Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
who was the greatest nation?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by pavel_constantin (U2317241) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Egypt, maya, roma, israel? or somebody else?
-
Message 2
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
What are the parameters? Do you mean culturally, militarily, geographically, intellectually?
Personally, Alexander's Empire was the greatest achievement within the context of its own time, and probably had the greatest impact on the world today; although I'm not sure if the appellation 'nation' would be appropriate.
Elistan -
Message 3
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Personal bias is Egypt up until the Mid New Kingdom
also poss some of the Persian Empires.
If you are talking modern era then I'm bound to put us Brits forward. however this sort of question is rather difficult as I have no real knowledge of the ancient Thai, Kymer, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Afgan or any other of the host of eastern civilisations. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
dear elistan ... why the appelation nation is not suitable? were the Macedonians a multinational force american style? These men did what they did on the name of the Greek nation!!!!! Themselves they declared it, its not me saying that!
SO do not be afraid of naming it...
It was the Greeks the greatest nation, no need to argue on that. -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
and it has nothing to do with the fact that I am Greek... that is another story... The only fact that is well established is that if it wasn't for the Greeks we would all be what this famous phrase says: 'living on the trees'.
-
Message 6
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Nike,
The reason I am hestitant to assign the appellation 'nation' is that is was specifically the period of Alexander, and the experiment of multiculturalism that he was engaged in that that I wish to elevate, rather than the tri-parte cultural empire that filled the vacuum of his death.
As I remember from my undergraduate days the Macedonians were unhappy with Alexander's integration of satraps and Persian culture. I'm sure you can correct me on this. It was this idealised vision of the East-West fusion that was imperfectly crafted by his time of death.
Also, what define 'nation', and what differiates it from a collection of nations under one ruler?
Elistan -
Message 7
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
the greeks were a people not a nation
-
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
greeks spoke first about the concept of 'nation'
others spoke only about emperors or gods and prophets, kings and queens...and their subjects
it would be interesting to hear another definition of 'nation' -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
anyway if you cannot define the word 'nation' and if you dismiss Greeks cos they are 'people' then take the chinese (they are not people?) or the egyptian (what about them?)...
-
Message 10
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
sit back, a nice thermos in hand, and wait for the fish to bite
oh, i think i can feel a nibble on the line, yup its a big fish I got here
(oh and I say a people not a nation as the Greek peninsula was full of statelets, and mini kindgoms.
yes they were all Hellenes (appologies for sp) but they were Athenians or Spartans or Thebans.
After Alexander forces a union and after both the Romans and the Ottomans then you have a unity forced on the Greeks but I don't think you can really talk about a Greek nation untill your war of independence against the Ottomans
In the same manner there was no such thing as the Welsh nation prior to the Act of Union with England. You had the Welsh peoples, the Welsh lang and culture but not a nation -
Message 11
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Richie,
Well caught! That was pretty much the same reason I was loath to attribute 'nation' to the ramshackle collection of peoples under Alexander. The problem is that whilst the Greeks may have been the first to use term (though I doubt it as it is a Latin word, natio, that is the root) the modern definition is something that came to be defined in the wake of the collapse of kingdoms and empires in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Therefore, within the phrasology of the original post, 'nation' is anachronistic in use.
Elistan -
Message 12
Posted by pavan21us (U2377736) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
I guess this would be a very vague question for which we dont have answer in the moders days.In olden days there is no concept of nations and its mostly kingdoms.And that too kings used to vague wars and occupy new lands.So a region cannot be termed as part of a particular kingdom.Equations used to change rapidly and hence the rulers of the lands.
Alexandar is a great greek warrior till date and it is beyond doubt.By this it cannot be said Greece is the greater nation.Since Britian was able to capture most of the world,it cannot also be said that Britian is a great nation/kingdom.When we say a kingdom/nation is great,we need to see what the nation has contributed for what we are now.
We need to see this right from the start of the civilisation to till date.
Is that indians, greeks,egyptians, chinese,persians,germans ???Who do you as the gretest people??
You guys can put your views now..Hope this helps.. -
Message 13
Posted by pavel_constantin (U2317241) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
I don’t refer at their constructions or military power, but how civilizeds they was, how true was their convictions (by ex: egyptians believed scribe’s dejections was a good medicine for ills). I believ as if antic Israel was a nation with true believes and healthy (ex: they buryed their dejection out of camp, and if touched a death people or animal they washed the clothes in that day, and they had a bathe in tha river). This are a few exemples. Maybe you have another ideas
-
Message 14
Posted by pavan21us (U2377736) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Agreed.But if you see the ancient customs and practises of egyptians and israil's are very much washed away in due course..They are not able to make a big impact in the minds of the people in due course of time.I would say India is great since indian customs and practises are also practised the same way even after thousands of years..There are more than 80 billion people who still follow them.
India as such is the mother of civilisations in the ancient world.Harappa and mohenjodaro are 10,000 years old.People in India then used to lead urban life.The Vedas,upnishads,yoga, ayurveda,diamonds,ornaments,spices are only some of them from great India. -
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Richie,
Ok I know in what sense you said that, and to aid your way of thinking, yes it is true that we can only see Greek history only as 'the history of Greek people' otherwise one may say that the Mycenean civilisation had nothing to do with archaic, archaic with classical and hellenistic, hellenistic with Byzantine, Byzantine with Greeks under Othoman empire, and the late with modern Greeks.
But beware, though it is difficult to define the word 'nation', this does not go hand in hand with the word 'state'. The state-nation is only an invention of the 18th baby-capitalism - the mature capitalism has totaly rejected this idea by initiating large scale immigration to end this concept. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
To answer Constantine's question that circulates around the subject as to who had the highest point in terms of cultural civilisation... look, this question is so obvious but first...
... first forget I am Greek - what I am going to say is way far from boasts and things like these (unfortunately being a greek I have always to start like that...).
If dear Constantine you have to search for that civilisation that reached the highest point then the answer is not so difficult. At least from the 8th century BC (I do not want to go further back cos there is also the egyptian empire), until well into the 15th century AD (i.e. the end of the Byzantine empire) there was only one nation that could be truly names civilised and that was the Greek one. Romans and Arabs did nothing much than copy.
I do not need to clarify things further cos it is so obvious. Perhaps people (especially Italian, French and English) will argue that Greeks had the supremacy in civilisation until the 12th century (when they started losing to crusaders and Turks) but then Constantine here asked the level of civilisation.
So... at the same time in western europe they had the Inquisition, in Greek lands there were philosophers that openly questioned the christian religion and declared the return to ancient traditions without being burned (imagine that Plinthon Gemistos was called by the orthodox church in the talks for joining the two churches... he was an atheist philosopher!! - recognised as the biggest name in the 14th century though today we know nothing of his work since personal enemies of his - collaborating with Turks
burned all his works). From 12th to 15th century a large number of Greek professors and artists had moved to Italy causing the Renaissance - Italy had been next to Byzantium for centuries and only after the 12th century (see what happened) remembered to do something about its culture!!! Imagine that even Russians had a higher level of culture till mongol conquest in the 13th century since they had more close contacts with the Greeks and when a poor Russian princess went to Paris in the 11th century to mary a local prince she was ready to suicide when she saw the pathetic level of their culture (no bathrooms, toilets etc.)!
Now, this is the funniest: even in 1430 - that is to say well into the Renaissance!!! when Byzantium was already dead - when the one before last Byzantine (Roman) empreror Emmanuel Palaiologos made an effort to visit states in Italy, France and England to call for help ... he was virtually depressed by the level of their civilisation, and he was blaming the pathetic Greeks that fell so low as to beg for help from those 'dirty ignorants'... imagine that in the English court he nearly vomited when they started eating with dirty hands (no spoons and forks... these byzantine inventions were not yet widely used there) and when he saw during the meal the english king cleaning his hands on his dog as if this was the most normal thing to do. At the same time Cambridge professors were so glad at last to meet a political leader that not only knew how to read nad write (do not imagine that till this time this was the normal!), they were delighted to see a man that was more educated than them.
Do you want also to mention that Colombus (not yet proven to had been Italian) used a Greek signature 'XMY=Xristos Meth'Ymwn', he had strange links with Greece and especially Greek islands ruled by greek 'pirates', he had already maps of the world (one later was copied by Otthoman naval officer Piri Reis, he recognised a French higher naval officer as his uncle while this man despite his seemingly French name (Greeks used to change names and dogma in order to be accepted in the west) is today known to had been a member of the Palaiologos family (last family of emperors) who previously had been a pirate in the Aegean islands, he was reported by his semi-illiterate men to had written in strange letters to his brother and spoken to him 'another language', then in one letter to a spanish noble woman he wrote 'let them say whatever they want about my origins, in the end I am the only one that really knows my real family roots and will keep it for myself'. After all why do you think he had problems with the spanish inquisition... was it the flat earth issue (anyone self-respecting sailor knew at that time that the earth is a sphere), or was it the fact that he was an orthodox (i.e. from another dogma, thus an enemy for the catholic inquisition).... so much for the son of an italian tailor that became a sailor.... (that is why when Colombus wrote to italian bankers he did that in ... Spanish!!!!)... I am not trying to prove anything here, go search for what I said and then make your own theory on who was Colombus.
Constantine I had to give you two three exaples just to understand why Greeks had the supremacy in pretty much all sectors of civilisation till the 15th century and that the modern western civilisation is nothing more than a 500 years existence. My point is not say that Greeks did it all, eventhe last barbarian on this earth offered his stone to reach this point of today (mongol barbarians for example aided in many indirect ways) but since your question was so specific I had to answer like that.
You mentioned the Jewish which is a joke. I am not going to be bad on them, I actually like these people but then mentioning them in this discussion is way out fo reality. Apart from the fact that they created nothing but religions (and I regard their religion as not the highest point of human civilisation) the Jewish are indirectly responsible for the spread of monotheistic religions that created a regression of the global level of civilisation (though some will argue that indirectly and only after 1000 years they caused the birth of the western civilisation). You suggested that they had better hygienic rules but that is far from the truth since their habit of man mutilation also carried out by muslims (and which is to most of us simply disgusting - it is a mutilation of a healthy part of the body) was to avoid infections caused by the fact that...... they did not bath themselves at all!!!!!
Greeks were of the few cultures to regard bathing as the proper thing to do and especially in Europe (cannot talk about the East cos I do not know much), even in difficult times, bathing was bathing. That is why in Greek societies that largely had cities of 100,000 (many cities) and one of 1,000,000 (Konstantinoupolis) there was never a case of massive illnesses that were hitting Europe (apart from local incidents in case of war where large populations gather inside walls like what happened in Athens etc.). Even the christian religion, and though some fanatics must had tried, could not take away this habit (like so many other) so in the end orthodox priests largely preferred that people come in the church on Sunday bathed and proper. Not to mention the manners on the table: the table, the plates, the spoon and the fork and the knife and the way we use them today is because of Byzantines: the excesses of the French savoir vivre was due to the fact that when the barbarian goes to Rome he pretend to be 'more Roman than the Romans'! -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
The other two great civilisations were the Indian (correctly mentioned by Pavel) and the Chinese: in the middle ages Sanghai was already a city of 2,000,000 people (double the size of the second biggest city, Konstantinoupolis). Chinese, Indian and Greek can be seen as the only real civilisations, all other civilisations had been either ceazed to exist (egyptian) or restricted/absorbed by others (an example is persian and mesopotamian) or are simply offshoots from previous ones (western and arab Greek with Jewish religion to different proportions). The jewish mentioned here is an important issue on this talk but this was largely a religion and not as much a civilisation as I already mentioned.
-
Message 18
Posted by mvarennes (U2373372) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
To do shorter than above, I would say the Romains.
Come on guys, they have influenced the whole world for centurys. Bath/road/education/water distribution/democraty/ wine/trade/ war/ art/ phylosophy.....
We can remember them for more things than any other nations. -
Message 19
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Strange that Nikolaos should be offended by circumcision when his beloved Byzantines practised CASTRATION (palace eunuchs!). Circumcision is a hygienic measure, widely recommended by doctors especially to prevent sexual diseases & your Byzantines were regarded with disgust by the Jews & Muslims for their failure to practice it.
Another interesting thing about these "Byzantines" is that in spite of speaking Greek, they always referred to themselves as Romans. In other words they didn't make the simple minded mistake of thinking that just because they were living in Greece they were part of the same "nation" as the ancient Athenians, Spartans etc whose culture was totally different to theirs -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
You are a bit confusing things Gaiseric,
Eunuchs existed pretty much in all civilisations (show me one that did not exist) and in Byzantium that practice existed only in the palace, it had remained as a tradition from the Roman times like the types of punishment (blinding for example... there were not rare the voices that all these practices were barbaric and did not comply with the greek culture.
Byzantium never existed as an empire with that name, that is an invention of a French strong anti-romanogreek historian of the 18th century. Buzantine empire was the Roman empire itself, thus Byzantines were Roman citizens. That meant nothing else than that 'Roman citizen'. Roman after 212 AD (not to say earlier) had seased to mean anything else than a citizenship - modern multinational Americans classify more as a national existence than Romans of the 4th century. The advent of the christian religion imposed on people not to talk about 'ethnoi' (nations), only about god etc. Thus the hatred of first christians turned especially against Greeks - however the fact is that only when the christian religion largely became a greek one (I am not going to duscuss on obvious things now...) it managed to prevail in the east mediterranean. By the 7th century (from emperor Heracleius onwards) it was not anymore dangerous to talk about origins and nations and such... Thus the empire became largely Greeks (and as it was reducing in size into the largely Greek populated geographic areas it was become more and more Greek that is on that basis its civilisation sprung: the Byzantine civilisation whatever it was it is above all a greek civilisation and Romans knew that - that is why they never tried to defend the Latin language and only laughed at the ridiculous claims of barbarians in the west that they spoke ... latin so they were Romans (not to mention that Romans till 5th BC century spoke Greek but that is another story).
Despite being a multinational empire, its core ingrededient and what made great that empire was its Greek culture. Most Byzantines knew they were Greeks, and this at all times even at times when christian fanatiscim forbid people to think in 'ethnic' terms cos 'ethnic' meant non-believer - hence, till the 7th century it was a taboo to state.
Mutilation does not prevent sexual diseases, it was done to prevent infection since these peopel did not bath at all... muslim religion is also a jewish one so that custom passed on to them... there is no value in mentioning that Jewish were disgusted by others... Jewish hated pretty much anyone... we have yet to find a nation that Jewish esteemed, afterall at any time most Jewish (cos I do not like putting them all in the same kettle) believed to be the gods nation... so we cannot expect any better... Nontheless the mere mentioning of Jewish next to Greeks in terms of civilisation is irrelevant, thus their views on Greek are irrelevant...
Athenians, Spartans had nothing also to do with the civilisation of Myceneans... so what is your point? All these were not the sons of Myceneans or did they land on earth from a UFO some day in the 8th century?????
I see people are so perplexed with the notions of nation, culture, civilisation and... state structure!!! A Roman empire is a Roman empire Gaiseric, it is not necessarily one nation! It may have 1,2,3,4 nations out fo which one is the prevailing what is so difficult to understand? -
Message 21
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Thanks for admitting my point that the Byzantines practiced castration. It's interesting that you should also mention blinding as you surely know the story of the Byzantine emperor who defeated an army of Bulgars and then blinded 90 per cent of his prisoners (leaving the rest with one eye so they could lead the others back home to Bulgaria) Thus do great ciilizations behave.
I dont know where you get the ridiculous idea that people only practice circumcision because they don't wash themselves. There are plenty of scientific studies supporting its health benefits. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who looks at this objectively that you have a prejudiced view on this subject, with more than a whiff of antisemitism about it. -
Message 22
Posted by pavan21us (U2377736) on Friday, 4th November 2005
I would say that indian/hindu civlisation is great..here the points that support my statement
1.Only ancient civilisation that is still existing being practised by more than 800 million while all of its contemporary civilisations found it difficult to exist in the face of the changes in due course.
2.Indians never invaded any country in the past 10000 years.
3.Budhism which also originated in the same land is able to influence most eastern states.
4.Only civilisation having scripts and writings as old as 6000 years.
5.Harappa and Mohanjodaro proves that indians used to lead urban life in 5000BC.
6.India used to be the destiny of any kingdom in ancient days and thats how American continents were discovered by columbus.
7.Only source of diamonds till recent times.
And the list continues...I dont think it ends anyway.. -
Message 23
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 4th November 2005
To
... first forget I am Greek - what I am going to say is way far from boasts and things like these (unfortunately being a greek I have always to start like that...).
Μύ
Nick,
I don't think any of us could ever forget you are Greek as I don't think you have ever posted anything expect from a Greek perspective. It's admirable that you love your heritage so much, but its not the only angle in the world.
Elistan -
Message 24
Posted by mentalman873 (U2422453) on Sunday, 6th November 2005
Egypt definately.
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 7th November 2005
Elistan is right, there is no single angle to see things in the world, I admit I love greek culture but that goes beyond the fact that I am greek, it is just that this style of civilisation suits my way of viewing things (largely different to that of many of my compatriots) far away also from 'romantic flashbacks to the past like the "celtic revival movement in western countries" - I do not have the ambition of wearing chitons! I am living in the reality of 2005. It is just that the free way of thinking, the combination of myth and logic with which Greeks presented the most dignified way of living in this world which is far superior than eastern passive ways (buddhism and hinduism is ok for others but I regard it as a bit passive) and western 'vertical' (logic but incomplete) way of viewing the world.). Greeks presented an angle that was much more complete than any other angle presented by anyone and that is why their civilisation is regarded as the benchmark by most. Now if people do not like that idea for any reason that is their problem, they can regard any other civilisation as superior chinese, indian etc. (I am ok with these civilisations ans recognise their depth, its not that I belittle any of their achievements).
-
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 7th November 2005
I think Inians had urban centres dating since 9000 B.C., I do not remember the place of the recent findings in northern India. It is said that the city reached 100,000 habitants (from its size we presume that it had excellent sanitary systems) and that it had been a trade city.
-
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 7th November 2005
Do not accuse me of antisemitism, I am so far away from the western way of thinking (white power, black power, pro-judaism, antisemitism etc.) that I am really very far from all these ideas of people with reduced mental abilities. If you call me again a racist I will remind you that this term was invented in 1940s (or if it was invented before please tell me) by english and americans who accused germans of being racist to jewish (forgeting the fact that when jewish knocked the doors of England and USA in 1933 both these largely influenced by jewish countries refused to accept them despite they had the facilities to do so!!! so after that most jewish were taken to concentration camps...). I never put all Jewish in the same kettle - their history has always been defined by periods of 'opening' and 'closeness', Jewish were never presenting one only political thesis and view, for example there had been the zionist jewish but there have been also the anti-zionists jewish while the traditional orthodox jewish had little to do with that, so its really very unfair to put them all in the same group. That does not mean though that we cannot study them like any other civilisation or religion. One then has his preferences, some might like their way of thinking others like me do not. That is all!
Since I am so far away from all these conceptions of mentally backward people, I have no inhibition in saying that I largely do not like the jewish religion and all its derivatives (christian and muslim religions), that they caused the global level of civilisation to go backwards, they are religions that spread religious hatred around the world (the previously largely did not exist), religions dictating 'chosen people' (if that is not a distinction then what else is?), religions where the non believers are referred to as 'animals' etc. Above all, these religions are really very new in relation to my nation and civilisation (and to others of course) and they are responsible for the distortion of it, plus the fact that in order to survive and expand (especially the christian one) they had on the one hand to kill and on the other to "dress in greek" so as to appeal to the rest of the people.
Tell me one thing I have to admire in the jewish related religions like the christian, what the love? To a vague God? That whoever goes against dies? Nice... these are so far away from me. Now am I against Jewish people? No not at all. I recognise that these people have largely influenced the shape of the modern world having always been in the foreground of political and financial developments, good for them, they deserve to have the position and power they have today in a global level, and perhaps we all can learn a good lesson from their excellent strategies. No hatred and not anti-something views here.
So I am not racist, I am not anti-racist also, I am largely indifferent to all these terms. If you accuse me of anything else similar to 'racist' and anti- then you have simply a personal problem with me probably risen by the fact that you have a difficulty in talking with me (when one cannot argue then starts shouting accusations!), so leave all these behind and speak in a more direct way. -
Message 28
Posted by LeonidasMagnus (U2215769) on Monday, 7th November 2005
Alexanders empire had the greatest impact??? what are you basing this on?
-
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 7th November 2005
Gaiseric I hope that you are satisfied with my above answer to your last 'question'.
So much for your views on Byzantines let me explain you better how things were at that time.
Bulgarians, were a slavic nation from Russia carried down to area of the Danube in the 6-7th century by turcic tribes, Abars and Petzenegks. Bulgarians probably consisted the largest part of these armies. When the latter, and after violent raids inside the empire lost completely to Byzantines, the Byzantines having a whole population of Bulgarians north and south of the Danube and not knowing what to do with them, permitted their establishment in the central Balkans (modern lands of mid-western Bulgaria, a bit of Serbia and mid-north FYROM), lands that previously had been given to Goths (for exactly the same reasons). Now Bulgarians being something of a ghetto within the empire continued in the 8th century and 9th century to cause trouble whenever there was a capable leader of them or exploiting any other chance (russian vickings raids). Samuel in the late 10th century managed to complete succesful raids gathering enough money to raise the second strongest army in all Europe of the time (first the byzantine) and axploit the fact that the bulk of the army was in the eastern borders and raid virtually all Greece from north to south till Peloponesus, doing such horrible crimes that only Catholic franko-venecians in 1204 would repeat (and later othomans). Hence, when the army cleared the offences in the east Basilius returned and led a campaign against the Bulgarians.
He met them on their return for that raid in Macedonia (the one and only that is in Greece cos in lands of modern FYROM it was actually...the Bulgarian capitol in lake Ochris!). He beat them and captured around 10,000 prisoners.
Now was it an inhuman way of treating prisoners? You are far from reality Gaiseric. That was no army, despite its nulbers it was a bunvh of raiders that massacred by the 1000s and that had committed the worst crimes a human mind can think (see, their inferiority-complex driven hatred for Greeks dates from those times). One would imagine that blinding is actually benediction to such criminals and that any leader should actually kills them all 'Dracula-style' then go up in their lands and massacre all the rest of Bulgarians and clear once and for all with that problem.
However, the Byzantine empire was a civilised empire (the one and only in the western world) and did not work with such ways. Basilius did nothing else than treat Bulgarian prisoners as 'traitors' against the empire!!! The Roman law (dating from early Roman times!) was absolut: the punishmenet for treason against the emperor was blinding. Hence, Basilius treating Bulgarians as subjects of the empire that revolted and raided cities, he actually treated them as traitors thus their punishment was blinding. He only did an excemption to that: for every 100 the one was left with one eye so as to help the rest to return to Ochris (up in lands of northern modern FYROM). The bulgarian king died from depression (said to be caused by the pathetic sight of his army returning).
I am sorry but this punishment not only was 100 human for criminals of that kind but it was also so successful in political terms (without performing any mass killing against Bulgarians - that would be anyway 100% justifiable - Bulgarians never caused again any trouble). SO what is your point exactly? Better sit and admire the English civiliation that till the 1960s were hanging 17 year old boys for stone throwing (aaa... not far away... these things happened in a modern EU member!!!)
Or can you point to me any other more civilised nation in that era than the Byzantines? Take into account that the second most civilised european nation of that time was ... Russia (only because they became orthodox! and the third was Serbia... for similar reasons!!!). Imagine that a Russian poor princess was sent to Paris to marry a local french prince and she nearly suicided when she saw the pathetic level of their thinking and everyday living (baths were noavailable so I think circumcision would be good for them - for Byzantines it would be an unjustifiable act of mutilation!).
Imagine that the west only managed to start thining about creating at last a civilisation only when they managed a successful raid in Byzantium and stole whatever they could. They were in contact with the 'Romans' always but only when they destroyed and stole managed to start their own civilisation... (do not tell me about the arabs cos these also were doing hardcore clopyright (klopee=theft) not to mention that they were next to them for 800 years in Spain!!
Mind you, I am not only admiring the Byzantine empire, I can nicely pinpoint their bad sides (stupid religious fightings, constant internal strife for power etc.), however, for various reasons we largely consider them as a christian empire that lasted 1000 years, and first of all because we still know little of what they did (less than ancient greeks for whom we know only 0,1 of what they did!!!). It is unfair to them. -
Message 30
Posted by LeonidasMagnus (U2215769) on Monday, 7th November 2005
kentucky fried chicken. finger lickin good! U guys have got to get out more!!! live a little and take a few e's
-
Message 31
Posted by LeonidasMagnus (U2215769) on Monday, 7th November 2005
Apologies for this message!! I forgot to sign out and an immature work colleague posted this, bad enough he supports Tottenham!!
-
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 7th November 2005
hahah Leonidas... it is not bad to have as a hobby history discussion on the net... it is far better than net chatting on issues like what we are wearing or not wearing right now, or searching for ... photos ... or other stuff. It is also better than getting out to go out to get into a bar and drink 1-2-3 beers too many, or to smoke substances or to stupid clubs to see girls of average beauty mini-clad dancing gracelessly. I am not saying this is the best thing to do with our time, it is just relaxing and not rarely we learn also something.
-
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 7th November 2005
... a Tottenham supporter you said? That is why then!
-
Message 34
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
Frankly, this question "Who had the best civilisation" is a silly & childish way of looking at history - especially when you end up trying to defend atrocities like the blinding of prisoners. They all had a dark side and anyway there's no objective way of choosing between them.
Historians should stick to identifying the achievements of ancient societies and trying to figure out why they happened in that particular place/time, rather than trying build league tables or Top 10 lists. -
Message 35
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
In this I am with you Gaiseric.
While I always keep the Greek, Chinese and Indian civilasations in a special place, and suprprisingly to some people here, it is of the same interest the study of local civilisations for many of which we know virtually nothing. For example the ancient African kingdoms although far from the fantasies of africanocentrisists had developed a unique civilisation style that deserves our attention. For example, the Ebo people (or whoever was at that time) in modern Nigeria built a wall in around 1000 BC... the wall is nothing impressive in terms of construction but it is actually of the longest constructions ever made by humans: it is said that in those days it made a circle over an area .... similar to France if I am not wrong!!! Explaining why they had to make such a project is of the same interest as to explain why the Chinese built the Sinic wall.
The mere mention of that project could actually imply that the Ebo of that time should be included within the team of progressed nations of their time. -
Message 36
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
It is also interesting to us to explain not only why this happened inthat time but also to find out why civilisations finally collapse (internal, external factors). For example the mysterius civilisation of the Easter Islands is said to have collapsed due to over exploitation of the environment: too much foresting and land cultivation led to the island's incapacity to feed the number of people habitating it and so these people had to abandon the island. Nice lesson!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.