Which do you think was/is the Greatest Empire ever?

[srirangan]

This is not a poll because people are bound to have a different opinions regarding this. This thread is more of a discussion rather than a comparison of different empries and civilizations.

Personally I would have to select the British Empire as being the greatest ever. Not only was arguably the greatest ever in terms of demographics, but coinsidering the impact it has left on the world and the fact that its legacy continues to grow.

Below are a few sources that impressed upon me in this regard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The British Empire

The British Empire in the early decades of the 20th century, held sway over a population of 400–500 million people (roughly a quarter of the world's population), and covered nearly 30 million square kilometres, (roughly two-fifths of the world's land area).

The British Empire came together over 300 years through a succession of phases of expansion by trade, settlement or conquest, interspersed with intervals of pacific commercial and diplomatic activity, or imperial contraction. Its territories were scattered across every continent and ocean, and it was described with some truth as "the empire on which the sun never sets." Arguably, its zenith was achieved in the 1890s and 1900s.

The Empire facilitated the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government around much of the globe. Imperial hegemony contributed to Britain's extraordinary economic growth, and greatly strengthened its voice in world affairs. Even as Britain extended its imperial reach overseas, it continued to develop and broaden democratic institutions at the homeland.

From the perspective of the colonies, the record of the British Empire is mixed. The colonies received from Britain the English language, an administrative and legal framework on the British model, and technological and economic development. During decolonisation, Britain sought to pass parliamentary democracy and the rule of law to its colonies, with varying degrees of success. However, almost all former British colonies have since chosen to join the Commonwealth of Nations, the association which replaced the Empire.

Nonetheless, British colonial policy was always driven to a large extent by Britain's trading interests. While settler economies developed the infrastructure to support balanced development, tropical African territories found themselves developed only as raw-material suppliers. British policies based on comparative advantage left many developing economies dangerously reliant on a single cash crop. A reliance upon the manipulation of conflict between ethnic and racial identities, in order to keep subject populations from uniting against the occupying power — the classic "divide and rule" strategy — left a legacy of partition or inter-communal difficulties in areas as diverse as Ireland, India, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Uganda, Iraq, Guyana and Fiji. Colonel Frank Kitson, in his book Gangs and Countergangs (1960), described how British colonial authorities in Kenya successfully manipulated the Mau Mau uprising so that it became warfare between rival factions; ultimately only 22 Whites were killed, as opposed to 18,000–30,000 natives.

The credit for the first ever usage of the words "British Empire" is usually given to Doctor John Dee, Queen Elizabeth I's astrologer, alchemist and mathematician.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/British_Empire_1897.jpg

Extent
At its height in 1921, the British Empire consisted of the following territories —

Africa
* Bechuanaland (now Botswana)
* British Togoland
* Cameroon
* Gold Coast (now Ghana)
* Egypt
* Kenya
* Nigeria
* Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia)
* Sierra Leone
* Somaliland
* South Africa — including Lesotho
* Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)
* South West Africa (now Namibia)
* Sudan
* Tanganyika (now Tanzania)
* Uganda

The Americas and Atlantic
* Ascension Island
* British Guiana (now Guyana)
* British Honduras (now Belize)
* Canada
* Falkland Islands
* Newfoundland
* West Indies
o Anguilla
o Antigua and Barbuda
o Bahamas
o Barbados
o Bermuda
o British Virgin Islands
o Cayman Islands
o Dominica
o Grenada
o Jamaica
o Montserrat
o Saint Kitts and Nevis
o Saint Lucia
o Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
o Trinidad and Tobago
o Turks and Caicos Islands
* St Helena
* Tristan da Cunha
* South Georgia

Antarctica
* British Antarctic Territory

Asia
* Aden (now part of Yemen)
* Bhutan
* British New Guinea (southern part of what is now Papua New Guinea)
* Brunei
* Burma (now Myanmar)
* Ceylon (now Sri Lanka)
* Hong Kong
* British India (now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh)
* Iraq
* Kuwait
* Malaya (now part of Malaysia)
* Maldives
* Palestine (now Israel and the occupied territories)
* Nepal
* North Borneo (now part of Malaysia)
* Oman
* Qatar
* Sarawak (now part of Malaysia)
* Singapore
* Transjordan (now Jordan)
* Trucial States (now United Arab Emirates)

Europe
* Cyprus
* Gibraltar
* Malta
* United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Pacific
* Australia
* Ellice Islands (now Tuvalu)
* Fiji
* Gilbert Islands (now part of Kiribati)
* Nauru
* New Zealand
* Pitcairn
* Solomon Islands
* Tonga

Motto: God and my right
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.png

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Which do you think was/is the Greatest Empire ever?

[gf0012-aust]

Largest empire ever known - British Empire - 300+ years
largest Contiguous empire ever known - Mongols
Largest economic power - The USA - at the end of WW2 it subsidised 14 countries in Europe (via the Marshall Plan) and built itself into the strongest economic power in the world - even though it was carrying 14 other nations
Hyperpower - the USA
Ancient Military Power - Rome
Longest running Blue Water Naval Power - English 300+ years

[srirangan]

Ah the US I won't think belongs to the league of empires as yet. Yes it is a super power, the lone super power. But this status is yet to last even a 100 years. And some would argue that the US is just a continuation of the British empire now in a different avatar.

Also its not always mere statistics but also the empires effect and significance on the rest of the world that matters. Thus I'ld rate many much higher than the US. We need to count cultural influence alonmg with territory and military power.

The Mongols were, ofcourse, exceptional in their rise and military conquests. But I don't think it influenced culture and society of its time the way Greeks, Romans and British did.

[gf0012-aust]

Ah the US I won't think belongs to the league of empires as yet. Yes it is a super power, the lone super power. But this status is yet to last even a 100 years. And some would argue that the US is just a continuation of the British empire now in a different avatar.

Also its not always mere statistics but also the empires effect and significance on the rest of the world that matters. Thus I'ld rate many much higher than the US. We need to count cultural influence alonmg with territory and military power.

The Mongols were, ofcourse, exceptional in their rise and military conquests. But I don't think it influenced culture and society of its time the way Greeks, Romans and British did.

The Mongols were the first meritocracy, the first to structure up a military college, the first nation to make freedom of worship of any faith enshrined in law, the first to establish intercontinental communications using a structured pony express model.

The US Impact on the world has been enormous. At a military level in their civil war, the Germans had already predicted that they would be a military superpower, their military innovation has been greater than any other. The US Civil War still stands as a time when the most military inventions were patented and implemented during conflict. - Greater than WW2 even. They set the model for republican democracies - as opposed to monarchical democracies, and they have been the worlds greatest continental industrial power since 1901. They are not a superpower - they are a hyperpower, no other superpower comes militarily or economically close enough. Even the French (and it was Chrac who coined the expression) acknowledge that.

To say that their impact is not as great as classical powers ignores the reality of how they changed the map of the world from 1946 on. Take away the US out of Europe, and say let them only fight in the pacific (as Roosevelt initially only really wanted) and the world map at a political and idealogical level would be completely different.


Power is not a temporal measure - it's cause, effect and influence on change that denotes it.

[srirangan]

The Mongols were the first meritocracy, the first to structure up a military college, the first nation to make freedom of worship of any faith enshrined in law, the first to establish intercontinental communications using a structured pony express model.

One or more of this could be challenged. The buddhists and hindu kingdoms in the subcontinent and central asia had freedom of religion, some almost a millenia before the mongols. "The first to structure up military college" can be challenged by the Greek Spartans. And meritocracy can be claimed by many many nations right throughout history.

Coming to the Americans, republican democracy is hardly the most effective model, nor is it the most popular. There are better models of democracy and the idea of democracy is hardly "American".

Yes, after the World Wars USA has emerged as a real super power and has shaped the politics of the world for nearly 60 years (sharing 40 of those years with the USSR). So basically being the most dominant nation of 20 years doesn't give the US an empire status, no matter how far ahead she might be of the other contemprary players.

And about influencing society and culture I believe you are mistaking the achievements of the Westerm civilization (ie. Spain, Portugal, France, UK and Germany maybe even Russia along with the United States) for over 500 years and attributing all of them to the United States prematurely.

[gf0012-aust]

The Mongols were the first meritocracy, the first to structure up a military college, the first nation to make freedom of worship of any faith enshrined in law, the first to establish intercontinental communications using a structured pony express model.

One or more of this could be challenged. The buddhists and hindu kingdoms in the subcontinent and central asia had freedom of religion, some almost a millenia before the mongols. "The first to structure up military college" can be challenged by the Greek Spartans. And meritocracy can be claimed by many many nations right throughout history.

Did those faiths actually have a representative at their courts? I don't think so. Genghis actually sent emissaries out to bring representatives of each faith back so that he could see for himself what drove man to believe in a higher order. He had some 50 denominations and religions in the Mongol Court.

Coming to the Americans, republican democracy is hardly the most effective model, nor is it the most popular. There are better models of democracy and the idea of democracy is hardly "American".

Did I say that it was the best democracy? Read my words again. The republican democracy was the first where an autocrat or monarch was not the nominal head of state. There are 5 versions of democracy, which would you say is represenative of each?

Yes, after the World Wars USA has emerged as a real super power and has shaped the politics of the world for nearly 60 years (sharing 40 of those years with the USSR). So basically being the most dominant nation of 20 years doesn't give the US an empire status, no matter how far ahead she might be of the other contemprary players.

At what point did Russia actually dominate the world? Where did she bring military, economic power to the world stage?

And about influencing society and culture I believe you are mistaking the achievements of the Westerm civilization (ie. Spain, Portugal, France, UK and Germany maybe even Russia along with the United States) for over 500 years and attributing all of them to the United States prematurely.

Not at all, you're reading into this what you think I said. I have made the us influence quite specific.

What nations were the instruments of change at Versaille? The Washington Treaty? The creation of the League of Nations? The initiator of the UN as the replacement for the League?

US influence on world events has been slow but progressive ever since 1861.
The US carried 14 European economies including Japan and Germany. The bulk of NATO deployment was US, the umbrella was US. Comapring Russia to the US is nonsense. The pact were countries in name only, their economies were subservient to the Russian economic need (except for Yugoslavia). You can't seriously state that in a timeline Russia had the same degree of influence over 140 years with other nations politics?

I'm not trying to lump other western achievements into a US basket at all - and a comparison is inappropriate.

germany was just as much a situational super power in history as Hannibal was - it's just that it lasted far less than Alexanders.

Power is not only about baubles and trinkets, writing and large libraries - its about sustained influence at defining moments in history - where a nation has repeatedly impacted on change and circumstance. - where it has altered a timeline to such a degree of significance that it has altered the political, economical, cultural and geographical landscape of other nations.

That is not the sole province of a western enclave, and it's not a melding of western idealogies into an english, german, french or american flag bearer - but it can be atrributed to nations - irrespective of duration. Nations that cause change in periods of of Chaos or nations that reduce chaos so that their infliuence dominates the political landscape are nations of power.

[srirangan]

Gary,

Interesting post but I get the impression that you are going into the details ignoring the larger picture. In the long run would the League of Nations be ever considered? How has the treaty of versailles effected human society in the long run?

Allow me to put forward a more generalized argument. I am by far not discounting the role USA has played in the 20th century. She kept on growing since the 1850's and reach maturity at around the 1920's. By the 1940's the Old Western European order was no more and USA and Russia became prominent, US a bit more than Russia to begin with/

Eventually the Soviet collapsed and USA was left all alone as the main power/ So far the most iconic achievement of the Americans has been putting a man on the moon. But this achievement has been closely matched by other powers of this order.

Now let's look at iconic achievements of the other empires. British had 1/4th of the world, French were playing the game but were far far behind. British influence over America itself and the rest of the world in undeniable. So in the 1500's what was a linguistically divided world, has become an English speaking majority. No empire ever has had this sort of success. French and the Spaniards could not even come close. Today like it or not if a person of any random asian country would like to talk to a person of any random african/south american country (let alone europe or north america) he/she would do it in english.

Alexander captured 90% of the known world of his time. A feat that has till now not been matched by anyone of anytime, let alone by Alexander's contempraries.

Do the treaty of Versailles or forming of the League of nations or forming the NATO against the USSR even qualify as achievements of the proportions discussed above?

I'm not saying US is irrelevant, hardly; but its not as proportionally relevant as some others.

[gf0012-aust]

Gary,

Interesting post but I get the impression that you are going into the details ignoring the larger picture. ........
I'm not saying US is irrelevant, hardly; but its not as proportionally relevant as some others.

No, I get your point, what it gets down to is definition. Apart from the fact that the US successes in different areas constitute a construct of "empire", I agree with you.

The nature of the word "empire" is fundamentally a legacy construct of colonial times - so there is some difficulty in it having some currency - unless you want to accept Reagans comment about the "evil empire" ;)

[srirangan]

eh, I wasn't even born when he made that comment. lol

[mysterious]

The Mongols were the first meritocracy, the first to structure up a military college, the first nation to make freedom of worship of any faith enshrined in law, the first to establish intercontinental communications using a structured pony express model.

Err, I only started reading your post and have to say, zero marks on that one my friend. Perhaps your fascination with the Mongols outstrips the facts that lie in history. You might want to take up a course on Islamic history, culture and civilization (which is something I've been doing) if such a course is offered in Australia and I'm sure it would pretty much lay it out in the open for you as to who did all that (the actions you stated above) first. The Mongolians came to do all this at a time when it was already flourishing in the Muslim world. :smokingc:

[The Watcher]

Lets not forget the Islamic Empire from 700 ad to 1700/1800s!

heres a site on islamic civilization

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/

The Islamic Civilization is in reality an amalgam of wide variety of cultures, from North Africa to the western periphery of the Pacific Ocean, and from Central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa. The traditional beginning of the Islamic civilization is the birth of Muhammed, AD 622, and, of course, it continues to the present.


-------------------------------

mongols came to destroy islam, they burnt libraries full of books in baghdad but they ended up becoming muslims and protecting the same religion / culture / people they came to destroy!

http://www.islamset.com/islam/civil/con1.html

http://www.muslimheritage.com/

[gf0012-aust]

The Mongols were the first meritocracy, the first to structure up a military college, the first nation to make freedom of worship of any faith enshrined in law, the first to establish intercontinental communications using a structured pony express model.

Err, I only started reading your post and have to say, zero marks on that one my friend. Perhaps your fascination with the Mongols outstrips the facts that lie in history. You might want to take up a course on Islamic history, culture and civilization (which is something I've been doing) if such a course is offered in Australia and I'm sure it would pretty much lay it out in the open for you as to who did all that (the actions you stated above) first. The Mongolians came to do all this at a time when it was already flourishing in the Muslim world. :smokingc:

1) The Mongols developed the longest courier system in the world - east coast of china to poland. No muslim empire let alone country was ever that big

2) Where in the muslim states were hindus, coptic christians, orthodox christians, christians, jews, pagans, catholics, buddhists able to practice in a formal place of worship?

maybe I should have clarified it with denominations - Ghengis was curious as to why there were variances in faith. Where in any of the Islamic states was there a location where up to 50 different denominatiinal representatives actively practiced and conducted services and were protected by the state. I am of the belief that even Saladin, who was the first visible advocate had less than 4 faiths in his country.

3) How is Islam a meritocracy?

4) Any links on Islamic Military Colleges I would be interested in seeing. As admittedly I have seen very few which indicated such a process as being universal. It may have been in certain countries - but I was fairly sure that it tended to be unique to a ruler in some areas - not all.

[tatra]

No one beats the British empire but, on a 'per capita' basis, the Dutch VOC trade empire comes close :D:

Taking advantage of the decline of Spain and Portugal in the first half of the seventeenth century, the Netherlands—one of the smallest states in Europe—established a global trading network. It included all of Indonesia (not indicated on map).

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/brummett_awl/chapter20/medialib/illustrations/WALL5295378.gif

By the way, the Netherlands is still the third largest investor in the US today

Interesting article on lesson to be learned from the British by the US empire http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i29/29b00701.htm

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting article on lesson to be learned from the British by the US empire http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i29/29b00701.htm

Now thats the kind of articles I like, balanced and non judgemental. ;)

[srirangan]

Sad to see no mention of the Romans thus far.

[mysterious]

I think Gary mentioned the Romans in the military context and that is as far I'd go as well in terming them the greatest empire.

[srirangan]

I believe the Roamn's were a lot more than just a military power, they transformed Europe like never before and still wield a large influence on the western society and culture and literature.

[srirangan]

Any info on the Arab empires and about the Turks? Which one of these were you (Myst and The Watcher) referring to by the term "Islamic Empire"?

[buffalo bill]

I would have to agree that the U.S. has not reached empire status because it is not an empire, but a single nation. However, it is the richest nation there ever was. This is impressive. The U.S. has no provinces, and doesn't siphon the resources out of its provinces all for themselves. This is because they have no provinces. As Empire status goes, the romans top the list. Their influence and legacy is better documented then any civilization. Impressive for one that is 2000 years old. However, I do not understand why some of you people say that the British were the greatest empire. This is very false. The fact that they couldn't conquer their neighbors is uncontested proof that they were not all that great. What did the british conquer, India?, some poor asian countries, the caribbean islands? Taking over america when it was founded by spain (actually an italian) when there were half naked indians with bows and arrows. The Carribean islands? The british were too weak to conquer their neighbors, so they take on all these nations run by half naked tribesman. Conquering a half naked tribesman is nothing to boast about. I admit that it was impressive that the british gained all that territory and recources from a small island country, but a big reason for their success was because they modeled themselves after rome. They did things the roman way. (very tactical in war, conquering nations, senate/parliament system with a monarc/caesar, etc.) England is a great nation, but far from being the greatest empire. British people half to face the fact that their nations achievements were not the best of all time. Is it really that hard to not have so much pride? I am canadian, and I half to deal with being a citizen to the inferior nation in the north of the United States.

[gf0012-aust]

However, I do not understand why some of you people say that the British were the greatest empire. This is very false. The fact that they couldn't conquer their neighbors is uncontested proof that they were not all that great. What did the british conquer, India?, some poor asian countries, the caribbean islands? Taking over america when it was founded by spain (actually an italian) when there were half naked indians with bows and arrows. The Carribean islands? The british were too weak to conquer their neighbors, so they take on all these nations run by half naked tribesman. Conquering a half naked tribesman is nothing to boast about. I admit that it was impressive that the british gained all that territory and recources from a small island country, but a big reason for their success was because they modeled themselves after rome. They did things the roman way. (very tactical in war, conquering nations, senate/parliament system with a monarc/caesar, etc.) England is a great nation, but far from being the greatest empire. British people half to face the fact that their nations achievements were not the best of all time. Is it really that hard to not have so much pride? I am canadian, and I half to deal with being a citizen to the inferior nation in the north of the United States.

I think you oversimplify the feats of the British.

For over 300 years they were the greatest maritime power the world has ever seen.

They were the first ever blue water navy, and they were the first navy to be persistent in capability. No country matched them in military innovation for centuries - not until the US Civil War had any nation demonstrated a capacity to outflank them on technical development.

People forget that the main target for the americans in the Washington Treaty was the RN - not the emergent powers. It wasn't until 1927 that Britains Navy started to slip - and even then it wasn't really until 1941.

Although there are similarities to Rome on the surface - the style of govt and the comprehension of the issues of logistics in warfare was unmatched. Rome paid part of the price for falling on that basic concept.

As a military power they did more than take on "natives" - more to the point, they were an example of how a small military power was able to manage alliances and manipulate force against their opponents - very few countries can show similar capability in creating military economies of scale.

There's more, but I've got to actually do some work rather than be distracted here! ;)

[nzbm]

The British Empire would be the greatest empire in history, after the Roman empire of course.

[ajay_ijn]

The British Empire would be the greatest empire in history, after the Roman empire of course.


On what basis u guyz are thinking that British empire was greatest ever????Military expansion or Power.
Military expansion is not everything.
Some other factors would be Welfare of the people,Economy.
Are people really happy living under british??
If yes then it will be the greatest empire ever.

[nzbm]

Power. The British Empire and the British Pound was the currency of imperialism, and the currency of most trade until the end of WW2. Then the age of American imperialism began - and the US Dollar replaced the pound in its economic place...

[adsH]

The British never ruled with Power they had the Iron fist but they always chose to use Politics to handle situations; this was largely the reason why the British Empire stretched so many distant regions. Other Empires such as the Othman ruled with Iron fist all these Empires had a hierarchal Structure. All of them were great Empires of there time, that’s the reason why they’re in our history.

[adsH]

1)

2) Where in the muslim states were hindus, coptic christians, orthodox christians, christians, jews, pagans, catholics, buddhists able to practice in a formal place of worship?

.

GF if you read history abit closer, you would realize that the Othman Toppled because there economy was top Heavy, there Internal Population of Christians and the Jews felt no Attachment to the state, the Jews and Christians had the Freedom and the rights awarded to them that any other Muslim was given(Jews and chistians were the Ritch ones in the economy). Almost all long lived Empires such as the British Empire have had Ethical system to allow some sort of freedom. The Mughulls Allowed the indigenous Hindu population to Preach and Practice there religion without any restrictions, they never forced converted anyone. the British Empire allowed Faiths to function under there rule.

To be more precise if you had looked at the Islamic Spain, the you would of realized that Muslims Christians and Jews lived in a welfare sate that gave each of its citizen equal rights to worship in there chose faiths.

[SABRE]

GF when Muslims were defeated in Spain they decided to go to Turkey. When they left Jews followed them to Spain saying that Christians r doing injustice to them, their properties have been taken, many of them r being killed & their worship places have been destroyed (also that of Muslims). Ottoman empire allowed them to live in the empire & not only that they appointed many jewish & christian officials fr army, burocracy & diplomacy. The empror allowed them freedom of religion.

When Khalifa (Kalif) Omar Ibne Khatab (Man responsible for the formation of Islamic empire out side Arabia & One of the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) most importent person) conquered Jerusilam, he decided to pay visit to holly sites where Jesus visited he also visited jewish sites. Whjen he went to the place of birth of Jesus he found garbage & rubbish there. He took the rubbish in his own hands & started throughing them out & oredered his soldiers & officers to follow.
He rejected to pray in side the Church which was built on the land where Jesus was born, he sayed that if he had after his death Muslims would have declared it holly site for Muslims, destroyed the church & would build a Mosque on it. Therefore he decided to pray out side the church.

& it is written & agreed fact that during Salaudin Ayub's rule over Israel/Palistaine/Joradan/Seriya/Egypt all non Mulsims were allowed their freedom of religion. No Jew or Christian was to be called Infeddles even though Crossadors refered to Muslims as infiddels.

[adsH]

I would have to agree that the U.S. has not reached empire status because it is not an empire, but a single nation. However, it is the richest nation there ever was. This is impressive. The U.S. has no provinces, and doesn't siphon the resources out of its provinces all for themselves. This is because they have no provinces. As Empire status goes, the romans top the list. Their influence and legacy is better documented then any civilization. Impressive for one that is 2000 years old. However, I do not understand why some of you people say that the British were the greatest empire. This is very false. The fact that they couldn't conquer their neighbors is uncontested proof that they were not all that great. What did the british conquer, India?, some poor asian countries, the caribbean islands? Taking over america when it was founded by spain (actually an italian) when there were half naked indians with bows and arrows. The Carribean islands? The british were too weak to conquer their neighbors, so they take on all these nations run by half naked tribesman. Conquering a half naked tribesman is nothing to boast about. I admit that it was impressive that the british gained all that territory and recources from a small island country, but a big reason for their success was because they modeled themselves after rome. They did things the roman way. (very tactical in war, conquering nations, senate/parliament system with a monarc/caesar, etc.) England is a great nation, but far from being the greatest empire. British people half to face the fact that their nations achievements were not the best of all time. Is it really that hard to not have so much pride? I am canadian, and I half to deal with being a citizen to the inferior nation in the north of the United States.


A small but effective force of Professional soldiers, is something i would have to attribute to the British, they concord India not through Armies but manipulations they ruled over Superior powers such as India Spain and the Othman of there century the So called Undefeatable Armies of the Othman were defeated (largely due to Internal Cohesion) but the brits did Outflank the Spanish armada, they innovated new Technologies and new ways of striking there opponents in ways never imagined.

[dsj]

The europeans were always the most civilized culture on earth since the days of the ancient greeks. They were always way more humane, democratic and usually more advanced than the asians. This remains true in the darkages and especially in the middle ages. The book "carnage and culture" addresses this issue. The no matter how strong the mongols were the europeans drove them back. china could have too if it wasn't that corrupt at the time. I can read chinese and know a lot about medieval chinese military and they were stronger than the mongols at the time as were the europeans. The mongols just rose at the right time and they were worse than hitler who have been scorned much by people throught the 20 th century. The west today is so modest that it didn't stand up to the bluffing and aggressions of the asians. And military buffs today all think that the asians were the best just because that they are curious about them and read some bluffing books about the asians. If something if forien, it must be better than ours.

[adsH]

[QUOTE=dsj]The europeans were always the most civilized culture on earth since the days of the ancient greeks. They were always way more humane, democratic and usually more advanced than the asians. This remains true in the darkages and especially in the middle ages. The book "carnage and culture" addresses this issue. The no matter how strong the mongols were the europeans drove them back. china could have too if it wasn't that corrupt at the time. QUOTE]

I would attribute your Comments as mere ignorance; No one just appreciates other peoples Achievements without a cause. The Asians were civilized too, Middle East is the Birth Place of Civilization in-fact the City of Babylon the Birth Place of Civilization Located in Now Iraq. Your Spanner Comments don't seam to include the Hindu Civilization Which predates Any Significant Recorded History. Your comments don't indicate the Achievements by the Islamic Spain, Achievements that above all included, multicultural welfare society, Ship Building Sea Faring Navies and Trading across the world, there achievements in Modern Medicine like Anesthetics, The Word Algebra comes from the Egypt where the Whole concept of Modern Moths was formed, if you had studied Math’s then you would known that the Arabic Mathematical symbols were adopted into the Roman Symbols, which still is by far the Best ever produced. You don't seam to actually point out the Strives made by the Various Jewish Empires of the Time in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. Your comments don't indicate the Welfare culture the Spanish/ Othman and the Indian Mughal (Not Mongol, Mongolians). The Architectural wonders that were developed by Iranians like the Taj Mahel in India. Your Sheer Lack of appreciation of these cultures is just appalling. Go and read more then just one bias textbook. It’s the Duty of a historian to Record and Analyze History in the most Accurate manner, Unfortunately there are some that never choose to Honor this Tradition. This is a plague to humanity, because if we don’t record history as accurately possible then we only condemn our future generations to make those same mistakes again. Lessons lesson’s From the Past Yielded “United Nations”, a cooperation that would prevent War and Allow Nations to discuss there problems rather then Fight out the Dispute.











The birthplace of civilization



8000 B.C.E. - 750 C.E. | 1095-1932 (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/usiraq/timeline/02.html) | 1933-2002 (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/usiraq/timeline/03.html)







8000-6000 Before Common Era
Agricultural development thrives in the "Fertile Crescent."

5000-2350 B.C.E.
Sumer, a loosely organized league of city-states, springs up in the southern part of Mesopotamia. Its capital, Ur, is thought to be the birthplace of Abraham, the patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Around 3000, writing is developed independently in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Mesopotamian boatmen seal their barges with black pitch that bubbles from the ground; people decorate their temples with bitumen, a byproduct of distilled petroleum.

2000-1800
Abraham leads Israelites from Mesopotamia into Canaan, in modern-day Israel.

1962-1600
Mesopotamia is divided into rival states, Babylon in the south, Assyria to the north.

1704-1662
Babylon's King Hammurabi writes a detailed law code.

854
Assyrian records first mention Arabs, nomads who herd sheep and goats in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula south of Mesopotamia.

730
Assyrian empire expands from the Persian Gulf to Egypt and Asia Minor, including Mesopotamia and today's Israel.

THE EMPIRES

587
Under King Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonians take Syria from Egypt and conquer Judea. Babylonians destroy the FirstTemple in Jerusalem and take the Israelites into slavery.

539
Persia (modern-day Iran) conquers Babylon and sends the Jews back to reconstruct Jerusalem and build the SecondTemple.

331
Alexander the Great conquers Persia and creates a commercial center in Babylon.

163 B.C.E-114 Common Era
Roman armies add Persian territories to their expanding empire.

224-637 C.E.
Sassanians form a revitalized Persian empire, with Mesopotamia at its core. Pagans, Christians, Jews and Buddhists worship alongside Zoroastrians, whose ancient religion is the official faith.

570
Islam's founder, Mohammed, is born.

622
Mohammed begins recruiting followers to his monotheistic faith.

632
Mohammed dies in Medina, in what is now Saudi Arabia.

634-637
In the name of Islam, an Arab army conquers Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Persia and rules from Damascus.

694-750
Mesopotamians revolt against Arabic rule from Damascus. Jafar al-Mansur, a caliph from Mohammed's family, builds a new capital, Baghdad, which becomes a trading center for Islamic Empire.

FROM THE MONGOLS TO INDEPENDENCE


1095-1192
Christian knights from Europe launch three Crusades, attacking Islam in the Holy Land and Middle East. Baghdad is largely ignored, although Turks recruit soldiers there.

1219-1227
Mongols led by Genghis Khan storm from the steppes of central Asia into what is now Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Irrigation systems in place since the Sumerians are demolished and lush fields along the Tigris and Euphrates revert to desert.

1258
Mongols leave after looting Baghdad.

1300
Timur the Lame (Tamerlane), believing himself a direct descendant of Genghis Khan, returns to conquer Mesopotamia; the region lapses into decay.

1281-1453
Ottoman Turks rise to power and conquer Constantinople, the last Christian stronghold in the East.

1501-1508
Shia Islam is declared the official faith of Persia (Iran). Shiites briefly seize part of Mesopotamia, hoping to control two Shia holy cities, Najaf and Karbala. Ottomans maintain the region as a Sunni-controlled buffer state for the empire. But Sunni religious sites are desecrated, and violence begins.

1516-1566
A Sunni, Suleyman the Magnificent, gains firm control of Mesopotamia.

1774-1792
Muhammad bin Abdel-Wahhab, a fundamentalist Muslim, joins the court of Mohammed ibn Saud, ruler of what is now Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabis move on Mesopotamia, converting desert Arabs to Shiism. Ottomans retain power, relying on Sunnis in Baghdad and other cities.

1831
Bubonic plague and floods devastate Baghdad. Water surges over banks of the Tigris, disintegrating hundreds of public buildings and mosques made of mud brick.

1831-1869
During a period of Ottoman decline, Baghdad has more than 10 governors.

1869
Suez Canal opens; Britain gains a major share in order to protect sea routes to India.

1914
World War I begins.

1915-1916
Damascus Protocol would form an Arab state after the war, encompassing the Arabian Peninsula, Palestine and what is now Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. But secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France puts Ottoman lands under joint control, with Iraq going to Britain.

1917
British Maj. Gen. Sir Stanley Maude marches toward Baghdad, promising Arab allies in the countryside control over their own affairs.

1918
World War I ends.

1919
League of Nations makes Iraq and Palestine mandates entrusted to Britain. Syria goes to France.

1920
Arabs, including nationalists in Baghdad and Kurdish minorities, stage violent demonstrations and strikes against British rule.

1921
Cairo Conference names the country Iraq, which it sometimes was called in antiquity. Faisal, son of the Sharif of Mecca, is declared king, with Britain maintaining administrative control.

1922-1927
Wahhabis from the Arabian Peninsula periodically raid tribesmen in the south of Iraq. The British chase them back into Arabia with Model T Fords mounted with machine guns.

1923
London includes Kurds in oil-rich northern Mosul Province in the Iraqi state with proviso they hold government positions in Kurdish areas and the Kurdish language be preserved.

1924
Elections are held for a representative assembly under the monarchy.

1925
League of Nations extends Iraqi treaty with Britain to 25 years to protect Kurds. Reza Shah Pahlavi ascends the Peacock Throne in Iran. Urged on by Britain, Iraq and Iran negotiate a boundary agreement. Oct. 3, 1932
Iraq gains independence.



September, 1933
King Faisal dies. Ghazi, 21, his playboy son, takes throne.

1936
Failed coup attempt.

1937
Saddam Hussein born.

1939
King Ghazi dies in car crash. His toddler son, Faisal II, becomes king.

1941
British send troops to Baghdad after second coup attempt.

May 14, 1948
Israel declares independence. Iraq sends troops when Arabs declare war the following day.

July, 1958
Dissidents under Gen. Abdel Karim Qasim overthrow the monarchy and execute the king. Iraq is declared a republic with Qasim its prime minister.

1958-1962
There are 29 known coup attempts against Qasim government.

October 7, 1959
Saddam part of Baathist coup attempt, which fails.

February, 1963
Baathists overthrow Qasim, execute communists and Kurds.

November, 1963
Military overthrows Baathists.

1968
Baathists regain power. As Deputy Secretary-General of the Baath Party, Saddam involved in exiling rival leaders.

1969
Saddam is appointed deputy chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and vice president, becoming driving force in regime of President Ahmed Hassan Al-Bakr, his cousin.

1970
Baath government agrees to an autonomous region in the north for Kurds, but it never is implemented.

1972-1980
Iraq deports 200,000 Shiites, Turkmen and Kurds to Iran.

1974-1975
Government reportedly uses phosphorous shells against Kurds; two Kurdish villages are razed, and 8,000 Kurds disappear from another. The Kurds are crushed, but continue guerrilla activities.

July 16, 1979
Al-Bakr is forced to retire and Saddam becomes president.

July-August, 1979
Hundreds of Baathist party leaders and army officers are accused of plots against Saddam and executed.

1980
Saddam invades Iran.

February, 1987-August, 1988
Saddam appoints a cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, to "take care of" the Kurds. In the ensuing campaign, thousands of villages are razed and an estimated 180,000 Kurds disappear. Thousands more die when Kurdish villages on the Turkish border are gassed.

1990
Iraq restores diplomatic relations with Iran.

A BUILDUP OF AGGRESSION

August 1990
Iraqi troops invade Kuwait, declaring it Iraq's 19th province.

January-February 1991
U.S. and U.N. coalition forces retake Kuwait. U.N. imposes economic sanctions.

April 1991
Iraq accepts cease-fire. Allied troops withdraw. "No-fly" zones are created.

July 1991
Saddam Hussein, citing Iraqi sovereignty, rejects U.N. offer to sell oil to buy food and medicine as hunger and disease become widespread.

June 1991
U.N. chemists, biologists and weapons experts begin inspections aimed at disarming Iraq.

June 1991
Amnesty International urges Kurdish leaders to stop killing and mutilating prisoners in their custody.

1992
Iraqi troops march on Shiite shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala and force the grand ayatollah to denounce rebellion there. U.N. later reports many clerics are killed, with administrators put in charge of Shiite mosques.

1993
Saddam River Irrigation Project dams the Tigris and Euphrates, draining Shiite marshlands. U.N. calls it "the environmental crime of the century."

1993
Evidence surfaces of plans to assassinate former President Bush during April visit to Kuwait.

1996
Saddam accepts oil-for-food plan after U.N. estimates a quarter of Iraqi children suffer malnutrition.

March 1997
First shipment of food, chickpeas and white flour arrives.

1998
Iraq Sanctions Challenge, a coalition of U.S. opposition groups, delivers first shipment of medical supplies to Iraq in violation of sanctions.

December 1998
Because British/American bombing is soon to commence in retaliation for Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors, U.N. pulls inspectors from Iraq.

December 1998
President Clinton orders Operation Desert Fox — the bombing of Saddam's Republican Guards — to force complete accounting of weapons.

Sept. 11, 2001
Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Jan. 29, 2002
In State of the Union address, President Bush denounces Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil."

Oct. 16, 2002
Bush signs a resolution authorizing the use of armed forces against Iraq.

November 2002
U.N. calls for renewed weapons inspections and puts Iraq on notice to allow inspectors back into the country by Dec. 23 or face "serious consequences." Saddam agrees. December 2002
Inspectors return to Iraq.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/usiraq/timeline/ (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/usiraq/timeline/)





Can anyone confirm if the Calif Mentioned Above Jafar al-Mansur was from the Prophet Mohamed’s family I thought that was the main Dispute amongst Shia And Sun’nies, the SHia believe in a divine Line of the Prophet as there leadership and the Arabs don’t.


militraies are Professional Institutions they relly on accurate Data, They utilize history to see the mistakes of the past as lessons to be learnt.

[redsoulja]

DSJ what are you talking about, are you out of your ignorant euro-centric racist mind, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indus Valley and the Chinese were the First four great civilizations, heck when the Asians and Africans had such advanced cultures with massive literature, cities, large collosal buildings Europe simply consisted of barbaric nomadic tribes that were extremely primitive, other than Stonehenge there is very little great feats that teh Europeans committed. The Europeans only ruled the world because they were much more efficient at perpetrating violence against the rest of the world. They did not rule because of their religion, culture, history, or literature, they ruled with the gun. All the great religions were founded in Asia and Africa not Europe.I am not saying Europeans are the only violent ones, I'm just saying everyone can be violent for it is in the human nature. To assume that one group of humans is superior to other s is purely ignorance, and even when you look at the facts, the great civilizations before Greece were all African or Asian. And the west isn't modest today as no human civilization at its peak was ever modest, there are always exceptions. About Mongols being violent, what about the slavery of over 20 million African human beings? What about the millions of dead vietnamese? What about the numerous authoritarian regimes that the West has propped all over the rest of the world in order to maintain economic and geopolitical superiority, the very same regimes who have prevented the natural rise of democracy? These regimes prevent the developing world form achieving the same revolutions that the West achieved earlier. Webs i am sorry if i got a bit out of hand, this guy's racial ignorance just got my blood boiling!!!

[adsH]

DSJ what are you talking about, are you out of your ignorant euro-centric racist mind, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indus Valley and the Chinese were the First four great civilizations, heck when the Asians and Africans had such advanced cultures with massive literature, cities, large collosal buildings Europe simply consisted of barbaric nomadic tribes that were extremely primitive, other than Stonehenge there is very little great feats that teh Europeans committed. The Europeans only ruled the world because they were much more efficient at perpetrating violence against the rest of the world. They did not rule because of their religion, culture, history, or literature, they ruled with the gun. All the great religions were founded in Asia and Africa not Europe.I am not saying Europeans are the only violent ones, I'm just saying everyone can be violent for it is in the human nature. To assume that one group of humans is superior to other s is purely ignorance, and even when you look at the facts, the great civilizations before Greece were all African or Asian. And the west isn't modest today as no human civilization at its peak was ever modest, there are always exceptions. About Mongols being violent, what about the slavery of over 20 million African human beings? What about the millions of dead vietnamese? What about the numerous authoritarian regimes that the West has propped all over the rest of the world in order to maintain economic and geopolitical superiority, the very same regimes who have prevented the natural rise of democracy? These regimes prevent the developing world form achieving the same revolutions that the West achieved earlier. Webs i am sorry if i got a bit out of hand, this guy's racial ignorance just got my blood boiling!!!

YOu can't Just Say that Europe has Had some great Empires too, Greeks Romans and the Brits

[dsj]

DSJ what are you talking about, are you out of your ignorant euro-centric racist mind, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indus Valley and the Chinese were the First four great civilizations, heck when the Asians and Africans had such advanced cultures with massive literature, cities, large collosal buildings Europe simply consisted of barbaric nomadic tribes that were extremely primitive, other than Stonehenge there is very little great feats that teh Europeans committed. The Europeans only ruled the world because they were much more efficient at perpetrating violence against the rest of the world. They did not rule because of their religion, culture, history, or literature, they ruled with the gun. All the great religions were founded in Asia and Africa not Europe.I am not saying Europeans are the only violent ones, I'm just saying everyone can be violent for it is in the human nature. To assume that one group of humans is superior to other s is purely ignorance, and even when you look at the facts, the great civilizations before Greece were all African or Asian. And the west isn't modest today as no human civilization at its peak was ever modest, there are always exceptions. About Mongols being violent, what about the slavery of over 20 million African human beings? What about the millions of dead vietnamese? What about the numerous authoritarian regimes that the West has propped all over the rest of the world in order to maintain economic and geopolitical superiority, the very same regimes who have prevented the natural rise of democracy? These regimes prevent the developing world form achieving the same revolutions that the West achieved earlier. Webs i am sorry if i got a bit out of hand, this guy's racial ignorance just got my blood boiling!!!
racist? the whole books called carnage and culture a national bestseller completely agrees with my point. mabe you would like to appear on the angry reader list of the author's site and see what victor davis hanson have to say about you. Just calling someone nice and strong and free isn't being racist. Vietnam was attacked as a result of their own aggression. Your ideas are exactly what hanson laughs at. I've met another one of you guys. Interesting.

[The Watcher]

dsj, you apparently over look the european dark ages which lasted well over 3 centuries and periods before that. every civilization has its golden period and its dark period and im sure europeans went through the same. they were at some point in time did some things which would be considered backwards in todays standard. civilized? i dont know about that. look at the ways they waged wars (crusades?) over 65,000 civilians died in one crusade alone, and then their stomachs were slit open to see if they swallowed any gold coins....(by your standards you would consider those people savages) !!! then look at the way they waged wars among themselves and not to forget the barbaric act of witch hunt that took place in europe and in UK. innocent women were killed because of superstitious beliefs in witches. :rolleyes:

[dsj]

I would attribute your Comments as mere ignorance; No one just appreciates other peoples Achievements without a cause. The Asians were civilized too, Middle East is the Birth Place of Civilization in-fact the City of Babylon the Birth Place of Civilization Located in Now Iraq. Your Spanner Comments don't seam to include the Hindu Civilization Which predates Any Significant Recorded History. Your comments don't indicate the Achievements by the Islamic Spain, Achievements that above all included, multicultural welfare society, Ship Building Sea Faring Navies and Trading across the world, there achievements in Modern Medicine like Anesthetics, The Word Algebra comes from the Egypt where the Whole concept of Modern Moths was formed, if you had studied Math’s then you would known that the Arabic Mathematical symbols were adopted into the Roman Symbols, which still is by far the Best ever produced. You don't seam to actually point out the Strives made by the Various Jewish Empires of the Time in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. Your comments don't indicate the Welfare culture the Spanish/ Othman and the Indian Mughal (Not Mongol, Mongolians). The Architectural wonders that were developed by Iranians like the Taj Mahel in India. Your Sheer Lack of appreciation of these cultures is just appalling. Go and read more then just one bias textbook. It’s the Duty of a historian to Record and Analyze History in the most Accurate manner, Unfortunately there are some that never choose to Honor this Tradition. This is a plague to humanity, because if we don’t record history as accurately possible then we only condemn our future generations to make those same mistakes again. Lessons lesson’s From the Past Yielded “United Nations”, a cooperation that would prevent War and Allow Nations to discuss there problems rather then Fight out the Dispute.



I never said that the east didn't have anything, that europe was always ahead of them at least in terms of military power. I again DIDNT say that the asians were completely fruitless, just that europe was always ahead of them at least in military power and democratic state.

[redsoulja]

Adsh yeah i agree completely that they have had great civs but that does not give him the right to be ignorant posting such crap, specifically when the Middle East was the cradle of civilization.
Just because millions of Americans and British buy book about Western superiority doesnt necessarily mean the West is greater than the rest. And I also don't agree with this author.

[dsj]

Adsh yeah i agree completely that they have had great civs but that does not give him the right to be ignorant posting such crap, specifically when the Middle East was the cradle of civilization.
Just because millions of Americans and British buy book about Western superiority doesnt necessarily mean the West is greater than the rest. And I also don't agree with this author.It's not right to call someone's posts crap. I no longer have the time to argue with you. Go to victor hanson's site and argue with him and join the angry readers. I think you are one of what he calls "Islamicist" If you are one, I'm not interested in hearing your fanatical aggression.

[redsoulja]

Now youre making an assumption that I'm a muslim, and calling me a fanatic??? Personally I'm not an Islamist but if being one is wrong so is being euro-centric.

[srirangan]

Dsj,

Civilization first began in:
- Egypt
- Sumeria (Iraq/Iran)
- Indus-Saraswati (Sindh, Gujarath, Rajasthan Punjab in South Asia), and
- China

I think you will agree none of these regions lie in Europe. These regions saw civilization while the rest of the wrold, including Europe, lived as barbaric tribals. So your claim of European Civilizational Superiority cannot be justified.

[adsH]

It's not right to call someone's posts crap. I no longer have the time to argue with you. Go to victor hanson's site and argue with him and join the angry readers. I think you are one of what he calls "Islamicist" If you are one, I'm not interested in hearing your fanatical aggression.

I'm sorry I didn't know You carried so much Aggression against the "Islamics", well anyways. Can you email the Author Ask him about the “Undefeatable Armies of the Othman”, Can you ask him why the Spanish Armada Ruled the Sea at one time. Can you ask him why the Persians had been regarded in history as great Warriors. Could you ask him why the Indian Mughall Armies were regarded as one of the most powerful armies in the Region?.

Alexander the Great him self considered the Indian Rajas as brilliant generals of there time

. Every Empire is based on some sort of Power centre, that Centre requires Authority, Military is that authority. And every Empire has its peak then its demise.

[SABRE]

Dsj,

Civilization first began in:
- Egypt
- Sumeria (Iraq/Iran)
- Indus-Saraswati (Sindh, Gujarath, Rajasthan Punjab in South Asia), and
- China

I think you will agree none of these regions lie in Europe. These regions saw civilization while the rest of the wrold, including Europe, lived as barbaric tribals. So your claim of European Civilizational Superiority cannot be justified.


Totaly agreeed;

All I know is that Sumeria/Babylon/Iraq is the oldest recorded civilization in the world today.
Egypt came later.

Empror Qin (Chin) founded the Qin empire in China & all I know is that was waaaayyyyy long ago.

Indus-Saraswati is about 5000 yrs old. PS not to forget the advent aryans in South Asia.

5000 yrs back as always Europe was in dark ages. Civilizations existed only in great cities like Rome, Athens, Troy, Sparta. Even the lands that surrounded these cities were barbaric. Romans fought many wars with Barbarian tribes.

When the Turkish Muslim Kalif sent his embassador to some European country the people over there asked him that they have herd that he can DRAW what people speek. That means they did not even have sense of writing 1400 years ago. My friend tells me that a movie was also made on this Embassador. Its called 13th Warrior (I have yet to see it).

But I have a question? R we dicussing civilizations here or empires? I think both r inter-related in should be discussed togather.

[srirangan]

That means they did not even have sense of writing 1400 years ago.

That can be easily disputed. Pictography ended with the Pharoh's BC.

[adsH]

That can be easily disputed. Pictography ended with the Pharoh's BC.

Regardless of the disputes the House of Wisdom AKA World library was in Baghdad, it was where all the world knowledge was compiled into Books which was a considerably new way of storing knowledge.

[srirangan]

Regardless of the disputes the House of Wisdom AKA World library was in Baghdad, it was where all the world knowledge was compiled into Books which was a considerably new way of storing knowledge.
True, but it was wrong to claim that Europeans didn't know how to write 1400 years ago.

[XEROX]

greatest Empire in history got to be the Romans, it spanned from Eastern europe, England, west europe, greece, and parts of the middle east and northern africa

[srirangan]

greatest Empire in history got to be the Romans, it spanned from Eastern europe, England, west europe, greece, and parts of the middle east and northern africa


Territorially speaking, the Mongols and Brit's definitely did better.

[SABRE]

True, but it was wrong to claim that Europeans didn't know how to write 1400 years ago.

I never said that Europeans did not know how to write. Roma text & numbers r very old. All m saying is that civilization & civilization know-how (Writing, reading, engineering etc) were limited to few great cities like Rome, Athens, Troy, Sparta. During the rise of Muslim Empires even the great cities like Rome & Athens had fallen to dark ages but they still remained the most knowledgeble cities of Europe.

Speaking Territorially Muslim empire streached out from entire Middle East to Central Asia (Balkans), South-Asia, South East Asia, Some parts of China (Xing Xang province), almost half of the Europe & most of the Africa. This is why Micheal Hart author of "100 Great personalities" or what ever refers to the Empire of Kalif Omar Ibne Khatab as the greatest Empire ever vitnessed in the recorded history. Not only in the sense of territory but also technological & educational advantage. The base of chemistry today was laid out by the Muslim scientist of that time. Even the word Chemistry comes from the Arabic word Al-Khaim (the soil) it started with the study of brown soil of egypt. Muslim scholars wanted to knw why the soil was brown. PS the Al-Gebra also got its birth.

[adsH]

I never said that Europeans did not know how to write. Roma text & numbers r very old. All m saying is that civilization & civilization know-how (Writing, reading, engineering etc) were limited to few great cities like Rome, Athens, Troy, Sparta. During the rise of Muslim Empires even the great cities like Rome & Athens had fallen to dark ages but they still remained the most knowledgeble cities of Europe.

Speaking Territorially Muslim empire streached out from entire Middle East to Central Asia (Balkans), South-Asia, South East Asia, Some parts of China (Xing Xang province), almost half of the Europe & most of the Africa. This is why Micheal Hart author of "100 Great personalities" or what ever refers to the Empire of Kalif Omar Ibne Khatab as the greatest Empire ever vitnessed in the recorded history. Not only in the sense of territory but also technological & educational advantage. The base of chemistry today was laid out by the Muslim scientist of that time. Even the word Chemistry comes from the Arabic word Al-Khaim (the soil) it started with the study of brown soil of egypt. Muslim scholars wanted to knw why the soil was brown. PS the Al-Gebra also got its birth.

True then the Chemistry was translated into Roman Characters along with Algebra etc.

[Awang se]

luckily the Chinese emperor agreed to pay annual protection fees to Qutaibah ibn Muslim, if not at least half of China will fall to the hand of Qutaibah army.

China is quite lucky. mostly contributed by their isolationistic policy. since they pose no threat to muslims, muslim rulers just seem to leave them alone. except for the Xing Xang of course

[Awang se]

from i understand about the Muslim empire, they were consisted of several independent emirates bond together by common faith of Islam. the Khalifah is more like a symbol of unity rather then the actual rulers of the whole stretch of the empire. each emirates is free to pursue their own course and khalifah have not much saying in the shaping of their internal policies. of course if any muslim land was threaten by the enemy, khalifah have the authority to demand military aid from all the Muslim emirates and refusal to answer the call to arms might risk anger from the whole muslim populations.

[Awang se]

for all the gung ho about the US military and economic superiority, it seems they are now screaming for help in Iraq.

[Temoor_A]

I think that British Empire was the best of all. They had many colonies and promoted development and education in them, though they had there wicked sides too!

As far as the Mongols, they were great warriors of there time and managed the biggest conquest in mankind history but they submerged among the people of there conquests soon!

And Roman Empire also has my respects too, it survived for 1000 years and share great history of glory and tragedy.

Currently USA owns my respect!

[fraken_14]

I have to admit that the USA has to be the biggest now. But at one point Rome probably controled more land then the americans do now.

[srirangan]

I have to admit that the USA has to be the biggest now. But at one point Rome probably controled more land then the americans do now.
No one controlled as much territory as the British did.

[Pendekar]

As far as the Mongols, they were great warriors of there time and managed the biggest conquest in mankind history but they submerged among the people of there conquests soon!

conquest is cultural as much as military. Strong cultural practice may last long after the end of military occupation. mongol might have a superb military but very few cultural value because they are afterall a nomad living in a steppe wasteland with most of their time spent only for survival. when they met with the rich cultures of the peoples they manage to conquer, they tend to be absorbed quite immedietly. example, Tamerlane, a great grandson of Ghengis Khan, is a muslim, a culture taken from the arabs and persians they conquered. Kublai Khan, adopted to chinese culture when he manage to annexed the whole of China

[fraken_14]

No one controlled as much territory as the British did.

yea they did say the sun never set on the british soil.

[srirangan]

yea they did say the sun never set on the british soil.
Sadly it has. But the "English" Empire has lived on.

[fraken_14]

their empire just got to big to handle. They didn't have enought troops to keep that big of an empire in order. The same kind of thing happened to Rome. They got greedy and took more than they could handle.

[srirangan]

their empire just got to big to handle. They didn't have enought troops to keep that big of an empire in order. The same kind of thing happened to Rome. They got greedy and took more than they could handle.
ABCA, still quite an empire.

[doggychow14]

True the British empire may have had the most territorial land than the romans, however, the roman empire came hundreds of years before the rise of the English. They did not enjoy the luxeries of advancing technology. Also it is interesting that no1 mentioned the egyptions. So much of math learned in schools today came from or derived from the Egyptions. Also China, the middle kindom, was a large empires where asian states paid tributaries to China without China using force. Also China provided much scientifically from gunpowder to paper.

[adsH]

True the British empire may have had the most territorial land than the romans, however, the roman empire came hundreds of years before the rise of the English. They did not enjoy the luxeries of advancing technology. Also it is interesting that no1 mentioned the egyptions. So much of math learned in schools today came from or derived from the Egyptions. Also China, the middle kindom, was a large empires where asian states paid tributaries to China without China using force. Also China provided much scientifically from gunpowder to paper.


The Romans were Probably the Most Advance of them All they had the technology that was greater then anyone’s during there time, Its easy to Compare Now technology with the Romans technology but the Romans were the Superpower of there Time. Just like all the other Empires of there time.

[fraken_14]

you can easily see that the romans were far more technologically advanced then anyone of their time because when they were finally defeated by the barbarians the rest of the world pretty much went back hundreds of years in technology. The world went into the Dark Ages because rome fell.

[mysterious]

The world went into the Dark Ages because rome fell.

The 'world' went in to Dark Ages? My friend, Dark Ages is an invention of western thought to classify the time period when almost 'nothing' significant was happening in the western world. I dont think you can count the rest of the world in the Dark Ages just because the west was slumbering. The Dark Ages was essentially the time period when the Eastern world was blooming right up to the Renaissance when the Western world woke up from its slumber. I know they hardly teach that in schools in the western world because obviously they dont want everyone going around praising the eastern world for its achievements. Look it up. :coffee

[SABRE]

anyways...consider if germans had won the war....what kind of empire would it have been under the ceaser Hitler? & what it could have been today?

If that had happened, I see significant geographic changes. e.g: there would be no jewish state (most probably).

[fraken_14]

they'd probably force alot of the youth to join the Nazi Youth groups like they did in german. And there would be alot of people dying their hair blonde.

[Pendekar]

i've been wondering, what's blonde hair have to do with Nazi.

[Pendekar]

Also China, the middle kindom, was a large empires where asian states paid tributaries to China without China using force. Also China provided much scientifically from gunpowder to paper.

Chinese empire reached the furthest during the time of Tang Dynasty. in order to secure the silk road, they advanced as far as kashmir and kabul. but it's only a brief while. during this time also, the arabs were also expanding to the east. when the two met, thus resulted in the Battle of Talas river (http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198205/the.battle.of.talas.htm) which the Arabs achieved a decisive triumph.

[adsH]

The 'world' went in to Dark Ages? My friend, Dark Ages is an invention of western thought to classify the time period when almost 'nothing' significant was happening in the western world. I dont think you can count the rest of the world in the Dark Ages just because the west was slumbering. The Dark Ages was essentially the time period when the Eastern world was blooming right up to the Renaissance when the Western world woke up from its slumber. I know they hardly teach that in schools in the western world because obviously they dont want everyone going around praising the eastern world for its achievements. Look it up. :coffee


Hey Myst I found this Article I found it very interesting. This is something i am researching.

Centuries in the House of Wisdom

Iraq's golden age of science brought us algebra, optics, windmills and much more, writes Brian Whitaker

Thursday September 23, 2004
The Guardian

For most of the last 5,000 years, Iraq was a key centre of scientific knowledge. Mathematics, developed initially for keeping accounts, gradually spread into far more ambitious areas such as predictive astronomy, making use of data painstakingly collected and recorded at the temples of Uruk and Babylon over several centuries.
During the first century after the birth of Islam, Muslim armies defeated the Persians and moved into Iraq. Around 762, the Abbasid caliphs established their capital in the newly founded city of Baghdad from where they ruled the vast Muslim empire for the next five centuries.

This was the high point of Islamic civilisation, when scholars of various religions from around the world flocked to the Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom), an unrivalled centre for the study of humanities and for sciences, including mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, zoology and geography, as well as some more dubious subjects such as alchemy and astrology.

Drawing on Persian, Indian and Greek texts - Aristotle, Plato, Hippocrates, Euclid, Pythagoras and others - the scholars accumulated the greatest collection of knowledge in the world, and built on it through their own discoveries.

These developments in Iraq were made possible by widespread literacy and also by the availability of paper as an everyday writing material. The first paper arrived in Iraq from China, probably along the silk route via Samarkand, in the eighth century - long before it reached Europe. Shortly afterwards, a paper mill was established in Baghdad, and by the end of the 10th century, paper had replaced parchment and papyrus in the Arab world.

Probably the most famous mathematician at the House of Wisdom was al-Khawarizmi, known as the father of algebra - a word derived from the title of his book, Kitab al-Jabr.

Several important figures are also associated with the southern city of Basra, another key centre of learning. Al-Jahiz, born in Basra in 776, seems to have come from an ordinary background and as a youth helped his father to sell fish. His most famous work was the seven-volume Book of Animals which included his observations on the social organisation of ants, communication between animals and the effects of diet and environment. Altogether, he wrote about 200 books on a wide range of topics, including The Art of Keeping One's Mouth Shut and Against Civil Servants. He died at the age of 92, allegedly when a pile of books in his personal library fell on top of him.

Al-Masu'di, who died in 957, spent some time in Basra writing about his travels to India, China and East Africa. As with many scholars of his day, his interests were broad and his writing contained elements of history, geography, sociology and anthropology which, unusually for the time, he approached in an analytical way. He also explored problems in the earth sciences - such as the causes of earthquakes - and was also the first writer to mention windmills, invented by Muslims in Sijistan.

Ibn al-Haytham (also known as Alhazen) worked as a civil servant in 10th-century Basra before taking up science. Moving later to Egypt, he became head of a project to regulate the flow of the Nile but, on investigation, he decided it was impossible. This annoyed the Fatimid caliph in Cairo, and Ibn al-Haytham reputedly escaped punishment by pretending to be mad until the caliph died.

Among the mathematical problems he explored was the squaring of the circle. He also wrote a seven-volume treatise on optics and the nature of light. This explored reflection from plane and curved surfaces, refraction, and the structure of the eye - though he did not understand the importance of the lens.

Iraqi science went into decline, partly because of natural disasters such as floods, but also for reasons that are familiar today: religious rivalries and problems with internal security. In 1258 the Mongols sacked Baghdad and, according to some accounts, the Tigris and Euphrates ran red with the blood of scholars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1310285,00.html

[mysterious]

Like I said, so much for Mr. Fraken's 'dark ages'!!

[Raven_Wing278]

surely china was one of the greatest empire there was but i dont see it get much attention in this forum.how did the chinese empire compare to the rest of the world back then? whether in terms of military power or technologies?
:coffee

[doggychow14]

China was surely one of the greatest empire. It was the roman empire of the orient. It helped spark the European renassaince with it's technologies. However it's downfall is with it's leadership. I believe during the ming dynasty, the emperor cut relations with the outside world thus new ideas from europe, the middle east, russia was never introduced into Chinese society. It is believed that Chinese sailors had come to the America's, but the Chinese society was never imperial. Thus their influence never spread. The Europeans, however, borrowed technologies from all over the world and created a modern society (The US can be thought as an extention of the European society). Many of the mathmetics that are tought today, are named after europeans who discovered them but in reality many were discovered by the Chinese first such as the Pascal's triangle.

[mysterious]

Many of the mathematics tought today are named after Europeans? Clarify that statement please! Just 'cuz Europeans changed the names of Arab mathematicians cuz they couldn't pronounce them, doesn't make them European! And thats not just limited to Mathematicians. Averoes, Avicenna, etc are all european names for ARABS who made great advances in all subjects of the time ranging from mathematics, astrology, philosophy to religious sciences, etc. The most stark evidence are the numerals we use in mathematics these days, those are "Arabic" numerals!

[ashblackhawk]

Many of the mathematics tought today are named after Europeans? Clarify that statement please! Just 'cuz Europeans changed the names of Arab mathematicians cuz they couldn't pronounce them, doesn't make them European! And thats not just limited to Mathematicians. Averoes, Avicenna, etc are all european names for ARABS who made great advances in all subjects of the time ranging from mathematics, astrology, philosophy to religious sciences, etc. The most stark evidence are the numerals we use in mathematics these days, those are "Arabic" numerals!


I rather suspect the history published in this regard, I think arab numerals are just copy cat from Indian Sanskrit Numerals, Also i presume most of arabs acquired the knowledge of maths,astronomy,philosophy from ancient indian university named "nalanda" , http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/about/NalandaHeritage_set.html (http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/about/NalandaHeritage_set.html)
www.kalavinka.org/pilgmage/nalapics/nalapics.htm (http://www.kalavinka.org/pilgmage/nalapics/nalapics.htm) , which dates back 5th century a.d. and 5 centuries ahead of Oxford University. Also the arabs/europeans did lot of trade with ancient india which i think had been key to development of arab numerals.

[mysterious]

Of course the Arabic numerals did not just appear out of thin air. There were aspects taken from ancient Greek and Indian cultures and 'perfected'. Thats how humanity has progressed over the course of time. That is the reason you dont use other numerals today because they weren't perfect! That is the reason why the world remembers Averoes, Avicenna and others because they perfected what they learnt from others and took that knowledge and material to new heights; knowledge that laid the foundations to present day successes of the West.

Here's a hint: Find out why present day Iraq has a nickname 'craddle of civilization'. I'll even give you two short answers; Mesopotamia and Islamic Empire. :coffee

[doggychow14]

At the same time as mesopatania, and the gyption empire, the Chinese empire and the Indian smpire fourished. There is also a reason why China was nicknamed the middle kindom. It was only at the dawn of the 20th century when the western world's GDP surpassed the east.

[mysterious]

That also only happened after the Western world's imperial powers learned the sacred rule of 'divide and rule' to manipulate the cohesiveness of the Eastern world resulting in a complete withdrawal from the world stage on economic terms. But I think the days are coming closer when the Eastern World will come full-circle!

[gf0012-aust]

At the same time as mesopatania, and the gyption empire, the Chinese empire and the Indian smpire fourished. There is also a reason why China was nicknamed the middle kindom. It was only at the dawn of the 20th century when the western world's GDP surpassed the east.

I suspect you're being a bit cavalier with definition here. GDP was never a measure of absolute wealth until after WW2.

In real terms what empire ever rivalled the British Empire? The nations that are superpowers in more than the military sense were also the predominant trading powers at an intercontinental level.

Rome, Turkey, Byzantime, Persian, Dutch, Spanish, English all qualify. The US never had an empire in the classicist sense - but they have been the dominant economic and military power for between 100 to 50 years depending on how you assess their military capability. Typically it is measured from the end of WW1 or the period revolving around the Washington Treaty.

As for the notion of divide and conquer, that was something the european powers were guilty of amongst themselves - it was never a dictated and definiable policy of any of the major powers to deal with the middle east or asia. China itself is a classic example of a massive empire that was riven with internal conflict well before and during the arrival of "roundeyes".

[ashblackhawk]

Rome, Turkey, Byzantime, Persian, Dutch, Spanish, English all qualify. The US never had an empire in the classicist sense - but they have been the dominant economic and military power for between 100 to 50 years depending on how you assess their military capability. Typically it is measured from the end of WW1 or the period revolving around the Washington Treaty.




I think world needs to think/look beyond the history of last 3,000 years. Everyone knows enough about last 2,500 years. I presume civilizations did existed before 3,000 years which are interesting to be looked into. The incas, Egyptians, mesopotamia, vedic indian, harrapans, java, chinease, (russia, central asia is unexplored)are all interesting to be looked into. I am surprised by the facts that there are no ancient palace's/other old planned cities found in egyptian soil which could throw more light. It seems that egypt was only a burial ground !! its more important to look into ancient port cities which could have drowned because of natural calamities/diseases/weatherchange.

[ashblackhawk]

Here's a hint: Find out why present day Iraq has a nickname 'craddle of civilization'. I'll even give you two short answers; Mesopotamia and Islamic Empire.

I think sumerians are more than 9,000 years old which is about 5,000 years older than mesopotamian's(which is approximated of age 4,500), and i dont believe there was anything islamic about those empire's :D. Infact, they were worshippers of sun god and idols (which is banned in islamic traditions), so we can presume that middle-east is not the land of arabs, they were people from other realms/dynasty/civilization which were conquered, massacred and destroyed by invading arabs . As we move further in technology and analysis, truth will be more clear.:coffee

[pasukangeraktjepat]

so we can presume that middle-east is not the land of arabs, they were people from other realms/dynasty/civilization which were conquered, massacred and destroyed by invading arabs . As we move further in technology and analysis, truth will be more clear.:coffee
I don't know exactly whether middle-east people is an arabian people or not.But if you're argument is correct i still think that Islamic Value have inspire the people that live in the area.

[ashblackhawk]

I don't know exactly whether middle-east people is an arabian people or not.But if you're argument is correct i still think that Islamic Value have inspire the people that live in the area.

People in middle-east are arabs but, the people who originally lived in sumeria mesopotamia,egypt had nothing to do with islam.Moreover there is no single trace of Islamic value nor we can relate that they used to follow islamic value's. As compared to sumerian/mesopotamian civilization islamic,christian,buddhist traditions are way too young. No doubt middle east is source of inspiration or certainly old as far as civilizations are concerned, but nothing related to religion at all.

[doggychow14]

In real terms what empire ever rivalled the British Empire At that time, none. But if history is to be examined there are usually one or two empires or superpowers in existance at one time. There is never more. The British Empire was the superpower of its day. But all superpowers or empires will eventually lose their power, and that power is shifted to another country. The reason the west came to power was because of their aggression. It was not until the United States before western ideas of freedom and democracy began to flourish in the West. Before the modern era, the world was split into 2 different parts, the East, and the West. There was barely any interaction between them. In terms of Wealth, and technology the East was ahead before the 20th century.

[ajay_ijn]

At that time, none. But if history is to be examined there are usually one or two empires or superpowers in existance at one time. There is never more. The British Empire was the superpower of its day. But all superpowers or empires will eventually lose their power, and that power is shifted to another country. The reason the west came to power was because of their aggression. It was not until the United States before western ideas of freedom and democracy began to flourish in the West
It was because of Renaissance,the west came to power and ruled the world.
Much before US got independence the renaissance came to light to remove the dark ages.
Freedom of thinking,Freedom of speech etc made them leaders of economy,military etc.
The British Empire was the superpower of its day.
British Empire was the most stable and longest and also the largest empire from the 1600 to Second World war.
Even if british faced a more powerful enemy,they make friedship with him or bring their own allies and unite to defeat with the enemy.
Sometimes they used cunning ideas of breaking the friendship between two kingdoms and make them fight with each other,they also used it againt communities or religions.
Example:British Knew Japanese Military was very Strong during early years of 1900,So they immediately made treaties with her so that no threat will be their for their colonies in east asia.

A single day won't be enough to describe the saga of british empire.

But in a Single line we can say
Sun never sets in the British Empire.

Hitler was one of reasons for making the sun to set

Anybody here likes barbarians in europe who i think were one of the reasons of collapse of roman empire.

[doggychow14]

at the end of the Roman empire, they had 2 capitals, one at rome, and one at Constaninople. The power began to shift to the middle eastern side of the Roman empire at Constaninople. The Barbarians were people who spoke niether Greek nor Latin. They surrounded the Roman Empire The romans drew a line beyond which themselves rarely ventured and would not allow Barbarians to pass. However they began to filter in Roman society, and the military recruited them to serve in the Roman army. At the same time Roman cities began to decay. Soon they began to settle down within the border. After a few centuries they began to move into the interior where the climate is better. However as they went they pludered, fought, and killed as they went. Soon they sacked the Roman Emperor in the West. As the Western Roman civilization fell, the eastern side (the middle east) flourished and the Byzantine empire formed.

[mysterious]

People in middle-east are arabs but, the people who originally lived in sumeria mesopotamia,egypt had nothing to do with islam.Moreover there is no single trace of Islamic value nor we can relate that they used to follow islamic value's. As compared to sumerian/mesopotamian civilization islamic,christian,buddhist traditions are way too young. No doubt middle east is source of inspiration or certainly old as far as civilizations are concerned, but nothing related to religion at all.

Of course Sumerians and Mesopotamians had nothing to do with Islam (who said they did?)!!! Islam came 1400 yrs ago which is obviously a much more recent thing than the Sumerians and Mesopotamians! That is WHY I mentioned Mesopotamia and Islam "separately"! I dunno what you based your replies on.

[ashblackhawk]

Of course Sumerians and Mesopotamians had nothing to do with Islam (who said they did?)!!! Islam came 1400 yrs ago which is obviously a much more recent thing than the Sumerians and Mesopotamians! That is WHY I mentioned Mesopotamia and Islam "separately"! I dunno what you based your replies on.

Hi this quote made me to write the response:

Originally Posted by pasukangeraktjepat
I don't know exactly whether middle-east people is an arabian people or not.But if you're argument is correct i still think that Islamic Value have inspire the people that live in the area.



in this he thinks "he dont know who the people living in middle-east are" and also argues that "islamic value" inspired those people to live in middle-east. Well i think it was also the availabiilty of plenty of water in mesopotamia and much better weather conditions than "desert of sahara" which drive them, foundation of islam was laid eventually.

[pasukangeraktjepat]

My apologies for mysterious and ashblackhawk.What i mean in my post is Islam drive the muslim to learn a science and spread the religion all over the world, because Islam told that every man was a caliph of earth (that's what my religion teacher say).I think this made a people who live in middle-east at that time, whether he was an arab or not, to start a great caliphate.

[mysterious]

The thing is, people who live in that area (you call it Middle-East, I call it Near-East because Middle-East is such a euro-centric term) were alwayz Arabs! They didn't 'change' from time to time. Its just that when the region was called Sumeria, they were called Sumerians, when it was dominated by Mesopotamia, they came to be known as Mesopotamians; but all those names vanished because of the long-lasting name Arabia of that place and so they came to be known as Arabs to this day! Hope that makes sense. This is applicable to all parts of the world.

Ashblackhawk, pasukangeraktjepat is right that Islamic values and commandments 'urged' the people to strive and make that extra effort to learn what they did and drive the world ahead! Your wordings that the foundation of Islam was 'eventually' laid seemz to be overwhelmingly out of place as Islam wasn't something that was being schemed behind closed doors by some waiting for the right time to expose it to the people outside! It was a revelation that came to the Prophet based on God's decision when to send it.

Finally I would like to advise that whenever you are using a religion's name and/or using its name to refer to something, please use a capital letter at the beginning to show mutual respect around in here. Will be appreciated!

[srirangan]

The thing is, people who live in that area (you call it Middle-East, I call it Near-East because Middle-East is such a euro-centric term) were alwayz Arabs! They didn't 'change' from time to time. Its just that when the region was called Sumeria, they were called Sumerians, when it was dominated by Mesopotamia, they came to be known as Mesopotamians; but all those names vanished because of the long-lasting name Arabia of that place and so they came to be known as Arabs to this day!
I doubt it. The Assaryans, Hetites, Persians, ancient Sumerians were not Arab or even semetic.

[kashifshahzad]

I doubt it. The Assaryans, Hetites, Persians, ancient Sumerians were not Arab or even semetic.
Sri I think before Islam these Arabs hated non-arabs because they were black and i think also slaves (i think those non-arabs were from Africa ) Arabs also attacked the Persians and romans i dont know much about the romans but the country now in place is Iran and also may be Iraq but these people are white. Now these Arabs also have union kind of thing and do not let others to come in i think the countries are specified and they were the people who made this relegion to spread in the large area

[srirangan]

Arabs were just tribes and cities scattered across the desert. They were used as mercs by other kingdoms of that region prior to Islam. Each arab city had its own god and all arab cities united in the hujj and worshipped their idols/gods in the karbala before Islam.

[ashblackhawk]

The thing is, people who live in that area (you call it Middle-East, I call it Near-East because Middle-East is such a euro-centric term) were alwayz Arabs! They didn't 'change' from time to time. Its just that when the region was called Sumeria, they were called Sumerians, when it was dominated by Mesopotamia, they came to be known as Mesopotamians; but all those names vanished because of the long-lasting name Arabia of that place and so they came to be known as Arabs to this day! Hope that makes sense. This is applicable to all parts of the world.

Ashblackhawk, pasukangeraktjepat is right that Islamic values and commandments 'urged' the people to strive and make that extra effort to learn what they did and drive the world ahead! Your wordings that the foundation of Islam was 'eventually' laid seemz to be overwhelmingly out of place as Islam wasn't something that was being schemed behind closed doors by some waiting for the right time to expose it to the people outside! It was a revelation that came to the Prophet based on God's decision when to send it.

Finally I would like to advise that whenever you are using a religion's name and/or using its name to refer to something, please use a capital letter at the beginning to show mutual respect around in here. Will be appreciated!



I think what you are trying to say here does not have any evidence around. My point is if you think that assyrians, sumerians were arabs then why did suddenly they gave up their beliefs and started following Islam ? These must be a gradual process but where are these hard evidence ? its important that arabic countries should encourage excavations around the historical places to find out what lies inside the earth. The truth should be down there somewhere !! :coffee

[srirangan]

They weren't arabs.

[mysterious]

My GOD! I dont know if you guyz ever 'think' before posting?

... My point is if you think that assyrians, sumerians were arabs then why did suddenly they gave up their beliefs and started following Islam ? These must be a gradual process but where are these hard evidence ? ...

Ashblackhawk, a person who follows Islam is a Muslim and not an ARAB!! People who live in that 'specific' region are called Arabs! (Ever heard of the statement that there are more non-Arab Muslims in the world than Arab Muslims??) That is why we have Arab Christians, Arab Jews, etc. Being an Arab does NOT mean that the person is automatically a Muslim.

And you took an entirely different meaning of my last post than I was implying. I was merely trying to say that people living in that region haven't changed in features or skin color, etc much since time immemorial and Arab has become their 'name' or how you refer to them (if you want to put a label) because of the long lasting name of the region - ARABIA! If to this day, Sumeria or Mesopotamia had lasted, today they'd be known as Sumerians or Mesopotamians! Take Rome for example, if today Rome had existed instead of the different nation-states that are there, the people living there would be known as Romans and not what they're known as today!

Please take a course in anthropology if you still dont understand what I'm trying to say - same goes for the person with the one liner. :coffee

[srirangan]

People who live in that s livin 'specific' region are called Arabs!
Please take a course in anthropology if you still dont understand what I'm trying to say - same goes for the person with the one liner.

Its you who needs that course. Not all people living in Saudi Arabia are arabs. Arabs are a semetic ethnicity. Arab refers to an ethnicity. Ahmed Ali Shah (SABRE) is an Arab but not living in that region. There can be non-Arabs in the Arabian region.

[mysterious]

I didnt even come to that yet. I was only talking about the issue being raised by Ashblackhawk! And where exactly does the Arab ethnicity come from? It comes from that 'specific' region. There is no discussion on immigrants for now. It was a basic explanation for ashblackhawk on the raised issue.

[ashblackhawk]

My GOD! I dont know if you guyz ever 'think' before posting?



I was merely trying to say that people living in that region haven't changed in features or skin color, etc much since time immemorial and Arab has become their 'name' or how you refer to them (if you want to put a label) because of the long lasting name of the region - ARABIAPlease take a course in anthropology if you still dont understand what I'm trying to say - same goes for the person with the one liner. :coffee

What you have written in this post above it is even kids know it, and i knew these basic stuff when i started learning world history in school, you better check who sumerians, assyrians and mesopotamians are and where they came from because nobody even know weather they had the same skin colour as arabs. Do you know it ? :coffee

[mysterious]

Anywayz, I've had enough of this baby sitting lesson on anthro. I dont have time to keep banging my head against a wall. I'll let it rest for now.