Recent comments in /f/history

EndofGods t1_j5j76a3 wrote

Reply to comment by althetoolman in ‘Which sites should be saved, and which sites should be allowed to decay?’ — Climate change is accelerating, amplifying existing risks and creating new ones, the consequences of which could be devastating for the global archaeological record by marketrent

It's hard for us to tell. We know human history is about a million years old. Two hundred thousand years ago, there were several humoid species living at the same time. The more underwater, the more we can't fully study as it were on land. There is going to be a lot underwater.

1

Mir0zz t1_j5j2tp6 wrote

Reply to Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator

I was recently at a short lecture about the development of the alphabeth. The professor mentioned an old king being upset for someone sending him a message using letter from an alphabeth of some kind, as he prefered cuneiform. I can't find his name or information about this online. Perhaps someone here knows?

2

althetoolman t1_j5hl21p wrote

Reply to ‘Which sites should be saved, and which sites should be allowed to decay?’ — Climate change is accelerating, amplifying existing risks and creating new ones, the consequences of which could be devastating for the global archaeological record by marketrent

History was not kind to the earth, any part of it. Yet somehow we are still able to study what's there and understand what happened.

I'm not worried, they will still learn plenty, maybe even more. There's no way to tell

3

LaoBa t1_j5f0ojp wrote

Reply to comment by Bill_From_RDR2 in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator

During the battle of Arnhem in 1944, the St Elisabeth Hospital was a hospital in ARnhem. A medical unit of the British 1st Airborne Division, the 16th Parachute Field Ambulance, went to the building on 17 September 1944 to take care of the wounded of the 1st Parachute Brigade there. They arrived early in the evening and found, in addition to Dutch medical staff, a German medical unit, both busy tending to wounded of both sides. The British took over control of the hospital but allowed the Germans to keep working here. From that moment, Dutch, British and German medical staff work together to take care of incoming wounded from both sides.

The Hospital found itself in the front line on 18 September. While the war was raging outside, the people inside kept working to save lives. Late in the evening of 17 September, a group of German soldiers was cut down on the driveway of the hospital by British soldiers of C Company of the 1st Parachute Battalion.

As many as four times, the control of the hospital switched from one warring party to the other. When on 19 September the Germans finally took control of the hospital, they ordered the British medical staff to be transported into captivity. Major Longlang, the British doctor in charge, persuaded the Germans to leave two surgical teams behind to help the Germans tend to the continuing inflow of wounded. As a result many lives were saved, including that of brigadier Hackett who was wounded in Oosterbeek.

The Dutch underground, including resistance fighter ‘Piet van Arnhem’, was also active in the hospital. With their help, several British soldiers were smuggled out of the hospital to enable them to go into hiding and escape to their own lines. In this way, brigadier Lathbury and brigadier Hackett, among others, were saved from German captivity. Finally, it was decided in the middle of October that all British still present in the hospital would be transported to a POW camp in Apeldoorn.

6

MeatballDom t1_j5e360h wrote

Reply to ‘Which sites should be saved, and which sites should be allowed to decay?’ — Climate change is accelerating, amplifying existing risks and creating new ones, the consequences of which could be devastating for the global archaeological record by marketrent

We feel that this is an important discussion to be had in regards to history and archaeology.

However, this is not the place to discuss politics, this is not the place to discuss climate change denial, and so forth, and so on. There are a million different places on Reddit to discuss those things, so please keep your comments on topic with regard to the Subreddit's overall purpose.

1

Adrax334 t1_j5d697f wrote

Reply to comment by 28nov2022 in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator

Unlikely.

First, Manchuria IS China. Before the Japanese invaded it was run by a Chinese warlord who went on to literally kidnap Chiang-Kai Shek in order to get him to agree to end his encirclement campaigns of the communists and instead focus on the Japanese. Chiang himself probably also thought war was inevitable with Japan. So in that sense the Chinese were never going to allow the continued occupation of their land forever.

A lack of war would likely allow Chiang's nationalists to consolidate itself by finishing its encirclement campaigns on the Communists. The rest of the warlords would follow in due time I'd imagine. While its unlikely China would launch some sort of offensive war in the WW2 timescale, it is unlikely they would wait forever when much of their ideology and history in those recent decades was based on undoing the "century of humiliation" - which would mean the foreign concessions would gave to go, including Japan.

But beyond that, if WW2 still goes the same way - Japan is still loosing. The might of the UK, then combined with the US and then the USSR would still be more than enough to put Japan down even if it weren't tied up in Chinese affairs. The end result would probably end with much, if not all, of Manchuria being returned to China as we saw in real life. And the only reason some of it might not be is because we can't ever be too sure what the allied powers would've taken had they been given a freer hand in Manchuria at the end if the war. Either way the clock was ticking for Japan.

1

Adrax334 t1_j5d4w2z wrote

Reply to comment by xander_C in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator

It is also worth mentioning that much of China's more modern and trade industries were based in Shanghai. It was a very,very important economic hub for Chiang's nationalists. One that he threw his best troops at in order to try to preserve.

But also it was a fight within sight of the world. Shanghai was a modern city by Chinese terms and it was one with an International Settlement that could actually show themselves off to the world.

1

marketrent OP t1_j5czm13 wrote

Reply to ‘Which sites should be saved, and which sites should be allowed to decay?’ — Climate change is accelerating, amplifying existing risks and creating new ones, the consequences of which could be devastating for the global archaeological record by marketrent

Title uses quotes from the linked article^1 published 22 Nov. 2022 in Antiquity.

Excerpt:

>Climate change is affecting archaeological sites and landscapes around the world. Increased rainfall, more frequent extreme weather events, higher temperatures and rising seas not only create new risks but also exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and threats.

>Building on an earlier Antiquity article that explored climate change and arctic archaeology (Hollesen et al. 2018), this special section provides a global perspective on the impact of climate change on archaeological sites and landscapes and how archaeologists and cultural heritage managers are responding.

>This article introduces the following three contributions, outlining their main findings to provide an overview of the various challenges around the world, and highlighting current gaps in knowledge and future research opportunities.

> 

>Although this special section can only touch upon some of the many potential effects of climate change on archaeological resources around the world, it seeks to demonstrate the scale and complexity of the situation with which we are confronted.

>With climate change threatening an uncalculated number of archaeological sites, totalling perhaps millions globally (Heilen et al. 2018; Dawson et al. 2020), it seems reasonable to question whether current management practices and mechanisms will be able to respond to a situation that is so demanding.

>There are no easy solutions and time is limited. Thus, if we are to respond meaningfully, there is an urgent need to develop new methods and strategies that can tackle the problem head on. As suggested in this special section, and in other recent articles (e.g. Heilen et al. 2018; Hollesen et al. 2018), the first step is to determine where these impacts will occur and which types of sites will be the most affected.

>[The] vulnerability of archaeological sites can only be understood when the interactions between climate change and other factors, such as landscape modification, urbanisation and water management, are also considered.

> 

>Even if archaeologists and planners in years to come are equipped with tools efficient enough to pin-point the most vulnerable sites, they will still be faced with difficult decisions: which sites should be saved, and which sites should be allowed to decay?

>Climate change is accelerating, amplifying existing risks and creating new ones, the consequences of which could be devastating for the global archaeological record.

^1 Hollesen, J. (2022) “Climate change and the loss of archaeological sites and landscapes: a global perspective,” Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 96(390), pp. 1382–1395. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.113.

11