European Expansion

It's a real book. Barely any
pictures, I promise.

First off, I want to clarify that this is not a wikipedia entry. Contrary to popular belief, I'm capable of reading articles greater than a few pages in length, and have recently read the acclaimed Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It was the most well researched book I've ever read, packed with such a sheer volume of information from a number of disciplines that each point was provided with enough evidence to warrant a book itself. In fact, it was actually researched to the point of a fault - the book had the tendency to drag on from providing so much evidence that it was easy to lose interest; you can only read on so many varieties of plant life that possess the attributes to be adequately farmed before you find yourself kind of nodding off. Fortunately I'm here, and I'm all about summaries, and if ever there's a book that can be summarized, it's this one.

Diamond's book is based off a question a man in New Guinea posed to him way back when. He asked why European countries were the ones to colonize the rest of the world while native New Guineans (spelling?) were left so far in the dust, technologically speaking. The answer comes down to a number of factors that lead to what is essentially geographical luck. Europe holds basically all the positives that are possible, while everywhere else is pretty much boned for one reason or another. The following is why Europe was good for building these cultures. If you want full details on why these are true through the evidence provided, read the darn book - otherwise, take my word for it. 

The first reason is Europe traditionally goes east/west  geographically rather than north/youth. Look at the Americas (for my friends from the U.S.A., I mean North, Central and South America, not your specific country). The land is not particularly wide. Yes, Canada may be that way, but Canada wasn't a thing back then. The continents are what's important here. North/south alignments means the trade goes across differing climates; think about it this way - Mexico is going to have a vastly different average temperature than Canada. That means they'll have difficulties trading crops and technologies as they'll be suited for completely different needs. What may grow even in the U.S. may not grow in Canada, even though the distance is relatively short. This leads to isolated groups that don't trade as frequently or as effectively. Europe on the other hand is very short and wide, meaning they can easily trade crops and technologies that link together quite well as their climate is at least relatively similar on the mainland. 

Another reason is one I've passed by on occasion throughout this blog thus far. The major crops are almost all Eurocentric, but that's not because they were the ones to decide that they're to be used, but rather because they're the most effective for mass farming. The vast majority of these crops that are prime for farming were originally European crops that have been brought to other countries and domesticated. The way farming begins, and therefore hunkering down and building societies rather than nomadic tribes, is through having crops that will provide enough food to survive with less effort than the hunter/gatherer style. These crops were good enough to provide that level of food with perhaps some supplementary meat to begin to settle down. Once that begins, cultures can begin to grow to great sizes, and when the sizes are large all of a sudden you don't need everyone working on food as that job can be taken by only a percentage of the population. The rest can begin to specialize into rulers, metalworkers, labourers, or very importantly, soldiers. That's when things begin to start sounding like modern day.

Diamond, pictured here looking perplexed.

In addition to the crops, the animals are far superior in Europe as well. The reason behind this is the "Anna Karenina principle" as Diamond calls it. The idea is that even though an animal can be nearly perfect for domestication, if it has one flaw that works against it it's fatal and cannot be used. The principle's name is based off a book where a man is looking for broads but they're all not quite perfect and thus he can't marry them... or something. I may summarize Guns, Germs and Steel but I'm not doing anything for that. Anyways, there's a number of factors that have to be in play. One, the animals have to be large, which is a difficulty right off the bat. There's not that many really big animals around, save for Africa. However, when you take a look there, they have hardly anything that works for domestication. Picture it this way - try to domesticate a rhino. You'll at least not have to worry about running out of food as everyone would surely be gored to death within a week. Gazelles, the prancing fairies of Africa, may be something a little easier. No again. Apparently, when you put them into a pen they'll try to escape so hard they'll kill themselves on the fence. Even modern-day technology hasn't been able to properly domesticate any African large animals for the purposes of food with any real success. However, up a little farther north, you have cows, pigs and sheep. The reason this is important is the same reason as the plants; you can settle down and make a home around these things as long as you can grow them nice and close. Sooner or later, you're going to have a population.

Well, there's another reason for that being important, actually... if you domesticate animals you'll be forced to live amongst their crap. Somehow - somehow - this worked out to be a plus. Living among the animals means you're going to pick up a whole pant-load of diseases over the course of the centuries living with them. Eventually, immunities are built up and it's suddenly very reasonable to live with all these animals that previously killed you just by forgetting to wash yourself. However, when the Europeans brought these over to, say, North America, the Natives did not have this same immunity. Numbers as high as 95% in certain areas were wiped out due to disease. The Natives, not having domesticated any animals of their own, did not have their brand of disease to throw back. The Natives may have traded furs, but the germ trade was completely one sided. Fun fact; when domestication first started happening in Europe, people had to be imported to the cities from the rural areas because the death total was so freaking high.

Now these are the major reasons the book listed, and I'll readily admit that I probably forgot a few here and there. After reading that book, I can honestly say I'm convinced this is truth to the point that I can't picture much else being reasonable. So there you have it. That's why the world is like it is today, and I'm sitting here in Canada as a white dude typing on my MacBook about it instead of living on some coast in France. Makes you think.

Famous Historical Figures Say the Darndest Things!

1. "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." This is the main idea of the book. The first three chapters should have been titled "seriously guys, I'm not a racist."
2. "With the rise of chiefdoms around 7,500 years ago, people had to learn, for the first time in history, how to encounter strangers regularly without attempting to kill them." Yeah... that may have not gone so well though. It worked here and there.
3. “Not until the beginning of the 20th century did Europe's urban populations finally become self-sustaining: before then, constant immigration of healthy peasants from the countryside was necessary to make up for the constant deaths of city dwellers from crowd diseases.” Just in case you were wondering why the Europeans themselves survived all the diseases from the animals in the first place - they didn't. 

Magna Carta

How do they even know that this is the Magna Carta?
It's so hard to read... curse that Olde English.

Oooooh boy, this is a big one to tackle. Now I'm going to say right off the bat that I'm not going to go deeply into the changes to law from the Magna Carta which sounds... well, kind of stupid seeing as how the whole thing is a freaking legal document. What I want to go over is the historical background for the charter, why and how it came to be. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people will tell me (as if anyone reads this blog) that the Magna Carta still changes the justice system today, but to be perfectly honest I don't find that interesting. If you do happen to want to learn the legal ramifications of it, there are plenty of incredibly boring university lectures I suggest you attend.

Anyways...

Pope Innocent III: ranked the fifth most
innocent Pope of all time.

King John was having a rough time in England in 1209(ish). He raised taxes, came into conflict with Pope Innocent III (who, judging by the name, even sounds friendly by pope standards), and had a number of failed wars under his belt, the worst of which occurring in Normandy where losing to the French is always seen as a particularly strong negative. Naturally, there was some unrest that began brooding in the Kingdom, and the barons began to conspire against the crown. If you're wondering, a baron is a noble but a pretty low ranking, chump-esque role. It's above a knight but below a viscount, earl and the other variety of titles that I wish I could refer to myself as. It also makes me wonder if "Viscount Chocula" would have sold better.

So after the barons really got together and grumbled, they went into open rebellion. This isn't in and of itself too big a deal as rebellions were apparently fairly common, as every king after William the Conquerer had to deal with them. William presumedly didn't have to worry about rebellions as people are typically pretty happy when you take over everything for them. What was unusual was the uprising barons had no replacement planned for him as rebellions typically do - the common path is attempting to overthrow the king and throw in a usurper more inclined to help out with the needs of whoever was doing the rebelling. The closest they had was Prince Louis of France, but... he's French. They didn't really want that to happen all that much.

"So if I don't sign you'll kill me, yes?
What fun! I've never been on the
receiving end of a death threat before!"

King John knew this was going on. He tried to delay the confrontation by hiring some mercenaries, making the people pledge a new oath of allegiance and garnering some favour from the Pope (surrendering to the papacy and whatnot and declaring himself a crusader). It didn't help him out very much though, and soon enough the French heir and Alexander II of the Scots entered London with the city opening their gates in support. They forced King John to agree to a document called the "Article of the Barons", after which they renewed their oath to him. This would eventually turn into the Magna Carta. The purpose of the article was to limit the power of the crown; to help enforce it, one rule was that twenty-five barons could meet and overrule the king if he defied the charter. This was a very strong attack on his authority, and the king was not cool with it.

Remembering that King John had just submitted to the papal authority, the Pope declared Magna Carta null and void - keep in mind that back in the day, the church held a lot of political power to say the least, and it was in the Pope's best interest that the new charter did not go through. The barons were barely out the door when their article was cancelled. Seeing no other alternative, civil war raged between the barons and the crown, as the king was quite clearly never about to let himself be bound by the charter, marking the beginning of the First Barons' War. The barons, aided Prince Louis, killed the king in 1216 and secured the future of Magna Carta. The king's nine year old son was crowned king, but much of the rule was under the Frenchman. They chose the king's son as they had some worries that the Prince would leave them worse off than they had been when they started.

So Magna Carta was founded officially. This led to constitutional law for the English speaking countries and was the legal system used for quite some time. While most of its clauses have been since replaced by ones that, you know, aren't several centuries old, it set the tone for how the law was going to be from then on out - less power for the monarchy, and everyone is subject to the law. Huzah!

Not to be confused with the Magma Carta, a much easier bill to warm up to. Ugh... sorry. There are only so many puns you can make about the Magna Carta.

Famous Historical Figures Say the Darndest Things!

1. "The greatest constitutional document of all times - the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot." A quote from Lord Denning, whoever that may be. I am quite sure he's a rather big fan of the Magna Carta.
2. "Stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm." Taken from the Barons' Oath. 
3. "...shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." Pope Innocent III, expressing his not so found opinion of the document. 

St. Nicholas

Well, it's almost Christmas. It just seems fitting to take such a joyous holiday, filled with good cheer and the giving of gifts and to spoil it with historical fact to disrupt and negate the spirit of it. Here I am, ready to ruin some childrens' dreams with the historical background of jolly old St. Nicholas, or Nikoloas of Myra, as he was often called. However, for the rest of this blog I'll be calling him Santa.

St. Nicholas saving the lives of innocents, saying
"whoa whoa whoa, come on, not on Christmas."

Santa was born in March of 270 and died in 343 A.D., which may just be the biggest downer of a sentence imaginable. He lived as a Christian bishop in modern day turkey, and due to his talent for performing miracles, he became known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker. He was the "patron saint of sailors, merchants, archers, repentant thieves, children, pawnbrokers and students" according to Wikipedia, meaning he had a pretty wide range of people under his "perform miracles for these people" contract. How one could link students, repentant thieves and arches all in one is beyond me - save for perhaps those that robbed from the rich Robin Hood style to pay off their student loans. 

There were a number of legends that followed Santa. The one that links him to the modern day, Coca-Cola based version we all know and love was likely the story of him and the three poor daughters of a man that could not afford to give them a dowry. At first this sounds wonderfully like a delightful children's tale worthy of Santa, until you factor in that the daughters would likely have to become prostitutes in order to have enough wealth for anyone to bother marrying them. Anyways, where Santa comes in is he dropped off a number of gold pouches (one for each daughter) so they'd have enough money to pay for their dowry. He did this in the dead of night so they wouldn't have to be seen accepting charity. One version of the story has him place the gold in socks that are hung over the embers of a fire to dry them, but how that could possibly relate to modern day Santa stories is beyond me. I mean, we use a washer dryer here... silly Greeks and their stories.

Apparently, this is a companion of the Dutch Santa,
Sinterklaas. Uh... he probably drops coal in stockings or something.

Apparently Santa was really big with sailors, and actually seen as somewhat of a Christian Poseidon. One such story that highlights this is during a famine in Myra. There were sailors ready to bring some grain over to the Byzantine kingdom, but the citizens where they ported were in much greater need for the wheat. Santa promised the sailors it wouldn't be a problem if he took some to feed them, although they were worried they would come up short in the weight count upon their delivery, marking them as thieves. However, when they arrived, they found the weight to be spot on. A Christmas miracle! So when you can't think of a gift to give someone, just go all historical on them and give them a few stalks of wheat. If they complain, guilt them through the collective pain and hunger of the people in Myra circa 300 AD. That'll show 'em.

There's one last legend of Santa that's really quite... well, I don't know. It's something. It's definitely something. It tells the tale of a butcher, possibly during the same famine, that was running out of food. He lured three children into his house where he promptly murdered them and placed them in barrels to sell them as ham. However, Santa Claus found this out and resurrected the dismembered children who presumedly suffered no emotional after effects of their murder and subsequent rebirth.Yeah... so... Christmas ham, anyone? No?

Well, I guess this isn't the modern Santa anyways. Much of that section comes from Odin anyways, and the Germanic pagan event of Yule... oh boy. One such idea is the sleigh of reindeer similar in nature to the "wild hunt" of Odin, a ghostly group of horses that march through the sky. I threw a picture of them below. How would you like them coming through your chimney? 

I think I'll stick with the Coca-Cola Santa. Merry Christmas, everyone!

Pictured: Dasher, Comet, Blitzen, angry
topless women with spears, Cupid, Dancer.

Famous Historical Figures Say the Darndest Things!

1. "And by the way, for all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white." Megyn Kelly on Fox News, demonstrating what Fox News does best.
2. "I'm going to shove coal so far up your stocking, you'll be coughing up diamonds!." - Futurama's Robot Santa
3. "I'm Santa Claus." -Santa, from the 1985 film "Santa Claus"

Berlin Wall

The logo for the Eastern Bloc. The shaking
hands are notably not east and west Germans.

Finally, a topic that I at least knew something about. Not a lot mind you, but better than what I normally have as a starting point for these blogs. From what I knew beforehand; the Berlin Wall was put up between East and West Germany during the Cold War, and... wackiness ensued. I blame my ignorance on my crappy education. I thought it was about time to do something a little more modern as the majority thus far have been before the days of television (as significant a chronological marker as anything I know). That aside, it's time to dive right in.

Post WWII, Germany was split up by the allied powers in an effort to prevent them from remobilizing. The eastern side was under the control of the Soviets while the western portion was under control of the  French, Brits and Americans. Meanwhile, Stalin had a decent buildup of countries under his influence, called the Eastern Bloc; Russia led the charge with Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia by her side. West Germany fell under the name the Federal Republic of Germany with the east named the German Democratic Republic. However, calling them by east and west seems the much easier route, and thus the one I'm certain to take.

I guess the holes in the wall
were bigger than you would imagine.

The two sides quickly began to represent the styles of the opposing factions of the Cold War; the Russian side was their own land but secretly under Soviet rule, and the west was being run under a western world style capitalist economy (one that flourished). Due to the better economy, the split German populace began to swing more towards the west, bringing with it a brain drain on the east through a number of defecting scholars, students and other people associated with smart things. Wishing to keep the larger brained individuals in their land, the Soviets created a system of border checks to prevent east Germans from crossing over to the "dark side" of non-communist run countries. To allow easterners over to see their families while still keeping their lives within their borders, the Russians decided to set up visitations through applying for Visas to swing over to the western side of the country. Over time the restrictions began to become stronger and stronger until it felt like the only way to keep the sides separated was a massive physical barrier.

Like a wall or something. The purpose of the wall according to the eastern side was to prevent fascist ideas from spreading over to their lands. The eastern side began building the Berlin Wall and shut off eastern Germans visiting the western side entirely, enforced through a line of soldiers with strict instructions to kill those that try to cross if need be. During this time, the economy on the Soviet side actually began to grow, but people being shot for trying to cross a border and schools indoctrinating children in the ways of Leninism and Marxism tends to put a damper on the whole public relations experience. During the creation and standing of the wall at least one hundred were killed in trying to cross over.

A east German border guard heroically prancing over the
line before the wall was put up.

The eventual falling of the wall seems to be more of a steady process more than a single, glorious event. In fact, the beginning fallings of the wall centred around a few legal loopholes and a few communication screw ups. The first of which was Hungary finding a way to briefly disable the border defences with Austria allowing 13,000 east Germans through, eventually finding their way to the west German embassy and not being too keen on crossing back over to Soviet controlled territory. Sometime afterwards, the Soviet side held a press conference that, through a hilarious number of mix ups and poor communication they slipped up and said the borders were no longer all shut up. Naturally, excited throngs of people stormed the gates. The guards, unable to hold back that many people, not to mention they weren't entirely too sure what the heck was going on either, finally let the east Germans through with little in the way of identity checks. They were met with booze and good cheer, as all good things should be.

In 1989 the wall starting being literally chipped away. Members on both sides would chop chunks off of it and start sneaking through the holes. The forces protecting the wall were slimmed down, travel back and forth became easier, and new crossings were opened up. It just wasn't viable to keep it separated anymore. When east Germany adopted west German currency border controls essentially halted, although the border was pretty much worthless by that point. It was a slow deterioration that culminated into the eventual destruction of the wall. So down it went. Off to the Cuban Missile Crisis!

The Bulin Wall, on the other hand, was taken down by a number of hockey players over the years, as well as a drunk driving charge.

Famous Historical Figures Say the Darndest Things!

1. "Wall of shame..." The nickname used by the west German mayor Willy Brandt in regards to the Berlin Wall. Wait... hold on... Willy Brandt? The west German mayor? Oh... he was born Herbert Frahm. That sounds more like it.
2. "The Wall certainly ought not to be a permanent feature of the European landscape. I see no reason why the Soviet Union should think it is - it is to their advantage in any way to leave there that monument to Communist failure." -Dean Rusk, Secretary of State. The president shortly after remarked; "oh, snap!". 
3. "Do not hesitate to use your firearm, not even when the border is breached in the company of women and children, which is a tactic the traitors have often used." This was a document sent to the soldiers on the border, one of those times that a Soviet license to kill was not from a Bond film.
4. "I'm not here for or against any government. I've come to play rock 'n' roll for you in the hope that one day all the barriers will be torn down." Bruce Springsteen played a concert for the Germans. I don't have much to add to this, I just thought it was kinda cool. 
5. "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words 'Ich bin ein Berliner!'" Hear that?! Kennedy's a German! Conspiracy!!!

Ottoman Empire

The shield for the Ottoman dynasty. It's got a lot
going on.

I had to read up on the Ottoman empire for two reasons: 1. I have recently taken up Age of Empires 2 again and teutonic knights were slaughtering me, sparking an interest in the Turks who I had mistakenly thought they were a part of. 2. I know absolutely nothing about the Ottoman empire, as shamelessly displayed by my initial search for teutonic knights in Turkey. Regardless of how I got here, the following chronicles the Ottoman empire's rise and fall in the abridged and somewhat factual manner that is typical of this blog.

While I'm sure some historian would slap me in the face for this, the Ottoman empire was essentially modern day Turkey - well, at least started there, as you can't really call yourself an empire if you're not wildly taking over other places. The conquest of Constantinople (one of the many of history) in 1453 is what officially gave it the empire status. Apparently, the ruler at the time of the taking of the city was only 21 years old, which sparks a number of deep, personal questions about the life choices of my 22 year old self.

A depiction of the Battle of Nicopolis.
I would like to point out the guy lying down
near the bottom of the picture. I find him hilarious.

There was a lot of buildup before the taking of Constantinople, of course. Don't forget that it's a city historically difficult to take, and paradoxically, always being taken over. Around the time when the Ottoman power really began to take hold, about two hundred years before the taking of the city, they were extending their rule over the eastern Mediterranean as well as venturing into the Balkans. Defeating Bursa, a significant holding of Byzantine power in what would currently be northwestern Turkey (believe me, I looked it up on a map!) meant greatly diminished power for the opposing Byzantine force. They also took Kosovo, ending a threat from the Serbians in the area. The Battle of Nicopolis served as the last major crusade of the middle ages. All in all, the Ottomans were rollin'. They were expanding their territory, were frequently successful in battle, and took over much of the Balkans while pushing the Byzantine forces back to Constantinople and the surrounding areas.

They had a few minor problems along the way though, mostly with civil war and all. A Turkish Mongolian leader, Timur, invaded Anatolia (just know it's a place in Turkey) and defeated Bayezid I, the reigning sultan. However, when Timur established Mehmed Celebi as sultan, his brothers refused to recognize him. Civil war was the result, and while Mehmed eventually won out, they lost a great deal of territory and grew significantly weaker. This was only a temporary setback though, and Murad II restored much of the previously lost land in about twenty to fourty years, depending on which city is in question. Unfortunately, when detailing the history of an empire in a short blog post, names such as the ones mentioned in this paragraph seem to be glossed over. I'm sure they had much greater significance than I'm demonstrating here, but... I'm not reading a wiki page for every freaking battle that took place. That's for actual historians, not those of the idiot variety.

Eventually, in what must have seemed like a long awaited invasion for those poor Byzantine, Mehmed II (son of Murad II, which, again, I'm sure holds significance) conquered Constantinople. This marked a new age for the Ottoman empire; their economy flourished due to the overland trade route they possessed between Asia and Europe, as well as effective sultans running the show. In warfare they fared no worse, defeating Persia, ruling some of Egypt and going toe to toe with the powerful Portuguese, known back then for more than just their soccer playing ability.

Suleiman the Magnificent; if the size of the
headgear corresponds to his quality as a
leader then he has well earned his title.

Arguably the greatest sultan was Suleiman the Magnificent, who must have been effective because of one, he's called "the Magnificent" and isn't a circus performer, and two, he is a playable ruler in Civilization V, something which proves indefinitely you were a big deal in the political/ruling elite/empire world Suleiman captured Belgrade, conquered much of Hungary, messed up Vienna, took Baghdad, gained control of Mesopotamia and joined with the French to oppose Habsburg rule (a leader of Europe, a royal house or something of that variety). At the end of his reign, 15,000,000 people were in his empire, stretching over three continents with the backing of a powerful naval force. He left the empire pretty well settled.

Unfortunately, things started going downhill for the Ottomans after his departure. The more Western Europeans began to take over in military technology and other discoveries as the Ottomans started to put more emphasis on religion, much as the Europeans had done prior to the Renaissance. They didn't quite have the same dominant power they held before, and falling behind in science can really hit an empire where it hurts. Regardless, they were still a powerful expansionist power, right up until the Battle of Vienna. They fought the Romans, longtime enemies of the Ottomans, and the lost marked the sharp decline of their civilization. Afterwards, a number of smaller wars were lost, and despite brief recaptures, a second Ottoman siege of Vienna spelled the decline. The treaty of Karlowitz marked a resignation of much of their land over to the Holy Roman Empire and a few others. Oh, and the bustling economy from trade routes to Asia? New maritime ones were found that no longer required Ottoman trade. Basically, they were a schoolyard bully who fought a larger bully who then took his swing-set. While he was down, some other kids took his lunch-money. That entirely pointless metaphor sums it up quite well I hope.

After some hindered attempts at reform (religious groups still caused some trouble there) the Ottoman empire continued to decline. With a reliance on the rest of the continent for money, the once mighty empire was deemed the "sick man" of Europe, coughing and wheezing over to collapse. They took part in World War 1, which is amazing to think that the Ottoman empire was actually there as the name holds such a "middle ages" feel to it. Anyways, after WW1 the empire was officially split up, creating the modern Arab world and the Republic of Turkey.

The Ottoman name will be forever remembered through cheap purchases of furniture at Ikea.

Famous Historical Figures Say the Darndest Things!

1. "We have a sick man on our hands, a man gravely ill, it will be a great misfortune if one of these days he slips through our hands, especially before the necessary arrangements are made." This quote is attributed to Tsar Nicholas I of Russia, who must have been great fun at funerals and will readings.