From what i've read i always thought they were all assigned jobs and given all they required to live in return for their services(food, clothes, pottery etc) as you say they had very little in the form of money so this was the easiest way to do things, i didnt see it is comming out of the state budget as most of what they produced was from resources in their own lands and by these same workers, there wasnt so much a circulation of money more a circulation of what was produced. The theory goes that the people that built the pyramids were farm workers from along the nile during the months when the nile flooded and they had little work to do, only a small party was left behind all year round(at least small compared to the numbers they had from the farms).
Were we visited before?
- Thread starter machiaventa
- Start date
as I told you. in the ancient world and even in early middle age europe money was used only by aristocrats and rich people. paid worker ment that he got payment in natural products/tools/household goods/clothes.
And because they were free people/farmers, then all the clothes, food etc they got from the government was payment. If they'd been slaves then they would get all these things all year round.
besides, about budget. Who do you think gave them those clothes?
it's a bit unlogical - make clothes ourselves, then give them to ourselves.
they paid to the state in tax (natural products), craftmen made tools, clothes, sold them to those who wanted it, paid state in tax with what they created and/or money.
now state has a huge pile of food/tools/clothes that it then redistributes to it's needs.
nowadays money is = currency
then money was = gold, silver, rings, gold/silver coins, tools, food, clothes, pottery, jewlery, etc, etc.
people usually are too much attached to nowaday standarts to understand the same concept as it was in the past.
And because they were free people/farmers, then all the clothes, food etc they got from the government was payment. If they'd been slaves then they would get all these things all year round.
besides, about budget. Who do you think gave them those clothes?
it's a bit unlogical - make clothes ourselves, then give them to ourselves.
they paid to the state in tax (natural products), craftmen made tools, clothes, sold them to those who wanted it, paid state in tax with what they created and/or money.
now state has a huge pile of food/tools/clothes that it then redistributes to it's needs.
nowadays money is = currency
then money was = gold, silver, rings, gold/silver coins, tools, food, clothes, pottery, jewlery, etc, etc.
people usually are too much attached to nowaday standarts to understand the same concept as it was in the past.
I thought that was pretty much what i said, guess i didnt explain myself as well as i thought, basically i was getting at the fact the reason farmers got paid all year round was because they worked on the pyramids when the farms were flooded and they couldnt work, i did say you was right about the money, thats why i said they didnt cost money because the costs were paid in products produced by the workers in the state, there was effectively a distributed wealth but with some kept back by the state for export purposes(papyrus and certain other goods were worth a lot of money).
I had the impression that at the period the farmers didn't work at the pyramids they were not paid by the state when farming, but worked in a kinda free market where high taxes had to be paid. basically the state didn't pay them, they paid the state in taxes and what was left used for themselves. so it isn't that the state paid them all year round.
but I can be wrong and you are really welcome to prove me wrong. my interest is only the truth.
about the redistributed wealth -
the same as happens today, only nowadays the state redistributes money not goods (oh btw in NK the state still redistributes goods nowadays (tv's, cars, books etc), because it doesn't have any free money)
edit: this is a good conversation/discussion , could be transfered to the history forum
Probably should be, my facts about the egyptians might be sketchy and out of date, but i guess thats ancient history for you, seems you have the facts sorted but then somebody else finds something that changes everything, im not sure how anybody can prove a lot to do with the pyramids, most of its still a mystery, and theres even a theory the great pyramid was a giant boom box, its all interesting to debate i guess, and we'll probably never know what it was all really about.
I have the same interest, im incredably curious when it comes to history as theres so many theorys about almost everything and its near impossible to find the truth for most things, i enjoy reading up on theorys though, and yours makes more sense than mine really.
last time this happened I had tears in my eyes from joy and excitement
it was when I watched this program
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/stardisc.shtml
not neceseraly a civilization, just an aspect of it, just proved that in some ways the until recently thought barbars were really advanced for that age compared to the rest of the world.
and also if you watch the programe, we can conclude that in those ancient times (as I had suspected before, but this is a good evidence) the "international" communications were really umm active. People weren't isolated (as up until now thought), but all of that time biggest civilizations had good communications with each other.
This might be the case where there is found cocain on egyptian mummies (cocain growns only in CA/SA)
and also if you watch the programe, we can conclude that in those ancient times (as I had suspected before, but this is a good evidence) the "international" communications were really umm active. People weren't isolated (as up until now thought), but all of that time biggest civilizations had good communications with each other.
This might be the case where there is found cocain on egyptian mummies (cocain growns only in CA/SA)
Thats very possible, the reason i say that is because the vikings are now thought to have discovered america and anybody with a reasonably large sized ship should be able to make the same journey along the coastline, the egyptians had juggernaughts and triremes that should be capable of the journey with a bit of luck, though its probably most likely a trading civilazation(such as the minoans) actually discovered far away lands like america so they could bring new goods back.
I didnt realise it had been accepted as fact, last i checked they still teach that christopher columbus discovered america.
Those accounts are very interesting, though did they take the weather into account before setting sail in both accounts? Theres a lot of storms in those areas and while it would be possible it would probably be very difficult to make a decent trade route from it
teach where, in the usa?
I was taught that at school years ago. and it's in all the history books.
and about the discovery from Europe...
Columbus thought he had found a new route to India for the remaining of his life,
Vikings knew that they had discovered a new land.
They called indians - skraelings and the new land - Vineland
Who's the discoverer?
see the logic? there would be hundreds of wanabees each year once the route is known. so if just 3 of the ~100 returned knews about their voyage would be the same as we going to the moon. Again new wanabees would want to become millionares. So the weather isn't really a problem here.
I was taught that at school years ago. and it's in all the history books.
and about the discovery from Europe...
Columbus thought he had found a new route to India for the remaining of his life,
Vikings knew that they had discovered a new land.
They called indians - skraelings and the new land - Vineland
Who's the discoverer?
here again is the money concept. you see, back in those days just one such raft returned would make the ones who did that millionares. they would have a decent living for the rest of their life. and there were many many poor people starving.
see the logic? there would be hundreds of wanabees each year once the route is known. so if just 3 of the ~100 returned knews about their voyage would be the same as we going to the moon. Again new wanabees would want to become millionares. So the weather isn't really a problem here.
Its still a lot of lives lost each year. As for the viking thing i cant remember the name of the person who discovered Vinland, it shouldnt be too hard to find out as Vinlandsaga is an incredably famous viking tale. And as for the teaching i live in england and they still teach it here as chris columbus, though i'd already heard of Vinlandsaga when i was taught it so i didnt care too much.
and about the ships- viking sea ships called Knarr(s) [meaning: cargo ship] were far superior to those used by Columbus. They were larger and more stable, more sturdy to survive a long journey.
This freighter averaged 16 metres in length, 5 metres in width, and over 2 metres in height from keel to gunwale. It had a draft of 1 metre and could not navigate the shoals as well as the lighter longship. Under full sail, it could travel at 10 knots, about a fast walking pace.
Lief Erikson and other Viking explorers used a knarr for their voyages to North America.
This freighter averaged 16 metres in length, 5 metres in width, and over 2 metres in height from keel to gunwale. It had a draft of 1 metre and could not navigate the shoals as well as the lighter longship. Under full sail, it could travel at 10 knots, about a fast walking pace.
Lief Erikson and other Viking explorers used a knarr for their voyages to North America.
Last edited:
life was cheap those days, besides look at nowaday emigrants from africa and south pacific and asia, hundreds die each year in trying to get to the promissed land in Europe, North America or Australia. and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of them
Theres a lot more people nowadays than there was back then, population growth and all you know, its hardly shocking nowadays.
I'll get back to you with the viking name tomorrow, the first viking to discover america was in a longboat, the cargo ships were dragged across land at one part of the journey to avoid shallow water werent they? I saw a documentary on it where they tried it with a group of people and a replica longboat.
I'll get back to you with the viking name tomorrow, the first viking to discover america was in a longboat, the cargo ships were dragged across land at one part of the journey to avoid shallow water werent they? I saw a documentary on it where they tried it with a group of people and a replica longboat.
they were dragged over land on the route to Byzantium (or Miklagrod as it was called by the vikings) and to the Black Sea to trade with Arabs.
By the way, one of the most popular routes was from the Baltic sea and through Latvia using the river Daugava.
By the way, one of the most popular routes was from the Baltic sea and through Latvia using the river Daugava.
This viking experiment was in greenland or iceland, to show that they could reach america, its not surprising vikings did it in other places aswel there technology was greatly advanced, they are more intelligent than people give them credit for, their boats were built for speed and the hull was specially shaped and incredably well crafted.
a note: shore warships indeed were built for speed (they were used as river trade ships as well), but knorrs were built for durability and freight load capacity.
I think that nobody dragged a knorr by land, it's HEAVY and is/was made for the sea/ocean voyages not rivers. It's too big for that.
p.s. we nowadays assume they hired oxen from the local people to help them in dragging
edit: and yes, they were exellent sailors
I think that nobody dragged a knorr by land, it's HEAVY and is/was made for the sea/ocean voyages not rivers. It's too big for that.
p.s. we nowadays assume they hired oxen from the local people to help them in dragging
edit: and yes, they were exellent sailors