Is this the most important continent in the history of the world?

>this is what chinese actually believe

Its not a real continent.

Europe changed the shape of all of mankind and is responsible for the by far largest technological leaps in our collective history. Asia has been rich and well-populated for a long, long time but they don't come close to Europe's influence, despite China's dominant position.

you need new bait my friend
literally noone believes this

If Sumeria isn't on it, then no.

>The Ottoman's were at their prime 500 years ago and one of the most dominant powers in Eurasia.
So were other countries in Europe

No.

How the fuck is that bait? Are you really going to argue that Europe in the 14th Century was more important than the whole of fucking Asia?

The North-Western powers wouldn't surpass the Ottomans until a few centuries after the 1500's lol.

>The North-Western powers
What about the Spanish empire and then France, both had more influence over Europe and it was basically at the same time of the ottoman peak of power.

China's not the issue here, has the right idea. What's more important is the western end of asia. The fertile crescent, the Persian empires, Caliphates and crusades were all happening there. Not to mention that it was essentially the nucleus of the old world trade network until the Americas were discovered.

So yeah, asia was more important up until around 1500 or so. After that Europe more definitively became the new center of global trade.

>Spanish empire
The Spanish discovered the America's in 1492. It wouldn't be until 1572 that they officially conquered the Inca Empire and started reaping the benefits considerably.

>france
They came into being a dominant power in Eurasia after Spain declined around the mid-17th century.

Are you going to argue China breaking every time you look away affected the world by large?

There's more to Asia than fucking China you colossal retard. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were all birthed in Asia.

Western Europe wasn't arse raped by the mongols.

The Ottomans also had influence over most all of the middle east.

>a few centuries
More like a few years once the Portuguese found the way to India

>Europe changed the shape of all of mankind
I'd argue that the Middle East can say the same.

>noone
No eurangutan can see their own feet either. Try again with something relevant, chimp.

Incas were superior to europeans. Deal with it.

How many lefties are actually on here?

Remove the balkans and we are good

>More like a few years once the Portuguese found the way to India
And for how long after? Around 80 years until they self destructed and then got annexed by Spain causing their empire to decline?

The Middle East laid some important groundwork but they never came close to Europe's influence, as they never directly interacted with anything but their immediate surrounding while Europe conquered or subjugated nearly the entire damn planet.

t. Turk
Who cares how long after? Ottomans never did anything relevant again. One could even argue they never did anything right except destroy Byzantines since basically they just inherited their empire from the Arabs.

The fuck does this retarded dick-measuring-by-geographic-location shit have to do Veeky Forums? If you want bragging rights for something, how about you take the dildo out of your ass and stop pretending you get a single lick of credit for anything that's happened anywhere.

>Incas were superior to europeans.
I could believe it if you were referring to the Chinese and Indians, but not the Incas.

not even a continent

Are people forgetting that Rome and greek polises were a thing and influenced the whole arab middle east with their art, architecture, philosophy, engineering and so on? Couple of bad centuries are nothing in compare of gorrilion years of incompetence to change the shape of the world, like the asians.

> as they never directly interacted with anything but their immediate surrounding
They left behind a legacy of massive proportions tho.
For example the first civilizations in Africa were based off the Middle Eastern Islamic ones. The Persians had their golden age under a ideology from the Middle East. India was the richest it ever was in history under the Islamic Mughals (and if it wasn't for one of the last emperors weakening the subcontinent through repeated wars it may never have been colonised by the British)
>while Europe conquered or subjugated nearly the entire damn planet.
Yes and we can all take a look at South America and Africa to see how great that turned out to be.

>They left behind a legacy of massive proportions tho.
Doesn't matter. They themselves didn't sail across the oceans or controlled the destiny of the planet. Elevating them to the same status by merit of distant influence is pointless, you might as well also elevate the caveman who discovered fire or the one who discovered agriculture since all progress is built off that.
>Yes and we can all take a look at South America and Africa to see how great that turned out to be.
irrelevant

>They themselves didn't sail across the oceans or controlled the destiny of the planet.
>planet
Africa's the largest continent and they remained mostly untouched until 1880.

But by then most of South America was independent and not to mention Central Asia too.

Pic

>tippu tip

Obvious questions get obvious answers, brainlet.

Stop putting things on the left-right scale you fucking retard. Not recognizing the "superiority" of the "white" "race" doesn't mean you advocate for collectivist economics or SJWism. There's no correlation. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

This. 90% of whitey's ancestors were just poor as fuck farmers, and even then you don't get to claim the accomplishments of your direct ancestors. Much less your entire race. Collectivism is a sin.

Just because the land wasn't under their direct rulership doesn't mean they didn't dominate it in practicality. By 1880 Europe was dominating world trade and were miles ahead in technology, especially military technology. Their unified military power could easily decimate anything on the planet.

>first post best post

Afro-Eurasia is obviously the most important continent. If someone says anything else, they're an idiot.

History demonstrates it. Deal with it, chimpie.

Yeah, not really. Afro-Asia did nothing in history. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

Lets start from 5000 BCE

>5000 BCE - 2000 BCE
Africa/Middle East
>2000 BCE - 800 BCE
Middle East
>800 BCE - 0
Europe/Middle East/South Asia/East Asia
>0-500 CE
Europe/Middle East/South Asia/East Asia
>500 CE - 1000 CE
Middle East/East Asia
>1000 CE - 1500 CE
East Asia
>1500 CE - 2000 CE
Europe/East Asia/North America
>2000 CE - 2500 CE
Europe/East Asia/South Asia/North America
>2500 CE - 3000 CE
East Asia/South Asia/America

Yeah, which is why they got conquered by Europeans and their descendants have inferiority complex.

Lol, at these subhumans who say that Asia was more important than Europe. Let's check

>Europe was the birthplace of the greatest empire this world has ever seen - the Roman Empire.
>The Greeks completely conquered the greatest Asian empire- the Achaemenid while never been conquered themselves. They also occupied Egypt - the greatest African empire.
>Europe literally controlled the entire world for a good period of time both directly and indirectly.
>The Chinese, the Arabs, the Persians, the Indians were humiliated or completely conquered by Europeans.
>Every possible invention and technology we have now originates from Europe or its colonies.

Why is this even a debate?

> pic
Hehe
Which is the same reason eurangutans are being replaced by mexican alcoholics and muslim peasants hehe

Try again with some facts, monkey.

>Europe was the birthplace of the greatest empire this world has ever seen - the Roman Empire.
Rome being the greatest is an entirely subjective statement. I could just as easily argue that the Gupta, Achaemenid, or Han empires (or any of a hundred others) were the greatest of all time.
>The Greeks completely conquered the greatest Asian empire- the Achaemenid while never been conquered themselves. They also occupied Egypt - the greatest African empire.

That's impressive, but this isn't a thread about military history. Just being strong doesn't make you important.
>Europe literally controlled the entire world for a good period of time both directly and indirectly.
>The Chinese, the Arabs, the Persians, the Indians were humiliated or completely conquered by Europeans.

Yeah, after centuries of decline they were defeated. But that's only recently. In overall history, those four groups are extremely relevant.
>Every possible invention and technology we have now originates from Europe or its colonies.

Wow, citation needed. I guess Arabic numerals, the compass, the wheelbarrow, gunpowder, irrigation, written languages, paper, alcohol, pottery, pottery, the wheel, agriculture, and just about everything else important ever came from Europeans (hint: these things didn't).

Not an argument. You still haven't shown any evidence of this supposed Incas superiority.

I'd say that the time in the spotlight which was ours to enjoy after the end of antiquity spans roughly 400 years from the conquest of the Americas to the end of WWII. This period was basically a massive build up of resources and cultural and political capital which led to the great European golden age in the late 19th/ early 20th centuries. This was THE great time of innovation and wonder, maybe even more so than the past 30 years and we fucked it all up because we just had to get tickets for WWI and WWI:2 - A Good Day To War Hard. The wars were really the last straw for European global hard power projection, officially marked by Dien bien phu. We still wield a considerable amount of soft power globaly though.

>Tl;dr Yes, no, maybe sometimes

Yeah lets praise a continent that invented slavery, racism, facism, segreation and stole ideas and inventions from the middle east

>I learned my history from YouTube documentaries - the poorly constructed post

Found the person who doesn't know shit about history.

Literally 15000 years of offset between Amerindian reachin America and eurangutans settling on europe.
Yet they developed at a faster rate than eurangutans, reached the early bronze age in less time and developing technologies superior to middleages yurop. Hehe

Incas were superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Deal with it.

You know what he means. Without the term lefties we have no way of categorizing them

Now now boys, you're both retarded. It's almost like this issue isn't clearly divided into "Europe bad bcuz dey made Nazis" or Europe da best 'cuz EPIC ROMANS (and also Nazis). I understand that this concept can often be hard for litteral autists to grasp, but I appreciate you trying.

>Collectivism is a sin.
Holy shit. I didn't know there were intelligent, functioning humans on this board.

No, the fact that you think those were Europeans inventions while ignoring the fact that they were also present in other civilizations even before the Europeans implemented it demonstrate your lack of knowledge regarding history, you shouldn't get yourself involved in this subject.

Not that guy, but if you think that because the Incas developed faster (which you haven't actually proven just stated) they are superior to "Euranutangs" then you are flat out wrong. Even if a child learns far faster than their parent ever did, it doesn't mean they are smarter, it just means they are learning faster. Superiority is ultimately subjective, but since Incas fought Europeans, and lost, and the only thing they were better at was learning, then you can't really call them superior.

I'm not ignoring the fact that they were an important civilization. I'm just noting the fact that their technology was also backwards compared to the Europeans by the time they arrived in the New World. They ended up getting conquered and their descendants haven't done anything noteworthy since then. Relying on the past is a pathetic excuse by those that aren't at their peak anymore (this include the fallen european states that used to be powerful).

But I don't, none of the things listed in , with the exception of fascism obviously, first occurred in Europe. That doesn't mean that we haven't done some fucked up shit, or came up with some novel new ways to implement some of those theories. It's just not that simple.

Alright let's break this down
>slavery
No. Good start
>racism
Nope, that's just a natural human trait. It's normal to dislike things that are different, even if it's wrong.
>facism
Fascism as a movement/ideology? Yes. Fascism in practice? No. Europe just coined the term (and some people ran with it).
>segreation
Nope, again that's a normal human thing. "Racial segregation has appeared in all parts of the world where there are multiracial communities, except where racial amalgamation has occurred on a large scale, as in Hawaii and Brazil. In such countries there has been occasional social discrimination but not legal segregation." - britannica.com/topic/racial-segregation
>stole ideas and inventions from the middle east
Well kinda, but stole is the wrong word. That's like saying American colonists stole enlightenment principles. It's like any kind of new information; someone learns it, and builds on it. That's just how humans have always functioned. But if you want to play that game, then everyone stole fire from the Greeks who stole it from Prometheus, or from some Kenyans or Caucasians, whichever you prefer.

>europe
>roughly the size of china
>native peoples form an ethnic cline with north africans, anatolians and south-west asians

Not a proper continent

Then I can agree with that statement. It's also undeniable that the Europeans carried it to a more extreme extent, but I don't think it's also as simple as pointing fingers towards where the concept originated from or who took it to a worst extent (some of these, I would even say might be part of human traits).

>Used to be powerful
But they still are if you count the EU when the countrys aren`t fighting over who gets to deport Africans back to Nigeria.

Did we just settle an argument on Veeky Forums? Do we have to kiss now? Also I don't know why, but I assumed that you where behind which is completely bereft of the multi layer thinking that we both seem to agree on is necessary in this discussion. I was by the way

Nah, I wasn't defending that guy, I just disagreed with the other statement immensely about the Europeans being to blame for all that has basically been present in most of human history (besides fascism, of course). There are also other European countries that weren't even involved in colonization or most of the things commonly attributed to the entire continent by some people.

But it's completely inaccurate and irrelevant
I know right

>Rome being the greatest is an entirely subjective statement. I could just as easily argue that the Gupta, Achaemenid, or Han empires (or any of a hundred others) were the greatest of all time.

How were the Gupta, Achaemenid or Han empires even close to what Rome achieved? Explain to me in what world did the Han Dynasty even come close to what Rome achieved? The only one close to the Roman Empire from those you've mentioned is the Achaemenid and they collapsed in 200 years of existence, and they left almost no cultural impact. Most of the things we know from the Achaemenids are from the Greeks. The Sassanid had larger cultural influence on modern day Iranian identity.

>That's impressive, but this isn't a thread about military history. Just being strong doesn't make you important.

This thread is about pretty much everything - culture, economy, military history, inventions etc.

>Yeah, after centuries of decline they were defeated. But that's only recently. In overall history, those four groups are extremely relevant.

Centuries of decline? The Chinese had their largest expansion under the Qing, the Arabs where united under the Ottoman Empire while the Indians were in a pretty good condition under the Mughals. The only thing they had in common was that Europe came, saw and conquered.

>Wow, citation needed. I guess Arabic numerals, the compass, the wheelbarrow, gunpowder, irrigation, written languages, paper, alcohol, pottery, pottery, the wheel, agriculture, and just about everything else important ever came from Europeans (hint: these things didn't).
Yeah, and who put them to the best use? What did the Chinese do with the gunpowder they discovered? Absolutely nothing.

>The Chinese had their largest expansion under the Qing
The Manchu's fucked up China real bad. They were stagnant and placed an autistical emphasis on tradition.
>while the Indians were in a pretty good condition under the Mughals.
The Mughals actually caused the subcontinent to decline rapidly. They placed no emphasis on political structure which led everybody to get overwhelmed later on.
>The only thing they had in common was that Europe came, saw and conquered.
The Middle East would still be in power today if the Mongols (Asians) didn't level Baghdad. The Ottoman empire was shit and declining for centuries but even then they matched the European powers for a long time.
>Yeah, and who put them to the best use? What did the Chinese do with the gunpowder they discovered Absolutely nothing.
The Indians developed the prototype for modern rockets with it. Guns would still be the most common method of warfare without.

I don't care that you're some kind of autistic white nationalist but pretending that the rise of western civilization wouldn't have happened without the other eurasians paving the way first is retarded.

>Why is this even a debate?
Because you're a retard and Asia was historically superior to Europe.

There's more to Asia than just China. There's also Persia, Mesopotamia, and India...but everyone forgets about India.

>everyone forgets about India.
Honestly. There was a thread a while ago discussing civilizations and people completely forgot about India despite their massive contributions to humanity and lengthy history.

>There's more to Asia than just China.
Veeky Forums isn't smart enough to understand this concept

>The Manchu's fucked up China real bad. They were stagnant and placed an autistical emphasis on tradition.

China has been stagnant for pretty much their entire history, Each dynasty rises, has a golden period, stagnates and then collapses. The Qing were no different. The reign of Qianlong was one of the most prosperous periods in Chinese history, rivalling that of Wu Han easily. To claim that the Manchus somehow magically ruined China is ridiculous.

>The Mughals actually caused the subcontinent to decline rapidly. They placed no emphasis on political structure which led everybody to get overwhelmed later on.

The Mughals actually were one of the best periods of Indian history. I have no idea what you're talking about. You believe that somehow a disunited India would have survived an European conquest? They were gone either way.

>The Middle East would still be in power today if the Mongols (Asians) didn't level Baghdad.

In your wet dreams, probably. The sacking of Baghdad didn't cause the fall of the Arabs, they were on freefall way before that. The Abbasids were barely holding on to any territory at all. What happened in reality was that the Ottoman Empire inherited the Arab empire and they got wrecked by Europeans, just as every other empire in history.

>I don't care that you're some kind of autistic white nationalist but pretending that the rise of western civilization wouldn't have happened without the other eurasians paving the way first is retarded.

Again, you're absolutely delusional. So what if the Indians discovered the rocket prototype? Who utilized it? Who developed it to the point of being usable? Western civilization didn't and doesn't require "Euroasians" (wtf does that mean?) to exist.

We go back to the Greek kingdoms and Europe has always been on top of the food chain - never been fully conquered and always the ones doing the conquering.

>Because you're a retard and Asia was historically superior to Europe.
In delusional head, yes.

No.

>China has been stagnant for pretty much their entire history, Each dynasty rises, has a golden period, stagnates and then collapses. The Qing were no different. The reign of Qianlong was one of the most prosperous periods in Chinese history, rivalling that of Wu Han easily. To claim that the Manchus somehow magically ruined China is ridiculous.

>comparing the Qing autism to any other dynasty
The Manchu's were afraid that they couldn't control the Hans.So they decided to isolate themselves intensely and close the channel between the inside world and the outside.

>The Mughals actually were one of the best periods of Indian history. I have no idea what you're talking about. You believe that somehow a disunited India would have survived an European conquest? They were gone either way.
You're right the Mughal dynasty was a powerful military in their prime but after the 1800's they were a husk because of the deterioration in agriculture, trade and industry from constant warfare.
They also had a noticeable absence of scientific and technological development compared to other Indian dynasties.

Not to mention the British would have been ousted in mid-19th century if it wasn't for the other Indian (mostly Hindu) states who supported the British because they despised the Mughals and wanted to prevent their second coming at all costs.
>In your wet dreams, probably. The sacking of Baghdad didn't cause the fall of the Arabs, they were on freefall way before that.
>The Abbasids were barely holding on to any territory at all.

That's not to say they could have come back. It would have taken decades but they could have done it. The Mongols ensured they remained dead for centuries.
And Turk's have and always were shit at running empires. The legacy of Islam was given from a people who were fairly advanced and open-minded to zealous fundamentalists.

>How were the Gupta, Achaemenid or Han empires even close to what Rome achieved?
Again, you never justified in any way why Rome is the greatest empire ever. How do you even measure that? It's an entirely subjective statement, even if you can prove that Rome had more cultural influence than other empires.

>This thread is about pretty much everything - culture, economy, military history, inventions etc.
That's exactly my point. Just showing that Europeans are strong (i.e. that they conquer others while remaining unconquered) doesn't mean they're more relevant in history.

>The only thing they had in common was that Europe came, saw and conquered.
The Qing slowly stagnated due to corruption and native Chinese resistance while also failing to advance China technologically. India under the Mughals began falling apart due to religious oppression and uprisings by the Marathas. The reason Europeans dominated them is that Asian states were in decline while Europe had far superior technology.

>What did the Chinese do with the gunpowder they discovered? Absolutely nothing.
Firstly, gunpowder is just one example; your claim that Europeans somehow invented everything ever is still ridiculous. And the Chinese didn't use gunpowder because it wasn't effective (when gunpowder first came about) against nomadic raiders, who were the main threat to China at the time.

>So what if the Indians discovered the rocket prototype?
That actually wasn't the Indians. That was the Turk's.
> Who utilized it?
Everybody back then.
>Who developed it to the point of being usable?
Again. Indians. They developed it from something resembling cheap fireworks into weapons capable of mass warfare. They were reverse engineered by the British and most prominently used in the Napoleonic Wars.

>Western civilization didn't and doesn't require "Euroasians" (wtf does that mean?) to exist.
lel. The fact that you have elementary level knowledge of the rest of the world is pathetic.

>We go back to the Greek kingdoms and Europe has always been on top of the food chain - never been fully conquered and always the ones doing the conquering.
That's because Asia was always much more worth conquering.
Also it's never been fully conquered but most of the prominent European powers were once vessels of other civilizations (Russia, Spain, Portugal, Greece etc etc)

>That's because Asia was always much more worth conquering.
* by any power worth their salt

>That actually wasn't the Indians. That was the Turk's.
Doesn't really matter

>Again. Indians. They developed it from something resembling cheap fireworks into weapons capable of mass warfare. They were reverse engineered by the British and most prominently used in the Napoleonic Wars.

And? Care to explain where we are going with this?

>lel. The fact that you have elementary level knowledge of the rest of the world is pathetic.

Explain to me what "Euroasian" means in this context.

>That's because Asia was always much more worth conquering.
Nice headcanon there. I guess that's why the Persians, the Arabs, the Turks and anyone else in European vicinity (Huns) always tried to push in Europe, but ultimately failed. It's not that they did not want to, it's because they were unable to.

>Also it's never been fully conquered but most of the prominent European powers were once vessels of other civilizations (Russia, Spain, Portugal, Greece etc etc)
Neither Russia, nor Portugal, nor Spain were even formed as nations when they were conquered by foreign powers. And all of them were pretty much conquered at different time periods, so European conquest was always kept to the absolute minimum.

Fact of the matter is, the European continent was left mostly unscathed during its entire history while European powers literally ruled the whole world for a good period of time.

More like Asia was easier to conquer. The Arabs tried plenty of time to invade Europe and always failed, while they took out the Sassanid Empire quite easily, actually.

Claims the Incans were more advanced that Europeans.

>never carved lifelike statues
>never built complex siege engines that could hurl stones half a mile through the sky
>invented no mathematical principles that Europeans didn't already have
>no multi-story buildings
>no written language
>never made it past kingship
>no permanent bridges
>no monolithic structures

And that's just compared to the Greeks
You have no idea what the Incans did, or no idea what the Europeans did
I can't tell which

Have a nice day

>Implying that irrigation, writing,paper,alcohol, pottery, the wheel, agriculture, and just about everything else important were not developed independently of China and the Near East.

Come on. You're not even trying.

>Doesn't really matter
It does matter because what you're saying is historically incorrect and this is a history board not a self fellatio one...

>And? Care to explain where we are going with this?
> "Yeah, and who put them to the best use? What did the Chinese do with the gunpowder they discovered? Absolutely nothing."

>Explain to me what "Euroasian" means in this context.
Eurasia means Europe and Asia together. Should have specified Asia instead.

>Nice headcanon there. I guess that's why the Persians, the Arabs, the Turks and anyone else in European vicinity (Huns) always tried to push in Europe, but ultimately failed. It's not that they did not want to, it's because they were unable to.
>Persians
Wat. There was no offical Greece at that time since they were divided into three major tribes- the Dorians, Aeolians and the Ionians-Achaeans. Persians managed to conquer the vast majority of the territory which is Greece today, everything apart from the Peloponnese peninsula.

They conquered Athens and burnt it down. Macedonia was a tributary state, Thebes and Argos submitted willingly. Have a read
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Antalcidas

>Arabs
Are you forgetting that the Arabs annexed nearly the entire Byzantium empire into the Ummayad Caliphate? North Africa was much more relevant compared to their back water Northern-European neighbors so they may as well have castrated the most powerful Western empire in existence then.

>Turks
They annexed nearly half of Eastern Europe into their shambling thing of an 'empire' for centuries.

>Huns
Ran train all over lmao.

Not even close.
Asia is by far

>Neither Russia, nor Portugal, nor Spain were even formed as nations when they were conquered by foreign powers.
Neither was Africa. The area that consists of those people still existed and nobody's saying that they still weren't conquered. It's their fault for being late to the civilization game.

> so European conquest was always kept to the absolute minimum.
So was the image you posted before. And are you forgetting that the Ottomans annexed nearly half of Eastern Europe lol?

>Fact of the matter is,
Fact of the matter is you don't know shit about history and you should be counting your lucky stars I'm giving such an egotistical brainlet like you the time of day.

>the European continent was left mostly unscathed during its entire history
Yes as long as you don't include Russia, the Balkans and the Iberian peninsula.
Most of European history began after the 1000's unless you're Greek or Italian. There's nothing wrong with incorporating Greek history as your own if you're not but it's the same as an Afghan we wuzzing as an Iranian.

>while European powers literally ruled the whole world for a good period of time.
Which I explained before didn't happen in a vacuum.

Depending on your next response I may or may not give you a (you)
>cuteanimegirl.jpg

I think i goes like this

Middle East + Egypt, for like 2000 years
China, 1000 BC
Middle East + Greeks, Big 'Al
China, again, 200 BC
Europe (just rome really)
China, once more, Tang
Middle East, this time without Egypt
Eurasia (mongolssss)
Middle East + Turks
Europe, round 2
North America

So Asia is more important than Europe. No surprises there.

Continents are memes.

Europe left a big impact but they weren't able to hold that power as long as other places. North America is more important than Europe now.

>Slavery
Unfree labour, still practiced widely today. The conditions slaves worked in were a direct expression of prevailing conditions at the time - see paycheque-to-paycheque poor in America today.
>Racism
Inherent to the human condition. One could argue that institutionalized and pseudo-scientific racism was a European invention, though.
>Fascism
Extreme reaction to the turbulent times during the interbellum. The positive ideas and concepts of fascism have been widely incorporated into crisis legislature of liberal democracies.
>Segregation
European segregation is generally in the form of Jewish ghettos. Unlike today's ghettos that are little more than slums, the early modern ghetto granted a measure of freedom and safety to Jewish inhabitants by restricting gentile access through law and fortification.
>Stole ideas and inventions from the Middle East
Intellectual property is a recent idea. Furthermore, those ideas were originally Roman and Greek.

>>The Greeks completely conquered the greatest Asian empire- the Achaemenid while never been conquered themselves.

And the Turks conquered the Byzantine Empire.

WE WUZ CHANGZ N SHIET