4 ms·

>> to consider them a continuation of the Roman civilization? Yes. A civilization is not a race. It is something above biology. The fact that nobody running

>> to consider them a continuation of the Roman civilization? Yes. A civilization is not a race. It is something above biology. The fact that nobody running things is related to the founder of a civilization does not mean that civilization has somehow fallen and been replaced anew. It means that, at most, a particular regime has fallen from power. Civilizations are larger than their leadership, even their founders. Would anything really change if one day we realized that nobody in the US congress was a blood relation of the founding fathers? I doubt anyone would see that as anything other than an interesting blip in a new cycle.

agent327 5y ago
There should, however, be a significant continuation of the culture for that to be true. A civilisation is also not just a bunch of people living in a geographical location. As an example, the current state of Egypt is not the heir to (or continuation of) the Egypt of the pharaohs. Instead they are the heirs to their conquerors, descended from Arab armies that conquered Hellenistic Egypt (which itself already had a dubious claim to any links with the original, pre-Greek invasion pharaohs). They speak a different language, pray to different gods, and have an altogether different culture; they just happen to live where the pharaohs once had their kingdoms.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Hellenistic Egypt (which itself already had a dubious claim to any links with the pharaohs). The claim that the Egypt under the Pharaohs of the 31st Dynasty had a “dubious claim to any link with the pharaohs” has some obvious logical difficulties.
  - agent327 5y ago
    I've added a clarification so people with willfully minimal reading comprehension skills can also understand what was meant.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Egyptian culture certainly evolved, but I don't see that having new gods and a new leadership cast means that the civilization is new. The basic precepts are still there. They share the same religious and technological linages.

agent327 5y ago

There should, however, be a significant continuation of the culture for that to be true. A civilisation is also not just a bunch of people living in a geographical location. As an example, the current state of Egypt is not the heir to (or continuation of) the Egypt of the pharaohs. Instead they are the heirs to their conquerors, descended from Arab armies that conquered Hellenistic Egypt (which itself already had a dubious claim to any links with the original, pre-Greek invasion pharaohs). They speak a different language, pray to different gods, and have an altogether different culture; they just happen to live where the pharaohs once had their kingdoms.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Hellenistic Egypt (which itself already had a dubious claim to any links with the pharaohs). The claim that the Egypt under the Pharaohs of the 31st Dynasty had a “dubious claim to any link with the pharaohs” has some obvious logical difficulties.
- agent327 5y ago
  I've added a clarification so people with willfully minimal reading comprehension skills can also understand what was meant.
sandworm101 5y ago
Egyptian culture certainly evolved, but I don't see that having new gods and a new leadership cast means that the civilization is new. The basic precepts are still there. They share the same religious and technological linages.