History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
Assyrians conquered Babylon, I believe. Later Babylon (with help from other nations) conquered Assyria. Not sure if the Neo-Babylonian empire was a part of the Assyrian, or formed after it's collapse.
The original (first) Babylonian Empire was generally non aggressive, or overly expansionistic, however, that changed with Nebu and the New Babylonian empire.
Thanks to Traitorfish
GreekAnalyzer
Back from the Dead
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,936
Most were not due to the US taking their research in exchange for pardons.
Actually, Hammurabi forged his empire by a combination of diplomacy followed by conquest. (It soon disintegrated after his death.) So the actual qualities of both empires aren't that different.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Frankly, there's a direct line of continuity in Middle Eastern Empires from Sargon to Darius.
People always use Greek and Roman gods interchangeably. But, aside from their names, were there any noteworthy ways in which Greek and Roman religion differed? I get the impression that Athena/Minerva and Ares/Mars were examples, but were there other things?
People always use Greek and Roman gods interchangeably. But, aside from their names, were there any noteworthy ways in which Greek and Roman religion differed? I get the impression that Athena/Minerva and Ares/Mars were examples, but were there other things?
Roman religion had a much stronger sense that the gods decided right and wrong - fas, which is roughly equivalent to 'divine law', is hugely more common than any equivalent in Greek. You also have the lares and penates, the household gods, which didn't exist in Greek religion. Bear in mind that even within Greek religion there was a huge amount of variation 'within' gods - each shrine had their own conception of precisely what the god was, and the people worshipping 'Apollo Delphinus' in Delphi might have had extremely different ideas about what Apollo was like (or at least different priorities in worshipping those attributes) than those worshipping 'Apollo Epicourios' in Attica.
GreekAnalyzer
Back from the Dead
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,936
Also, the Roman gods were more about order and strength (since they were a unified state) compared to Greece.
Agreed, Nazi scientists, Japanese "research", quite disgusting, US takes in anything it can learn from. Wonder if it's the same with crash landed alien spacecraft, as some maintain.
Just imagine if the ancient Hellas were unified, before the Macedonian times, what a grand empire they could have built!
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Just imagine if all of humanity had stayed on the Greek live and let live path of free states rather than take up the pathological path of expand or die imperialism.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Just imagine if we stayed in Africa! New Jersey wouldn't even have existed!
This makes no sense whatsoever: Roman religion is a bit older than their 'unified state'-whatever that means. A lot of what we think of as 'Roman' religion was actually Etruscan in origin.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Even the Greeks didn't remotely do that.
And, while I can never tell what Plato thinks is natural and what he's ultimately discrediting, The Republic gives a good reason why not.
While I agree with the main statement, on what basis are you extrapolating from 'the Republic' to 'the Greeks'? Plato was unconventional to say the least.
Great sense of humour
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
My reason for bringing it up is this: Obviously Plato presents his arguments via dialogue. Some of his dialogue presented are things he doesn't agree with, since he has to introduce them to knock it down. Other times, there are things he may be indifferent on, but he presents an argument showing why it logically happens.
In the Republic, he creates his ideal city that starts off in what I think could be described as a Utopia. It's a small city that has exactly what's needed and nothing more and nothing less. But others found this unrealistic and suggested that he instead make it a gluttonous city (the word chosen in my translation). It's this city that conquerors and enslaves its neighbors. It's also this city that pretty much all of his discussion about the Guardians, etc. (i.e., all the stuff we find creepy) become necessary. I think there's a good argument that Plato is actually arguing against conquest - particularly because he speaks negatively later of slavery (first slavery of Greeks, then slavery of all).
But, either way, I think it's a comment on human nature and the normal state of mind the Greeks had regarding their Polis. That's why I brought it up with regards to the Greeks choosing to expand (and the suggestion that humanity shouldn't have this desire to expand either).
It's worth remembering that Plato's Republic isn't exactly about politics - the whole thing is meant to be an allegory for human nature. Plato's considered political views are found in the Laws, a much more boring work but one that was more politically influential in antiquity.
1832 (the Great Reform Act) to 1969 (voting age reduced to 18), basically. Arguably the most important date was 1918, when all men and all women got the vote (though women had to be 30 and men only had to be 21).
1832 (the Great Reform Act) to 1969 (voting age reduced to 18), basically. Arguably the most important date was 1918, when all men and all women got the vote (though women had to be 30 and men only had to be 21).
Similar threads
