What's new

Why would Greek civilization be considered Western and Iranian civilization

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Greek and Roman more close related to Persian than they are to say Celtic or Germanic? :blink: Greek and Roman had dark hair and eyes and olive skin, certainly not northern European looks. Even today's Italians are predominantly Mediterranean look rather than northern European in appearance. Linguistically, Persian is Indo European as well. The concept of a European continent is modern and not a classical concept. Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly didn't consider northern European tribes as civilized and being their equals. :coffee: Furthermore, it annoys me to no end when people talk about English letters. They are not English letters. They are Roman letters which were adapted from Greek letters which were adapted from Phoenician letters which were the very first alphabets.

Alexander's Army moved East instead of moving West into deep inside Europe.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Greek and Roman more close related to Persian than they are to say Celtic or Germanic? :blink: Greek and Roman had dark hair and eyes and olive skin, certainly not northern European looks. Even today's Italians are predominantly Mediterranean look rather than northern European in appearance. Linguistically, Persian is Indo European as well. The concept of a European continent is modern and not a classical concept. Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly didn't consider northern European tribes as civilized and being their equals. :coffee:

Linguistically speaking Greek is not even Latin. Italians, like their Latin cousins the French, Spanish, are Catholic. Greeks are not. Also there are many shades of Grey, The French are not typically considered North European i.e. WASP, Macedonians neighbor Greece, but are considered Slavic, etc.
 
The phenomena is not because Civilisations are considered on their true geographical sense. In the Ancient World the civilisations in the Indus Valley and China and the Americas developed in relative seclusion; though there is evidence to show that the Indus Valley Civilisation actively traded with Egypt.

Indus Valley Civilization traded with Mesopotamia, not with Egypt.
 
Western is just as much an artificial term as Middle Eastern. There was no such thing as Middle Eastern civilization, it's an artificial term, they never labelled themselves 'middle eastern', etc.

I never claimed that there is a 'Middle Eastern civilization'. I only said 'Middle Eastern civilizations', meaning civilizations that have started in the Middle East. You on the other hand claim that there is something like the Western Civilization, which may be true to some extent, but the Roman and Greek civilizations weren't. They were indigenous civilizations of the Romans and the Greeks; nothing more nothing less.

Also, these supposed barbarians have shown the world their strength. Your world is dominated by these 'barbarians'! You live in one of these barbarian cities.

My city is not barbaric, and has a history and civilizations which predates your history by millenniums.
 
Pots have been found in Crete and it has been suggested that if trading was so far, there is probable tradelinks to Egypt. However small but the era in which the IVC was at its peak coincides with Egyptian Old Kingdom which had much of its treasures looted by the time the New Kingdom rises the IVC has largely decayed.

Indus Valley Civilization traded with Mesopotamia, not with Egypt.
 
What was the eye color of Buddha again? I forgot... could you remind me again?

The Digha Nikaya, in the "Discourse of the Marks" (Pali: Lakkhaṇa Sutta) (DN 30) enumerates and explains the 32 characteristics:

29. Eyes deep blue

The idea of the Signs has its origins in Brahmanism and was incorporated into Buddhism at a later period for reasons that are not clear. Some of the Signs, like the long tongue, the blue eyes, the golden complexion and the ensheathed penis, were probably connected with the ancient Indian concept of idealized physical beauty. Others are so strange, grotesque even, that it is difficult to know what to make of them.

32 signs of a great man - The Dhamma Encyclopedia
 
The idea of the Signs has its origins in Brahmanism and was incorporated into Buddhism at a later period for reasons that are not clear. Some of the Signs, like the long tongue, the blue eyes, the golden complexion and the ensheathed penis, were probably connected with the ancient Indian concept of idealized physical beauty. Others are so strange, grotesque even, that it is difficult to know what to make of them.

32 signs of a great man - The Dhamma Encyclopedia

Stop talking nonsense. Where does Brahmanism come into the picture you idiot ?

From where did you cook up more carp like 'Indian concept of Idealized physical beauty' ? ...... can you show me some authentic Indian book that defines this ?

You sound like a fool trying to make yourself heard by pulling stuff out of your a$$

Kindly keep your inferiority complex at home in front of a mirror. Do not parade it in front of others.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Greek and Roman more close related to Persian than they are to say Celtic or Germanic? :blink: Greek and Roman had dark hair and eyes and olive skin, certainly not northern European looks. Even today's Italians are predominantly Mediterranean look rather than northern European in appearance. Linguistically, Persian is Indo European as well. The concept of a European continent is modern and not a classical concept. Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly didn't consider northern European tribes as civilized and being their equals. :coffee: Furthermore, it annoys me to no end when people talk about English letters. They are not English letters. They are Roman letters which were adapted from Greek letters which were adapted from Phoenician letters which were the very first alphabets. As for Buddha, whether such a person ever existed is up for debate. In other words, no proof.

So instead of saying Enlglish letters, it would make you feel better if people were to say, "English letters which were adapted from Roman letters which were adapted from Greek letters which were adapted from Phoenician letters".

As for the Romans and Greeks, genetic studies have been performed. They are largely the same people that inhabit those regions today, and those people do not look (or consider themselves) Iranic or Middle-Eastern in any way.
 
I never claimed that there is a 'Middle Eastern civilization'. I only said 'Middle Eastern civilizations', meaning civilizations that have started in the Middle East. You on the other hand claim that there is something like the Western Civilization, which may be true to some extent, but the Roman and Greek civilizations weren't. They were indigenous civilizations of the Romans and the Greeks; nothing more nothing less.

There is a reason modern historians consider them, especially the Greeks, not only Western, but the very ORIGIN of Western Civilization.

My city is not barbaric, and has a history and civilizations which predates your history by millenniums.

Your city location is Amsterdam, which is a city of apparent barbarians with little history, obviously surpassed by your amazing "milleniums" of history from wherever you hail.

LOL, no one has yet told me why all of these jealous and angry people from desperate and insecure 3rd world countries, are always found to be living in Western countries as they criticize our lack of civilization.

It is truly a site to behold.
 
So instead of saying Enlglish letters, it would make you feel better if people were to say, "English letters which were adapted from Roman letters which were adapted from Greek letters which were adapted from Phoenician letters".

Incorrect. The so-called English letters spoken of in daily conversation are identical to Roman letters. So they are Roman letters, not adapted from Roman letters. There is no such thing as English letters.

As for the Romans and Greeks, genetic studies have been performed. They are largely the same people that inhabit those regions today, and those people do not look (or consider themselves) Iranic or Middle-Eastern in any way.

As a matter of fact, Bashar and Asma could easily pass for Greeks.

Bashar al-Assad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asma al-Assad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
well I much admit that too much nonsense for a thread as it was expected with threads about such matter .

but some clarification here .
- who is Barbarian ? was really people of central and northern europe Barbarian ? don't forget Greeks and Romans tends to call anybody who was not talking their language Barbarian . I believe you only an say they were different , don't forgot according to Herodotus one of their leaders in one of their invasion toward Greece could not stop laughing when heard about Greeks Idea of gods

-about democracy , well only Aten in many city state of Greece is considered an offshoot of democracy and by today standards it was the ruling of some wealthy family over the rest of the peoples . and honestly their human rights record could not even be compared with Persians one
 
I suspect the Greeks referred to all who didn't have writing as Barbarians. Notice that Celts developed writing anywhere from 1st century BC to 4th century AD. Ogham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

not exactly

Hellenes and barbarians

The Greek tribes quickly noticed that they did not speak the same tongue as their neighbors, and used the term "βάρβαρος" ("barbarian") for them, with the meanings "uncultured", "uncivilized" or "speaker of a foreign language". The term βάρβαρος is thought to be onomatopoeic in origin: "bar-bar"—i.e. stammering—may have been how the speech of foreign peoples sounded to Greek speakers.[42] This was also the case for the Egyptians, who, according to Herodotus, "named barbarians all those who spoke a different tongue",[43] and in later years for the Slavs, who gave the Germans the name nemec, which means "mute", while calling themselves slověnski or "people of the word".[44] In his play The Birds, Aristophanes calls the illiterate supervisor a "barbarian" who nevertheless taught the birds how to talk.[45] The term eventually picked up a derogatory use and was extended to indicate the entire lifestyle of foreigners, and finally coming to mean "illiterate" or "uncivilized" in general. Thus "an illiterate man is also a barbarian".[46] According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Hellene differed from a barbarian in four ways: refined language, education, religion, and the rule of law.[47] Greek education became identified with noble upbringing. Paul of Tarsus considered it his obligation to preach the Gospel to all men, "Hellenes and barbarians, both wise and foolish".[48]

Discrimination between Hellenes and barbarians lasted until the 4th century BC. Euripides thought it plausible that Hellenes should rule over barbarians, because the first were destined for freedom and the other for slavery.[49] Aristotle came to the conclusion that "the nature of a barbarian and a slave is one and the same".[50] Racial differentiation faded away through the teachings of Stoics[citation needed], who distinguished between nature and convention and taught that all men have equal claim before the gods and thus by nature cannot be unequal to each other. With time and at least in some cases, Hellene, to use the words of Isocrates, became a trait of intellect, not race.
 
Back
Top Bottom