Are there parameters on how we perceive nations as great?

[AdityaMookerjee]

Does civilization need material prosperity to be perceived as great? Perhaps, civilizations are deemed great, by how well perceived they are by other civilizations which exist in the same passage of time. Take for instance, the Roman Civilization. Today, we see the Roman Civilization as great, but how was the Roman Civilization seen by those with whom they inter-acted? I believe, that the mentioned civilization was loathed, by Gauls, Carthaginian's, Greeks, Frank's, or by the majority of their peers. The civilization, acted in an aggressive manner, but could not stop the 'Barbarians' from bringing down their Empire.
Surely, if I am somewhat right, then perhaps, perception is actually really an expression which has never seemed to have done justice to itself. I am sure, because perceptions vary, from person to person, not many persons feel that they need not see their own perceptions as inadequate, at some point in time. Perhaps, we must not take our perceptions as very important, at any point in time.
As people perceive differently, then it is obvious, that there is no conflict in perception, but in reality, people approach how they perceive their views differently. Perhaps, how we perceive has nothing to do with how others perceive, and if it does, then it is a matter of no consequence, unless it leads to open discord.
How do we perceive civilizations to be great in the past, and differently in the present? Can we say, that what is true in the past, is not true in the present? Then, is what I am perceiving currently, also not untrue, because it will not hold true in the future?

[JRT]

Does civilization need material prosperity to be perceived as great? Perhaps, civilizations are deemed great, by how well perceived they are by other civilizations which exist in the same passage of time. Take for instance, the Roman Civilization. Today, we see the Roman Civilization as great, but how was the Roman Civilization seen by those with whom they inter-acted? I believe, that the mentioned civilization was loathed, by Gauls, Carthaginian's, Greeks, Frank's, or by the majority of their peers. The civilization, acted in an aggressive manner, but could not stop the 'Barbarians' from bringing down their Empire.

Being great in this context has to do with large effects, and nothing to do with being nice.

[Chogy]

I believe one cannot disconnect technology and industrial advances from consideration of greatness. Rome may have annoyed its neighbors, stolen its architecture and art from Greece, but the raw skills of Roman technology awe us to this day. One cannot fail to be impressed.

But at the same time, India and China both had similar skill sets, yet these were not exported by force, so there goes a portion of my argument.

Maybe it does boil down to global impact and influence, and to do either requires an advanced technology and industry. Before the Spanish-American war, U.S. global aspirations were nil. Even afterwards, the U.S. was viewed as something of a little brother to the great European powers when it came to global exploitation and power projection.

The British Empire (upon which the sun never set) - how could a small island nation have had such an immense impact? The U.S., Canada, Australia, formed from wilderness although admittedly occupied by natives... The British colonial presence was immense at its peak. It wasn't just the Navy, it was that, combined with trade, the industrial revolution, and a form of governance often very different from the conquests, that produced its power.