0
3

[–] smarmybastard 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Gotta respect the Chinese. The longest lasting civilization the world has ever known.

0
0

[–] RhythmicNoodle 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

And more people have been governed by Chinese civilization. I think the chart should be heavily skewed this way but it's a westerner's chart.

0
3

[–] Pwning4Ever 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's always fun to read how these empires are born and rise to power and then their collapse.

0
3

[–] toats 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Are the Aztec and Maya too unpopulous to be represented here? And why does Latin America seemingly branch off of the US, shouldn't it branch off from Portugal or Spain?

0
3

[–] TheRealMaestro [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The power of the city-states of Middle America was local and negligible; even the Aztecs were a loose confederation or alliance, unable to expand their influence outside of their small region of Mexico. Their influence was not felt at all across the Atlantic before the Columbian epoch. New states on the graph merely extend in from either side (as Latin America) or are wedged in (as Poland and Servia, A.D. 1250), without implying succession. The only expressly defined successors here are the divisions of the Roman Empire, and the realm of Charles the Great.

0
1

[–] tippyc 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

they are there. far left, around 1350-1500 ad

0
2

[–] MaunaLoona 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Interesting how prior to 500 AD it's all ethnicities: Romans, Greeks, etc. Later on it's all countries: United States, Germany, France. What's the implication?

0
1

[–] Saufsoldat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That people didn't travel a lot early on? Also, "Roman" was hardly an ethnicity.

3
-2

[–] Mediocrity 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

The Jewish effort to mongrelize the Gentiles has been going on for a long time.

0
1

[–] HonestTrouth 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Where are the Negroes?

I heard from various internet sources that they "was kangs n' shit".

0
0

[–] onesaltymotherfucker 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

this chart is cool. i want to print it off as a banner and laminate it and hang it on my wall lol. nerdgasm

0
0

[–] truthhurts09 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Given the subverse I'll try to be gentle but were there really no sub Saharan empires/significant powers during this time?

0
5

[–] TheRealMaestro [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

In the epoch before Christ, the empire of the Ethiopians, who temporarily subdued Egypt, is mentioned. They maintained themselves descendants of the line of Solomon, and accepted Christ an early date, though their church is a rather distorted form of the Greek Orthodox. (They claim to possess the Ark of the Covenant, accept as canonical the Book of Enoch and Lesser Genesis and maintain many Jewish customs, among other things.) The Hamites (Berbers, Moors and Arabs) would establish the states of Ghana and Mali (unrelated to the modern states bearing these names) along the Niger after A.D. 800, but these were minor and would eventually be subdued by the Barbary states and eventually the French. With the exception of these, trans-Saharan Africa furnishes no proper history until the Columbian epoch, for history implies writing, and without it we are left only with the confused glimpses of folklore and archæology, with little substantial. The African states furnished no important accomplishments and were local.

0
2

[–] Mediocrity 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago