News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by jcranmer on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @12:05AM (#19308225)
> Is it true to say that China is the longest surviving civilization?

Not really. The Chinese tend to emphasize viewing their history through a lens of continuity and a single notional empire whereas the Western history tends to view their history as discontinuous and fractured empires. But when you start comparing the actual effects of these empires and their rises and falls, they are actually much more similar.

For example, after the Crisis of the Third Century, the Roman Empire was effectively partitioned into a Western and Eastern Empire. The Western Empire proceeded to decentralize itself out of existence over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries, but it recoalesced under the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties into the Holy Roman Empire by 800 (before splitting up into effectively a Frankish kingdom and the Germanic kingdom of the HRE). The Eastern Roman Empire lasted until around 1200, when the Fourth Crusade conquered it instead (a conquest which didn't last, but the Byzantines never recovered and the Ottomans finally put them out of their misery 250 years later). It's worth noting that pretty much all of the people I've cited considered themselves the true heirs of the Roman Empire.

Meanwhile in China, the Han dynasty crashed hard in the early 200s, with three major successor states cropping up. One of these managed to conquer the others, so the successive dynasty was the Jin dynasty. Of course, the Jin last control of most of their territory, which fragmented into the Sixteen Kingdoms, but the entire era is still called the Jin dynasty. After the final collapse of the Jin, the north/south dichotomy continued with the Northern and Southern dynasties, which is again a successive series of powers vying for control eventually coalescing into the Sui dynasty after one wins out, which quickly transitions to the Tang dynasty, the first truly unified China since the fall of the Han dynasty. After about 300 years, the Tang dynasty collapses into a major period of disunity, the next truly unified China again taking 300 years to crop up again.

There's a lot of similarity. The major difference is that Western Europe never reunified into a single unitary state (unless you want to count the extremely short lived Napoleonic Empire and Third Reich). But Western Europe did have a successor state that directly retained the traditions from the Roman Empire (namely, the Byzantines) and could plausibly claim to have no break in continuity (the Byzantines never called themselves anything other than the Roman Empire), and all of the major successor states directly drew inspiration and customs from the Roman Empire, rather like China. The writing system, the state religion, the bureaucratic apparatus, the legal system--all of these are derived from the Roman Empire in Western Europe, just as much as they are derived from the Qin and Han dynasties in China.

Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by jlktrl on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @01:35AM (#19308536)
The comparison of the Roman Empire and the Chinese civilization is very flawed. First of all, Rome did not unite neighboring groups in Italy as a culture, never mind Europe. The lands and tribes they conquered simply used Latin for trade and as a lingua franca. It never became the mother tongue for any of those people. In China, for thousands of years, you have people from every province celebrating many of the same festivals, educated people reading the same script and Mandarin speaking officials reporting to the Emperor. Furthermore, pretty much everyone in Northern and Western China spoke some variation of Mandarin. The other main language group was Yue in the South and Wu to the East. To add to this, the major historical events in China are much more important than any local ones. Yet, if you ask a French or Italian person about their history, they would tell you very different things.
Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by pedrosorio on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @03:57AM (#19309187)
> The lands and tribes they conquered simply used Latin for trade and as a lingua franca. It never became the mother tongue for any of those people.

And yet, there are 800 million native speakers of Romance languages ("the modern languages that evolved from Vulgar Latin between the third and eighth centuries") in the world [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages

Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by cmrdporcupine on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @01:37PM (#19312919)
Nonsense. If what you're saying about language was true then the people of France and most of Spain would be speaking a Celtic language, Gaulish or Celto-Iberian.

Instead they speak direct descendants of the language of the common tongue of Roman citizens, 'vulgar' Latin. The pre-Roman languages of most of Roman occupied Europe were extinguished. Apart from Greek, which was kind of the second language of Rome (and later the only language, once the west collapsed) and Palestine/Syria, it's only in Britain where pre-Roman languages survived -- that is until the Anglo-Saxons wiped most of it out, excepting Wales and Cornwall.

Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by dragonwriter on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @04:12AM (#19309244)
> First of all, Rome did not unite neighboring groups in Italy as a culture

It very much did.

> never mind Europe.

It did that, too, though less tightly.

> The lands and tribes they conquered simply used Latin for trade and as a lingua franca. It never became the mother tongue for any of those people.

And where exactly did the Romance languages that are the mother tongues of much of the area that Rome used to rule come from, then?

Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by sonnyblarney on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @04:32AM (#19309325)
"It never became the mother tongue for any of those people."

Italy, France, Spain, Romania, Portugal all speak a variation of 'Latin'.

Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by Jack000 on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @06:35AM (#19309841)
by this standard, Japanese would be a variation of Chinese
Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by jcranmer on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @08:54AM (#19310484)
Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian are all directly derived from Vulgar Latin. Japanese is a linguistic isolate, perhaps distantly related to Korean (which is also a linguistic isolate). Japanese borrowed the Chinese writing system, and a little bit of vocabulary; calling Japanese a variation of Chinese is akin to saying English and German are a variation of Latin.
Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by cmrdporcupine on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @01:40PM (#19312935)
It's even further remote than saying English and German are a variation of Latin, as at least the Germanic languages are in the same family of Indo-European languages. Japanese and Chinese are not related in any way we know of.

It'd be more like saying Finnish or Hungarian are a variation of Latin or German. Some small amount of shared vocabulary (and maybe phonetics) due to proximity, but no more.

Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by vixen99 on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @08:51AM (#19310462)
Irrespective of the relation between Japanese and Chinese, the immense contribution of Latin found within modern European languages is a given as anyone armed with a dictionary can deduce for themselves.
Re:Studying the demise of historic civilisations by prevedmedved on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @03:48AM (#19309145)
> First of all, Rome did not unite neighboring groups in Italy as a culture

This is simply false. Please learn about the pre-Roman history of Italy.