|
Post by beth on Feb 13, 2010 1:44:54 GMT
This would be a difficult choice for me. More later.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 13, 2010 10:36:38 GMT
two time periods..well actually more than two but will stick to two
elizabethan england...an exciting time in all areas carrying on from the exciting era of henrys 7&8..social..invention..religious..learning..travel..theatre..building inovations the very beings of our overseas aquisitions[Englands] the early days of so many of our great institutions
and number..lordy so many to chose from..early australia...early canada..medici italy..but will go for 4th century England...with its shoots of law..and expansion of learning and teaching
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 13, 2010 16:08:39 GMT
I went with my first inclination - the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, simply because I've long had an affinity for that time in history. I'd choose the United States. It's very tempting to choose the 1950s or 60s, but I'd want to touch base with my family. Not a good idea. Better to remember them as I do now than to rock the boat. A year in any of these times would be with a hope for a healthy year. Advances in medicine move along, but they move rather slowly.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 13, 2010 21:28:39 GMT
Interesting question Beth. After a bit of reflection I've decided that I'd like to go into the future rather than the past. Let's say 100 years into the future.
When I think of all the changes technology has made in our lives over the past one hundred years, I can't help but think that even more changes are in store during the next one hundred. It would be fun to experience that.
Of course, going into the future like that would be a little scary too. Perhaps the Jihadists will have won and Texas will be an Islamic state with Sharia law. Or the Democrats might still be in power.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 13, 2010 21:39:17 GMT
. . . or the Earth might be a blob of molten lava. But, like the old saw goes - ya play your cards, ya take your chances. Fascinating as the past can seem - many many things we'd like to see first hand - the fact remains that, by our standards, it was dangerous. Such small things could be deadly, plus, spoiled as we are, there'd surely be situations and circumstances we'd not be able to manage. I think Mouse is very brave.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 13, 2010 22:10:47 GMT
. I think Mouse is very brave. more fool hardy i think...but to be on the cusp of so much change between the old and new..........wow
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 15, 2010 5:32:42 GMT
. I think Mouse is very brave. more fool hardy i think...but to be on the cusp of so much change between the old and new..........wow That's probably the best way to look at answering the question - not what we fear but what we could learn. Personally, I might like to go back to Biblical times and see how the cult of Christianity started, but it would certainly take more than a year - or, perhaps, more that a lifetime - to understand.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 15, 2010 9:38:36 GMT
trouble is there are so very many time periods...how the cult of islam started would be intersting to ride with ghengis khan to china and beyond...or alexander in afghanistan..the wonders of byzantine....the trek to china by the red headed magyars....troy and ancient greece....so much to see and one life time wouldnt cover it all i wonder of time travel will ever be.....all to play for i guess
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2010 16:22:16 GMT
I've always fancied going back to the 1920s , Britain or the USA; more important though is who I am. I want to be a flapper, not a flunkey.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 18, 2010 0:08:03 GMT
That makes sense, Sky. One person is pretty trivial to a whole era - even if having a year to work with - unless that person could manage to step into a persona from which to observe - a good vantage point. Well . . . observe or participate , your choice. Personally, I'd want to mostly observe . . . get a job as a clerk or something at a newspaper, rent a room in a respectable boarding house and watch history unfold.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 18, 2010 8:56:32 GMT
going back in time one would have to observe...or it would alter the future if we went back with what we know
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2010 10:03:47 GMT
If we can be mere observers - a fly on the ceiling (flies on walls tend to get swatted) I should like to go into a 14th century convent and see what life was really like. Maybe more than one, to compare and contrast. Then if my nerves could stand it, a monastery.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 18, 2010 14:44:46 GMT
not the dissolution then.....some of the convents and monastaries were very suspect in the ways they were run....but our history wouldnt have been the same without them the better of them seem to have done really good things ..medical..comerce..education and hoteliers...the worst of them seem to have been on the licenious side
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 20, 2010 20:04:08 GMT
Maybe it would be better to designate a smaller window - say a particular year when something fascinating, or at least noteworthy, occurred - and in a proximity to where it happened, the better to observe. I might like to be there with sufficient travel funds in April and May, 1902. www.historyorb.com/events/date/1902
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 21, 2010 14:58:54 GMT
I was thinking about this last night, wondering what I'd miss most if I could make a leap into a past-time I'd like to visit. Just going back to the 50s or 60s would be easy - not much difference except no cell phones or microwave ovens or computers. 'way back would be harder. Before telegraph/telephone, it's hard to believe communication was good enough to allow for starting wars beyond just seeing an army on the horizon. The same goes for transportation. Poor horses and the people who had to depend on them so heavily. Let's say we could take a bag of carrying. What items would you take?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2010 15:40:09 GMT
most peeps didnt have phones in the 1950,s or the 1960,s....
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 21, 2010 15:45:22 GMT
Let's say we could take a bag of carrying. What items would you take? pain relivers antibiotics very sharp knife plasters nail sissors anthisan[lots of creepies]
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 22, 2010 15:38:51 GMT
most peeps didnt have phones in the 1950,s or the 1960,s.... It depends on how you mean that. True, must people did not have personal or portable phones and cells weren't an option, but - at least in the U. S. - the huge majority of people had home phones (land lines) and I think that would go all the back into the '40s.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 22, 2010 15:49:54 GMT
Bag of Carrying good ones for you - survival rations For me in 1902, all those and . . .
some thermals - have a feeling woolens would itch toothpaste, good soap, shampoo and deodorant comfortable shoes The food might have been better then - though not sure about the meat. For the 50s or 60s - no bag would be necessary - maybe some antibiotic cream.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 22, 2010 16:13:47 GMT
most peeps didnt have phones in the 1950,s or the 1960,s.... It depends on how you mean that. True, must people did not have personal or portable phones and cells weren't an option, but - at least in the U. S. - the huge majority of people had home phones (land lines) and I think that would go all the back into the '40s. not in the uk they didnt...not even landlines..there were only three houses in the village who had their own black bakerlite phones....we were one..the vicarage and our local doctor we were forever taking messages..peeps used to knock on the door to use our phone but only on important matters ie some body was in hospital or what ever or could we tell mrs x that she was now a grandma etc etc,,in fact our number began with a four there were only 400 plus phones in the area
|
|