Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take Genghis Khan, for example. Equipped with technology available today, how would that have altered his way of conquering lands and administering conquered territories? With immediate access to his commanders in the field, might it have been unnecessary to sack cities and slaughter villagers? Or would have just made his cruelty more efficient?
What would early America have done to the Indians, if we we'd had GPS and Cellphones?
It depends on who had what. If the Native Americans had AK-47's and RPGs, but we had muskets and GPS they would still be hunting buffalo and farming forest clearings and we'd be living in squalor on European Native Reservations.
I do wonder how our near limitless access to information and stuff would have altered history though. If Germans in the 1920's and 30's had the internet would it have even been possible for the Nazis to come to power? If the Japanese of the same time period had anime and manga, would they have kept their actions in the fantasy realm instead of trying to take over the pacific? If Napoleon had Prozac and Viagra, would he have just stayed in France and chilled on the beach with a couple of feme fatales who were into short guys?
Of course it's silly to entertain, since modernity required centuries of discovery and evolution to arrive where it's at, but it's still fun to think about.
It depends on who had what. If the Native Americans had AK-47's and RPGs, but we had muskets and GPS they would still be hunting buffalo and farming forest clearings and we'd be living in squalor on European Native Reservations.
:
I don't think so. If the Natives were capable of producing an AK-47, then they would not have been some nomadic or agricultural people, they would have to have had some sort of industrial base, which mean cities and factories. In the long run what it means is that instead of Europeans overrunning America, the Native Americans might have decided to take over Europe.
I don't think so. If the Natives were capable of producing an AK-47, then they would not have been some nomadic or agricultural people, they would have to have had some sort of industrial base, which mean cities and factories. In the long run what it means is that instead of Europeans overrunning America, the Native Americans might have decided to take over Europe.
That didn't stop the Somalis from getting them. You don't have to invent or produce weapons in order to have use of them. Read T E Lawrence.
I don't think so. If the Natives were capable of producing an AK-47, then they would not have been some nomadic or agricultural people, they would have to have had some sort of industrial base, which mean cities and factories. In the long run what it means is that instead of Europeans overrunning America, the Native Americans might have decided to take over Europe.
I'm assuming, for the sake of argument that Cold war Russian weapons sprout out of prairie like buffalo grass in this parallel universe. Or maybe they were supplied by time-travelling soviet scientists just before the collapse of the USSR.
Very broad topic. Weapons and warfare, and it's usage, changed in history of course. Gehghis Kahn's method of warfare does not exist in the 21st century, and thus he would not exist. Nor would other historical despots. Other despots (Hitler, Sadamm Hussein, Idi Ammin) did, and you can use them as examples. But Hussein was limited by technology to just being a local despot. Modern warfare of a conventional kind gives tremendous benifits to those that have a technological advantage. In modern time despots of imperialistic tendencies (Napolean, Hitler) are limited and checked by the organized community of nation states, something that did not exist in ancient times.
As far as the native americans - this practice continues today with one group forcing out the native people of an area. Nothing new. The American Indian was very proficient in procuring and using the technology of his enemy - the horse, the rifle. And the warfare developed into one that can be described as unconventional (raids, ambushes, attacks on non-combatants, incidents that would be compared to terrorism today). No change there, except that both sides were ruthless enough to use this method of warfare.
I would suggest a good book on the subject - "A History of Warfare" by John Keegan, that explains the changing face of warfare in history, and it's interaction with politics and culture.
I was thinking of this similar subject earlier this week, let me pose this question with the preface that I DO, repeat DO beleive that the actions perpetrated during the holocaust were horrific and unforgivable but ponder this.
Does anyone think that the reason Hitler was so effective in his goals of genocide were not because he was naturally more evil than his peers from previous centuries or millenia but that the tools at his disposal had not been accessible before.
(Basically I question how mnay of the Earth's previous warlords, dictators, ect ect would have used these same methods or similar had they been availalbe)
Probably not many would have used the same methods, but put together the German mechanical effeciency with the feelings of the times (a mix between the old way of doing things with new innovations), sprinkle a little bit of good old crazy and there you have it.
Again I'm not a fan of genocides of any means or ways but the fact that there had been numerous genocides/mass killings since the start of time makes me wonder just how many people would have used his methods.
That didn't stop the Somalis from getting them. You don't have to invent or produce weapons in order to have use of them. Read T E Lawrence.
You didn't think this one through, did you?
In the offered scenario, the Indians have AK-47's, the Europeans are still in the musket age. Now, if they did not manufacture them themselves, from where did the AK 47's come?
China?
Africa?
If China or Africa had AK 47's while Europeans were still in the musket age, then those places would be dominating the planet, including the Europeans and Native Americans.
If China or Africa had AK 47's while Europeans were still in the musket age, then those places would be dominating the planet, including the Europeans and Native Americans.
Reminds me of the Harry Turtledove alternative history book "Guns of the South". The CSA got AK 47s (and some RPGs as I remember), thanks to time traveling South Africans, and of course quickly defeated the Union.
In the first several years of SNL, they had a recurring sketch called "What If?" which featured Jane Curtin interviewing historians about the ramifications of imaginary scenarios. The funniest one was "What If Superman's Rocket Had Landed In Nazi Germany Instead Of America?" After some talk, they had a dramtic enactment of one possible scenario....Uberman, disguised as propagandist Klaus Kent. Not only does Uberman win the war single handed for the Nazis, he also uses his xray vision on crotches to detect Jews trying to pass themselves off as Aryans.
When Kirk Douglas was the guest host, they did "What If Spartacus Had The Use Of A Piper Cub?" At the end of that show they told us to be sure and tune in for next week's program..."What If The Early Pioneers Had To Battle Dinosaurs, But Then The Man From Uncle Went Back In Time To Help Them?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
