The greatest nation in the world? - Armor Games Community

33	11914

offline

Nurvana

2,520 posts

Farmer

Posted September 25, '13 4:24pm UTC

Reton8, using the size of empires doesn't really bridge a gap between ancient and modern times because the idea of imperialism has been virtually eliminated with the 'filling up' of the world. For example, the United States, IMO, is much more technically advanced for their time than any other nation ever, but they could never hope to match the size of a previous empire because the known world has been discovered and invading other nations would cause diplomacy issues.

offline

Reton8

3,174 posts

King

Posted September 25, '13 6:50pm UTC

Reton8, using the size of empires doesn't really bridge a gap between ancient and modern times because the idea of imperialism has been virtually eliminated with the 'filling up' of the world. For example, the United States, IMO, is much more technically advanced for their time than any other nation ever, but they could never hope to match the size of a previous empire because the known world has been discovered and invading other nations would cause diplomacy issues.

I was never trying to bridge a gap between ancient and modern times.

The British, French, and Spanish Empires are hardly ancient. British map showing the 1920's. French map with areas showing 18th and 20th century.
Spanish map showing conquest in the United State so around 1600's at least. This is far from ancient.

As well, it is more impressive for the Roman Empire to spread considering there lack in technology for military and transport.

Further, the title of the thread seems to imply current greatest nation, but the OP mentions the Franks which quote, "The Franks (Latin: Franci or gens Francorum) were a confederation of Germanic tribes first attested to occupying land in the third century AD on the Lower and Middle Rhine." The OP seems to lend a historical context to the question. So, I went for historical over current.

I'm not saying shear size is equatable to greatness, but these Empire's sizes are a show of their influence and greatness. It takes money, power, proper military technology, and knowledge of governing such large and separated land masses to conquer so vast a number of places.

Further, consider the influence these nations have had on the current nations today. People in America and Canada speak English because of the British Empire. People in Canada speak French because of the French Empire. Spanish is the second most spoken language due to their conquest. Almost all the European languages have an influence from Latin (spoken by Romans). The Roman Empire, no undoubtedly lent some sort of technology to many nations and although the U.S. fought Britain for independence, Britain initially colonized the land as well as French and Spanish.

This is the edge that these older empires have over current nations. The current nations are almost all built on the previous empires power and influence. Something the current nations cannot do.

Also consider that Britain, France, and Spain are still around. Showing the size of their empires from the past, not only means these nations did well for themselves historically, but that they still exist today, they were not overthrown or have vanished like Rome. So having such a history for such nation should count for something toward their overall greatness currently.

Lastly, I should have included Greece as well, considering there influence still seen today.

Plato - Philosophy
Pythagoras - Pythagorean theorem
Euclid - Euclidean geometry

and more.

[quote]Reton8, using the size of empires doesn't really bridge a gap between ancient and modern times because the idea of imperialism has been virtually eliminated with the 'filling up' of the world. For example, the United States, IMO, is much more technically advanced for their time than any other nation ever, but they could never hope to match the size of a previous empire because the known world has been discovered and invading other nations would cause diplomacy issues.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI was never trying to bridge a gap between ancient and modern times. \r\n\r\nThe British, French, and Spanish Empires are hardly ancient. British map showing the 1920's. French map with areas showing 18th and 20th century.\r\nSpanish map showing conquest in the United State so around 1600's at least. This is far from ancient. \r\n\r\nAs well, it is more impressive for the Roman Empire to spread considering there lack in technology for military and transport.\r\n\r\nFurther, the title of the thread seems to imply current greatest nation, but the OP mentions the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks]Franks[/url] which quote, "The Franks (Latin: Franci or gens Francorum) were a confederation of Germanic tribes first attested to occupying land in the third century AD on the Lower and Middle Rhine."  The OP seems to lend a historical context to the question. So, I went for historical over current.\r\n\r\nI'm not saying shear size is equatable to greatness, but these Empire's sizes are a show of their influence and greatness. It takes money, power, proper military technology, and knowledge of governing such large and separated land masses to conquer so vast a number of places.\r\n\r\nFurther, consider the influence these nations have had on the current nations today. People in America and Canada speak English because of the British Empire. People in Canada speak French because of the French Empire.  Spanish is the second most spoken language due to their conquest. Almost all the European languages have an influence from Latin (spoken by Romans). The Roman Empire, no undoubtedly lent some sort of technology to many nations and although the U.S. fought Britain for independence, Britain initially colonized the land as well as French and Spanish.\r\n\r\nThis is the edge that these older empires have over current nations. The current nations are almost all built on the previous empires power and influence. Something the current nations cannot do. \r\n\r\nAlso consider that Britain, France, and Spain are still around. Showing the size of their empires from the past, not only means these nations did well for themselves historically, but that they still exist today, they were not overthrown or have vanished like Rome. So having such a history for such nation should count for something toward their overall greatness currently. \r\n\r\nLastly, I should have included Greece as well, considering there influence still seen today.\r\n\r\nPlato - Philosophy\r\nPythagoras - Pythagorean theorem\r\nEuclid - Euclidean geometry\r\n\r\nand more.

offline

Salvidian

4,170 posts

Farmer

Posted September 25, '13 6:51pm UTC

Technically everything that happened in the past got us to where we are today.

Technically, yeah. I should have worded that differently. How about this:

Without Mesopotamia and similar ancient cultures (not countries!), we wouldn't be near as far along the path of civilization.

offline

Salvidian

4,170 posts

Farmer

Posted September 25, '13 7:15pm UTC

Reton posted at the same time as me so I'm sorry for the double post.

'm not saying shear size is equatable to greatness, but these Empire's sizes are a show of their influence and greatness. It takes money, power, proper military technology, and knowledge of governing such large and separated land masses to conquer so vast a number of places.

I'm going to play around with this, if you don't mind.

Shear size positively correlates with prominence (I'm assuming that's what you intended). That much is a fact. But while money, power, proper military technology and knowledge are factors, they don't directly influence prominence at all.

Take Qatar for example: The country is absolutely rich and the population is very well educated. Qatar very well could be a powerful country. The fact that the country is so successful and its people are smart is a sign that they are willing to learn and work. But should a charismatic leader step in and actually attempt to take over other countries by imperialism and through use of militarism, do you think he would get anywhere? My natural and culturally-influenced instincts say no, no they would not let him attack other countries.

But take post-WWI Germany. They were completely opposite of Qatar, yet Germany managed to thrust everyone into a world war and they got control of a humongous* part of Europe. Germany didn't have money. They didn't have power. They didn't have a good military. They didn't have many skilled leaders. But they had something that would never work for Qatar: a hopeful, charismatic leader. Through use of extreme nationalism and propaganda, this leader turned this country into a major world power and beyond. Granted, he had a few friends from the Nazi Socialist Party, but I think it's arguable that most of them were there for the ride. A few of them even held tight to the obedience-conformity phenomenon during the famous Nazi war-crime trials.

*in relative size to 1940's conventions.

Also consider that Britain, France, and Spain are still around. Showing the size of their empires from the past, not only means these nations did well for themselves historically, but that they still exist today, they were not overthrown or have vanished like Rome. So having such a history for such nation should count for something toward their overall greatness currently.

Let's think about Germany again. Isn't Germany just a fabulous example? Nilo made a very good point about them:

I would agree with the German people. How they are still standing after WWI and WWII is a mystery to me.

You argue that countries that are still standing today after a long time are great (or prominent), yet you say that greatness (prominence) requires money, power, a strong military, and lots of knowledge. And Germany lacked all of those and is still standing. Not to mention that it isn't going anywhere, either.

Is Germany just an exception? Or is what you said incorrect?

Reton posted at the same time as me so I'm sorry for the double post.\r\n\r\n[quote]'m not saying shear size is equatable to greatness, but these Empire's sizes are a show of their influence and greatness. It takes money, power, proper military technology, and knowledge of governing such large and separated land masses to conquer so vast a number of places.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm going to play around with this, if you don't mind.\r\n\r\nShear size positively correlates with [i]prominence[/i] (I'm assuming that's what you intended). That much is a fact. But while money, power, proper military technology and knowledge are factors, they don't directly influence prominence at all. \r\n\r\nTake Qatar for example: The country is absolutely rich and the population is very well educated. Qatar very well [i]could[/i] be a powerful country. The fact that the country is so successful and its people are smart is a sign that they are willing to learn and work. But should a charismatic leader step in and actually attempt to take over other countries by [i]imperialism[/i] and through use of [i]militarism[/i], do you think he would get anywhere? My natural and culturally-influenced instincts say no, no they would not let him attack other countries. \r\n\r\nBut take post-WWI Germany. They were completely opposite of Qatar, yet Germany managed to thrust everyone into a world war and they got control of a humongous* part of Europe. Germany didn't have money. They didn't have power. They didn't have a good military. They didn't have many skilled leaders. But they had something that would never work for Qatar: a hopeful, charismatic leader. Through use of extreme [i]nationalism[/i] and [i]propaganda[/i], this leader turned this country into a major world power and beyond. Granted, he had a few friends from the Nazi Socialist Party, but I think it's arguable that most of them were there for the ride. A few of them even held tight to the obedience-conformity phenomenon during the famous Nazi war-crime trials.\r\n\r\n*in relative size to 1940's conventions.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also consider that Britain, France, and Spain are still around. Showing the size of their empires from the past, not only means these nations did well for themselves historically, but that they still exist today, they were not overthrown or have vanished like Rome. So having such a history for such nation should count for something toward their overall greatness currently.[/quote]\r\n\r\nLet's think about Germany again. Isn't Germany just a fabulous example? Nilo made a very good point about them:\r\n\r\n[quote]I would agree with the German people. How they are still standing after WWI and WWII is a mystery to me.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou argue that countries that are still standing today after a long time are great (or prominent), yet you say that greatness (prominence) requires money, power, a strong military, and lots of knowledge. And Germany lacked all of those and is still standing. Not to mention that it isn't going anywhere, either.\r\n\r\nIs Germany just an exception? Or is what you said incorrect?

offline

Nurvana

2,520 posts

Farmer

Posted September 25, '13 8:48pm UTC

The British, French, and Spanish Empires are hardly ancient. British map showing the 1920's. French map with areas showing 18th and 20th century.
Spanish map showing conquest in the United State so around 1600's at least. This is far from ancient.

I was referring more to the Roman Map, however my comment is still applicable whether there is an ancient tab or not.

As well, it is more impressive for the Roman Empire to spread considering there lack in technology for military and transport.

Not really, considering most of their expansion south and westward consisted of them defeating people without knowledge of medicine or weapondry beyond sharpened sticks. Arbitrary levels of technology don't affect a nation's dominance, only the level of their technology compared to their foes.

Further, consider the influence these nations have had on the current nations today. People in America and Canada speak English because of the British Empire. People in Canada speak French because of the French Empire. Spanish is the second most spoken language due to their conquest. Almost all the European languages have an influence from Latin (spoken by Romans). The Roman Empire, no undoubtedly lent some sort of technology to many nations and although the U.S. fought Britain for independence, Britain initially colonized the land as well as French and Spanish.

This is the edge that these older empires have over current nations. The current nations are almost all built on the previous empires power and influence. Something the current nations cannot do.

Also consider that Britain, France, and Spain are still around. Showing the size of their empires from the past, not only means these nations did well for themselves historically, but that they still exist today, they were not overthrown or have vanished like Rome. So having such a history for such nation should count for something toward their overall greatness currently.[/quote]

Sorry for the lengthy quote, but while I agree with all these points they're not really equitable to the size of their former empires.

[quote]The British, French, and Spanish Empires are hardly ancient. British map showing the 1920's. French map with areas showing 18th and 20th century.\r\nSpanish map showing conquest in the United State so around 1600's at least. This is far from ancient.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI was referring more to the Roman Map, however my comment is still applicable whether there is an ancient tab or not. \r\n\r\n[quote]As well, it is more impressive for the Roman Empire to spread considering there lack in technology for military and transport.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot really, considering most of their expansion south and westward consisted of them defeating people without knowledge of medicine or weapondry beyond sharpened sticks. Arbitrary levels of technology don't affect a nation's dominance, only the level of their technology compared to their foes. \r\n\r\nFurther, consider the influence these nations have had on the current nations today. People in America and Canada speak English because of the British Empire. People in Canada speak French because of the French Empire.  Spanish is the second most spoken language due to their conquest. Almost all the European languages have an influence from Latin (spoken by Romans). The Roman Empire, no undoubtedly lent some sort of technology to many nations and although the U.S. fought Britain for independence, Britain initially colonized the land as well as French and Spanish.\r\n\r\nThis is the edge that these older empires have over current nations. The current nations are almost all built on the previous empires power and influence. Something the current nations cannot do.\r\n\r\nAlso consider that Britain, France, and Spain are still around. Showing the size of their empires from the past, not only means these nations did well for themselves historically, but that they still exist today, they were not overthrown or have vanished like Rome. So having such a history for such nation should count for something toward their overall greatness currently.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSorry for the lengthy quote, but while I agree with all these points they're not really equitable to the size of their former empires.

offline

Nurvana

2,520 posts

Farmer

Posted September 25, '13 8:49pm UTC

Further, consider the influence these nations have had on the current nations today. People in America and Canada speak English because of the British Empire. People in Canada speak French because of the French Empire. Spanish is the second most spoken language due to their conquest. Almost all the European languages have an influence from Latin (spoken by Romans). The Roman Empire, no undoubtedly lent some sort of technology to many nations and although the U.S. fought Britain for independence, Britain initially colonized the land as well as French and Spanish.

This is the edge that these older empires have over current nations. The current nations are almost all built on the previous empires power and influence. Something the current nations cannot do.

Also consider that Britain, France, and Spain are still around. Showing the size of their empires from the past, not only means these nations did well for themselves historically, but that they still exist today, they were not overthrown or have vanished like Rome. So having such a history for such nation should count for something toward their overall greatness currently.

There's the quote. AG, y u do dis to me?

[quote]Further, consider the influence these nations have had on the current nations today. People in America and Canada speak English because of the British Empire. People in Canada speak French because of the French Empire.  Spanish is the second most spoken language due to their conquest. Almost all the European languages have an influence from Latin (spoken by Romans). The Roman Empire, no undoubtedly lent some sort of technology to many nations and although the U.S. fought Britain for independence, Britain initially colonized the land as well as French and Spanish.\r\n\r\nThis is the edge that these older empires have over current nations. The current nations are almost all built on the previous empires power and influence. Something the current nations cannot do.\r\n\r\nAlso consider that Britain, France, and Spain are still around. Showing the size of their empires from the past, not only means these nations did well for themselves historically, but that they still exist today, they were not overthrown or have vanished like Rome. So having such a history for such nation should count for something toward their overall greatness currently.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere's the quote. AG, y u do dis to me?

offline

Reton8

3,174 posts

King

Posted September 25, '13 10:11pm UTC

If you don't want to read it all, skip to the bottom where it says TL;DR.

Sorry for the lengthy quote, but while I agree with all these points they're not really equitable to the size of their former empires.

I haven't been really clear, sorry. I wasn't really saying size equals greatness, showing the empires size was intended to visual the spread of their influence, and how that influence is still seen in today's world (example, most commonly spoken languages) in those countries (in at least some part). I also don't disagree with what you're saying either.

I'm guessing your view is aligning more with Salvidian's that prominence can be obtained without conquering other lands or having a great land mass under your Empire. You can spread influence in many ways that will not only spread to other nations, but also be influence through out time. I have to agree with this as well. (If I got that wrong my apologies).

So I suppose it comes down to how to define greatness in terms of a nation.

Is it military conquest and the size of a nation?
The happiness of a nation's people?
The wealth of a nation?
The technological advancements a nation has contributed?
The influence a nation has had on other nations?
How long lasting the influence one nation has had on others? (Did the influence stand the test of time?)

This reminds of the victory conditions in the game series Civilizations.

Time Victory = Greatness by a nation standing the test of time.
Science Victory = Greatness by technological advancement
Domination Victory = Greatness by military conquest, part of what I going with.
Cultural Victory = Greatness through contribution to the arts and somewhat related, the happiness.of the people (because of the greatness of the culture).
Diplomatic Victory = Greatness by either conquest by diplomacy (able to peacefully acquire new lands) or greatness by ability to defend nation without use of military or greatness of ability to befriend other nations that will help you in building your own nation.

[Note: These are not the right side of the equals sign is not the actual criteria for victory in Civilizations, but how I see these Civilization's criteria as they fit into this topic.]

Sorry for being long, but I guess I'm going to make this longer lol.

You argue that countries that are still standing today after a long time are great (or prominent), yet you say that greatness (prominence) requires money, power, a strong military, and lots of knowledge. And Germany lacked all of those and is still standing. Not to mention that it isn't going anywhere, either.

I would say whole post was well said :] I definitely have to agree.

I'm not saying that what I previously posted is the only way to be great as a nation, but just don't discount the nations I listed. Also, consider how difficult it is to conquest and keep multiple lands under control. It takes military tactics knowledge, weapons technology, a willing people to fight, the technology to travel to the distant lands to conquest them, and often wealth to make the vehicles for travel and weapons.

TL;DR
and Conclusion

I was just saying consider the four empires I listed for the greatness in what they achieved and their influence. Also, I agree, their are plenty of other ways to be a great (prominent) nation.

But I should say remove points for greatness due to the cruelty and peaceful way of conquest. That's not a nice thing and I consider that not great.

If you don't want to read it all, skip to the bottom where it says [b]TL;DR.[/b]\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Sorry for the lengthy quote, but while I agree with all these points they're not really equitable to the size of their former empires.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI haven't been really clear, sorry. I wasn't really saying size equals greatness, showing the empires size was intended to visual the spread of their influence, and how that influence is still seen in today's world (example, most commonly spoken languages) in those countries (in at least some part). I also don't disagree with what you're saying either.\r\n\r\nI'm guessing your view is aligning more with Salvidian's that prominence can be obtained without conquering other lands or having a great land mass under your Empire. You can spread influence in many ways that will not only spread to other nations, but also be influence through out time. I have to agree with this as well. (If I got that wrong my apologies).\r\n\r\nSo I suppose it comes down to how to define greatness in terms of a nation.\r\n\r\nIs it military conquest and the size of a nation?\r\nThe happiness of a nation's people?\r\nThe wealth of a nation?\r\nThe technological advancements a nation has contributed?\r\nThe influence a nation has had on other nations?\r\nHow long lasting the influence one nation has had on others? (Did the influence stand the test of time?)\r\n\r\nThis reminds of the victory conditions in the game series Civilizations.\r\n\r\n[b]Time Victory[/b] = Greatness by a nation standing the test of time.\r\n[b]Science Victory[/b] = Greatness by technological advancement\r\n[b]Domination Victory[/b] = Greatness by military conquest, part of what I going with.\r\n[b]Cultural Victory[/b] = Greatness through contribution to the arts and somewhat related,  the happiness.of the people (because of the greatness of the culture).\r\n[b]Diplomatic Victory[/b] = Greatness by either conquest by diplomacy (able to peacefully acquire new lands) or greatness by ability to defend nation without use of military or greatness of ability to befriend other nations that will help you in building your own nation.\r\n\r\n[Note: These are not the right side of the equals sign is not the actual criteria for victory in Civilizations, but how I see these Civilization's criteria as they fit into this topic.]\r\n\r\nSorry for being long, but I guess I'm going to make this longer lol.\r\n\r\n[quote]You argue that countries that are still standing today after a long time are great (or prominent), yet you say that greatness (prominence) requires money, power, a strong military, and lots of knowledge. And Germany lacked all of those and is still standing. Not to mention that it isn't going anywhere, either.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI would say whole post was well said :] I definitely have to agree. \r\n\r\nI'm not saying that what I previously posted is the only way to be great as a nation, but just don't discount the nations I listed. Also, consider how difficult it is to conquest and keep multiple lands under control. It takes military tactics knowledge, weapons technology, a willing people to fight, the technology to travel to the distant lands to conquest them, and often wealth to make the vehicles for travel and weapons.\r\n\r\n[b]TL;DR[/b] \r\nand Conclusion\r\n\r\nI was just saying consider the four empires I listed for the greatness in what they achieved  and their influence. Also, I agree, their are plenty of other ways to be a great (prominent) nation.\r\n\r\nBut I  should say remove points for greatness due to the cruelty and peaceful way of conquest. That's not a nice thing and I consider that not great.

offline

Reton8

3,174 posts

King

Posted September 25, '13 10:12pm UTC

But I should say remove points for greatness due to the cruelty and non-peaceful* way of conquest. That's not a nice thing and I consider that not great.

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted September 25, '13 11:12pm UTC

But FYI, that is no longer the case. Since Pope Francis' Papacy, the legal age for consent has been raised from twelve to eighteen.

NO!! D= Now they have nothing going for them.

offline

stinkyjim

470 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 25, '13 11:44pm UTC

Vatican - Youngest legal age for consent

Why am I not surprised? I'm a little angry, but not surprised.

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted September 26, '13 1:09am UTC

Germans seem to have a lot going for them.

In the first few (I believe before 500), they sacked rome, defeated its armies and basically moved in. They continued to control Europe through most of the first millenium, with the Holy Roman Empire controlling much of the middle of Europe.

In the 20th century, they practically all by themselves thrust all of Europe into two Worldwide wars within 30 years of each other.

TL;DR Germans, they kick *** through time and space (The Doctor must be one of them)

~~~Darth Caedus

offline

Nurvana

2,520 posts

Farmer

Posted September 26, '13 1:11am UTC

Why am I not surprised? I'm a little angry, but not surprised.

Ha-ha. The Vatican's legal age of consent has nothing to do with their faith. It's actually related to how they formed their constitution; it was the adaptation of the current set of laws enforced in Italy by the Lateran Treaty. Guess what their age of consent was? You guessed it: twelve. Before they officially changed it (like I mentioned), it was an arcane law, just like ones that ban you from tying alligators to fire hydrants in the States.

offline

Reton8

3,174 posts

King

Posted September 26, '13 5:40am UTC

I know it's a bit off topic, but but didn't people die a lot younger back during those days? So if you died at 24 years old, twelve is half way through your life. In other words, today it seems more out of place than it did back then.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted September 26, '13 7:22am UTC

So if you died at 24 years old, twelve is half way through your life.

The average adult life expectancy over the last thousand years or so has stayed around 55-70ish until recently when it went up due to medical advancements. The reason all the old-world data seems skewed to an average of like 35-45 or less is due to the high infant mortality. If you basically made it to age 5, you were ok.

offline

Reton8

3,174 posts

King

Posted September 26, '13 8:31am UTC

Hmmm ,well going by this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time) But hey it is Wikipedia so who knows how valid it is. It does look like life expectancy was low until recently (around 30) unless you could live until 15 (in one case 21), then it did go up to around 52 to 64 years. I still think it had a minor part in the choosing of 12 instead of some higher age. Possibly maybe it didn't have to do with life expectancy but the view a culture took, considering younger ages as more fully adult. But then again I know next to nothing on the subject of the drafting of those papers so so long ago or the cultural history during those times in that area. So mostly a complete guess, o.0

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → The Tavern → The greatest nation in the world?