Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of people are suggesting things that are pre-human---opposable thumb, erect posture, etc. These are simian characteristics, that have also occurred in the development of non-human species. If you use those, you also have to admit multi-cellular organization. I think the OP refers to things that occurred after homo sapiens emerged as a distinct species, and that would even disqualify fire.
Since the question is "most significant in human history", we have to eliminate all political events since such things were always regional affairs. For example, someone nominates an Alexander the Great victory, but what did that mean to the Chinese, then or now?
Since the question is "most significant in human history", we have to eliminate all political events since such things were always regional affairs. For example, someone nominates an Alexander the Great victory, but what did that mean to the Chinese, then or now?
Well, the question is most significant, not necessarily most positive. The AtG victory changed the balance of power in a significant way.
Well, the question is most significant, not necessarily most positive. The AtG victory changed the balance of power in a significant way.
I wasn't planning on getting into the specifics, but Alexander's triumph was an ephemeral event in what has been an ongoing East-West struggle. Alexander hardly settled matters "once and for all" as the poster wrote. The East became ascendant again in the 8th and 9th Centuries with the invention and spread of Islam which held sway until the Spanish reconquest was completed in the late 15th Century. By 750 CE the Islamic Caliphate had covered as much land as Alexander's empire at its peak.
What was lost in the west was compensated for in the east as Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 and Islam reached into the Eastern Adriatic nations and got as far as the gates of Vienna before the Ottomans were turned back in 1529.
So, Alexander hardly had the linear effect on history that is being claimed. Alexander's main legacy was actually to have Hellenized a large portion of what Rome eventually siezed in its conquests and Rome wound up borrowing much of that Hellenistic culture as their own.
For example, someone nominates an Alexander the Great victory, but what did that mean to the Chinese, then or now?
Last I knew the chinese didn't live in Uranus, then or now . That Alex didn't get further can be attributed to the fact that the Greeks were not prepared to face the more powerful Indian armies lying eastward, especially with more elephant "monsters" which terrified the Greek armies the most. They had no idea of a china and IMO would have overrun the chinese just like the persians, if not for the elephants and other mysterious Indian war tactics which gave them the definition of defeat.
That the chinese wilfully embraced westward ideals of society, culture, games, communism, languages, industries and globalization is a direct consequence of Alex's bloody campaign two thousand years ago. If anyone's denying this, they have failed to put things into historical sequence and perspective, or are simply biased for argument sake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Alexander hardly settled matters "once and for all" as the poster wrote.
The Greeks were the prime power of Europe at the time. Xerxes before Darius was the "last" monarch to have seriously buggered Europe's clout of power. I don't think anyone ever attempted to bugger with the successive controllers of Europe - Romans, the Papacy, Spanish Inquisition, England and by "extension" America.
Alexander simply showed the world that it could be done. That it's really possible to go on a destroying spree, if you have the balls and the resources to get it done, inspiring people, that the key to world domination lied in getting out of Europe into the middle east via Asia Minor/Gordium/Anatolia/Turkey or whatever, from Caesar to the Crusaders (though they put on a false cloak of religious zealotry) as late as Bonaparte, the British merchants and even Winston Churchill invading the dardenelles with the exact blueprint of the ancient Greek, though it became disastrous for him and Asquith. And we all know how busy America is with her bases in the ME and Central Asia and I can't help but think of the "only" guy who showed it to the world, the first time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
The East became ascendant again in the 8th and 9th Centuries with the invention and spread of Islam which held sway until the Spanish reconquest was completed in the late 15th Century. By 750 CE the Islamic Caliphate had covered as much land as Alexander's empire at its peak.
There is no question of ascendency when locked in a bitter cat/mouse struggle with Byzantium. They may have had their moments but the concept of absolute Islamic dominance is completely ruled out, perhaps for a brief moment surrounding 1453, if taking over a completely emasculated eastern Rome is to be even remotely considered something as a victory at Gaugamela. And who was the venetian who made the mortar cannons for the Sultan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
What was lost in the west was compensated for in the east as Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 and Islam reached into the Eastern Adriatic nations and got as far as the gates of Vienna before the Ottomans were turned back in 1529.
1453 indeed was a turning point and it only served to buttress the Alexandrian legacy of brutal conquest. The turks closed the trade route to the East and Columbus and the like had already discovered easier sea routes around. And in the context of the new world, re-engaging the ME was no longer a priority to the new inheritors of the Alexandrian syndrome. And the papacy was not much worried about the falling of most of Greece to the Turks, as long as Latin christendom stood tall, at the expense of the challenging co-religionists next door.
Even then, a Xerxes-style resurgence of the muslims into Europe was successfully stunted by the likes of Martel, Charlemagne, the templars and the friars, and Islam never really ascended itself over Christendom. We will probably debate this for the rest of our lives
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
So, Alexander hardly had the linear effect on history that is being claimed. Alexander's main legacy was actually to have Hellenized a large portion of what Rome eventually siezed in its conquests and Rome wound up borrowing much of that Hellenistic culture as their own.
I don't mind repeating myself again
Alex went about conquering everything that he came across. True, it didn't last after his death. His generals squabbled over the empire. But, the language Greek became the prime medium of communication. The precursor to English as the language of global transactions. It became easier for Roman conquests. Everybody almost spoke Greek in the Roman empire. It became easier for Christian gospels to be propagated and spread. All ancient manuscripts are either in Hebrew or predominantly Greek. Then Rome. The Papacy. The British. The Americans. Renaissance, very much Greek inspired. Science, technology, arts, power, industrial revolution, french revolution. Aristotle-inspired political theories, science and polemics, socialism, communism, globalization, war on terror, hegemony...... I simply can't take Alex out of this equation. He was the forerunner of all of this.
If you truly believe otherwise, I respect your opinion and we can respectfully agree to disagree
The most important event in the history of the human existence is.......... when we created "wealth" and the value of "money"... it completely changed human life forever.... without money, there would of been no science, medicine, or anything... without money, there wouldn't even be a village... we would all be hermits living on our own and with caveman technology...
If you truly believe otherwise, I respect your opinion and we can respectfully agree to disagree
Is it your argument that relative to the refinements on my points which you provided, this establishes the thesis that Alexander's conquests represent the "most significant event in human history?" I still don't see where Alexander brought East/West conflcits to any sort of decisive conclusion, merely an ephemeral redrawing of political maps which had an ephemeral impact on those within the region.
That was my point in writing what I wrote. I'm not so clear on your purpose.
If we judge "significance" as having the greatest impact on the greatest number of people, then it may very well be the rise and fall of Communism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. That Alex didn't get further can be attributed to the fact that the Greeks were not prepared to face the more powerful Indian armies lying eastward, especially with more elephant "monsters" which terrified the Greek armies the most. They had no idea of a china and IMO would have overrun the chinese just like the persians, if not for the elephants and other mysterious Indian war tactics which gave them the definition of defeat.
