Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

DSwain wrote: lovebush wrote: DSwain wrote: lovebush wrote:
when you say secure India, Do you mean"cling on"? I do give you credit for your many years of war with the french :-D . that heroin thing with China was not a proud bit of history, but we have a few of those of our own.

I shouldn't call nearly 200 years of hegemony 'clinging on'; that's perillously close to the age of your country isn't it? :wink:


Well alright since the empire of the British did spawn the greatest nation on Earth, I will concede that it has had the greatest impact and therefore was the greatest empire. May God bless America and her best friend across the pond.

Whatever credit the British Empire can take for the United States must rank amongst the greatest achievements of that empire.

Amen! If only we had retained a little more of that English dignity, but alas we are brutes. But sometimes its good to have a brute in youre corner.

[Zargon]

Dudes and dudettes, the Roman Empire wins hands down. Contrary to popular belief, the Romans never fell in 476. They simply moved East to Constantinople, where they became the Byzantine Empire. They would last for another 1,000 years. Their culture was on par, if not greater, than the Arabs (if the Arabs had such a superior culture, then many of the Byzantine lands would have fallen without the sword). It was the Roman Empire of the East (I'll use Byzantine) that saved Europe from the immense forces of Islam. You see, the Arabs tried seiging Constantinople twice :shock: ! And everytime, they were beaten back with Greek Fire, Byzantine will, and a city that would take plenty of cannonfire before its fall in 1453. The Arabs could only take border towns and territories (although it is true that the Arabs took Egypt, Syria, and most of North Africa save Carthage in its early years of expansion, this was just the result of religious friction between the monophysites in Syria and Egypt, and the Orthodox in the mainland Empire. Also, keep in mind that when the Arabs mounted this exciting campaign, the Byzantines and the Persians just fought a war, with the Byzantines coming out as the overwhelming victors :P!). Yes, the Byzantine Empire would continue to live on until the dreadful seige of Constantinople on May 29, 1453 (by the Turks, no doubt... :(). They even survived the horrible 4th Crusade in 1204. That tragic episode was spurred on by the most horrible people on Earth: Venetians and a tragic misunderstanding between the two halves of Europe. I'll comment on this later, I gotta go home (using my friend's computer.). BTW, it's my 19th B-Day!!!! :-D

[Melcar]

Zargon wrote: Dudes and dudettes, the Roman Empire wins hands down. Contrary to popular belief, the Romans never fell in 476. They simply moved East to Constantinople, where they became the Byzantine Empire. They would last for another 1,000 years. Their culture was on par, if not greater, than the Arabs (if the Arabs had such a superior culture, then many of the Byzantine lands would have fallen without the sword). It was the Roman Empire of the East (I'll use Byzantine) that saved Europe from the immense forces of Islam. You see, the Arabs tried seiging Constantinople twice :shock: ! And everytime, they were beaten back with Greek Fire, Byzantine will, and a city that would take plenty of cannonfire before its fall in 1453. The Arabs could only take border towns and territories (although it is true that the Arabs took Egypt, Syria, and most of North Africa save Carthage in its early years of expansion, this was just the result of religious friction between the monophysites in Syria and Egypt, and the Orthodox in the mainland Empire. Also, keep in mind that when the Arabs mounted this exciting campaign, the Byzantines and the Persians just fought a war, with the Byzantines coming out as the overwhelming victors :P!). Yes, the Byzantine Empire would continue to live on until the dreadful seige of Constantinople on May 29, 1453 (by the Turks, no doubt... :(). They even survived the horrible 4th Crusade in 1204. That tragic episode was spurred on by the most horrible people on Earth: Venetians and a tragic misunderstanding between the two halves of Europe. I'll comment on this later, I gotta go home (using my friend's computer.). BTW, it's my 19th B-Day!!!! :-D

Happy B-Day :-D .
Anyways, I agree that the Roman Empire was one of the greatest and most influential empire of the West. The Eastern Empire (Byzantine) was just too far east and foreign from Europe; Rome died when the West fell. The greatest fault of the Romans was their inability to change with the times and political rigidness.

[lovebush]

Happy b-day! :-D

I think we should define "Greatest". Does it mean most powerful/ best for its subjects/ Or most fun to be the ruler over?

[DSwain]

lovebush wrote: DSwain wrote: lovebush wrote: DSwain wrote: lovebush wrote:
when you say secure India, Do you mean"cling on"? I do give you credit for your many years of war with the french :-D . that heroin thing with China was not a proud bit of history, but we have a few of those of our own.

I shouldn't call nearly 200 years of hegemony 'clinging on'; that's perillously close to the age of your country isn't it? :wink:


Well alright since the empire of the British did spawn the greatest nation on Earth, I will concede that it has had the greatest impact and therefore was the greatest empire. May God bless America and her best friend across the pond.

Whatever credit the British Empire can take for the United States must rank amongst the greatest achievements of that empire.

Amen! If only we had retained a little more of that English dignity, but alas we are brutes. But sometimes its good to have a brute in youre corner.

There is precious little English dignity today, alas! And many happy returns on your 19th birthday, Zargon.

[neutralnuke]

Britain didn't give its colonies independence. It had little choice. By the end of WWII, it was too weak to maintain a global empire. It was essentially, and still is, a second-rate power that was an ally of the US. With Soviet and American pressure to disband its colonies, Britain did the sensible thing by giving up its empire.

And I find it ironic that some of you credit the British empire for creating the US - yes, the empire started the colonies but it was its policies that compelled the colonists to declare independence.

and I agree with lovebush: it is futile to argue over which was the greatest empire until we establish the criteria that we judging by.

[DSwain]

neutralnuke wrote: Britain didn't give its colonies independence. It had little choice. By the end of WWII, it was too weak to maintain a global empire. It was essentially, and still is, a second-rate power that was an ally of the US. With Soviet and American pressure to disband its colonies, Britain did the sensible thing by giving up its empire.

And I find it ironic that some of you credit the British empire for creating the US - yes, the empire started the colonies but it was its policies that compelled the colonists to declare independence.

and I agree with lovebush: it is futile to argue over which was the greatest empire until we establish the criteria that we judging by.

There is a lot there with which I would agree; the initial spurt to the dismantling of the British Empire, in the immediate aftermath of WW2, was down to Britain being bankrupt. The cost of fighting two world wars from the first to the last shot had exhausted 300 years worth of wealth. Thankfully for your country, the economic effects of the world wars on the United States was markedly different from all of the other major combatants. However, by the late 1950s - when Britain went into its 'end of empire' phase full-tilt, the economic imperative was not quite so crucial. At this stage, Britain could have set its face against independence, certainly for those possessions that were big currency earners; Britain, to its credit, did not. That was the point I was making - not that Britain behaved that much better than other European powers, simply that we acted differently.

Without the impetus of British and Irish colonisation into the New World the United States today would be a markedly different creature - perhaps a nation more like Mexico or more like Louisiana. The US made itself but the British Empire - and the reaction of north American British colonists to it - did have an impact.

[Colin]

The Persian, Roman, Han, Arab Caliphate, Spanish and British Empires are all about on level in my opinion.

[Colin]

Melcar wrote: Zargon wrote: Dudes and dudettes, the Roman Empire wins hands down. Contrary to popular belief, the Romans never fell in 476. They simply moved East to Constantinople, where they became the Byzantine Empire. They would last for another 1,000 years. Their culture was on par, if not greater, than the Arabs (if the Arabs had such a superior culture, then many of the Byzantine lands would have fallen without the sword). It was the Roman Empire of the East (I'll use Byzantine) that saved Europe from the immense forces of Islam. You see, the Arabs tried seiging Constantinople twice :shock: ! And everytime, they were beaten back with Greek Fire, Byzantine will, and a city that would take plenty of cannonfire before its fall in 1453. The Arabs could only take border towns and territories (although it is true that the Arabs took Egypt, Syria, and most of North Africa save Carthage in its early years of expansion, this was just the result of religious friction between the monophysites in Syria and Egypt, and the Orthodox in the mainland Empire. Also, keep in mind that when the Arabs mounted this exciting campaign, the Byzantines and the Persians just fought a war, with the Byzantines coming out as the overwhelming victors :P!). Yes, the Byzantine Empire would continue to live on until the dreadful seige of Constantinople on May 29, 1453 (by the Turks, no doubt... :(). They even survived the horrible 4th Crusade in 1204. That tragic episode was spurred on by the most horrible people on Earth: Venetians and a tragic misunderstanding between the two halves of Europe. I'll comment on this later, I gotta go home (using my friend's computer.). BTW, it's my 19th B-Day!!!! :-D

Happy B-Day :-D .
Anyways, I agree that the Roman Empire was one of the greatest and most influential empire of the West. The Eastern Empire (Byzantine) was just too far east and foreign from Europe; Rome died when the West fell. The greatest fault of the Romans was their inability to change with the times and political rigidness.

What the hell is this "foreign" business? The Byzantines ruled from Constantinople a European city, ruled over Greece (the cradle of Western Civilization) and the Balkans, were Christian and nominally united with the Western Church until the 11th century, were actually Roman and were vital and preserving many aspects of classical Western Civilization for the undeveloped Latins during the Dark Ages.

[XiangYu]

Colin wrote: What the hell is this "foreign" business? The Byzantines ruled from Constantinople a European city, ruled over Greece (the cradle of Western Civilization) and the Balkans, were Christian and nominally united with the Western Church until the 11th century, were actually Roman and were vital and preserving many aspects of classical Western Civilization for the undeveloped Latins during the Dark Ages. I've always thought Byzantine were more Greek than Roman. For people who like to lump Greek and Roman culture together, then its like trying to link Persian and Arab, or Han Chinese and Mongols together.

[Colin]

TwinkieDP wrote: Colin wrote: What the hell is this "foreign" business? The Byzantines ruled from Constantinople a European city, ruled over Greece (the cradle of Western Civilization) and the Balkans, were Christian and nominally united with the Western Church until the 11th century, were actually Roman and were vital and preserving many aspects of classical Western Civilization for the undeveloped Latins during the Dark Ages. I've always thought Byzantine were more Greek than Roman. For people who like to lump Greek and Roman culture together, then its like trying to link Persian and Arab, or Han Chinese and Mongols together.

The definition of "Roman" from the 3rd century onward included all citizens living under the rule of Rome.

While culturally and linguistically Byzantium had Greek roots, the Empire was a direct successor to that of ancient Rome (it was in effect, the same state), carried on the religion of Rome (Christianity), maintained its laws, bureacracy, technology and continued to preserve classical Roman civilization despite the collapse of the Roman heartlands in the West.

[Melcar]

Colin wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: Colin wrote: What the hell is this "foreign" business? The Byzantines ruled from Constantinople a European city, ruled over Greece (the cradle of Western Civilization) and the Balkans, were Christian and nominally united with the Western Church until the 11th century, were actually Roman and were vital and preserving many aspects of classical Western Civilization for the undeveloped Latins during the Dark Ages. I've always thought Byzantine were more Greek than Roman. For people who like to lump Greek and Roman culture together, then its like trying to link Persian and Arab, or Han Chinese and Mongols together.

The definition of "Roman" from the 3rd century onward included all citizens living under the rule of Rome.

While culturally and linguistically Byzantium had Greek roots, the Empire was a direct successor to that of ancient Rome (it was in effect, the same state), carried on the religion of Rome (Christianity), maintained its laws, bureacracy, technology and continued to preserve classical Roman civilization despite the collapse of the Roman heartlands in the West.

Once the Empire split, the East and the West grew apart rather quickly. Both were Roman but each developed enough differences to set them apart from one another. Not only did they not like each other, culturally and religiously they were different.

[Colin]

Melcar wrote: Colin wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: Colin wrote: What the hell is this "foreign" business? The Byzantines ruled from Constantinople a European city, ruled over Greece (the cradle of Western Civilization) and the Balkans, were Christian and nominally united with the Western Church until the 11th century, were actually Roman and were vital and preserving many aspects of classical Western Civilization for the undeveloped Latins during the Dark Ages. I've always thought Byzantine were more Greek than Roman. For people who like to lump Greek and Roman culture together, then its like trying to link Persian and Arab, or Han Chinese and Mongols together.

The definition of "Roman" from the 3rd century onward included all citizens living under the rule of Rome.

While culturally and linguistically Byzantium had Greek roots, the Empire was a direct successor to that of ancient Rome (it was in effect, the same state), carried on the religion of Rome (Christianity), maintained its laws, bureacracy, technology and continued to preserve classical Roman civilization despite the collapse of the Roman heartlands in the West.

Once the Empire split, the East and the West grew apart rather quickly. Both were Roman but each developed enough differences to set them apart from one another. Not only did they not like each other, culturally and religiously they were different.

Yes, but the cultural differences between Greece and Western Europe during the Middle Ages were almost nil compared to the differences between the Christian and Muslim worlds. My points were that Byzantium was hardly "foreign" in a marco sense to the Latin West, can be considered Roman and that while certain animosity did indeed exist (namely due to Greek arrogance and the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, which led indirectly to the Great Schism), both regions were a part of the same "Greco-Roman" cultural sphere of the Middle Ages. Their respective similarities actually became really apparent during the Renaissance in Western Europe, with the return of ancient art and science to the Latin West.

[XiangYu]

^^ So, should we call it the Greco - Roman empire or the Roman Empire?

[Colin]

TwinkieDP wrote: ^^ So, should we call it the Greco - Roman empire or the Roman Empire?

How about Byzantine. :wink:

[XiangYu]

Colin wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: ^^ So, should we call it the Greco - Roman empire or the Roman Empire?

How about Byzantine. :wink: Ok, thats what I thought, but some people insisted it was a continuation of the Roman Empire...

[Melcar]

TwinkieDP wrote: Colin wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: ^^ So, should we call it the Greco - Roman empire or the Roman Empire?

How about Byzantine. :wink: Ok, thats what I thought, but some people insisted it was a continuation of the Roman Empire...

In a way it was, but it had enough differences that historians had to give it a different name.

[satisfaction]

Greatest Empire? The New York Yankees of course. Just kidding. :lol:

It depends, greatest empire in terms of influence? How long the empire lasted? Most dominate military? For this, I'll answer "Which is the greatest empire in terms influence on the WESTERN (for this answer, perhaps entire) world?"

My answer will be... Greece.

Greatest invention? Democracy. Oh, so you're watching a movie this weekend? Thank Sophocles. About to post your thoughts on this here forum? Thank Socrates. Joining a fraternity? It's name best be in Greek letters. Our math and science can be attributed to the Greeks (and the Arabs).

In terms of size? Then you wouldn't pick Greece, much of its boundaries were the same as those of today, but allying with Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire allowed Alexander to transport Greek culture throughout his empire, from Greece to India.

How about military? Well, Greece did not exactly play a strong military role in the world stage, but internally its city-states were at constant war, the war between Athens and Sparta for example. But in times of need, the Greek city-states would ally, during the Persian invasion for example. The Greeks however, especially the city-state of Athens, created a very powerful navy.

Without Greece, you can't have Rome. Rome is Greece with imperial goals, which equals the British, Spaniards, etc.

[Graph]

Timur The Lame wrote: Kuk wrote: Hmm...
How do you estimate "greatness"?
What's the main criterion: size, militar power, cultural influence, wealth, any other...? :think:

I generally go with those that have the most cultural influence while at the same time maintaining a fair amount of hard power in their given region (or more), while also being cool.

If you go by this definition then I would have to go with Rome. But because of its sheer size I have to go with the empire of Alexander the Great.

[antonio62]

satisfaction wrote: Greatest Empire? The New York Yankees of course. Just kidding. :lol:

It depends, greatest empire in terms of influence? How long the empire lasted? Most dominate military? For this, I'll answer "Which is the greatest empire in terms influence on the WESTERN (for this answer, perhaps entire) world?"

My answer will be... Greece.

Greatest invention? Democracy. Oh, so you're watching a movie this weekend? Thank Sophocles. About to post your thoughts on this here forum? Thank Socrates. Joining a fraternity? It's name best be in Greek letters. Our math and science can be attributed to the Greeks (and the Arabs).

In terms of size? Then you wouldn't pick Greece, much of its boundaries were the same as those of today, but allying with Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire allowed Alexander to transport Greek culture throughout his empire, from Greece to India.

How about military? Well, Greece did not exactly play a strong military role in the world stage, but internally its city-states were at constant war, the war between Athens and Sparta for example. But in times of need, the Greek city-states would ally, during the Persian invasion for example. The Greeks however, especially the city-state of Athens, created a very powerful navy.

Without Greece, you can't have Rome. Rome is Greece with imperial goals, which equals the British, Spaniards, etc.

When did Greece have an empire?