[This might be more suited to IMHO but I think it’ll fit in better here. I won’t shed tears if a mod disagrees…]
Last night on Stephen Colbert made the joke, “United States: great history or greatest history?” It did make me wonder who has the “greatest history”?
A certain amount of nationalism and familiarity is going to make anyone more inclined to mention their own country’s history. There’s also a question of what is a “national history”; classical Greece is interesting but it’s hard to trace the thread of history to the modern nation.
Feel free to define “greatest” any way you want for this thread; it’s such an open ended question that trying to pin down particulars would ruin the fun.
We were the first nation to combine Representative Government with Capitalism while practicing the Scientific Method. Given that these are the only three things in history that can be said to have any evidence of actually improving the lot of humanity, I’d say that the US is looking at Greatest.
I was going to kick off the thread offering the US for the sake of it having a pretty good narrative whereas something like China there are centuries of downtime between the “big events”.
I am a bit curious as to your thought process on this one. Not necessarily disagreeing, but I wonder if you are basing that on the fact that in a sense Britain “peaked late”, such that the history of the Pax Britannica seems more immediate and grander than others.
Putting aside the value judgement “greatest history”, I think one can certainly argue that some states had a greater impact simply through size or longevity. Serbia under Stefan Dusan may have been a dominant regional power, but the sweep of Serbian influence as an independent state doesn’t really match up with the Ottoman state that largely subsumed it. But after a certain point I think it becomes increasingly difficult to debate whose impact was greatest - especially in Europe, where overlapping influences and shifting dominance in different spheres are the rule.
What’s the point of the question? What benchmark do you have in mind? And where did you find the complete and objective documentation of the history of mankind?
The point? An interesting argument. Benchmark? As stated whatever people want to use. And who says it has to be complete and objective; presumably people who decide top 100 movie lists haven’t seen every movie ever.
There cannot be a debate about greatness when all participants define it as they see fit; you get a string of untouchable opinions, that’s it. And that’s one of the reasons, why the lists you mentioned, are meaningless.
No, just a few things like limited constitutional government, the rule of law, trial by jury, free speech and a free press, the abolition of the slave trade, the defeat of fascism, and the founding of colonies which are themselves among the freest and most powerful nations on Earth. Other than that, not much.
Though I’d disagree with that since Hellenic (read Western) civilization goes back just as far as China and had a great influence on both the Roman (European) and Persian spheres of influence. The Greek Classics were taught in both Empires and even amongst the educated classes of Christendom and the various Muslim empires.
China has no greater historical cohesion than the West. The Qin unification is analogous to the early part of the first millenium AD before Rome split into Eastern and Western Empire. Though I’ll admit that it predated the real Roman imperial era by about almost 200 years.
What I find sad is lost history - as well as deliberately ignored history that then becomes lost. Such as that of the pre-Europe Americas, both the northern tribes and the Aztecs/Incas etc. And also the history of the civilizations of Africa.