Which has the most interesting history? Specifically, I'm talking about generals, culure, war/war results, or overall history? I'd really like some advice here, because I'm looking at the ancient histories, to see which one would capture my interest most. Which one had interesting military tactics? This is one field I am especially interested in.

Any input will be greatly appreciated.

I'd say the Greeks had the more interesting military tactics, although the Romans' proved more effective. You may want to include the Assyrians, who were pretty innovative in their time.

Why only learn about one of them? Read about them all. They are all interesting & unique.

I think Rome probably had the best military tacticians and probably the richest military history. I'm interested in Rome and Greece as well as very ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations. However, pre-Islamic Persia sounds very interesting too.

Persia has a great history spanning from ancient Medes, to the Persian Empire, to Sassanid Persia, Safavid Persia, and has people like Nadir Shah and such, definatley very intreasting to read about.

I am going to read about them all;, I just wanted to know which one to start first. It's between the Greeks and the Romans now. What other interesting civilizations to you guys find interesting?

Go for Rome. :goodjob: But warning: their history is so huge, interesting and complicated that some people can study that for their whole life and not know "everything".

As for other civilizations, I could be an ambassador of my country and say: You could look into the Dacians, few people know anything about them, but 2 centuries before the times of Trajan and until the middle time of his reign, just when Rome was biggest, it was the only other civilization in Europe to build stone roads, stone fortresses, and be unified. :)

But apart from that, you could look into the Byzantines, they could be called the sons of Rome and Greece: after the Roman empire broke up in 2 parts, the eastern and the western one, the eastern one survived 1000 years more. That's Byzantium, and I find it fascinating (not only for this).

I am going to read about them all;, I just wanted to know which one to start first. It's between the Greeks and the Romans now. What other interesting civilizations to you guys find interesting?

Starts with the Babylonians, then Persians, then Greeks and then Romans, in the proper order. ;)

I find each fascinating in their own way but the Persians the most, simply because living here in the West we often don't know much about them. AFAIK most kids in school don't learn about them apart from that they are freedom-crushing monsters who try to kill the gallant Greeks but failed and they were conquered by Alexander the Great. To me they had been a footnote in history that deserves more attention.

Read about the Persians. The history books in the West didn't tell much about them.

Rome has the lengthier and most accessible history. We can know pretty much everything that can be know about it, but because it was so influential to future european and world history there are plenty of different interpretations of roman history.

Persia has the most diverse, and possibly the most interesting, one. But I’m finding it hard to get as much information as I would like. There are also very interesting ancient civilizations in Central Asia with histories linked to that of Persia, and which are still being researched.

Greece had an amazing impact in the history of thought, and much of its culture was soaked up by Rome later.

Babylon, I think, is a bit overrated. It developed on par with Central Asia, the Indus valley and the iranian plateau, on one side, and Egypt on the other. But it quickly lost relevance after the rise of the Persian Empire.

Personally I think you should consider India also, if you wish to study the history of the Persia or even Greece. Of all the eurasian ancient civilizations China was the only one that developed mostly independent from the others.

Read Greece first, then move on to Rome. Then Persia.

The Greeks had a tremendous impact on the world, from their time until current Western Europe. Rome takes many of the ideas of the Greeks, reform them, and carry it out more effectively. Republican Rome is fascinating, full of intrigue. Early Empire is ok too, but I personally don't enjoy much of Tome past ~200 AD.

And reading the Roman side, and their constant fighting with the Parthians leads nicely into Persian history.

I think Asian history is pretty ignored.Maybe you can read about Korea or one of the Indochina countries?

I like most Greece. About Babylon I dont know much and Persia is boring. Rome was expert of stealing ideas from other civilizations.

Rome was expert of stealing ideas from other civilizations.

An awful lot of people think that. ;) Rome was the child of Greek culture, just as Persia was the child of surrounding cultures. They did not "steal" anything. However, they invented more than probably anyone in their time. Their contributions are so huge that we don't even realize most of them. The Greek culture was pretty different to today's. However, the Roman one was not.

I read all of them, but I like Rome the best.

Persia probably has the most interesting religious history, but it's incredibly difficult to find books about it.

I am going to read about them all;, I just wanted to know which one to start first. It's between the Greeks and the Romans now. What other interesting civilizations to you guys find interesting?

Between those, go Greek 1st. They predated Roman civilization & the Romans borrowed allot of culture from them.

Starts with the Babylonians, then Persians, then Greeks and then Romans, in the proper order. ;)

Good advice. The Persians conquered the Babylonians. The Greeks conquered the Persians. The Romans conquered the Greeks.

If you want to continue that chain back, the Babylonians conquered the Jews, Egyptians & Assyrians among others. I guess it depends on how far back you want to go.

Starts with the Babylonians, then Persians, then Greeks and then Romans, in the proper order. ;)

I find each fascinating in their own way but the Persians the most, simply because living here in the West we often don't know much about them. AFAIK most kids in school don't learn about them apart from that they are freedom-crushing monsters who try to kill the gallant Greeks but failed and they were conquered by Alexander the Great. To me they had been a footnote in history that deserves more attention.
That's the way I would do it, start at the beginning. You may want to look into the Hittites, Sumerians and Assyrians alongside the Babylonians, then move onto Persia, then the Greeks, then Romans. You could take a look at the Egyptians too if you want to really cover 'classical' history.

persia and rome

Why are the first three nations nouns and the last one an adjective? :mischief:

Greece for me. As far as I'm concerned, they won by cultural victory ages ago :D

Technically you could say Babilon is a part of Persian history ... or at least in the way i view history. So i'll take them 2 please.
Persia probably has the most interesting religious history, but it's incredibly difficult to find books about it.
:yup:
I read intresting stuff about that in Mircea Eliade's book.

Plotinus, i'd love to hear your opinion on his book (http://www.amazon.com/History-Religious-Ideas-Eleusinian-Mysteries/dp/0226204014). Is there any chance that in the far future you might borrow it from a local library and read it ? It's the first encyclopeida of religion ever written (even tho he died before completing it). Surely a theologian such as yourself can see the value of that. :D

Well, the Bablyonians(I know it was a typo, but now that a see it spelt that way, I like 'Bablyon' much better that 'Babylon') didnt really have that much of a history. They did, but if it werent for the bible, we probably wouldn't notice them that much.

I think Asian history is pretty ignored.Maybe you can read about Korea or one of the Indochina countries?

Its not exactly that its ignored, but compared to history west of the Ganges, its (generally) pretty boring and not so important.

I think Asian history is pretty ignored.Maybe you can read about Korea or one of the Indochina countries?

The history of Vietnam is perhaps the most amazing I've ever studied.

They did, but if it werent for the bible, we probably wouldn't notice them that much.

That's ridiculous - Babylon was important quite apart from what they did to the Israelites. In fact, the "Babylon" of the Old Testament was the Neo-Babylonian empire; they'd already had an older empire which was more significant.

Its not exactly that its ignored, but compared to history west of the Ganges, its (generally) pretty boring and not so important.

Why's it less important? Are Asians less important than Europeans?

Rome has gotta be the best of the four.

That's ridiculous - Babylon was important quite apart from what they did to the Israelites. In fact, the "Babylon" of the Old Testament was the Neo-Babylonian empire; they'd already had an older empire which was more significant.

Yes, of course it was important. But pretty much the same as Sumer-Akkad or Assyria. Its only noticed more than those empires because its important to the bible. Which was the only way we knew of it until about 150 years ago, give or take.


Why's it less important? Are Asians less important than Europeans?

Not less important, of course not! But their history is much more stable than european history. Not eternal peace, of course not, but comparitively peacefull. So its less important to learn about the different Chinese dynasties, for example, or how the Japanese emperor got less and less powerfull.

But why is war more important to know about than peace? There's more to history than military action and disagreement. Isn't the history of Asian culture as important as the history of western culture?

Besides, there's more to Asia than China and Japan. I think there's just as much fragmentation, war, etc throughout the entire continent as in Europe.

But why is war more important to know about than peace?

Because war has a greater effect on history than peace. Peace effects its own generation, but war could have very long lasting effects. The same could be said for peace, of course, but not as often as war.

Not at all: I'd say that war's effects may be more obvious or apparent, but not greater, than those of peace. But really that's not the point. War may affect many other elements of history, but those elements are still there even when war is not. For example, war has affected literature. But there is always literature even when there is no war - it's just not about war, that's all. So if the study of history is, in part, the study of culture, there is just as much stuff to study whether there were wars or not. From the point of view of the military historian, Chinese history may be terribly dull, but why must we take that point of view? From the point of view of the social historian there's just as much material as in any other society.

The reason nobody wants to read Asian history is that it had very little impact on the western world. The majority of us are from the West, and it's pretty arguable that the West has shaped a lot of the current world.

That's why we read Rome and Greece, because it was so influential to the world we know. Persia comes in because they were the enemies of 'the west'. At the same time, The Huns, and Genghis Khan are key reads too, as they caused rather large upheavals back home.

But who was duking it out over Thailand, the Congo, Indonesia, or even India would appear to have taken little effect on the West.

Not less important, of course not! But their history is much more stable than european history. Not eternal peace, of course not, but comparitively peacefull. So its less important to learn about the different Chinese dynasties, for example, or how the Japanese emperor got less and less powerfull.

The history of China is actually full of warfare and strife. It's just that they don't keep records the way Europeans do. A lot of info has also been lost, most recently in Mao's Cultural Revolution. Japan also saw quite extensive warfare, especially during the interesting Sengoku period. Maybe you should read up a bit more on Eastern history.

The reason nobody wants to read Asian history is that it had very little impact on the western world. The majority of us are from the West, and it's pretty arguable that the West has shaped a lot of the current world.

That's why we read Rome and Greece, because it was so influential to the world we know. Persia comes in because they were the enemies of 'the west'. At the same time, The Huns, and Genghis Khan are key reads too, as they caused rather large upheavals back home.

But who was duking it out over Thailand, the Congo, Indonesia, or even India would appear to have taken little effect on the West.

Nonsense. Without spice, which came from Southeast Asia, the Age of Discovery and therefore colonialism might not have begun at the time it did. Europe might not have had the impetus to rise up and seize the world as it did, and a century or two later things might have been very different. And who controlled the spice was important. Imagine if the Saliendra or the Sri Vijaya Empire survived and was in control of the spice. The Europeans wouldn't have been able to just walk in and might have been forced to keep paying premium prices for it. You know, the spice must flow.

I shouldn't even need to talk about how influential China and even Japan were in the development of the world that we know today.

Because war has a greater effect on history than peace. Peace effects its own generation, but war could have very long lasting effects. The same could be said for peace, of course, but not as often as war.

I disagree, it could be said that a peace was what shaped the western world: the Pax Romana.

As for Westerners' disinterest in Asian history, I think that the names are what turn people not actively interested in the subject away from Asian history. Many names of places and people are very difficult to pronounce, if only because we are less familiar with Chinese words than French or Italian ones, and many people have multiple names, which only adds to the complication. The inital thrust into Asian history can be like pulling teeth, but once you learn to pronounce the words and get used to the abused hyphon, it's not that hard, and also rather interesting, if I dare say so.

I'd say Persia. They're a truly interesting civilization, with a rich history continuing to this day.

Persia probably has the most interesting religious history, but it's incredibly difficult to find books about it.The Shah Nama (Book of Kings), written by the polymath poet Ferdowsi in the 10th century, has got to be the best starting point for anyone looking to learn more about Persian history, pre-history, religious tradition and identity. It an important read in the context of this thread's discussion for it offers a broad overview of Persian history and identity without a Western slant, as per the work of say Herodotus, who is the usual suspect dragged out as a source on the Persians.

(Other spellings that often appear for title and author are 'Shah Nameh' and 'Firdusi'.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh

---

edit: And I just remembered this site which is worth delving into for more on Ancient Persia:

http://www.cais-soas.com/Essays.htm#History

To pick up on the discussion above about the impact of peace or war on history, it might be enlightening to read up on the influence Ancient Persia had on the development of, for example, political adminstration and banking systems. Surely most relevant in today's world.

The reason nobody wants to read Asian history is that it had very little impact on the western world. The majority of us are from the West, and it's pretty arguable that the West has shaped a lot of the current world.

That's why we read Rome and Greece, because it was so influential to the world we know. Persia comes in because they were the enemies of 'the west'. At the same time, The Huns, and Genghis Khan are key reads too, as they caused rather large upheavals back home.

But who was duking it out over Thailand, the Congo, Indonesia, or even India would appear to have taken little effect on the West.

What absolute Crock, The fall of the Mughal empire could be said to have been an indirect cause of the 7 years war with both Britain and France scrambling for it.

Or what about Burma according to many Historians where the black death originally started from.

What if China had continued with its naval expansions and had not been pinned back by the Mongols, what if any one of the Indian nations had changed their navy from very powerful sea dwelling navies, to ocean dwelling navies. Most likely Europe and the west would be entirely different. It's important to understand places not associated initially with the west to understand why Europe and later America came to where it is today.

The history of China is actually full of warfare and strife. It's just that they don't keep records the way Europeans do. A lot of info has also been lost, most recently in Mao's Cultural Revolution. Japan also saw quite extensive warfare, especially during the interesting Sengoku period. Maybe you should read up a bit more on Eastern history.





Yeah, there was warfare, but it was mostly civil wars that really only affected their own countries. No matter who was in control of China when the Europeans came, wether it were the Han,the Ch'in, or the Ming (See, I know a little Eastern History), The Europeans still would have come and, I hate to say this, the world would be pretty much the same, since they've had the most impact on world history. At least in the last 500 years.

Yeah, there was warfare, but it was mostly civil wars that really only affected their own countries. No matter who was in control of China when the Europeans came, wether it were the Han,the Ch'in, or the Ming (See, I know a little Eastern History), The Europeans still would have come and, I hate to say this, the world would be pretty much the same, since they've had the most impact on world history. At least in the last 500 years.

Money makes the world go round, the world go round...

Yeah, there was warfare, but it was mostly civil wars that really only affected their own countries. No matter who was in control of China when the Europeans came, wether it were the Han,the Ch'in, or the Ming (See, I know a little Eastern History), The Europeans still would have come and, I hate to say this, the world would be pretty much the same, since they've had the most impact on world history. At least in the last 500 years.

Yes it would. If rulers like those of the Tang or the Yuan Dynasty were in control of China when European imperialism in East Asia start, they would've most likely be able to hold back the West. Similarly, if Hiyedoshi managed to conquer Korea and subdued China, Japan could've had a "Co Prosperity Sphere" as early as AD1600.

If the Chinese were able to defeat the Mongols completely in the 15th century, the Ming sea exploration would likely to have continued (or maybe not, but the conservatives would have one less excuse to stop the expeditions). I could be living in New Guangzhou instead of Melbourne.

Had the Mongol conquests never occured, some Chinese inventions may have never reached Europe, the Black Death may not have spread as widely, Marco Polo would've never reached Khanbaliq.

For most of history innovations and ideas have flowed from east to west. Paper, printing, gunpowder, compass, mathematical ideas, stirrups...the list goes on.

It's not valid to say European history have most impact on overall world history, for had the history of China, India, Mongolia, Korea, Japan, and other non-European countries were different, the world would've been a very different place.

Also, it's daft to say that wars within China were less significant than wars between different countries in Europe, simply because they occurred only within one country. China is nearly the same size as Europe!

I think that when westerners claim that Asian history is less important than western history because Asian civilisations have had less impact on the world, that simply shows how ignorant westerners are of Asian history (and, perhaps, of much of their own).

Yeah, there was warfare, but it was mostly civil wars that really only affected their own countries. No matter who was in control of China when the Europeans came, wether it were the Han,the Ch'in, or the Ming (See, I know a little Eastern History), The Europeans still would have come and, I hate to say this, the world would be pretty much the same, since they've had the most impact on world history. At least in the last 500 years.

I must admire your boldness in rushing to say something without being afraid of putting your foot in your mouth.

Others have pointed out how important the 'civil wars' (some of them can't even be considered as a war within one country) in China were in shaping history, so I will not dwell on that. I'd like to point out that China fought foreginers too: Arabs, nomadic tribes, Mongols, Burmese and others, in campaigns that are as important as many in Europe.

I certainly agree that in the last 200 years, the West shaped the world, but it was still not without reference to what happened in Asia. Like I said before, imagine if some of the more powerful Asian kingdoms were still in power. Things could have been very different. There could have been more Siams and fewer Hong Kongs.

Getting back to the original question... whichever culture's history you decide to start with, it would help you immensely to also have a copy of The Timetables of History handy. This is a handy reference work that lists in table form, era by era and year by year, the major developments in politics, military, art, music, history, science, literature, and general cultural advances/trends in each of the major areas/cultures of the world. Depending on which edition you get (they're available in any decent library), you can follow along from prehistory to the late 20th/turn of the century AD and see (for example) that while certain advances were being made in China, other political events were going on in Egypt, perhaps some important work of literature was published in Greece or Rome, and a war was going on in the New World.

It's very helpful to realize that what were the "Dark Ages" to Western societies were not "Dark" at all in other parts of the world. And ultimately, very few societies have ever existed in a vacuum. There were always travelers who brought word of some new invention or concept, or news of a war to people in distant lands far from his home.

And just think: If Marco Polo hadn't gone to the East, would we now have ice cream and spaghetti? ;)

The "Dark Ages" weren't really as "dark" as people suppose even in Europe. Which is why historians don't use that term any more.

The "Dark Ages" weren't really as "dark" as people suppose even in Europe. Which is why historians don't use that term any more.

It's such an antiquated term.

It's such an antiquated term.Yeah, it's like sooo Third World. ;)

The "Dark Ages" weren't really as "dark" as people suppose even in Europe. Which is why historians don't use that term any more.
Then what do they use? And who started using the term 'Dark Ages' (19th century, I think?)? 'Cause if they were using 'Dark Ages' a couple of centuries after it ended...They'd probably know more on the subject than we could.

I've read that the sole technological invention of the Romans was a recipe for concrete that could be applied underwater, which was effectively lost until a new recipe was made about the 17th C.

An awful lot of people think that. ;) Rome was the child of Greek culture, just as Persia was the child of surrounding cultures. They did not "steal" anything. However, they invented more than probably anyone in their time. Their contributions are so huge that we don't even realize most of them. The Greek culture was pretty different to today's. However, the Roman one was not.

Then what do they use? And who started using the term 'Dark Ages' (19th century, I think?)? 'Cause if they were using 'Dark Ages' a couple of centuries after it ended...They'd probably know more on the subject than we could.

Not really. We have the benefit of modern archeology and historical methods. The notions of people a few centuries later would be clouded (certainly more than our own) by both folk history (accepted with less criticism than today) and perhaps even less direct evidence.

I don't know when the term "Dark Ages" came into use, but I suspect it was the nineteenth century. The term refers both to the supposed unpleasantness of the period and to the relative lack of historical information about it. That is, it was "dark" in the same sense as the "dark side" of the moon. Which isn't any more literally dark than the near side.

Today, the period is always called the early Middle Ages (roughly sixth to tenth centuries), as opposed to the high Middle Ages (roughly eleventh to fourteenth centuries). This is partly because "Dark Ages" sounds unacceptably value-laden, and also because we now know a lot more about the period.

As shortguy points out, earlier sources are not necessarily better informed than later sources - something all good historians know. If I wanted to know about Gladstone's life and career, I would get better information from reading Jenkins' recent biography, which takes into account all scholarship on Gladstone, than I would by reading Morley's, published shortly after its subject's death and written using only some sources and with the aim of glorifying him.

I don't know when the term "Dark Ages" came into use, but I suspect it was the nineteenth century. The term refers both to the supposed unpleasantness of the period and to the relative lack of historical information about it. That is, it was "dark" in the same sense as the "dark side" of the moon. Which isn't any more literally dark than the near side.

Today, the period is always called the early Middle Ages (roughly sixth to tenth centuries), as opposed to the high Middle Ages (roughly eleventh to fourteenth centuries). This is partly because "Dark Ages" sounds unacceptably value-laden, and also because we now know a lot more about the period.


The name came about during the Romantic Era, in the early nineteenth century, for pretty much the reasons you mentioned. It was a big "play-up" of the advances the world had made recently. This was also the time that gave birth to the belief that, during the "Dark Ages," it was widely believed/accepted that the Earth was flat, which is just not true, and we can thank Washington Irving and his The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus for that.

Personally, I rather like the sound of "the Dark Ages". Makes me curious, wanting to know more and all that.

Early Middle Ages, ugh, how unromantically PC. I think in this case, value laden works better for me... :)

Well, even "Middle Ages" is pretty value-laden in itself, suggesting that the period was a mere time of transition to the "last" ages, namely now. Which will seem pretty daft in another thousand years or so.

I've read that the sole technological invention of the Romans was a recipe for concrete that could be applied underwater, which was effectively lost until a new recipe was made about the 17th C.

It's not purely a matter of technology which determines how much of an effect a society had on civilization in general. The Romans, for example, more or less "invented" the Western methods of administration; the Republic, the different provinces and their administration, and their law codes were all the forefathers of our modern institutions.

The Persians, on the other hand, were the first to deal with the problem of administrating several differing cultures under the same political entity. While it's true that they were heavily influenced by the civilizations of Mesopotamia (the Greeks were too, both in terms of religion and agriculture), the Persians created the first "empire" in a modern sense.

Wow, this has gotten big. Sorry I haven't responded; I got grounded and then I had to go on a school (band) trip. I think I'm going to take tailles' (right?) advice. I've already gotten pretty far into the Persian history, because I couldn't check back here and wanted to read it first and foremost. So my thanks to you all, for getting me interested in Eastern civilizations and providing me with the further assets I need to learn.

Keep the topic going!