Karnak's History Korner

Hey all, some of you may know me from the Overwatch community, but for everyone else, hi! I'm a history major at Towson University, about to graduate any day now (That day happens to be in August.) I've applied to grad school and in the interim, I want to keep my historical research skills sharp.

To that end, I thought I'd start a little thread here to include some the cooler history tidbits I've picked up in my studies and to show people that History is a lot more than just a bunch of dates and famous dead people.

I can't promise I'll update very week, but a Monday History Tidbit of the Week has a nice regular feel to it.

For this inaugural post, I'd like include something I writing about right now for my final archaeology paper, Cahokia.

Did you know that around 1000 CE there was a city in North America larger than Paris and London combined, with a population of at least 10-20k and a possible population (if you count the hinterlands) of 100k? Ever been to St.Louis? That's where Cahokia was and some 68 of the almost 120 mounds are still preserved, with the largest, Monk's Mount 100 feet high and around 1000ft by 800ft in area. There's enough similarity in the construction that many historians and archaeologists think that Cahokia was founded by Mesoamericans that traveled north or at least was planned by Mesoamerican architects. Then around 1300, Cahokia began to become depopulated. While we'res still not sure why, It's possible that a series of floods, droughts. and other nature events made it more difficult to support such a large population. Leaders lost the faith of the people as things continued to worsen and at some point the balance shifted and a mass exodus occurred. The rise of smaller and less prestigious polities known as the Mississippian cultures that existed in the areas around Cahokia are likely due to this exodus. By the time French Jesuits visited the area in the late 15 and early 1600s, Cahokia was a barely remembered grandfather's tale. Nevertheless, the stories the priests collected kept the memory of the city alive until the 1800s where "archaeologists" (treasure hunters) began demolishing the mounds, looking for treasure. Luckily the city of St.Louis stepped in and preserved the rest. So, in short (too late!) consider visiting the first metropolis of North America, Cahokia! =D

Fellow historians; did I get something wrong? Let me know in the comments. Everyone else, what did you think? Pretty neat, right?

Larger than Paris?!? Impossible!!

Congrats on your impending graduation, Karnak, and thanks for the thread. This is super interesting and I’m looking forward to more!

I'll be here every Monday expecting a post. You just made my week better.

Congrats on graduating. I've had maaaaaaany friends from High School and some family members graduate from Towson (I grew up in Carroll County).

Now, please tell me, what happened to the Mayans?

Cahokia Mounds! The fam and I have stayed in a nifty little RV park right by there, and we spent a lot of time exploring the site. Incredible place to visit.

A picture of the largest mound. Construction began around 950CE, and it was enlarged repeatedly until around 1250CE. It consists of over 22 million cubic feet of earth.
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/VrH67KN.jpg)

From the top. When in use, it had a 104'x48' structure up there which was up to 5 stories high.
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/xr5zZwU.jpg)

You can see St Louis from up there.
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/0RVkiC3.jpg)

Amazing! I wanted to visit on my last trip through St. Louis but we ran out of time.

LouZiffer wrote:

Cahokia Mounds! The fam and I have stayed in a nifty little RV park right by there, and we spent a lot of time exploring the site. Incredible place to visit.

A picture of the largest mound. Construction began around 950CE, and it was enlarged repeatedly until around 1250CE. It consists of over 22 million cubic feet of earth.
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/VrH67KN.jpg)

From the top. When in use, it had a 104'x48' structure up there which was up to 5 stories high.
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/xr5zZwU.jpg)

You can see St Louis from up there.
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/0RVkiC3.jpg)

I didn't realize you were local, Karnak, we need to meet up sometime, I'm not that far from you. As a former history major I have some neat tidbits as well. Do you know who was the only American president to utilize their position as Commander in Chief to take over a military unit in an actual battle? The answer may be surprising. James Madison took over an artillery unit after it's commander was killed in the Battle of Bladensburg and he used it to cover the retreat of other units. It was more of an emergency type thing but AFAIK this is the only time in American History that a serving president has utilized the power of Commander in Chief to take command of a military unit in the middle of battle.

Sure! We should have a DelMarVa Goojer meetup =) I didn't know that! My American history is perhaps my most incomplete. I took the survey courses, but my only upper level was Native American History.

Dr.Incurable wrote:

I didn't realize you were local, Karnak, we need to meet up sometime, I'm not that far from you. As a former history major I have some neat tidbits as well. Do you know who was the only American president to utilize their position as Commander in Chief to take over a military unit in an actual battle? The answer may be surprising. James Madison took over an artillery unit after it's commander was killed in the Battle of Bladensburg and he used it to cover the retreat of other units. It was more of an emergency type thing but AFAIK this is the only time in American History that a serving president has utilized the power of Commander in Chief to take command of a military unit in the middle of battle.

Today is Memorial Day, a day usually observed in the US by cookouts and the unofficial start to summer vacation season. But where did come from? What did it commemorate and how has that changed over time?
It's time for another trip to the History Korner.

Memorial Day's origin is still a topic of debate; there's a even a center at Columbus State University of Georgia for Memorial Day research. The broadly accepted origins of Memorial Day have their roots in special decoration days held in spring when townsfolk would spruce up their local cemeteries and leave flowers on the graves of local soldiers who had died in war. The American Civil War, where more than 600,000 soldiers had died on both sides, left such an impact on the country that these local decoration days became state holidays, which included parades, grave decoration ceremonies, and political speeches. Celebrations differed between North and South, where Union troops were commemorated by Northerners and Black Southerners and the Confederacy was commemorated by White Southerners. This divide has persisted into the 21st century with many in the South still proud of the Confederacy, despite a cultural sea change which has stripped the Confederacy of any false sense of nobility in their support of slavery.

The official act naming Memorial Day did not occur until 1966 when President Lyndon B. Johnson marked the 30th of May, which had been the most common date for the various observances, as Memorial Day. This combined the many local and state traditions into a singular federal holiday. The scope of the holiday also expanded to included any soldiers lost in war. Soon after in 1968, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act moved Memorial Day, as well as several other holidays to coincide with Mondays each year to make a three day weekend federal holiday. Some veterans saw this as bastardization of the holiday and argued that the real meaning of Memorial Day would be replaced with a day of relaxation.

Given that we now celebrate Memorial Day with poolside burgers and booze, it's hard to argue against them. It's also a little sickening to find how many business want to capitalize on "Memorial Day" sales to get those of us able to take the day off into their stores. When I still lived in NY my family would visit the grave of my grandfather (who served in WWII) on Memorial Day, clean up the headstone, and leave fresh flowers... before we went home, fired up the grill and had some brats and beer. Personally I think there's room in the holiday for both, but a little bit of solemnity, encapsulated in the National Moment of Remembrance (3PM, 1 minute of silence) would remind us that before it became the unofficial start of summer, Memorial Day was a chance to pay respects to fallen soldiers and feel a bit of gratitude for their sacrifice.

Interesting

For anyone who likes this kind of stuff, check out the History Blog. One interesting article each day, curated by a professional historian whose identity remains obscure. Very good stuff.

Subbed!

(I know you just hit the star thingy, but I also want to be encouraging. Keep it up!)

Yes, this thread has great potential.

Also favorited! I had no idea about Cahokia!

Robear wrote:

Very good stuff.

"heavy metal vomit parties" is a phrase I won't forget anytime soon. Thanks

Aww, thanks everyone! I don't think I have it in me to update every day; I have an archaeological field school several times a week this summer, then grad school starts in August. I wanted to keep my researching skills sharp in the interim and it's been fun to learn more and write about about various topics. No spoilers for next week, but it won't be North American history. =)

This week in the Korner, imagine hauling a wheelbarrow of money, just to buy a loaf of bread. Imagine burning money in the winter to keep warm. Imagine a government who dug themselves a hole and though "we'll just dig up" This was the Germany of the Weimar Republic during the hyperinflation crisis.

To understand what caused decades of misery and wounded German pride, one must first know the conditions of the WWI Armistice. Germany had to admit total responsibility for the war; financially, diplomatically, and morally. Germany may have been the first to declare war, but it did not start WWI, its friend Austria holds that honor. Austria, though defeated, didn't have nearly as much culpability as the larger, more industrious (richer) Germany. Germany had to pay war reparations almost immediately and France and Britain took an almost salacious glee in enforcing they payments. Germany lost WWI as much to internal collapse (food shortages and famine) as it did to attrition (loss of soldiers.) Germany was expected to restart its economy and with a large portion of its able-bodied men (even though women did a hell of a lot of industry during the war) dead or actively draining resources it had a real rough go of it. To compound matters, Germany had disbanded the gold standard and borrowed heavily during the war on the expectation that they would win and annex areas rich in resources. The obverse happened; they lost what few territories they had and had nothing with which to pay back the loans.

France and Britain knew that Germany had little ability to pay back the reparations and the war debt. France and Belgium decided they would occupy the Ruhr valley (Germany's Industrial corridor) and extract payment themselves. This was a violation of German sovereignty but the Allied Powers weren't terribly concerned with that. As the moral and diplomatic victors of WWI, they had no problem justifying their actions, even if it brought serious harm to the German people.

The antebellum government of Germany, the Weimar Republic, dealt with the crisis by simply printing more money. The problem was, with industry halted in the Ruhr (in the hands of the allies or abandoned by striking workers) German goods were at an all time low. The government kept printing money and the prices of domestic items kept climbing. The crisis hit a breaking point when Germany was no longer able to pay reparations. In 1919 the value of loaf of bread was 1 mark. By 1923, the value had rocketed to an unbelievable 100 billion mark. There were savvy businessmen like Hugo Stinnes who was worth more than the entire German economy. People brought buckets, wheelbarrows and truckloads of money to buy sundry items. There was an exodus of Germans to neighboring countries, where they'd rather face suspicion and hostility and live in an impossible economy. There were piles of money lain abandoned by the side of the road by people fleeing Germany.

The deeper history of the Weimar Republic and the inflation crisis is far more complex and nuanced than I am laying out and the scholarship is still debating matters of cause and fault. Even the effects of the crisis are still being debated.

I maintain that the international humiliation of Germany in WWI and at Versailles combined with the humiliation of privation during and after the war, multiplied by the German people's tendencies to blame their domestic problems on the "other" (be it the fat Bavarian farmer who was "hoarding" all the food, or the "Jewish" merchant who was "gouging" them on prices.) led to a deeply insecure Germany who was angry and bitter and looking to avoid further humiliation. The German people turned on one another during the war and after, always fingerprinting but never accepting blame. All it took was a charismatic leader who told they what they wanted to hear; "It's not your fault, it was those "others" among us, they're to blame." They followed a monster who told them he'd make the country great again, even while they knew the things he was doing was wrong.

Good thing nothing like this has ever happened since.

I was getting worried towards the end, but sure dodged a bullet, there.... whew.

Karnak wrote:

Aww, thanks everyone! I don't think I have it in me to update every day; I have an archaeological field school several times a week this summer, then grad school starts in August. I wanted to keep my researching skills sharp in the interim and it's been fun to learn more and write about about various topics. No spoilers for next week, but it won't be North American history. =)

Doesn't have to be everyday, could be like the Hump day survey thread, just do it once a week, keeps it more interesting and special that way.

...and yet, it wasn't the worst case of hyperinflation in history.

That honor goes to Hungary following WWII.

The Hungarians were also unfairly penalized after WWI, losing 2/3 of their pre-war territory, including an area that would become the Austrian state of Burgenland to their wartime ally!

That wound still sits deep to this day, since 1/3 of all ethnic Hungarians suddenly lived outside the borders of Hungary.

Luckily, Hungary doesn't currently have a charismatic, autocratic leader laying all the blame for people's ills on the "other".

...oh wait.

Electing an autocrat should result in automatic expulsion from the EU and NATO.

This is great! I'll even settle for a once per week update! I would much rather a steady drip for a long long time rather than a burst of content follow by nothing as you burn out.

Mixolyde wrote:

Electing an autocrat should result in automatic expulsion from the EU and NATO.

I won't be quick to judge people's decision, as hindsight and an outside perspective can give you a far different point of view. I still remember clearly that as I watched 9/11 unfold with the twin towers on fire in my dorm's cafeteria that my 19 years old self felt nothing but cold rage and the need to have someone, anyone for that matter, bombed to kingdom come. If that was during election year I would certainly have voted for whoever promised to drop the biggest bomb on "the enemy." It wasn't until years later that I started to see the errors of my way...

People will come to their senses, eventually. I just hope it won't be too late for them by then.

I came across this a few days ago and thought it was better than a lot of History channel shows I've seen. The 40 minutes just flew by. (I don't think part 2 is up yet.)

Back in high school, I had a difficult time finding an interest in history. I did will enough in the subject through rote memorization, but I had no interest in the topic. At some point through gaming, I got interested in military tactics and strategy, and gained an interest in historical battles and wars. Then something clicked, and I saw how the state of the world today is a direct result of chains of historical events going back thousands of years. Now I can spend hours glued to books and documentaries.

This thread was great. Hopefully a bump will revive it.

I'll share an insight I was shocked to learn when reading medieval history:

The antisemitic characterization of Jews as greedy, money grubbers dates back almost a thousand years. Catholic doctrine forbade Christians from charging interest, so it partially fell to Jews and other non-Christians to lend money to Christians. This, in part, led to the development of Jews being considered greedy.

I had no idea that particular aspect went back so far into history. I figured it was a more recent development related to Germany in the 20th century or related to Jewish figures in Hollywood, that sort of thing. The fact this antisemitic virus began a thousand years ago unsettled me for a while when I first read that.

Well, not a few crusades into the Middle East got warmed up with a good old pogrom of Jews along the way....

Another example of such an event - the big market square in Nuremberg, Germany, where the Frauenkirche (women's church) stands, is the location of the world famous Christmas Market: Nürnberger Christkindlesmarkt.
To open the market, in late November the Christkind (Christ child) stands on the balcony of the church and announces its opening.

The market square and the church all stand on top of what used to be a swamp. In the 12th century Jews were allowed to settle on the swampy area, creating a Jewish quarter in the city. These Jews are believed to be refugees from a pogrom carried out in western Germany around the Rhine river.
During an outbreak of the Black Death, in 1349 another pogrom (obviously because the plague was caused by Jews) - sanctioned by the emperor - began in the city. As a result, around 600 of the Jewish residents were killed and the quarter razed to the ground.

In its place is the main market square, and the Frauenkirche stands on the ruins of the former synagogue.

garion333 wrote:

This thread was great. Hopefully a bump will revive it.

I'll share an insight I was shocked to learn when reading medieval history:

The antisemitic characterization of Jews as greedy, money grubbers dates back almost a thousand years. Catholic doctrine forbade Christians from charging interest, so it partially fell to Jews and other non-Christians to lend money to Christians. This, in part, led to the development of Jews being considered greedy.

I had no idea that particular aspect went back so far into history. I figured it was a more recent development related to Germany in the 20th century or related to Jewish figures in Hollywood, that sort of thing. The fact this antisemitic virus began a thousand years ago unsettled me for a while when I first read that.

I don't remember much from Tyerman's "God's War", which was a tough read with all the commas (but no Oxford commas) so I didn't come close to finishing it, but the pogrom of Jews in Europe by Crusaders on the way to one of the crusades is the one thing that's stuck with me from what I read.

Anti-Semitism has existed for about as long as we've had written history. That's tribalism.

The idea that Jews are greedy dates from a thousand years ago. That it's based on Catholic rules against money lending from a thousand years ago and persists till today is what shocked me.

If you enjoy history-adjacent content I would recommend the Lore podcast (or books, TV shows, etc). Little bit more on the fantastical side, but still enjoyable.

I got excited to see activity in this thread. Hope more history stuff gets shared!

Garion, that, in a nutshell, is why literalistic religious beliefs are so dangerous. When you *literally believe* the writings of people from the Bronze and Iron Ages, you end up with all sorts of mental baggage that the rest of us have left behind. Obviously the same is true for medieval periods, but at least today, there are no “Chanson de Roland” literalists, or the like. It’s religious books that (inadvertently?) preserve beliefs from thousands of years ago that are the problem, because those beliefs are deeply entwined with the mythologies.

Robear wrote:

Garion, that, in a nutshell, is why literalistic religious beliefs are so dangerous. When you *literally believe* the writings of people from the Bronze and Iron Ages, you end up with all sorts of mental baggage that the rest of us have left behind. Obviously the same is true for medieval periods, but at least today, there are no “Chanson de Roland” literalists, or the like. It’s religious books that (inadvertently?) preserve beliefs from thousands of years ago that are the problem, because those beliefs are deeply entwined with the mythologies.

I would definitely not call La Chanson de Roland à religious text. It’s based on a historical event, a famous battle. Yes, there’s a lot of religious elements in there, because that was part of society back then, but it’s nowhere near scripture. It’s actually the earliest French literary text, a poem, an epic one at that. You wouldn’t say Beowulf is a religious text, would you?
You can read more about La Chanson de Roland here.

Eleima wrote:
Robear wrote:

Garion, that, in a nutshell, is why literalistic religious beliefs are so dangerous. When you *literally believe* the writings of people from the Bronze and Iron Ages, you end up with all sorts of mental baggage that the rest of us have left behind. Obviously the same is true for medieval periods, but at least today, there are no “Chanson de Roland” literalists, or the like. It’s religious books that (inadvertently?) preserve beliefs from thousands of years ago that are the problem, because those beliefs are deeply entwined with the mythologies.

I would definitely not call La Chanson de Roland à religious text. It’s based on a historical event, a famous battle. Yes, there’s a lot of religious elements in there, because that was part of society back then, but it’s nowhere near scripture. It’s actually the earliest French literary text, a poem, an epic one at that. You wouldn’t say Beowulf is a religious text, would you?
You can read more about La Chanson de Roland here.

I believe Robear meant that we have folks who are literalists for religious texts but not other writings, like epic poems, a la La Chanson de Roland or Beowulf.

Garion got the point, Eleima. Our reverence for religious textual literalism is (almost) unique to religion, and so the problem of inadvertently preserving social/racial/moral beliefs from thousands of years ago is one unique to religions (that I'm aware of, anyway, feel free to correct me; I think the closest thing to it is found in legal systems, but even the old ones (English Common Law, for example) purge and update every few centuries, at least). Although now I think of it, I do see a similar problem in Constitutions, where we can see the effects of textual ossification in 32,000+ deaths a year from the Second Amendment.

I wonder if there is something in common between political beliefs and religions that leads to the problem of literalism in both? As I noted, at least the law is updated periodically (and Constititutions *can* be, but changes that are meaningful are also problematic).