Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 18th, 2016, 08:14 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Chicago
Posts: 238
can one argue that Ancient Egypt was a more impressive society than Ancient Rome


in terms of technology, science, military, economy etc.
RemGrade is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 18th, 2016, 08:54 AM   #2

Matthew Amt's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: MD, USA
Posts: 2,422

Quote:
Originally Posted by RemGrade View Post
in terms of technology, science, military, economy etc.
Technology? I don't see how. Even without considering that the "glory days" that most people envision when they think "Egypt" were actually in the Bronze Age, while almost all of Roman history was in the Iron Age. There are some theories about Egyptian technology, such as floating stone blocks in channels and tubes of water to build the pyramids, which are extremely clever and intriguing but really not proven. And they aren't really anything the Romans could not have done. Roman technology such as iron plate armor seems to have involved something like rollers, or at least power hammers, to get the consistency of thickness that we see in the artifacts, and there aren't many real options for how they could have done that. And it was on a production level, Empire-wide, not just one building site.

Science? Hoo, kind of depends on your definition of science, and how much Roman science you want to ascribe to Greeks or other people who were part of the Roman Empire. Including Egypt! The Egyptians were certainly big on astronomy and anatomy and geometry. "More impressive" is pretty subjective, of course.

Military? The Egyptians had a very good army, even organized with legion-sized units, and including foreign auxiliaries. I don't think it was ever anywhere near as large as what the Romans could muster, though. And being mostly a Bronze Age society, the army was based on a core of elite charioteers, supported by infantry. Rome went the other way, with an infantry basis of commoners. They were also able to supply more body armor than Egypt could dream of.

Economy? I think that's where it falls down. Egypt was a major player in the Mediterranean in her day, certainly. But Rome WAS the Mediterranean, and a whole lot more! Egypt at its height couldn't compete economically with the Roman empire, from what I know. Partly because Rome *included* Egypt, at that point!

A lot of it is subjective, though!

Matthew
Matthew Amt is offline  
Old February 18th, 2016, 09:11 AM   #3

bedb's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2014
From: Texas
Posts: 526

no....Rome wins in everything but length of time. Egypt lasted longer. What Egypt did was take other peoples' ideas and make them better
bedb is offline  
Old February 18th, 2016, 10:29 AM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,704

Absolutely not. Egypt had an incredibly backwards society in fact.
Caesarmagnus is offline  
Old February 18th, 2016, 10:57 AM   #5

bedb's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2014
From: Texas
Posts: 526

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarmagnus View Post
Absolutely not. Egypt had an incredibly backwards society in fact.
in defense of Egypt they took the Hittite chariot and improved on it. By moving the axel back of center it gave the chariot better balance. And I believe for several reasons that they visited England during Stonehenge time.....their structures which were built later were an improvement.
....
bedb is offline  
Old February 18th, 2016, 11:04 AM   #6

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
Conseiller du Roi
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 7,451

I don't know if it's fair to call Egyptian (Km.tj) society "backwards", but its leadership was certainly very conservative. They sought to preserve the ancient ways of an ancient civilization, which is good for long term stability but not good for innovation.

However, we should remember that Egypt was as much older than Rome as Rome is to us. Rome had the benefit of reaching its apogee thousands of years after Km.t, and it gained a lot from the lessons of intervening history.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old February 18th, 2016, 11:45 AM   #7

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 21,842
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacific_Victory View Post
I don't know if it's fair to call Egyptian (Km.tj) society "backwards", but its leadership was certainly very conservative. They sought to preserve the ancient ways of an ancient civilization, which is good for long term stability but not good for innovation.

However, we should remember that Egypt was as much older than Rome as Rome is to us. Rome had the benefit of reaching its apogee thousands of years after Km.t, and it gained a lot from the lessons of intervening history.
Also simply "KmT" is acceptable ...

You're substantially right. May be we should underline the different context. KmT came out from late Neolithic to be a lasting impressive civilization [impressive for its own age ... well ... ages]. Rome came out from a well different context and the "eternal city" conquered it's status of being impressive [while ancient Egypt had to deal just with invaders and the historical competitions with Asian powers].

Was KmT [the black land] impressive? Sure, considering that it was the greatest and most advanced megalithic civilization ever ... Egypt was not a starting point, but the point of arrival of the megalithic culture in Central Africa. With a remarkable influence of Asian cultures from North East.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old February 18th, 2016, 12:04 PM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 1,722

Ancient Egypt was more of a fossilized civilization, compared to a dynamic Ancient Rome.
kandal is online now  
Old February 18th, 2016, 12:06 PM   #9

cladking's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: exile
Posts: 2,772

We really need to think of Egypt as two cultures; one after 2000 BC which is well understood and well documented and one before 2000 BC where we don't understand much of the writing, the culture, or any of the science.

Compared to the second Egypt Rome wins easily in most categories.

I'd guess Rome couldn't hold a candle to the first Egypt but this needs to be determined yet.
cladking is offline  
Old February 18th, 2016, 12:30 PM   #10

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 2,845

Quote:
Originally Posted by bedb View Post
in defense of Egypt they took the Hittite chariot and improved on it. By moving the axel back of center it gave the chariot better balance.
This is just speculation based on some pretty crude illustrations. The wikipedia entry uses the same evidence to suggest that Hittite chariots were better than Egyptian ones. In reality we don't know how Hittite chariots were constructed and only have a vague idea of what they looked like.

Last edited by Dan Howard; February 18th, 2016 at 12:33 PM.
Dan Howard is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
ancient, argue, egypt, impressive, rome, society



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Medical question for Ancient Rome/Ancient times Isabella General History 8 January 31st, 2015 05:12 PM
Ancient Egypt versus ancient China Thessalonian Speculative History 16 February 16th, 2012 11:09 AM
Most Famous People from Ancient Rome/Greece/Egypt crows2 Ancient History 12 January 5th, 2012 03:40 AM
Study of Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesoamerica? Nacho Ancient History 6 November 4th, 2010 12:18 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.