I would say Greek civilization. They are unparalelled in the areas of math, science, and philosophy in the ancient world.
Greatest by what standards?
Greatest IN what? AT what?
It seems like most of the Greeks were influenced by earlier Chinese thinkers in physics and philosophy (from what I’ve read), and then the Greeks surpassed them later on. This question depends on time periods and other factors, but I am voting Greece too.
Greatest by what standards?
Greatest IN what? AT what?
Anything and Everything. Overall.
It seems like most of the Greeks were influenced by earlier Chinese thinkers in physics and philosophy (from what I’ve read
Uh, what? Do you have some concrete evidence for influence of China in Greece?
Hmmmm… Who voted for the Mongols? Is this a joke?
In terms of societies which have contributed most to the advancement of mankind, the Greeks, hands down. They provided the engine that made the West and the United States possible.
Logic, science, and the rights of man all have their roots in ancient Greece. It was an egoistic, this wordly, man centered culture. Without the Greeks, we’d probably still be living in huts and dying at 25.
Thales was the first ever philosopher and mathematician. He was the first to explain things in purely natural terms. He was the one who came up with the concept of proof in mathematics, which gave mathematics rigor and precision.
Prior to the Greeks knowledge was obtained from an oracle, or some allegedly higher source. The concept of objective knowledge was unknown. In fact, the concept of concept formation was discovered by the Greeks. The one in the many.
Aristotle came up with the scientific method based on his view that we arrive at principles by observing multiple instances of things in reality. The idea of hypothesizing and rehypothesizing and banging out contradictions to conform to reality is Aristotle’s idea. Syllogistic logic is the tool he came up with to bang out contradictions, to bring thought in harmony with reality. The idea that there is an essence which explains things, was his idea. The idea that man is the rational animals was also his idea.
Men were more apt to drift arbitrarily before the Greeks.
In addition, the contributions the Greeks made in math were great. Euclid’s elements, sets out the foundation for geometry. Pythagoras gave us the pythagoreom theorem. Eudoxus’ method of exhaustion was used to caculate areas and volumes of complicated geometries. And, of course, Archimedes, who invented the Archimedean screw for pumping water from a lower level to a higher level, who discovered the law of bouyancy and advanced optics, was an incomparable mathematician.
Those are some of the major contributions of the Greeks. And, thanks to Aristotle, I can can say that I consider his science and logic to be the essential reason for mankind having progressed as much as we have.
THe only thing the mongols were good at was making war…so they rocked at warmaking
It seems like most of the Greeks were influenced by earlier Chinese thinkers in physics and philosophy (from what I’ve read), and then the Greeks surpassed them later on. This question depends on time periods and other factors, but I am voting Greece too.
who said that? there are some afrocentrist historians that say that greece got a lot of their knoledge from AFRICA! even though there is proof that keeps contradicting them.
You got to be careful with all this damn cultural marxism influencing everything.
THe only thing the mongols were good at was making war…so they rocked at warmaking
The Romans conquered all of western europe, a huge chunk of the middle east, and all of Northern Africa. They were the greatest force in Europe for well over 1000 years. If you want to talk about war making then the Romans are definately better then the Mongels.
The mongels looted, plundered, and murdered but they didn’t really control the territories they conquered, they simply destroyed the enemies armies and then forced the defeated enemy to pay them.
who said that? there are some afrocentrist historians that say that greece got a lot of their knoledge from AFRICA! even though there is proof that keeps contradicting them.
Are you forgetting that Egypt is in Africa?
Thales was the first ever philosopher and mathematician.
I think you should recuse yourself from this poll, Thales. 
The Romans conquered all of western europe, a huge chunk of the middle east, and all of Northern Africa. They were the greatest force in Europe for well over 1000 years. If you want to talk about war making then the Romans are definately better then the Mongels.
The mongels looted, plundered, and murdered but they didn’t really control the territories they conquered, they simply destroyed the enemies armies and then forced the defeated enemy to pay them.
The Mongols conquered all of China, Central Asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, and all the other -stans), all of the Middle East, Egypt, parts of India, Russia, and defeated several European armies in Eastern Europe. And that was all within two generations. The extent of their empire was far vaster than Rome’s.
The Romans, of course, never ran into the Mongols, who only emerged with Genghis Khan around 1200 AD.
There is no denying the Mongols were a great warfighting machine. I don’t think al Kufr was saying they were good at anything else. Nor am I.
As to the question of which is the greatest civilization overall, there is no question that Greece is head and shoulders above all others.
Phoenicia deserves some recognition, as they were mainly a nation of shopkeepers, so to speak, a trading nation. One of their colonies later became more of a militaristic nation—Carthage. I believe Phoenicia also may have had the first non-pictographic alphabet, although I’m not sure on that.
I voted for Rome even after I considered the numerous contributions the Greeks made. The Romans had quite a bit as well but the reason I voted for them was because their civilization was truly impressive, the time span was enormous (over 1,000 years) and their civilization basically covered the entire world worth conquering. With all due respect to Greece they could not maintain the empire they created, and the golden age of Greece was only in the Greek peninsula, it would take Alexander to spread Greek culture to the world.
Rome however was able to build an empire and was also able to pass leadership succesfully. They were both great though, and thats why they both have a lasting influence today.
I voted for Romans. The question of Greece vs Rome is a very difficult one, because the two were so good and complementary in their contributions to Western civilization that it is almost impossible to determine who was better.
I think it’s not entirely accurate to say Greeks are better hands down, because although they were lacking progress in only a few things, those areas they were lacking in were major. While Plato philosophized about an ideal constitution, the Romans achieved it. While Greek (Athenian) Golden Age lasted for, oh, 60 years, extended to 150 if we’re generous, Roman state flourished for 400 glorious years, succumbing only by the end of the Republic.
While philosophy and sculptures and all that are nice, and valuable, they are rendered nearly meaningless if the societies that produce them are unstable and times are not prosperous. Although Rome lacked the Greek refinement in its earlier stages, it was continuously guided by a kind of virtue the Greek philosophers only wished their citizens would adopt.
And I wouldn’t say that Rome is unequivocally better than Greece either, that’s just preposterous, for the reasons everyone cited here - Thales, Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid, etc. It’s also worthy to note that although ancient historians almost exclusively chose Rome and its men as paragons of excellence and virtue, these historians and philosophers were practically all Greeks.
So I voted for the Romans simply because I believe that the kind of civic virtue Romans practiced for most of their history has never met its equal, the kind of social stability and prosperity their constitution provided was only matched once since then, by its dutiful descendant United States, and the kind of lawful tranquility it spread across Europe, Mediterranean, North Africa, and Asia Minor, has been similarly without parallel for most of human history.
Thus I find the advantage to be with the Romans, although this advantage isn’t huge, and barely edges out over the culture of Greece. But really, as I said before, both of these cultures are so noble and unique in human history, such towering examples of human achievement, that I feel a bit inadequate in choosing one over the other, being wholly content simply to view them both with admiration.
There’s a chapter in a book on ancient history whose title perfectly sums up the proper relationship between the two:
Greek theory, Roman practice.
The Mongols conquered all of China, Central Asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, and all the other -stans), all of the Middle East, Egypt, parts of India, Russia, and defeated several European armies in Eastern Europe. And that was all within two generations. The extent of their empire was far vaster than Rome’s.
The Romans, of course, never ran into the Mongols, who only emerged with Genghis Khan around 1200 AD.
There is no denying the Mongols were a great warfighting machine. I don’t think al Kufr was saying they were good at anything else. Nor am I.
The Mongols did conquer a lot of territories, but for the most part I’m pretty sure that they did not have a great ammount of control over the territory they conquered. So sure they were great at annhilating armies, but they never really controled the territory they conquered in the same sense as the Romans.
Besides, Mongols do not even classify as a civilization. As a distinct culture, yes. As a civilized culture, no.
Heres a great review about a book thats about Alexander the Great and why he was such a great general at the end they compare him to Genghis Khan.
And askes the Question, who was the better general?..its a great read.
“So how good was he? He took on all comers and never lost, and you don’t get a better record than that. Certainly he would not have defeated Genghis Khan using Macedonian tactics from the 4th Century B.C. But why would he have tried? Both were geniuses of time and maneuver, masters of deception and surprise, and cold-eyed students of the art of war. It would have been interesting”
Not to get too technical in a general-purpose thread like this, but Alexander had repeatedly defeated numerous Scythian armies, and cowed haughty Scythian kings into submission. And what were Scythians if not an advanced equestrian culture specializing in rapid warfare along the steppes of Central Asia?
I voted for Rome for pretty much the same reasons as Free Capitalist. It should be noted, however, that while the Mongols had savage customs, when it came to laws, they were very advanced for an Asian tribe.
For example, while even in the West you could still be executed for all sorts of ridiculous offenses, and it was even worse in the “civilized” parts of Asia (in China people were beheaded for not bowing properly to a nobleman), the Mongols only had two irrational uses of capital punishment: as punishment for adultery and cattle theft.
Still, quite clearly, the Romans and Greeks are far superior to the Mongols from an Objectivist perspective. Being great at war is not one of the primary traits of a great culture.