0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thanks. It's just hard for me to understand the fact that a whole vast continent(Europe) was left untouched by this major civilisation
Maybe like you suggest, the Egyptians were just too busy squabbling with the immediate neighbours!
would have had some desire (or even necessity in times of famine)
Because almost the entire population lived near the banks of the Nile,
because they were uniquely bound to the river which created their civilisation.
was perhaps a less stable nation than one would imagine from their building enterprises,
and an unstable nation is not the best equipped to have designs on other peoples' territories.
All of this would suggest that Egypt was perhaps a less stable nation than one would imagine from their building enterprises
....that spending on other items, such as conquest, was not feasible.
Quote from: JimBob on 26/02/2011 17:28:58....that spending on other items, such as conquest, was not feasible.Why is it scientists comprehend politics so little?you have discounted GREED in reference to paying, as you have discounted how debted economically even modern countries are and moreover to security and war expendature.To finalise that to its kingpin point, modern debt operates from prospectivised money that will be there later after successes that have occurred, such as in example: in alll the areas where flooding, tsunamis and cyclones have occurred recently('though as you would expect not a success now and a total fail write off).You have committed a non argument where standard warlord AVERICE and GREED directives have many times been the only and prime issue in their minds.
The whole premise of the previous post (if there really is one) is based on an incorrect assumption - the assumption that the culture (and economic system) of the Egyptians were the same as we see today. That is the same thing as saying the feudal system of Europe in 1066 is the same as the political system we have today in Europe.