Darth Roach

Depends on whose respect.

I understand you like to think that Alexander's troops charged forward flinging barbarians left and right, but you have to understand that there is more than just population to consider when it comes to what army you can field. Of course, Persia could total a lot more than Macedon, but its military was drawn out fighting constant rebellions, barbarian (from their POV) incursions and policing the satrapies. So in the end it is not ridiculous that the Macedonians could field a larger invasion force than many of the armies sent to contend with it. Then there's the fact they were probably on the brink of bankruptcy all the time.

Guaporense

I am not ignorant. The fact is that Western Eurasian civilization is older. By a wide margin:



The oldest evidences of agriculture, towns and writing are all from Western Eurasia.

Invention of agriculture:

Western Eurasia: 14,000 years ago
China: 8,000 years ago

Invention of writing:

Western Eurasia: 5,300 years ago
China: 1,200 years ago

The oldest kjnow town is 9,000 - 8,000 years old, Catalhoyuk, with a population of ca. 5000, over 8,000 years ago:



Catalhoyuk is at the center of a triangle formed by Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia, the cradle of Western Eurasian civilization. The oldest civilization of the world, which actually absorbed all other civilizations into itself.

Ohh. I never said that there weren't ruins in China and India. I said that there weren't surviving examples of Chinese and Indian architecture. Such as:



And of course, if measured by the number of ruins, western eurasia concentrates about 90% of the world's ruins dated from before 1 ad.

Even measuring the quantities of metal pollution found in the Greeland ice caps show that with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire global levels of lead, copper, zinc, tin and mercury pollution declined by 90%. Which shows that western eurasian "metal footprint" was greater than all other civilizations combined by an order of magnitude.

That's normal: When a civilization becomes more advanced it's levels of metal production increase by orders of magnitude and hence it's difference with other civilizations becomes very large. For instance, in the early 20th century, Europe and North America produced 90 million tons of iron per year, as compared with 0.4 million for China. Another example is during the Song Dynasty when global levels of copper emissions increased from 300 tons to 2,100 tons between 850 ad and 1080 ad, later on with the collapse of china under the mongol invasions global levels of copper emission declined again to 300 tons. Which shows that about 90% of the world's copper production was concentrated in a single civilization.

I am right. It is obvious to the unbiased mind that western eurasian civilization is older. Chinese and Indian civilizations are actually not that old, the perception of China as the world's oldest continuous civilization steems from the fact that we gloss over the cultural changes that occured in China while we classify the cultural changes in western eurasia as the rise and fall of new civilizations.

That's from 4,000 - 3,600 years ago?

Well, in Western Eurasia we have things like this from the same date:









It is obvious that currently there are much more stuff in Western Eurasia than anywhere else in the world dated from before 1CE.

Chang'an was larger than any walled city in Western Eurasia in terms of walled area. Rome had 14 square kilometers of walled area after Aurelian walled the city in the late 3rd century, Babylon had 9 square kilometers. (though Rome's size in the late 3rd century was probably a fraction of it's peak size 200 years earlier, when the city didn't have any walls)

However that doesn't mean that Chang'an's population was larger than Western Eurasian cities. That shows that cities in China performed a different function than Western Eurasian cities.

In China cities were palace-like complexes for the emperor. They were not cities in our modern conception. They were centers of political power, not centers of economic activity. As result population densities in Chang'an were very low:



Compare with Rome:



Population densities in the large Graeco-Roman cities were very high because all the city needed to be within walking distance of about 1 hour, as result big cities in the classical world had population densities of 400 per hectare, as compared with 70 for the Chinese "palace-cities". Rome had many apartment buildings with 7-8 stories, while in Chinese cities housing was limited to the ground floor.

Smaller Graeco-Roman cities also had lower densities, Olynthus had a density of less than 100 per square kilometer. Graceo-Roman cities were focal points of economic activity and population concentrated around the city center. When the population increased building became higher and settlement density increased instead of simply expanding it's build up area.

Chinese cities were not natural: they existed as long as the Chinese state supported the city with the surplus extracted from the tens of millions of peasants in the countryside. With the fall of Chinese dynasties the capitals also were abandoned. Before you say that Rome also was abandoned with the fall of the Roman Empire you should understand that the fall of the Roman Empire was not the fall of a political system, but the collapse of a civilization in a scale never repeated in history, as levels of metal output declined by factors of 90-95%.

So why cities with continuous habitation such as Rome have a lot of ruins? Why even in Britain there are higher density of ruins than in China? Western Eurasia's population declined with the fall of the Roman Empire, but it was always at least several tens of millions. Western Eurasian civilization never ceased to exist, as the world today is the western eurasian civilization in it's global phase.

There are much fewer ancient ruins in China than in Western Eurasia because there were fewer buildings and the buildings in China were build with inferior standards of durability. That's expected: China at the time of the Han Dynasty was at about the same technological/social/economic level as Western Eurasia during the bronze age.

In fact we have more ruins in Western Eurasia from the Bronze Age than in China for the whole of antiquity.

It is no coincidence that western eurasian civilization has growth to dominate the world and absorb all other civilizations into itself: it was the oldest, most advanced civilization. And the Roman Empire was the only empire that managed to unify all of western eurasia into a single political unit. Therefore it was the most "powerful" empire in history. It certainly was the most influential: as the civilization that covers the entire world today came from the ruins of the Roman Empire.

Alcibiades

How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

1)You can read my thoughts
2)You think me a racist,Euro-superiorists
3)Cheap personal insult to undermine my arguments

Which of these is it?

Macedonians?Yes,you are right.In fact,one of the most important reasons for invasion of Persia was the empty state coffers,and the imminent collapse of Macedonian military without pay(and with military,collapse of entire Macedon).From the moment he touched the ground of Asia Minor,he only had the money for 1 month(and even that he had to borrow).In fact,only full Persian treasures captured remedied the situtation.The amount which could support dozens of wars for decades.


Alcibiades

Darth Roach

I assume you are a Eurocentrist.
They were both on the brink of bankruptcy - the Persians were collapsing through internecine warfare, the Macedonians had a disproportionately large army.

Those Persian riches were in fact loot. Something the Persians couldn't access from their own cities if they wished to keep control.

Guaporense

So why not assume that there were civilizations in ancient Canada, Antarctica, or on the Moon then?

The fact that there are very few ancient ruins in India and China as opposed to western eurasia, while there are many more medieval ruins. This indicates that while civilization flourished in western eurasia since 3000 BC, in China and India it flourished much later.

Han tombs are comparable with bronze age western eurasian tombs:





The oldest surviving buildins in China date from the middle ages:




Also interestingly, the tallest structures in the world were always Western Eurasian:

Alcibiades

That's a pretty big assumption to make,considering you are here for only 1 month,and I didn't posted much in that time.

Do you know the meaning of the phrase ad hominem?
Yes,you are right.They had MASSIVE treasures,which could finance their diplomacy and wars for decades,and were as far from bancrupcy as was possible in ancient world.
Alcibiades

Darth Roach

Ok, I apologize for calling you Eurocentrist (may it be true or untrue).

Yet those treasuries could only be used for paying Greeks, since the empire itself didn't have a monetary economy. It appears coins were forged specifically to bribe Greek cities.

HackneyedScribe

Wait a minute, what did you think I said? I was addressing the fact that China had ruins, in responce to your statement that China had no surviving examples. I mentioned nothing about oldness nor anything about Western Eurasian civilization. What I did was give evidence of Han dynasty ruins. That's it.

Okay, now you're just making things up. 1,200 years old? That's as recent as the Tang dynasty, if you must know. Anyway, I'm trying very hard not to have a dick comparison game here. If your interest in some particular section of history has to do with having "bigger" numbers than other civilizations, then at the very least reply to a post that is relevant to your purpose.

Ahem, surviving Han dynasty structure:



Also link to Han dynasty ruins: http://www.historum.com/ancient-hist...tml#post796693

You should know about that because it was in the post you yourself replied to. There's a wealth of textual and archeological evidence of advanced societies beyond the greco-Roman world (heaven forbid). Just because you don't or won't read about it doesn't mean they don't exist.

You just really can't stop yourself, can you. I was comparing the size of Chang'an with that of an Erlitou site. I mentioned nothing about Rome. I don't know where you get all these ideas about what I said. On the other hand, if you don't know about a section of history, you probably shouldn't act like you know it. Chang'an came from an extension of a previous Qin city, which was razed. It wasn't just built on the spot. The fact that there were continuously always one metropolis around the site of Han Chang'an shows that it was built in a location of prime commercial importance. The reason it was in ruins was because it was razed to the ground during Wang Mang's downfall, that’s why the bureaucracy had to switch its capital to Luoyang. It was abandoned by the sword, not by the lack of commerce. Tang dynasty Chang'an was probably built on top of a nearby satellite town, which eventually ended up being razed again. Then another metropolis popped up again. Today it is Xi'an, still a very large city. If there were no commercial value in the sector then people wouldn’t keep rebuilding cities at that place. So Chang’an was both the political, cultural, military AND economic center of the empire. Until it was razed, that is. But lets say Chang'an was not the economic center. But wait, isn't that much like modern China? Beijing is the cultural and political capital, yet Shanghai is seen as the economic center. Is that supposed to mean anything?

How many times was the Colosseum repaired? Yet despite the number of repairs, what condition is it in today? How many times was the Pharos of Alexandria repaired? Is it here now? So by your logic the Lighthouse never existed, despite the textual evidence to the contrary. Now how many times was Chang’an ever repaired since its destruction? Or do you expect buildings to be in mint condition for over 2000 years?

Also, I was talking about ruins of entire cities, not some ancient building located downtown. The former belonged to the type of examples that I gave, no? If these ruins had "continuous habitation", then I question their mental health and general ability to make good choices in regard to shelter. Now obviously something horrible befell the inhabitants, be that conquest or natural disaster. One entire city couldn't have just all spontaneously decided to have a camping trip. Although I was saying this in regard to the ruins of Chang'an and the Erlitou site, I suppose it also applies to "Western Eurasia", if you must.

I'm not. You assume I study history for the same reason you do.

So were Tang ones. By your logic I suppose they had around the same level of development as well?



Then don't act so insecure. If you like to study about Greco-Roman civilization, fine, go ahead. But if you're not going to study other cultures because you like studying it, then don't. But here you are, trying to prove about the superiority of this culture in reply to a post that mentioned nothing about said culture.

Alcibiades

What more would they need it for?Not for paying Persian troops,and not for Central Asian units,which they could levy with force,and promise loot as a reward.

What is your basis for stating "empire itself didn't have a monetary economy"?
Alcibiades

Darth Roach

Loot as reward? To their professional cavalry? Please, those were the men who received land and slaves.

And the Achaemenid empire did not use money. It only had gold coin for brining Greeks. So it's natural they had a crapload of gold yet they couldn't sustain themselves.