Re: Topic 1 -- Early World History, Level I

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:56:53 02/11/02 Mon
Author: joshua tartakoff
Subject: Re: Topic 1

i think that if people thought to pay any attention to what is happening, when it happens, the difficulties that lie in the event, can be avoided when the event reappears. For example, government of nations: most monarchs succumb to greed and power struggles, when they have no need for anything new. If those that receive the power, the monarchs, are concertedly trying to stay away from greed, then they won't be tempted to embezle funds or something like that.
in the mesopotamian struggles, i think that the repetition that could have been avoided was the rise and fall of undirected nations. Not to imply unimportance, but rather to show that the nations, if they had a better direction, other than simply domination, could have lasted. For example, if one of the nations had said "let's try to touch on dedication in our populace, and establish a system that allows them to interact and be imporant in the government." if a nation had risen that did not play favorites, and allowed an equal chance for all, then others might not be as driven to try and destroy them. The sumerians came close to this, in that they were the most liked of all (pretty much any way), and they had the most friendly atmosphere throughout their small nation.
i think that if people simply though about what was wrong with the nation that they just decimated, then they might try and fix those problems. as it seems, the motto of the old world was,"If it doesn't work the first time, try on a larger scale." overall, it looks like people conquered others just so that they could say that they had been on top at all...even if they crashed down hard.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]