I would have liked to travel through the time and see all the world, its evolution and the reason of conflict and human greed since Humans have lived in society. I sometime think that from some remote stars or planets it is possible with a giant telescope to zoom on the Earth and to see the world as it was millions of years ago, as the light reflected by our planet has reached them yet. Would it be possible one day to travel quicker than the light and see the history scrolling in front of us in our giant telescope... ?

Roman Empire. My hands down favorite.

Cant wait to see how it looks in a Civ3 scenario!

I think that for shear size and how it is still inflencing the world. as well as being a Briton.!:king:

"Britain will never be slaves (or be invaded successful again)"

I want to vote the persians,
did you include them in the Mesopotamia category?

Bet u cant guess what I voted for :D

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Bet u cant guess what I voted for :D

Nazi Germany.:D

i didnt see swedem there under karl XII or whatever that guys name was so i voted alexander the greats empire

I voted for the Chinese Empire (of any period) of coz. As expected. ;) Cos it's one of the rare few empires (actually only one that I know of) that kept all its imperial territory relatively intact (and even expanded into Manchuria) after the end of its official "imperial" age.

Also the only one which amalgated all its different subjects and peoples into one relatively whole single people known to the world today as the Chinese.

Just to let you know. :crazyeyes

hey, SKM have u ever heard of that little island named "Taiwan"? did anyone also know that taiwan is the imperial chineese?

So was Mongolia. And the Amur region. And the Ili Valley in the far west. Don't forget Korea, Indo-China, Thailand, Nepal and Burma too - these were tributary states. And Japan while we're at it. Oh and all of Central Asia - these used to be under the Later Han and later the Tang. Heck, the Ming even got tributary states all the way to Africa. :crazyeyes

My point is the last Chinese Empire was the Ming (ended 1644). And the Ming encompassed roughly the Han Chinese portions of China today minus the northern parts of Manchuria. Taiwan was only brought into the Chinese fold during the Qing (the Manchus which was a foreign power; 1644 - 1911) and only cos Ming rebels were operating from the island and launching sporadic attks on the mainland.

OK, I added the words "relatively intact" in my first post.

"relatively intact" thats all i wanted to hear.....:)

You shld have say so. You bad person, making me rack my brains in the dead of the night after a long "hard" day's work in the office.
BTW, what do you mean "Taiwan is the imperial Chinese"? They are the Nationalists who retreated to the island after losing an argument with the Commies in 1949 (at gunpoint).

The Incan empire has a cool history, but it isn't on the list! So I vote Roman heyday - great engineers, military tacticians, crafty politicians, decadence that would land you in prison today, and piles of writing to tell it all to the ages.

The Chinese are a close second...

I've got to go with the Roman, for all the reasons listed above...not just for its power, development, etc., but because it seems like it would be rather enjoyable to live there - provided that one was of the upper classes!

Moreover, I'd love to watch the political struggles in the last century BC and the development of the early Catholic church.

The Soviet Union of course

I am sorry, I could include all the empires as I am lmited to 20. You can include the Persians, Hittites and others in Mesopotamian Empires.

I should have put the incas and aztecs instead of Communist China (and which other one ?), but it's too late now and only moderators can modify polls. Any moderator around ?

I voted for Rome because I know most about that empire. I know very little about China but I'm learning from SKM's posts.:D

There are many other's on the list that I know very little of.

BTW, I passed up the British but if we considered Britain, USA, Canada and Australia combined as a continuation of the British empire then they'd get my vote. While these seperate countries are distinct they do share a basic culture because of the British Empire.

"I voted for Rome because I know most about that empire. I know very little about China but I'm learning from SKM's posts."

Glad you like it. :D If anybody's interested, I can start a new thread on "Introductory Chinese History" and basically post about Chinese history fr beginning till now, broken into parts by periods followed by Q & A and probably a lot of side-posts about interesting competitors for the Chinese (Japs, Mongols, Manchus, Jurchens etc). Got nothing to do during lunch hr anyway. Anybody interested?

Maybe that's not such a good idea. Civ 3's coming ....

Actually I love most of the above mentioned empires cos I am also a history buff. Empires and kingdoms and their interaction fascinate me ....

That's a great idea SKM...

Except that you may be right that making such a commitment could be difficult just as Civ3 comes out! :lol:

Still, since I've got about 2-3 days until my copy of Civ3 ships from Amazon, I might participate in such a thread. :) I've also been thinking about starting a thread that discusses the significance of some the events of the "quiz topics." After all, what's the point of asking the questions if the answers don't mean something?

Originally posted by jumbo2002
That's a great idea SKM...

Except that you may be right that making such a commitment could be difficult just as Civ3 comes out! :lol:

Still, since I've got about 2-3 days until my copy of Civ3 ships from Amazon, I might participate in such a thread. :) I've also been thinking about starting a thread that discusses the significance of some the events of the "quiz topics." After all, what's the point of asking the questions if the answers don't mean something?


Yes please
do it
SKM
that would be so cool

please
do it if you can.:goodjob:

I played my Red October theme while making this decision. :D

"The Soviet Union of course" (Mikoyan)

Care to tell us why love?



;)

It pretty much speaks for itself.
And why are you calling me 'love'?
You're creeping me out!

It's an English figure of speech which does not imply any particular creeping or feeling.
But no, it does not speak for itself.
Relay unto me the glories of Sverdlovsk and Yakutsk!

Originally posted by Mikoyan
It pretty much speaks for itself.
And why are you calling me 'love'?
You're creeping me out!

:lol: Simon - This is the "new" Mikoyan. He's a tough guy now. :rolleyes:

Darn, don't you see that there's no choice: Alexander the Great swallows them all! Even this weene Julius G. Caesar wanted to be like Alexander, but --- what's obvious --- never achieved even half power that Alexander got in few years of his imperial career. How pathetic. And everything was done not hurting noble Greek culture --- during Alexander rule (and long after) everyone in the world wanted to "live like the Greeks", what cannot be said of primitive native-roman culture, not mentioning puny later "civilizations". When in Greece theatres were used to play dramas, in Rome dumb, manipulated people (wrongly called "citizens") watched there gladiators' fights and similiar. I love the moment in civ2 when my Greek troops approach Rome and raze it to the last "citizen". This should be done in real world 2000 years ago...

Horatius: "primum aeolium carmen in italos deduxisse modos"; said after long years of thriving Greek poetry --- how pathetic!!!

Damn, why do I hate Roman Empire so much? Have to get some sedative pills ;)

I am very interested in Roman Empire... The results show I'm not the only one :D

To mariano: Caesar was long before the heyday of the roman empire... he was more or less the founder of the empire, the very first roman emperor. I think there isn't anything in history comparable to the Roman Empire in it's heyday

Originally posted by S.P.Q.R.
To mariano: Caesar was long before the heyday of the roman empire... he was more or less the founder of the empire, the very first roman emperor. I think there isn't anything in history comparable to the Roman Empire in it's heyday There is; it's a little place called the Chinese Empire, if not during the Han, then it's during the Tang. And the best thing is - it still exists wholly today whilst the Roman Empire had splintered into dozens of modern states.
Well, Augustus (Octavius) was really the first Roman emperor. Although Julius was great, he was only Consul and had campaigned only in Gaul and Britannia (briefly). He was on the verge of becoming emperor when being murdered by trusted Brutus and co cos they feared the return of absolute rule.

Originally posted by SKM
There is; it's a little place called the Chinese Empire, if not during the Han, then it's during the Tang. And the best thing is - it still exists wholly today whilst the Roman Empire had splintered into dozens of modern states.

Hmmm.... you might be right. I must confess that I don't know much about the Chinese Empire... though I'm very interestedly following your discourse. I appreciate it very much.

Well, Augustus (Octavius) was really the first Roman emperor. Although Julius was great, he was only Consul and had campaigned only in Gaul and Britannia (briefly). He was on the verge of becoming emperor when being murdered by trusted Brutus and co cos they feared the return of absolute rule.

You are right if you point out that Caesar was not legally Emperor, but I think the position he had during the last years of his life could be considered as a position of a de-facto emperor

Originally posted by S.P.Q.R.
Hmmm.... you might be right. I must confess that I don't know much about the Chinese Empire... though I'm very interestedly following your discourse. I appreciate it very much.Han China was less developed than the Roman Empire of the same era. Less roads and definitely less inter-connected. The Romans had this super inland highway called the Mediterranean Sea. ;) In terms of territory and population though, about the same. So for its era, the Roman Empire was definitely the greatest with the Han Empire closely behind.

I am somewhat partial to the Kindom of Mali in medieval Africa. The capital, Timbuktu, was a center of learning and rivaled the great "university cities" of the world at that time. The kingdom was proufoundly rich from the salt and gold trade. The monarchs were so rich, that when Mansa Musa went on his pilgrimage to Mecca in the 14th century he spent so much money along the way that it took over a decade for the Middle East to recover. How many other monarchs have ever depressed the economy of an entire region on a personal spending spree?:king:

Well, I am so sad to see nobody chose Napoleon's Empire:( I hesitate between this one and the British Empire. Tough choice, indeed ! Isn't there any Napoleon Fanatics around ? Any French people...:p

;)

Intersesting topic, Romans compared to Han Chinese. I've seen a map and all in all China's empire was very slightly bigger. Don't forget though that there were only four great Empires at this time, The Roman, Han China, Persia (under a Sassonian emperor) and the Gupta Empire of India. However, it only took the Mongols to cause chaos for all of these Empires.


British Empire, if including all its one time posessions, has my vote.

In regards to France, an acount of longevity must be taken. How long did Napolean's empire last. No, most people would go for the Russian Empire or even Poland-Lithuania than Napoleans empire. Too short.

Originally posted by Blackadder
Intersesting topic, Romans compared to Han Chinese. I've seen a map and all in all China's empire was very slightly bigger. Don't forget though that there were only four great Empires at this time, The Roman, Han China, Persia (under a Sassonian emperor) and the Gupta Empire of India. However, it only took the Mongols to cause chaos for all of these Empires.I think you mean the Kushan empire of India/Central Asia. When the Guptas came around, the Han had already disintegrated, Persia was Sassanid, rather than Parthian as during Roman times and the Romans had been reduced to their Eastern empire pretty much.

And when the Mongols arrived, China was splited betw the Southern Song, the Jin and the Xixia, the Byzantines were almost non-existent and the Persians long swept over and within the Islamic fold ......

Eh yes.

Sorry if I got anything wrong, it's purely that the COMPACT HISTORY OF THE WORLD lists all these four empires, shows a map, routes taken by Mongols, White Huns, Hsiung-nu etc.

And lists dates of collapse but NO MENTION OF OTHER EMPIRES, so thanks for the History Lesson.

It states. Roman Empire=A.D.454
. Han Empire =A.D.100
.Sassarian Empire=A.D. 261
. Gupta Empire. A.D.410

Well, I am so sad to see nobody chose Napoleon's Empire I hesitate between this one and the British Empire. Tough choice, indeed ! Isn't there any Napoleon Fanatics around ? Any French people...

I was tempted to vote British too...being British and all that:rolleyes:

But I really did love the Napoleonic peroid, so I voted Napoleans Empire, not cose I liked the empire just cose I LOVE:love: reading about the Napoleonic wars and all the that was happening back then!!!

In regards to France, an acount of longevity must be taken. How long did Napolean's empire last. No, most people would go for the Russian Empire or even Poland-Lithuania than Napoleans empire. Too short.

Might have been short but it certaintanily eventfull! It was jam packed with crazy happenings all over the place!

Egypt has to be my favourite as the origin of my Cheif gods Ra, Thoth and Horus

plus we lasted longer than anyone else

Pax Romana! :D

BTW,
Nice poll! :goodjob:

Originally posted by Sa~Craig
Egypt has to be my favourite as the origin of my Cheif gods Ra, Thoth and Horus

plus we lasted longer than anyone else Lasted longer than any other?

The Egypt of the Pharaohs had long been destroyed by foreign invaders. The latest time of any reasonably 'native' Egyptian rulers (the Macedonian Ptolemies) had been during the earliest days of the Roman Empire. Or maybe slightly preceding it.

Modern Egypt is Arabic.

I can't believe the Irish empire is not included here!

[pimp] :beer:

Imperium Romanum magnificum fuit (or better erat?).

Gotta vote for the British Empire pre WWI, but thank G. the States wasn't part of it ;)

My reasoning is that it was the strongest global empire, and made it possible for us ugly Americans to talk with selected people the world over without having to learn other languages! :)

Originally posted by Mark_Everson

My reasoning is that it was the strongest global empire, and made it possible for us ugly Americans to talk with selected people the world over without having to learn other languages! :)

And is that a good thing ? I wouldn't be proud of it. Americans are usually criticised abroad for only speaking English and making no effort to understand other cultures and mentality (just imposing their's).

Since when the People Republic of China become an empire?

Originally posted by tonberry
Since when the People Republic of China become an empire? There're two options for China - one for Imperial China of ages past and another for modern Communist China. ;)

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
There're two options for China - one for Imperial China of ages past and another for modern Communist China. ;)

Yes I see that but what I want to know is since when communist China has been considered an empire.

The Roman empire of the Real Life :D. I was hopping for the German Empire option, thetime when Bismark was Chansellor of Germany

The Galatic Empire in Star wars ;)

Ottoman Empire because they owned the whole middle east and myble a quarter of Europe. I would consider them the only Arab nation who had and still have a minor foothold in Europe. The also had the potential to take all of Europe, Africa and Asia if it were not for minor resistnace which they unfortunately could not overcome.

P.S. The irish were not included because they are on a tiny island and are not unified do to the sad failure of 2 uncontrollable christian peoples.

I agree with the importance of the Ottoman Empire,Wildbore,but they were certainly no ARABS,but Turkish people.
All of Africa,Asia and Europe is too much I think.Even if they had captured Vienna in 1529,they wouldn't have been able to control a so much populated area with a strong Christian tradition and economy like Western and Central Europe for long (if at all) in contrast to the thin populated areas they controlled thus far.Austria was not the strongest power in Europe that time,there were still the Poles or the French to take on.

the British Empire ofcourse royal brittania brittania all the way.............

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Han China was less developed than the Roman Empire of the same era. Less roads and definitely less inter-connected. The Romans had this super inland highway called the Mediterranean Sea. ;) In terms of territory and population though, about the same. So for its era, the Roman Empire was definitely the greatest with the Han Empire closely behind.

Knight Dragon I am interested to know where do you get the source of Roman Empire having more roads than Han. At that time the Government build massive construction of roads too

Han Empire population DEFINITELY was greater than that of Roman
I also believe Han Empire is also richer than Roman

An interesting quote from a western historian
"Before 1500's China's GNP and per capita GNP was definitely higher than anywhere else in the world"

When I was reading a book in a library,I found out a very interesting topic, CHINESE ARMIES MIGHT HAVE MET ROMAN ARMIES IN A BATTLE.I forget the year (sorry,shortmemory)but i think it is somewhere 60-80 AD in central asia.It is an English book,it believed it might be a Roman Army from the way the Chinese described the enemy they fought with(Roman Weapons,Armor).Guess what,we BEAT the Romans

When I was reading a book in a library,I found out a very interesting topic, CHINESE ARMIES MIGHT HAVE MET ROMAN ARMIES IN A BATTLE.I forget the year (sorry,shortmemory)but i think it is somewhere 60-80 AD in central asia.It is an English book,it believed it might be a Roman Army from the way the Chinese described the enemy they fought with(Roman Weapons,Armor).Guess what,we BEAT the Romans

:lol: Of course ! Not very difficult. How many of them were there in each camp ? Anybody could defeat a roman legion if they outnumber them 5-1 or more. What's more, Romans, like anybody, have lost battles, even wars, sometimes against weaker enemies. A single battle about which we don't even know the circumstances is not representative. The Gauls or Carthagenians defeated the Romans first, then the tide changed.
In the end, the Romans were destroyed by uncivilised barbarians. Another proof that war is not everything in a civilisation.

The Ottomans. They were so entertainingly decadent- perversions on a scale other empires would have quailed at.

Where's the Aztecs damn it. Or the Incan Empire? You left out all America!

The Empire of Microsoft. No really, voted Roman Empire (In its heyday). A very well documented and interesting period of world history.

Cimbri

Originally posted by Fayadi
Knight Dragon I am interested to know where do you get the source of Roman Empire having more roads than Han. At that time the Government build massive construction of roads tooRead it somewhere - I read a lot. The Romans definitely had more roads - they also had the Mediterranean to serve as their cheap and vast inland transport link. The Roman legions built roads everywhere; some still visible today.

In contrast, China was more mountaineous - more difficult to build roads everywhere. The Chinese depended more on riverine transport - the invasion routes to the south and west etc followed the rivers IIRC. There're roads, just not as abundant as in the West.

Han Empire population DEFINITELY was greater than that of Roman
I also believe Han Empire is also richer than RomanBoth populations were about the same - somewhere in the 50 millions. Wealth is relative. Hard to say who's more prosperous.

An interesting quote from a western historian
"Before 1500's China's GNP and per capita GNP was definitely higher than anywhere else in the world"It was only an opinion - we knew too little about those early times to measure GNP and stuff. Even today, it wasn't done all too accurately done to the last cent.

When I was reading a book in a library,I found out a very interesting topic, CHINESE ARMIES MIGHT HAVE MET ROMAN ARMIES IN A BATTLE.I forget the year (sorry,shortmemory)but i think it is somewhere 60-80 AD in central asia.It is an English book,it believed it might be a Roman Army from the way the Chinese described the enemy they fought with(Roman Weapons,Armor).Guess what,we BEAT the RomansIt was only a few cohorts at most. :rolleyes: Besides, I'd bet they weren't that enthusiatic to fight for their Parthian captors.

Apparently these Roman legionnaires were with Crassus's army when it was defeated by the Parthians at Carrhae. They were captured, then sent to guard the Parthians' eastern frontiers. Where the Chinese were coming from.

Then they got captured by the Chinese and in turn, they served as military-colonists in one of the many Chinese settlements-cum-forts which dotted Turkestan at this time. There were Chinese records describing their appearance, weopans, tactics etc which sounded much like what a Roman legion would be like.

I am not British and still I say that Britain is without a doubt the greatest empire ever. From a small island far north in the world they were able to explore and conquer territory as far as New Zealand which lies as far away from Britain as you can get, excluding inhabitable areas. How could such a "small" people have control over territories and other civs in every continent, Amazing!

Sojus Savjetskich Sotsialisticheskish Respoblik, SSSR.
I dont see it as an empire though...

That location of yours keeps getting more an more disturbing for me, Yang, my hemorrhoid friend... ;) :p

Gotta love the Russian Empire of Peter the Great.

Originally posted by insurgent
That location of yours keeps getting more an more disturbing for me, Yang, my hemorrhoid friend... ;) :p

:lol:

How about now?

Much better, now I can relax... ahh... :cool:

... Hey, wait, that means you're not presently in Kstovo! :eek: ;)


Favourite Empire? I'd say the Roman Empire, but presently I am reading about Napoleon's so I might have that...

Originally posted by insurgent
Much better, now I can relax... ahh... :cool:

... Hey, wait, that means you're not presently in Kstovo! :eek: ;)



Actually, I just switched to that, so you must have missed the one intended; Uranus :lol: ;)

The British Empire - in its entirety, just admirable.

If you love it so much, why did you leave it? Now you can't compete in the Commonwealth games Mr. Nixon. ;)

I go for Alexander's. The Roman Empire was too reliant on slavery (not to say that the Greeks didn't have any). Their ideas of government, architecture, art, drama, music, mathematics, science and astronomy are still widely used today.

Originally posted by newfangle
If you love it so much, why did you leave it? Now you can't compete in the Commonwealth games Mr. Nixon. ;)

I go for Alexander's. The Roman Empire was too reliant on slavery (not to say that the Greeks didn't have any). Their ideas of government, architecture, art, drama, music, mathematics, science and astronomy are still widely used today.

:lol:

What a shame! Instead we developed our own, more civilized sports - yes, I know you'll be there in 60 seconds saying that basketball is Canadian!! :lol: :p

The empire fascinates me, because they rule ruled the world, and have put their mark on so many places in the world that it's still visible today. The Roman empire comes in as #2, but not near as fascinating, as that kind of history usually doesn't appeal to me.

i couldnt voet 4 some reason - the thing said the action was invalid.
anyways i choose the Roman Empire at its height.
Actually, I'd rather have chosen the Roman REPUBLIC before Julius Caesar, but, i justy picked the Roman Empire since it was the closest thing to Roman Republic.

Well, Knight-Dragon, could you call a country that longer existed / exists then the Egyptian Empire? I can't call any: Egypt is the longest Empire on earth, imo.

Was Egypt an empire? Maybe a strong, large and a builder of wonders nation at its time, but not an empire. Compared to many other true empires it was small, didn't conquer much land and therefore didn't influence the world that much. A great long-lasting nation, but not an empire.

British Empire, of course.

Originally posted by Homie
Was Egypt an empire? Maybe a strong, large and a builder of wonders nation at its time, but not an empire.

It held substantial territory in Mesapotamia and Palestine in The New Kingdom period, so technically it was, at least for a time.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Read it somewhere - I read a lot. The Romans definitely had more roads - they also had the Mediterranean to serve as their cheap and vast inland transport link. The Roman legions built roads everywhere; some still visible today.

In contrast, China was more mountaineous - more difficult to build roads everywhere. The Chinese depended more on riverine transport - the invasion routes to the south and west etc followed the rivers IIRC. There're roads, just not as abundant as in the West.

Both populations were about the same - somewhere in the 50 millions. Wealth is relative. Hard to say who's more prosperous.

It was only an opinion - we knew too little about those early times to measure GNP and stuff. Even today, it wasn't done all too accurately done to the last cent.

It was only a few cohorts at most. :rolleyes: Besides, I'd bet they weren't that enthusiatic to fight for their Parthian captors.

Apparently these Roman legionnaires were with Crassus's army when it was defeated by the Parthians at Carrhae. They were captured, then sent to guard the Parthians' eastern frontiers. Where the Chinese were coming from.

Then they got captured by the Chinese and in turn, they served as military-colonists in one of the many Chinese settlements-cum-forts which dotted Turkestan at this time. There were Chinese records describing their appearance, weopans, tactics etc which sounded much like what a Roman legion would be like.

Yeah it sounds like the Romans probably had more roads than the Han.I still dont agree with you one point,how can you prove that Roman Empire was more developed than China?
I dont think who is more developed depends on who has longer roads(Besides the people in China at that time had no trouble travelling in the country and trade was flourishing).I think it should be the wealth.
Han Empire was really wealthy at that time.Han Empire was in my opinion a better society than the Roman.There is meritocracy where everyone can sit for exam and stands a chance to become successful.Han Empire is free from slavery which is rampant in Roman.

I recently watched a programme from History Channel saying that the weapons found in Terracota army was superior than what the West had at that time.The Quality of the Iron of the Sword is the best in the world

DOuble post

Double Post
Sorry I made a mistake by clicking quote instead of edit

Originally posted by Fayadi
[B]Yeah it sounds like the Romans probably had more roads than the Han.I still dont agree with you one point,how can you prove that Roman Empire was more developed than China?
I dont think who is more developed depends on who has longer roads(Besides the people in China at that time had no trouble travelling in the country and trade was flourishing).I think it should be the wealth.

Han Empire was really wealthy at that time.Han Empire was in my opinion a better society than the Roman.There is meritocracy where everyone can sit for exam and stands a chance to become successful.Han Empire is free from slavery which is rampant in Roman.Like I said, wealth is relative. Besides, the Romans were so wealthy too fr all the looting campaigns during the drive for Empire.

And the exam system wasn't really in place until the Tang. And even then only the richest (or those with a sponsor) could afford to study for the imperial exams. There's no such thing as universal education.

And the Chinese peasants might not be that much better off that Roman slaves (who could own slaves themselves); only relatively better. And some Roman slaves did very well; which was impossible for most Chinese peasants. Though I'd hate to be a slave in the Roman galley fleets... :)

I recently watched a programme from History Channel saying that the weapons found in Terracota army was superior than what the West had at that time.The Quality of the Iron of the Sword is the best in the worldThe Chinese were already using the Bessmer (sp?) steel production method 2000 years before Mr Bessmer (sp?) discovered the process... Indeed, Chinese steel technology was superior to Mid-eastern or European iron for a long time.

Greek, Romans, and Europeans later, invested in stone/marble construction instead of wooden or brick ones like in East Asia. That is also a sign of development. Romans could built much taller construction thanks to the arch (their invention), which enabled them to built acqueduct, viaduct (100m high bridge), amphitheatres, etc. I don't know if Chinese houses had floor heating or running water like Roman's ? :-? It seems to me that Romans were much more advanced in science, philosophy and politcs (all Greek inventions :D). They had such a developed legal system that Roman Laws are still used nowadays in Europe (especially Italy, but also in France, Spain, etc.) and were the real precursors to modern legal systems (also in Asia through Western influence).

BTW, I voted British Empire, because in every respect it was more developed and powerful than Rome. It's normal, it's kind of its successor, via the Carolingian, then Franco-Germans Kingdoms. Take a look at London (or major US cities, though the US had alreday been independant for about 50 years when Victoria ascended the throne), all you see in Greco-Romans columns and arches and statues. Britain's classical style isn't its Anglo-Saxon period, but Rome's (and that is true for most of Europe).

Originally posted by Homie
Was Egypt an empire? Maybe a strong, large and a builder of wonders nation at its time, but not an empire. Compared to many other true empires it was small, didn't conquer much land and therefore didn't influence the world that much. A great long-lasting nation, but not an empire. :eek:
Egypt was a real empire. It was indeed a military strong country and a large empire. It was also a builder of Wonders and it was really an empire. Compared to many other true empires it's size was avery/large and it did conquer much land in Egypt itself, Palestina, Syria and therefore it did influence the world. Not that much indeed, but it was having influence.
Short: A great long-lasting nation and an empire.

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
Compared to many other true empires it's size was avery/large and it did conquer much land in Egypt itself, Palestina, Syria and therefore it did influence the world.I think we meant true empires in the sense of like the Roman, Alexandrian, Persian, Byzantine, Arab empires etc. In all these, Egypt was a mere province...

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
:eek:
Egypt was a real empire. It was indeed a military strong country and a large empire. It was also a builder of Wonders and it was really an empire. Compared to many other true empires it's size was avery/large and it did conquer much land in Egypt itself, Palestina, Syria and therefore it did influence the world. Not that much indeed, but it was having influence.
Short: A great long-lasting nation and an empire.

I think the main difference between a knigdom and an empire is that an empire contains several (former) kingdoms. A kingdom that conquers other substantial kingdoms and increase its size 3, 5, 10 or 50 fold can become an empire. Egypt didn't conquer much. Israel/Palestine is not 1/20th of Egypt's size, especially that ancient Egypt extended as far as present-day Sudan (Numibia) and Lybia at a time.

I considered Egypt for the poll just because of its significance as one of the first civilisation, the time it lasted in history and its huge popularity, probably because of the pyramids, hieroglyphs and the magic associated with its mythology.

True empires are stories of dramatic expansion and mixing of cultures. Rome was a mere town that ended up controlling once entire civilisations like Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Israel, Greece, Carthago or the Celts. Alexander conquered several great kingdoms or empires.

Babylon, Assyria, the Hittites, etc. were also more like kingdoms really. They are considered empire because small tribes created the first kingdoms in the history of civilisations, that later invaded each others. That's not more different from the Romans VS Italic, Etruscans or Samnites tribes on the Italian peninsula. They were also from different cultures and ethnies, but not big enough to be real empires. Persia is maybe the only exception (but it was a kingdom, wasn't it ?).

The Spanish or British colonised territories far greater than the European continent, while Napoleon or Hitler invaded and controlled most European kingdoms or nations + colonies.

In India, the Moghul originated from Afghanistan and conquered the numerous Northern Indian kingdoms. I think the conquest process is clear for Genghis Khan and co. too.

The USSR was formed of several countries of very different languages, cultures and ethnies (Kazhaks, Uzbeks, Baltics, Ukrainians, Siberians...).

China is more problematic because it was unified so long ago (Qing Shi Huang Di in the 5th century BC, was it ?) and though empires collapsed and new one succeeded, the people (Han) and culture was roughly the same during 3000 years. It did conquer or control other regions like Tibet, central Asia, Korea or Vietnam, but was not really well established there till this century (after the fall of the empire). Its size and influence probably made it a empire, though I would rather call it the larger kingdom on Earth.
Communist China is not officially an empire, but it is more as such than Imperial China and similar to the USSR (also not officially an empire).

I hope that clarifies my choices.

Sorry I quoted instead o editing...:o

I have recently borrow a book from libary titled "Civilizations of the World:The Human Adventure".It is an English book so dont worry about the book is bias or not.

Let me take a paragraph from it
"The Chinese and The Roman Empires thus remained largely in ignorance of each other except for traveller's tales, although both were of comparable size,sophistication,power and achievements.China might have developed a different and more open attitude to the rest of the world if it had had some experience with another culture,Roman and Indian,at its own level of sophistication.Like the Chinese,the Romans were builders of roads,walls, and planned cities,synthesizers of varied culturesunder an expansionist and cosmopolitan system, and contenders with "barbarians" along the fringes of their empire.The Han Empire was larger, and probably richer and more populous, than either the Roman or the Indian Empire,but its level of cultural and technical sophistication was probably matched by the others "

I have found a source saying about Han Empire being superior than Roman.If anyone disagrees,can you give me a source to prove me wrong?

If the question is "What is the best Empire" ,the reason is quite obvious,no empire or nation has their culture survived for over 2000 years.China continues to be a world power even during its darkest age (1800-1950).For most of the history China owns 1/3 of the world's GDP

The technology changes in the last 2 century has been the fastest in the world.Europe and US was the great powers during these time ,that's way they had gained superb prestige. The West would not have gained these prestige if not what they had done in the last 2 century.So I admit the West ruled during these 2 decade.But before that,I think China rules!

If the question is "What is the best Empire" ,the reason is quite obvious,no empire or nation has their culture survived for over 2000 years.China continues to be a world power even during its darkest age (1800-1950).

That depends on one's point of view. One could say that China's cultural continuity is in fact a long stagnation and sheer lack of progress. Living in Japan, I have always been impressed by the so-called continuity in the Japanese culture. Kimono fashion, architectural styles or even the language have hardly changed at all in 1000 years from the Heian period (794 - 1185) to the end of the Edo Period (1600 - 1868). In the late 19th century, samurai were still fighting with swords like they had done for centuries. Looking at the evolution of Europe since year 1000 to 1900, one can see that fashion, architecture, etc. changed dramatically every century and even every decade since the late 17th c. "Traditional" kimonos worn today in Japan (still common sight in the streets) are the same as 1000 years ago. I can't even thing of what are traditional "English", "French" or "Italian" clothes. 13th c. clothes have nothing to do with Renaissances clothes, nor either of the have any similarities with 16th c. black clothe swith tights and frills, which contrast themself with colourful 3 pieces with vest and triangular hat in the 18th. In the early 19th century, black suits with high collar and a big white tie were in fashion, only to evolve to sth new 10 or 20 years later. There were the same trends for all arts (romance, gothic, renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, post-romantic, expressionist...), from music to painting or literature. What trend can be seen in China or Japan. It's impressively similar through the same last 500 years. Of course, to be able to compare Europe with China through 3000 years of history, it is necessary to take all kingdoms and empires since the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germanic tribes, etc. into account. Europeans aren't less similar together (ethnically and linguistically) than North and South Chinese and Mandchu are together. Chinese dialects (Mandarin, Cantonese, Fuzhou...) are said to be no more different than Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese are between them (you could have taken German, Dutch , Danish, Swedish, Norwedian as well). That's why it is necessary to consider Europeans as a whole to compare them to the Chinese. But every region has developed so much personality inside Europe that people see them as different cultures, though Chinese are just one.

What strikes me with East-Asians is their obsession for money and business. That seems to prime on all the rest. It's as true of Japanese as it is of Koreans or Chinese. The ultimate achievement of a country must be its GDP. Japan is rich on paper, but poor otherwise. People have much smaller homes than Westerners in average, they work longer, have much less holidays, care less about culture and personal development, don't care about the environment, have very little interest in psychology or philosophy and though they have supposedly tough education can't draw a map of their own country (same for Chinese), point to another (small) on a world map, and not suprisingly don't make any distinction between foreigners, just calling them "gaijin" ŠO�‘�l (ditto for Chinese) and always ask the same question (what do you think of Japanese ? Can you eat sushi ? Can you use chopstick ?...), which denotes a utter lack of creativity. At least they are very practical and business oriented people, they care about other's feelings and are great cooks (probably the same for Chinese except caring about other's feelings). These were my critics, but this said, I love Japan and I am also very interested in China. I just wanted to show you that the arguments you chose were, IMHO, far from the best. :rolleyes:


For most of the history China owns 1/3 of the world's GDP

GDP is a modern concept. :p Just the devaluation of a country's currency can change completely its GDP. Some countries are rich only because their currency is extremely strong (like oil exporters). Saudi Arabia saw its GDP/capita cut by half just because its currency fell. :o The real country's production or activity hasn't change though. As there was no such concept as stock exchange, "real" currency exchange (not trading gold for silver or the like) or GDP during most of the history, your assertions have absolutely no meaning. If you found that in a book, then the historian is dumb in economics (very likely, they can't be specialists of every subject). ;)

Originally posted by Julien
I think the main difference between a knigdom and an empire is that an empire contains several (former) kingdoms. A kingdom that conquers other substantial kingdoms and increase its size 3, 5, 10 or 50 fold can become an empire. Egypt didn't conquer much. Israel/Palestine is not 1/20th of Egypt's size, especially that ancient Egypt extended as far as present-day Sudan (Numibia) and Lybia at a time.Yep. :thumbsup:

Persia is maybe the only exception (but it was a kingdom, wasn't it ?).Persia started out as a vassal kingdom of the Medes (a related tribe), then took over them under Cyrus. Then he expanded into Lydia (Anatolia), Babylonia etc and became a true empire. The Jews adored him, 'cause he allowed them to go home, from their Babylonian captivity. His successor, Cambyses, conquered Egypt.

China is more problematic because it was unified so long ago (Qing Shi Huang Di in the 5th century BC, was it ?) and though empires collapsed and new one succeeded, the people (Han) and culture was roughly the same during 3000 years. It did conquer or control other regions like Tibet, central Asia, Korea or Vietnam, but was not really well established there till this century (after the fall of the empire). Its size and influence probably made it a empire, though I would rather call it the larger kingdom on Earth.China was originally consisted of a small Chinese heartland along a swathe of the Yellow River and lots and lots of 'barbarian' kingdoms all around it. Then came the process of unification and assimilation ('barbarian' elements with Chinese culture), until all the peoples within the lands known as 'China' became one, culturally. China was a real 'true' empire that had been around so long that it has become a 'kingdom'. ;)

Communist China is not officially an empire, but it is more as such than Imperial China and similar to the USSR (also not officially an empire).Probably one of the last few 'true' empires on earth.

Originally posted by Julien
What strikes me with East-Asians is their obsession for money and business. That seems to prime on all the rest. It's as true of Japanese as it is of Koreans or Chinese. The ultimate achievement of a country must be its GDP.Blame it on Western materialism. :p The Confucianism inherent in the original cultural make-up of China, Korea and Japan is actually anti-commercial. Confucius thinks merchants are a necessary evil and shld be kept in their places; a trait held, propogated and reinforced by the Confucian-quoting mandarins all thru out history. The path to social prestige has always been thru the imperial exams and govt office, rather than fr becoming rich merchants.

People have much smaller homes than Westerners in average, they work longer, have much less holidays, care less about culture and personal development, don't care about the environment, have very little interest in psychology or philosophy and though they have supposedly tough education can't draw a map of their own country (same for Chinese), point to another (small) on a world map, and not suprisingly don't make any distinction between foreigners, just calling them "gaijin" ŠO�‘�l (ditto for Chinese) and always ask the same question (what do you think of Japanese ? Can you eat sushi ? Can you use chopstick ?...), which denotes a utter lack of creativity.

At least they are very practical and business oriented people, they care about other's feelings and are great cooks (probably the same for Chinese except caring about other's feelings). These were my critics, but this said, I love Japan and I am also very interested in China. I just wanted to show you that the arguments you chose were, IMHO, far from the best. :rolleyes:I think you're making gross over-statements though. There're Chinese and there're Chinese; same as for the Japanese or all other peoples. ;) Though the vast majority of peoples are like that I guess...

No effing contest.

Pax Romana!

Call me crazy, but I liked Napoleon's Empire.

Hey, I also like Napoleon's empire ! It spread the idea of liberty, equality and human rights throughout Europe. I only regret that he was so nepotistic, placing members of his family at the head of every country (not very democratic).

Originally posted by Julien

GDP is a modern concept. :p Just the devaluation of a country's currency can change completely its GDP. Some countries are rich only because their currency is extremely strong (like oil exporters). Saudi Arabia saw its GDP/capita cut by half just because its currency fell. :o The real country's production or activity hasn't change though. As there was no such concept as stock exchange, "real" currency exchange (not trading gold for silver or the like) or GDP during most of the history, your assertions have absolutely no meaning. If you found that in a book, then the historian is dumb in economics (very likely, they can't be specialists of every subject). ;)

I think you are confused.Lets be simple,my point is that China before Industrial Revolution continues to have 1/3 of the world's production for most of the history.

There is two way to count a country's GDP,one is by PPP ,one is by how strong the currency is(that's way sometimes you can see China's GDP is 4.5 billion while other way of measuring is 1.3-1.5 billion). The historians are talking about the PPP,it doesnt make sense if they referring to the currency.

Roman Empire is overrated! Why are so many people still voting for an empire that has already been dead for so long.They werent the greatest during their period.Their empire is short lived.They had trouble dealing with Germanic tribe and Huns (it is because of Han Empire militarism that the Huns migrated to meet Roman) during their later period.If you are western centric,I think voting for Greek makes more sense than voting for Roman.Greek has a big influence for the West .Democracy,West's biggest cultural export is Greek.Roman was also influenced by Greek.Voting for an empire that has no influence over the west or the world doesnt makes sense at all

Well, the question is not "Which empire has the biggest influence on the world?" but "What's your favorite empire?" So, I guess, many people like the Roman Empire. Maybe because of his size, maybe because of his warfare methods, I don't know. People just like the Roman Empire. Sorry, I can't do anything about it. Besides, it's one of my own favorites too, so...

Originally posted by Fayadi
Roman Empire is overrated! Why are so many people still voting for an empire that has already been dead for so long.

Half of these empires fell more than 1000 years ago. None of tem really exist anymore (except communist China, which isn't really communist though). That's why it's a history poll. ;-)

They werent the greatest during their period.Their empire is short lived.They had trouble dealing with Germanic tribe and Huns (it is because of Han Empire militarism that the Huns migrated to meet Roman) during their later period.

Short lived ? Rome was an empire during about 500 years and we should include the periods of the republic (even monarchy) just before in its history (empire aren't made in one day...). Having a look at the other posibilities, I see that Nazi Germany lasted for a decade, Napoleon and Alexander's empire not much longer, the USSR or communist China less than a century, and on the whole, only 2 lasted longer than Rome : Egypt and China. What's more Egypt itself became part of the Roman empire. :egypt: Well, there is also the Byzantine, but it is Rome (its other name was the Eastern Roman Empire, since the full empire was administratively split in Western and Eastern halves in the 4th century).

If you are western centric,I think voting for Greek makes more sense than voting for Roman.Greek has a big influence for the West .Democracy,West's biggest cultural export is Greek.Roman was also influenced by Greek.Voting for an empire that has no influence over the west or the world doesnt makes sense at all

Not sure you know anything at all about the Roman empire. I haven't included Greece in the poll, because it has never been an empire, just a collection of city state, at best including a small kingdom. The Romans received all the knowledge from the Greeks (which is not true from all other annexed territories) and it was common for rich Romans to study in Greece (in Greek !). Almost everything we know from Ancient Greece, we got them through Latin translations made by the Romans.

More importantly, half of the English vocabulary comes from Latin (the Roman's language). French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian come 95% from Latin. What bigger influence could you expect, when the whole of America, Oceania, Africa and half of Europe have one of these language as official language (+ Singapore, Malyasia, Hong Kong, India, and formerly Indochina, etc.). There are more speakers of a Latin language (including English) in the world than of Mandarin.

From the Romans, we got the republic, legal and political system, rhetoric, poetry, literature... They had the biggest influence on European architecture (Romanesque, Renaissance, Classical...) and the arts in general. Most scientific words in biology, botany, zoology and chemistry come from Latin (and new Latin words are still invented each year for new species, so the language isn't really dead). To give you an idea of which part of the vocabulary yu use everyday come from Latin, take (almsot) all the words and derivative that begin in pro-, anti-, a-, ex, in, con-, com-, de-, re-, ... or the ones ending in -tion, -ment, -ity, -ete, -nce, -age, -ific, -ize, .-al, -um ... That's not yet half, but you can recognize plenty of words (convenience, construction, conference, complete, civilization, forum, proceed, language, special, political, etc, etc.)

Latin itself was still spoken throughout the Middle Ages in all Europe (also parts that were not Romans) and was a de facto lingua franca (sorry, 2 pure Latin phrases !) for the common people until the beginning of the 20th century (because the mass in churches was said in Latin until about 50 years ago).

Check also all the Latin expressions and phrases so many of us use as a signature, e.g. (exempli gratia =>Latin !) CivilopediaCity just above...

Do you still see any good reason why people should not vote for the Romans ?

Originally posted by Fayadi


I think you are confused.Lets be simple,my point is that China before Industrial Revolution continues to have 1/3 of the world's production for most of the history.

There is two way to count a country's GDP,one is by PPP ,one is by how strong the currency is(that's way sometimes you can see China's GDP is 4.5 billion while other way of measuring is 1.3-1.5 billion). The historians are talking about the PPP,it doesnt make sense if they referring to the currency.

I don't know who is confused, but I majored in both economics and philosophy (which has a lot of history lessons). PPP = purchasing power parity, i.e. (id est, Latin for "that is", FYI), which you calculate by comparing revenues to prices. So if a country has high salaries (like Japan), but that everything is expensive (Japan !), the PPP GDP per capita is lower than if prices were the same as in the reference country. Given that international currency exchange rates, GDP calculation and PPP adjustment are all very modern things (didn't exist 200 years ago), I don't see how historians could possibly assess that. It's even difficult to assess PPP nowadays because products prices vary so much depending on what it is. Rice may be cheaper in Tokyo than NY or London, but juice, pasta or cars might be more expensive. Add to food, drinks, clothes, electronics, etc. the cost of electricty, water, gas, petrol, or land and house prices and you'll soon have an idea of the complexity of calculating PPP.

Frankly, even in a single political entity like the Roman empire or China, prices surely varied a lot depending on where the products were made (apples or timber would be cheaper in the north, while olive oil and wine cheaper in the south).

Originally posted by Julien


I don't know who is confused, but I majored in both economics and philosophy (which has a lot of history lessons). PPP = purchasing power parity, i.e. (id est, Latin for "that is", FYI), which you calculate by comparing revenues to prices. So if a country has high salaries (like Japan), but that everything is expensive (Japan !), the PPP GDP per capita is lower than if prices were the same as in the reference country. Given that international currency exchange rates, GDP calculation and PPP adjustment are all very modern things (didn't exist 200 years ago), I don't see how historians could possibly assess that. It's even difficult to assess PPP nowadays because products prices vary so much depending on what it is. Rice may be cheaper in Tokyo than NY or London, but juice, pasta or cars might be more expensive. Add to food, drinks, clothes, electronics, etc. the cost of electricty, water, gas, petrol, or land and house prices and you'll soon have an idea of the complexity of calculating PPP.

Frankly, even in a single political entity like the Roman empire or China, prices surely varied a lot depending on where the products were made (apples or timber would be cheaper in the north, while olive oil and wine cheaper in the south).


I think If a country has a high production,the PPP of the nation should be high
But I know Chinese people living standard is the highest in the world for most of the history.The sources I got all comes from English book.Their production is also the highest in the world (even larger than the entire west)
Why historians think that China has the highest PPP per capita is because Chinese peasants live better than what other peasants live in other parts of the world.

Roman Empire is indeed a great civilization,they might have a huge impact on the west(but less influence than Greek),but sometimes I feel disturbed by people giving claim such as "Roman Empire during its heyday is the greatest civilization on Earth". People giving such claims never actually back up their claims and sometimes are arrogant of the existence "other nation" that is superior.Roman is definitely a world power,but if in the case of Superpower,that is less likely.Their military machine might be "A" superpower but not in terms of overall national strength(science,economy,military)

Chinese peasants live better than what other peasants live in other parts of the world.

I've read "Wild Swans", by Jung Chang (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385425473/qid=1042445861/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-4504423-2082442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Its being a great book notwithstanding, the author also speaks of how Chinese peasant life was so harsh and how it hadn't changed for 2000 years. From her description, countryside life in China even in the 1950's and '60's was pretty much the same as in the Middle Ages in Europe, that is Europe's dark age. Why should they still work or use tools that were primitive (from her description and opinion) even 500 years ago in Europe. What shocked me most in the book was how Chinese under Mao's regime fooled themselves in thinking that they were the greatest nation on Earth and that capitalist countries were hell in comparison. Most people belived this kind of propaganda. I have studied Japanese in Tokyo with about 20 (relatively rich and educated) Chinese in a language school in Tokyo. They were mostly ignorant of the anyhting in the West (though willing to learn as they asked me lots of questions). They always made comments in class such as China is the greatest country with the longest history, the largest population, repeating again and again that the 2008 Olympics will be held in China and other very proud and nationalistic comments. What I realised from talking to them is that they imagined that people in Europe lived in houses worse than Japanese, when in reality the average size is double or triple.

May I ask you Fayadi, are you a Chinese from China ? I mean where you born and educated there ? Because you sound like you were.

Originally posted by Julien
There are more speakers of a Latin language (including English) in the world than of Mandarin.As a first language, Mandarin wins hands-down. As a spoken language, English wins, but then the largest single number of people speaking English will be the Chinese. :) Which is a good thing, speaking two languages.

Anyways, English is a Germanic language, not a 'Latin' (Romance) language (French, Italian etc).

Originally posted by Julien
I've read "Wild Swans", by Jung Chang (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385425473/qid=1042445861/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-4504423-2082442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Its being a great book notwithstanding, the author also speaks of how Chinese peasant life was so harsh and how it hadn't changed for 2000 years.IMO that's a gross over-simplication. Nothing stays the same for 2000 years, not even for the Chinese. 2000 years ago, they ate grain. Today, rice. That in itself is a huge change.

Then there're the good times and the bad, depending on the climate and the effectiveness of the imperial govt (if there's one).

One reason why the same tools are used for so many centuries is because they've been perfected for their purpose over the centuries. Esp for rice-farming, which is a manpower-intensive form of agriculture, and only recently mechanized with some success.

Sorry double post

Originally posted by Julien


I've read "Wild Swans", by Jung Chang (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385425473/qid=1042445861/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-4504423-2082442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Its being a great book notwithstanding, the author also speaks of how Chinese peasant life was so harsh and how it hadn't changed for 2000 years. From her description, countryside life in China even in the 1950's and '60's was pretty much the same as in the Middle Ages in Europe, that is Europe's dark age. Why should they still work or use tools that were primitive (from her description and opinion) even 500 years ago in Europe. What shocked me most in the book was how Chinese under Mao's regime fooled themselves in thinking that they were the greatest nation on Earth and that capitalist countries were hell in comparison. Most people belived this kind of propaganda. I have studied Japanese in Tokyo with about 20 (relatively rich and educated) Chinese in a language school in Tokyo. They were mostly ignorant of the anyhting in the West (though willing to learn as they asked me lots of questions). They always made comments in class such as China is the greatest country with the longest history, the largest population, repeating again and again that the 2008 Olympics will be held in China and other very proud and nationalistic comments. What I realised from talking to them is that they imagined that people in Europe lived in houses worse than Japanese, when in reality the average size is double or triple.

May I ask you Fayadi, are you a Chinese from China ? I mean where you born and educated there ? Because you sound like you were.

Average Japanese GDP per income (not counting PPP)is higher than most Europeans,so I can say Japanese are richer than Europeans.Japanese has quite a different situation than European,their property price is so high,their house are much more expensive than anywhere else in the world.I think that's the reason why Japanese live in smaller houses than European.I am not educated in China.All of the history and politics books I read are all English,I dont read Chinese because they are not informative as English or as reliable(I am referring to European books).
I have to completely agree that lives under Mao is a disaster and I think China during Mao should be considered one of her dark age. I still believe that Chinese peasants live better than those in Europe,why?Because the China's GDP (or national production ) is the highest in the world,so it is reasonable to assume that peasants in China are richer than other parts of the world.Her Iron technology and agricultural system was the most advanced during for most of the history before Industrial revolution.Even when Marco Polo went back to Europe to tell about his experience in China ,nobody believes him because of the existence of a society that is so sophisticated,superior than their own.
I think I have seen the book wild swans,I just take a brief look,not really read it because I am not quite interested in reading personal accounts.I have just seen the review,the review didnt mention anything about how Chinese peasants living in the Ancient age.The review said the book is about how 3 women live in China during Mao age,will there be anything about Chinese peasants living millenia ago?

in history, China was probably a better place to live in compared the medeivel Europe (a hellish place, as far as I have gathered.)

The absence of a hereditary aristocracy made life a bit better in China compared to being a, say french peasant during the age of the crusades.

Almost any of the Chineese dynasties are worthy of awe and interest, only during the Roman time could Europe (Rome) compete with China (Han).

As for communist China, well, Mao and his gang seem lika a bunch of :):):):):):):)s. However, mad Chiang Kai Check was hardly the "good guy". In the end, I think China will come out on the other side of communism in a not too distant future.

And about Chineese being patriotic? Why should'nt they?

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
As a first language, Mandarin wins hands-down. As a spoken language, English wins, but then the largest single number of people speaking English will be the Chinese. :) Which is a good thing, speaking two languages.

Anyways, English is a Germanic language, not a 'Latin' (Romance) language (French, Italian etc).

I was saying that "Latin languageS" are more widely spoken than Chinese. Let's count together (all estimates) :

Mandarin : about 880 million
All Chinese dialects : about 1,3 billion (excluding Tibetan, and non sino-tibetan languages in China).

Italian speakers : 120 million (60m in Italy + 60m of Italians living abroad - USA, Canada, Venezuala, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Europe...)
Spanish speakers : 390 million
Portuguese speakers : 190 m (Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, etc.)
French speakers : 72m (native) +about 60 m as a 2nd language (half of Africa, Europe, US/Canada, etc.) = 130 m
Romanian speakers : 20 million

Subtotal Latin = 870 m

English speakers : about 500 million (native) + about 1 to 2 billion as a second language and growing everyday.

Grand Total = 1, 37 billion + 1 to 2 billion = about 2,5 billion.

sources : http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/languages/languages.html

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0775272.html

http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html

English is both a Latin and Germanic language. Old English is Germanic, but modern English took 50% of itsvocabulary from Latin (mostly via French, but also directly). That makes Old English almsot completely ununderstandable to modern speakers, while Italian, Spansih or Germans (depends which dialect) can understand quite well their language 500 or 1000 years ago (I've learn them all and I have tried to read old forms of each - Italian and Spanish have changed very little in 500 years).

Latin scrpit is the definitely the most widely used in the world, what Fayadi seems to have overlooked as a Roman heritage.
;)

Maybe but I still think English is firmly classified as a Germanic language, grammar-wise and despite its vocalbulary borrowings. Maybe some word fr the experts...

I was also under the impression that English was classified as a Germanic language, since its grammar and structure are more Germanic.

Fayadi wrote :
Average Japanese GDP per income (not counting PPP)is higher than most Europeans,so I can say Japanese are richer than Europeans.Japanese has quite a different situation than European,their property price is so high,their house are much more expensive than anywhere else in the world.I think that's the reason why Japanese live in smaller houses than European

Japanese salaries are higher only in Tokyo. The average salary in Tokyo is 43800US$/year, while the second and third richest region are Aichi (Nagoya) and Osaka, which make 60% of that with respectively 28500 and 27500US$/year. The pooreest Japanese prefectures only have an average salary of 15000 to 18000 US$/year and 19 out of 47 prefecture make less than 20000$/year, which is less than most EU countries. (source = http://demographia.com/db-intlppp-regiona.htm ).

Real Esate prices in Japan have fallen by 50% to 80% in the last 12 years (especially Osaka and Tokyo). Now, London is more expensive than Tokyo (I have lived in both cities and checked a lot real estate prices, so I am sure). Nevertheless, most people in London have a house with garden, which is unthinkable in Tokyo or any Japanese cities.

Average salaries in London are 52000US$/year, which is nearly 20% more than Tokyo, twice Osaka's and about 3 times that of poorer Japanese regions.

Originally posted by Crimson Sunrise
I was also under the impression that English was classified as a Germanic language, since its grammar and structure are more Germanic.

English sentence's structure is the same as in Latin language. It was totally different in Old and Middle English though. Germanic languages usually reject the verb at th endof the sentence (I know it's like that in German and Dutch). It's not the case in English, nor in Latin languages. There used to be declinations (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative...) in Old English. German still have them, but not English or any Latin languages (though Latin had them too). Most idiomatic expressions in English are the same as in French but usually not in Dutch or German. I know that English is usually classified as Germanic, but I think it's a mistake, because it's modern form is as Germanic as Latin.

This is my opinion as an English and French teacher.

I am talking about Japan as a whole.There is no doubt that average Japanese are richer than most European(whether using PPP or not)
PPP figures
http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdp2001.html
Without PPP(Japanese is 2nd highest in the world,even higher than USA)
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rank.htm

Your point about London houses more expensive than Tokyo is right(I believe it is because Pound Sterling is overvalued).The fact remains that Japanese houses are among the most expensive in the world(not the most anymore).
About why Japanese dont have big houses ,I dont really know(because it is quite strange when the businessman class can afford to buy it but refused to) because what I have heard people dont buy big houses there because it is expensive
Tokyo is the largest city in the world with population about 24 million but I dont think thats the reason why people dont buy big houses

Originally posted by Fayadi
About why Japanese dont have big houses ,I dont really know(because it is quite strange when the businessman class can afford to buy it but refused to) because what I have heard people dont buy big houses there because it is expensive
Tokyo is the largest city in the world with population about 24 million but I dont think thats the reason why people dont buy big houses The average Japanese family's house is small is for the same reason as Singapore - lack of sufficient arable land to build bigger homes for all Japanese. You have like 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the US population squeezed into a landmass the size of California - with maybe 80% of the country being mountaineous or otherwise unsuitable. Minus the land land agricultural, industrial use etc, you'll have even less.

Put in the high demand for housing and little supply of land to meet that demand; you'll have Japan's situation - small homes at expensive rates. The Tokyo area is worse 'cause they're holding like 1/4 of Japan's population.

Originally posted by Fayadi
I am talking about Japan as a whole.There is no doubt that average Japanese are richer than most European(whether using PPP or not)
PPP figures
http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdp2001.html
Without PPP(Japanese is 2nd highest in the world,even higher than USA)
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rank.htm

Well, I've been living in Tokyo for 2 years. My wife is Japanese. I know how much cost a house in Japan and how big they are. I have compared GDP the figures before too. BTW, did you really compare GDP/capita in the first link you gave me ? (the second is outdated, from 1997) It says :

GDP per capita

Japan = $23,311

France = $23,142 (about the same, actually higer now as the euros went up by 20% against the yen compared to last year)
Belgium= $23,766 (more than Japan. It's also the country I am from)
Luxembourg = $33,609 (highest GDP per capita in the world, and it's not new)
Switzerland = $27,126
Denmark = $23,930
Norway = $24,837
Iceland = $23,230

Outside Europe, not just the US have higher or similar GDP/capita than Japan :

Singapore = $23,607
Canada = $23,091

I would rather trust the number from a world-renown magazine like the Economist (http://economist.com/countries/index.cfm). Japan's GDP/capita at PPP was US$26,608 in 2001.

Most Western European countries have similar or higher figures :

Higher : Norway (US$31,252), Switzerland (US$30,881), Denmark (US$29,792), Austria (US$27,610), Belgium (US$26,946), Germany (US$26,680)... and of course Luxembourg and the Netherlands, which data wasn't available (but for sure higher than Belgium).

Slightly lower : Italy (US$26,150), Sweden (US$25,720), France (US$25,670), Finland (US$ 25,960), Britain (US$25,206),

I should also remind you that the euro had never been so low than in 2001 (even considering the other currencies average in the last 10 years). It's much higher now, so you should raise all figures of Euro-zone country by at least 10-15% (if not 20%) to have something reflecting the real situation.

Fayadi wrote : "Your point about London houses more expensive than Tokyo is right(I believe it is because Pound Sterling is overvalued).The fact remains that Japanese houses are among the most expensive in the world(not the most anymore).
About why Japanese dont have big houses ,I dont really know(because it is quite strange when the businessman class can afford to buy it but refused to) because what I have heard people dont buy big houses there because it is expensive
Tokyo is the largest city in the world with population about 24 million but I dont think thats the reason why people dont buy big houses"


Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
The average Japanese family's house is small is for the same reason as Singapore - lack of sufficient arable land to build bigger homes for all Japanese. You have like 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the US population squeezed into a landmass the size of California - with maybe 80% of the country being mountaineous or otherwise unsuitable. Minus the land land agricultural, industrial use etc, you'll have even less.

Put in the high demand for housing and little supply of land to meet that demand; you'll have Japan's situation - small homes at expensive rates. The Tokyo area is worse 'cause they're holding like 1/4 of Japan's population.


Japanese people don't invest in big houses because of earthquakes. It's no need to spend all your money on something that could be destroyed the next day. Traditionally, Japanese have smaller, darker houses and spend more time outside than Northern Europeans. I think that's why houses are smaller. Prices are for sure overevaluated, but that is because of the bubble years. Prices have been going down for 12 years and nobody see an end to it, which confirms it was way overevaluated. Oddly enough, there is no much difference of price between disctrict like in most Western cities. Like for cinemas (one single price for the whole country, same right in the center of Tokyo or in the remote country-side), accommodation prices in Tokyo don't change much overall. The proximity to a station or house age are more important factors. Prices are kept high by construction companies, which fix the prices and are now having serious financial problems as the market is saturated. Contrarily to the common opinion, Japan doesn't lack space (its population density is the same as Belgium and lower than the Netherlands). There are now too many houses, which is bringing prices down year after year, as the population has stopped increasing (and is starting to decrease) and construction firms are continuing to built more and more big appartment blocks instead of small houses to avoid going bust.

It is also a myth that Japan is such a small country. It is bigger than any European country, bare France and Spain. It is twice the size of England with the same population density. It is so long that it would stretch from Denmark to Morocco, or from England to Turkey. Most Japanese people are not aware of that themselves. I hear everyday from them how Japan is small and blablabla. Are they kidding or what ? It is 13 times the size of my country (Belgium), which is the 7th most populous of the EU 15, or 9th most populous of all Europe (out of 30 countries). The Kanto plain, where Tokyo is built and which is complete flat is already bigger than the Netherlands. Of course there are mountain, but why the relatively flat island of Hokkaido, which lies at the same latitude as Northern Italy, is bigger than the Benelux in liveable land area but only has 5 million inhabitants (against 27 million for the Benelux) ? Is that a crowded country ? The stange thing is that it's in the Benelux, England and the German Rhineland, the most densily populated part of Europe that people have the biggest houses. These regions also have higher or equivalent GDP per capita to Japan, what makes the comparison very easy.

Originally posted by Julien
It is also a myth that Japan is such a small country. It is bigger than any European country, bare France and Spain. It is twice the size of England with the same population density. It is so long that it would stretch from Denmark to Morocco, or from England to Turkey. Most Japanese people are not aware of that themselves. I hear everyday from them how Japan is small and blablabla. Are they kidding or what ? It is 13 times the size of my country (Belgium), which is the 7th most populous of the EU 15, or 9th most populous of all Europe (out of 30 countries). The Kanto plain, where Tokyo is built and which is complete flat is already bigger than the Netherlands. Of course there are mountain, but why the relatively flat island of Hokkaido, which lies at the same latitude as Northern Italy, is bigger than the Benelux in liveable land area but only has 5 million inhabitants (against 27 million for the Benelux) ? Is that a crowded country ? The stange thing is that it's in the Benelux, England and the German Rhineland, the most densily populated part of Europe that people have the biggest houses. These regions also have higher or equivalent GDP per capita to Japan, what makes the comparison very easy. [/B]
Well, you know what? Everyone thinks that Japan is small because on maps you always see it on relation to China, Indonesia and Rusland. Than Japans doesn't look that big, but if you look to the lengt and width degrees on relation to Europa: then the north of Hokkaido is the north of Denmark, the south of Japan is Gibraltar, the west is Bretagne and the East Hungary: so Japan is large for European standards.

You've got it ! Japan usually compare itself to its neighbours (China, Russia, Indonesia, Australia) but also and especially to the USA (and Canada) or even Brazil where more than 1 million Japanese emigrated (you often see programmes o TV in Japan interviewing Japanese-Brazilian). It's just convenien for them to say their country is so small and mountainous, though so powerful economically. The truth is Russia, Australia or Canada have proportionally less liveable land than Japan, that enjoys very pleasant weather all the year almost anywhere (at worst Hokkaido is as cold as Switzerland in winter).

I've asked dozens of Japanese which country they thought to be bigger between Japan and the UK and everybody was convinced that Japan was much smaller (when it is in fact twice bigger)

Indeed, Julien! It's depending on how you compare Japan to other countries.
Besides, imo, Japan is way more bigger then twice the UK, but that doesn't matter, because after all: Japan is bigger than the UK.

Japan is much bigger than UK but not twice. Some facts:

Japan: 377,835 sq km, 335.4
persons per square kilometer.

UK (England, Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland): 244,800 sq km, 376 persons per sq km.

Spain: 504,782 sq km,
77.5 persons per square kilometer.

France: 547,030 sq km, 107 per. per sq km.

Germany: 357,021 sq km, 230 persons per sq km.

Wow, this thread lives!!!

We should have a runoff election between the Romans, the CCCP and the Brits, since they are the obvious leaders.

R.III

Sorry for the confusion ; my memory is failing... England is about 1/3 of Japan's size (and more densely populated), not the UK, which is 2/3.

Area: 129,720 sq km (50,085 sq mi)
Population: 50 million

I wouldn't be able to choose between the Romans or the Brits. They lived at so different times that it's very difficult to assess which is better. It's all about your personal feeling (well I guess the whole poll thing is...). Nonetheless, the British empire and CCCP have had a period in common between WWI and II. I don't understand why people should prefer the CCCP (even compared to the US), as it clearly failed and implosed because its system (communim) couldn't match American and Western European capitalism, which originated in Britain.

English is considered mostly to be a germanic language with latin input. The Scandinavien languages are very similar (We understand each other, they are almost dialects) and are considered Germanic, ca a 1000 years a e.g. Norwegian could go to England and the English and Norwegian could communicate, like Scandinaviens do today. So they used to be very similar, all the Nordic languages evolved but English changed more than the rest and we can no longer understand each other (without education).

by Julien
Germanic languages usually reject the verb at th endof the sentence (I know it's like that in German and Dutch
That is only true for the core Germanic languages you mentioned. All other Germanic languages have moved away from that inflection (bending of verbs), so that doesn't exclude English from the Germanic language group.

English is a mixed language, its core is Germanic and its main source of influx is latin (although it has many other influxes, probably because it was a major empire streching across the world. Vote British Empire :D

Originally posted by Homie
...The Scandinavien languages are very similar (We understand each other, they are almost dialects)...

Indeed, when I'm watching at a German tv programme, I can almost hear my own language, Dutch.

And they say that I you come from the countryside in the east of the Netherlands, that you can almost understand Swedish without education.

Those languages are all so close to each other...

Yep, same for Latin languages. And the good thing is that English is easy to learn for both Germanic and Latin languages speakers. The former will have easier at the begining but might encounter difficulties with idiomatic expressions, proverbs or very formal words, while the latter wlll pain a bit more at the outset, but won't have any difficulty understanding "difficult" English.

Originally posted by Julien
Yep, same for Latin languages. And the good thing is that English is easy to learn for both Germanic and Latin languages speakers. The former will have easier at the begining but might encounter difficulties with idiomatic expressions, proverbs or very formal words, while the latter wlll pain a bit more at the outset, but won't have any difficulty understanding "difficult" English. Yes, but it was Hell of a language to learn for a Chinese speaker. :p Do you know Chinese don't have articles or tenses and you can squeeze an entire word like army (two sounds) into one Chinese character?

IMO European languages (whether Romance or Germanic) are hard to learn and have too many strange rules... :)

That's right, Julien + Knight-Dragon.