1632 Series personnal comment

On Thu, 13 May 2004, charles krin wrote:
 >
 > I believe that the phrase you are looking for is "How are you going to
 > keep them down on the farm, now that they've seen Gay Paree?"

Indeed, my grandfather had descriptions of year laborers who came back
from the war and explained to his father why they were going off rather
than signing for another year. My great-grandfather thought they were
doing the right thing.

George<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Andrew Lannon <ALL_games.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <Hans.DeleteThis@Kill-All-Spammers.com> wrote in message
> news:3%Qnc.65786$RI6.49845@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> > BS! Their running for their lives! They would not have deployed boats
> > for rescue missions! For the simple fact that to do so the ships have
> > to be dead in the water in order for the boats to get back to them.
> > Also there is the need for ALL hands for rigging during maneuvers.
> >
> > The story falls flat on its face!
>
> Very nice...refutation by abject denial.
>
> On a more civil note, they very probably would have deployed boats; in that
> age, a large part of the crew of warships _couldn't_ work the rigging;
> riggers rigged, gunners gunned, and officers gave orders. However, it's
> rather easier to run an oar then a topgallant, and the martial customs of
> the era called for at least a nod at honorable treatment of enemies. That,
> and they probably desperately wanted to know what the hell just demolished
> their fleet.
>
> And remember that we're talking old-fashioned sailing ships, and IIRC
> square-rigged ones at that. They probably dropped boats to look for
> survivors (or salvage), the fleet heeled around (taking the better part of
> an hour to do it), picked the boats up, and left. I don't recall the
> baddies being under fire at the time, so there's no particular threat of
> someone shooting their pinnaces.
>
The boats would have been in the water anyway.

This is long before davits - boats were normally stored on deck. If
battle was in the offing, they would be off-loaded and towed astern.
This to prevent them from being yet another source of flying splinters
(which probably killed more sailors than direct shots.).

After a confused battle like that described in _1632_ there would
undoubtedly have been some loose boats floating around. Gotta recover
them lest they become a hazard to navigation. So plenty of opportunity
to find someone floating in the water.

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Hans.TakeThisOut@Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote in
news:9GBoc.7812$rC2.2599@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com:

>
>
> Eric Flint wrote:
>
>>
>> I would also point out that the technological disparity between the
>> up-timers in the 1632 series and 17th century Europeans is no greater
>> -- smaller, in fact -- than the disparities which have existed in
>> _real_ historical contacts any number of times. If the Aztecs were
>> paralyzed by horses and guns, it was news to Cortez. He had to form
>> an alliance with other Indians to get into the Aztec capital -- and
>> was then driven off for a while. It also would have come as news to
>> the Portuguese who tried to sack the East African city-state of
>> Mombasa the first time they sailed up. The Mombasans defeated them,
>> despite never having encountered anything like the Portuguese ships
>> and cannon fire.
>>
> Actually Cortez and his band of thieves would have been killed except
> for the diseases that Cortez and his men brought with them. The
> Aztec's were in the process of dieing by the thousands and those not
> dieing were mostly incapacitated with diarhea. The Aztecs were in the
> process of waging a counter attack against Cortez and his thugs but
> couldn't come up with enough well men to carry it through. Cortez
> lived because he and his men spread diseases that the Aztecs had no
> immunity to.
>

The Aztec's were already dying from disease before Cortez landed. Given
that their capital and main population center was in the middle of a
stagnant lake, they disposed of hundreds of bodies into that lake, add
in high temperatures as well as teeming jungles nearby and they were
sitting ducks for epidemics.

You seem to think that no diseases existed in the New World before the
Arrival of Cortez and that is wrong. Malaria was and is a big killer in
Mexico, excellent vectors for carrying diseaes those Anopheles
mosquito's.

As for immunity to, they had it otherwise the entire Aztec nation and
all of his supportive tribesmen would have died off and we know that
didn't happen.

While their metal swords were better than the Aztec Obsidian ones, the
Spanish had no other technological advantages, since gunpowder weapons
were slow and slings were much faster and deadlier and the Aztec's had a
lot of those. Horses had to be fed and easily were taken out with a
long spear or two, even if you didn't bother to put holes in the ground,
etc..


Given that, then the only real advantage that Cortez had was the
hundreds of native soldiers from the various nations that had been
slaves to the Aztecs and were rising in revolt. Since they didn't
suffer from the various plagues as badly as the Aztecs, because they
weren't as overcrowded or surrounded by carrion, they were generally
healthier and hardier.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On 19 May 2004 03:07:23 GMT, "John G. Morrison"
<Labyrsmn RemoveThis @eskim-remove-o.com> wrote:

>
>You seem to think that no diseases existed in the New World before the
>Arrival of Cortez and that is wrong. Malaria was and is a big killer in
>Mexico, excellent vectors for carrying diseaes those Anopheles
>mosquito's.

I think you are taking about Yellow Fever...I'd have to check, but I
believe that Malaria came over with the African slaves...

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Just a point about geography. The Basin of Mexico, where the Aztec
capitol of Tenochitlan was located and where Mexico City is now located,
is at a fairly high altitude, somewhere between 5,000-7,000 ft. Mexico
City, at the bottom of the basin, is at 2,240 meters, which is over
6,000 feet. It is not generally very hot, and it does not have jungle
surrounding it. The Basin is surrounded by mountains, which adds to the
coolness through cold air drainage. The environment is semi-arid rather
than humid

John G. Morrison wrote:

>.
>The Aztec's were already dying from disease before Cortez landed. Given
>that their capital and main population center was in the middle of a
>stagnant lake, they disposed of hundreds of bodies into that lake, add
>in high temperatures as well as teeming jungles nearby and they were
>sitting ducks for epidemics.
>...
>
>

--
Michael Pool, RPA, Ph.D.
Anthropology/Geography Department
Austin Community College
mpool RemoveThis @austincc.edu

"-…abstract ideas have very little power in the face of social forces that emerge out of the material circumstances of real life... The forces that shape history have their roots in the most basic conditions of social and economic life. Good ideas are like the morning dew in the face of those forces." (Flint 1997)
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

They were dying from SMALL POX and BUBONIC PLAGUE... which came over with Cortez!


John G. Morrison wrote:
> Hans RemoveThis @Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote in
> news:9GBoc.7812$rC2.2599@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>>
>>Eric Flint wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would also point out that the technological disparity between the
>>>up-timers in the 1632 series and 17th century Europeans is no greater
>>>-- smaller, in fact -- than the disparities which have existed in
>>>_real_ historical contacts any number of times. If the Aztecs were
>>>paralyzed by horses and guns, it was news to Cortez. He had to form
>>>an alliance with other Indians to get into the Aztec capital -- and
>>>was then driven off for a while. It also would have come as news to
>>>the Portuguese who tried to sack the East African city-state of
>>>Mombasa the first time they sailed up. The Mombasans defeated them,
>>>despite never having encountered anything like the Portuguese ships
>>>and cannon fire.
>>>
>>
>>Actually Cortez and his band of thieves would have been killed except
>>for the diseases that Cortez and his men brought with them. The
>>Aztec's were in the process of dieing by the thousands and those not
>>dieing were mostly incapacitated with diarhea. The Aztecs were in the
>>process of waging a counter attack against Cortez and his thugs but
>>couldn't come up with enough well men to carry it through. Cortez
>>lived because he and his men spread diseases that the Aztecs had no
>>immunity to.
>>
>
>
> The Aztec's were already dying from disease before Cortez landed. Given
> that their capital and main population center was in the middle of a
> stagnant lake, they disposed of hundreds of bodies into that lake, add
> in high temperatures as well as teeming jungles nearby and they were
> sitting ducks for epidemics.
>
> You seem to think that no diseases existed in the New World before the
> Arrival of Cortez and that is wrong. Malaria was and is a big killer in
> Mexico, excellent vectors for carrying diseaes those Anopheles
> mosquito's.
>
> As for immunity to, they had it otherwise the entire Aztec nation and
> all of his supportive tribesmen would have died off and we know that
> didn't happen.
>
> While their metal swords were better than the Aztec Obsidian ones, the
> Spanish had no other technological advantages, since gunpowder weapons
> were slow and slings were much faster and deadlier and the Aztec's had a
> lot of those. Horses had to be fed and easily were taken out with a
> long spear or two, even if you didn't bother to put holes in the ground,
> etc..
>
>
> Given that, then the only real advantage that Cortez had was the
> hundreds of native soldiers from the various nations that had been
> slaves to the Aztecs and were rising in revolt. Since they didn't
> suffer from the various plagues as badly as the Aztecs, because they
> weren't as overcrowded or surrounded by carrion, they were generally
> healthier and hardier.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Hans RemoveThis @Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote in
news:D9arc.51706$_x1.30346@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:

> They were dying from SMALL POX and BUBONIC PLAGUE... which came over
> with Cortez!
>
>
Small Pox, unlikely there were any active cases given the length of the
journey. Anybody who had the disease would have exposed and essentially
killed everybody else on that ship, either from the disease itself or
the other crews sinking it, to keep from being infected.
Bubonic Plague, is also unlikely. Again, anybody catching it would have
essentially doomed the entire ship on the voyage over. Even if you
claim that it came from the rats, it wasn't such an efficient disease
vector so as to race through the jungle and beat Cortez to the Aztecs,
that takes years to accomplish, especially when entering a virgin
territory.

Cortez's reports did not specify either disease, both which were well
known to him and others, so it was more than likely a native disease or
a varint. Considering that the disease had been working at a small
scale for years before his arrival, it is not likely that it was
something he brought with him.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Read your history! Ask a Doctor!

The sailors and the rest of the world today are all carrying to some degree
these diseases. We have all built up immunities to the strains that we are
carrying. The new world had no such immunities... it hit them like an ATOMIC BOMB!

BTW this happened to ALL of the native Americans who came in contact with the
European sailors. Some survived... some died... most got very sick!



John G. Morrison wrote:

> Hans.DeleteThis@Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote in
> news:D9arc.51706$_x1.30346@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>>They were dying from SMALL POX and BUBONIC PLAGUE... which came over
>>with Cortez!
>>
>>
>
> Small Pox, unlikely there were any active cases given the length of the
> journey. Anybody who had the disease would have exposed and essentially
> killed everybody else on that ship, either from the disease itself or
> the other crews sinking it, to keep from being infected.
> Bubonic Plague, is also unlikely. Again, anybody catching it would have
> essentially doomed the entire ship on the voyage over. Even if you
> claim that it came from the rats, it wasn't such an efficient disease
> vector so as to race through the jungle and beat Cortez to the Aztecs,
> that takes years to accomplish, especially when entering a virgin
> territory.
>
> Cortez's reports did not specify either disease, both which were well
> known to him and others, so it was more than likely a native disease or
> a varint. Considering that the disease had been working at a small
> scale for years before his arrival, it is not likely that it was
> something he brought with him.
>
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Somebody's level of knowledge and understanding of history is about
where mine was when I was in 10th Grade. I would recommend a good
university-level course or three in European and American history before
blanket statements like that run away with you.

Hans.TakeThisOut@Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote:

> Read your history! Ask a Doctor!
>
> The sailors and the rest of the world today are all carrying to some
> degree these diseases. We have all built up immunities to the strains
> that we are carrying. The new world had no such immunities... it hit
> them like an ATOMIC BOMB!
>
> BTW this happened to ALL of the native Americans who came in contact
> with the European sailors. Some survived... some died... most got very
> sick!
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Heh. If that were true, m'boy, Eric and I would have ushered the US into
the Socialist tomorrow a few decades ago ...

Hans.DeleteThis@Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote:

> NO! I'm not ignoring the human element! The truth of the matter is
> easily explained and for the most part the up-timers will understand
> what is needed to insure a faster rebirth of the industries that were
> lost during the Ring-Of-Fire. There are always the total idiots and
> morons but for the most part people will come around to reason when
> presented correctly!
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Verily I say unto thee, that on Sun, 23 May 2004 17:29:16 GMT, Ross
Ashley <brashley46DELETETHECAPS RemoveThis @rogers.com> spaketh thusly:

> Heh. If that were true, m'boy, Eric and I would have ushered the US into
> the Socialist tomorrow a few decades ago ...

Ross? Please explain.

Also, anyone: IIRC, Eric's (or maybe Dave Freer's, I can't find it
now) mini-bio in one of my books says he's a Trotskyite Communist.
I've been trying to find the precise points of difference and
similarity between Trotskyite and regular(?) communism, but what I've
found has been unclear and often contradictory. Can you recommend a
good source for this?

-- A crazy old Polack
E-mail replies to polack@[Romeo][Tango][Charlie].coop
Send e-mail as straight text only.
E-mail received in any other format is automatically deleted unread.

It's wonderful being senile.
You get to see new places and meet new people without ever leaving home.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Oh, heck, Ursus and I are both Trots, albeit of different flavours.

Premature anti-Stalinists, I calls us.

I was just trying to joke with Hans about the ease of convincing people
to perform an action they think is contrary to their interests through
pure sweet reason alone!

As for the differences between the Trotkyist movement and Stalinism,
you'd have to read a lot, or live it, or both. Stalin the Great
Bureacrat versus Trotsky the Consistent Revolutionary.

Polack wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that on Sun, 23 May 2004 17:29:16 GMT, Ross
> Ashley <brashley46DELETETHECAPS.TakeThisOut@rogers.com> spaketh thusly:
>
>
>>Heh. If that were true, m'boy, Eric and I would have ushered the US into
>>the Socialist tomorrow a few decades ago ...
>
>
> Ross? Please explain.
>
> Also, anyone: IIRC, Eric's (or maybe Dave Freer's, I can't find it
> now) mini-bio in one of my books says he's a Trotskyite Communist.
> I've been trying to find the precise points of difference and
> similarity between Trotskyite and regular(?) communism, but what I've
> found has been unclear and often contradictory. Can you recommend a
> good source for this?
>
> -- A crazy old Polack
> E-mail replies to polack@[Romeo][Tango][Charlie].coop
> Send e-mail as straight text only.
> E-mail received in any other format is automatically deleted unread.
>
> It's wonderful being senile.
> You get to see new places and meet new people without ever leaving home.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Hans.RemoveThis@Kill-All-Spammers.com wrote:
> Read your history! Ask a Doctor!
>
> The sailors and the rest of the world today are all carrying to some
> degree these diseases. We have all built up immunities to the strains
> that we are carrying. The new world had no such immunities... it hit
> them like an ATOMIC BOMB!
>
> BTW this happened to ALL of the native Americans who came in contact
> with the European sailors. Some survived... some died... most got very
> sick!

May I recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for a better understanding of
the specifics of the epidemics, and "Harbrace College Handbook" for a
better understanding of the use of the exclamation point?

BTW, "plonk".
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment