Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone ever said "Greece" conquered the known world, especially since there was no unified state known as "Greece."
A rustic state with Greek culture, Macedonia, conquered the world that was known to them and expanded the boundaries of what was known to them. In fact, as a partial answer to OPs question, Alexander was quite interested in expanding what was known of geography and marching to the sea. That much is true, and any Chinese people laughing at it would be imbecilic for doing so. It is pretty obvious that people in the world back then knew less about the world than we do today.
Rome did not conquer the known world since it knew about China and India. It merely created a massive empire that lasted for almost 2000 years, from the conquest of Veii to the fall of Constantinople, winning battles are far North as Scotland, as far south as Sudan, and as far West as Spain and as far East as Assyria.
And let us be clear, that Greco-Roman civilization was superior to Chinese in every way.
A) The Chinese built mostly in wood and earth with stone walls being about the limits of their technology. The Romans used arches, domes, vaults and concrete to open up interior space in ways that had never been done before, creating marvels like the Flavian amphitheater and the miracles of ancient science such as the aqueducts.
B) The Greeks invented vowels, making their language the foremost literary language in the world. The Romans consciously evolved Latin to follow suit, and now we have countless extant works of history, fiction, drama, politics, poetry and philosophy to know them by. The Chinese, by contrasts, did not even have a true writing system. Chinese characters are a cumbersome logographic system that is almost impossible to organize and inefficient to learn.
C) The Chinese had emperors. The Greeks experimented with democracy, and the Romans created a constitutional system with separation of powers that we consciously emulate today. The Republic lasted 500 years- the most successful ever- and even during the Roman imperial period, the vestiges of it never went away.
D) I have been told that Chinese iron and steel production techniques were more advanced than Roman. I researched it and found out that regardless if true or not, Roman production dwarfed Chinese.
E) Greco-Roman science produced technological anomalies such as the Antikythera mechanism and the inventions of Archimedes. I know of nothing in the Chinese world that even comes close to that sophistication.
So the Chinese can laugh if they like.
I don't know why you always go ballistic whenever China and Rome came up in a paragraph. You're usually pretty even-handed in other posts. The poster you're responding to wasn't even comparing the two - he just made a joke about how much less the ancients know compared to us.
Your comment that the Chinese did not even have a true writing system is truly absurd, unless you are saying the same about the Egyptians or the Mayans. How can you call something impossible to organize and inefficient to learn when more than one billion people achieve literacy at the same age as the rest of the world? One can also point to inefficient peculiarities of the Indo-European languages and call them the same.
As far as your point about inventions there's a guy named Zhang Heng that you may want to check out.
It is ridiculous for any serious historian to make blanket statements like "X is superior to Y in every way." Anyone knowledgeable enough can come up with a list of ways in which the Yanomano way of life is superior to modern civilization.
I don't know why you always go ballistic whenever China and Rome came up in a paragraph. You're usually pretty even-handed in other posts.
Thank you. Since I am saying things that are factually correct, I am being even handed here too. Hopefully, after this post, you investigate some of them instead of reflexively arguing against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
The poster you're responding to wasn't even comparing the two - he just made a joke about how much less the ancients know compared to us. .
It was a poor joke. When people say that Alexander conquered the "known world," they of course mean the world known to him. Why Chinese people or anyone else would laugh at that is beyond me. The thread has nothing to do with China and it should not have been mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
Your comment that the Chinese did not even have a true writing system is truly absurd, unless you are saying the same about the Egyptians or the Mayans. How can you call something impossible to organize and inefficient to learn when more than one billion people achieve literacy at the same age as the rest of the world? One can also point to inefficient peculiarities of the Indo-European languages and call them the same.
Again, it is a logographic writing system, and yes, logographic writing systems are below "true writing" in precision of expression, ease of categorization, ease of learning and usage, etc. I am using the term "true writing" 100% correctly. It is just something that you can investigate for yourself. A lot of people on these boards don't seem to know this. I don't mean to be a jerk but I am explaining this for the third time...really a simple google search of less than five minutes is all this takes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
As far as your point about inventions there's a guy named Zhang Heng that you may want to check out.
He seems to have invented an armillary sphere....nice.
Cutting edge science is really the least part of what I was talking about, but in any event, this doesn't really stand up to the Antikythera mechanism. It has even been said..with some archeological proof...that Archimedes made a primitive heat ray device with concave bronze mirrors. I don't want to get too much into this as it is probably the least important category, but you might want to research the Antikythera mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
It is ridiculous for any serious historian to make blanket statements like "X is superior to Y in every way."
Can you name some aspects of Chinese civilization that were superior? My big three are architecture, writing and government. I throw in metal production because Sino-philes sometimes bring it up. They had the silk trade, but that really is just a function of having a good raw material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
Anyone knowledgeable enough can come up with a list of ways in which the Yanomano way of life is superior to modern civilization.
Perhaps by your own subjective categories, but not in objective ways, such as alphabetic writing being superior to logographic writing, or the use of arches, domes and vaults being superior to post and lintel construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
Seriously get over this fixation.
If no one says anything further about it, I am happy to drop it.
Last edited by cachibatches; 05-30-2015 at 03:45 AM..
He had a lot of enemies from within and without who wanted him dead.
If he was sick for weeks it doesn't disprove the poisoning theory, as
natural poisons often took time to finish the job.
Concerning if he would have been successful conquering Rome and Carthage,
I doubt that. They weren't natural enemies. I can't see him being able to
maintain loyalty or prevent massive desertion from soliders already beyond
the tipping point. Some say this is why he was killed.
Would a campaign against Carthage provoke such A reaction? It was the old enemy of the Western Greeks, so they would welcome Alexander.
Alex was also in process of building a fleet of overwhelming strength, so neither Rome nor any other power could do anything to help Carthage even if they wanted to, which is not obvious.
So Carthage fights alone. Probably it's just the siege of Tyre on steroids, perhaps lasting a year or so instead of six months. After that, he might attack Rome - or just bypass it and set up more Hellenistic states in Numidia, Sardinia and Spain. or even southern Gaul. All he needs in Italy is a balance of power situation, so that the peninsula doesn't unite against him. Basically Rome is still there, but as a Latin island in the midst of a Greek sea. It may survive, but it will be a very different place.
Thank you. Since I am saying things that are factually correct, I am being even handed here too. Hopefully, after this post, you investigate some of them instead of reflexively arguing against them.
It was a poor joke. When people say that Alexander conquered the "known world," they of course mean the world known to him. Why Chinese people or anyone else would laugh at that is beyond me. The thread has nothing to do with China and it should not have been mentioned.
Again, it is a logographic writing system, and yes, logographic writing systems are below "true writing" in precision of expression, ease of categorization, ease of learning and usage, etc. I am using the term "true writing" 100% correctly. It is just something that you can investigate for yourself. A lot of people on these boards don't seem to know this. I don't mean to be a jerk but I am explaining this for the third time...really a simple google search of less than five minutes is all this takes.
He seems to have invented an armillary sphere....nice.
Cutting edge science is really the least part of what I was talking about, but in any event, this doesn't really stand up to the Antikythera mechanism. It has even been said..with some archeological proof...that Archimedes made a primitive heat ray device with concave bronze mirrors. I don't want to get too much into this as it is probably the least important category, but you might want to research the Antikythera mechanism.
Can you name some aspects of Chinese civilization that were superior? My big three are architecture, writing and government. I throw in metal production because Sino-philes sometimes bring it up. They had the silk trade, but that really is just a function of having a good raw material.
Perhaps by your own subjective categories, but not in objective ways, such as alphabetic writing being superior to logographic writing, or the use of arches, domes and vaults being superior to post and lintel construction.
If no one says anything further about it, I am happy to drop it.
So if someone wrote a book and came up with a list of criteria then that makes it "objective"?
Who care if some linguist came up with a standard that somehow puts alphabetic writing systems at the top? Another linguist can just as easily come up another list of criteria that puts the Indo-European family at the bottom. For example, that person can say the best language is the one that can express an idea in the least number of words. I'm no linguist but I know modern European languages are far more verbose than Chinese.
Neither I nor most people on this forum is interested in arguing these points to support some broad, normative statements. I'm sure there are obstinate Chinese nationalists on the internet that you can find to satisfy that need. The only "objective" statement I'm interested are more narrowly defined than what you like to throw out.
So if someone wrote a book and came up with a list of criteria then that makes it "objective"?
Who care if some linguist came up with a standard that somehow puts alphabetic writing systems at the top? Another linguist can just as easily come up another list of criteria that puts the Indo-European family at the bottom. For example, that person can say the best language is the one that can express an idea in the least number of words. I'm no linguist but I know modern European languages are far more verbose than Chinese.
Neither I nor most people on this forum is interested in arguing these points to support some broad, normative statements. I'm sure there are obstinate Chinese nationalists on the internet that you can find to satisfy that need. The only "objective" statement I'm interested are more narrowly defined than what you like to throw out.
I am not going to continually re-answer this. You are wrong and need to research the subject further. What I have said is not only correct, It is uncontroversial.
I am not going to continually re-answer this. You are wrong and need to research the subject further. What I have said is not only correct, It is uncontroversial.
I explained four times and you cannot be bothered to do minimal research to educate yourself on an extremely uncontroversial and straight forward matter. That is a true lack of maturity.
In fact, I strongly suspect that the name calling comes from the fact that you did do the 2-3 minutes of google research and you found out that I was right, and it upsets you. In any event, good riddance.
Last edited by cachibatches; 05-31-2015 at 06:32 PM..
Alexander the Great is famous as a great military leader and conqueror, yet almost all his conquests seemed to fade to nothing immediately after he died. He was like a shooting star, bright while it lasts but leaving no trace. Did his military conquests having any significant lasting historical value? It seems like he just wandered around southwest Asia defeating one army after another for what? Why do it? What was the point beyond just wreaking bloody havoc?
Absolutely! The Greek empire in India, north Pakistan and Afghanistan had a major influence on Buddhism, and accelerated the spread of Buddhism through out Asia. The greatest contribution it made was in the realm of Buddhist art. Prior to the Greeks, it was taboo to create a likeness of the Buddha in any medium. Texts that quoted him or spoke of him could only use the Eightfold path symbol, the wheel with 8 spokes, to indicate the Buddha. It was the Greeks who were the first to create statuary and portraits of the Buddha. The Indo-Greek empire in India influenced local Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians in building their own Buddhist empires.
Alexander the Great is famous as a great military leader and conqueror, yet almost all his conquests seemed to fade to nothing immediately after he died. He was like a shooting star, bright while it lasts but leaving no trace.
Did his military conquests having any significant lasting historical value? It seems like he just wandered around southwest Asia defeating one army after another for what? Why do it? What was the point beyond just wreaking bloody havoc?
As others have mentioned, Alexander's conquests helped spread Greek/Hellenic culture (language, customs, literature, legends, art, architecture, etc.) to places such as Northern Africa and the Middle East. This expansion, in turn, helped bring certain aspects of Persian culture and other cultures to the Greeks, Macedonianas, and others.
Important communities were founded, such as Persepolis and Alexandria. Alexandria soon became a multicultural center of culture and scholarship, and in the subsequent Hellenistic age it boasted one of the largest and most important libraries in the world.
Alexander's empire was not long-lasting, but it did provide much of the geographical framework for Roman imperial ambitions, and also served to establish frontiers (at least for a time) for the Byzantine Empire.
As others have mentioned, Alexander's conquests helped spread Greek/Hellenic culture (language, customs, literature, legends, art, architecture, etc.) to places such as Northern Africa and the Middle East. This expansion, in turn, helped bring certain aspects of Persian culture and other cultures to the Greeks, Macedonianas, and others.
Important communities were founded, such as Persepolis and Alexandria. Alexandria soon became a multicultural center of culture and scholarship, and in the subsequent Hellenistic age it boasted one of the largest and most important libraries in the world.
Alexander's empire was not long-lasting, but it did provide much of the geographical framework for Roman imperial ambitions, and also served to establish frontiers (at least for a time) for the Byzantine Empire.
As the foundation for much of the history which followed, this was a major crossroads in history. But its interesting that for Alexander it was as much an adventure and a goal to see how far he could go. He fell in love with Persian culture and adapted its dress. But he never stopped trying for more even when his soldiers were just plain done. I wonder what he'd say if he discovered he'd changed the pathway of history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
