16 year old visits Iraq alone for personal interest...what!?

[Ratty Sr.]

That has nothing to do with the civilizatoin of the rest of the world.

No, but those are the regions of the world which had the highest concentration of highly-evolved ancient civilizations.

Now, add to that those Chinese numbers the size and population of more or less entire Asia and Meso-America and you have more or less all of what you would call the 'civilized' world outside of the Roman empire. And that is easily larger and with more people in it than the Roman Empire. Hence why your claim was false.

Maybe, but barely. Anything greater than 50.0% is "most". Romans still had by far the biggest prosthetic penis, and comparing the relative sizes of prosthetic penises, theirs was bigger than the one America boasts (which was my main point).

I'd highly doubt that, mainly because it cost the Spanish with gunpowder almost two centuries to subdue all of the Mayan centres.

Spanish? Hah! Romans would have raped the Spaniards as well.

Furthermore, the Romans were also ass-raped themselves by mainly 'barbarian' hoardes.

True, but we're talking about the Roman Empire at the height of its power.

Patently untrue, as the Roman Empire was known for its tolerance toward the people they conquered, and the fact that Roman culture dominated quite a bit of the un-conquered peoples as well.

They still *conquered* them. Roman Empire, like the Roman Republic before it, was militant and, through most of its history, expansionist. With "insubordinate" provinces they dealt ruthlessly and efficiently, as demonstrated in Judea and many other places they subjugated. They dominated the ancient world for centuries and almost always used their military might to enforce this dominance.

 

[Sander]

No, but those are the regions of the world which had the highest concentration of highly-evolved ancient civilizations.

Again: so?

Maybe, but barely. Anything greater than 50.0% is "most". Romans still had by far the biggest prosthetic penis, and comparing the relative sizes of prosthetic penises, theirs was bigger than the one America boasts (which was my main point).

But not the one we were discussing. And yes, anything greater than 50.0% is 'most', making your original statement now falsified.
Also, Asia alone is much bigger than the part of the globe the Romans occupied. Let alone Asia, Meso-America and a load of errant 'civilized' states around the world not belonging to the Romans.

They still *conquered* them. Roman Empire, like the Roman Republic before it, was militant and, through most of its history, expansionist. With "insubordinate" provinces they dealt ruthlessly and efficiently, as demonstrated in Judea and many other places they subjugated. They dominated the ancient world for centuries and almost always used their military might to enforce this dominance.

Yes, but their main goal was to maintain peace, not to brutally enslave the indigenous peoples. Hence Pax Romana.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

And yes, anything greater than 50.0% is 'most', making your original statement now falsified.

"Falsified"? What, can you submit numerical evidence proving the opposite? (Hint: you can't, because there isn't sufficient data from that era. Maybe I made an overstatement when I said Romans ruled most of the civilized world, maybe I didn't. There is no way to know for sure.)

Asia alone is much bigger than the part of the globe the Romans occupied.

Irrelevant. Most of those vast expanses weren't civilized - or populated, for that matter.

Yes, but their main goal was to maintain peace, not to brutally enslave the indigenous peoples. Hence Pax Romana.

Ha! Ironically, the Roman Empire expanded quite a bit during the "Pax Romana". Not to mention all the rebellions, coups and other violent events that occured every now and then in that period. Really, Pax Romana must be the most pathetic excuse for peace in the history.

 

[Sander]

"Falsified"? What, can you submit numerical evidence proving the opposite? (Hint: you can't, because there isn't sufficient data from that era. Maybe I made an overstatement when I said Romans ruled most of the civilized world, maybe I didn't. There is no way to know for sure.)

Judging by the land-masses, I'd say that the chance that there were many, many more people there is very, very large.

Irrelevant. Most of those vast expanses weren't civilized - or populated, for that matter.

Again: Japan, China, Meso-America, India (Indonesia too, if I recall correctly). Mongolia would probably count as civilized, even though its inhabitants maintain(ed) a nomad lifestyle. And the vast majority of the Northern European tribes as well.

Ha! Ironically, the Roman Empire expanded quite a bit during the "Pax Romana". Not to mention all the rebellions, coups and other violent events that occured every now and then in that period. Really, Pax Romana must be the most pathetic excuse for peace in the history.

There's nothing ironic about that. The Romans were expansionist, but what they weren't, as I've been saying, was brutal, violent conquerors. Again: they tried their best to keep the indigenous peoples happy.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

There's nothing ironic about that. The Romans were expansionist, but what they weren't, as I've been saying, was brutal, violent conquerors. Again: they tried their best to keep the indigenous peoples happy.

Yes, in the same way colonial powers tried to keep the people in their colonies happy, by oppressing them, inciting inter-ethnic and inter-tribal violence and brutally quelling insurrections, while at the same time exploiting their resources. For the longest time people in provinces weren't even considered citizens of the Empire and were declared such by Caracalla because the Empire needed more taxes to fill its ever-so-empty coffers. Speaking of Caracalla, how about that time he slaughtered citizens of Alexandria because someone there made a satire about him?

"Keeping the indigenous peoples happy", my ass.

 

[Sander]

Yes, in the same way colonial powers tried to keep the people in their colonies happy, by oppressing them, inciting inter-ethnic and inter-tribal violence and brutally quelling insurrections, while at the same time exploiting their resources. For the longest time people in provinces weren't even considered citizens of the Empire and were declared such by Caracalla because the Empire needed more taxes to fill its ever-so-empty coffers. Speaking of Caracalla, how about that time he slaughtered citizens of Alexandria because someone there made a satire about him?

"Keeping the indigenous peoples happy", my ass.

They got to the height of their power by keeping their indigenous people happy. Mainly through allowing the peoples to keep their own religions and a lot of their freedoms. They weren't served by butchering or torturing those people. Except for the occasional extremely violent and deranged tyrant, they tried to keep everything peaceful. Again: they weren't served by those people insurrecting.

 

[S]

Romans are not civilised that i am sure of. They might have conquered large masses of land and wrote, calculated, invented many thing we use today ...etc. /even with that much achieved they are still uncivilized, simply because they used slaves and treated them like ***. They loved voilence ... etc

 

[Ashmo]

Ya, they loved violence.

Totally unlike... uh... oh, right, violence has always been entertainment for the masses.

 

[Brother None]

Ya, they loved violence.

You're not listening. S said they loved voilence, which is obviously much worse than loving violence.

v·oi·lence Pronunciation Key (v-oi-lns)
n.

1. a form of violence seen in the Roman Empire.
2. much worse than normal violence.

 

[Ashmo]

Ya, they loved violence.

You're not listening. S said they loved voilence, which is obviously much worse than loving violence.

v·oi·lence Pronunciation Key (v-oi-lns)
n.

1. a form of violence seen in the Roman Empire.
2. much worse than normal violence.

OH! I lower my head in shame.

...

No, not THAT far.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

They got to the height of their power by keeping their indigenous people happy. Mainly through allowing the peoples to keep their own religions and a lot of their freedoms. They weren't served by butchering or torturing those people. Except for the occasional extremely violent and deranged tyrant, they tried to keep everything peaceful. Again: they weren't served by those people insurrecting.

No, no, no. Did you miss what I posted earlier?

1. Did you know that Romans played Russian Roulette with revolvers loaded with six bullets and always won?

2. Did you know that dinosaurs messed with Romans... once?

3. Roman soldiers' tears could cure cancer. Sadly, Roman soldiers never cried.

4. A Roman soldier's smile could save a dying man. Too bad a Roman soldier smiled only when killing someone.

5. The chief export of the Roman Empire was pain.

Those are proven historical facts, man. Now, I realize the education system adapts to new historical findings slowly, so you may not be familiar with the fact that everything that was known about Romans has recently undergone a total revision and completely new theories of their origins and role in history were developed. The list of proponents of these bold theories includes such esteemed members of the scientific community as the famous Belgian historian dr. Jebus Gobson and the controversial, yet brilliant Bulgarian dr. Fas Ist.

Dr. Fas Ist, with his unmatched insight into historical processes, even went so far as to incorporate these newly discovered facts into his much broader Theory of Pan-Slavism, sometimes referred to as the "Slav Matter theory". To simply qualify this theory a variant of Pantheism would be a grave injustice and a vast underestimation of its brilliance. Pan-Slavism basically claims that everything in the Universe is partially made of a divine element - the so-called "Slav Matter". Though the theory began to gain popularity only recently, it is in fact much older. Its roots go back to 1950s, when a thorough analysis established presence of Slavs in the soaps produced by the Nazi Germany in the 1941-1945 period. This shocking new evidence confirmed what many scientists of various fields suspected - that Slavs were the first entities in our Universe and that everything else was created when they mated with each other (the so-called "Big Bang theory").

How does the Roman history fit into this, you ask? Well, dr. Fas Ist established beyond doubt that Romans descended from an ancient Slavic tribe, whose leader Nikolai Romanov, alias "Romulus", founded Rome in 753 B.C. If you doubt me, I suggest you pick up dr. Fas Ist's latest book, titled "Pan-Slavism: all teh ppl are slavz!!!11", due to be released any day now.

 

[Jebus]

And your sneaky weakening of your own statement isn't working, Ratty.

That's what he always does. Cunning, this rodent is.

Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization

Mesopotamia was A craddle of civilization.

Patently untrue, as the Roman Empire was known for its tolerance toward the people they conquered, and the fact that Roman culture dominated quite a bit of the un-conquered peoples as well.

Yeah, that's an old myth. I wouldn't put much trust into it, however. Extremely high taxes, slavery, opression and forced Romanization didn't make the Romans popular anywhere.



*EDIT* Hey, I missed a page. More to come.

*EDIT2* Wait - no more to come. It's just Ratty dancing around anyway, no way I'm going to waste time on that again.

*EDIT3*, It's Prof. Dr. Jebus Gobson to you, rat-face.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Mesopotamia was A craddle of civilization.

It's an expression used specifically for Mesopotamia. Look it up.

 

[Jebus]

It's a faulty expression.

Look it up.

 

[Wooz]

Dum dee dum. My two cents of pre-columbian history:

I'd highly doubt that, mainly because it cost the Spanish with gunpowder almost two centuries to subdue all of the Mayan centres.

You mean the Aztecs/Mexicas. The Maya empire had already collapsed by the time the Spaniards arrived.

In any case, The Maya empire, although great and capable of erecting pyramids and perfectioning calendars and astronomy, never had the military power of its contemporary rival, the Aztecs, nor was the biggest or most powerful mesoamerican civilization at that time, let alone "evah".

The constant quarreling and wars between the City-states and the lack of a consistent, unified army was never a match for the militaristic Aztecs, which conquered most of Mexico "starting from scratch" within 300 years.

Other than that, there were also the Incas, with technological and social advances far before their European counterparts.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

In any case, The Maya empire, although great and capable of erecting pyramids and perfectioning calendars and astronomy, never had the military power of its contemporary rival, the Aztecs, nor was the biggest or most powerful mesoamerican civilization at that time, let alone "evah".

Yes, as I mentioned above, there never was a "Maya empire" to begin with. There was just a bunch of small kingdoms with a common culture. By the 16th century, most of those kingdoms were long gone and forgotten. Their civilization *was*, as far as I know, the largest and strongest in America in classical era, though.

 

[Wooz]

As I mentioned before, the Mayas never *had* the military power the Aztecs had, nor ruled such an extensive territory. I have to remind you that most of Maya-ruled land was/is jungle and mountains, whereas the Aztecs' rule extended mainly over less "wild" areas of central Mexico.

The Incas, on the other side of the continent, also had pyramids and uh. Paved roads. In Peru.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

As I mentioned before, the Mayas never *had* the military power the Aztecs had, nor ruled such an extensive territory.

I know, dude, I didn't dispute that.

What are we arguing about, anyway?

 

[Wooz]

Not arguing, friend. I was under the impression that you were claiming the Mayas as the most powerful civilization in mesoamerica. Or Sander saying it took centuries for the Spaniards to "subdue" Maya centers which had already collapsed, and in any case were/are in the economical anus mundi of New Spain.

Or something. I saw one of the numerous Nosferatu remakes today. Werner Herzog's. Dude. There was one fuckload of rats in that movie. I kept thinking "where the hell did they get all those rats".

So yeah. That's my story.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Not arguing, friend. I was under the impression that you were claiming the Mayas as the most powerful civilization in mesoamerica. Or Sander saying it took centuries for the Spaniards to "subdue" Maya centers which had already collapsed, and in any case were/are in the economical anus mundi of New Spain.

Yeah, most Maya centres did a good job "subduing" themselves, and a hell of a lot earlier than Spaniards came.

Or something. I saw one of the numerous Nosferatu remakes today. Werner Herzog's. Dude. There was one fuckload of rats in that movie. I kept thinking "where the hell did they get all those rats".

You don't want to go there, man, trust me.

*squeak*