Perennial states

[Slickshooter]

Well let's try to think of this like civ. The civilizations and regions mentioned are some of the oldest continually habituated regions on the planet. Therefore, it is not a surprise that they continue to pop up because a distinct culture, very old, is common throughout the region and becomes a marker for unification. Whether it is northern and southern India, or Egypt or Persia, these areas have ancient cultural identities that are simply hard to extinguish.

 

[obliterate]

If a nation occupies the same geographical region as a previous nation, does that make it another incarnation of that empire?

I don't think so.

The ottoman empire was not another byzantine empire.

Is Egypt today the same as ancient Egypt? Same name, same area but was ancient Egypt arabic?

 

[Slickshooter]

If a nation occupies the same geographical region as a previous nation, does that make it another incarnation of that empire?

I don't think so.

The ottoman empire was not another byzantine empire.

Is Egypt today the same as ancient Egypt? Same name, same area but was ancient Egypt arabic?

I meant it in terms of cultural influence. As in the ottoman hammam or Turkish baths were directly influenced by the Byzantine/Roman baths and its unfair to the Ottoman empire because they occupied many geographic regions and therefore were influenced by many different cultures. In regard to Egypt, the Egyptian identity was still strong even after Arab occupation. Many modern Egyptians ( I know quite a few) consider themselves Egyptian more than Arab and would actually be insulted if called Arab. My point is that these "revivals" of certain civilizations and peoples are very much influenced by cultural identity that is very ancient.

 

[Sharwood]

Just because they identify with a group doesn't mean they're culturally linked. In the Lebanese Civil War, the Maronites claimed descent from the ancient Phoenicians, and tried to establish some sort of Phoenician identity, but it just didn't work. I think you're confusing cultural diffusion with cultural nationalism.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Just because they identify with a group doesn't mean they're culturally linked. In the Lebanese Civil War, the Maronites claimed descent from the ancient Phoenicians, and tried to establish some sort of Phoenician identity, but it just didn't work. I think you're confusing cultural diffusion with cultural nationalism.

Yes, but there's a difference. Returning to the example of Egypt, there's a surprising amount of similarity between ancient and modern Egypt. All evidence points to Ancient Egyptian peasants living in almost exactly the same manner as modern Egyptian fellahin, and beyond that, life in Egypt before the arrival of Napoleon, by all accounts, differed from life in Ancient Egypt only in that they now spoke Arabic (and in a dialect that has significant influences from Coptic, the modern form of Ancient Egyptian, in terms of both grammar and vocabulary) and were mostly Muslim. You can't say this about the Phoenicians and the modern Lebanese. The difference is cultural and political stability; Lebanon traded hands several times, and was never the center of a strong empire that exerted political control over a lot of territory (colonies don't count!), whereas Egypt was conquered only a few times, and did have an empire of its own. Really, it all depends.

 

[Shekwan]

Ireland of course.

 

[Sharwood]

Yes, but there's a difference. Returning to the example of Egypt, there's a surprising amount of similarity between ancient and modern Egypt. All evidence points to Ancient Egyptian peasants living in almost exactly the same manner as modern Egyptian fellahin, and beyond that, life in Egypt before the arrival of Napoleon, by all accounts, differed from life in Ancient Egypt only in that they now spoke Arabic (and in a dialect that has significant influences from Coptic, the modern form of Ancient Egyptian, in terms of both grammar and vocabulary) and were mostly Muslim. You can't say this about the Phoenicians and the modern Lebanese. The difference is cultural and political stability; Lebanon traded hands several times, and was never the center of a strong empire that exerted political control over a lot of territory (colonies don't count!), whereas Egypt was conquered only a few times, and did have an empire of its own. Really, it all depends.

And Egypt maintained that culture largely dure to geographic reasons. Namely, they're a naturally strategic region, with a large population, and abundant natural resources. Therefore they were more than capable of defending themselves, and were strong enough to throw off their foreign oppressors in almost every case.

My point was that an ancient cultural identity has nothing to do with national revivals, not that some nations, such as Egypt and, somewhat obviously, China, do have a continuing culture. As I said, he was confusing cultural diffusion with cultural nationalism.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

And Egypt maintained that culture largely dure to geographic reasons. Namely, they're a naturally strategic region, with a large population, and abundant natural resources. Therefore they were more than capable of defending themselves, and were strong enough to throw off their foreign oppressors in almost every case.

My point was that an ancient cultural identity has nothing to do with national revivals, not that some nations, such as Egypt and, somewhat obviously, China, do have a continuing culture. As I said, he was confusing cultural diffusion with cultural nationalism.

I wasn't disputing (or I wasn't trying to anyway), just clarifying.

 

[Sharwood]

Ah, came across as a dispute with the "Yes, but..." starting your post. Fair enough.

 

[The Fishman]

If a nation occupies the same geographical region as a previous nation, does that make it another incarnation of that empire?

I don't think so.

The ottoman empire was not another byzantine empire.

Is Egypt today the same as ancient Egypt? Same name, same area but was ancient Egypt arabic?

My original observations are based entirely on geography, not culture. 'Incarnations' or 'analogues' of a state are states which share a similar land area, land shape and location, but are separated by culture and time. In a geographical sense, the Ottomans were certainly a new Byzantine Empire.
In the same way, modern Egypt is a geographical analogue of the various ancient Egyptian dynasties, Ptolemic Egypt, the late Fatimids and Ayyubids, and the Mamlukes, even though the cultures have changed damatically. Modern Egypt does not control the Holy Land though, which is a rather strange state of affairs. Almost every other Egyptian state since the Pharaohs seems to have held it.

 

[aronnax]

That seems to be true... Every map of Egypt throughout history seems to be roughly from start at the Great Sand Sea and the Siwa Oasis to somewhere around the Sinai Penisula, going south to include Lower Nubia as well as having Syria and the Levant included.

The ancient Tamil state, the Chola Empire resembles the modern state of Tamil Nadu
Korea has always existed one way or the other on the penisula
Mexico and the Aztec Empire have some similar Geographical locations