Turn on thread page Beta

whose got the greatest history in Europe? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SurreyJake)
    Anglocentric means that the Germans have the most influence because they created Britain to expand their influence. Work backwards and everyone is the same culture with the same central influence! Equal.
    Of course, thats what I clearly mentioned the Germanic input/roots in my initial post, however to give them the credit fully would be foolish.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bustamove)
    yea, even though Alexander's empire didn't stay intact for very long because he died before he could appoint an heir, this is probably one of Greece's greatest historical moments.. well, in my opinion anyway.. I love Alexander the great..



    Actually yes... The roman empire actually did reach England.. it didn't conquer the whole of Britain, but it reached pretty much where the border for scotland his.. hence why we have a wall built in England called Hadrians wall... Rome couldn't conquer the Picts so they just decided to build a wall there...
    According to wikipedia, the Romans have held on to England for 400 years during their rule, from 43-410AD... thats more or less 400 years
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain

    And what you are referring to with the "sassanids and such" is when rome is in decline... I'm talking about when rome has reached it's peak..probably around Augustus Caesar's rule or Trajan's rule....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_...ajan_117AD.png

    When I referred to reach, I wasn't talking to a geographical control but a lingo-cultural reach. Roman power was limited to Europe/meditteranean and mostly southern Europe at that. British power was almost truly global. But yes, a good debate can be made for the Romans however that would ensue an even better debate who to attribute Roman success to.

    From the Achaemenids, to the Parthians, to the Sassanids, to the Savafids.
    The Roman empire at its peak was no match for the Achaemenids in terms of land size, population % under control or sheer power. However, this isn't relevant to the topic.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ales79)
    When I referred to reach, I wasn't talking to a geographical control but a lingo-cultural reach. Roman power was limited to Europe/meditteranean and mostly southern Europe at that. British power was almost truly global. But yes, a good debate can be made for the Romans however that would ensue an even better debate who to attribute Roman success to.

    From the Achaemenids, to the Parthians, to the Sassanids, to the Savafids.
    The Roman empire at its peak was no match for the Achaemenids in terms of land size, population % under control or sheer power. However, this isn't relevant to the topic.
    You said greatest history in Europe... so the romans are relevant to the topic... and that's also not really fair to judge the Romans being limited to europe/mediteranean since no one at that period in time had the technology to build ships to expand further than Europe and colonize.. For that ancient period, the super power in Europe was definitely Romans, I think the best way to judge it is to do it via each historical period...

    In cultural terms, the Romans had a massive reach... it was the Romans which initially made Christianity to be the main religion in Europe. Especially during Emperor Constantine's time... Rome is the reason to why Christianity has spread so far...and in terms of lingo, it was the Romans which spread the use of latin at the time... most of the English language origins initially derived from latin, the English language afterwards then derived from a number of other foreign languages put together...

    In the medieval times, don't forget that there was also the Holy Roman Empire and also the Papal States... This was where Crusades were called upon to fight in Jerusalem and nearly all the other European countries obeyed...

    That's my case for Italy anyway...

    For Europe, I'd say:
    Ancient Era = it's definitely the Romans, they've conquered and achieve so much, both economically and militarily
    The greeks would also be a close second in Europe...

    Medieval Era = Italy (Holy Roman Empire or Papal states)... England is also pretty close contender as well during the medieval period... The history of England in the medieval period is interesting, with the war of the Roses, the 100 year war etc,

    Renaissance Era = I can't really decide, don't know too much about this period to make an informed decision...

    Industrial Era (around 18th century to 19th century) = Definitely Great Britain, without a doubt... The industrial revolution allowed the British to field massive armies quickly and efficiently and their naval superiority allowed for the conquest of countries far beyond Europe.. the British empire stretched so far that there was even the saying "the sun never sets in the British Empire"...

    The French are also pretty interesting, especially Napoleon Bonaparte, he was a great military leader and had gained a lot of control in continental Europe..but then again, he made the mistake of attacking Russia during the winter...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bustamove)
    You said greatest history in Europe... so the romans are relevant to the topic... and that's also not really fair to judge the Romans being limited to europe/mediteranean since no one at that period in time had the technology to build ships to expand further than Europe and colonize.. For that ancient period, the super power in Europe was definitely Romans, I think the best way to judge it is to do it via each historical period...

    In cultural terms, the Romans had a massive reach... it was the Romans which initially made Christianity to be the main religion in Europe. Especially during Emperor Constantine's time... Rome is the reason to why Christianity has spread so far...and in terms of lingo, it was the Romans which spread the use of latin at the time... most of the English language origins initially derived from latin, the English language afterwards then derived from a number of other foreign languages put together...

    In the medieval times, don't forget that there was also the Holy Roman Empire and also the Papal States... This was where Crusades were called upon to fight in Jerusalem and nearly all the other European countries obeyed...

    That's my case for Italy anyway...

    For Europe, I'd say:Ancient Era = it's definitely the Romans, they've conquered and achieve so much, both economically and militarilyThe greeks would also be a close second in Europe...
    Medieval Era = Italy (Holy Roman Empire or Papal states)... England is also pretty close contender as well during the medieval period... The history of England in the medieval period is interesting, with the war of the Roses, the 100 year war etc,

    Renaissance Era = I can't really decide, don't know too much about this period to make an informed decision...

    Industrial Era (around 18th century to 19th century) = Definitely Great Britain, without a doubt... The industrial revolution allowed the British to field massive armies quickly and efficiently and their naval superiority allowed for the conquest of countries far beyond Europe.. the British empire stretched so far that there was even the saying "the sun never sets in the British Empire"...
    The French are also pretty interesting, especially Napoleon Bonaparte, he was a great military leader and had gained a lot of control in continental Europe..but then again, he made the mistake of attacking Russia during the winter...

    My main point of contention is that the success of the Roman Empire simply cannot be attributed to Italy alone. The success of England however, can be attributed to England alone. That said, if you attributed Rome singularly to Italy then yes it would **** on British history simply for longevity alone. After all, Britain conquered essentially the easiest parts of the world to conquer.

    However, it is fair to judge by the spread of the empire. Firstly, the Romans never succeeded in spreading far eastward because its power was matched with the Persian dynasties eastward, the technology was there. Secondly however, I do think its fair to judge the Romans by today's standards. If in a millenia, a new Empire manages to colonize a different galaxy would that in the terms of this debate not make it more successful at doing so?

    The reason I pick the UK as the single most powerful EU nation is because of the success of its former colonies.

    India will become a global power, Australia is a power in SEA, Canada is a highly wealthy nation, the US is a global empire. The UK managed to spread its language and its culture to these nations ensuring strong Anglo presence and potential dominance upon the world stage for the foreseeable future. It has made English the global tongue, Italy has never succeeded in projecting as much soft power around the globe as England has.

    I don't believe you can attribute the success of the Roman Empire at its peak to Italy singularly and that is what the debates regarding...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say Britain, but that's probably just because I know it the most.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ales79)
    My main point of contention is that the success of the Roman Empire simply cannot be attributed to Italy alone. The success of England however, can be attributed to England alone. That said, if you attributed Rome singularly to Italy then yes it would **** on British history simply for longevity alone. After all, Britain conquered essentially the easiest parts of the world to conquer.
    Ah, I see what you mean.. Misread the question... your question states "whose got the greatest history in Europe", didn't realise it was "which country has got the greatest history in Europe"... to be honest, it's all a matter of opinion.. One person's view of greatness will probably differ to another..

    By the way, why can't I attribute the Roman empire to Italy alone? it was founded in Italy and expanded onwards... Yes, they may have used mercenaries or recruited troops outside of Italy yet still in their empire, but I'm sure even the British empire did that as well...maybe it's just late at night and I'm not seeing it...

    (Original post by ales79)
    However, it is fair to judge by the spread of the empire. Firstly, the Romans never succeeded in spreading far eastward because its power was matched with the Persian dynasties eastward, the technology was there. Secondly however, I do think its fair to judge the Romans by today's standards. If in a millenia, a new Empire manages to colonize a different galaxy would that in the terms of this debate not make it more successful at doing so?
    I agree with your first point about the Romans being matched by the Persian dynasties in the east, but I'm gonna have to disagree with your second point to some degree. I think it's fine if you judge empires whose time period is pretty close together but I don't think it's fair to draw a comparison between Empire's which are centuries and centuries apart...If you do, it's pretty obvious that the most recent empire would do better than the old one... Times change and obviously the more recent empire would have way better technology...


    (Original post by ales79)
    The reason I pick the UK as the single most powerful EU nation is because of the success of its former colonies.

    India will become a global power, Australia is a power in SEA, Canada is a highly wealthy nation, the US is a global empire. The UK managed to spread its language and its culture to these nations ensuring strong Anglo presence and potential dominance upon the world stage for the foreseeable future. It has made English the global tongue, Italy has never succeeded in projecting as much soft power around the globe as England has.

    I don't believe you can attribute the success of the Roman Empire at its peak to Italy singularly and that is what the debates regarding...
    This is another reason to why you can't judge Empire's which are centuries and centuries apart.. ages and ages away from one another...it's pretty obvious the British Empire will have a stronger influence than the romans did... Especially if the British Empire could build massive ships and sail around the world and colonise in different countries.... The romans never had the technology to go out into other parts of the world and colonise... e.g. they could't just sail to America and just decide to colonise it...
    the only way they can colonise is to go east which is blocked due to the parthians...
    If the British empire didn't have ships that could sail around the world and can only sail as far as the Romans could, they would not have been able to colonise much.. maybe Africa, but thats about it... their path would be blocked by the other European countries like France, Spain, Russia, Denmark etc just like Rome was blocked by Parthia or Suebi or Picts.. therefore I don't think its fair to draw a comparison between empire's which are in a completely different time period

    And also, ofcourse the British Empire would have more influence than the Romans did by todays standard... the British Empire is way way more recent than the Romans.. This is also another reason why you cannot compare empires which are ages and ages apart...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...#End_of_empire
    According to Wikipedia, the British empire finally declined in 1997... 1997! The number of years between 1997 -2015 is not really alot, thats 18 years which is still very recent...Ofcourse the Brits will have more influence by measuring todays standards because it's more recent

    If you measure the influence of the Roman empire once it declined, their presence has stayed for thousands of years, it must have also been pretty strong after 18 years after it's decline.... After the Roman Empire declined, this allowed factions such as the Franks and Goths to gain power and nearly every other single country/faction which was in the Roman empire, including England... Also after the decline, the Roman Eastern Empire stayed on for nearly a thousand years, even all the way through till the medieval period.. it was called the Byzantine Empire instead of the Roman Eastern Empire in the end... and the Byzantine Empire was so damn advanced in the medieval times... Also the City of Constantinople with it's theodosian walls remained for thousands of years afterwards and even paved the way for the Ottoman Empire to form.... Their strong walls still remain even today...


    (Original post by ales79)
    The UK managed to spread its language and its culture to these nations ensuring strong Anglo presence and potential dominance upon the world stage for the foreseeable future. It has made English the global tongue, Italy has never succeeded in projecting as much soft power around the globe as England has.
    Yes, but so did the Romans at the time... They made Latin their main language in the Roman Empire, I'm pretty sure after the fall of the Roman empire, Latin was most likely the main language for the whole of Europe at the time, its just that eventually in time, each country developed their own language, probably from different dialects or a mix of latin and some other native language.. eventually each country developed into having their own language.....

    The Romans spread Christianity throughout their whole empire, which is why Christianity became the main religion in Europe/Mediterranean... This eventually led to the Papal states forming, allowing them to call on crusades where all European countries had to join... Each cardinal from each country would get elected to become the Pope.. it was pretty much like the United Nations of the Medieval Ages..

    And in terms of projecting power.. again, another reason why I think it's unfair to make comparisons to Empires in completely different stages, the Romans didn't know much at the time about the whole world... They would have thought they already conquered most of the known world... with only a few more lands far out in the east of Parthia and south of Northern Africa.. they probably received word of a distant land, probably from the Silk road or from the stories about Alexander the Great's empire, but apart from that, they probably thought they conquered most of the world at that time... little did they know of China, Russia, Japan, Australia, North and South America, etc....
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    It's an incredibly subjective question, as this is an english forum most people will plump for the UK (which tbh I disagree with), and it comes down to how you want to look at 'greatness'.
    Most people will base their choice of the UK on the basis of the cultural domination of the States in the current world/the colonies, but throughout most of the period where the empire was preeminent, the main role of the UK in europe was that of paymaster for other nations (of course there were the expeditions by Wellington/Marlborough), and their chief goal was to maintain the 'balance of power' as it were, not really a 'great' history is it? (Especially if we're talking about European history).
    And if you want to use the States as the reason for the UK having the greatest influence, then what about the Greeks, who's teachings and philosophies have played a fundamental role throughout the course of European history?

    Personally I don't think you can look past France, no other country has been so ubiquitous on the European stage. If you look at history, most of it is dedicated to halting their domination of european affairs. Their contribution to the sciences is probably only matched by that of Germany, especially when looking at Chemistry. On top of that they were the cultural trend setters of Europe for centuries.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Britain > Italy > France

    In that order


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.