Europe versus other cultures and civilisations

[humanist]

Fade has been posting this often, when comparing other societies to Europe (usually with the motivation of 'proving' European supremacism, by let's not focus on motivations here, but with facts):Giotto (1267-1337), Gaddi (1300-1366), and Cimabue (1240-1302) in painting; Petrach (1304-1374) and Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) in poetry and literature; Boccaccio (1313-1375) and Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400) in literature; St. Francis (1182-1226), St. Dominic (1170-1221), and Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) in spirituality; Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), Raymond Lully (1235-1315), and William of Ockham (1285-1349) in natural philosophy; St. Bonaventure (1221-1274), Alexander of Hales, and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in theology; John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) in logic; Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) in chemistry and botany; Frederick II (1194-1250) in zoology; Roger Bacon (1214-1294) in optics and natural philosophy; Petrus Peregrinus in magnetism; Jean Buridan (1300-1358) in physics; Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349), Richard Swineshead, and John Dumbleton in kinematics and dynamics; the Notre Dame School of Polyphony (1170-1250), Franco of Cologne, and Philippe de Vitry (1291-1361) in music; Adam de la Halle (1237-1288) in theater; Leonardo of Pisa in mathematics; Gratian in law; and the Gothic style in architecture.
Yet, they did not know the exact solar-elipical orbit and thus all their calanders were wrong, while the Incas had it right long before (indeed, when the Spanish arrived in the new world, the Mayans and Incas were adopting innacurate calanders).
Yet, they got their numeric system from the Arabs. In fact, it was an Arab who first speculated on the possibilty of Atoms, and the entire Atomic system; while the Europeans still didn't know the circumfrance of the Earth.
Yet the Chinese and the Incas easily outclassed the Gothic and Romanesque architects. And, if you ask me, Mosques look way cooler then churches, no matter how vaulted. And besides, English churches around this time weren't even Gothic- they were Norman-Romantic which is comepletely different and looks retarded.
Yet, the Europeans looked up to the Chinese as a model of Imperial power at its height, both culturally and politically.

[Anarch]

Yet, they got their numeric system from the Arabs. In fact, it was an Arab who first speculated on the possibilty of Atoms, and the entire Atomic system; while the Europeans still didn't know the circumfrance of the Earth.

Actually I believe Epicurus had a materialist, atomist metaphysics in his philosophy.

<edited out>

Yet, the Europeans looked up to the Chinese as a model of Imperial power at its height, both culturally and politically.

Which is why everyone ganged up and beat the shit out of the Chinese during the Boxer Rebellion, and why the Brits 0wn3d the Chinks in the Opium Wars. Yeah, right :222:

[Helios Panoptes]

Actually I believe Epicurus had a materialist, atomist metaphysics in his philosophy.

And before him Leucippus. For the ignorant, that was the fifth century BCE.

[Basil Fawlty]

And before him Leucippus. For the ignorant, that was the fifth century BCE.And not forgetting Democritus.

[Helios Panoptes]

And not forgetting Democritus.

Absolutely. Nothing of Leucippus was preserved, but one can check any book of Presocratic fragments for the writings of his student, Democritus. That is, assuming literacy is an attribute of the person in question.

[Ahknaton]

Yet, they did not know the exact solar-elipical orbit and thus all their calanders were wrong, while the Incas had it right long before (indeed, when the Spanish arrived in the new world, the Mayans and Incas were adopting innacurate calanders).
This is true, however it should be pointed out that the inaccuracies in both calendars were still quite small (0.0002 of a day for the Mayan calendar versus 0.0003 of a day for the Gregorian calendar). Also, the Mayans and the Incas both inherited their calendar system from the Olmecs.
Yet, they got their numeric system from the Arabs.
True.
In fact, it was an Arab who first speculated on the possibilty of Atoms, and the entire Atomic system;
False (as other posters have pointed out)
while the Europeans still didn't know the circumfrance of the Earth.
False. The first scientific estimate of the circumference of the Earth was made by Eratosthenes (circa 250 BC)
Yet the Chinese and the Incas easily outclassed the Gothic and Romanesque architects. And, if you ask me, Mosques look way cooler then churches, no matter how vaulted. No And besides, English churches around this time weren't even Gothic- they were Norman-Romantic which is comepletely different and looks retarded.
A matter of opinion. Personally I think no-one has come even close to matching the Pyramids, which the Arabs vandalised for materials to build Cairo. Mosques are ugly, although I like some Islamic geometrical pattern motifs.
Yet, the Europeans looked up to the Chinese as a model of Imperial power at its height, both culturally and politically.If true, this just demonstrates that Europeans aren't as smug and self-centred as you say they are, and are able to appreciate greatness in other civilisations.

[Dan Dare]

... And, if you ask me, Mosques look way cooler then churches, no matter how vaulted..

humanist, is this a good example of the mosque architecture you admire?

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/8538/cidhagiasophiarh0011gw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade has been posting this often, when comparing other societies to Europe (usually with the motivation of 'proving' European supremacism, by let's not focus on motivations here, but with facts)

Your posts are getting more and more absurd.

Yet, they did not know the exact solar-elipical orbit and thus all their calanders were wrong, while the Incas had it right long before (indeed, when the Spanish arrived in the new world, the Mayans and Incas were adopting innacurate calanders).

Mayan civilization collapsed centuries before Europeans ever arrived in the New World. Furthermore, Ptolemy's geocentric model mathematically accounted for the eliptical orbit of planets over a thousand years before the Incas ever existed (whom, I might add, did not even possess bronze swords).

Yet, they got their numeric system from the Arabs.

The so called Arabic numerals in fact came from India. Greek mathematics had been transplanted to India during the Hellenistic age.

In fact, it was an Arab who first speculated on the possibilty of Atoms, and the entire Atomic system; while the Europeans still didn't know the circumfrance of the Earth.

This is false. Atomism goes back to Democritius and other Classical Greek thinkers. The circumference of the earth was also known to the Greeks. Aristarchus of Samos was the first to propose and defend the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Yet the Chinese and the Incas easily outclassed the Gothic and Romanesque architects.And besides, English churches around this time weren't even Gothic- they were Norman-Romantic which is comepletely different and looks retarded.

ROFL

And, if you ask me, Mosques look way cooler then churches, no matter how vaulted.

Islamic architecture is an oxymoron. Ebusitanus has posted about this in the past.

Yet, the Europeans looked up to the Chinese as a model of Imperial power at its height, both culturally and politically.

Europeans had little knowledge of China until the Late Middle Ages/Early Modern Era. Also, Europeans looked up to Rome, not China.

[Ahknaton]

The so called Arabic numerals in fact came from India. Greek mathematics had been transplanted to India during the Hellenistic age.Positional notional (made possible by the zero) was invented by the Arabs, so the "number system" came from Arabia, even thought the numerals came from India.

[Fade the Butcher]

The Incas were still fucking around with stone tools when they were conquered by the Spanish.

[Dan Dare]

Philippe Rushton citing J.R. Baker, Race, OUP, 1975:

Twenty-one criteria by which a civilization could be judged were set up by J. R. Baker [in Race ; see note 13].... He ... proceeded to analyze the historical record to ascertain which races have originated civilizations. His conclusion was that the Caucasoid peoples developed all 21 components of civilization in four independent locations, the Sumerian in the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates, the Cretan, the Indus Valley, and the ancient Egyptian. The Mongoloids also developed a full civilization in the Sinic civilization in China. The Amerindians achieved about half of the 21 components in the Maya society of Guatemala, a little less in the Inca and Aztec societies, but these peoples never invented a written script, the wheel (except possibly in children's toys), the principle of the arch in their architecture, metal working, or money for the exchange of goods. The Negroids and the Australian aborigines achieved virtually none of the criteria of civilization. (pp. 141-42)

[Fade the Butcher]

Have you read Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray?

[jcs]

Have you read Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray?
I have it and fail to understand your constant praise. It's only really useful for debates such as this, and literature, music, etc. recommendations.

[Dan Dare]

Yes.

It should be a compulsory part of the general ed curriculum for every student that attends a western university.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Precolumbine cultures did not have Iron, the wheel and in case of the Incas, not even written language.

[Fade the Butcher]

Precolumbine cultures did not have Iron, the wheel and in case of the Incas, not even written language.

Did they even have swords?

[Fade the Butcher]

The Negroids and the Australian aborigines achieved virtually none of the criteria of civilization. (pp. 141-42)

This is because the geographic axis of Africa prevented domesticated Eurasian crops and mammals from reaching sub-Saharan Africa. Hmmm . . . . wait a minute. Sub-Saharan Africans actually had cows, sheep, goats, and horses. Sub-Saharan Africa was also supporting a population roughly equivilant to that of Europe by the fifteenth century with vastly inferior technology (on the basis of its supposedly inferior crops, I suppose). Black Africans also engaged in extensive international trade with the rest of the world during the Middle Ages. :p

[1-800]

And, if you ask me, Mosques look way cooler then churches, no matter how vaulted. And besides, English churches around this time weren't even Gothic- they were Norman-Romantic which is comepletely different and looks retarded.


...You've got to be joking.

[humanist]

"Yet the Chinese and the Incas easily outclassed the Gothic and Romanesque architects.And besides, English churches around this time weren't even Gothic- they were Norman-Romantic which is comepletely different and looks retarded."

ROFL
You disagree?

And I agree with you completely; the Incas- pah! They didn't even have WHEELS! Not a civilization.

The Chinese! Ha! A bunch of Oreintal despots of you ask me!

Arabs?! The very word brings connotations of uncivilised barbarians, incapable of putting stones together!

But, ah... the White European German races! Now, there is a fine collection of uber-mensch. Superior in everyway, 'tis clear!

Why else did they conquer the world? You're absolutely right, sir -- those nipps, niggers, chinks, and naturals, they aint got a thing on a right proper, European civilisation!

Not a thing!

:rolleyes:

/sarcasm

[Ahknaton]

You disagree?

And I agree with you completely; the Incas- pah! They didn't even have WHEELS! Not a civilization.

The Chinese! Ha! A bunch of Oreintal despots of you ask me!

Arabs?! The very word brings connotations of uncivilised barbarians, incapable of putting stones together!

But, ah... the White European German races! Now, there is a fine collection of uber-mensch. Superior in everyway, 'tis clear!

Why else did they conquer the world? You're absolutely right, sir -- those nipps, niggers, chinks, and naturals, they aint got a thing on a right proper, European civilisation!

Not a thing!

:rolleyes:
What's a "natural"? You mean like this guy?

http://www.purplemoon.com/Stickers/crumb-natural.jpg

[Leif]

Precolumbine cultures did not have Iron, the wheel and in case of the Incas, not even written language.

1- The wheel would have been fairly useless considering there were no beasts of burden and wheels would not have been a large aid to traveling through the mountainous territories inhabited by the Inca.

2- The Incas had a method of recording information, but yes, it was not "written."

3- It shouldn't be forgotten that Central American cultures had advanced astronomical calculations, city centers, and literature. Due to the fact that most of their literature either disentigrated over time and was partially destroyed by the Spanish, we have very few examples.

[Fade the Butcher]

You disagree?

I couldn't help but laugh at that one.

And I agree with you completely; the Incas- pah! They didn't even have WHEELS! Not a civilization.

If you are a fan of the Incas, then you will just love Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. I am also not aware of a single notable technological or scientific accomplishment that can be attributed to them. Virtually everything we know about the Mayas has also been made possible only in retrospect through European archaeology. They didn't contribute to our civilization in any significant way.

The Chinese! Ha! A bunch of Oreintal despots of you ask me!

I actually like the Chinese. They did make a few notable technological accomplishments. Take notice again of how I use "a few," as aside from a select few inventions that are well known (i.e., firecracker gunpowder), Chinese civilization has never amounted to much, especially with respect to science. The Romans also contributed a few things, but they wash out when you look at the bigger picture. It wasn't until the Early Modern Era in Europe that the real explosion in technological development began and the foundations for this were laid in the European Middle Ages. Charles Murray has demonstrated this in Human Accomplishment.

Arabs?! The very word brings connotations of uncivilised barbarians, incapable of putting stones together!

The Arabs are given far too much credit. In reality, the few significant Islamic thinkers that come to mind were rarely Arabs. What little progress that was made in the Islamic world was inspired by the translation of Greek natural philosophy into Arabic during the ninth century, not Islam. I have described in great detail in the other thread how Islam has retarded scientific progress throughout history and still does today.

But, ah... the White European German races! Now, there is a fine collection of uber-mensch. Superior in everyway, 'tis clear!

The scientific and technological contributions of Western Europeans speak for themselves. They are without peer.

Why else did they conquer the world?

That's a good question. I doubt it has much to do with the environment of Western Europe, as Western Europeans were relatively late starters compared to Egypt, China, and the Fertile Crescent.

You're absolutely right, sir -- those nipps, niggers, chinks, and naturals, they aint got a thing on a right proper, European civilisation!

They don't.

Not a thing!

I will give blacks credit for Slo Glo and the SuperSoaker water gun.

[infoterror]

I think people should be required to understand philosophical background to argument over existence/morality before undertaking this issue.

[Fade the Butcher]

1- The wheel would have been fairly useless considering there were no beasts of burden and wheels would not have been a large aid to traveling through the mountainous territories inhabited by the Inca.

This isn't true. The llama was domesticated in that region and the wheel could have found countless uses, as it has in other mountainous areas of Eurasia such as the Alps.

2- The Incas had a method of recording information, but yes, it was not "written."

They were illiterate.

3- It shouldn't be forgotten that Central American cultures had advanced astronomical calculations, city centers, and literature. Due to the fact that most of their literature either disentigrated over time and was partially destroyed by the Spanish, we have very few examples.

Mexico City is still today one of the largest cities in the world. The point we are making is that in terms of science and technology Amerindian civilizations didn't amount to much. This can't be chalked up to any deficiency in biodiversity either, as Jared Diamond has argued. Tenochtitlan was larger than any contemporary city in Western Europe during the early sixteenth century. The population of the New World and Europe were roughly equivilant in 1492 and a persuasive case can be made that Amerindians had a better diet than their European counterparts.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

They did not need the wheel? Yeah, the whole of the Inca Empire was like Machupichu, right? And its was not even needed as a hand cart? Aztecs had quite some roads, no need either? This whole beast of burden crap tires me really. I can still today see the friends of Evo Morales carrying stuff on top of Lamas...did Europe bring them in too? Poor excuses.

[humanist]

To FadeTheButcher:

There is a famous historical counter-factual were Alexander the Great does not die, and goes on to conquer all of India and China. After adopting Buddhism, he uses steam-power to make fruitfull and culturally significant trading relationships with the New World.

His empire becomes a world empire founded on reason and technology.

Strangely, at no point does the notion that this is an insane counterfactual come into the picture.

I think it is clear how that applies in this case.

Ps:

Chinese civilisation has never amounted to much, especially with respect to science.
Since I know you are big on swords: The Chinese invented Bronze-Iron forged swords, capable of mass-production and mass-replication well over a thousand years before anything of that nature was ever seen in Europe. Even today, these swords - crafted over 2500 years ago, are completely rustless.

[Fade the Butcher]

Since I know you are big on swords: The Chinese invented Bronze-Iron forged swords, capable of mass-production and mass-replication well over a thousand years before anything of that nature was ever seen in Europe. Even today, these swords - crafted over 2500 years ago, are completely rustless.

Is that so? You mean the Chinese had swords in 500 BC? What can I say? I'm impressed. :p

[1-800]

Since I know you are big on swords: The Chinese invented Bronze-Iron forged swords, capable of mass-production and mass-replication well over a thousand years before anything of that nature was ever seen in Europe. Even today, these swords - crafted over 2500 years ago, are completely rustless.

I find that doubtful, considering that the only could reach temperatures high enough for pig iron.

[OVERWATCH]

East Asians have always had pretty impressive civilisations, fairly on par with Europe/Near eastern civilisations; China was ahead of Europe in ancient times, but the tables turned in the late medieval period thru the industrial; the balance will probably shift again in China's favour. Who knows how many more times the two lead horses will change positions.

India has been fairly advanced in times of antiquity as well. Pre colombian Americas were always well behind the rest, and sub saharan Africa has never had glory days, it has always been a dismal failure overall; Timbuktu and flash-in the-pan Zimbabwe notwithstanding.

Safe to say that until the industrial age, the Eurasian continent was responsible for the apex of human development, all others were merely followers.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The Romans also contributed a few things, but they wash out when you look at the bigger picture.


Thats ridiculous.

Especially when you credit "European archaeology" for understanding the Maya. As if Rome "washes out" as the Western world you love used bastardizations of their language, and you write in a Roman alphabet.

This is also absurd:


Chinese civilization has never amounted to much


The Chinese were an incredible culture and civilization while what was left of Europe was feasting on the corpse of Rome...another civilization that I suppose 'doesn't amount to much'. :rolleyes:

[Sulla the Dictator]

I doubt it has much to do with the environment of Western Europe, as Western Europeans were relatively late starters compared to Egypt, China, and the Fertile Crescent.


Hmmm...what might be the difference between WESTERN EUROPE and the 20 mile strip on either side of the Nile that was Egypt that might make this statement a bit silly.....

[Fade the Butcher]

Thats ridiculous.

We have had this discussion before.

Especially when you credit "European archaeology" for understanding the Maya.

And what does the methodologies of modern European archaeologists have to do with the Roman Empire?

As if Rome "washes out" as the Western world you love used bastardizations of their language, and you write in a Roman alphabet.

Rome does wash out in the history of science and technology. The Romans were not notable for their accomplishments in either, especially science, which never really interested them. The Romans did not invent the alphabet or literacy.

The Chinese were an incredible culture and civilization while what was left of Europe was feasting on the corpse of Rome...another civilization that I suppose 'doesn't amount to much'.

Charles Murray summed up Roman civilization quite well: "Scientific, philosophic, and artistic progress did not come to an end when Rome fell, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose." (Human Accomplishment, p.31). Classical Greece was an incredible civilization and culture. The contributions of Medieval China and Rome to science were insignificant.

Hmmm...what might be the difference between WESTERN EUROPE and the 20 mile strip on either side of the Nile that was Egypt that might make this statement a bit silly.....

About a three thousand year head start?

[humanist]

Just dropped by to dispense with a particular claim by Fade:

The wheel could have found countless uses, as it has in other mountainous areas of Eurasia such as the Alps.
COULD have, yes. The fact that it did not, however, has explicable reasons: humans portage was cheap and plentiful. Why develop a new technology if you have a perfectly workable solution in place?

The wheel was certainly known, because it appears in childrens toys. The reason it was not adopted was social, not technical, and certainly not racial.

[Fade the Butcher]

COULD have, yes.

COULD have, yes. Amerindians would have put the wheel to better use had they not been so obviously fucking stupid.

The fact that it did not, however, has explicable reasons: humans portage was cheap and plentiful. Why develop a new technology if you have a perfectly workable solution in place?

No. This does not explain the failure of Amerindians to make use of the wheel. The wheel was in use from Ireland to Korea during the fifteenth century.

The wheel was certainly known, because it appears in childrens toys. The reason it was not adopted was social, not technical, and certainly not racial.

This reminds me a lot of China. I can think of a dozen technologies off the top of my head that originated there but were put to similar trivial uses.

[Sulla the Dictator]

We have had this discussion before.


We sure have.


And what does the methodologies of modern European archaeologists have to do with the Roman Empire?


The fact that the language they were able to translate it into used a Roman alphabet.


Rome does wash out in the history of science and technology.


The Romans were the greatest engineers of the Classical world. Applied science. Applied technology. All the stupid little bird whistle automatons in the world couldn't save Perseus from Roman steel once they reached Greece travelling along Roman roads.


The Romans were not notable for their accomplishments in either, especially science, which never really interested them.


The Romans were quite notable in technology; time measurement, applied mathmatics, architecture, construction, medicine, military science, mechanics, water distribution, and agricultural cultivation. I don't know exactly what a civilization is REQUIRED to have to meet your criteria, but I suspect its convenient.

"Science" is a meaningless waste of time in the Ancient world, where life is brutal and requires labor in order to make it bearable.


The Romans did not invent the alphabet or literacy.


They made distinct improvements, which is why you use a Roman alphabet instead of a Greek one.


Charles Murray summed up Roman civilization quite well: "Scientific, philosophic, and artistic progress did not come to an end when Rome fell, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose."


Rome was a little too busy establishing the foundation of what would become Western Civilization to worry about plays and perpetual motion machines, and arguing about the 'virtues of sophisty'.

They had slaves for that. Instead, Rome fashioned the model for what would later become the Nation State, and created monuments to the glory of the Empire which survive to this day.

The suggestion that Rome lacked technological innovation, PARTICULARLY in the black hole that was Western Europe at the time, is laughable.


The contributions of Medieval China and Rome to science were insignificant.


The Chinese had all the stupid little scientific knick nacks you could ever want, putting the Greeks to shame. And as to 'contribution', thats meaningless. Simply because the West was ignorant of Chinese achievements doesn't mean they disappear when we measure China.


About a three thousand year head start?

What physical differences do you think there might be between a 40 mile strip of land and half of a continent? Hmmm?

[Sulla the Dictator]

COULD have, yes. Amerindians would have put the wheel to better use had they not been so obviously fucking stupid.


LOL Who would have pulled the wheel for North American Indians?


No. This does not explain the failure of Amerindians to make use of the wheel. The wheel was in use from Ireland to Korea during the fifteenth century.


Its interesting, is it not, how a LANDMASS has similar animals which do similar tasks.


This reminds me a lot of China. I can think of a dozen technologies off the top of my head that originated there but were put to similar trivial uses.

Like the Greek steam engine which opened doors?

[Sulla the Dictator]

This isn't true. The llama was domesticated in that region and the wheel could have found countless uses, as it has in other mountainous areas of Eurasia such as the Alps.


The llama? The llama which can carry 100 pounds and walk 12 miles a day? That llama?

[Fade the Butcher]

We sure have.

Yes. It is a shame we lost that discussion with the old database, as I buttressed my argument with numerous sources that I will now have to retrieve once more. The Romans are not notable for their accomplishments in either science or technology. That is a mainstream view. Their greatest legacy in this regard was bequething their scientific philistinism to the successor kingdoms of Early Middle Ages.

The fact that the language they were able to translate it into used a Roman alphabet.

This is an irrelevancy. First, the Romans did not pioneer the methods of modern archaeology. Second, the Romans did not invent the alphabet either (or literacy).

The Romans were the greatest engineers of the Classical world. Applied science. Applied technology.

The Romans were great at taking preexisting Mediterranean technology and transplanting it into conquered territories under their administration. That does not mean the Romans were particularly innovative in their own right though. They weren't. Technological change dropped to a snail's pace during the Roman era as the Romans (like the Chinese) were more interested in literary than scientific education. The language of science remained Greek throughout the entire Roman era.

All the stupid little bird whistle automatons in the world couldn't save Perseus from Roman steel once they reached Greece travelling along Roman roads.

The Greeks were vastly superior to the Romans in both science and technology, as evidenced by the wholesale dependence of the Romans upon the Greeks in this respect. Exalting the triumph of brute Roman arms over Greek civilization does little advance your argument. I await your next response. I expect it will be something along the lines of in praise of the Huns or the virtues of Persia!

The Romans were quite notable in technology; time measurement, applied mathmatics, architecture, construction, medicine, military science, mechanics, water distribution, and agricultural cultivation.

I specifically addressed the lack of Roman interest in mathematics in the other thread. Michael Mahoney explains,

"But the Roman themselves had had little interest in mathematics beyond its practical applications to business and surveying. Roman thinkers who wished to learn the theoretical mathematics of Euclid, Archimedes, or Apollonius did so in the same way they learned the philosophy of Plato or Aristotle -- in the original Greek from Greek teachers. But Greek theoretical mathematics received no reinforcement from native Roman intellectual traditions, with the result that those few Romans who learned the subject made no contributions to it. Greek habits of mathematical thought made little or no impact on Roman culture, and Greek mathematics remained in Greek down to the end of the Empire."

The same holds true across other areas of science and technology. I would cite several sources this morning that demonstrate this, but I do not have them at hand. The Romans made little contributions in their own right to science and technology and even positively retarded innovation by focusing on rhetoric and literature in their education system. The relied upon summaries and encyclopedias of Greek knowledge. It is no coincidence that ancient astronomy and medicine reached their summit in the work of Galen and Ptolemy. Both were Greeks. Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, Diophantes in mathematics. All Greeks.

I don't know exactly what a civilization is REQUIRED to have to meet your criteria, but I suspect its convenient.

We could simply compare the Romans to their Greek predecessors and contemporaries. This isn't my conclusion either. I am just relying the standard historical interpretation.

"Science" is a meaningless waste of time in the Ancient world, where life is brutal and requires labor in order to make it bearable.

The Greeks made enormous contributions to science during Antiquity centuries before the Romans and throughout the Roman era as well.

They made distinct improvements, which is why you use a Roman alphabet instead of a Greek one.

They did not invent the alphabet itself.

Rome was a little too busy establishing the foundation of what would become Western Civilization to worry about plays and perpetual motion machines, and arguing about the 'virtues of sophisty'.

The foundation of Western civilization was laid by the Greeks, not the Romans: logic, literature, science, rhetoric, history, architecture, sculpture, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, physics, biology, medicine etc. The major Roman contribution was in law, but not in science or technology or even culture.

They had slaves for that. Instead, Rome fashioned the model for what would later become the Nation State, and created monuments to the glory of the Empire which survive to this day.

The nation-state did not make its appearance until the Late Middle Ages/Early Modern Era.

The suggestion that Rome lacked technological innovation, PARTICULARLY in the black hole that was Western Europe at the time, is laughable.

See Thomas S. Burns' Rome and the Barbarians.

The Chinese had all the stupid little scientific knick nacks you could ever want, putting the Greeks to shame.

ROFL . . . I would expect this from someone like humanist, but I figured you would be more knowledgable of your subject matter.

And as to 'contribution', thats meaningless.

The Chinese didn't have anything remotely resembling science, still less are they even near the same category as the Greeks in this respect. Chinese science was a dead end that went nowhere. Islamic science was commentary on Greek natural philosophy.

Simply because the West was ignorant of Chinese achievements doesn't mean they disappear when we measure China.

We know all about Chinese science and technology. It is a common mistake to confuse the former with the latter. Science is a body of knowledge; an understanding of the principles that operate behind material reality. The Chinese were vastly inferior in science, but did make several notable advances in technology.

What physical differences do you think there might be between a 40 mile strip of land and half of a continent? Hmmm?

That's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the size of the population a given territory can support.

LOL Who would have pulled the wheel for North American Indians?

The wheel can be put to all kinds of uses. Ever hear of the wheelbarrow or the bicycle? North American Indians did have the wheel too.

Its interesting, is it not, how a LANDMASS has similar animals which do similar tasks.

Its interesting, is it not, how the wheel has all sorts of uses which does not involve using large domesticated mammals.

Like the Greek steam engine which opened doors?

A marvelous idea.

The llama? The llama which can carry 100 pounds and walk 12 miles a day? That llama?

Yes. That llama which is still used to transport goods in the Andes even today.

[Jonathan]

Why develop a new technology if you have a perfectly workable solution in place?
Do you not see that this blows your own "China superior" theory out of the water too?

The Romans were the greatest engineers of the Classical world.

By AD 356 there were no less than twenty-eight libraries, ten large basilicas, eleven thermae, two amphitheatres, three theatres, two circuses, thirty-four triumphal arches, several schools and nineteen aqueducts.

However, while I don't have any particular "superiority bias" myself, I think someone could do with putting Rome into perspective.

For a start it should be mentioned that Rome originated as nothing more than the seven traditional hillforts (not unlike any other hillforts throughout Europe) - the Palatine, Capitoline, Caelian, Equiline, Viminal, Quirinal, and Aventine(each of which had a village before the city's traditional foundation date, 753BC) beside the river Tiber.
The River Tiber was critical, for it was the link both with the sea and the Italian interior.-P. Hall 1998.
The city of Rome was formed by the linking of a number of villages; the consequence was that the Forum ceased to be used for burials and became the public open space of the new city…In archaic Italy there was no rigid conception of citizenship to tie a man to the community of his birth…we can observe that an essential element of the relationship is freedom of movement between one community and another…A slave freed by a Roman citizen became a Roman citizen-M Crawford 1986.
The Kings were in the habit of consulting a body of advisers, the institution which became in due course the Senate of the Republic.-M Crawford 1986. The wealthy, who paid more in taxes and on whom a greater burden fell in the defence of the community, had a greater say in the making of policy-M Crawford 1986

That's not much different from any other community in Europe at the time though is it?

Over time, circumstances caused Rome to adapt.

For 441 years after the city was founded, the Romans were content with water supplies drawn from wells, springs, or the river Tiber-Frontinus. Rome's site had intrinsic deficiencies...flooding, disease(particularly malaria), river pollution and a related drinking water problem, the poor load-bearing capacities of the local geology, hilly topography-Morris 1979

Aqueducts and canals, usually for irrigation rather than urban water supply, were found in several early eastern empires, especially Armenia and Assyria; the Romans borrowed some elements from the Etruscans, many more from the Greeks and Orientals who swarmed into Rome in the late years of the republic. So, perhaps, the Romans achieved no major technological breakthrough of their own-Christ 1984.

The aqueducts presented serious maintenance problems and often required major repairs. There is evidence of poor design, shoddy construction and attempts at patching up. Outside Rome, the aqueducts may not have functioned very well.-Van Deman 1934.
The Romans had a cavalier attitude to bends: they had no compunction about the sudden introduction of an abrupt angle, even a right angle. Since they did this even in the middle of a bridge, they cannot have had much idea of what it would do to the structure, nor to the effect on the flow if the current was running fast-Hodge 1992.
There was a further problem: partly because the spring water was often hot, all channels became corrupted by incrustation or sinter, calcium carbonate deposition, which made the channel progressively smaller and V-shaped, thus retarding the flow. The sinter could be removed chemically with vinegar solution…perhaps 20 litters of vinegar per person per year; for Rome, the amount must have been astronomical. In any case it was a losing battle…they faced the certainty that untreated incrustation would eventually wreck the whole system. Of course they were not worried about the problem of not getting lather because they did not use soap-Fahlbusch 1991.
Less than half the water taken into the aqueducts ever reached the city-Hodge 1992.

But what was the quality of living like in Rome?

Public baths and theatres; housing conditions were appalling, the economy was poorly developed, employment opportunities were few, even food supplies were deficient.-P Hall 1998.
It was cramped and overcrowded: its narrow streets were crammed between irregular blocks of houses and public buildings, a fact that - so Tacticus claimed - helped the spread of the great fire of AD64-P Hall 1998.
Civil disorder was wide spread.-P Hall 1998.
By the third century BC, pressures on space grew and tenement dwellings became common. Even before that, by the late fourth century BC, there was a need for the first aqueduct, the Aqua Appia; a second followed in 272BC.-Hoirns 1956
The beauty was skin deep; like some Potemkin village, or East Berlin before the wall came down, indeed like other glorious imperial cities in this history, it was in effect a sham. Behind the monuments, for the great majority of the city’s inhabitants life was squalid; not only for the poor, but also for a large segment of the middle class.-Korn 1953
Lanciani estimated that perhaps only 179,000 people lived in individual houses and the other 821,000 in tenements.
Rome was a city of contrasts: on the one hand, the rich who could spend vast sums on banquets and all manners of luxuries; on the other, the poor who depended on the notorious panem et circenses and who survived under the bridges or in small, dark, cold, rat-infested slums.-Paoli 1990
Hovels where hunger was all too familiar, clustered around the marble palaces. In winter many people trembled with cold. In the apartment houses the rooms were small, cold and dark. Even the upper storeys of shops were inhabited, and a garret was often shared by different families; in these rats’ nests there was little air, little light, many bugs and rickety beds-Paoli 1990
Catalogues from the fourth century AD record 46,602 insulae as opposed to only 1797 single-family residences, domi.
The excavated ruins give a false impression: they represent only the best buildings and are not typical at all of the cheaper, flimsier blocks which from contemporary reports, were far more common. Their wretched inhabitants had distractions in the form of theatres and circuses; but the splendid public buildings can hardly have compensated for the squalid realities of everyday life- Packer 1967
Caesar set a limit of seventy Roman feet, Augustus reaffirmed it, Trajan reduced it to sixty feet for greater safety…Nero prohibited the rebuilding of tenement houses and of narrow, winding lanes, laying out broad streets flanked with colonnades…Apartment houses continued to be built five or six storeys high.-P Hall 1998
The foundation usually covered 3200-4300 square feet, inadequate to carry a structure 59 to 65 feet high; thus it was liable to collapse-Carcopino 1941
Even after brick construction had been perfected and had become usual in the second century AD, the city was constantly racked by the noise of buildings collapsing or being torn down to prevent collapse; the tenants an insulaae lived in constant fear of its coming down on their heads.-Carcopino 1941
Juvenal gloomily as ever reflects “ who at cool Praeneste, or at Volsinii amid its leafy hills, was ever afraid of his house tumbling down?…But here we inhabit a city propped up for the most part by slats: for that is how the landlord patches up the crack in the old wall, bidding the inmates sleep at ease under the ruin that hangs above their heads’.”
The insulae lacked central heating and even fireplaces, and were quite inadequately warmed by braziers-P Hall 1998
There were at least seven fire stations in the city with brigades in constant readiness, but apparently they did not help much-Hughes and Lamborn 1923
No, no, I must live where there is no fire and the nights are free from alarms-Juvenal
The vigiles, armed with axes, simply tried to contain the fire by demolishing the building; but they were hampered by the narrowness of the streets…looting was not uncommon-P Hall 1998
The Soho of Rome…brawls between gangs were frequent, and so coarse was the language of the inhabitants and so unpleasant the sights to be seen, that it was a place to bee avoided if possible. It was thought wise not to send a boy there until he had put on his toga…the Subura-Paoli 1990
Houses were ramshackle, streets narrow, noisy and filthy, and nights sleepless and smelly-Grant 1975
Between the insulae the street layout was a tangled network of streets that were never very straight nor very wide, with itinera, tracks only for foot traffic, the acti, which allowed one cart to pass at a time, and finally the viae, which permitted two carts to pass each other or to drive abreast. The regulations specified that a via should be 8 feet wide on the straight and 16 feet wide on curves; inside the city, only two streets qualified…and were strewn with filth and refuse. They were not paved but made of dirt, with an occasional surface of pebbles; Martial and Juvenal both refer to struggling through the mud.-P Hall 1998
Collisions were common. ‘Where’s your head-with Maecenas?’ shrieked an enraged man at Horace, who , advancing confused through such a crowd, tried to lengthen his step and in his clumsiness had knocked the man carelessly in the back. ‘One man digs an elbow into me, another a hard sedan-pole; one bangs a beam, another a wine cask, against my head.’ Among the perpetual building operations, to have to pass near a crane, when a block of stone or a beam was being raised, involved a good chance of a broken head for the carless”-Paoli 1990
Juvenal claimed that ‘Most sick men here die from insomnia…It costs money to sleep in Rome…The movement of heavy wagons through narrow streets, the oaths of stalled cattle-drovers would break the sleep of a deaf man or a lazy walrus’
Gilded youth, who felt they could get away with anything, battered down their mistresses’ doors, set the house on fire or beat up the porter; the Emperor Nero himself set upon hapless passers-by in the street. The poor quietly disposed of their rubbish into the street, not seldom on the heads of passers-by.-Paoli 1990
Life expectance at birth was about 27[years]…80 per cent of recorded deaths in the Roman world occurred before the age of 30…the rich could expect to live over 30, the poor to below 20-Duncan-Jone 1990
Most people laboured in subsistence agriculture; industry, like its Greek equivalent, was organised in small workshops with primitive technology, for Romans were even less innovative technologically than the Greeks; despite all those roads, land transport was so inefficient that…rural surpluses could not be got to the cities; sea transport was better, but…ceased in the windy winter months, when at best it was possible to hug the coast from inlet to inlet; so, again, there were no bulk movements of food-Charlesworth 1926
Under the Republic, anyone who wanted justice had to get it for himself with aid of a contractor, freely available, who could offer the equivalent of hired guns and hoodlums-Robinson N 1992

Rome's military/political rise can be explained also.

The earlier relations of Carthage with Rome had been pacific…[each]agreeing not to interfere in their respective spheres of intrest-M Crawford 1986.

Polybius describes the manpower resources available to Rome…he drew an account given by the first Roman historian, Q. Fabius Pictor…Although the list in Polybius contains some obscurities in detail, it fits with what else is known of Roman citizen numbers in this period and suggests that the Roman and Italian pool of men on which Rome could draw was of the order of 6-7 million...The existence of such a reserve enabled Rome to withstand the shock of Hannibal’s invasion of Italy in 218…Rome was always able to field new armies to replace those which were lost…-M Crawford 1986

The overseas wars which followed the second Punic Was were transforming the social and economic fabric of Italy…They led on the one hand to a steady professionalization of the Roman and Italian soldier-M Crawford 1986

These[the wars against the Samnites] were effectively over by 295, when the Samnites were defeated at Sentinum in northern Italy, along with Umbrian, Etruscan, and Gallic allies-M Crawford 1986

In the case of Gallia Cisalpina, memories of the Gallic sack of Rome in 390 and the role played by his Gallic allies in Hannibal’s invasion of Italy largely explain the brutality of the Roman conquest of that area.-M Crawford 1986.

The wealth of the Mediterranean was pouring into Italy…in the form of booty…payments extracted from defeated enemies…in the course of administration of overseas territories or by lending money at exorbitant rates of interest to foreign communities…[this was]expended on the erection of public, as well as private, buildings in Rome…free labour was used in the execution of such projects-M Crawford 1986.

I don't mean for that to sound like an anti-Rome rant, just to show that the Romans weren't necessarily a superior race either (not that anyone has suggested that yet) and that achievements can be accounted for too.

P.S. Most of the quoted material comes from a book called "Cities in Civilization" by Sir Peter Hall and some other book called "The Roman Empire" or something.