I don't like civilizations. They're the entire problem. Give me some Celtic or Germanic tribe living in a village/hamlet any day. Keep your cold artificial high walls and systems by the man limiting your freedom.
because they are a non-meme civilization that seems like it had a lot of qts.
Babylonians, mostly for their mythos, their codification of laws and their monuments. My first real education on ancient civilization was from the Age of Empires campaigns when I was about 9 or 10. Babylon really hit it for me.
Pre-Christian Alexandria because
>muh lost books
>mhu Astronomy waifu
>Inb4 "for sucking and being shorlived"
>there was once a time when Persians ruled the world
>there was once a time when Greeks ruled the world
>there was once a time when Italians ruled the world
>there was once a time when Arabs ruled the world
The late Roman Empire. It's underrated as fuck because people keep following Gibbonian memes like "muh decadence", "muh powerful aristocracy" and "muh Christianity". The world saw nothing of its like again for over a millenium.
If only though...
>dfw no qt reking the romans
Have to go with the greeks, nicer development of science and philosophy than egyptians, and not as imperialist and warmongers as romans. Also stopped persians from getting into europe with 300 men and a great general
Well yeah there were 300 Spartians, but there were at least 3000 other soldier from other Polis'.
Thermopylae is only considered important because it's one of those tales people can talk about valor even though it was a colossal fucking loss for the Greeks. Sure, they slowed the Persians down for a few days, but they lost a Spartan King plus several thousand men.
Then Xerxes was able to do whatever he wanted and burned Athens to cinders while the majority of Greeks hid behind their wall on Corinthian Isthmus.
Spartans were the only elite soldiers from all the greek cities, rest(arcadians, corinthians and other peloponesians) were pretty much insiginificant compared to them. Anyway, it's a fact that persian army was significantly way more numerous than any greek army, and they've got rekt hard.
Someone show me better pagans than the Greeks or Romans (inb4 Vikings)
Slowing down the persians was exactly what they wanted, it was obvious that 300(or 3000, whatever) greeks wouldn't stop hundred of thousands of persians. The point was slowing them down and inflicting them as much damage as posible in order to give more time to the rest of the greeks to organize and defeat them later, which is what happened. They sacrified themselves for the greater good, if it weren't for those lacedemonians we would be speaking persian or arab right now.
Do you have any dimension of what the persian empire was at that time?, they would have crushed the entire european tribes in europe at once. Outside mediterranian cities, the rest of europe was pretty much in the stone age.
They would have been twice the roman empire.
Do you know how many times the Persian Empire got almost "destroyed" for various reasons and just barely got "saved" or had to be pretty much started from scratch.
The Perso-Grecian war started because the Greeks started to intrude on Persian territory, or rather the whole dispute about Greek colonies in Asia Minor.
Anyway my point being Persian had no need to conquer "Europe", and even if they would, they'd collapse sooner or later, just like Alexander's Empire, Rome and so many others.
Was it "nice" that the underdog won through great military training? Sure, but that's it. It wasn't the clash of the civilisation that could be easily transcribed into modern geopolitics or whatever, and in the end it really didn't mean that much for our present.
According to herodotus The Persian-Greek war was started because Persians were affraid of the greeks making the first move
>Anyway my point being Persian had no need to conquer "Europe",
Persia was an empire and same as any other empire its main objective is to expand and annex other civilizations into its orbit, that what they did with all the civilizations in middle east and that's what they wanted to do with the greeks.
> and even if they would, they'd collapse sooner or later
No shit sherlock. Problem is that empires re-shape entire regions. Look what happened to greece after the byzantine empire and then after the ottoman empire, you can barely find any ancient greek tradition or place in good conditions in greece that relates to ancient greece. Modern greeks have absolutely nothing to do with ancient greeks except for the alphabet and a lot to do with their ottoman past.
>Modern greeks have absolutely nothing to do with ancient greeks except for the alphabet and a lot to do with their ottoman past.
That was kind of my point, and it would still be true, even if Greece would remain independent for all this time. I mean look at Persia, other than a "brief" (in context of their entire history) subjugation under Ummayads and whatever, they were pretty "independent". Changes are bound to happen one way or anotehr.
The Estruscan. Quite an interesting civilization and language.
Trypillian circa 4000 BC located in modern day Ukraine and Romania.
They had the largest cities of the period in the world.
It started because the Persians got sick of the Greeks fucking around in Ionia. Then after Marathon it became a pride issue, and then it was the Greeks attacking Persian border provinces while they had a thousand other problems going on.
It may have looked impresdive on maps, but both the March of the 10,000 and later Alexander showed that Persian was pretty weak overall.
Xerxes burned Athen because he wanted to prove a point. He didnt give two shits about the rest beyond Greek Historians self fellating.
Wut ? Their language died progressively, getting extinct relatively late : they just got "romanized", if that means anything after them having conquered, ruled and inspired the Latin League.
But I get hardest thinking about precursor civilizations like the Minoans and Etruscans.
Hittites. I just like them since they were one of the top dogs in the Bronze Age but are largely forgotten in history.