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

Status
Closed
Apr 2017
759
Lemuria
Stone alone is probably even more durable, as it's only gravity holding everything together, the Pont du Gard is an example of that. Anyway, it's exact this durability and reliability that makes stone an excellent building material for bridges, regardless of cultural preferences.

True especially if you can cut the stones perfectly and place them into an interlocking pattern as in Cusco. The Spanish and "Incan" masonry side by side proves Spanish mortar masonry is far inferior when it comes to longevity.
 
Apr 2017
759
Lemuria
Yes, but tenon mortice joints in stone masory are required for mortar- less construction. They might work loose in the event of an earthquake.

Not if they are a perfect fit as in Cusco. If anything they are nigh to earth quake proof. Stones cemented together using mortar will crack along the mortal lines fairly easily.



For example below. Spanish vs Inca built contrasted


 

cachibatches

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,359
/facepalm Again epic fail, while stone is stronger in some areas (compressive strength), but fail in other areas such as being brittle, and subject to weathering/corrosion of the elements. Then again all that proves is that materials have their pros and cons. Houses in North America are made of composites of wood,nails,concrete base,etc with economics taken into consideration pretty much makes the argument baseless....
Yes, but the stone is better in the important ways that lead to is lasting longer, as evidenced by, well, every single thing that we are talking about and have posted pictures of.

Houses in north America don't last thousands of years.

You really should be careful with your attempts at sarcasm.


/
Actually it's not since buildings such as high rise structures made of reinforced concrete and steel, along with modern plumbing/wiring are torn down from time to time despite taken for granted is an engineering marvel makes such stone structures laughable by comparison in multitude of areas is makes this argument moot.....
Gibberish.

You understand that steel makes high rises possible, right?


/
Irrelevant point, buildings survive not necessarily because to last for a 1000 years, but rather the inhabitants perform maintenance over the course of time. The Hagia Sophia for instance last to this day due to the Ottomans/Turks provide routine maintenance, and at one point provided reinforcements to original structure to prevent collapse......
You don't underand the point, but it doesn't matter, The Chinese structures are not there to be maintained because the wooden ones burned down and most of the mud ones washed away. The stone is there to be maintained because it is a more durable material in the first place. Nothing that you are going to say is going to make wood as good as stone.


/

Again this point is self-contradicting, as it further proves maintenance for lasting a long time. Then again intentional sabotage to a building such a skyscraper with a jumbo jet further discredits this point.

Well I had a great laugh...
But the joke is on you. This thread has had over 143,000 viewings. What percentage of those people are looking at pics of the Pantheon and concluding that extinct Chinese wood and mud structures are just as "advanced"?

How many professional engineers and and historians are buying into what you are saying? I will tell you that it is probably close to zero. The Roman revolution in architecture is acknowledged by the entire world, outside of a few lovable fellows on this site who are in some sort of strange denial. I tried posting the scientific properties of wood and stone, and you didn't undersand...maybe some publications from eminent institutions on the Roman revolution in architecture will help you understand who gets the last laugh here. I'll give you a hint...it's not you.

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam033/2002041687.pdf

https://oyc.yale.edu/history-art/hsar-252/lecture-3

https://www.scribd.com/document/344515267/Roman-Imperial-Architecture-pdf

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2810.htm

Lecture 3 - Technology and Revolution in Roman Architecture - VideoLectures.NET

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-secrets-of-ancient-romes-buildings-234992/



The good thing about this argument going on is that common sense wins out just by posting pictures, which is what I intend to keep doing.











 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
38
malta
European mathematicians had large influence from indian and chineese mathematicians indireclty,i think but that goes both ways,in any case like number system other ideas could have also been influenced through trade,don't you think?
i have no problem acknowledging greatness of european or any great mind,it just gets bad when some people sometime out of sheer ignorance belittle other great minds simply because of their ethnicity or culture.
Italian mathematicians and then others European mathematicians had almost no influence from Indians and chinese mathematicians.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
Italian mathematicians and then others European mathematicians had almost no influence from Indians and chinese mathematicians.
True enough, mediefal Europeans and Italians did hnot have influence on Indian and Chinese matematicians until the modern age. Europeans did influence both in the modern era.

But neither did Indian and Chinese mathematicians effect European mathematicians in the ancient classical period either. Many of the classical wroks of Indian mathematicians weren't written until the early centuries CE, after the heyday of Greek mathematicians. Ancient Grreek mathematicians did influence Indian mathematician, the extent which can be argued..

Indian mathematicians did indirectly greatly influence Eurpoe in the middle age via transmission by Arabic works based on Indian mathematicians.

Jesuits brought the works of European mathemeticians to the Chinese attention starting in the 16th centiry. The Chinese reported, though, that many of the results of the European mathematicas had previously been independently discovered by Chinese mathematicians, but just had been forgotten until after the Jesuits arrived.
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
I don't think Chinese mathematics influence anyone outside of Asia, but I am under the impression from my classes (almost 2 decades ago) on History of Mathematics that Indian mathematics did influence Arab mathematicians and they in turn influenced European mathematics.
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,613
As said before, the Jesuits told the Chinese that their math/religion came from the glory days of the Zhou, became lost during Qin Shihuang's book burning, and then preserved by the West. This is equivalent to telling a westerner that Confucius was the lost disciple of Jesus. The Jesuits knew the Chinese venerated the ancient sage Kings and so told them what appealed to them the most. Don't know why some keep implying as if the Chinese invented the idea that Western Mathematics came from China, when in fact they only thought that because the Jesuits told them.

Indian numerals became Arabic numerals which was transmitted west and eventually the world. This is VERY heavy influence. You can do so many things with it that other "math" numerals could not. For one, it uses the number zero to indicate base ten, which opens up new ways for calculation:






It's very easy and clear to write a number no one encountered before. For example, 1,474,890,564.354. Anyone who reads that can easily understand the numerical amount it represents. Not so with Roman numerals. After a number gets up to a certain size, (or the decimals get to a certain length) you have to invent a new word for it. In fact, Romans showed fractions in the form of a series of dots. For Arabic numerals, you use one dot and use the same ol numbers you had always been using. With just one dot you can have your decimal value be as precise as you want.


Even despite this, influence and advancement are not the same thing. Arabic numerals are simply more advanced even if the rest of the world uses Roman numerals. If the rest of the world still uses Roman numerals, that would just mean the rest of the world is close minded, it doesn't mean Arabic numerals are inferior.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2016
612
United States, MO
Yes, but the stone is better in the important ways that lead to is lasting longer, as evidenced by, well, every single thing that we are talking about and have posted pictures of.

Houses in north America don't last thousands of years.

You really should be careful with your attempts at sarcasm.




Gibberish.

You understand that steel makes high rises possible, right?




You don't underand the point, but it doesn't matter, The Chinese structures are not there to be maintained because the wooden ones burned down and most of the mud ones washed away. The stone is there to be maintained because it is a more durable material in the first place. Nothing that you are going to say is going to make wood as good as stone.




But the joke is on you. This thread has had over 143,000 viewings. What percentage of those people are looking at pics of the Pantheon and concluding that extinct Chinese wood and mud structures are just as "advanced"?

How many professional engineers and and historians are buying into what you are saying? I will tell you that it is probably close to zero. The Roman revolution in architecture is acknowledged by the entire world, outside of a few lovable fellows on this site who are in some sort of strange denial. I tried posting the scientific properties of wood and stone, and you didn't undersand...maybe some publications from eminent institutions on the Roman revolution in architecture will help you understand who gets the last laugh here. I'll give you a hint...it's not you.

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam033/2002041687.pdf

https://oyc.yale.edu/history-art/hsar-252/lecture-3

https://www.scribd.com/document/344515267/Roman-Imperial-Architecture-pdf

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2810.htm

Lecture 3 - Technology and Revolution in Roman Architecture - VideoLectures.NET

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-secrets-of-ancient-romes-buildings-234992/



The good thing about this argument going on is that common sense wins out just by posting pictures, which is what I intend to keep doing.











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.
 
Status
Closed