Ancient Rome was vastly superior to Ancient Greece you all can suck my fabians

Ancient Rome was vastly superior to Ancient Greece you all can suck my fabians.

I disagree.

Sassanian Empire was superior to Rome in all regards. They actually had a sense of morality unlike you barbarians.

Ancient Greece was cool though but fuck Ancient Rome. Bunch of barbarians. Byzantine Empire was cool though.

I agree with your opinion.

dude

byzantine was rome

"Several signal events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the period of transition during which the Roman Empire's Greek East and Latin West divided. Constantine I (r. 324–337) reorganised the empire, made Constantinople the new capital, and legalised Christianity. Under Theodosius I (r. 379–395), Christianity became the Empire's official state religion and other religious practices were proscribed. Finally, under the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641), the Empire's military and administration were restructured and adopted Greek for official use instead of Latin.[4] Thus, although the Roman state continued and Roman state traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Orthodox Christianity.[5]"

Not really Ancient Rome, no. For one thing, Ancient Romans weren't Orthodox Christians.

First off, nice quints. Second off, I wouldn't say that because zombie Justinian might drag himself out of his grave to find you and put the shit out of you.

>people so butthurt about their barbarian origins that they lash out against the mother of all nations

Sumer?

nations, not civilizations.

name a western country that does not have it's organic roots in Rome. One that doesn't have neither senate nor an elected leader, one that doesn't impart justice in a court with a magistrate, one that doesn't have a writen law with the concepts of ownership, a separation of what's public and what's private, a status and an action.

Sealand

Sassanian styled Zoroastrian theocracy was better than Roman republic style of governance.

>Rome invented republics

laughingGreeks

>Republic
>"res publica"
>Greek

Romans were just Greekaboos anyways

but the nexus was purer on a grander scale

scaled up because of geolocality, more north, more west = white

The modern nation-state didn't exist until the Treaty of Westphalia.

The concept of "state" maybe, but 'nation' is found in the classic age.

France?

>unstable mismanaged empire in an almost permanent state of civil war ruled mostly by mentally deranged megalomaniacs, and which produced nothing of value in art, philosophy, science, or mathematics

Has there ever been anything as overrated as Rome?

>sunstable
>mismanaged
>ruled for a thousand years

The second emperor was already a complete piece of shit, and the third was an insane psychopath, by then it had already reached the stage where the ruler of that amazing empire was being selected by a bunch of bodyguards. That shit somehow survived two centuries before collapsing completely in the crisis of the third century, and being partitioned. What was left of it after that was mopped up by barbarians another two centuries later.

Literally any other universal empire lasted longer.

>morality
That instantly makes them inferior to rome.

The moment the greekboos started being relevant (I'm looking at you Scipio) is the moment that marked the end of the Mos Maiorum, and the Republic with it.

Greeks were better Romans than actual Romans were (i.e. the Eastern Roman Empire)

Also Greek > Latin

but Rome took some of its democratic republican cues from the Greeks

What a fucking meme.

Roma, both West and East, is a Greek creation, sculpted for millenia from what the Latins planted and nursed for a couple hundreds years. Greco-Roman, when referring to culture, is redundant.

Roman nationality/ civilization is the foundation of the western world.

it was a continuation of Empire what the fuck are you on about?

The first true nation in history was the Neo-Assyrian Empire, which was the first pioneers of the concept of a nation being more than just blood ties, but standing for an idea. It was the first to include multiple ethnicities and the concept of citizenship, plus created the first distinctions between a church, a government, economy, and a military.

Rome was an important link in the chain but it was just that: a link in the chain. Every western society has its distant roots in Mesopotamian culture.

Sounds like you're forgetting how the part that didn't get conquered by Germans lasted for another thousand years

what was the ideology behind Neo assyria?

"Everyone should speak Aramaic and worship the same gods that we do"

The Israelites were the first nation based around the idea that the Lord is one.

"Additionally, if we lose a major battle, the world will literally end".

But the Israelites operated on a much smaller scale, never much more than a loose affiliation of closely related tribes and their government was a comparatively primitive despotism. There was little social stratification as these were simple agrarian cultures unified by blood and religion, and calling them a "nation" in the modern sense is a bit fuzzy as it is not a distinct point at which we can say that they evolved, but came about gradually over time, and the ancient Israelites were another example of that.

But the Neo-Assyrians conducted business on a far larger scale, incorporating a large region of Mesopotamia and a large number of conquered peoples, all ruled by a single government and unified by a single ideology and language and acted in a way that we typically expect a nation to act.

Yeah the Neo-Assyrian empire was much bigger, but I don't agree that a simpler society implies less valuable or valid. Sometimes less is more, and it is good for regimes to recognize that. I would much prefer to live in a society of intellectuals who philosophize and farm all day than some other regime that tries to make life more complicated. While the israelites were smaller in numbers, they were greater in terms of intellectual capacity, and for that, i grant them the status of being the first true nation established at mt sinai

>but I don't agree that a simpler society implies less valuable or valid
That's not what I was trying to imply.

What I am saying is that it was a gradual progression from simpler states to more complex ones as the population grows larger over time, and that it's kind of a stretch to call ancient Israel a true "nation" in the modern sense of the word when it doesn't have the things that typically define a nation, such as a powerful ruling class supported by a standing military and priestly order which levies taxes, organizes and launches military expeditions, and supports a complex economy through commissioning public works.

I'm not trying to make judgement pronouncements about which one is "better", that's purely subjective. It's merely a recognition of society reaching a critical mass of people where more powerful social bonds are needed to keep everyone on the same side.

Okay, I understand that. I don't want to place a hierarchy on which societies are better either. But the Kingdom of Israel was certainly a nation. They did have a priestly class, called the Kohanim, that retains their identity today. There was also a kingly class (the line of David) and a class of people known to be musicians and/or guardians called the Levites. There were certainly classes of people: the Cohanim, the Levites, those that come from David, and then the rest of the Israelites. Taxes were a huge part of the Kingdom of Israel, and people donated either their wealth or their "first fruits" to the priestly class. People keep the tradition of this by donating 10% of their income to charity, known as the tithe. They did not launch military expeditions because they did not believe in taking more land than necessary, but they certainly fought battles with neighboring peoples. They had a simple, but efficient economy that supported the people. I would argue the Kingdom of Israel was a nation of Israelites whose impact still effects us today.

There were other nations, then, in existence throughout Europe predating Israel. It is merely the case that Judeo-Christianity genocided them and burnt their written records.

Also, Israel is a mono-ethnic nation, rather different than Assyria, where there is a clear distinction separately identifying ethnicity and the mega-ethnicity, the nation.

Where did that come from?

he said posting a building primarily used for men fighting each other to the death for the sake of entertainment

I'm someone different than the fellow you've been chatting with. Wouldn't Israel have difficulty assimilating outsiders? The classes you described had only despotic succession rules. Modern Israel bears no relation with ancient Israel, so you really can't bring that up, unless the mass-conversion of outsiders and their incorporation into the whole - whether as a separate elite or a fully assimilated elite, with attendant lower-level classes - can claim its origins in early Israel.

Maybe early Israel had a complex society, but it needed the compete with its contemporary neighbors to persist, else it goes the way of the dodo. A modern western nation state is an ever-changing amalgation of cultures. Even ethics, morality and values change over time. Lacking the permission to be so fluid in identity, ancient Israel died, so while it was a nation, it was a primitive one.

On the other hand, modern Assyrians are pretty weak arabized people, whereas modern Israelis are pretty strong westerners.

Yes, there were nations not only in Europe that predated Israel, but look at Ancient Egypt for fuck's sake. The Israelites literally became a nation because they escaped the Egyptian empire's bondage. The point we were discussing, I thought, was what was the first nation to be created based around an idea rather than an oppressive force. Israel can be considered a mono-ethnic nation, but there are arguments against that. There were descendants of Jacob as well as Jethro, who was not an Israelite. But that point is moot because a nation doesn't need to be multi-ethnic for it to be a nation! That is a separate point entirely.

Modern Israel certainly has a strong relationship with ancient Israel. Speak the same language, follow the same customs, and many have genetic connections as well. Modern Israel has retained its ancient traditions for thousands of years, despite massive persecution. Modern Israelis literally pray to the wall of the ancient temple. I am a levite, my familys name is levine. You're saying there is no relationship?

Ancient Israel was a nation, as you say, and while it may be primitive in your eyes, the issue we were discussing is what was the first nation to be created around an idea.

Israel can also assimilate outsiders, they just need to go through a process, just like getting citizenship. They would have had to be circumsized. Plenty of famous ancient jews came from outside cultures, with Akiba being one of the more popular ones. The priestly classes would not contain outsiders, but the Israelite nation definitely would.