Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
You are using a very stringent definition of the word "nation" which appears to be a "political creation with continuous unaltered government implementation."
As far as I'm concerned, equating the concept of "nation" with "government system" is ridiculous, especially considering the wealth of cultural continuity among a number of ethnically unique people.
In short, the definition used implies inherent preference toward the U.S. (ignoring the fact that while there has not been "official" change of government, its current form is completely different from what was in effect when the country was created).
I was referring to the big speech in "300."
I'd start an argument about semantics of the sentence itself, but we're beyond derailing the subject of this thread already, so... ;)
At the risk of going further off topic it would be interesting to know how you think the US government is completely differnt than at its founding. In laws and government powers i agree with you, but the democratic principles we share with other republics remain clear, even if generations inconsistantly live up to them.
Lol wrong, then why did the democratic Athenian empire not even last 100 years. Sparta existed independantly for 750, all under the same constitution.
Democracy in ancient greece was not like our own they did not have universal suffrage only property owning males could vote, in this respect Sparta was just as democratic as Athens ever was. Don't forget that the demographics of Attica were very similar to Laconia, That is a minority of full citizens ruling over resident aliens and slaves. Athenians were also just as devoted to their state and civic duty they just expressed it differently.
You are trying to approach ancient greece far to simply. Athens (and most other greek city-states) and Sparta were more alike than they were different, the main cultural differences were that in Sparta women weren't treated absolutely horribly (though still not completely equal), and Spartans did not practice pedastry (institutionalized child molestation). A lot of misconceptions are based off of the work of Xenophon who was a demogogue trying to stir up animosity towards Sparta in Athens. Read Thucydides he is much more objective and fair.
As to the OP's question most people think of 300. They don't think of the fact that most other greek states looked up to Sparta as leaders or feared enemies. They don't think about the fact that Sparta was never truly conquered. And they don't think about the fact that neither Phillip II nor his son Alexander the Great dared to fight them, despite threats to do just that.
No, I argued against such a definition, mainly since it's only a very, very limited part of the definition of "nation" (and, technically, it's "nation-state").
Even then the US is not the oldest nation, and I certainly am not an expert in the field to give more examples that I strongly suspect to exist out there.
Which is all that defines a government, which itself in turn is how you chose to define the concept of a "nation" for the purpose of this discussion.
Therefore the US that existed in the 1700s is not the same US that exists nowadays, based on your own methodology.
From my rocking chair, it looks like the "principles" are merely smoke and mirror approach to keep the plebes in their right place.
"Do as we tell you to, not as we do."
Completely another topic, though, especially given the pages of elaboration required to fully validate that claim.
And this is precisely why the idolation of Sparta pisses the living crap out of me.
People living in all the advantages of modern humanistic society proclaiming with enthusiasm how awesome a murderously repressive state was. Ignoring the very fact that, if only statistically speaking, they were more likely to be a helot than the mighty aristocratic "Spartan" in their ignorant alternative-life fantasy.
US: founded 1783
Do you know of an older nation? [/quote]
I suspected you didn't know much about history, now I know you don't.
How about our mother country? ya know Great Britain? I may be wrong but I think that colonies are established AFTER the mother country. Even if you go with the founding of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707) as the beggining of their government (and that would make you the only person who does) much of the American colonies had yet to be developed (Georgia didn't even exist then)
Of Course, empire, greatness ....you are "ectually" british
And its fun to play a somewhat "evil" faction that goes around enslaving half the world.
Athens did last more than a 100 years, and her legacy lasted more than 2000, how many can say that? Sparta seemingly had a long life for the same reason we still have aborigines in South America today, no one gave a ♥♥♥♥. The Spartans had no political ambitions or power by the time Rome came around. You want to see resistance to Rome, look to the free minded Greeks in the east. Alexander didnt crush teh Spartans because their was no need. They couldnt field an army, only a garrison. They died from an inability to reproduce outside of ceremonial rape, not leaving anything of worth behind. Future generations did not learn from or emulate them.
Athens was different than Modern democracies in all but the government system itself which functions in much the same way as ours. People were elected based on how they could persuade the ableminded mobs, money was extremely influential, and the great equalizer was the legal system. What country is more litigious than the US today? I don’t defend their moral flaws as you rightly noted but I don’t have too. Democracies allow for extreme flexibility and diversity. But I will say that the way women did eventually get suffrage was not through moral enforcment as in Sparta, but through laws. The force for good the Athenians first put forward for moderating and advancing society. The Spartans however, while they gave their women a great public voice used them as means to the ends of the government instead the democratic Athens which at least left opportunity for the government being the ends of the people. EG the Athenian laws which allowed for female inheritance and divorce. However similar their cultures and languages their views of humanity and the role of government were fundamentally different.
While Athenians were patriotic they did not resemble Spartans in their devotions. In fact Athens proved to be among the most fecal in the support of their leaders. Every year they exiled or executed top leaders if wars were not going their way reguardless of fault. The greatest Athenians were nearly all pariahs at one point or another. Sparta on the other hand rarely questioned leaders or reversed decisions once they were made. Stubborn and narrow minded through and through, seemingly ideal soldiers.
Their political systems were so varied that while Athens allowed ordinary people influence by having them serve and in the military and receive honors, Sparta would require the murder of the lower casts to prove ones citizenship. These differences cannot be overlooked.
Another key difference was the way the Athenians were able to set aside many of their superstitions for more practical pursuits while the Spartans risked entire wars to adhere to religious nonsense.
Athens had something to say and spread in the world while Sparta just waited around to die, and worse than that they killed themselves by not being able to conjure up any reason to have children, nihilism incarnate.