What's new

China should DEMAND return of all stolen treasures

Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why are you trying to revise history?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...urn-all-stolen-treasures-9.html#ixzz2RJ2qGXtC

According to the China's official military history, the war achieved China's policy objectives of securing borders in its western sector, as China retained de facto control of the Aksai Chin. After the war, India abandoned the Forward Policy, and the de facto borders stabilised along the Line of Actual Control.

Rome was more of a super power than China is at that time. Rome wanted the whole of Parthia but failed to achieve it. China wanted disputed area and got it.

The objective here was totally different.

Roman–Parthian Wars

Does above really sound like a retreat or going after the rebels that prevented him from destroying all Parthian remnants?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...urn-all-stolen-treasures-9.html#ixzz2RJ3FoThO

Rebellions happen all the time and not the reason for the retreat is because the emperor is at the seige and he is making no progress. Just stuck there so he must retreat.

Trajan failed to take Hatra from the Parthians which stoped the Parthians from being totally defeated. Simultaneously, Parthian forces began attacking key Roman positions; at the same time the Roman garrisons at Seleucia, Nisibis and Edessa had been attacked and evicted by the local populaces.

IF you don't consider this a defeat then Napoleon wasn't defeated at Russia, Russia didn't win a battle of note against him and yet he is considered lost due to his retreat.


Yes, that's why I said it's a point of view, Rome defeated PArthia but was ultimately never conquered and finally defeated by Parthia.

final war against the Parthians was launched by the emperor Caracalla, who sacked Arbela in 216, but after his assassination his successor Macrinus was defeated by the Parthians near Nisibis and was obliged to make a payment of reparations for the damage done by Caracalla in exchange for peace


Parthia defeated Rome quite a few times as you can see, from Pompey to Macrinus. How many in the reaches of Rome can claim the same? Which is why I consider each campaign a failure but with short lived victories. Hence I said what I said.
 
delete.... lol, nothing to say with some racist dogs... :coffee:
 
Rome was more of a super power than China is at that time. Rome wanted the whole of Parthia but failed to achieve it. China wanted disputed area and got it.
The objective here was totally different.

Sources say differently then you, if the objective was territorial gain which i see it was because you say "disputed area". China gave back the territory in a unilateral decision, just like Hadrian.

Rebellions happen all the time and not the reason for the retreat is because the emperor is at the seige and he is making no progress. Just stuck there so he must retreat.
IF you don't consider this a defeat then Napoleon wasn't defeated at Russia, Russia didn't win a battle of note against him and yet he is considered lost due to his retreat.

No, i don't consider this a defeat, i consider this as an ongoing battle with the capital city captured and puppet government installed but rebellions in the countryside. He did not retreat but set up camp in one of the provinces where the rebellion began.

Yes, that's why I said it's a point of view, Rome defeated PArthia but was ultimately never conquered and finally defeated by Parthia.
Parthia defeated Rome quite a few times as you can see, from Pompey to Macrinus. How many in the reaches of Rome can claim the same? Which is why I consider each campaign a failure but with short lived victories. Hence I said what I said.

Quite a few defeated the Romans in battles. Greeks, Carthagians, Huns, Germanics at the end, im sure there are more, i'm talking from memory here.
 
Sources say differently then you, if the objective was territorial gain which i see it was because you say "disputed area". China gave back the territory in a unilateral decision, just like Hadrian.



No, i don't consider this a defeat, i consider this as an ongoing battle with the capital city captured and puppet government installed but rebellions in the countryside. He did not retreat but set up camp in one of the provinces where the rebellion began.



Quite a few defeated the Romans in battles. Greeks, Carthagians, Huns, Germanics at the end, im sure there are more, i'm talking from memory here.

maybe we'll just agree to disagree. Hard to argue beyond this when we both laid down the facts.

Anyways what was the point of this argument again? I forgot. Why is Parthia defeating Romans important to this again?
 
Yea I know what civilization means, your argument makes no sense, the Dark ages Europe was at weakest, so the Arab helped it to reach the top, so what's wrong with my argument?

The germans occupied poland for a while, but the culture at that time was pretty much set as you said, but it wasn't during the dark ages. In fact the English king edward on the 8th crusade copied Arab castles as it is the best he ever seen in England once he got back.

First I said you could say, I didn't say completely, second you do know Byzantine empire is the Eastern Roman empire right? It's the same Roman empire that was divided between east and west, heck it was called Byzantium, before changing the name to constantinople, after Constantine, Roman emperor.

Also ancient greeks? It could really only mean Alexander, before and a time after right? The greeks civilized first, back then Rome was still a small piece of land based around rome. How could Greeks copy Romans then? By the time of Pompy, he conquered the Greeks and thus it was irrelevant what the greeks felt about Roman law.

I said science and designs, you give me examples of laws and religion, I never said it was completely based and certainly it was just a point after you said the Western culture was based on the three you mentioned, which to me meant no Arab contribution. Since you were arguing Arab contribution.

of course they have their own culture, even the Germanic never took Roman culture and the provinces of Rome maintained a lot of their own culture.

Since the Westernization began in China, yea Chinese culture did start to get based on many alien concepts.

I just said the West copied some ottoman stuff, how could the West and why would the West base their culture on the ottomans? Especially in the early stages.

This is just a response to your saying the Arabs are insignificant, which isn't true. They made massive contributions to the West.


also what do you think solely means? :pop:

You have to say modern science is at least somewhat based on Arab work.


@Audio

Dome of the Rock is Arab, and a few other things, the Arabs had kings and emperor sort of, not by that name. They didn't sit on their *** and do nothing. Financing buildings, the arts is the business of royalty.

To the American ottoman point, it was in reference to your hans came during the end of rome.

the you get what you get, maybe it was you, maybe not, it was definitely an American member, that much is for sure. Though of course one guy don't represent the group.

The partians still held out parts of the empire and yes their king was deposed, but as there was trouble with the Jews Trajan had to go back, and he did retreat. On his way back to Rome he died of sickness.

Hadrian, pretty much gave up mesopotamia and other conquered parts. So how is this a conquered people? In this sense, he failed, defeated, since he wanted Partia as part of Rome. If you just mean battles, no one wins everything.

All depends on how you see it, you see this as not a defeat? I see this as a defeat due to the main objective not being achieved and the ones that were was not for long.

Dude, I thought you said you are good at logic. Seems like, NO.

Yea I know what civilization means, your argument makes no sense, the Dark ages Europe was at weakest, so the Arab helped it to reach the top, so what's wrong with my argument?

The reason you cannot use a Civilization at its weakest is simply because if you do, you also look thru the other side of the looking glass. In your example. When Roman is the strongest and Arab is at the weakest.

If what you said is true, let's for this argument sake, it is, then don't forget East Roman empire had lead and charge the Persian and Arab Culture 1600 years earlier. So can we say the same things then, that's Roman helped out the Arab Civilization and hence the whole Arabic Civilization is based on the Roman? Which inturn based in the western ideology (West Roman Empire)

So your problem is, you cannot compare two civilization at their different stage, because the argument suit you. Roman Empire collapse does not mean the collapse of the WHOLE WESTERN SOCIETY. As I said, the West Roman Empire got broken into a few different kingdoms and the Eastern Roman Empire got broken up into the Macedonian Kingdom.

Can you show me how exactly Arab help the Western Civilization to the top as you said??

The germans occupied poland for a while, but the culture at that time was pretty much set as you said, but it wasn't during the dark ages. In fact the English king edward on the 8th crusade copied Arab castles as it is the best he ever seen in England once he got back.

Dude, as I said, you see something good, you copy them, DOES NOT MAKE YOUR WHOLE CIVILIZATION BASED ON THAT THINGS. Chinese see good on masonry job and build the Great wall of China into Stone wall, Does that mean Chinese Architecture are based on the Persian?? As Egyptian have been using masonic skill to build the Pyramid??

That does not make sense.

First I said you could say, I didn't say completely, second you do know Byzantine empire is the Eastern Roman empire right? It's the same Roman empire that was divided between east and west, heck it was called Byzantium, before changing the name to constantinople, after Constantine, Roman emperor.

Did I say the East Roman Empire is not the Byzantine Empire?? I do not believe I do.
However, the law observed in the East and West Roman empire is very much different.

While the West observe Canon law in great respective, (ie Church Rules) the East was practicing Secular Law in great respective. Where the Canon part are only limited to the conduct of Clergyman.......

Where as I said, The Roman law have twisted a bit in the East and the so called Byzantine is based on the roman law to be practice in Middle Near East. It is not the same of Roman Law we now still practice in Europe and even the Germanic Common Law. While the Byzantine is now recollect in a form of Sharia law, mostly practice in the Middle East.

Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assume the law things is what you bring out East Roman Empire and Byzantine is one and the same.

Also ancient greeks? It could really only mean Alexander, before and a time after right? The greeks civilized first, back then Rome was still a small piece of land based around rome. How could Greeks copy Romans then? By the time of Pompy, he conquered the Greeks and thus it was irrelevant what the greeks felt about Roman law

Dude, Ancient Greek are not only the Macedonian (ie Alexander the Great), Ancient Greece law are based on Athenian , the classical Athens. The greek was already there before Alexander the Great. But got rolled up into Macedon, after the dude....

Classical Athens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancient Greek law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which most people believe the ancient Greek law give birth to the Common Law Legal System that the UK, US and Commonwealth are still using today.

Read up.

I said science and designs, you give me examples of laws and religion, I never said it was completely based and certainly it was just a point after you said the Western culture was based on the three you mentioned, which to me meant no Arab contribution. Since you were arguing Arab contribution.

What science and design? I said A and you said B. I never said Arab does not Contribute. Based and Contribute is 2 different concept.

When someone see something good and other people are doing it. They will copy them. This is human nature. Does that mean the West is based even on that matter? Unless the said technology or design you mention have been incorporated into the society and culture as a habit of practices, incase you don't know, that's assimilation. But by then you cannot hardly say they are based on something else.

I mean, I don't see many hanging garden in Europe, do you?? nor Mosque.

of course they have their own culture, even the Germanic never took Roman culture and the provinces of Rome maintained a lot of their own culture.

Actually, Germanic did took (rather did not forbade) the practice of Roman Culture in some cities....

I just said the West copied some ottoman stuff, how could the West and why would the West base their culture on the ottomans? Especially in the early stages.

This is just a response to your saying the Arabs are insignificant, which isn't true. They made massive contributions to the West.

Again, beside Arabic Number and Masonry, what else? Give me some more example? Did they contribute anything on Academia? Or Law? Or Culture?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Typical of the Chinese crowd to pull out the race card.

Let them play the race card.

They are a type of insecure person. When they started to lose. They try to point out things is wrong, fundamentally because of your race and nationality. Which have nothing to do with the ongoing argument

I see that as their assertion of my victory LOL

The more ignorant and racist they are only mean the more I am right about them :)
 
Dude, I thought you said you are good at logic. Seems like, NO.



The reason you cannot use a Civilization at its weakest is simply because if you do, you also look thru the other side of the looking glass. In your example. When Roman is the strongest and Arab is at the weakest.

If what you said is true, let's for this argument sake, it is, then don't forget East Roman empire had lead and charge the Persian and Arab Culture 1600 years earlier. So can we say the same things then, that's Roman helped out the Arab Civilization and hence the whole Arabic Civilization is based on the Roman? Which inturn based in the western ideology (West Roman Empire)

So your problem is, you cannot compare two civilization at their different stage, because the argument suit you. Roman Empire collapse does not mean the collapse of the WHOLE WESTERN SOCIETY. As I said, the West Roman Empire got broken into a few different kingdoms and the Eastern Roman Empire got broken up into the Macedonian Kingdom.

Can you show me how exactly Arab help the Western Civilization to the top as you said??

When did I say Arabs had no influence from the Romans? People help each other, if you helped me first then I help you does that mean because you helped me first I didn't help you at all?

Oh and the collapse of Western romans did collapse the West, it was Charlemagne that brought Christianity to much of Germany, with his 20 year war on the Saxons, it was Charlemagne that brought back learning, Charlemagne restarted public projects and such.

It was not until after the first crusades can you say the West was once again on the rise.

These are some of the things that was taken back to the West. And much more

What was gained from the crusades?

Food products
rice, coffee, sherbet, dates, apricots, lemons, sugar, spices such as ginger, melons, rhubarb and dates.

Household goods
mirrors, carpets, cotton cloth for clothing, ships compasses, writing paper, wheelbarrows, mattresses and shawls.

New ideas
chess, Arabic figures 0 to 9, pain killing drugs, algebra, irrigation, chemistry, the colour scarlet, water wheels and water clocks


Dude, as I said, you see something good, you copy them, DOES NOT MAKE YOUR WHOLE CIVILIZATION BASED ON THAT THINGS. Chinese see good on masonry job and build the Great wall of China into Stone wall, Does that mean Chinese Architecture are based on the Persian?? As Egyptian have been using masonic skill to build the Pyramid??

That does not make sense.

When did China come into contact with the middle east? When was the great walls built? When was Edward I building his Arab style castles, before or after he saw them in the middle east?

Also why do you keep saying I said it is entirely based on Arab. Even though later in your post you even quoted me saying not entirely just contributed and yet you keep saying I said based entirely.


Did I say the East Roman Empire is not the Byzantine Empire?? I do not believe I do.
However, the law observed in the East and West Roman empire is very much different.

While the West observe Canon law in great respective, (ie Church Rules) the East was practicing Secular Law in great respective. Where the Canon part are only limited to the conduct of Clergyman.......

Where as I said, The Roman law have twisted a bit in the East and the so called Byzantine is based on the roman law to be practice in Middle Near East. It is not the same of Roman Law we now still practice in Europe and even the Germanic Common Law. While the Byzantine is now recollect in a form of Sharia law, mostly practice in the Middle East.

Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assume the law things is what you bring out East Roman Empire and Byzantine is one and the same.
I can't argue law with you, for one I am not that knowledgeable on it and things I say won't be credible.


Dude, Ancient Greek are not only the Macedonian (ie Alexander the Great), Ancient Greece law are based on Athenian , the classical Athens. The greek was already there before Alexander the Great. But got rolled up into Macedon, after the dude....

Classical Athens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancient Greek law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which most people believe the ancient Greek law give birth to the Common Law Legal System that the UK, US and Commonwealth are still using today.

Read up.

And You also need to notice the different between Ancient Greek Law, Roman Law and Byzantine Law. The 3 have no co-relation to each other but both Ancient Greek law and Byzantine Law are based on Roman law at the time.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=247152#ixzz2RLkzOMpK

What I mean is how can Ancient Greek law be based on Romans, when Rome at the time was a small city state. The greeks came before the Romans.

The Byzantine is the Eastern Roman empire, but changed the laws to suit current situations. The Byzantine emperors are claimed to be the legitimate Roman emperors. Though they are about as Roman as the Holy Roman emperors.

What science and design? I said A and you said B. I never said Arab does not Contribute. Based and Contribute is 2 different concept.

When someone see something good and other people are doing it. They will copy them. This is human nature. Does that mean the West is based even on that matter? Unless the said technology or design you mention have been incorporated into the society and culture as a habit of practices, incase you don't know, that's assimilation. But by then you cannot hardly say they are based on something else.

I mean, I don't see many hanging garden in Europe, do you?? nor Mosque.

Oh so it's ok to copy? I will keep this and the next time I see you post something that says China copied I will post this in response.

But we agree on this point that the Arabs contributed and not based. No culture is based on another, if it was entirely based, than they would just be that culture.

However, you do need to read on Spanish architecture, they are heavily influenced by the Moors who conquered them.

Actually, Germanic did took (rather did not forbade) the practice of Roman Culture in some cities....

Never forbid, in fact the Dacians wanted to practice some Roman culture, but the Franks, the Visigoth, the Goth, the Vandals and the rest were definitely German and not Roman.

Again, beside Arabic Number and Masonry, what else? Give me some more example? Did they contribute anything on Academia? Or Law? Or Culture?

Food products
rice, coffee, sherbet, dates, apricots, lemons, sugar, spices such as ginger, melons, rhubarb and dates.

Household goods
mirrors, carpets, cotton cloth for clothing, ships compasses, writing paper, wheelbarrows, mattresses and shawls.

New ideas
chess, Arabic figures 0 to 9, pain killing drugs, algebra, irrigation, chemistry, the colour scarlet, water wheels and water clocks


You can google yourself, it's much more than you think. New ideas, new culture, new product and certainly medical and art and other things were taken back from the middle east.
 
Post reported.

So you considered youself among those ... ? :coffee:

Well, I 'm sorry to anyone feel angry, I shouldn't compared lovely animal like dogs with those racist idiot person... :pop:
 
When did I say Arabs had no influence from the Romans? People help each other, if you helped me first then I help you does that mean because you helped me first I didn't help you at all?

Oh and the collapse of Western romans did collapse the West, it was Charlemagne that brought Christianity to much of Germany, with his 20 year war on the Saxons, it was Charlemagne that brought back learning, Charlemagne restarted public projects and such.

It was not until after the first crusades can you say the West was once again on the rise.

These are some of the things that was taken back to the West. And much more

What was gained from the crusades?

Food products
rice, coffee, sherbet, dates, apricots, lemons, sugar, spices such as ginger, melons, rhubarb and dates.

Household goods
mirrors, carpets, cotton cloth for clothing, ships compasses, writing paper, wheelbarrows, mattresses and shawls.

New ideas
chess, Arabic figures 0 to 9, pain killing drugs, algebra, irrigation, chemistry, the colour scarlet, water wheels and water clocks

First of all, Collapse of Civilization is not IT COLLASPED BUT... If a Civilization collapse, they cannot be rebooted, even if you rebuild them, they are a New Civilization......Look at Babylonia as a prime Example...

So, by your standing, any civilization using the above product should consider themselves BASED on Arabic. Look at yourselves first. Have you been using all or most of those? Then can I say Chinese Civilization is based on Arab??

A civilization is more than what you eat and what you had. The core of civilization is the value of Law, Academia and Culture. Almost all those item you mentions are trade goods, those item alone does not contribute to a civilization. Trading, is a contribution to Western Civilization, Democracy is a contribution to Western Civilization, Masonry is a Contribution to Western Civilization. Coffee, no matter how much I like them, is not...


When did China come into contact with the middle east? When was the great walls built? When was Edward I building his Arab style castles, before or after he saw them in the middle east?

Also why do you keep saying I said it is entirely based on Arab. Even though later in your post you even quoted me saying not entirely just contributed and yet you keep saying I said based entirely.

It's you said the West is BASED on Arab. Let me remind what you say

Read on the Dark Ages and see that the West took books and money and knowledge back with them from the Crusades and started the Renaissance. So you can say the West is based on Arab.

Again with the castle. What does that related to the Civilization? Because he copy the building structure from Arabia?? Dude, as I said, Western Civilization was born WAY BEFORE 1200s AD. So he like those building, big deal, did he change the building code in England and have every castle build to the exact same standard? NO, That says it all.

My example is, if someone like something being build in someway. Can we say that way contribute the whole civilization? NO

By the way, I know when the Great Wall of China was assemble (No one EVER know exactly when each segment was build) but do you know when did the Egyptian built the Pyramid? Even Chinese see the pyramid is so good, they have built their own Chinese Pyramid in the 200 BC if I remember correctly.

I can't argue law with you, for one I am not that knowledgeable on it and things I say won't be credible.

Well.........

What I mean is how can Ancient Greek law be based on Romans, when Rome at the time was a small city state. The greeks came before the Romans.

The Byzantine is the Eastern Roman empire, but changed the laws to suit current situations. The Byzantine emperors are claimed to be the legitimate Roman emperors. Though they are about as Roman as the Holy Roman emperors.

When a law has change to adapt each situation, they are NOT THE SAME LAW, you can only say Byzantium Law is BASED on the Roman law(which is what I said), you cannot say since they are part of Roman Empire, and their Empire are legitimate Roman Empire. They are the same law.

Look at British Colony for an example. Each colony had their own law. Some are consider British Citizens, some only consider Commonwealth Citizens. How can you tell me the law is the same in Falklands and Gibraltar and the UK are the same, if the British do not consider Gibraltarian as British Citizens....

Oh so it's ok to copy? I will keep this and the next time I see you post something that says China copied I will post this in response.

But we agree on this point that the Arabs contributed and not based. No culture is based on another, if it was entirely based, than they would just be that culture.

However, you do need to read on Spanish architecture, they are heavily influenced by the Moors who conquered them.

I never had any problem with China copying, I say it was unethical, but when the time come to war, nobody will ever say "It's not fair, you copy it from someone". I mean a plane is a plane, I don't really care if they are copy from what, as long as it can fly and fire missile, you need to consider them a military hardware.

This is what I said 5 months ago

I don't understand why do people care if Chinese Copy the Russian Jet or what.

In War, you don't get to win by being Moral. Or stick to intellectual properties right. You use whatever means to win a war.
Yes, copying is not moral, but the end of the day, they got to make their own plane and use it on the battlefield.

In the case you win, it make no different if you are using copy planes or your own development, as the loser will not say, "it's not fair, the planes is not of your design, you immoral (Name calling)" So what, you win, they lose. Not much to talk about.

You have to be naive to really holding a thread on Copy technology or what not. A weapon platform is a weapon platform, no point arguing their point of origin, as it does not matter, yes the Chinese are wolf tail and sneaky, but in the end of the day, they got a weapon platform that they can make whatever they want, however they want and whenever they want is the most important issue. Everything other than that should not even matter.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...superior-russian-fighter-4.html#ixzz2RM41Wve1

I am only arguing the point you say the West are Based on Arab. I do not oppose to Arabic Contribution to the West.

Never forbid, in fact the Dacians wanted to practice some Roman culture, but the Franks, the Visigoth, the Goth, the Vandals and the rest were definitely German and not Roman.

actually, some Roman Ritual (e.g. Scarifies) was forbidden to perform under Germanic Rules and the local governance are to follow the Germanic ruling at the time. However, some Germanic City still allow to practices Roman Ritual and Law until later.

Food products
rice, coffee, sherbet, dates, apricots, lemons, sugar, spices such as ginger, melons, rhubarb and dates.

Household goods
mirrors, carpets, cotton cloth for clothing, ships compasses, writing paper, wheelbarrows, mattresses and shawls.

New ideas
chess, Arabic figures 0 to 9, pain killing drugs, algebra, irrigation, chemistry, the colour scarlet, water wheels and water clocks


You can google yourself, it's much more than you think. New ideas, new culture, new product and certainly medical and art and other things were taken back from the middle east.

Again, most of them are trade goods, not contribution
 
First of all, Collapse of Civilization is not IT COLLASPED BUT... If a Civilization collapse, they cannot be rebooted, even if you rebuild them, they are a New Civilization......Look at Babylonia as a prime Example...
IT did collapse and it was never Rome afterwards. They are a new civilization. The holy Roman empire of Charlemagne was no Rome. The empires and kingdoms afterwards bares even fewer resemblance.

So, by your standing, any civilization using the above product should consider themselves BASED on Arabic. Look at yourselves first. Have you been using all or most of those? Then can I say Chinese Civilization is based on Arab??

A civilization is more than what you eat and what you had. The core of civilization is the value of Law, Academia and Culture. Almost all those item you mentions are trade goods, those item alone does not contribute to a civilization. Trading, is a contribution to Western Civilization, Democracy is a contribution to Western Civilization, Masonry is a Contribution to Western Civilization. Coffee, no matter how much I like them, is not...




It's you said the West is BASED on Arab. Let me remind what you say

Parts of Chinese is based on Arab values, especially after the Yuan dynasty.

So you are saying, the art work, the sciences, the languages, the medical knowledge, the engineering techniques and others are not contributions? Are not what the modern Western works are based on?

The Renaissance brought an intense focus on scholarship to Christian Europe. A major effort to translate the Arabic and Greek scientific works into Latin emerged. Europeans gradually became experts not only the ancient writings of the Romans and Greeks, but in the contemporary writings of Islamic scientists. During the later centuries of the Renaissance came an increase in experimental investigation, particularly in the field of dissection and body examination, thus advancing our knowledge of human anatom

After 400 A.D., most of the medical institutions of the Roman Empire broke down and disappeared.

History of medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said you could say, not you should say.

Again with the castle. What does that related to the Civilization? Because he copy the building structure from Arabia?? Dude, as I said, Western Civilization was born WAY BEFORE 1200s AD. So he like those building, big deal, did he change the building code in England and have every castle build to the exact same standard? NO, That says it all.

My example is, if someone like something being build in someway. Can we say that way contribute the whole civilization? NO

Just proves the east was vastly superior to the West at this time, there are various experts that agrees, and I haven't really seen anything to suggest otherwise.

By the way, I know when the Great Wall of China was assemble (No one EVER know exactly when each segment was build) but do you know when did the Egyptian built the Pyramid? Even Chinese see the pyramid is so good, they have built their own Chinese Pyramid in the 200 BC if I remember correctly.

It doesn't matter when Egypt built theirs, China couldn't reach Egypt that early, it was Zhang Qian that really expanded the silk road and that was a long time after the Pyramids. He didn't even reach Egypt or close to it. So how could China copy them that early when they had no access to them.

When a law has change to adapt each situation, they are NOT THE SAME LAW, you can only say Byzantium Law is BASED on the Roman law(which is what I said), you cannot say since they are part of Roman Empire, and their Empire are legitimate Roman Empire. They are the same law.

Look at British Colony for an example. Each colony had their own law. Some are consider British Citizens, some only consider Commonwealth Citizens. How can you tell me the law is the same in Falklands and Gibraltar and the UK are the same, if the British do not consider Gibraltarian as British Citizens....

I did say base, and that it was changed to reflect the changing situation.

I never had any problem with China copying, I say it was unethical, but when the time come to war, nobody will ever say "It's not fair, you copy it from someone". I mean a plane is a plane, I don't really care if they are copy from what, as long as it can fly and fire missile, you need to consider them a military hardware.

This is what I said 5 months ago

maybe....We'll see, maybe it doesn't apply to you, I'm not your biographer.

I am only arguing the point you say the West are Based on Arab. I do not oppose to Arabic Contribution to the West.

I said many times how can an entire culture be based on another and not be the other culture.

actually, some Roman Ritual (e.g. Scarifies) was forbidden to perform under Germanic Rules and the local governance are to follow the Germanic ruling at the time. However, some Germanic City still allow to practices Roman Ritual and Law until later.

Why would the Germans worship the same way Romans do? Even after the Romans try to make people christian they still practice their own warship. The Germans are only barbarian in name they have their own laws, why would they need Roman laws?

Again, most of them are trade goods, not contribution

You did read the part that's ideas right? How do you trade algebra, chemistry, math, art, engineering and literature. These are not important to a culture? They don't form the bases for enlightenment?
 
IT did collapse and it was never Rome afterwards. They are a new civilization. The holy Roman empire of Charlemagne was no Rome. The empires and kingdoms afterwards bares even fewer resemblance.

.........You want to talk about ROME or talk about Western Civilization?? I say again, Collapse of ROME not = Collapse of Western Civilization.

Parts of Chinese is based on Arab values, especially after the Yuan dynasty.

[So you are saying, the art work, the sciences, the languages, the medical knowledge, the engineering techniques and others are not contributions? Are not what the modern Western works are based on?

Oh, my god, you still not understand. Those are knowledge, not the civilization. Those are universal knowledge, everyone learn them, Chinese learn them, American learn them, those are skill necessary for you to progress in your civilization, it DOES NOT MEAN THEY BUILD THE CIVILIZATION.

I will take a step back, if you conceive that the Chinese Civilization are BASED on the Arab, I will say the Western Civilization are Based on the Arab.


Then how about you COULD SAY CHINESE CIVILIZATION are BASED ON ARAB?? as well, because the same knowledge also benefit the Chinese too in latter stage.

If you conceived that, I can stop arguing with you.

Just proves the east was vastly superior to the West at this time, there are various experts that agrees, and I haven't really seen anything to suggest otherwise.

So what?? I am talking about Western Civilization, not about Arab advancement. There are time when Persian and Arabian are stronger, there are also time the Western are stronger, and from what I see, the time the West enjoy a more advance Civilization that the Persian and Arabian are longer than the otherwise. Well, it prove nothing.

It doesn't matter when Egypt built theirs, China couldn't reach Egypt that early, it was Zhang Qian that really expanded the silk road and that was a long time after the Pyramids. He didn't even reach Egypt or close to it. So how could China copy them that early when they had no access to them.

lol...you missed the point, the point is, you cannot use an example say you like something, then you build one of them at home as an example for ok, now our building method is based on whatever......

This is the point. Not when did they build or whether they have contact or not.

I did say base, and that it was changed to reflect the changing situation.

Well, just clarify the law angle, nothing more.

I said many times how can an entire culture be based on another and not be the other culture.

I have difficulty understanding what you said in this statement.

Why would the Germans worship the same way Romans do? Even after the Romans try to make people christian they still practice their own warship. The Germans are only barbarian in name they have their own laws, why would they need Roman laws?

Because not all Germanic Tribe are native Germanic, there are some that are descendant of the Roman empire (Slave, Prisoner of War, or even captured citizens......) Germanic are barbarian but they do not actually kill all and burn all....

You did read the part that's ideas right? How do you trade algebra, chemistry, math, art, engineering and literature. These are not important to a culture? They don't form the bases for enlightenment?

I think the keywords is MOST

Again, most of them are trade goods, not contribution
 
two verse from bible

6:10 Then, when the LORD your God brings you to the land he swore to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--to give you large, cities you did not build,

6:11 houses filled with choice things you did not provide, hewn out cisterns you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant--and you eat to your satisfaction,
 
Not Persians, Sumerians.



Those are just houses and a trumped up gate to the city. And noone even knows if the gardens really existed.
Sorry, but in my view useful buildings like aqueducts that bring water for kilometers around and paved roads for thousands of kilometers is more akin to "engineering".



You are taking examples from everywhere in time and places while i was debating only Roman vs. Arab aspect specifically. Though those are indeed examples of fine architecture, especially Taj Mahal.



I don't know what you mean here, maybe you are refering to my elephants comment and it means Indian kingdoms weren't at their peak at the time Romans would arrive?



lol? Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth....



How exactly did Trajan fail? He conquered the Parthian capital and installed a puppet. He died due to illness not battle wounds.
And Caesar was killed before he made any attempt to expand the empire. He did plan.
The only time Parthians actually took and held large swaths of land was the Roman civil war time immediately after Caesar's death. When that was resolved it pretty much went downhill.
This is all in the link above, you should really read it.



I know they are, but you seem to miss some knowledge, like details above. You don't have the full picture you talked about here:


I think that indeed the Romans were a force to be reckoned with, but they had their weaknesses. For example, a sustained arrow barrage from all sides (such as the Parthian tactic) would eventually reduce the Roman formation one by one.

Also, the Romans, as they were trained to fight together, had a weakness in single combat. So if an enemy formation could pound the legionary formation to nothing, then the Romans could be quickly overpowered.

They also did not grasp the idea of cavalry for the legions. They had good axillary cavalry for the axillary cohorts, but for a long time the Roman legion had only 120 cavalry, most who were just used as scouts. this proved to be a big mistake sometimes.

So yes, the Romans were good, but they were not the best of the best, meaning they had their weaknesses.
 
Back
Top Bottom