What time period was the worst? Things to consider: -Impact on economy -Choice in spending tax dollars -Country(s) invaded/destroyed during era -World after era -People's thoughts during era -Mishaps that took place during era -Amount of people killed in homicides -Amount of people killed in war -Amount of people killed of natural causes -Amount of people killed by disease -Amount of things destroyed -World leaders during time -Impact on natural world -Thoughts of people after era -Thoughts of people before era -Animals killed off (Extinct) -How smart people were -Religions that were popular during time -Pop culture at time I'm sure there are more, but I'll leave it up to you to decide. Basically, what era (Time period) impacted everything negatively the most? This thread is opened for all kinds of debates, although they should cease if or more post goes against AG's rules and guidelines. Try to avoid this time period unless you have a strong point to make about it.Thinks about everything when making your final decision, and listen to other's opinions. Have fun!
Becoming a gladiator was a choice, unless you happened to be a slave or a criminal. The Romans only enslaved those they conquered in war, I'm not saying that slavery is right, but the way they treated their slaves was almost luxurious compared through slave treatment throughout history, besides if you look at it from a POW stand point, WWII was much, much worse. As was the Vietnam war.
I really hate to sound arrogant, but have you learned about the Romans in school, qwerty, or are you just basing your facts on what you've heard from unreliable sources? If you've learned about their culture in school, you'd understand how rich their culture was.
Wouldn't the inquisitor era be the worst? I mean so many death, torture and fear.
In that respect I would refer you to the crusades, which were much worse, simply because the "Crusaders" were criminals of the highest order, which means they had no problems raping, murdering, and torturing their victims.
In that respect I would refer you to the crusades, which were much worse, simply because the "Crusaders" were criminals of the highest order, which means they had no problems raping, murdering, and torturing their victims.
Very true. But the inquisitor and the crusades where a bit in the same time line, so you say they are both in the same era.
I suppose, although they were in two completely different sections of the world, they were sponsored by the same organization. However it also depends on the place and time. i.e. while in some places a renaissance could be underway, other sections of the world could be living in complete darkness. (metaphorical)
I don't really think any time period was better or worse than any other. Take the time period of the dark ages in Europe. I agree that was probably the worst time in Europe, but while that was going on, other parts of the world were doing ok. Nowadays, the first world (America, Europe, etc.) is a great place to live. We have problems, yes, but compared to other places, in other times, we have absolutely nothing to complain about, on the whole. At the same time however, we have starving places like Africa, experiencing sporadic genocides. Basically, almost all time periods have pros and cons. There isn't a worst, on the global scale
Not necessarily Dragon, the Great Depression affected virtually the entire world, save for those tribes living in remote regions far from civilization.
The debate over whether the romans were bad or not is kind of getting stupid now. I'll accept that they enriched society with all their technological advances but they also did lots of bad things too.
The debate over whether the romans were bad or not is kind of getting stupid now. I'll accept that they enriched society with all their technological advances but they also did lots of bad things too.
They weren't even talking about the Romans anymore.... -.-'
It doesn't really matter what they did. They killed people, and so do we. Just with bombs and jetplanes and drones. Also this is asking for an era -- so think of the global implications. The Romans flourished in the west, china in the east, india in south asia.... and the mayans inlatin america. Was a pretty successful time for humanity.
Also the dark ages is terribly misleading. Although Europe was a pile of crap the rest of the world was going insane-status. China was flourishing, producing more steel a year than europe would until it's industrial revolution, the islamic empire kept greek and roman science alive and expanded it. Southern Islamic Spain grew like a monster and had a bunch of doctors and crap.
Honestly -- though i feel for Europe and the troubles they had in the time, if you're talking about an 'ERA' -- then this doesn't really come close.
If you mean an era for a specific area, then I'd say much worse than the black plague or the dark ages would be the founding of the new world. 95% of both the America's native populations being owned is nasty. Also, the world history test I took a few years back said that the largest percentage of the world population was lost in this transaction, not that of the black plague.
Medical advances have been around since the beginning of humanity and the like. Sure, blood-letting and stuff like that doesn't help but we still do things today that cavemen did long ago such as stitching wounds and removing diseased body parts.
