Need Help with History Homework?

[mw2xboxplayer]

Although not being able to find any specific website dedicated to Aztec influence today, I have found a collection of websites describing Aztec influence in Mexico, and a Wikipedia referance to Aztec influence that should be accurate.

Wikipedia

The original article can be found in context here: http://bit.ly/ix5g1n Most modern day Mexicans (and people of Mexican descent in other countries) are mestizos, of mixed indigenous and European ancestry. During the 16th century the racial composition of Mexico began to change from one that featured distinct indigenous (Mexicas and members of the many other Mexican indigenous groups) and immigrant (mostly Spanish) populations, to the population composed primarily of mestizos that is found in modern day Mexico. The Nahuatl language is today spoken by 1.5 million people, mostly in mountainous areas in the states of central Mexico. Local dialects of Spanish, Mexican Spanish generally, and the Spanish language worldwide have all been influenced, in varying degrees, by Nahuatl. Some Nahuatl words (most notably chocolate and tomato) have been borrowed through Spanish into other languages around the world. Mexico City was built on the ruins of Tenochtitlan, making it one of the oldest living cities of the Americas. Many of its districts and natural landmarks retain their original Nahuatl names. Many other cities and towns in Mexico and Central America have also retained their Nahuatl names (whether or not they were originally Mexica or even Nahuatl-speaking towns). A number of town names are hybrids of Nahuatl and Spanish. Mexican cuisine continues to be based on and flavored by agricultural products contributed by the Mexicas/Aztecs and Mesoamerica, most of which retain some form of their original Nahuatl names. The cuisine has also become a popular part of the cuisine of the United States and other countries around the world, typically altered to suit various national tastes. The modern Mexican flag bears the emblem of the Mexica migration story. Traditional foods, Nahuatl language, and the founding of modern day Mexico city on the remains of Tenochtitlan seem to be the most prevalent Aztec influences.

Websites relevant to each of the major influences

Aztec food: http://www.aztec-history.com/traditi...ican-food.html Nahuatl Language: http://www.houstonculture.org/mexico/nahuatl.html Mexico City built on top of Tenochtitlan : http://thejoyvictory.com/2008/02/11/...dad-de-mexico/

A great wealth of information can be deduced from these sources, and utilizing them would be your best resource in researching about Aztec influence in modern day Mexico.

[empr guy]

thanks, i was actually already asleep when you posted that and i gave the presentation today but im sure the sources would have helped. (and yes i went to wiki first )

[Blee]

Hi AtheistDane,

Yes, I have a few key points that I think you need to stress, and ought to help you produce an interesting peice.

1. The ACW inspired a rapid development in firearms technology. At the start of the war the majority of troops were armed with the same type of smooth bore, mussle loaded weapons that had been used in the American War of Independence, but by the end of the war the percentage of rifled, breachloaded and rapid firing weapons had increased significantly. Increasing the lethality of warfare and forcing a change in tactic's towards more extended formations and greater use of cover.

2. As mentioned above tactic's evolved rapidly to more extended formations and more rapid movement. Earlier armies using purely smoothbore weapons had usually fought shoulder to shoulder in dense formations that advanced at an artificially slow pace (76 paces per minute for the British), but as the weapons became more lethal such tactic's would have been suicide in an ACW battlefield and so most units adopted a much more extended line and advanced at a much faster pace. (see Pickets Charge for detail)

3. Naval warfare saw the first experimentation with iron warships, armoured warships, deck mounted turrets, low profile deck plans, breachloading cannon, percussion shells and submarine warfare. Huge developments which were to shape thinking in naval warfare until the advent of the Aircraft Carrier.

4. The ACW was also the first war in history where it was openly acknowledged that civilians and civilian property was a legimate target. Hence in theoretical terms it was the first application of the doctrine of 'Total War', where destruction of a countries ability to sustain itself and its war effort was as much a goal as the destruction of its armies. See General Sherman, and Sherman's march to the sea,

'You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.' William Tecumeseh Sherman - Army of the Tennessee and Military Division of the Mississippi.

5. You might also wish to mention the impact of the railroad on both the logistic's, strategy and conduct of the war. The ACW was the first major conflict where the area of operations was heavy serviced by railways. They had a major impact on the Union strategy for prosecuting the war and their destruction had a major impact on the operations of the South. Several major battles were fought over railroad junctions, and their associated storage of supplies, some historians even point out that Union strategy was so highly tied to major railroad links that it enabled the South to anticipate Union army movements and much easier for them to mass their armies in the right locations to meet them.

Basically, if you covered all those points in detail, you wouldn't have an English Essay, you'd have a book. Good Luck, hope you get a good mark.

Might find this interesting if you haven't read about it.

Both the North and the South would eventually create mounted armies under independent commands. The degree of autonomy granted to cavalry units allowed them to utilize their mobility through deep raids into enemy territories. Independent cavalry corps eventually began to form on both sides. John Morgan, a Southern cavalry commander, effectively utilized ideals within his overall strategy. He believed that the strength in a cavalry unit was its mobility, and used his cavalry as a self-sufficient army. Morgan used horse-drawn artillery, dismounted infantrymen, and mounted infantrymen in unison. Jeb Stuart, another cavalry commander stressed the importance of large concentrations of cavalry. Stuart’s doctrine focused upon traditional European cavalry doctrine of sabre and pistol charges of large concentrations of cavalry. Stuart effectively combined the European practice of massed formations of cavalry with an independent and mobile command. After two years of cavalry inferiority, the Union would also adapt new tactics.
James Wilson was responsible for many Union doctrinal advances during the Civil War. Instead of focusing upon picketing and defending supply lines, Wilson concentrated his forces upon disrupting the Confederate cavalry forces. He wanted to create a mobile army consisting of mounted infantry. With the invention of the Spencer carbine, Wilson was able to combine firepower with mobility. Instead of using cavalry in a support role, Wilson was able to convince General Sheridan to create an independent mounted infantry corps. As a result, the wilderness campaign achieved a great deal of success. Sheridan’s corps was constantly on the move, with a large portion fighting dismounted and a small portion of mounted reservists. After Sheridan’s success with an independent corps, he was able to utilize his tactics on a larger scale in the Valley campaign. Sheridan countered Confederate defenses in the Battle of Opequon thorough skillful maneuvering of his large force of cavalry.

These tactics would later be seen and put to great effect in the Boer War. However, prolonged sieges/camp followers and a lack of offense eventually ruined their strategy.

-Shamelessly copied from a weekly paper of mine

[CrayonVonCaesar]

Here's one for your collective musings:

Why were the Bolsheviks able to seize and retain power in Russia, while the revolutionary left in post-war Germany failed to do so?

[tullyccro]

Here's one for your collective musings:

Why were the Bolsheviks able to seize and retain power in Russia, while the revolutionary left in post-war Germany failed to do so?

That's a good one. For one, the failing/failed regime in Germany was successfully identified with the socialist and left-leaning political culture and the tendency at the time towards decentralized government/command, whereas in Russia it was blamed on precisely the opposite, i.e. conservatism/autocracy and nepotism.

Also, the Bolsheviks were far better organized at a much earlier stage, in that the party was structured to almost seamlessly transition to government, i.e. Lenin as party leader would become the leader of the government, security and propaganda elements would continue their same functions once in control of the government with few exceptions, whereas in Germany this kind of "mirroring" had to deal within existing political structures and a population leaning towards centralization, nationalism (rather than internationalism) and motives which appealed to more than economy.

[Gorrrrrn]

Here's one for your collective musings:

Why were the Bolsheviks able to seize and retain power in Russia, while the revolutionary left in post-war Germany failed to do so?

possibly due to the Germans transporting the Bolsheviks into Russia and helping the Bolsheviks as a way of undermining the Russian war effort against Germany?

http://crappytown.blogspot.com/2010/...olsheviks.html

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/SUTTONbolch.pdf (Chapter 3)

[Constantius]

possibly due to the Germans transporting the Bolsheviks into Russia and helping the Bolsheviks as a way of undermining the Russian war effort against Germany?

http://crappytown.blogspot.com/2010/...olsheviks.html

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/SUTTONbolch.pdf (Chapter 3)

Yes that and the fully armed, and battle hardened Freikorps- always ready to put down leftist uprisings

[Derbiean]

I'm currently working on a assignment and the question is: 'Greek medicine was fundamentally changed by its encounter with Islamic culture.' Is this statement accurate?

Although i have some study material it is really only one source and i have tried googling for more information but it didn't yield anything worthwhile. So if anyone has any knowledge of this i'd be really grateful as i prefer to have more than one source

[Ancient Aliens]

I'm currently working on a assignment and the question is: 'Greek medicine was fundamentally changed by its encounter with Islamic culture.' Is this statement accurate?

Although i have some study material it is really only one source and i have tried googling for more information but it didn't yield anything worthwhile. So if anyone has any knowledge of this i'd be really grateful as i prefer to have more than one source

If they are refering to Medieval Greek (Byzantine) medicine, then no, it was quite the opposite. Medieval Greeks influenced Islamic medicine after improving upon the work of Classical and Hellenic authors.

Here is a good link on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_medicine

[Derbiean]

If they are refering to Medieval Greek (Byzantine) medicine, then no, it was quite the opposite. Medieval Greeks influenced Islamic medicine after improving upon the work of Classical and Hellenic authors.

Here is a good link on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_medicine

It seems to be referring from the 7th century CE with the humoural medicine and then its adoption in the Islamic world, the study material then goes onto describe Greek and Islamic medical ideas in Europe, all the way upto the 18th century but makes no mention of Byzantine medicine it mentions briefly that European practitioners in the 15th and 16th centuries favoured Greek texts with criticism of Islamic authors from humanism movement and Italian scholars argued that Greek and Roman ideas should be recovered by going back to original Greek texts

You've actually raised a interesting question in my mind about what timeframe i'm restricted to, if any at all, if there is no restriction then your link will likely change my perspective

Rep for you my friend thanking you kindly for the reply

[Ancient Aliens]

It seems to be referring from the 7th century CE with the humoural medicine and then its adoption in the Islamic world, the study material then goes onto describe Greek and Islamic medical ideas in Europe, all the way upto the 18th century but makes no mention of Byzantine medicine it mentions briefly that European practitioners in the 15th and 16th centuries favoured Greek texts with criticism of Islamic authors from humanism movement and Italian scholars argued that Greek and Roman ideas should be recovered by going back to original Greek texts

You've actually raised a interesting question in my mind about what timeframe i'm restricted to, if any at all, if there is no restriction then your link will likely change my perspective

Rep for you my friend thanking you kindly for the reply

My pleasure, I was glad to be able to help.

In a hope to solidify your position, let me say that medicine was one of the few areas that the Byzantines actively improved, and that it was the prefered medical standard of the day. After the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire, Greece was assimilated into the Ottoman empire, and thusly, it's medicine would have been classified as "Islamic medicine". Thusly, I think the question refers to the Byzantine period.

[Derbiean]

My pleasure, I was glad to be able to help.

In a hope to solidify your position, let me say that medicine was one of the few areas that the Byzantines actively improved, and that it was the prefered medical standard of the day. After the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire, Greece was assimilated into the Ottoman empire, and thusly, it's medicine would have been classified as "Islamic medicine". Thusly, I think the question refers to the Byzantine period.

I've emailed my tutor asking him for clarification as the statement is general, if your right that it refers to the Byzantine period then i would be disagreeing with the statement.

[Constantius]

I've emailed my tutor asking him for clarification as the statement is general, if your right that it refers to the Byzantine period then i would be disagreeing with the statement.

I had a similar question in my first year at Uni, the transmission of ideas, particularly medicine from Classical Greece to the Arabs. This of course mainly took place after the fall of large parts of the Roman east in the seventh century. The Arabs then took these Classical ideas of science, astronomy and medicine and improved on them. I don't like the term Byzantines, (so I will refer to them as the Romans) In some respects the Orthodoxy of Christianity in this period slowed progress to a certain extent as many schools had been closed- due to their association with classical learning ie philosophy and therefore paganism. I could if you would like dig out my notes?

[Ancient Aliens]

I had a similar question in my first year at Uni, the transmission of ideas, particularly medicine from Classical Greece to the Arabs. This of course mainly took place after the fall of large parts of the Roman east in the seventh century. The Arabs then took these Classical ideas of science, astronomy and medicine and improved on them. I don't like the term Byzantines, (so I will refer to them as the Romans) In some respects the Orthodoxy of Christianity in this period slowed progress to a certain extent as many schools had been closed- due to their association with classical learning ie philosophy and therefore paganism. I could if you would like dig out my notes?

I only use the term "Byzantine" because it is the term that most people are familiar with.

[Constantius]

I only use the term "Byzantine" because it is the term that most people are familiar with.



...What?

Yes I suppose that's fair enough- I wasn't criticising by the way just saying

[Derbiean]

I had a similar question in my first year at Uni, the transmission of ideas, particularly medicine from Classical Greece to the Arabs. This of course mainly took place after the fall of large parts of the Roman east in the seventh century. The Arabs then took these Classical ideas of science, astronomy and medicine and improved on them. I don't like the term Byzantines, (so I will refer to them as the Romans) In some respects the Orthodoxy of Christianity in this period slowed progress to a certain extent as many schools had been closed- due to their association with classical learning ie philosophy and therefore paganism. I could if you would like dig out my notes?

Hi guys got a response from my tutor;

'Hi Stephen

It's safe to assume that you can take 'Greek' as 'Ancient Greek'.

And remember that you need to offer a direct answer to the question. You'll either agree or disagree with the statement. If you disagree, then you'll want to show how every aspect of medicine in the Islamic world was underpinned by humoural theory (and all attempts to undermine the Greek theories failed). If you agree, then you'll want to show how Islamic writers succeeded in elaborating the humoural system and went on to describe diseases for the first time (thereby changing and moulding Greek theories to fit Islamic culture).
I trust this helps.

Best wishes,
Vince'

Thats much clearer although its a shame in a way i was hoping i would get to choose which period to cover. Constantius if any of your notes would help in your opinion they be most welcome

[Ancient Aliens]

Yes I suppose that's fair enough- I wasn't criticising by the way just saying

Yeah I know, I just wanted to clarify.

Hi guys got a response from my tutor;

'Hi Stephen

It's safe to assume that you can take 'Greek' as 'Ancient Greek'.

And remember that you need to offer a direct answer to the question. You'll either agree or disagree with the statement. If you disagree, then you'll want to show how every aspect of medicine in the Islamic world was underpinned by humoural theory (and all attempts to undermine the Greek theories failed). If you agree, then you'll want to show how Islamic writers succeeded in elaborating the humoural system and went on to describe diseases for the first time (thereby changing and moulding Greek theories to fit Islamic culture).
I trust this helps.

Best wishes,
Vince'

Thats much clearer although its a shame in a way i was hoping i would get to choose which period to cover. Constantius if any of your notes would help in your opinion they be most welcome

Here is a wiki article (which I am sure you have undoubtedly already seen) to start you off, but I definitely think that Constantius' notes on the subject will be more of a boon here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_medieval_Islam

[Constantius]

I type up some of my notes later ok? In the mean time look up Hunayn ibn Ishaq- a Christian from southern Iraq- who under Arab rule translated Galen, Rufus of Epheseus, Hippocrates. Also look at Syriac speaking scholars in paricular- As Syriac is related to Arabic, and Syrians tended to have a knowledge of Greek as this had been the language here in Hellenistic and Roman periods, therfore making translating easier.

[Derbiean]

I type up some of my notes later ok? In the mean time look up Hunayn ibn Ishaq- a Christian from southern Iraq- who under Arab rule translated Galen, Rufus of Epheseus, Hippocrates. Also look at Syriac speaking scholars in paricular- As Syriac is related to Arabic, and Syrians tended to have a knowledge of Greek as this had been the language here in Hellenistic and Roman periods, therfore making translating easier.

Thank you rep for you

[Gpower]

Hi guys. I'm currently writing an essay about Ayatollah Khomeini's influence on Muslim Fundamentalism. Do anyone have any good sources or info to share? It's an individual research project, so I really know the topic that well, though I have researched a bit on the topic so I have a basic understanding of it.