|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 23:53:34 GMT
So I wanna ask you: Which civilization of these 2 you find was better developed? In terms of everything including culture, military and so on
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 1:09:38 GMT
So I wanna ask you: Which civilization of these 2 you find was better developed? In terms of everything including culture, military and so on For culture,definitely egypt. They were 2000+ years ahead of Rome, which is a massive head start. Rome is also culturally rich once they integrated a lot of different cultures from their conquered territores, but Egypy is still a lot more culturally rich due to,as mentioned, head start. For military, Egypt used to be a military power in the early to late bronze age, and after the dark ages, they pretty much started to stagnate. Rome became a military powerhouse for quite a while due to ingenuity and willingness to adapt with no feelings of sentimentality towards their past military formations. In terms of peak, Rome definitely got it. In short, culturally: egypt. Military: Rome.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 1:11:05 GMT
Well.. I mean to be more concret:yepp Rome must be indeed the superior time they took decisive victory over Antony/Cleopatra with Octavian as their leader. But was there a chance for a coexisting Rome/Aegypt if Aegypt would have won with Antony/Cleopatra mix? Would have Aegypt regained its power to their own highest point of rise before conquered by the Greeks? I mean wouldnt it have been more beneficial to Rome against barbaric or germanic invasions later, if Antony or Caesar before him would have won with Cleopatra?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 1:24:30 GMT
Yea it's surely, very very hypothetical but I just assume that instead of conquering Aegypt accepting Aegypt/Cleopatra as coexisting partner could have given the arising Roman empire more power against their strongest enemies arising at the borders and Parthia of course. The Aegyptians may have aided critical cultural knowledge got from their ancestors at height of Egyptian civilization to helf the Romans survive longer later as they started to decline. Yes then either Caesar must have survived his murdering or Antony would have to have won over Octavian to make it a possible reality...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 5:16:46 GMT
Well.. I mean to be more concret:yepp Rome must be indeed the superior time they took decisive victory over Antony/Cleopatra with Octavian as their leader. But was there a chance for a coexisting Rome/Aegypt if Aegypt would have won with Antony/Cleopatra mix? Would have Aegypt regained its power to their own highest point of rise before conquered by the Greeks? I mean wouldnt it have been more beneficial to Rome against barbaric or germanic invasions later, if Antony or Caesar before him would have won with Cleopatra? That would be interesting. If Antony and Cleopatra won, then i would guess that Egypt would become a power, and depending on how good Cleopatra handles the propaganda, they both coexist,until one decides to fully conquer the other decades or centuries later. Egypt is rich in resources, so no doubt Rome would want to have Egypt. About the invasions, it was rome's increasing xenophobia that done them in. Rome's success relied heavily on their ability to successfully integrate conquered territories and grant those they conquered Roman citizenship, as a way of buying loyalty,which worked . Later on, as Rome became larger and the senate and emperors started to reject political power to some, it would cause continuous political strife that would eventually lead to the downfall of the Western roman empire. Should've listened to uncle Cladius. Anyway,not sure if Cleopatra/Antony winning the civil war would help, but since Augustus was able to do something about it,i guess they could have as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 10:58:31 GMT
Cleo was i suppose to be best ancient female leader. She managed to liason Caesar, the greatest men of Rome before assassination and later Anthony also falls in love with her. Its just a pity we now dont know exactly how she looked like. it was far back in ancient times. Many considering, she must have been very seducing, others meant she was able to carry out brillant politic debates. I think she was both, good politician and a beautiful women, able to use seduction as a fine method winning the most powerful man. About her military ability i suppose her naval commander skill was being highest among other skills in land troops so making a good navy general
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Nov 26, 2021 13:25:47 GMT
Um, naval ability? Actium? Does not compute. And personally, my thoughts on the best female leader of an ancient country, apart from the Biblocal Deborah, would be Artemisia. There was a boss.
|
|
|
Post by blueberry on Nov 26, 2021 16:50:55 GMT
So I wanna ask you: Which civilization of these 2 you find was better developed? In terms of everything including culture, military and so on They peaked at very different times, so it's quite pointless to compare them. Anyway, I'd say the Roman Empire because it profoundly influenced everything in Europe for centuries after its fall, from language, to law, to art, to science and many other things
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 19:25:51 GMT
yea Rome must have been THE milestone for every coming civilizations. Apart from Chinese Han maybe on the other end of the world. Yea now you say it.. Artemisia realy looks very promising compared to Cleopatra... well... Artemisia would have been the more competent military leader especially naval techniques but in political affairs no match to Cleo. Cleo obtained the title being Queen of Queens together celebrated with Anthony being King of Kings. So Cleo would be the one and only Ancient Empress....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2021 0:38:06 GMT
Um, naval ability? Actium? Does not compute. And personally, my thoughts on the best female leader of an ancient country, apart from the Biblocal Deborah, would be Artemisia. There was a boss. Thank god i'm not the only one who knows about Artemisia. One of the lesser known queens. Her ramming an ally ship to stop pursuing greeks by tricking them into believing that they were pursuing an ally in the battle of Salamis says a lot about her intellect.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2021 0:41:50 GMT
yea Rome must have been THE milestone for every coming civilizations. Apart from Chinese Han maybe on the other end of the world. Yea now you say it.. Artemisia realy looks very promising compared to Cleopatra... well... Artemisia would have been the more competent military leader especially naval techniques but in political affairs no match to Cleo. Cleo obtained the title being Queen of Queens together celebrated with Anthony being King of Kings. So Cleo would be the one and only Ancient Empress.... Cleo is more Metternich than Napoleon i'd say that at least.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2021 0:42:38 GMT
So I wanna ask you: Which civilization of these 2 you find was better developed? In terms of everything including culture, military and so on They peaked at very different times, so it's quite pointless to compare them. Anyway, I'd say the Roman Empire because it profoundly influenced everything in Europe for centuries after its fall, from language, to law, to art, to science and many other things We can still compare their peaks, and that's how i got my conclusions.
|
|