A Timeline of Significant Events

I'd like to propose a project:

The creation of a timeline of significant historical events.

I think it would be a worthy endeavour, as chronology and prioritisation of events are key to understanding history. My hope is that it will also lead to a series of general history threads with interesting discussions on all kinds of subjects, where everyone can debate, contribute knowledge about their areas of expertise, while also learning about areas they know less about, perhaps even discover entirely new things.

We start with a blank canvas. To have a date included, just name the event and explain why it is significant. Dates can be political events, scientific discoveries or inventions, artistic or philosophical revolutions, even natural phenomena. The only rule for inclusion is that you must be able to show how that event significantly affected the world we live in today.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelines_of_world_history
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hUi0-QWIvQ5cSCvOWfxGt8UGYSyFQGOPjw58Cg8PXwg
imninalu.net/IndusValley.htm
community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekMyth/Chap9EasternInfl.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

OP here, I should probably use a trip to avoid confusion, here you go.

It'll end up being a chaotic mess tbqh

plus, this exists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelines_of_world_history

I'm planning to give it some kind of structure, at least mark dates differently based on the type of event. There's also a standard of inclusion. Unlike that enormous Wikipedia list which just includes any and all dates.

And most importantly half the point is discussing if and why events are significant.

define significant

"which can be shown to have significantly affected the world we live in today".

And yes I know I reused significant, but at some level there has to be a value judgement, there's just no way around that.

The creation of the universe.

Can't really argue with that.

And we have our first date:

ca. 13 800 000 000 BC: Birth of the Universe

Jesus

Going to have to be a little more specific and explain, but I'd go with the Crucifixion of Jesus as that is the most important event in Christian revelation.

ca. 30 AD I believe.

33

Also 0ad for the simple fact that we use Christ's birth to structure dates with.

Some time between 30-36 apparently.

Going to set this down here for a better view:

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hUi0-QWIvQ5cSCvOWfxGt8UGYSyFQGOPjw58Cg8PXwg

I thought 33 was his age, given that he was probably born around around 2 BC. Wikipedia says "probably between 30 and 33 AD".

As for 0AD, there is no 0AD, only 1AD, and that date being used later doesn't mean there was actually a significant event on it.

>Scholars have provided estimates for the year of crucifixion in the range 30–33 AD,[80][81][82] with the majority of modern scholars favouring the date April 7, 30 AD.[83][84]

I'd go with 30.

The Crucifixion is important philosophically, but probably the most important event for the creation of Christianity is the conversion of Saint Paul. He's the founder of Christianity as an organised religion.

I think around 36 ad.

Agreed.

Three dates so far.

1517
Luther's 95 thesis and the start of the protestant reformation.

Thanks /rel/

Fair enough.

You should probably go with age defining years
476- fall of western roman empire
1492- Columbo "discovers" America
1918- End of the ww1

Also some I think are important
622- Beging of Islam
1054- Orthodox and Catholic
1517- Martin Luther and protestantisam
1789 - French revolution
1914- Start of WW1
1939- Start of WW2
1945- Discovery of atomic bomb and end of WW2
1976- Moon landing

October 1, 2003 - Creation of Veeky Forums

Should 476 actually be used for the fall of Western Rome?

Romulus Augustulus was in fact a usurper, and the legal emperor Julius Nepos ruled in Dalmatia until 480. And the last Western Roman rump state, ruled by Syagrius, survived in Northern Gaul until 486.

1453-Fall of Constantinople and end of centuries old Roman legacy

>OP wants to draw what we find in every secondary school history class textbook
>or wikipedia
why bother

>1976- Moon landing
Why not first human in Space?

This chart will help your research.

1648 - Westphalian sovereignty

Alright there wasn't a lot of justification on these, so feel free to discuss.

Still not sure which date should be counted for the fall of Western Rome.

The foundation of the Cluny Abbey can be considered the founding event of Western civilisation. It's where the Cluniac Reforms started which led to the birth of the Catholic Church as an independent and powerful institution, and it's also where Cluniac art, the first original Western art appeared.

That's 910.

>creation

Descartes' book Discource on the Method from 1637, can be considered the beginning of Enlightenment, and the foundation of rationalism and the Scientific Revolution.

Include the cradles of civilisation.Scholars have defined civilization using various criteria such as the use of writing, cities, a class-based society, agriculture, animal husbandry, public buildings, metallurgy, and monumental architecture. They are 'cradles' because all other civilisations and cultures are offshoots of them and all modern states can be traced back to them
Egypt: 3500 BC

Sumeria: 3500 BC

Indus Valley: 3300 BC

Norte Chico (not really that relevant, as their final semblances could decimated by the Spanish (for the Aztec Empire) with the remains eradicated by American settlers but still impressive in itself): 3350 BC

China: 1900 BC

Olmec: 1650 BC, same as the Norte Chico.

>all other civilisations and cultures are offshoots of them and all modern states can be traced back to them
That's debatable, and if you go by Spengler's model, false.

Civilizations can have superficial influences on each other, but their existence and core features are independent.

I'd need something a little less vague for dates.

Just use those dates. There is no way archaeologists can round them to the nearest decade let alone year, so the general consensus and reference are centurial roundups, except in the case of the Olmecs due to better preservation. Otherwise, you can just type in '36th century B.C' etc, or put a ~ next to them denoting 'roughly', which you should also do for the birth of the universe

Also two people I think that are extremely important is firstly Plato for his impact and setting of a foundation for all future Western philosophers and scientists to build off on, and Genghis Khan for fucking the shit out of so many Eastern civilisations and contributing arguably more to the great divergence than anything. Their respective birthdyears would be 426~ BCE and 1162 A.D

Probably the two most important events in Western scientific thought are the birth of scholasticism (I'd credit Peter Abelard) and the 1277 Paris Condemnation. I can explain reasons but this has already been talked about a lot here.

Then as a consequence there's the works of Buridan in physics and Oresme in maths, but I can’t find exact dates.

1500 BCE - Rigveda (Hindu civilization)
1400 BCE - Moses (Judeo religion + Monotheism)
1200 BCE - Phenocians (spread of modern alphabet)
560 BCE - Buddha (Buddhism)
420 BCE - Plato (Greek civilization)
300 BCE - Ashoka (Spread of Buddhism to the World)
300 BCE - Rome (Republic)
200 BCE - Qin (China)
100 BCE - Rome (Empire)
5 BCE - Jesus Christ (Christianity)

Rough estimate here

No I mean I need an event. I know a little about Egypt for instance, and as far as I know nothing really significant happened in 3500 BC. Narmer was around 3100 BC.

And I won't be using birth dates, but I'll see what date I can give the works of Plato and the conquests of Genghis Khan. The fall of Baghdad should probably be included.

I don't see why Splenger's model is mutually exclusive with what I've said. Influence doesn't mean in-group.

The Indus Valley's (a cradle of civilisation) developments in science and math (albeit on a very rudimentary level) imported strongly into Greece. While Greece at that point had ideas of pottery and agriculture, the accepted definition of 'cradle of civilisation' could not pertain to it

>The Indus Valley's (a cradle of civilisation) developments in science and math (albeit on a very rudimentary level) imported strongly into Greece.

Do you have examples or sources for this?

The fact they were the first documented semblances of civilisation as we know it is significant in itself

imninalu.net/IndusValley.htm

community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekMyth/Chap9EasternInfl.html

For Genghis Khan I went with his unification of the Mongols. I also added the Fall of Baghdad for its impact on Islamic civilisation. If you know the most significant date in the conquest of China that would probably deserve inclusion as well.

For Plato, Abelard, Buridan, and Oresme, I'd need dates. Either the most important work, or the first of several important ones. Approximate if necessary.

>The fact they were the first documented semblances of civilisation as we know it is significant in itself
Yes but what exactly can be considered indicative of that?

>Indus Valley
Maybe I skimmed too quickly, but I don't see anything there that claims any Indus Valley influence on Greece, let alone any science of maths.

For Abelard I think 1115 for rise to Notre Dame is good. For Buridan and Oresme the important books are Questions on Aristotle's Metaphysics and Tractatus de confiburationibus qualitatum et motuum.

Not the other guy, but some of the claims, seen in the second link, maybe possible.

There is no doubt trade was done between the two civilization. Indeed the first link makes claims of trade between the Harappan and the Phonecians/Greeks. Then the continuation of the trade with the Vedic indians.

Interesting note I read was the influence on the Greeks via Aesop. I've known for a long time that both the Indians and the Greeks had very similar talking-animal + animal teaching morality/lesson stories. A huge collection of on each side. Many of them bear striking resemblances. This time however the focus was on the physical attributes and the origin of Aesop. Aesop was described as a "burned face" man. My belief had always been, Aesop was an African slave in Greek. That would make sense due to proximity and skin color. But it would make even more sense if he was actually a Dravidian slave from the South India. Dravidians, if you didn't know, are just as black as Africans, if not more. Aesop was known as a sage back in the days, with a ascetic sage from India captured and teaching animal lessons, it would be lot more fitting. With trade routes already established between the two civs, similarities the fables, the skin color matching, and the sage-like wisdom being a common theme.

Sounds interesting, but Indian civilisation is not at all the same as Indus Valley civilisation. The latter appears to have been wiped out completely by some catastrophic event, most likely the Aryan invasion, and from what I've read the latter Indian civilisation had nothing notable in common with it.

Agreed, but why not both and with correct dates;
>1961 Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin is the fiirst man in space orbiting the earth aboard Vostok 1
>1969 US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are the first men to land on the moon aboard Apollo 11's lunar modulef

I took the liberty of adding Newton, I don't think anyone will disagree.

Aryan invasion is considered outdated.

More are leaning towards natural disaster like droughts and such. I believe it was the river shifting places that forces Harappan to abandon their old cities. Something like a 200 year old drought + rivers beds drying out + river shifting locations brought the end of their civilization. With cities emptied out and no one around, the Aryans probably migrated there.

Why do you have nothing on before Christ?

Seriously, are you retarded?

Where are the Greeks? The Romans? They are the foundation of military/culture/intelligence for the majority of the European history. I'm assuming this is a European history project.

Are you a dumb high schooler by any chance?

>1600 British East India Company is established with the granting of a royal charter.

>1919 Paris Peace conference and the establishment of the League of Nations.

>1945 The United Nations is established with the ratification of its charter by 29 nations

>To have a date included, just name the event and explain why it is significant.

It's not difficult.

The League of Nations was completely ineffectual and thus irrelevant as far as I can see, and I can't really see a lot of relevance for the UN either.

I'm not sure about the British East India Company though, might expanding on its importance?

This is a really anachronistic way of looking at things and puts too much emphasis on individuals rather than society itself. Given, it's much easier to make that way. Also, you should incorporate user's cradle of civilisations as well as the establishment of various large states and declines thereof in history.

Greeks and Romans are overrated af.

It's not anachronistic, just possibly out of fashion. Which I believe is why nobody understands history anymore. To have any sort of clarity in your mind the basics is chronology of events.

Things like rise and decline of states can be marked by events. We already have the fall of Western and Eastern Rome and the rise of France and America as dominant world powers.

>1600 British East India Company is established with the granting of a royal charter.

>1919 Paris Peace conference and the establishment of the League of Nations.

Pretty irrelevant in comparison to other mentioned events such as Genghis Khan's conquests. Even the 2005 GFC has more of an effect than
>League
>Of
>Nations

I know this is probably bait but you put so little effort into the bait you should kys

>1917 Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks depose Tsar Nicholas and lay the foundations of the Soviet Union

>1991 The Soviet Union is dissolved by the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union

19th century?

1814 - Congress of Vienna
1815 - Battle of Waterloo and Napoleon's exile
1848 - Communist Manifesto published
1848 - Revolutions of 1848
1861 - American Civil War
1871 - Unification of Germany

The League is significant as the forerunner of United Nations, but I take your point

If we're going to mark the rise and fall of every larger state in history user's timeline is going to be lanky as fuck

776 BC: First recorded Olympic Games

508 BC: Democracy instituted at Athens

273 BC: Ashoka the Great becomes the emperor of the Mauryan Empire

44 BC: Julius Caesar murdered by Marcus Brutus and others; End of Roman Republic; beginning of Roman Empire.

> British East India Company
It was a key moment in establishing the British Empire.

I think those can be included. They mark the beginning and end of an era when socialism existed as a societal model for a large part of the world.

I think Congress of Vienna should be included as it reshaped the world, unification of Germany too for the impact it had.

I'm not sure about how exactly the other three events are that significant, mind expanding?

The Soviet Union was one the two key players in shaping the latter half of the 20th century and its existence still has repercussions.

>508 BC: Democracy instituted at Athens
Through Cleisthenes' reforms? Why those rather than Solon's?

>44 BC: Julius Caesar murdered by Marcus Brutus and others; End of Roman Republic; beginning of Roman Empire.
The Republic didn't die when Caesar was murdered (which was in fact about restoring the Republic), I think Octavian's victory over Marc Anthony would perhaps be more fitting.

>776 BC: First recorded Olympic Games
>273 BC: Ashoka the Great becomes the emperor of the Mauryan Empire
Please explain how exactly those are significant.

>I think Octavian's victory over Marc Anthony would perhaps be more fitting

Either that or Caesar's victory in Gaul which gave him his dictatorial power in the first place, or possibly both.

Should I go with Caesar's victory in Gaul or crossing the Rubicon?

Congress of Vienna but not the 1919 Paris Peace Conference ?

Treaty of Versailles
Treaty of Trianon
Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye
Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine

Europe is Balkanized as Hungary is pulled a part to satisfy Wilson's declaration of the right to self-detremination of all peoples

Treaty of Sèvres The end of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the British and French mandates in the Middle East.

Japan one of the allies of the Entente Cordiale goes home with only half of the promised German territories in the East having been refused German territories in China and the Pacific

Italy one of the allies of the Entente walks out of the conference with meagre territorial gains.

“no equally systematic attempt has been made before or since, in Europe or anywhere else, to redraw the political map on national lines. [...] The logical implication of trying to create a continent neatly divided into coherent territorial states each inhabited by separate ethnically and linguistically homogeneous population, was the mass expulsion or extermination of minorities. Such was and is the reductio ad absurdum of nationalism in its territorial version, although this was not fully demonstrated until the 1940s”

...

can we get a 1066/ Battle of Hastings going on here?

Yeah seems like an obvious one.

I'm enjoying your thread OP. This might be stupid but maybe you should add the earliest known humans or prehistoric stuff?

I'm always surprised how fixed on Hastings the Anglosphere is.
Also Trianon 732
and Vienna 1683

Tours 732, obv

>1917 Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks depose Tsar Nicholas and lay the foundations of the Soviet Union
Jesus christ
At least try to have basic knowledge about the history you're postig

Nicholas I was deposed in the February revolution. The Bolshevik October revolution overthrew the Republican provisional government that followed the February revolution.

>Nicholas I
I dropped an I

Sure, just give dates, events, and reason. I'm trying not to come up with any myself and wait for Veeky Forums to make suggestions.

Sounds like Eurocentrists are gonna ruin it for you.
Be careful

This.

The timeline is already a meme

I mean c'mon

>1066
>foundation of modern england

You don't agree the Conquest fundamentally reshaped the country?

It wasn't the foundation of modern England. It was the start of the high middle ages

No, I'm pretty sure it didn't usher in an entire new age for Western civilisation. It was only significant for England, and for the rest of the world only through England.

I meant in regards to English history lol

High Middle Ages doesn't seem like a very meaningful term though.

Another way of summing up the change would be to say that England became part of the French cultural sphere, is that better?

He needs something to fulfill his autistic desires, and I approve because I also have this kind of autism

I think to avoid any unnecessary debate you could put

"Beginning of Norman England"

unlike in secondary school, this is fun

Norman generally refers to the Norman dynasty which was gone again a century later, but the effects of 1066 are deeper and longer lasting. Saying "French England' would in fact be more accurate.

I think I'll go with my previous idea.

800: Charlemagne crowned Emperor
595: Gregorian mission to Christianize England
1688: Glorious Revolution

What if years have multiple events

Charlemagne seems obvious, but could you expand on how exactly the other two are significant?

No issue, there's already two events for 1945.

>I think Octavian's victory over Marc Anthony would perhaps be more fitting.

Octavian being granted the title of Augustus and Princeps would be better methinks like

>273 BC: Ashoka the Great becomes the emperor of the Mauryan Empire

He was the ruler of almost all of the indian sub-continent.

Famously converted to Buddhism. Essentially catalysed the spread of the faith through creating Stupas throughout the Empire and spreading Buddhism to Central Asia (which led to the spread of Budhism to China) and to Sri Lanka (which lead to the emergence of Theravada Buddhism and the spread to southeast asia). The edicts also show the sending of emissaries to the Seleucid Empire and the Hellenistic Mediterranean to spread Buddhism.

He put forward the famous Edicts of Ashoka. Began the model of "Buddhist Kingship" which "ultimately led to a close association in many Southeast Asian countries between the monarchy and the religious hierarchy, an association that can still be seen today in the state-supported Buddhism of Thailand and the traditional role of the Thai king as both a religious and secular leader."

And because the timeline is fairly Euro focused.

1950 - Beginning of the Korean War

1958 - European Economic Community (EEC) established

1979 - Margaret Thatcher elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

1979 - Soviet Union invades Afghanistan

1981 - Ronald Reagan elected President of the United States of America

1985 - Mikhail Gorbachev elected General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

2003 - European Union (EU) established

>European Union
you mean 1992?

Crossing the Rubicon out of those two, but the Republic didn't die officially until Octavian was made Princeps

1873, publication of A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism by James Clerk Maxwell
demostrates that electricity and magnetism are part of the same phenomenon

2560 BC marks the creation of Khufu's Great Pyramid in Giza, the largest structure on Earth for 3,800 years
Should we include any of the Kingdom periods from Egypt; It seems strange if we don't, though the Middle Kingdom isn't super influential AFAIK

Yes but his victory at Actium is what enabled him to do that. I think it would be better to privilege real turning points over symbolic events.

And for Caesar, wasn't the real turning point the enormous wealth and popularity Caesar had acquired thanks to his conquest of Gaul? Crossing the Rubicon was really just him making use of it as it was certain he would. Not to mention Gaul becoming romanised is significant in itself.

>He was the ruler of almost all of the indian sub-continent.
The Maurya Empire already covered India before his rule though.

But the spread of Buddhism certainly seems significant, I'll check that out. I think using his accession to the throne is a bit too vague though, is there a particular event or action of his that started the spread? Or perhaps just his conversion to Buddhism.

Of those, the treaties of Rome and Maastricht seem significant. Reaganomics and Thatcherism as well, although they're part of a West-wide move towards liberalism in the early 80s, so if it was possible to pinpoint a single cause to it that would be better.

That's an interesting question though, what exactly caused this simultaneous change?