Read about history of ancient Vietnam

How is that even possible ?
>inb4 some idiot brings up race or culture
Meso American's developed writing in 300 BC, while isolated as fuck.

Same here, anything before 1200 is kinda shaky
t. Norwegian

how the fuck is it possible for a bunch of cavemen/farmers shoving sticks up their asses until the first millennium AD to completely surpass well-founded Semitic and Italic and Hellenic cultures?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking why are Ireland and Norway more developed than Greece?

Ahahahah what????? Ahahahah 500,00 soldiers in The 2 d millenium BC ahahhahahahhahah what?

Hittities had 40,000 Eguptians raised 20,000 against Hittites and They were far more advanced and nunerous than chinkaloos who just built some wooden juts and Made a few scratchings in bones

romanization, they took their lessons seriously. Even the Romans themselves according to their own history were a bunch of stupid criminals and outcasts from the rest of italy that literally stole their wives from another citystate, they were better than greeks-according to them-because they were warriors that become philosophers, not philosophers that became warriors. The former is a stronger society, the former can integrate hard people into a civilized system. genetic and national boundaries are not the true children of Rome, the true children are those that spiritually succeeded them in ideals and strength. The Germans were the perfect people for the Roman system because just like the romans, they were strong hard men that adopted the ideals of weaker men.

Here's my copypasta:
>ottomans (at their peak) completely block trade in Europe forcing them by sea
>spaniards discover America
>Spanish diseases are sent and and with tactical diplomacy (i.e allying with angry rival tribes which number in the thousands) the America's is conquered
>take all the resources and turn things slightly up a notch allowing the (northern) west to stand on equal grounds with the stagnating (probably due to Islam) east.
This led to the age of exploration and scramble for Europe.

But the Spanish conquistador just turned the cog. The West edged itself ahead when the British acquired India, after a massive civil war weakened the sub continent and an insane emperor (thank you again islam) and started the Industrial Revolution.
That's the gist of it. If you really want to get into it
>how did Anglos surpass most other Europeans and form the lingua franca of the world
Because they live in a comfy island and haven't been threatened for centuries since (until WW2)

You're on to something, user.
Now apply the same criticism to all human cultures and see if the thousands upon thousands of years we are taught in schools actually make sense.

* scramble for America

>this tiny thing
>capable of raising 500,000 soldiers in the 2nd millenium BCE

>Because they live in a comfy island and haven't been threatened for centuries since (until WW2)

Then why didn't Sweden also become a colonial superpower?

man that must suck hard

Well yeah. Most everything before that point is clearly mythological.

>main investment in a strong navy because not connected to europe (that's not to say their armies fell below their neighbors standards, just that the Navy was much superior)
>Napoleonic Wars devastate other European powers while UK gets off it the best
>best looking people which suggests high genetic selection in the past where only the best breed

F

>best looking people

Saying "cavemen" is a bit of a stretch

They did colonize too, along with Denmark-Norway but the colonies were sold to Britain

There probably wasn't a single state in China in the 2nd Millenium BCE that even had 500,000 men of any age

the british isles are more isolated than britain is, and also strategically surrounded whereas once the UK united they had the north pole to their north and the atlantic ocean to their west. They only had to worry about sea invasion and only from two directions (they can land anywhere but they have to start from one of two places:France or the Netherlands, meaning if the british patrol well they can see an invasion coming way before the element of surprise can take effect. You'll note that even in ancient times the british were ready for the Romans when they landed, there's no surprising the british.

Sweden always had a much smaller population than the British Islands, iirc, when they were kicking ass in the wars of religion, their population was comparable to Portugal.
Now they have less people than Portugal, Belgium, and far less than the Netherlands.
They were focused in the baltic and were almost a great power for a century.

*than the netherlands

I don't know where you come from, but I haven't been taught any formal history prior the population of Greece.

I was referring more to why none of their colonies were any significant

Are Greece and China the oldest still living civilization?
It has been completely proved that Cretan Linear B was used for writing a very archaic form of Greek.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B

the greeks are super bias, and yet they're still less bias than China because there are contemporary accounts to keep them honest with at least the basic strategic idea even if the numbers are usually bullshit.

China meanwhile has no competition, one guy writes 2000 years of history literally 2000 years later as official state propaganda for the Huan and we're supposed to believe this bullshit?

No thanks, finding truth in Chinese history is like finding a needle in a haystack, who the fuck knows.

There's nothing like the modern conception of history we have. A Roman “historian” doesn't meet any contemporary criterion.

yeah but we as historians can look at other sources in the east who had contact with Rome and they'll write about it, so while the major beats are roman propaganda the very fact that civilized contemporaries exist makes roman historians at least have to vaguely tell the truth or modern historians can tell its a lie when they look at the accounts of their enemies. The accounts with the death of emperors are particularly good examples of this, where we have competing accounts of the same thing and we can compare. With Chinese history we rarely get to do that, so while the historians in each civilization were both bias and wouldn't pass any modern standards, we have more to work with in roman history. There is no great civilized rival to china. Rome always had its eastern rival, China really only fought itself for most of its history, world history literally doesn't matter to them until the steppe tribes finally manage to get a dynasty going for a little bit, their history is so isolated and without contemporary accounts that's it's much harder to take it seriously.