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.
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.
Jose Sanders
define significant
Landon Russell
"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.
Kevin Jackson
The creation of the universe.
Xavier Powell
Can't really argue with that.
And we have our first date:
ca. 13 800 000 000 BC: Birth of the Universe
Angel Foster
Jesus
Brayden Russell
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.
Alexander Perry
33
Also 0ad for the simple fact that we use Christ's birth to structure dates with.
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.
Kayden Powell
>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.
Wyatt Hughes
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.
Joshua Lewis
Agreed.
Three dates so far.
David Anderson
1517 Luther's 95 thesis and the start of the protestant reformation.
Anthony Torres
Thanks /rel/
Leo Perez
Fair enough.
Brayden Butler
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
Brandon Sullivan
October 1, 2003 - Creation of Veeky Forums
Hudson Carter
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.
Daniel Peterson
1453-Fall of Constantinople and end of centuries old Roman legacy
Logan Wright
>OP wants to draw what we find in every secondary school history class textbook >or wikipedia why bother
Camden Rogers
>1976- Moon landing Why not first human in Space?
Cameron Price
This chart will help your research.
Ian Lee
1648 - Westphalian sovereignty
Easton Cook
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.
Hunter Hughes
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.
Jackson Morales
>creation
Owen Nelson
Descartes' book Discource on the Method from 1637, can be considered the beginning of Enlightenment, and the foundation of rationalism and the Scientific Revolution.
Blake Anderson
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.
Evan Hernandez
>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.
Jeremiah Sanchez
I'd need something a little less vague for dates.
Aiden Edwards
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
Jack Edwards
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.
Adam Hughes
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
Ethan Anderson
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.
Brandon Cruz
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
Bentley Flores
>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?
Logan Young
The fact they were the first documented semblances of civilisation as we know it is significant in itself
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.
Christian Adams
>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.
Jason Cruz
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.
Nolan Gray
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.
Jayden Brown
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.
Robert Myers
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
Juan Diaz
I took the liberty of adding Newton, I don't think anyone will disagree.
Hudson Long
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.
Mason Rodriguez
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?
Thomas Phillips
>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
Aaron Clark
>To have a date included, just name the event and explain why it is significant.
It's not difficult.
Isaac Richardson
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?
Adrian Brown
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.
Kevin Morales
Greeks and Romans are overrated af.
Sebastian Butler
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.
Elijah Harris
>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
Colton Turner
>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
Ryan Campbell
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
Jayden Fisher
The League is significant as the forerunner of United Nations, but I take your point
Grayson Sullivan
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
Kevin Stewart
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.
William Perez
> British East India Company It was a key moment in establishing the British Empire.
Brody Taylor
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?
Alexander Hill
The Soviet Union was one the two key players in shaping the latter half of the 20th century and its existence still has repercussions.
Xavier Green
>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.
Jaxson Gray
>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.
James Rodriguez
Should I go with Caesar's victory in Gaul or crossing the Rubicon?
Noah Smith
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”
Nicholas Johnson
...
Hunter Jones
can we get a 1066/ Battle of Hastings going on here?
Carson Watson
Yeah seems like an obvious one.
Owen Cruz
I'm enjoying your thread OP. This might be stupid but maybe you should add the earliest known humans or prehistoric stuff?
Xavier Moore
I'm always surprised how fixed on Hastings the Anglosphere is. Also Trianon 732 and Vienna 1683
Wyatt Jackson
Tours 732, obv
Gabriel Thompson
>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.
Jason Carter
>Nicholas I I dropped an I
Colton Flores
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.
Adam Perry
Sounds like Eurocentrists are gonna ruin it for you. Be careful
Matthew Torres
This.
The timeline is already a meme
I mean c'mon
>1066 >foundation of modern england
Colton Nelson
You don't agree the Conquest fundamentally reshaped the country?
Christian Johnson
It wasn't the foundation of modern England. It was the start of the high middle ages
Owen Lewis
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.
Carson Cruz
I meant in regards to English history lol
Dylan Brooks
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?
Jackson Gutierrez
He needs something to fulfill his autistic desires, and I approve because I also have this kind of autism
Adam Johnson
I think to avoid any unnecessary debate you could put
"Beginning of Norman England"
Noah Johnson
unlike in secondary school, this is fun
Elijah Turner
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.
Joseph Reyes
800: Charlemagne crowned Emperor 595: Gregorian mission to Christianize England 1688: Glorious Revolution
Asher Young
What if years have multiple events
Gabriel James
Charlemagne seems obvious, but could you expand on how exactly the other two are significant?
No issue, there's already two events for 1945.
Camden Wilson
>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.
Ryder Watson
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
Mason Wright
>European Union you mean 1992?
Asher Walker
Crossing the Rubicon out of those two, but the Republic didn't die officially until Octavian was made Princeps
Gabriel Hughes
1873, publication of A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism by James Clerk Maxwell demostrates that electricity and magnetism are part of the same phenomenon
Brayden Smith
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
Carson Ward
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?