Momopi, puzzling questions about general history

[momopi]

I'm not a fan of Mark Twain, crappy documentaries, and cross-posting.

[Winston]

I'm not a fan of Mark Twain, crappy documentaries, and cross-posting.

Why do you assume that all documentaries are crappy? Isn't that an overgeneralization? The reality is, some documentaries are great, others so so. Did you read the reviews on Amazon that I linked to? The Mark Twain documentary by Ken Burns is considered the best biographical documentary ever. Many history buffs agree.

Why do you deny this or put it down? Strange. I thought you were a logical person?

You are a history buff right? Where do you get your knowledge of history from? Did you major in it in college? How do you know so much about it?

And why is it not possible for a history documentary to be good in your view? Why are you biased against documentaries? You don't believe in film as a medium?

Mark Twain had many wonderful insights. The people of his time loved him. Even when he went to Europe, he had many fans. How can you not appreciate that. Do you not have a human soul? Do you not have feelings? I don't understand.

You sometimes act like a Vulcan with no emotions. lol

[Winston]

1. That would be a shorter and more profitable route to India than sailing west.

2. There is no short answer to your question, but I'd say that you should not assume the colonists were competent, or the local Indians were friendly. When a colony fails, often nobody is left to tell exactly what happened. Although it's possible to forage for food, when winter hits you're less likely to find edibles. There is no such thing as a vegetable tree.

5. History is usually written from ethnic-centric perspective. Cortes had allied himself with nation-states and Yanaconas (peasants?) that opposed the Aztecs. Think of it as a much larger regional or civil war between nation-states, and Cortez was lucky enough to have allied with the winning side.

6. What makes you think if an Indian band flees to Canada, the Canadian authorities wouldn't deport them back to the US?

Again, if you meet an Indian on an Indian reservation who looks depressed and want to know why, ask him directly and not an unrelated person.

7. If you were to believe that profit was the objective, then you cannot say that there was no objective.

8. Anthony Hopkins is not Richard Nixon, nor does anyone really know what went on in Nixon's head other than what he wanted you to know. Movies are for entertainment.

11. How many trips can you make per day with a landing ship from UK to Normandy, versus UK to Russia?

12. Genghis Khan died in 1227, the Mongol Empire was not at war against the Chinese Song Dynasty until AFTER his death. The Mongols and the Chinese Song Dynasty were allied against the Jin (Jurchen) Dynasty, and after conquering Jin they fought over the spoils. The Mongol-Song conflict lasted from 1235-1279, taking 44 years for the Mongols to conquer Song Dynasty.

What crappy documentary told you that Genghis Khan conquered China without opposition?

13. Napoleon did have 16 armored cuirassier regiments. Although armor was less effective vs firearms, they were still effective vs sabers, lance, and bayonet.

The penetration power of a musket is dependent on the range. Historians cite the Battle of Cerignola in 1503 (or other Spanish-French battles from the same period) as the turning point where Spanish arquebusiers defeated the heavily armored French Gendarme.

Metal armor was still used in WW1, offering limited protection against shrapnel. Google "trench armor".

1. I see. What about sailing through the Mediterranean Sea past Egypt? On the map there looks like a sea strait there. Is it blocked by land?

2. Ok so if crops fail, then colonists starve. But can't they hunt in the winter? Or do animals all disappear too? Why can't they store food for winter, like the Native Americans did?

Anyhow, we don't hear of English colonies until the 1600's. So I was wondering why.

5. I see. That makes sense.

6. I don't know. Did they? Canadians treated Indians better and were more sympathetic to them right?

8. Well I'm sure that a historian like you or Oliver Stone could find out a lot about Nixon from the people closest to him. Anyone can if they wanted to. Either way, the film "Nixon" by Oliver Stone was a masterpiece. If you see it, you will know what I mean. Why are you not a fan of great films?

I don't think movies are just for entertainment. They are used to condition us in some way too. You may not know anything about the Illuminati, but you can't rule that out, since occult symbols such as the all seeing eye are in nearly every movie since the 1970's. You'd be surprised.

11. Ok I see.

12. The documentaries on PBS, BBC and Discovery Channel all showed Genghis Khan conquering China with no resistance. You can find some of them on YouTube.

So the Mongols faced no great battle against huge armies like Alexander the Great did many times? If they did, what are they called?

Why do history documentaries mention great battles by Alexander or Napoleon, but not by Genghis Khan?

I don't see any soldiers in WWI wearing armor. You mean metal armor? Why is that never shown in any photos or video?

Also, why don't soldiers today wear bullet proof vests, like SWAT teams do? Wouldn't that save lives?

[Winston]

Well they won 99 percent of the engagements. That's almost all.

"99 percent", "almost all", "a majority of", etc. is not the same as "winning every time".

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

Well it's a figure of speech. Come on now. You know what I mean. If I win something 99 percent of the time, and I say "I always win", it's about the same thing.

Documentaries say that. Why do you think all documentaries are crap? The BBC, History Channel, PBS, A&E, etc. are all renowned for producing high quality documentaries. Why do you deny that?
I saw one about an explosion on a US aircraft carrier during Vietnam. How could two guys on a canoe sink an aircraft carrier? Doesn't it take torpedos to do that?

What did the documentary say about the attack on the US aircraft carrier?

I don't remember. Maybe it was a bomb or something.

Here's another question:
14. During the top secret Manhattan Project, how did the US secretly detonate an atomic bomb in the desert of New Mexico? Wouldn't an atomic bomb going off in a mushroom cloud within the US have gotten the attention of residents in New Mexico, the media and local government as well? How could that have been done secretly? I've never understood that.

The Manhattan project involved over 100,000 people with varying degree of secrecy. The press had some ideas about what's going on, because the war-time office of censorship gave them an exact list of what NOT to write about. Failure to comply means treason during war-time. If you're referring specifically to the Trinity nuclear test that took place in July 1945 (about a month before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the detonation was seen and heard as far as 200 miles away. The air force press release simply stated that an ammunition storage exploded.

Oh so you do believe that the press is controlled then. I still don't get how an atomic explosion and mushroom cloud could go off in the desert of New Mexico without everyone in the state seeing it. Can't a mushroom cloud be seen from a distance throughout the whole state?

How can they control every newspaper like that, even local small town ones?

[Winston]

Momopi or anyone else here:

More puzzling questions.

1. Why didn't the European countries take over all of Africa the same way they took over all of North America and made it totally dominated by white people? Were the white colonies in Africa less successful for some reason? Was it because Africa contained too many diseases and types of malaria for white people to survive? Or because the tribes of Africa were too difficult to fight or kill off?

2. How come the European colonies in South Africa didn't expand and take over the whole continent of Africa, like the 13 colonies of East Coast America expanded to take over all of America westward?

3. How come the brown ethnic people of South America are still around? Yet the Native American Indians were nearly wiped out? Were they weaker for some reason? Why weren't there millions of American Indians?

4. How did Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa all gain their independence from Britain? Did they fight a war of independence too? Or were they given independence as a free gift?

5. Why did the British Empire give up India? Because rebel armies in India fought them and won? Or because World War One against Germany costed them too many resources and so they ended up losing India?

6. How come for 300 years, the British army wore beautiful red uniforms, hence the term "Red Coats"? But in 1914 during World War One, the British soldiers wore those ugly brown uniforms with stupid looking helmets that looked like frisbees? Why make them look so uncool and unelegant all of a sudden?

7. If guns were invented in the 1300's, then how come they weren't used during the hundred years war between France and England, which lasted until the early 1400's?

8. How come nothing is mentioned about the American colonies during the 1600's, except for the Salem Witch Trials of 1699? Did nothing interesting happen in the American colonies during those 100 years of the 1600's?

9. How come during the Salem Witch Trials of 1699, there were no British Red Coat troops to manage the hysteria and bring order to the villages? Did the British not deem the colonies worthy of putting troops there at that time?

10. Why did the Pilgrims and Puritans migrate to New England, America during the early 1600's? What kind of religious persecution were they fleeing? England was Protestant at that time, and so were they. So what were they being persecuted of exactly, that they were willing to go to a new world and be isolated, lonely and vulnerable to Indians who could come and kill them all at any time?

11. During the American war for independence, why didn't the British send an army of medieval archers? The English had developed the English long bow in the middle ages which worked well in medieval battles. The long bow can shoot arrows really far, probably farther than musket pellets could fire. So why didn't England send professional archers to drive tons of arrows at Washington's continental army? That would have been rad. It would have been awesome. Maybe it would have been more effective too. Especially since the american militia carried no shields, so the arrows would have had no resistance to their penetration.

They could have carried that red flag with the yellow lion on it, which was the english flag of the middle ages, along with the archers, to signify medieval warfare. That would have been rad. Lol.

12. Why didn't the British, instead of sending armies to fight the American Revolution, just sent mercenaries and bounty hunters to assassinate all the Founding Fathers and leaders of the Revolution? That way, they could have ended it in a dirty manner without the massive expensive of sending armies.

Sorry for so many questions. Thanks.

[The_Adventurer]

Short answer, because all the history they teach you about Africa is a lie. Look up the Almoravid Empire, and the Songhay....

[Winston]

Short answer, because all the history they teach you about Africa is a lie. Look up the Almoravid Empire, and the Songhay....

Can you elaborate or summarize more? What's the truth about Africa? Did it have an advanced civilization? If so, what happened to it? Why all the primitive tribes now? Did you see the TV miniseries in the 80's called "Shaka Zulu"? It was great.

Does the Zulu Empire still exist? They beat the British army in several battles. So Africa was probably not as easy to conquer as the Americas were.

Btw, I asked other questions above besides Africa.

[Cornfed]

Winston, I know most Chinese could not be expected to know the answers to your latest questions, but for someone with an alleged European soul, aren't they fairly obvious/stupid?

[The_Adventurer]

Short answer, because all the history they teach you about Africa is a lie. Look up the Almoravid Empire, and the Songhay....

Can you elaborate or summarize more? What's the truth about Africa? Did it have an advanced civilization? If so, what happened to it? Why all the primitive tribes now? Did you see the TV miniseries in the 80's called "Shaka Zulu"? It was great.

Does the Zulu Empire still exist? They beat the British army in several battles. So Africa was probably not as easy to conquer as the Americas were.

Btw, I asked other questions above besides Africa.

I don't know if this board is the place to get into it, but since you mentioned Shaka Zulu, that is a good example. No matter how great a society, or how great a leader, there will always be some guy who is number 2, or number 3, who thinks he can do better than the great leader. The foreign invaders say, "You help us get what we want, and we will make sure you get to be the king." The first puppet dictator is thus born. Often they don't even realise their path is leading to the destruction of their own nation and people. They are drunk on their own power and riches.

The Zulu still exist and still have their own chiefs and government, but real power lies in the government of South Africa, who can remove these Zulu chiefs from office if they don't go along with the plan. Also, one of Shaka's top men, rebelled against him and took his men and founded the kingdom which today is known as Zimbabwe.

Me saying something has very little meaning. You really need to look up the Almoravid Empire, and the Songhay Kingdom, for yourself, and report your own findings. But I will ask this question:

When you see a black person, in a historical context, anywhere in the world, are they automatically a slave?



This is a painting from 1640 by Dutch artist Govaert Flinck. It depicts an archer who fought in the 30 years war.



This painting from the 1500's depicts Carlos Quinto, Emperor of Peru and Atahualpa, one of the leaders of the Inca. Atahualpa and his brother Huascar fought over rulership of the Inca after their father died. The Europeans played them against each other and the Inca empire was destroyed.



This painting from 1664, by Adriaen Hanneman, supposedly depicts Princess Mary Stuart and a servant. The problem is no princess, in that time, would ever have a male servant, especially in her bedroom, and especially not dressing her. Note also the South American cloak.



Francois De Troy was a French painter for the court of King James II. Around 1690, he painted this guy. Pretty regal looking if he is supposed to be a slave...



This nun is Lousie Marie-Therese, a Benedictine nun in the Abbey of Moret-sur-Loing. She was called Mauresse De Moret and this portrait, from around 1680, exists in the Bibliotheque Sainte Genevieve. It is said she was the daughter of Queen Maria Theresa of Spain.

When European powers went into Africa, they were not meeting and interacting with these people for the first time. Black people were heavily involved in world history, everywhere since ancient time. There are even reports surfacing here in China now, with ancient Chinese writings speaking of their contacts and battles with black tribes and black kingdoms.

Look up the Almoravid Empire, and the Songhay Kingdom, for yourself, and report your own findings.

[cdnFA]

To Momopi or anyone else:

Since you seem to have an impressive knowledge of history, I was wondering if you could shed light on some puzzling questions I have about general history. After watching many history documentaries, there are a number of things I don't get. Can you shed some light on them or explain them? I will list them by number.

1. Why did Columbus have to sail over the Atlantic Ocean to try to get to India? Why didn't the Europeans just sail south around Africa to India?

Also, since Europe and Asia are joined by the largest landmass continent in the world, why couldn't they have just gone over land to India? Surely there must have been multiple routes?

They say that Turkey blocked the "Silk Road". What does that mean? How can a whole route be blocked? How can a whole continent be blocked? And why couldn't armies in Europe just remove the block by force?

2. After Columbus discovered the Americas, history says that Spain sent many men to plunder South America during the 1500's. Why didn't they plunder North America too? Why did they leave the whole northern continent untouched for 100 years?

Then history says that the English settled in Jamestown during the early 1600's. Why didn't the English come to the New World at all during the 1500's? Why did they do nothing for a century? That was never explained.

3. Since America was settled during the 1600's, why didn't the American Indians learn how to make rifles from the white settlers? Surely they could just capture some rifles and learn how to make them right? They had almost 300 years to do so. So why didn't they? If they had, that would have brought more balance to the Indian Wars.

4. Why did the white population in America explode like crazy, whereas the American Indian population didn't? Even before Columbus, the American Indians had thousands of years to populate the continent. So why weren't there millions of them?

5. How did Hernando Cortes conquer the Aztec Empire and South America with only 400 men? Guns during that time were short range and took a long time to load. So couldn't thousands of Aztecs have just thrown spears and rocks and killed all of them easily? They could also have ambushed them in the forest at close range combat and taken the advantage.

6. During the 1800's, why didn't the American Indians just flee into Canada so they didn't have to be forced onto reservations? Then they could live freely in Canada, and the US army could not pursue them there right?

7. During the Vietnam War, why couldn't the US military just capture Hanoi and force a surrender? Surely they could capture the Vietcong leader if they really wanted to right? The US is good at finding anything it wants.

In WWII, when Berlin was captured, the war was over. So why wasn't it like that in the Vietnam War too? Did the US purposely not capture Hanoi and the Vietcong leader in order to prolong the war for profit?

If the Vietcong leader could evade capture like that by hiding in the forest, then why didn't Hitler and Mussolini do the same?

8. Why was Japan able to occupy a huge country like China, but Germany could not do that with Russia? Germany's armies were more powerful than Japan's.

9. Why didn't the Nazis enter Moscow to capture Stalin and force a surrender? How else were they planning to win? Aren't you supposed to capture a city or leader to win a war?

10. Why did the Nazi armies fight a seige at Stalingrad for many months? I thought their objective was to capture the oil fields in the Caucus region. So why didn't they just pass by Stalingrad and head toward the Caucus region for the oil then? What's the point of wasting many men and resources for just one city when the objective was oil?

Sorry for so many questions. Hope they are interesting to you. I look forward to your explanations. Thanks.

For someone who posts on history and world war 2 and hitler and talks down to me, this post is really disturbing.

1: How could anyone remotely well read in history not know the advantage of sea transport over land transport. It comes up over and over again.
2: How could anyone not have heard of Aztec and Inca gold. North America didn't have it. Fish, Fur and hard to clear farmland with hostiles. Again, how can you not put two and two together.
3: Lack of industrial infrastructure, it isn't a one person job, not as if it is a solo project. Also easier to trade for them. Nah, too weird. Space Jews, much more believable.
4: Again, ignorance. 1: There were millions of them till disease cleared most of them out. 2: Hunting and gathering even combined with simple agriculture of the 3 sisters variety just don't allow the same level of population density as agriculture especially by that time. Double so with the potato and corn tossed into the mix. For a person who derps about history, you should know this.
5: I'll give you 5, sort of. If you have never read anything on that period you would not realize how much help Cortez got from locals who turned on the Aztec. He didn't do it on his own.
6: Because oh I donno the area was already occupied? I mean think about it. Really.
7: A Trump level [why can't we use nukes] question. Remember what happened when we went to the Yalu during Korea. When the French was in Hanoi the VC didn't give up, why expect a different result.
8: Japan only occupied a rather small region of China and they really only held the major towns and rail roads. Germany facing much stronger opposition were able to hold on to plenty of territory. Maybe if you were not so obsessed over this Hitler was a nice guy crap and read about your own history a bit...
9: Because Operation Typhoon failed. That you don't know this explains a lot of the crap out of your mouth from that period. Barbarossa started 6 weeks late some because of Yugoslavia and Greece some because of harsh weather. There was a diversion south to take out Kiev which netted 600K prisoners and secured the south flank of the drive to Moscow, ignoring then and driving straight to Moscow might have worked but would have been risky as hell.
10: Again for anyone who posts on that period, you should know this. 1: Stalingrad would secure the flank. 2: They did drive into the oil fields, they didn't get far enough and couldn't hold it. again flanks. Also Hitler especially at that point went from being a lucky idiot to just being an idiot and made it personal.

[cdnFA]

Momopi or anyone else here:

More puzzling questions.

1. Why didn't the European countries take over all of Africa the same way they took over all of North America and made it totally dominated by white people? Were the white colonies in Africa less successful for some reason? Was it because Africa contained too many diseases and types of malaria for white people to survive? Or because the tribes of Africa were too difficult to fight or kill off?

2. How come the European colonies in South Africa didn't expand and take over the whole continent of Africa, like the 13 colonies of East Coast America expanded to take over all of America westward?

3. How come the brown ethnic people of South America are still around? Yet the Native American Indians were nearly wiped out? Were they weaker for some reason? Why weren't there millions of American Indians?

4. How did Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa all gain their independence from Britain? Did they fight a war of independence too? Or were they given independence as a free gift?

5. Why did the British Empire give up India? Because rebel armies in India fought them and won? Or because World War One against Germany costed them too many resources and so they ended up losing India?

6. How come for 300 years, the British army wore beautiful red uniforms, hence the term "Red Coats"? But in 1914 during World War One, the British soldiers wore those ugly brown uniforms with stupid looking helmets that looked like frisbees? Why make them look so uncool and unelegant all of a sudden?

7. If guns were invented in the 1300's, then how come they weren't used during the hundred years war between France and England, which lasted until the early 1400's?

8. How come nothing is mentioned about the American colonies during the 1600's, except for the Salem Witch Trials of 1699? Did nothing interesting happen in the American colonies during those 100 years of the 1600's?

9. How come during the Salem Witch Trials of 1699, there were no British Red Coat troops to manage the hysteria and bring order to the villages? Did the British not deem the colonies worthy of putting troops there at that time?

10. Why did the Pilgrims and Puritans migrate to New England, America during the early 1600's? What kind of religious persecution were they fleeing? England was Protestant at that time, and so were they. So what were they being persecuted of exactly, that they were willing to go to a new world and be isolated, lonely and vulnerable to Indians who could come and kill them all at any time?

11. During the American war for independence, why didn't the British send an army of medieval archers? The English had developed the English long bow in the middle ages which worked well in medieval battles. The long bow can shoot arrows really far, probably farther than musket pellets could fire. So why didn't England send professional archers to drive tons of arrows at Washington's continental army? That would have been rad. It would have been awesome. Maybe it would have been more effective too. Especially since the american militia carried no shields, so the arrows would have had no resistance to their penetration.

They could have carried that red flag with the yellow lion on it, which was the english flag of the middle ages, along with the archers, to signify medieval warfare. That would have been rad. Lol.

12. Why didn't the British, instead of sending armies to fight the American Revolution, just sent mercenaries and bounty hunters to assassinate all the Founding Fathers and leaders of the Revolution? That way, they could have ended it in a dirty manner without the massive expensive of sending armies.

Sorry for so many questions. Thanks.

My god. If this your level of history knowledge, assuming your knowledge of other areas is similar no wonder you believe the other nonsense you do. Like your stereotypical Chinese person you are clueless about the world around you. No wonder basic Science does nothing to persuade you that a flat earth isn't true.

1 and 2. Diseases took out much of the population of the New World. The Africans had the same immunities as White people. Plus some parts of Africa were killer for Whites, tropical diseases. That is just a logic fail on your part.

3: Not all of them died. Some were in remote areas and left alone. Also they had much larger populations to start with than in North America. Higher Indian to Spanish ratio, toss in black slaves, rinse lather and repeat.

4: FFS. I know you are basically an American but come on. Canada fought against the British with their Amish and Space Jew Allies. The Canadian House Hippo cav just laid waste to the Brits.
Or it was negotiation. The colonies were going to be loyal anyways and it was better for the Brits to let them run their own affairs. Win Win. Take your pic. Ditto for Australia, NZ and SA.

5: Never mind the Brits gave up India after World War 2. Also have you never heard of Ghandi for f***s sakes. GHANDI! There was even a movie about it. You know the guy who made passive resistance a popular thing. Rebel armies. Sigh.
Yes there was stirrings but the British actually held India was a pretty small force. However India wanted independence and it just wasn't worth holding onto a population who wanted independence, especially post WWII when colonialism wasn't so big. The second part isn't well known about the small force, but again. Ghandi dude. There was even an epic rap battle with him. He is even mentioned in the Weird Al movie.

6: Fair question sort of, but not from "Asia's greatest free thinker" and armature historian. Even in the second Boer War war they went Khaki. As for why. You do know the difference between muskets and rifles right? Please say that you do.

7: The obvious every history buff answer would be that early guns were crap and gunpower was expensive as balls. I did look it up though. Also it was used early on "English Privy Wardrobe accounts list "ribaldis," a type of cannon, in the 1340s, and siege guns were used by the English at Calais in 1346"

8: Lots of things happened. However none of it apperently were of interest to youtubers and conspericy nutters nor was there anything to pin on space jews so you would never encounter it. If you ever walked into a library [and don't tell me you have, at least you have never opened a history book in your life] and read a few history books you would know better.

9: Hysteria would be a bit of an over statement. Also and I am spitballing here, why would they get involved. it wasn't as if there were mass riots in the street. They were called the Salam Witch TRIALS. Not the last word.

10: Again FFS, how could someone who spent a bit of time in the US not be aware that there are different cults within protestantism.

11: Militaries don't do things because they are rad. Fair question though. It takes a lifetime to train a longbowman. Those bows take a lot of strength to pull. A musketeer can be trained up to at least marginal use pretty quick. Basic drill and some backbone. Longbows were long out of service by then.

12: One could say anyone who took the Kings Shilling was a bit of a merc. Winners in life didn't join the ranks. Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_( ... ionary_War
As for killing leaders. I'd hazard a guess that it just isn't done old boy. They were British subjects. Might have happened, but I don't recall such tactics being used in that period, even against regicide froggies during the Napoleon war.

A few of your questions were acceptable. Some of them show a crushing ignorance of history for even a lay person. No wonder whenever you say "Science says" it is pretty much always a false statement.

Never ever question my intellectualism. You are not in a position to judge. This BTW is why I often don't even bother trying. You have no idea how far off your thoughts are.

[Winston]

Cdnfa,
Dude you dont need to berate me like that just because i ask some amusing and puzzling questions. Nothing wrong with that. Man i would hate to be your son or student. Youd make a terrible father or teacher. I mean, imagine your son asks you questions about life or the world, and you berate him to discourage him from asking questions again or showing curiosity. Or imagine your student asking you questions and you berate him. Youd make a terrible teacher. You have serious personality flaws and do not radiate any inner joy or peace inside you. I feel sorry for you dude. This was supposed to be a pleasant fun amusing discussion, not a chance for you to show your dark side.

Also your beratement isnt fair. Im not ignorant. I obviously have a lot more knowledge of history than the average american. Thats obvious from my questions, which normal people dont usually ask or wonder about. Also many of your answers are incomplete.

If you were wise, youd know that asking questions is a way to know things and gain knowledge.

[Winston]

Terrence,
Have you seen the TV miniseries Shaka Zulu? It was awesome and from the 80s. See here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086798/

I dont understand what happened at the end. Why did shaka zulus own people stab him to death? Did they all agree to do so? Was it because he went insane and out of control after his mothers death? He was supposed to be a God to his people so how could they dare do that? And why would his people worship him after his death if they assassinated him? It was odd.

Also why did he kill his own baby son just to prevent a rivalry? Thats way too savage and makes africans look bad like they have no morals. No European monarch would have done that.

[The_Adventurer]

Terrence,
Have you seen the TV miniseries Shaka Zulu? It was awesome and from the 80s. See here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086798/

I dont understand what happened at the end. Why did shaka zulus own people stab him to death? Did they all agree to do so? Was it because he went insane and out of control after his mothers death? He was supposed to be a God to his people so how could they dare do that? And why would his people worship him after his death if they assassinated him? It was odd.

Also why did he kill his own baby son just to prevent a rivalry? Thats way too savage and makes africans look bad like they have no morals. No European monarch would have done that.

That was a good show. I loved that theme music too.

Shaka was assassinated by his brothers and they were supported by the Boers and the British. The brother that eventually took power, after the brothers fought amongst themselves, had British backing. As I wrote earlier, there will always be some number 2 or number 3 guy who thinks he can do better than the ruler, and will help the foreigners if they put him in power. He becomes a puppet ruler for the foreigners. Still happens to this day.

Shaka did get weird after the death of his mother. He supposedly ordered a year of mourning, and people who didn't mourn hard enough were executed. Thousands didn't mourn hard enough. This included animals too.

Some things were, of course, dramatised for the Tv mini-series, and there is no evidence that he ever had a son, as he never married. He may have bene too into his mother. He had a harem, of course, but it is said that any women who got pregnant were sent away and the children never knew about their father. As for European monarchs, there are examples, England, Spain, Portugal, and going all the way back to roman and greek times, of rulers killing off heirs. Heirs kill off fathers as well.

Most information known about Shaka, in the western world, comes from one man, a British Friend Shaka had, and whom he granted land to and traded with. Contrary to popular belief Shaka granted Europeans passage, areas to settle and traded wit them. The British were the first to betray that friendship. This man, however, only wrote this stuff down twenty years after it happened, shortly before his death. All other info about him is from African oral traditions, which we know are not accepted by western scholarship.

[MarcosZeitola]

Also why did he kill his own baby son just to prevent a rivalry? Thats way too savage and makes africans look bad like they have no morals. No European monarch would have done that.

I wouldn't say that too loud, Winston - King Philip II of Spain notoriously had his own eldest son murdered because the prince was emotionally unstable and a liability. He married a younger woman and fathered a second son, who wasn't as sickly and proved to be of sound mind. I'm pretty sure at least one Russian Tsar did the same thing. Royal families are not exactly known for their high sense of morality, whether they be African, European or Eastern. One of Queen Victoria's grandsons was even suspected of being Jack the Ripper, talk about savages...