Hey all. There's to many civs to make a poll, so I'm just gonna do a thread. What Civilization do you think had the most influence on the modern world?

I say Rome, quite frankly, they conquered an legendary empire, created a extremly high culture, and the remnat helped creat some of the pther great civs, France, Italy, Spain, Byzantium, Portugal, and to a lesser extent England.

I feel that its many civs, because without one the world would be different.

But if I had to say it, it was Greece, for its scholars and democracy.

my vote goes to Egypt. Both Greece and Rome looked to Egypt for learning. You talk about Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, the Romans and Greeks built off of Egyptian innovations, including math, science, construction, and navigation.

That would've to be Sumer. Its the civilization which started it all (unless you count Jericho, Catal Huyuk, etc, but in my opinion Sumer was the first to have a complex administration and society and the first to really develop expand its culture.) Sumerian achievements passed on to other Middle Eastern cultures such as Assyria, Phoenicia, Babylonia, Persia and to a lesser extent Egypt (since they develop very much on its own for thousands of years until the Hyksos arrived from the Middle East in the 1600s BCE), which in turn influence the development of western classical civilization such as Rome and Greece, which in turn influence the development of modern western civilization.

Hey all. There's to many civs to make a poll, so I'm just gonna do a thread. What Civilization do you think had the most influence on the modern world?

On the modern world? Who invented the metric system which is used worldwide? Who imposed driving on the right side of the road to most countries? Who invented the code civil that serves as the basis of laws in many countries?

The British Empire, conquered one quarter of the world's land area and spread its culture throughout almost all countries

Babylon, as they were one of the first (that is in Civ anyway).

India, and if one could say "Islamic civilisation" though that's too vague. Perhaps the Abbasids, or the Ottomans, but I'm not so certain. And of course the large europeans civilisations such as Rome, Byzantine, Greece, and later Spain, Portugal, France and England. Also Italian (if one can claim that an "Italian" civiliasation existed before the Italian nation).

Various of Islamic cultures...

I'm rather surprised that no-one has nominated China, which has been one of the most important and dominant civilisations throughout virtually the whole of recorded history, and which still is today. Sumer was the first real civilisation, but how long did it last, eh?

I'm rather surprised that no-one has nominated China, which has been one of the most important and dominant civilisations throughout virtually the whole of recorded history, and which still is today. Sumer was the first real civilisation, but how long did it last, eh?

I did consider it, but I found Muslim civilizations (as a collective) to be much more influencal in history.

Britain I would say. No other nation has had such a global effect on culture and politics.

Rome, a good deal of governments are based on Roman ideals and they have left there footprints forever in most of Europe and the Mid East.

Rome of course.
Their language is still spoken by many, and their laws are the base for the laws in many modern countries.

IMHO Rome was the most remarkable civilization in the history of mankind.

Although of course the "Roman law" which forms the basis of modern European laws comes from Justinian, so it's not exactly classical Rome.

Well that´s only partly correct. The corpus iuris civilis is containing 4 parts:
1. Institutiones, a learning book
2. Codex Iustinanus, the collected laws of Iustinan
3. Novellae, laws, which came in force after 534 AD

These parts indeed are only based on the Roman law. They are in no way belonging to the ancient Roman sources.
However there is a fourth part. In this there is a collection of the most important legal essays and works by nearly all important Roman lawyers of ancient times: The Digesta or Pandectae.
However as Justinian ordered to throw the older books away, we have only one other small book of a huge libary rescued out of the Digesta.
That´s why Justinian is seen very ambivalent, one say he rescued the Roman Law, the other say he destroyed it.
THIS part is classical Roman law.

Adler

Hey all. There's to many civs to make a poll, so I'm just gonna do a thread. What Civilization do you think had the most influence on the modern world?

I say Rome, quite frankly, they conquered an legendary empire, created a extremly high culture, and the remnat helped creat some of the pther great civs, France, Italy, Spain, Byzantium, Portugal, and to a lesser extent England.

Depends on the time period. Until WW2, the British Empire was, by far, the most influential of world powers. Now it's the United States.

Influence accumluates with time. The USA was very heavily influenced by the British empire, which was influenced by France which was influenced by Rome and on and on the chain goes.

Are we supposed to be looking for where the chain started or which link is the biggest?

Searching for the most influential civ is pretty pointless when you consider that every civilisation is simply other civilisations stirred together and left to sit for a bit.

I'm mixing metaphors again so I'll stop now. ;)

This is a loaded question impossible to objectively answer.

Very True.

But if I had to choose one, I would choose the Hebrews.

From Which Christianity & Islam came from. Imagine the world today, had it not been for Judaism. What would be the dominant religions? How would the Roman empire looked? Would there be as many 'holy' wars? etc...etc.

But of course they had no impact on the Eastern world really.

You know the 4 kings, queens & jacks in the playing cards? They are supposed to be the most influential civs of the European world.

Hebrews, Romans, Greeks & Byzantians.

Also Italian (if one can claim that an "Italian" civiliasation existed before the Italian nation).

I would probably call that Latin. Of course I also see affinity when Latin and Greek culture, both being Mediterranean cultures. And of course, if we go back far enough, Minoan culture was influenced by Egyptian. Hence I prefer to consider Mediterranean culture as a whole, and by that I don't just mean the European side, but also the African and Near East. I look at the Mediterranean in some ways, especially in Ancient terms, as a cultural category. I find the thread's question useless and somewhat misleading.

China, China China China!

The Greeks and Romans use of money (didn't say the invented it, mind you) and architecture can be seen today, as well as other customs... American democracy, which is very (either good or bad, from your point of view) influential now is considered as deriving Greek government...

But the Roman monetary system basically died out in the early Middle Ages and was replaced by local bartering methods. The "modern" capital-based economies arose in the later Middle Ages in response to new markets and new trade routes opened up in the wake of the Crusades. So, basically, the Romans' use of money can't really be seen today.

The Most influental Civ ever?

Count the number of significant words with the prefix Al...

Arabs. For one reason.

We all use difference language, cultural norms etc, but the way we express maths is universal.

Yeah, other stuff got added later like calculus... but for the short hand of describing the world mathematically, got to be Arabs influenced everybody else.

EDIT: This answer is probably going to get you zero points in a school test though. Even if it is true.

But the Arabs didn't invent mathematics - obviously they didn't invent mathematics in the first place, but neither did they simply invent modern maths as opposed to ancient maths. On the contrary, the famous medieval Arabian mathematicians were basically building upon the developments in ancient maths that had been pioneered by Greek-speaking mathematicians of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. I'm thinking in particular of figures such as Eutocius, who were really responsible for the transformation of geometry (in the classical Euclidean or Archimedean style) into algebra (in the medieval Arabian style). The later and greater mathematicians such as al-Khwarizmi or Omar Khayyam certainly advanced this approach, and named it, but you can hardly say they invented it. Basically, the lines between Greek science and maths and Arabian science and maths are very blurred.

But the Arabs didn't invent mathematics - obviously they didn't invent mathematics in the first place, but neither did they simply invent modern maths as opposed to ancient maths. On the contrary, the famous medieval Arabian mathematicians were basically building upon the developments in ancient maths that had been pioneered by Greek-speaking mathematicians of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. I'm thinking in particular of figures such as Eutocius, who were really responsible for the transformation of geometry (in the classical Euclidean or Archimedean style) into algebra (in the medieval Arabian style). The later and greater mathematicians such as al-Khwarizmi or Omar Khayyam certainly advanced this approach, and named it, but you can hardly say they invented it. Basically, the lines between Greek science and maths and Arabian science and maths are very blurred.

Which is closer to what is universal today, Greek or Arab? Arab. An ancient Greek couldn't make head nor tail of a set of figures today.

Mathematics is maybe the wrong word - arithmetic much closer. But it's the numbering system I was thinking of - and that has nothing to do with Greeks, ancient or modern.

Well, that's just the names (and symbols) of the numbers, then, which while important isn't exactly fundamental. And yes, an ancient Greek couldn't read a modern mathematical text, but I have to say that neither ancient Greek mathematical texts nor medieval Arabian ones read very much like modern ones (they're both almost impossible to understand, at least to a novice like me). My point was that in developing what we recognise as modern mathematics, the Arabs were only building upon what Greek mathematicians had already done, and taking their earlier ideas further. How could it be otherwise, after all? Of course that means that medieval Arabian mathematics is closer to modern mathematics than ancient Greek mathematics is, but it doesn't follow from that that it's more influential or important, any more than Marlowe is necessarily a greater influence on modern English literature than Chaucer simply because he wrote in a language closer to our own.

How do you know the ancient Greeks didn't nick their ideas off the ancient Arabs? You don't.

Bedu where trading 1,000s of years before the Greeks planted their first olive tree. Try digging on some of the trade routes, you'll find fossilised camel bones.

Wish I'd kept it. Should have got it carbon dated. Damn.

Ancient Greece by far, at least in the west. If you only count how many hundreds of thousants of greek words there are in all languages of the west you will soon realise that one cannot write anything serious without using greek terms. This is no basic influence, since if those terms were very different then the entire culture would have been very different.
For example iirc there are over 300.000 greek words in english, and a similar number in french and german.
Also greek terminology is used in many sciences, as in psychology and medicine. New words never stoped being made, by non greeks, as for example the telescope. Even television is 50% a greek word (vision i suspect comes from the latin vista, but tele is from the greek for "far away"/"from far away" :)

For example iirc there are over 300.000 greek words in english, and a similar number in french and german.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language
Apparently, they are about 500,000 words in the English language, and 5.32% of them are of greek origine, so that's only 26,600 words.

Hm:

"A computerised survey of about 80,000 words in the old Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd ed.) was published in Ordered Profusion by Thomas Finkenstaedt and Dieter Wolff (1973) which estimated the origin of English words as follows:

French, including Old French and early Anglo-French: 28.3%
Latin, including modern scientific and technical Latin: 28.24%
Old and Middle English, Old Norse, and Dutch: 25%
Greek: 5.32%
No etymology given: 4.03%
Derived from proper names: 3.28%
All other languages contributed less than 1% "

This means that out of those 80.000 words only 5,3% had a greek origin. I do not see why this is important :confused:

The number of words which are either entirely greek, or have a greek root, appear to be considerably more numerous in english ;)

Also the article says that the oxford dictionary has 500.000 headwords; this doesnt mean that the english languagehas only 500.000 words. I am not familiar with how many it has, but it has more than just the headwords. I once heard in a speech that it has nearly 900.000 (making it the richest language in number of words, which is to be expected since it was influenced by so many other languages).

The problem with this sort of argument is that no-one really knows how many words there are in English, mainly because scientists keep making up new ones all the time. This is particularly problematic when you're talking about Greek roots, because a considerable proportion of English words with Greek roots are scientific and medical terms. So, yes, words like pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis and their ilk are taken directly from Greek, and there are vast numbers of such words. But all that shows is that scientists base their jargon on Greek a lot. That doesn't show that Greek is particularly important as an influence upon the English language in general, let alone that Greece as a civilisation was important (of course it was important, but the existence of lots of Greek-derived scientific jargon doesn't in itself demonstrate this). If you consider the number of words in common, everyday currency, you'll find that Greek words are proportionally fewer than in English as a whole.

If we're talking language, Latin is surely more important as a source on English, and (even more importantly) on all the Romance languages. There isn't a whole group of modern languages which are direct descendants of Greek in the same way (unless you count modern Greek, of course). And of course even more important sources for English are the Germanic tongues of the Saxons, Danes and others in late antiquity. If you're talking language, the cultures of northern Europe were far more important to the development of English than any of those Mediterranean types...

I will not say much about the language - Plotinus is right that Latin and northern European dialects had much more influence to English than Greek, although in fact this influence is much more observable in "material" things than in general and abstract "concepts". This is very normal, given that Greeks were pioneers in areas like philosophy.

But let's return a bit in mathematics: it is very well known that Greeks were the first to really advance that area, since they were the first to introduce the notion of "proof" - all previous civs (like Egypt) were just confined to finding some situational numerical solutions. That was a tremendous step forward, since this is the point where the real mathematics start. Additionally they really created the basis for both geometry and arithmetic (just remember who spoke about prime numbers and proved they are infinite), and also created a whole school of though that lasted almost a millenium.

Arabs continued with greatness this task, and their biggest addition is the introduction of the number 0 in arithmetic - this is also a huge step forward, toghether with the creation of Algebra. Arabs created a much more concise way of talking about mathematics, and it's not an accident that today we use their system.

It is difficult to say who did the most, but the general consesus between the writters of mathematical books is that the ancient Greek mathematicians have bigger impact overall, since they created the foundations of the whole system and the problems they posed continued to puzzle the world for the next 2000 years (very few of them were solved by the Arabs). After all, you can't forget that the most famous theorem of mathematics bears the name of one of these giants.

clearly It's the Inca!

I don't think there is a "most" influential civilization. I mean, are we not forming a single civilization? Isn't mankind a civilization by itself?

Maybe i don't have the right definition for the word civilization.

think civs along the lines of civs in civ civs

Influence accumluates with time. The USA was very heavily influenced by the British empire, which was influenced by France which was influenced by Rome and on and on the chain goes.

Are we supposed to be looking for where the chain started or which link is the biggest?

Searching for the most influential civ is pretty pointless when you consider that every civilisation is simply other civilisations stirred together and left to sit for a bit.

I'm mixing metaphors again so I'll stop now. ;)

I have to agree but the French didnt impact British culture unless you mean militaristically.

This is a loaded question impossible to objectively answer.

Indeed, but interesting to discuss. I vote for the Greeks, who came up with democracy and the decisive battle. Both of those things have stayed around for a long time.

Well the kings of England were technically vassals of the French king, until the end of the Hundred Years' War. Also, French was the language used in Parliament and most of England until English emerged as a mix of Celtic, German, Norse, and a host of other languages, although the English did alot in their own right

Well the kings of England were technically vassals of the French king, until the end of the Hundred Years' War. Also, French was the language used in Parliament and most of England until English emerged as a mix of Celtic, German, Norse, and a host of other languages, although the English did alot in their own right

If you can prove this to me I will believe you,but would England really use a monarchy under French rule.I cant believe the language thing in parliament because the Magna Carta wasnt signed until the end of the middle ages.

The Magna Carta was signed in 1215, more than two hundred years before the end of the Middle Ages.

The Kings of England from 1066 to 1453 were French vassals not as English Kings, but as rulers of other lands. Particularly Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine were fiefs of France that at various times had the same ruler as England. This ended in 1453 when the French took back Aquitaine, unless Calais was a French fief.

Also, French was the language used in Parliament and most of England until English emerged as a mix of Celtic, German, Norse, and a host of other languages, although the English did alot in their own right

What on earth do you mean? English existed as a language before the Norman Conquest. It's not like the English started out speaking French and only later evolved English to replace it! Rather, after the Conquest the nobility spoke French (though it wasn't much like the French spoken in France) while everyone else continued to speak English, until eventually Norman French died out and everyone spoke English. Also, English is not a "mix of Celtic, German, Norse" and others. It's a Germanic language that evolved out of the Anglo-Saxon tongues with influences from French (after the Conquest), Danish, and other sources. Not Celtic and not German as such!

Also, I must point out that King John, who signed the Magna Carta, was a vassal not of the French but of Pope Innocent III.

The Magna Carta was signed in 1215, more than two hundred years before the end of the Middle Ages.

The Kings of England from 1066 to 1453 were French vassals not as English Kings, but as rulers of other lands. Particularly Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine were fiefs of France that at various times had the same ruler as England. This ended in 1453 when the French took back Aquitaine, unless Calais was a French fief.

I knew it was 12 something but didnt know what the exact year was. Second off 200 years is not that long in comparison to human history. By fief you mean lord right? If the English ruler signed the Magna Carta in 1215 France couldnt of had control of Britain at the time.

English is a germanic-based language.I took three years of German, and English is based heavily on German. the reason i mentioned the other languages is that English, unlike other languages( or at least not to the extent that English does), absorbs words and phrases from other languages. It was in the front of my English Lit book this semester: the history of the English language. English absorbed many words fromt he different areas that is encountered and eventually occupied: Britannia, Ireland, N America, parts of Africa( mostly S African), India, and Australia. If you''d like, i can type the whole thing up, but it will be several posts long, so id start a new thread for it probably. Even if not for the sake of argument, it is still avery interestind read. Actually, I think I will write it, just because I'm bored. It'll be in the History forum, called "History of the English Language."

English is a germanic-based language.I took three years of German, and English is based heavily on German. the reason i mentioned the other languages is that English, unlike other languages( or at least not to the extent that English does), absorbs words and phrases from other languages. It was in the front of my English Lit book this semester: the history of the English language. English absorbed many words fromt he different areas that is encountered and eventually occupied: Britannia, Ireland, N America, parts of Africa( mostly S African), India, and Australia. If you''d like, i can type the whole thing up, but it will be several posts long, so id start a new thread for it probably. Even if not for the sake of argument, it is still avery interestind read. Actually, I think I will write it, just because I'm bored. It'll be in the History forum, called "History of the English Language."

English isnt based on German, It was based on the languages Greek and Latin. It did also take some words from other languages such as the word beautiful from the French language.

English isn't "based" on Latin, far less on Greek! It's a Germanic language (which isn't the same thing as being based on German, since the two languages developed in parallel from partly common roots). Certainly French was more of an influence on modern English than Latin was, at least in vocabulary. The main influence of Latin is upon the grammar and sentence structure of baroque-era poetry such as that of Milton, which tries to turn English into a sort of Latinate language. Which is all very fine, but not very relevant to English as it is commonly spoken, either then or now.

Second off 200 years is not that long in comparison to human history.

No, but it is a fair old while compared to the Middle Ages. If we take the (high) Middle Ages to be roughly 1000 to 1400, the signing of the Magna Carta was plum in the middle - in fact, I think it would be generally accepted that the thirteenth century was the pinnacle of the Middle Ages, before things started going horribly wrong in the fourteenth. I don't know what the relations were between France and England at that time, but I can certainly say that being someone else's vassal wouldn't have been inconsistent with John's signing anything. Because, as I said, John was actually the vassal of the Pope.

Plus, of course, John didn't actually sign the Magna Carta. He just put his seal on it.

I think it would be generally accepted that the thirteenth century was the pinnacle of the Middle Ages, before things started going horribly wrong in the fourteenth.

In a subjective sense and depending on what civilizations you are interested in, IMO. If you're interested in Islamic Spain or Southern France it most certainly isn't the 13th C.

Indeed, but interesting to discuss. I vote for the Greeks, who came up with democracy and the decisive battle. Both of those things have stayed around for a long time.

I agree that the concept of the decisive battle was very important. It enabled military scholarship (as in Thucidides), and philosophical understanding of war ("War is the father of everything").
Although few other city-states focused as much on war as Sparta, the general culture hailed military training as a virtue. Also the fact that the people of the ancient era in Greece were used to going to war (possible it was rare that one would spend all of his life without being once in war) meant that they had a more immediate understanding of it.
Having an immediate understanding of lethal danger might have led to them minimising its idealistic understanding, something which is ussual in societies that did not go to war, or in modern society where the vast majority of the citizents of the west will not see war up close (which is positive though ofcourse in other respects).
Definately being close to war meant that they would have had formed more vivid views about it than we have.

A parallel, perhaps, of the theorising of war (or hostility, battle) between those civs that were accustomed to it, and those who werent, can be seen even today in the mass psychology of children who are accustomed to getting in fights in school, and those who try to stay out of them at all cost. The latter ussually form intricate views about fighting, but what is paramount in them is the fear of actually being in a fight; the fact that there is no empirical impression of it enables more idealistic ones. It is rare to see a child that is used to fighting to have such an idealistic notion about it, and one should guesss that this is also because it is identifying its empirical knowledge of it with the very phenomenon of fighting itself- which may not be "correct" but it is definately different than focusing on an idealism of it.

One could also mention Nietzsche's view, in "the Genealogy of Ethics" about the Jewish culture and its plan to "exist at all costs". Although a general view, it is claimed in it that due to the relative weakness of the jewish nation at all times, it wanted to avoid combat with its enemies and so developed a more retired understanding of combat and danger, which formed its religion and tradition.

On the contrary in the ancient greek world there was a decision to fight against the far more numerous persians, and this should signify the difference in culture.

Imo both general positions are productive, in their own ways. In the modern West we most likely will never see war in our countries, but this possibly means that its idealistic understanding will be kept in our minds, and be influencing our culture in the future as well.

Rome or Greece Says I.

John was kinda pressured into it by the lords, too. he wasnt exactly the best king around