ancient civilisations and empires in history

let's list 'em.
off the top of my head, there's ancient greece (philosophy! sculpture! tragedy!), rome (gladiators), the byzantine empire/constantinople (mosaics, awesome architecture), ancient india (uh.. elephants?), ancient egypt (pyramids and papyrus!) .. ancient china (vases, funny hats and robes), feudal japan (ninjas)

am I missing any? add please.

>>40
By that time he didn't have enough men, even though they were superioer they could not fight their way across India, march through 500 miles of jungle and then face off armies which outnumberred them considerably more so than Darius at Gaugamela (by this time most of his army must have perished). Theoretically he could defeat the odd Indian state, then threaten and coerce the rest like he did when he was getting the Greeks to side with him. Except the Indians would not be as eager to give him half of their troops since he was some upstart from the other side of the world and they would probably attempt to assassinate him or plot to take his lands when he leaves India to see to the rest of his empire or something.

>>41
when he reached india his total army size was considerably larger than what he started with after he conquered persia. there were more persians than greeks in his army by then. he won a great victory againts the indian kingdom of hydaspes, he even spared the captured king's life and let him rule on in his name. it was his greek soldiers who refused to go push eastward after 8 years of conquest. and if he did pushed eastward, i doubt anyone could stand in his way.

>>42
Persian troops consisted mostly of light infantry, some light cavalry and some hastily trained pikemen. Nothing like his elite hoplites. At best he would just be a good general with mediocre troops and sucked into the tapestry of warlords in India. Even if he did become a figurehead and collected imperial tax from the India's states, allied with one of the warring states in China, sent a newly trained army over and carved out a bigger empire, all he would have done is be a figurehead with 100 or so legendary macedonians still alive compared to 100000 mercenaries loyal to machiavellian warlords 100s of miles away.

>>43
alexander's army strength wasn't just relying on his phalangites, it was through combined arms that he win his battles. in fact, for the different opponents and situations that he encountered, he tackled the problem with a different strategy, utilizing the various unit types available to him. when facing the hill clans he dealed with them with more emphasis on other infantry and little to no use of his phalangites.

"there isn't enough good soldiers left" case wasn't true at all. there were plenty of native macedonian soldiers left at his disposal, his army was never "low" on native macedonian and mercenary greek forces such as phalangites, hypaspists, his various cavalry regiments nor other light infantry. in fact, after his death the succesor states still had plenty of these macedonian soldiers to go around fighting each other and everyone else, right up to the roman conquest of the hellenistic world.

figurehead? hardly so. ever heard of vassal states? sure some problems do occur with the local puppet-kings now and then, but that is something quite inevitable, alexander himself executed a number of his military-governors when they misbehaved in his absence.

>>44
I don't think you quite understand the scale of the conquests Alexander would need. India is much more densely populated than Persia and the humid environment makes the spread of disease much easier. Defeating some border kingdom wouldn't be enough to topple every warlord in India.

>>45
and does the idea of the massive amount of conquest required stop conquerors like alexander, genkhis and kublai khan from doing what they did best? beside the romans, alexaner's conquests were the largest the ancient world had ever seen, what he did in less than 10 years took the romans centuries to do. only the mongols under genkhis and kublai managed to surpass him, and it is a widely agreed fact that if death had not stopped alexander, history would be a very different thing that what we know today.

Porus' kingdom wasn't a mere border kingdom either, it was the only indian kingdom that stood and fight instead of merely surrendering everything to the macedonians on their arrival. alexander did not had the chance of marching into Magadha, the last crucial indian kingdom he needed to conquer before he was done with the indus valley and onwards east into southeast asia. (the numerous small kingdoms in the south wasn't as important as Magadha and would be easily subdued.)

The inhabitants of sub-saharran Africa were not a major influence on the mediteranean world.

Again: Moderning thinking didn't just pop up once people left Africa. It's innate, it was there already.

Civilisation began approximately 65000 years after the first homo-sapien-sapiens ventured out of africa. Modern thinking did not necessarily begin in Africa.

"not necessarily" leaves so much more room for doubt in that department than you are willing to admit.

>>16

go back to race thread. anglos didn't exist and spread until MUCH, MUCH later. look at the pottery and art of ancient cultures. do you think they are stupid, or color blind? anglos used white-like colors to dicpict themselves and everyone else has pretty much done the same since before then. the idea that The CARTHAGINIANS weren't darker than morroccans (who're basically anglos) sounds like the wailings of a racist lunatic.

>>47
Carthaginians weren't blacks, nor were they white. they resemble the Phonecians, who were the founders of Carthage.

to everyone else, try to do some reasearch on the subject before posting up some complete bullcrap.

""not necessarily" leaves so much more room for doubt in that department than you are willing to admit."

In your little world maybe. But in my world where accepting you are wrong and criticism are not the most terrible things in the world it isn't. If by modern thinking you mean stone age thinking, then you are right. If by modern thinking you mean large scale organised civilisation then it began in 3 seperate instances in the flood plains of the Euphrates and Tigris, in South China and in Central America. If by modern thinking you mean rational philosophy then it began with the first simple use of mathematics to predict the movement of the stars, moon and sun which again occurred in several seperate instances.

The idea that modern Morrocans are mainly "anglos" is so completely absurd I will leave it up to you whether you prompt me into responding to the notion.

>>49
what's this large scale South China and Central American civilization you're talking about? the Huang He civilization of China and the Omecs of Central America didn't began until much later.

One word: KOREA <^_____________________________^>

ADAM AND EVE WERE THE FIRST CIVILIZATION THEY MADE CAIN AND ABEL AND ALL THEIR OFFSPRING TO CREATE THE HUMAN RACE LOLOL

>>51
korea fails hard. everyone knows japan is superior, even china is superior.

>>50
Central american and southern chinese civilisation were initiated on their own, they were originators of organised civilisation, they did not imitate the growing empire just over the hills.

You still haven't defined what you mnean by modern thought yet. I am beginning to think you are incapable of modern thought!

>>54
>>50 and >>47 are different persons. I'm the poster of >>50 and thanks for the explaination.

>>49

First: Never said that Morroccans were anglo.

Second: "Not nessacarily" leaves a large amount of room when it comes to whether or not sub-saharan africans were capable of "modern thinking" <=== nebulous phrase alert!

Just cut the rhetorical bullshit already, sub-saharans did have the ability to map the stars, organize "civilization" (<=== another nebulous phrase) and all that shit. Don't get up in arms because you've largly remained ignorant of this fact. The very notion that there is a natural and in-born genetic divide between those in Sub-sahara and those who left is going to leave alot of genetics professors shaking their heads at you.

Genetically speaking humankind has not changed one bit since we've come out of Africa, therefore you have absolutely no proof and no reason to believe that "modern thinking" isn't an innate human response or something that naturally occurs regardless of race or environmental stimuli.

Or do you?

NIGGERS INVENTED NOTHING YET LAY CLAIM TO EVERYTHING.
TIGER WOODS ISN'T REALLY BLACK OK GUYSE

>>53
korea is not fail; they make sum decent stuff. i buy korean most of the time.

>>58
they fail at imitating japan and make shitty manhwa, shitty pop music, shitty drama, shitty games and shity animation. they're born with shitty names thus the need for pseudonyms like BoA and Rain. they're divided and historically korea get their asses kicked all the time.

>>56
First: This is what you actually believe and it's in writing.

"The CARTHAGINIANS weren't darker than morroccans (who're basically anglos) sounds like the wailings of a racist lunatic."

You can claim that wasn't you again, but by the standard of writing I'm pretty >>56 and >>47 are the same person.

Second: You are a racist because you want to deny facts and replace them with pseudo-history to "empower" the black race. As a black male who has experienced racism I feel humiliated when people think that I need black role models and to feel "empowerred" with lies. I wouldn't be suprised if you were pretending to be an afrocentrist in order to put across the idea that blacks are less than. All I was doing was stating facts, I'm sorry every single history changing event didn't occur in sub-saharran africa, but you can't change facts because you don't like them or claim anyone who criticises you is a boogeyman because you don't like what they say.

When you are ready to back up your statements with fact, go right ahead, until then stop trolling.

>>60

1. I never claimed I wasn't >>47.

2. Morroccans are basically from a genetic stand point- anglos. Anglos were not a prime race in ancient times and my point (which you refuse to address) because their own ability to point out their skin color still stands. (And don't come up into this joint when some middle-age-era art claiming it Identifies the skin tone of ancient man)

3. Hey. I'm black too, but way to burn the spot you fucking moron, now I'm starting to believe that you're just some white douche.

4. Finally: You addressed nothing in >>56  Come back to this thread when you're are ready to specifically address the points I'm making. You can't just repeat the same shit over and over and insist that you're right. Especially when it's obvious that you haven't done your reasearch and that you don't know what the fuck you're on about.

anonymous here thinks too many anonymous around is confusing.

>>61
2: wtf
3: I doubt it, but i don't particularly care either.
4: Oh sorry , I though you'd fill in the blanks when I said
"When you are ready to back up your statements with fact, go right ahead, until then stop trolling."

Well here it is in writing then.

Provide the evidence which backs up your statements.

There. Happy? Will you engage in rational debate now?

>>58
when korea isn't trying to do japanese things they excel quite well. but that's neither here nor there.

jesus christ does every thread need to be a racist thread?

it would seem that way.

>>65
Only because people disagree with me.

>>63

This is (like the post before it) is the equivalent of "NO U". How  about this: You respond to the following:

1. "Moderning thinking didn't just pop up once people left Africa. It's innate, it was there already."

The above is self-evident. It's a statement that has the fact that mankind was even able to survive in the subhara that supports it. You use terms "Modern thinking" and "civilization" in a way to indicate that sub-saharn africans lacks these things. The fact of the matter is- that if that were actually true- you and I wouldn't be here. Now what is so fucking hard to admit about that?

2. "Genetically speaking humankind has not changed one bit since we've come out of Africa, therefore you have absolutely no proof and no reason to believe that "modern thinking" isn't an innate human response or something that naturally occurs regardless of race or environmental stimuli."

Again, given what we know (that's called: knowledge) about human genetics it is still proposerous to think that "modern thinking" or the ability to produce "civilization" was beyond the capcity of the sub saharan african. This are things that are written in text books, and the numerous of .edus that were linked in race thread. Or do you want to run "sub-saharan african civilizations" through google?

Just respond. Stop bullshitting and respond with something that's countering what I'm saying or you fail.

>>68
frankly i would hardly call 99.9% of the present world's population having this so called modern thinking. drop the debate and get back on topic.

>>69

Exactly, my point. If we haven't changed genetically since we came out of Africa, then what precisely IS "Modern Thinking" and how exactly did Sub-Saharan Africans not have "civilization"? Clearly they did, or we simply would cease to exist.

>>70
NO, HUMANS HAVEN'T CHANGED AT ALL SINCE THEY LEFT AFRICA!   BLUE EYES, BIG NOSES, PALE SKIN?  THAT ALL EVOLVED IN AFRICA!  THEY JUST LEFT BECAUSE IT WAS TOO HOT DOWN THERE FOR THEM TO LIVE!

>>71
Does this mean that niggers are not humans? I like your theory!

I don't know why people insist on saying that humankind hasn't changed at all since leaving africa...  Adaptation never stopped.  This is obvious in the physical appearance of different populations from different areas.  I don't know what this thread is about, but to say that there hasn't been any change is to ignore something basic and obvious.

>>72
Well, human is an imposed definition of a natural phenomenon.  So, if you want to claim they aren't human, go right ahead.

The debate here seems to hinge on the idea that africans are somehow "not as good" as other races that exist in the world.  They're going through a time of strife, as they have at many times during their history, and which all races have gone through at different times.  Even the Japanese, venerated as the smartest people in the world by those who study IQ as a genetic phenomenon, had many times of chaos and rampant criminal activity during their history. 

You can't point to any single thing that demonstrates without a doubt that africans are inferior to your master races.  They have done all the good things you've done, and you've done all the bad things they've done.

End of story.

Jesus was black.  The Egyptians were black.   The Greeks were black.  The Romans wouldn't even have been so awesome if they didn't steal all their ideas from the Greeks.

>>76
Jesus was an extraterrestrial.

>>76
in soviet russia, black is everyone.

>>75
They're not as good because attractive african blacks don't exist, in term of looks that is. Even the ones whom you deem attractive is sub-par compared to the attractive ones of the other races.

they're still going through "a time of strife" that has been going on since like forever while everone else moved on.  the sooner people realize and admit they're inferior and improve themselves the sooner they'd be able to redeem themselves of their past failures, just like the japanese.

o laud is dis sum afrocentrism

>>78
Africa had empires, dude...  Fukken EMPIRES.   You can't tell me they're inferior when they had fukken EMPIRES. The Mali Empire, Oba of Benin, the Kanem-Bornu Empire, the Fulani Empire, the Dahomey, Oyo, Aro confederacy, the Ashanti Empire, and the Songhay.  How many empires did europe have?  Like, three?  Fuuuuck, bitches!