I remembering watching a YouTube video saying something slightly different than what your saying.

It basically said that historians agree, relative to other treaties of the time, the Treaty of Versailles was pretty run of the mill.

That being said, I think it’s hard to argue against the idea that widespread suffering can cause major change. You can credit other things, sure. I still think the Treaty of Versailles deserves recognition in its role though.

[removed]

[removed]

I don't know about these folks but for tamil folks, traditionally the end of July is when they start sowing rice and other crops, before the autumn Monsoon. Then they harvest in January (they don't experience snow in winter, just strong winds)

Springtime was also the driest months, so much so that folks don't marry and consummate in July-August so that they don't give birth at late April where it's hot enough to dry up wells, but not the season for rain clouds and thunderstorms

#-------

So I'd assume if they were praying for springtime rain, it was because of the dry weather, or they needed to plant crops and couldn't wait till late summer.

[removed]

This is an excellent answer! I would just add that much of the anti-Versailles sentiment remains with us from British interpretations of the treaty in the 1920s as all political parties adopted a belief that Germany had been treated harshly and developed a more francophobic mindset in the late 1920s, viewing the French as more dangerous to peace than the Germans. Versailles was never as damaging to Germany as the settlement Germany imposed on France in 1871 or on the Soviet Union in 1918. But the myth lives on…

If iraq was like the Asian monsoon countries, then it's the late summer / autumn rains that cause flooding. Springtime tends to be dry and rainfall is appreciated in the spring where it's getting hot

#---------

In southern India, tamil agricultural culture have the following warning: never get married in the month of Aadi

Aadi is about mid July - mid August. Because usually newly weds will consummate on the first night, and a baby comes in end April.

End April is considered the driest weeks. It's spring, not summer, but it's not Monsoon season. Unlike the summer months where rain comes and you have a generally hot and wet season, springtime is dry and having a baby means being tight on well water - bad for the newborn and the new mother.

#---------

Crops that tamil farmers grow, usually rice and sorghum, are usually planted in August (the same Aadi month, also why they say not to marry in Aadi because everyone's busy planting crops). The Monsoon comes and the floodplains are great for the crops that bathe in water. Then they are harvested in January, it's also when Thai pongal is celebrated to thank the weather gods and plowing bulls for the good harvest

#----------

So if an agricultural civilisation living in a place that sees no snow is praying for springtime rainfall, it's probably 2 things:

1. they need the water for crops that they can't plant after spring

2. they need the water because all the wells dried up

#---------

This is my educated guess from inductive reasoning of agricultural culture. Take it with a pinch of salt

If it's not a script what could it be?

[removed]

Because the oldest known cuneiform is dated to be older than the oldest known hieroglyphics. The earliest Cuneiform is dated back to around 3500 BCE while the earliest Hieroglyphics are dated to around 3400-3200 BCE. Both have some amount of proto-language going earlier but it is unclear how developed they were.

Additionally, Sumerian script has a long evolutionary history that goes back to 8000 BCE that can be traced, while hieroglyphics seem to have sprung into use comparitively suddenly. This is why some scholars say that even if hieroglyphics are a fully independent system, it is possible cuneiform still stimulated that creation of a writing system.

[removed]

If you’re going to be in to arts and crafts make it fun I guess

Scholarship used to say cuneiform is about 300 years older than hieroglyphics supposedly but I fail to see how they came to these dates and timelines

>There is no evidence cuneiform influenced hieroglyphics

I didn't say there was.

Your original argument was that it was wrong to say Cuneiform developed first, but then your argument for that was that hieroglyphics developed independently which does not say anything about whether Cuneiform develpped first

There is no evidence cuneiform influenced hieroglyphics why do you all keep parroting outdated scholarship??Yeah that's my whole point both consensus and evidence are now saying both scripts developed independently this is obvious

[removed]

None of this means cuneiform didn't come first. Scholarly consensus is that it did, but the degree to which it influenced the development of hieroglyphics is debated but consensus is leaning towards that hieroglyphics are independently formed with the most influence cuneiform could have had being stimulating the formation of a writing system if even that. This is because the oldest known hieroglyphics are younger than cuneiform but seem to have no connection whatsoever to it.

This may be a good place to start.
A First Rate Madness covers mental illnesses of historical figures and how this impacted thier leadership, drive, etc. It covers Churchill, Grant, and Sherman among others.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/10357675

[removed]

what

Am I going to learn about expanded edition finger counting on reddit

Just trying to keep the narrative simple, yes there’s Akkadians in Mesopotamia before then but they’re not really in southern Mesopotamia where Sumerian was spoken. I said ~2300 BCE because it depends on what chronology you use, 2334 - 2279 BCE is the middle chronology dates given for Sargons reign but that can vary my +- a century so I tend to give rough centuries for events. You’re right that saying they migrated from the levant is probably a misnomer and I was just basing that on Akkadian being a semetic language, I’m not as deep into the anthropological or linguistic side of scholarship so migration theories aren’t my strong suit. And I should clarify that I’m saying Akkadian presence because it’s only after the rise of the Akkadian empire that semetic speaking people become a strong presence in southern Mesopotamia, whether that’s a migration of them or locals adopting their cultural practices is still up for debate among scholars.

Amorites are arguably first attested in the Ebla archive from the ED period though that’s northern Mesopotamia, and in southern Mesopotamia Naram-Sin claims to have fought Amorites on one of his campaigns. It isn’t until the Ur III period in the 22nd and 21st century, after the 2300 date I gave, that we have evidence of Amorites integrating into Southern Mesopotamia, and of course the famous wall to repel the Amorites

You're going to parrot peer review yet more than a few scientific studies and papers have exposed the flaws in it and argue it's ineffective nature.

Do you want those studies or papers too?

[removed]

What?If your going to discuss an academic level YouTube channel then we have nothing further to discuss and peer review means absolutely nothing

Absolutely and we still don't know how to read the Indus script but it doesn't help that some scholars argue that the Indus script isn't a script at all which opens a can of worms in that debate