), and you could get some leverage out of that.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Has anybody suggested November 5, 1955 as a nexus point yet?

 

(Well, it worked for Doc Brown...)