History Was Never Slow - Ada Palmer
Ada Palmer argues that history has always moved quickly and people have always experienced rapid change, but modern history education creates a false perception of past stagnation by compressing large time periods and focusing only on technologies we still value today.
Summary
Palmer challenges the common perception that historical change was slow compared to modern times. She argues that this misconception stems from how history is taught in schools, where educators attempt to cover vast time periods quickly, creating an illusion of stagnation during earlier eras. In reality, people throughout history experienced their times as periods of rapid change - for example, people in the 1320s felt nostalgic for the 1300s, just as we feel nostalgic for recent decades. Palmer attributes this misunderstanding to 19th-century historians who grouped events together to make modernity appear uniquely fast-paced and special. Regarding technological change, she argues that while we acknowledge past eras weren't technologically advancing as rapidly as today, they were actually experiencing constant innovation. The difference is that we no longer value or notice many historical technological advances, taking inventions like backed chairs, scissors, and metallurgical improvements for granted, even though these represented significant technological leaps for people of their time.
Key Insights
- When teaching history, avoid compressing large time periods as this creates false impressions of stagnation - instead focus on how each decade brought meaningful changes that people of the time experienced as rapid
- Recognize that our evaluation of past technological progress is biased by present-day values - innovations we take for granted (chairs with backs, scissors, metallurgy) were revolutionary advances that drove rapid change in their time
Topics
Transcript
History has always moved fast, but when we teach it in high school, we're trying to move over large chunks of time quickly. And so we pretend that it moved slowly. We have this lie that there were long periods of stagnation. But you can zoom in anywhere and you're going to find every decade feels different. And people in the 1320s are nostalgic for people in the 130-aughts, right? It's always felt like history was moving very quickly and things rose and things fell. It's the lies we tell ourselves in history books written in the 19th century that are trying to group all of these things together and make modernity special. They confuse us about this. Right. I…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Dwarkesh Patel
The Army Sent to Stop Cortés Joined Him Instead - Si Sheppard
Spanish conquistador Cortés faced a threat from Governor Velázquez of Cuba, who sent Don Narvaez with a larger force to arrest him for exceeding his authority. Rather than being defeated, Cortés defeated Narvaez in battle and persuaded the expeditionary force to join him by promising shared wealth from the empire, turning potential enemies into reinforcements.
How 168 Men Captured the Inca Emperor - Si Sheppard
Francisco Pizarro, with only 168 men, captured the Inca Emperor Atahualpa in 1532 at Cajamarca by using psychological tactics with horses and an ambush strategy. Despite Atahualpa's show of dominance and his large army, Pizarro's surprise attack and capture of the emperor allowed him to control the entire Inca social hierarchy.
The Myth of the Helpless Aztecs and Inca - Si Sheppard
Si Sheppard argues that the Aztecs and Incas were not helpless victims but actively developed countermeasures and adaptive strategies against Spanish conquistadors, including terrain manipulation, weapon improvisation, and tactical learning—though they lacked sufficient time to fully master foreign technologies.
How Conquistadors Conquered the Aztecs - Si Sheppard
Conquistador success against the Aztecs relied primarily on steel weapons, horses, and psychological tactics rather than firearms. Steel armor and swords proved far more effective than indigenous weapons made of wood, stone, and obsidian, while horses—animals unknown to the Aztecs—provided decisive military and logistical advantages.
How did a few hundred Spanish soldiers topple two empires? – Si Sheppard
Military historian Si Sheppard explains how a few hundred Spanish conquistadors were able to conquer the Aztec and Inca Empires within just a few years through a combination of technological advantages (horses, steel weapons), psychological warfare, diplomatic manipulation of existing divisions among indigenous peoples, and the catastrophic impact of disease. The conquests were contingent on individual leadership decisions and geographic factors, but were fundamentally enabled by the conquistadors' ability to exploit internal rifts within empires that appeared monolithic from the outside.