573
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 19 points 4 days ago

Grow a garden that can feed an extended family in nutrient poor soil with a musket. You’re looking at it the wrong way if you’re viewing one as better than the other and not just different technologies.

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Okay, build me a diesel powered tractor with tiller attachment out of obsidian.

The other answer:

Okay. points musket at brown people Start tilling.

[-] pomegranatefern@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago

I'm extremely confused by the thesis of your argument here. What is the point you're trying to make?

That your hippy dippy "different technologies" take is kind of naive. You sound like a kindergarten teacher handing out participation trophies.

These two peoples with these two "different technologies" fought. Who won?

[-] derAbsender@piefed.social 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Might makes right ey?

Seems very uncivilized.

Edit:

So i guess in your world the most advanced creature is a Malaria mosquito.

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 8 points 4 days ago

Technology alone doesn't win wars. Hernan Cortez only subdued the Aztecs thanks to managing to get several other native groups to join in on an assault against Tenochtitlan. Diseases that were new to the Americas also killed many natives, way more than any direct confrontations. On an funny note, the Australian army technically lost a war against emus, which are large, flightless birds.

Keep in mind that colonial powers always used local groups to keep things "in order". This was no different to how they did it in African and Asian colonies: find a group that you can bully or buy and ensure they stay in power, for a price.

I'll grant...just about all of that. Though my understanding of the "emu war" was like three dudes in a truck with a box of bullets.

Let me ask you this though: Why isn't that what would have happened if they landed in ancient Egypt? Indulge the sci-fi scenario a little bit, 11 ships carrying 600 16th century CE Spanish Conquistadors land in the Levant circa 2600 BCE. Why would it go any different for Khufu than it did for Montezuma? Would Cortes not win some early victories against some small coastal tribes, capture him a woman that speaks a couple local languages, learn who the major power in the region is, start gathering allies among the locals who've lived under Egypt's thumb and would like to get a piece of that highfalutin pharaoh, and then march his combined army on Memphis? All the while the natives are dying of all the diseases that the 15th century has that the -25th doesn't?

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Would Cortes not win some early victories against some small coastal tribes, capture him a woman that speaks a couple local languages, learn who the major power in the region is,

Yes

start gathering allies among the locals who’ve lived under Egypt’s thumb and would like to get a piece of that highfalutin pharaoh,

This is where things break. Do you know enough about the different people living under the Pharaoh's rule in the era you're talking about? I don't. Thus, I cannot say whether Cortez would manage to find enough support to march to the capital, be hailed as the incarnation of some god, or whether the translator would try to warn everyone that the conquistadors are a bunch of pillaging pirates that should be killed, with them being none the wiser. When you're a stranger in someone else's land and everyone absolutely hates you above all else, you can't even breathe without fear of being ambushed. Sure, they have these frightening tools that are louder than thunder, create foul smoke and kill people from a distance, but those things won't protect your back from being shanked

Or, let's throw a more recent perspective: USA vs. Taliban, 2001-2021. One side has drones, aerial supremacy, satellite imagery, smart missiles, aircraft carriers. The other has mostly just small arms, weapons that at most, need to be mounted on a pickup truck, no tanks, no planes, it was a bunch of fanatics using guerilla tactics. USA never managed to fully beat the Taliban and, after the end of the withdrawal, it didn't take 2 weeks before they seized power.

Was the United States trying to kill all the Afghanis, raise the Stars and Stripes over Afghanistan and start mining and farming the place for goods to ship back home? Not sure it's a fair comparison given the differing goals. I'm pretty sure we were using Afghanistan as the Military Industrial Complex's cum dumpster.

Sure, they have these frightening tools that are louder than thunder, create foul smoke and kill people from a distance, but those things won’t protect your back from being shanked

No, that's what a quirass is for. That's why they wore those.

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I'm sure they spent 24/7 with a cuirass in the Central American heat. Also, not every Spaniard in those expeditions had the money to buy one for themselves.

EDIT:

Was the United States trying to kill all the Afghanis,

No, neither was Spain in America, since the natives could be captured as slaves

raise the Stars and Stripes over Afghanistan and start mining and farming the place for goods to ship back home?

Pretty sure that ended up being one of the things during the occupation, yes.

[-] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 days ago

That your hippy dippy “different technologies” take is kind of naive

Don’t sit here and act like you don’t live as the beneficiary of thousands of years of selective breeding of Mesoamerican staple crops, not even to touch on the medications you take that come from the Americas. I’m talking about them as different technologies because they are, and recreating things like terra preta is an active area of research for current day use. Because, guess what, our current technology that you’re jacking off about sucks ass and relies on dumping a metric fuckton of nitrogen and phosphorous in the form of fertilizer runoff into waterways, creating enormous dead zones.

‘Who can kill the most people with it’ is a very American way of understanding the past or technology in general. You can’t kill anyone with a telescope, that doesn’t mean it’s not a technology.

[-] pomegranatefern@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago

You can’t kill anyone with a telescope

Well, not with THAT attitude.

(I really have been enjoying your posts here, please do not take this as anything but me shitposting.)

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 6 points 4 days ago

That just shows that we never evolved past ‘the one who is stronger is the one who is right’, and I really wish we would

That's adorable.

[-] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Why bother doing any of that shit when you can maintain a productive environment and slit that asshole’s throat while he sleeps?

this post was submitted on 09 May 2026
573 points (99.5% liked)

History Memes

2533 readers
646 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Piefed.social rules.

  5. History referenced must be 20+ years old.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS