|
Post by XAOTL on Oct 17, 2008 8:21:05 GMT 12
(From what I've seen this thread causews some arguments in a few forums.) What is the greatest empire in history.
Some include: -Roman -French -German -Spanish -Macedonian (greek) - Persian - British - Mongolian
Take your sides in this war. I know Who I'm picking.
|
|
|
Post by timoteyo7 on Oct 17, 2008 8:25:46 GMT 12
let me guess Xaotl, the British?
Hmm I'm going to go with the Mongolians! Mwuhahaha! bow before me!
|
|
MagmarFire
Brilliant member
Always thinking of you...
Posts: 648
|
Post by MagmarFire on Oct 17, 2008 9:48:08 GMT 12
Define great, please.
|
|
|
Post by cascade88 on Oct 17, 2008 9:52:54 GMT 12
Well, if 'great' means powerful, then, I'd have to say the Roman empire was the greatest, until it basically crumbled.
|
|
|
Post by RobSp1derp1g on Oct 17, 2008 10:03:28 GMT 12
The Portuguese for the win. lol We once had a great empire
|
|
|
Post by JbstormburstADV on Oct 18, 2008 10:24:32 GMT 12
I have to say, the Russian Empire was one of the most powerful, long-lasting, AND politically significant empires in history. They've been around for centuries, and they've been able to hold their LARGE empire that way for that long, which the Romans couldn't even do.
|
|
|
Post by Praetor on Oct 19, 2008 0:04:37 GMT 12
When you mean greatest, I assume you mean the most well known and influential.
Then I would have to go with the Romans.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Oct 19, 2008 2:13:29 GMT 12
By great, it's... you know... great. It's ambiguous so that we can all get out out spears and swords. Like a good debate should.
I think the Romans are kinda alright, Regardless that they copied everything from the Greeks.But in the end, I side with the British. an empire torn in to pieces, bruised, and now very tiny, but still alive.
|
|
|
Post by timoteyo7 on Oct 19, 2008 4:26:35 GMT 12
I knew it...
|
|
MagmarFire
Brilliant member
Always thinking of you...
Posts: 648
|
Post by MagmarFire on Oct 19, 2008 7:20:16 GMT 12
In that case, I say...none of the above. From a worldly standpoint, they, and currently 99.9% of the human population is, were/are those who don't live by the evolutionarily stable customs of the natural community and are, thus, likely headed down a path of self-destruction.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Oct 19, 2008 7:35:19 GMT 12
^are you by any chance reffering to the scientist who said that the human race is at the point where it's as good as it gets, and that our lack of need to find new solutions to problems via evolution(as we have technology to do that) will result in no more evolution for the human race?
|
|
MagmarFire
Brilliant member
Always thinking of you...
Posts: 648
|
Post by MagmarFire on Oct 19, 2008 7:47:32 GMT 12
Yes and no. I'm referring mainly to the author who said that empires have been, for centuries, expanding indefinitely and consuming more than enough resources, resulting in a huge explosion of growth that eventually is going to be offset by possible cataclysm, but by how we found a certain way of life--which he refers to as "totalitarian agriculture"--we seek to keep growing and no longer need to adapt naturally. All of these "Taker" cultures have been doing just that for as long as people can remember.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on Oct 19, 2008 9:16:45 GMT 12
Well if you consider the lifespan of empires it always begins with growth, usually through military force but , anyway the growth usually results in over-extension of available resources/not enough manpower/over inflated egos of said empire, resulting in a fall. I.E. Roman empire and the Goths. British empire and Revolutions/two world wars. French empire and Britain/Prussians. Germans and the allies, even the soviets have crumbled and are still collapsing.
Empires always expand and are always crushed, and with astronauts of more and more nations taking steps into space, who's to say that it won't happen for a while to come. The only possible stopper I can see is that we make technology as good as it can get. Technology which is now our substitute for evolution (so to speak). Then the world will stop spinning.
|
|
MagmarFire
Brilliant member
Always thinking of you...
Posts: 648
|
Post by MagmarFire on Oct 19, 2008 16:40:52 GMT 12
A stopper I see for it is to change minds about the world. See, a lot of these empires are/were similar in these ways: they took and destroyed their competitors' food, denied them access to food, and destroyed their competitors. Thing is, as nature takes the blow from overconsumption of resources and, therefore, loses diversity, they can only destroy themselves in the end as a result. It's the domino effect: something that happens affects something else, and that, in turn, affects something else. Rinse and repeat. You appear to be right on the nose about the "overextension of resources" part. Nice work.
|
|
|
Post by Praetor on Oct 19, 2008 23:59:30 GMT 12
Yes and no. I'm referring mainly to the author who said that empires have been, for centuries, expanding indefinitely and consuming more than enough resources, resulting in a huge explosion of growth that eventually is going to be offset by possible cataclysm, but by how we found a certain way of life--which he refers to as "totalitarian agriculture"--we seek to keep growing and no longer need to adapt naturally. All of these "Taker" cultures have been doing just that for as long as people can remember. I know that most of the world lives by society than by nature or as you put it "evolutionarily stable customs of the natural community", but that doesn't mean that they weren't affected by the rise and fall of empires. Clearly, the Romans were the reason why romantic languages have so much in common. Remember that I defined greatness as the most well-known and influential. Xaotl - Yes, the Romans took a lot from the Greek, but they asserted more influence over Western Europe. And remember that the British might not be the British we know today if it wasn't for the Romans. You guys could all be speaking a different language.
|
|