Which nation was more developed and impressive in the BCs?

Nubia (aka Kush) or the UK?

Beavers

Neolithic UK was actually quite advanced. Stonehenge is older than the pyramids, Newgrange is even older. And let's not forget about completely unique sites such as Skara Brae.

Stonehedge. The most glorified piece of rocks in the world. Stonehedge is the most embarrassingly overrated "monument" of all time.

The concept behind this bait thread is good, but the execution is terrible, since retards tend not to go on about Britain so often as they go on about Germany and Scandinavia.
Also pls don't implgigy that because Meroe was a comparatively nice place the rest of Nubia was as developed. They were situated along the Nile, so it would have been hard not to interact with the Egyptians.
As says, Skara Brae is a unique site. As far as I can tell, there is no one who the ancient Orcadians could have 'learned from'.

Seriously, this is Stonehenge. I am amazed beyond belief that people find this to be amazing.

And to make it all the more embarrassing it's a project that supposedly took about 2,000 years to build. Think about it- taking basically the time from Jesus' birth to the present to stack about 10 rocks in a pile. Wow.

Nubia was generally better developed than Britain at the time

Of course Nubia wasn't as great as Egypt or Rome. But it was far better than the modern day UK was. Roman writing describes how embarrassingly primitive Britain was. Even under Roman rule Britain was pretty embarrassing. (Although not as bad as it was in pre-Roman times.)

Scandinavia and Germany were embarrassing in terms of their (lack of) civilizational progress but at least they had strong militaries. The Germans were illiterate stupid barbarians but they overthrew Rome. What did Britons accomplish?

To be fair, they gave the Romans ONE HELL of a fight before going down

Upon further research, Stonhenge took 1500 years to build, not 2000.

Still pretty embarrassing. So it took the length of time from Jesus' birth until Christopher Columbus' voyage to pile rocks onto each other. Big achievement Brits!

Nubia wasn't great. What the Britons had they developed themselves, whereas nublets had a superior civilisation just downstream to copy from.
I understand that edgy kids on Veeky Forums have gone from being edgy nazis to edgy anti-nazis, but for all that you remain schoolboys with no hair on your balls.

>Roman writing describes how embarrassingly primitive Britain was

Tacitus wasn't 'Roman writing', m8.

>Even under

It was a warzone. 'Roman Britain' was a flimsy network of model cities imposed on a frozen patchwork of petty kinglets given more or less favour by the Romans.

>Scandinavia...

Germans didn't have a pot to piss in until they started working as foederati for the Romans. They pet da kitty so hard they killed it.
Besides, Scandinavia has never had a strong military, except for about fifty years in the 17th century.

>What did Britons accomplish

Britons were building towers in stone while germongs carved fetish objects out of frozen poo. To this day, they are still packed full of worms due to their familiarity with feces.
Wherever the Romans failed to capture, the Britons beat the germongs.

Fucking /pol/tards are cancer

Stop spamming this thread

Some people hate /pol/ so much they become indistinguishable from it.
'Stare into the abyss' and all that.

Fucking Americans are cancer *

This is Kerma (Sudan), in 1700 bc

Are you offended by people comparing pre.roman britain, to the nubian culture?

>have an apparently massive "head start" on civilization
>the British still out-develop them by an astronomical level
So this is the power of East Africans...

Watch this
And pic related

This only further proves my point. If they were so great, why did they get overtaken by peoples hundreds of years behind them in development? Quite pathetic really.

Yeah Egypt and Iraq are such shitholes, they could never be cradle of civilization

Here is Cassius Dio on Britons

"There are two principal races of the Britons, the Caledonians and the Maeatae, and the names of the others have been merged in these two. The Maeatae live next to the cross-wall which cuts the island in half, and the Caledonians are beyond them. Both tribes inhabit wild and waterless mountains and desolate and swampy plains, and possess neither walls, cities, nor tilled fields, but live on their flocks, wild game, and certain fruits...They dwell in tents, naked and unshod, possess their women in common, and in common rear all the offspring. Their form of rule is democratic for the most part, and they are very fond of plundering; consequently they choose their boldest men as rulers....They can endure hunger and cold and any kind of hardship; for they plunge into the swamps and exist there for many days with only their heads above water, and in the forests they support themselves upon bark and roots, and for all emergencies they prepare a certain kind of food, the eating of a small portion of which, the size of a bean, prevents them from feeling either hunger or thirst"

>They dwell in tents, naked and unshod, possess their women in common, and in common rear all the offspring.

But-BUT muh conservative patriarchal Aryana myth!!!

>be the literal cradle of civilization
>get overtaken by backwater shitholes
Wow, impressive.

Here is Herodian on Britons

"Most of Britain is marshland because it is flooded by the continual ocean tides. The barbarians usually swim in these swamps or run along in them, submerged up to the waist. Of course, they are practically naked and do not mind the mud because they are unfamiliar with the use of clothing, and they adorn their waists and necks with iron, valuing this metal as an ornament and a token of wealth in the way that other barbarians value gold. They also tattoo their bodies with various patterns and pictures of all sorts of animals. Hence the reason why they do not wear clothes, so as not to cover the pictures on their bodies. They are very fierce and dangerous fighters, protected only by a narrow shield and a spear, with a sword slung from their naked bodies. They are not familiar with the use of breast-plates and helmets, considering them to be an impediment to crossing the marshes. Because of the thick mist which rises from the marshes, the atmosphere in this region is always gloomy"

Is it supposed to be impressive?
At that moment in time people living there were most advanced in the world, like western Europe and N. America are now, and just like them with time they too will become irrelevant.

Never visited Britain, a selection of well worn cliches common to the Northern barbarian type.

Where's your proof that he never visited Britain? And even if he never visited Britain I'm sure he heard from people who did. It's not like he came up with these quotes for no reason.

The Romans probably never saw them except for maybe a few soldiers who made it there, as their were mostly in the very North of Scotland and many in the Shetland island, I wonder how they got there

>Where's your proof that he never visited Britain?

Where's your proof that he did? I'm sure that a big brain like yours knows that I'm under no obligation to prove a negative, unless you think visiting Britain is the default state of all Romans.
Why would he have visited Britain, what business would he have had there?
Do you think that Roman historians were as rigorous as modern ones were?
He is recycling tropes from earlier authors, in the same way that Tacitus regurgitated Caesar despite having spent his entire life in Narbonensis. They bow to better established authorities.

Doubtful. There are brochs in the south of Scotland as well, yet they are in a worse condition - my presumption is that later peoples recycled the stone for housebuilding.
Which would explain their prevalence on the Isles, granted the smaller and less concentrated population.
The Romans had a vested interest in presenting the peoples they conquered as either decadent or instrumental, and the peoples they were unable to conquer as paragons of Latin virtue - hence why the Germans are cast as savages who - bizarrely - behave like Roman patricians. Thank Arminius for that.
Had the Romans held the land between the Rhine and the Elbe, or advanced beyond that, the Germans would be remembered as shit eating, wife swapping troglodytes.

>Newgrange
>UK
Delet this

Shut up potatonigger

Nibba do you know how hard it is to move those rocks with Stone Age tech

>.They dwell in tents, naked and unshod, possess their women in common, and in common rear all the offspring. Their form of rule is democratic for the most part, and they are very fond of plundering; consequently they choose their boldest men as rulers
making chain mail while naked is pretty bad ass

>What the Britons had they developed themselves, whereas nublets had a superior civilisation just downstream to copy from.
implying this doesnt describe most of northern europe including britons
>Tacitus wasnt roman writing
u wot?

Are you implying the same thing doesnt stand with Africans?

>Nubia wasn't great.
They literally built pyramids and stopped Roman invasions and their civilisation lasted 3000 years.

>To be fair, they gave the Romans ONE HELL of a fight before going down
Redpill me on this