Second-rate Ancient Greece conquered most of Europe and all the land that surrounded the Mediterranean, which seems like more than what first-rate Ancient Greece accomplished.
Okay, how about ‘descendants of its languages are spoken across the globe and Latin is used in science and mathematics, whereas Greek is primarily spoken in Greece by Greeks?’
Or how about ‘a single, united Roman kingdom/republic/empire lasted over a thousand years, whereas Alexander’s empire fell apart in a generation and his was the only united one?’
Or how about ‘the religion that formed within the borders of the Roman Empire is the most populous religion in the world?’
Are the contributions of prior peoples rendered moot simply because their ancestral language is no longer being spoken?
Why is a larger or longer empire inherently a better one? I don’t care about conquests and empires, I care about cultures, peoples, and innovations.
And frankly regarding religion, I don’t think which delusion has the biggest fanbase is a valid indicator of anything more than popularity, tbh (especially when a good number of that “popularity” came at the end of a sword).
All that being said, I have to admit I didn’t expect my off-hand quip in response to the memeification of the Roman Empire was going to get me into a debate with the official Roman Tourism Board, so I do have to admit that I feel a bit unequipped in this conflict.
I never think about the Roman Empire; why would I waste my time thinking about second-rate Ancient Greece?
Second-rate Ancient Greece conquered most of Europe and all the land that surrounded the Mediterranean, which seems like more than what first-rate Ancient Greece accomplished.
Only if you decide to rank accomplishment solely based on footprint.
I’d argue there is vastly more to heritage and history than simply “but how much land did they conquer?”
Okay, how about ‘descendants of its languages are spoken across the globe and Latin is used in science and mathematics, whereas Greek is primarily spoken in Greece by Greeks?’
Or how about ‘a single, united Roman kingdom/republic/empire lasted over a thousand years, whereas Alexander’s empire fell apart in a generation and his was the only united one?’
Or how about ‘the religion that formed within the borders of the Roman Empire is the most populous religion in the world?’
I can come up with plenty more…
yeah but do they have gyros?
Are the contributions of prior peoples rendered moot simply because their ancestral language is no longer being spoken?
Why is a larger or longer empire inherently a better one? I don’t care about conquests and empires, I care about cultures, peoples, and innovations.
And frankly regarding religion, I don’t think which delusion has the biggest fanbase is a valid indicator of anything more than popularity, tbh (especially when a good number of that “popularity” came at the end of a sword).
All that being said, I have to admit I didn’t expect my off-hand quip in response to the memeification of the Roman Empire was going to get me into a debate with the official Roman Tourism Board, so I do have to admit that I feel a bit unequipped in this conflict.
edit: typo and expanding
I mean… you haven’t given any reason why the Greeks were superior, so…
You’re right, and I don’t intend to either.
I mean… don’t say clearly contentious things if you don’t want people to challenge them.
You are welcome to challenge my comments, Flying Squid. I lob zero objections.
Vale, trebuchets fired!