Which civilization was the world's most advanced in antiquity?

Status
Closed

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,323
Venice
well its conjectural(you know,based on incomplete information) construction of what it would have looked like.
I am asking what is it and from where is it taken from , it looks like Indian to me so I was wondering .
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
Sep 2016
350
India
I think the Sumerians were the oldest civilization followed closely by Egypt, China and India. Rome as a civilization came to existence much later.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
reverse china with india,atleast according to wikipedia.

The IVC civilization collapsed and its cities disappeared, and is a matter of debate how much contribution the IVC contributed to later Indian civilizations. The names of IVC vanished from memory, their advanced sewer and drainage system vanished with them too. When cities re-emerge in India, it was after China and Greece.

So if you include the Indus Valley Civilization, yes, it is older than China, but it you don't, then India should be placed after the Greeks.

The Greeks should be on that list, ahead of the Chinese I think or tne same. The Minoian and Mycenaean civilization was contemporary with IVC, and about the same age or slightly older. The cities and architectural elements of the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizationa were more advanced, the writing more extensive than found for contemporary China, and tne bronze and metal work as good. True, the Mycenaean civilization collapsed, but unlike the IVC, they did not vanish without a trace, but left a legacy that tne Greeks rememberd. Also, unlike the IVC, some of the Mycenaean cities still remain inhabited.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
The IVC civilization collapsed and its cities disappeared, and is a matter of debate how much contribution the IVC contributed to later Indian civilizations. The names of IVC vanished from memory, their advanced sewer and drainage system vanished with them too. When cities re-emerge in India, it was after China and Greece.

So if you include the Indus Valley Civilization, yes, it is older than China, but it you don't, then India should be placed after the Greeks.

The Greeks should be on that list, ahead of the Chinese I think or tne same. The Minoian and Mycenaean civilization was contemporary with IVC, and about the same age or slightly older. The cities and architectural elements of the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizationa were more advanced, the writing more extensive than found for contemporary China, and tne bronze and metal work as good. True, the Mycenaean civilization collapsed, but unlike the IVC, they did not vanish without a trace, but left a legacy that tne Greeks rememberd. Also, unlike the IVC, some of the Mycenaean cities still remain inhabited.
there is clear evidence that people of indus valley went eastwards to ganga river after massive drought,vedic religion is somewhat derived from indus valley civilization,with pottery showing continuity.
and indus valley did not collapse suddenly,it was gradual decline due to some centuries of draught.
 

cachibatches

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,354
Wood and stone are too different materials. Both of which have their pros and cons. East Asian wooden architecture and carpentry was the most advanced on earth for hundreds of years. And Roman stone architecture was also cutting edge in its time. The differences between these materials obviously influence the form, size, and longevity of these structures. And it is simply true that wooden structures cannot complete with stone in terms of longevity, but does this mean that the best engineered wooden structures in the world are somehow less "advanced" than their stone counterparts? Both of these traditions represent extremely advanced engineering and possess a mastery over their respective material. There is no stone building in China that can compete with Rome, and their are no wooden buildings outside East Asia that can compete with the Chinese tradition.

You can keep posting this nonsense if you like--it gives me the opportunity to keep posting Roman marvels, of which there are hundreds. I tried posting the properties of the two materials. I tried posting some good articles, books and lectures on the concrete revolution. All I can do is keep showing those who are coming here to learn.

To most people it is common sense. Stone is more difficult to work with, it creates more permanent structures, and it allows for greater scope and possibility. Regardless of how much you want to believe that you can argue this away, most of the thousands of people who come to this thread will know the truth by seeing it. So let's just keep going. You post your artists renditions of Chinese wood that rotted or burned down a millenia ago, and I will post pictures of the structures that people around the world dream of someday seeing. My pleasure.

Basilica of Constantine, Trier





Temple of Venus and Roma



Temple of Antoninus and Faustina



Another Angle of Les Ferreres Aqueduct:



Aqua Clopedia




Aqua Appia



Baths in Bath



Add to the list of already posted:

Pantheon
Coliseum
Pont Du Gard
Mausoleum of Hadrian/Castel Sant'Angelo
Baths of Caracalla
Theater of Marcellus
Aqueduct of Segovia
Masion Carree
Amphitheater De Pula
Tower of Hercules
Alcantara Bridge
The Severan Basilica
Amphitheater of El Jem
Aqua Claudia
Nimes Amphitheater
Temple of Bacchus Baalbek
Pyramid of Cestius Aurelian wall
Severen Basilica
Les Ferreres
Capua Amphitheater
Aqua Marcia
Verona Amphitheater
Hadrian's Wall
Arles Amphitheater
Porta Nigra
Temple of Portunus
Columns of temple of Hadrian
Octagon Room, Domus Aurea
Markets of Trajan
Forum of Pompeii
Porta Maggiore
Intersection of Aqua Claudia and Marcia
Aqua Julia
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed