What Country Has The Most Interesting History?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GePap
Why does England lead? Its dynastic issues are no more weird and whacky than say Egypt's, which had 20 + dynasties. Its revolts and civil wars are not unique-in terms of a home of western ideas, France and Italy and Germany all have an equal amount....

I really don't get the anglomania (except this is an english speaking board filled with Britons and their 'offspring', Americans and Aussies...)

Part Empire, part time period (it was recent), part the quantity of it (most thousand year histories were a long time ago). Yes, other countries had civil wars, revolts, issues of boundaries, famous Kings and statesmen, stories of heroism, etc., but very few have all of that, and even less so in a relatively modern setting.

Sure, Spanish and French had some very interesting history at the same time, but lack the size and impact of the empire, as well as the well documented medieval history. The US's isn't particularly long yet. Italy* only recently got interesting with it's unification in the 19th Century, as did Germany and Russia, though possibly slightly earlier. China* and Japan*'s history has only been particularly interesting relatively recently too. All other interesting histories seem to be ancient, and while still interesting, can seem more distant.

A claim could be made for Rome, China or Japan, due to having a modern and ancient history, but I tend to think the breadth of things to study in English history, makes it more interesting.

* Please not I'm counting ancient Rome and the Chinese and Japanese Dynasties in the ancient part, and those comments refer to modern history only.

Then there's also Hollywood's effect, with sop many films about English legends, like King Arthur and Robin Hood, that seem to glorify that time period. Add to that that yes, evereyone here speaks English, and many as their first language, hence the wealth of text in English for a history matters a lot with knowledge of the subject. Would a history be interesting if nothing had been recorded, to a person now? Doubtfully, which is what many histories are like to an English speaker, as the text is all in that language, or at least, a large proportion of it. Spanish 1400-1700 history may be incredibly interesting, but there is nowhere near as much of it in English as the same period of English history. This is an ethnocentric argument, and thus only explains it in the context of an English message board, but England does have other reasons to claim it as being the most interesting, as mentioned above.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jethro83


But those 'naked brown guys' had their own distinct art, music and culture completely untouched by foreign influence. As an Australian, I've seen plenty of their culture, and I'd have to say it actually is somewhat interesting (and sadly, somewhat misunderstood).


Besides, I don't really see how the Aborigines could possibly be less interesting than the story of how their land was made into a British convict dumping ground.

then you havent read Hughes "Fatal Shore"

Geez, Starvation years, Irish rebels, Rum Corps, Norfolk Island, emancipists vs exclusives, dead Tasmanian Aborigines, royal commisions reporting on Sodomy, more floggings than you can shake a stick at - I found it fascinating. Of course he adds in a certain amount of Georgian England background, and some pre-first fleet history, and post-abolition history, but the core of the story is still Australia (including Norfolk Island) from 1788 to 1868.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Why does England lead? Its dynastic issues are no more weird and whacky than say Egypt's, which had 20 + dynasties. Its revolts and civil wars are not unique-in terms of a home of western ideas, France and Italy and Germany all have an equal amount....

I really don't get the anglomania (except this is an english speaking board filled with Britons and their 'offspring', Americans and Aussies...)

Well it helps that you can read so much primary material in English

And I mean can you really tell the XV dynasty of Egypt from the XVI dynasty? I mean just more tombs, more "life, prosperity, health" (or whatever it was) crap, more expeditions agains the Libyans, or the Nubians, or whomever. Whereas the difference between say Charles 1, and Victoria looks pretty dramatic, to 21th century eyes.

[Whaleboy]

I'd be tempted to say the area between the modern day Israeli coast and the Caucauses.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I will go with area, not "country", and hence chose the Levant as having the most interesting history.

you can easily fit it in as a country. "Greater Syria"

[Whaleboy]

Actually, take that as far East as the Indus now I think about it

[GePap]

Sure, Spanish and French had some very interesting history at the same time, but lack the size and impact of the empire, as well as the well documented medieval history. The US's isn't particularly long yet. Italy* only recently got interesting with it's unification in the 19th Century, as did Germany and Russia, though possibly slightly earlier. China* and Japan*'s history has only been particularly interesting relatively recently too. All other interesting histories seem to be ancient, and while still interesting, can seem more distant.

The Spanish Empire begun first, and the British Empire only reached the same size that the Spanish Empire had reached by the mid-19th Century (remembering most of Africa's interior was not colonized then and India until 1857 was still under a company and not the Crown. And as for Medieval history, France has craploads of it (much including the English) and so does Spain, having been site of a thriving Islamic state and the site of the longest crusade.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Well it helps that you can read so much primary material in English

And I mean can you really tell the XV dynasty of Egypt from the XVI dynasty? I mean just more tombs, more "life, prosperity, health" (or whatever it was) crap, more expeditions agains the Libyans, or the Nubians, or whomever. Whereas the difference between say Charles 1, and Victoria looks pretty dramatic, to 21th century eyes.

Once you start getting into the MIddle Kingdom period things heat up some.

Then you get those bastard Ptolemeic (sp) dyansty...

Still think the Levant has had the most interesting one- heck, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all slept there. No other area of the world can claim that.

[lord of the mark]

historical events - aborigines.

Spread across continent of Australia.

Destroy local megafauna (Maybe?)

Tasmanians cut off, 4000 people in isolation from the rest of the planet.

Aborigines lose bow and arrow (or did they have it when they arrived?)

Contact with austronesians - dogs become dingos, are redomesticated(?) by aborigines.

Boomerang developed, spreads across continent.

Contact between Torres straits islanders and Cape York aborigines. Fishhooks introduced, spread across continent.

Process for leaching some kind of poisonus nuts (cycads?) discovered. population density in SE australia increases.

Intensification of fishing activities in SE Australians. Elaborate eel traps, canals, etc. Development of semi-permanent, or possibly permanent, villages.

Arrival of big dumb white folk.


Thats just what i can clean from Diamonds GG&S. And thats essentially based on archaeology only, without benefit of written records.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Once you start getting into the MIddle Kingdom period things heat up some.

Then you get those bastard Ptolemeic (sp) dyansty...

Still think the Levant has had the most interesting one- heck, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all slept there. No other area of the world can claim that.

well at least I can read some of the primary material from there

[Sandman]

I agree with Boshko; the Greece/Anatolia region.

*Mutters about all the people using England and Britain interchangably*

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
I agree with Boshko; the Greece/Anatolia region.

*Mutters about all the people using England and Britain interchangably*

the history of that state that ruled england from 1066, which absorbed Wales in (?) and which signed the act of Union with Scotland in 1707, and whose subsequent constitution, laws, and to a slightly lesser extent, politics, were in continuity with that of England, and NOT that of Scotland.


The history of Scotland is pretty interesting too, but to the extent that people are interested in the English STATE, conflating it with later Britain is not that far off.

[Sandman]

You're under the mistaken impression that English law became law in Scotland after the Act of Union. This is not the case. The Scottish legal system remained seperate. Along with the church and the education system.

I don't know what your comment about politics is supposed to mean. For a lot of the time, Scotland was a bastion of conservatism.

[Frozzy]

Well Sandman, considering Britain comes from the Roman term for the land south of Hadrian's Wall, I can see the Scottish involvement in the land...

[Ned]

Interesting:

1) Roman
2) English
3) American
4) Jewish