I feel so. By that I mean when Justinian was leader.

Middle Ages? I think to be ancient it had to have existed before 500 AD.

But they were at their height not long after, right? So, no idea now that I'm thinking about it.

The Byzantine Empire came into existence after the split of the Roman Empire between East and West somewhere around 300 AD. Its kinda on the border but I wouldnt consider it an Ancient Empire because it existed throughout the Middle Ages and until the fall of Constantinople in the 1400's.

But ill go with the Sumerians because they were Ancient Aliens

On the other hand, I would consider american and subsaharian empires 'ancient' even when they existed after 500 AD, I'm not sure a temporal knife is the best of criteria.

Well my least favorite is Babylon. Free great scientist at writing is disgusting, especially with that rate of GS generation.

Early Roman

@principians Good point. But depending on what your criteria are, Byzantium still wouldnt qualify as ancient when compared to those civilizations.

"The Byzantine Empire came into existence after the split of the Roman Empire between East and West somewhere around 300 AD"

The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire. As you say, it split in two, one continued to speak Latin as it's main language, the other spoke Greek. The laws continued as before. The Eastern Roman empire briefly retook Italy under Justinian, along with large regions of North Africa. It's capital was Constantinople, named after the Roman Emperor Constantine - who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire - it stood for a nearly thousand years after Rome fell. It was sacked by medieval knight during the Crusades. A Christian city on their way to save the holy lands from Muslims.

The reason we call it by a different name is only because of western historians making shit up. Obviously they didn't want to admit that one of the greatest cities was destroyed not by Muslims from the East, but by Western Christians.

History is written by the victors. And the west doesn't like to think of the Eastern Empire as part of the legacy of Rome.

To quote wikipedia: 'Both "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are historiographical terms created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire (Ancient Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia tôn Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum),[2] or Romania (Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as "Romans".'

Indus Valley. Those fuckers got shit done thousands of years before other people started getting shit done.

I'll go for the one long, long ago, in a far off galaxy...:-)

Yes, the Byzantine Empire was under Justinian at 555 A.D., so if it has to before 500 A.D, then Sparta's not bad either.

I'd go with the Han Dynasty of China.
Their cultural, technological and economic developments rivalled the Roman Empire at its height. It is hard to compare them directly, considering they never had direct contact. (They knew of the existence of each other, but trade between them went through other countries in between).

I don't see why someone would choose the Byzantine portion anyway, it was run by scoundrels at every period of its history. It was when Milan became the capital that we can really say Rome died.

The Byzantine Empire is my favorite ancient empire.

That's shady. I can't trust you anymore, ND.

Never trust those Byzantines who betrayed the One True Rome.

"Those fuckers got shit done thousands of years before other people started getting shit done. "

That sentence should be preceded with "So far as we know,..."

I for one rather suspect that there might have been a civilization or ten that existed before the Indus Valley Civilization, but were destroyed by the catastrophic global climate change resulting from the end of the ice age. There's no telling how many cities of super-ancient civilizations are 400 feet under the ocean right now, or swallowed up by the sands of the Sahara.

I'm sure those other people that may or may not have existed before them are just sooooo offended.

You bet your ass I a--
Uh, I've said too much.

Im gonna say the Protoss

Have to go with the Engineers

Vorlons?

Egyptian

Basil II was a great administrator and quite humane leader, so they were not all scoundrels. The west was always a backwater compared with eastern Rome anyway, which is why Germanic tribes were able to conquer it while the greatest armies of Eurasia had trouble taking the east.

Really I'd give this to any of the three: Incan, Mayan, and Aztec..... For a society with little in the way of natural advantages like Europe they built complicated structures and social constructs... Without the help of large mammals or connection to far eastern technology.... Just saying.

Not to diminish the accomplishments of the old world but this is akin to the blind man that paints... It's a little more impressive even if the work isn't as visually detailed as that of a sighted person. The shear amount of natural adversity that was put forward to accomplish comparable work is what makes me vote them.

I can't pick just one. I like both Egyptian culture and Minoan culture. Both very old and very interesting. Those are good points about Inca, Mayan and Aztec. The Hittites were cool. They had good chariots. A good one for honorable mention is the Philistines. They worked their way from the Aegean area into the Near East and established a small nation next to Egypt and survived all the way until the Romans came. They had interesting gods and were good warriors.

Well, if we're talking ancient empires, I'd have to go with the Holy Velociraptor Empire of the Late Cretaceous. (and their subterranean lizard-people remnants).
For more recent stuff, the Mongols. Along with their impressive conquests, they did some pretty mazing things for cultural and technological diffusion across Eurasia and Northern Africa.

Favourite empire for me is Carthage, closely followed by Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_dynasty

The Qin... they pretty much set up China to be what it pretty much still is today.