QuoteReplyTopic: What is the most powerful empire ever to grace us? Posted: 08-Dec-2008 at 11:53
Both democrasy and seperation of state and religion, come from the
Hebrew bible, as does Evolution, Entropy, Medicine and the oldest
active and most accurate calendar: both the day and the week were
introduced in Genesis.
Joseph, it would be really nice for you to actually quote something from the Bible that supports what you claims.
"All the true heroes of history will be forgotten and all the villains will be remembered as heroes."
- Leo Tolstoy
Both democrasy and seperation of state and religion, come from the Hebrew bible, as does Evolution, Entropy, Medicine and the oldest active and most accurate calendar: both the day and the week were introduced in Genesis.
Joseph, it would be really nice for you to actually quote something from the Bible that supports what you claims.
Sure, I quoted many things from a document which many know and are familiar with. I quote these references because I did not invent them and these are not my personal opinions. Whether one accepts them as correct or not is their own position.
With regard democrasy, and that it is insufficient to base this solely on a majority ruling without applicable qualification, does not result in democrasy. Firstly, there is a mandated law in the Hebrew Bible which says a majority must first be of free choice without enforcement or coersion - which is deemed a corrupted majority [evil, in biblespeak], and the other factor is we have this stated in a document which predates any Greek writings. This means before a majority votes, there must be means to allow their free voting choice, and there must be no gifts or threats. Democrasy is greek for majority or multitude of the population:
EX/23/2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice.
Re. Seperation of state and religion, this is seen in numerous instances of the Hebrew bible, for example between King David and the Prophet Nathan, the former represents the ruling party [state, king, president, etc] and the latter the law [religion; din]. Here, when David commited an act against the law, he was taken to task before the people and a death sentence was issued - which is unseen in any other scripture the law is made applying equally to king as to a commoner, namely where a state's greatest king is made to be subserviant to common law of the people [Equal justice for all]. David was thus sentenced before the people by the law by Nathan [2 Samuel Chapter 12], and David accepted this sentence. This is an example of seperation of state [ruler] and religion [which is the law].
Re. Evolution. Genesis 1/1 lists the chronological emergence of life forms, from sea, air, land, animals, human; transit mamals, virus and bacteria are also represented in the list, as well as precedent anticipatory elements and forces such as seperation of water from land, and light from darkness. This is the first recording of what Darwin used to make his theory - which is varied from only one factor: Genesis' limited speciation [within their kind - sea, air or land based], as opposed Darwin's unlimited speciation [retrovirus as the bases of all life].
Entropy is formless to form, Gen 1/2; and the universe being finite is in the opening V1 [there was a Beginning].
Re. Medicine. The first seperation of medicine from occultism is with the example of Leprosy, which lists factors such as malignancy [incurable], chronic and temporary conditions, its identification & quarantine. The subject of contagiousness, of virus and bacteria, and the burning by fire all porous materials such as clothes and wood, is also listed here for the first time:
'If the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 7 But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he hath shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again. 8 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy. This description is long and protracted, covering many pages. More: Leviticus 13.
Re Calendar. The Hebrew calendar, being 5787 years, is the oldest active calendar, and also regarded the world's most accurate one, operating by the solar, lunar & earth movements. This records everything in history to the extent there is no history outsde this calendar.
I honestly think that the Romans did not make as much of an impact as they were given credit for. Among the best of the Roman innovations are the Republic (which was really an aristocracy that was highly oppressive on the lower classes, NOTHING like the concept of modern republics), a gigantic coinage, and innovations in business.
I think that the second Assyrian Empire was among the greatest of empires considering the time period (roughly 2000-1200 BCE). They were masters of propaganda; although they probably did not invent it, it might be said that they perfected it. Also, the Assyrians had sophisticated techniques of administration and of assimilating conquered peoples including displacement (according to nationality and skills: a farmer would be sent to an agricultural area for example). Also the Assyrians were among the first states to exploit the desert spanning camel for trade purposes. Assyrian ideology placed the supreme god in support of the empire with the king being his human medium. Most notably, they were (debatedly) the first empire by definition in human history (though others were close). I could go on and on
There is little doubt that the Roman Empire brought many benefits to the World as it was known at that time. However, several points are relevent here (a) The Roman Empire at its peak was only ever one third of the size of the British Empire (b) It ended in blood and fire with barbarians at the Gates of Rome(c) Adolf Hitler, who was somewhat of an expert at the subjugation of nations, intensely admired the British Empire, not least for its ability to administer the whole of India and all of its disparate races and religions, with just 10,000 civil servants and soldiers. Measuring the British against the Roman Empire, it is clear that the benefits of the former by far outweigh those of the latter, all the more so since in its restructured form of the Commonwealth, the British Empire (greatly modified) still lives on today largely in harmony and with crucial benefits to all of it many members.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I could not see anything about Ottoman Empire. Wasn't it great enough to discuss in here?This is my first post in here so pardon me if I am wrong.
'Peace at home, Peace in the world' Gazi M. Kemal ATATÜRK
There is little doubt that the Roman Empire brought many benefits to the World as it was known at that time. However, several points are relevent here (a) The Roman Empire at its peak was only ever one third of the size of the British Empire
size isn't the only measure or we can simply talk about mongol/turkic empires which at times were vast. The technology advantage wasn't so drastic in the roman times to the roman advantage.
Originally posted by nuvolari
(b) It ended in blood and fire with barbarians at the Gates of Rome
how did it end for the british? The empire fell apart and the Uk was given a helping hand from a former vassal the USA
Originally posted by nuvolari
(c) Adolf Hitler, who was somewhat of an expert at the subjugation of nations, intensely admired the British Empire, not least for its ability to administer the whole of India and all of its disparate races and religions, with just 10,000 civil servants and soldiers.
yet he attacked and ravaged that very power. Lets face it being admireed by a failed fascist that was deluded in so many ways is not a tick of appoval.
Originally posted by nuvolari
Measuring the British against the Roman Empire, it is clear that the benefits of the former by far outweigh those of the latter, all the more so since in its restructured form of the Commonwealth, the British Empire (greatly modified) still lives on today largely in harmony and with crucial benefits to all of it many members.
They had to be doing somehting right since they lasted a thousand years and the byzantines lasted another thousand years not to mention the fact that in the early htird century the romans were christian and only a few officers and rulers were that depraved and you're forgetting that everyone is different and unique
how de f did u reach the number Roman had 2k years of history? Roman Kingdom was founded in 750s B.C., nearly 250 years short of 1k, and 250 years is alot
btw i think this thread is about comparison among empires, not among civilizations, Roman Empire techinically existed since 27 B.C. according to its first Emperor.
this is not true. There are couple of experts I found in your Far Eastern forum who seem to be very resourceful, and I recommend them to you that you may know more about Far Eastern military history; you might not be interested in it, but it matters when you are trying to make comparison between a subject you know thoroughly and a subject you know almost nothing about ( using a novel as a basis :D might as well use Chinese myth and say Chinese kungfu monkeys pwn rest of world ez)
There is little doubt that the Roman Empire brought many benefits to the World as it was known at that time. However, several points are relevent here (a) The Roman Empire at its peak was only ever one third of the size of the British Empire
size isn't the only measure or we can simply talk about mongol/turkic empires which at times were vast. The technology advantage wasn't so drastic in the roman times to the roman advantage.
Originally posted by nuvolari
(b) It ended in blood and fire with barbarians at the Gates of Rome
how did it end for the british? The empire fell apart and the Uk was given a helping hand from a former vassal the USA
Originally posted by nuvolari
(c) Adolf Hitler, who was somewhat of an expert at the subjugation of nations, intensely admired the British Empire, not least for its ability to administer the whole of India and all of its disparate races and religions, with just 10,000 civil servants and soldiers.
yet he attacked and ravaged that very power. Lets face it being admireed by a failed fascist that was deluded in so many ways is not a tick of appoval.
Originally posted by nuvolari
Measuring the British against the Roman Empire, it is clear that the benefits of the former by far outweigh those of the latter, all the more so since in its restructured form of the Commonwealth, the British Empire (greatly modified) still lives on today largely in harmony and with crucial benefits to all of it many members.
Simply not true. That is an exaggeration
Being a huge admirer of both the British and Roman Empires, I'd have to agree with Leonidas that the Roman Empire was far more important and powerful in the scope of world history. In fact I'd even go so far as to suggest that the British Empire was basically a direct heir of the Roman Empire in modernity, far more true to the spirit and vision of Rome than pretentious would-bes that are so abundant in European history (Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire being the two major examples that come to mind).
I voted other, for one reason, America never conceived itself as an "Empire" of any sort! And, from about 1942 CE, onward was the most powerful force in the world, even without Nukes!
Any of you might realize that if America had been changed into a dictatorship, its designs upon an Empire could not have been impeeded anywhere in the world!
As General Patton is said to have believed; he wanted to continue the war in Europe and attack the Soviets. He realized that all of Europe was so indebted to the US, and were attached to America's teats like nursing piglets, that it would be easy.
Even the vaunted Soviet forces, would have been mostly helpless due to America domination of the seas, and the air.
Japan could have easily been starved out, isolated from everone and everything, until they finally came out either begging or committing suicide! It was the US supply lines that kept the Soviet Army and Air Force moving. Their stockpile of supplies were, I would guess, only good for 90 days or so! Does anyone really think that they could push America and its allies out of Europe in 90 days?
Some of may well not realize that as soon as the war ended in Europe, and Japan was stuck back on their little island, most of the American people began to demand that their sons "come home", and that sentiment would have been seen in the votes, if we had not started an immediate reduction of force, and especially after the two bombs were dropped. As a matter of my own surmise (as well as that of others I am sure) this strong force of "come home" might well have forced us to use the Bomb? After all, it (actually they, since there were two differing bombs developed) had never been tested by being dropped from an aircraft!
So, where is the American Empire today? Lets see, we still control Puerto Rico, and a few small Islands in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, and we still have bases around the world, from which we would certainly abandon if anyone asked, and a small enclave in Cuba!
So, just what empire did we build and control after WWII? The only answer is that we controlled the "World Wide Economic Empire!"
But, sadly, with our new administration, not much longer!
This is a hard question. Part of me thinks it could be the Hellenistic empire, simply because that paved the way for the Roman empire, which paved the way for western and to a certain extent eastern culture. The Hellenistic empire began the process of widespread conquest of the known world to a level not known before. Alexander the Great was keen to incorporate some of the cultural and religious ideas of those he conquered into his rulership (wore trousers, took an interest in Eastern religion etc). So, by the time the Romans came along, the process of widespread interchange of cultures and religions had already begun.
Dear "Sooty!", it is interesting that you included some factoid I had never been aware of, that is that Alexander "(wore trousers!" How cool! But, did you know that the wearing of such devices only became regular and customary in the 16th century CE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers
There are other sources that concur with the above!
Seems about 1000 years happened before dressing like Alexander became fashionable!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum