I found the claims for Greco-Roman heritage ridiculous, especially from those with at best dubious connections. Even Modern Greece and Italy are recent creations in many ways (ethnic, religious, cultural, political, etc) different from their glorious predecessors.
What is the point of this exercise? It's not much different from "who's stronger, Mighty Mouse or Superman?" What can it possibly matter today whether we agree that the Taj Mahal was unparallelled in its time? What use is past glory? And why should peasant farmers in Utar Pradesh feel proud of some wealthy guy's mausoleum for his wife, any more than a Frenchman should feel proud of the palace of some other wealthy guy built for his court? The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
He (she) posted several times suggestions for me to improve my knowledge of history:
Melanchton: ...makes me think you should improve your knowledge of European history...
And then posted this here:
Melanchton: France (Gaul) has been an important part of the Roman empire from 120 BC for the South and from 52 BC for the whole country to the end of the empire. Two Roman emperors (Claudius and Caracalla) were born in Gaul. And the French language is derived from Latin. Great Britain has been part of the Roman Empire from 43 BC... But maybe this doesn't fit your definition of inheritor.
But maybe this doesn't fit your definition of inheritor.
And you apparently did not find in it anything objectionable.
From few remarks and comments here and there I cannot make any judgements and recommend improving knowledge of history but I found in one recent Russian guidebook about London (Orange guide, Eksmo publishing house, 2008) interesting information about historical knowledge in England. There, it was claimed, most people think that first prominent Briton was Julius Caesar indeed, and the next great Englishman was William The Conqueror (ethnic Norman from France). And two more Greats are Oliver Cromwell and Winston Churchill. And the rest of history in public mind is of the same quality which is well enough for ordinary people.
However people participating here on forum should understand that others might learn different history of their countries where inconvenient facts were not hidden under the carpet.
If you're saying that the Europeans claims for Greco-Roman heritage is ridiculous, then Why does the Indian culture have any better connection, other than living on the same piece of earth. Modern India is also a relatively recent creation too, I dont see that whole last comment making any real sense. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
And again, what closer connection does modern India have to Asoka or even the Mughal Empire? For that matter, by all insistence on continity, wasn't China more a succession of different empires not even on the exact same area (f.e. little common area between the Qin dynasty and Southern Song) than one? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It's nice you mentioned invading Germanic tribes, that's why purists might even deny Italy and Greece any connection to their glorious predecessors.
France and UK have negligible ethnic connection to Romans or Greeks.
Here is the difference with India - unlike Europe here ethnic mix did not change much and modern states may claim historical legacy freely. The same population, the same territory.
In Europe Italy and Greece have the same territory as Roman empire and Greek city states but population might had changed ethnically significantly over the centuries, not speaking about Christianity which was not existent in ancient societies.
About China I would recommend you to read any history book, for example John Keay's History of China and you will understand where your question or statement is fundamentally flawed.
That's a popular line among the European far-right. It does not, however, have anything to do with reality.
The reality, of course, is that most empires succeed to some extent in imposing their culture on their colonies, and in some measure adapt their culture to reflect that of their colonies.
And, of course, cultures evolve over time, to the point where they become unrecognisable as the ancestor culture. To say that modern Greece or India has any claim to the monuments located there - other than the geographic fact that they are located in their jurisdiction - is vaguely silly. Just as it is vaguely silly to suppose that Germany has some claim to the merits of the Hanseatic League.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
