4 ms·

I am not OP, but looks like (s)he's trying to say that Rome was not the paragon of science and invention, and indeed the major action was happening in Asia. Rom

I am not OP, but looks like (s)he's trying to say that Rome was not the paragon of science and invention, and indeed the major action was happening in Asia. Rome was a great civilization, but it paled compared to the combined power of Asian civilizations, which was the scene of multiculturalism, trade, philosophy, science, and prosperity. Now to nitpick your claims: > Indians devised the decimal system, wasn't adopted by the rest of Asia I'm pretty sure the Persians, Arabs, Tibetans, Samarqand, and South-East asians were using decimal system extensively. It was adopted pretty much widely in Asia. BTW India is in Asia, and that makes them Asian. The compass was adopted by the central asian and south asian sea fairing states. It simply didn't leap from China to Europe. > they had by far the most advanced architectural techniques at the time. Which is a grand and unsubstantiated claim. The Great Wall Of China, Indus valley grand megapolis, Persepolis etc stand witness to the grand architecture of the East. Rome while had great architecture, wasn't necessarily superior to any of these.

Klockan 10y ago
My main point was that Asia wasn't a vibrant cultural region which shared ideas extensively. > The Great Wall Of China, Indus valley grand megapolis, Persepolis. Those doesn't require more advanced architectural skills than just knowing how to pile bricks, Greece and Egypt built similar things long before the Romans. Roman architecture allowed them to build impressive stuff with far less effort which is why they were able to build hundreds of aqueducts. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Segovia_-_Acueducto_03.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Segovia_... Also most of the Great wall of china was built more than a thousand years after Rome's prime, so it doesn't count. The ancient parts of the wall wasn't much more than a very long rock fence, not really comparable to roman aqueducts.
- FlyingSnake 10y ago
  > Those doesn't require more advanced architectural skills than just knowing how to pile bricks So building aqueducts is impressive than building a complex functional megapolis, in the bronze age, with top-notch sewer system, with millions of people? Not sure what to make of this claim. I would still love to see evidence of the 'impressive stuff' that Romans built that was way ahead of all of the world civilizations.
tetromino_ 10y ago
> The Great Wall Of China ...originally was mostly made of rammed earth and wood; it was rebuilt using brick only during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). The Great Wall that tourists take photos on today has very little in common with the primitive Wall of two thousand years ago.
restalis 10y ago
"Rome while had great architecture, wasn't necessarily superior to any of these." Actually, it was superior and that was thanks to a very impartial thing - concrete. You have concrete, you can build things that others without concrete can't. That's it!

Klockan 10y ago

My main point was that Asia wasn't a vibrant cultural region which shared ideas extensively. > The Great Wall Of China, Indus valley grand megapolis, Persepolis. Those doesn't require more advanced architectural skills than just knowing how to pile bricks, Greece and Egypt built similar things long before the Romans. Roman architecture allowed them to build impressive stuff with far less effort which is why they were able to build hundreds of aqueducts. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Segovia_-_Acueducto_03.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Segovia_... Also most of the Great wall of china was built more than a thousand years after Rome's prime, so it doesn't count. The ancient parts of the wall wasn't much more than a very long rock fence, not really comparable to roman aqueducts.

FlyingSnake 10y ago
> Those doesn't require more advanced architectural skills than just knowing how to pile bricks So building aqueducts is impressive than building a complex functional megapolis, in the bronze age, with top-notch sewer system, with millions of people? Not sure what to make of this claim. I would still love to see evidence of the 'impressive stuff' that Romans built that was way ahead of all of the world civilizations.

tetromino_ 10y ago

> The Great Wall Of China ...originally was mostly made of rammed earth and wood; it was rebuilt using brick only during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). The Great Wall that tourists take photos on today has very little in common with the primitive Wall of two thousand years ago.

restalis 10y ago

"Rome while had great architecture, wasn't necessarily superior to any of these." Actually, it was superior and that was thanks to a very impartial thing - concrete. You have concrete, you can build things that others without concrete can't. That's it!