Which Civilization do you guys think was the most overrated in Influence?

Hmmm tough choice... My pick at the moment would be the Byzantines (can't think of any others)

Hmmm tough choice... My pick at the moment would be the Byzantines (can't think of any others)

:hmm: I think it's one of the most underrated.

Possibly China. It was too isolated for too long a period in world history. Sure it was a great civilization but it doesn't mean it was influential in other parts of the world.

Compare it say to India and you'll see how much more influential India is.

I wouldn't say China, i'd say China is actually underrated. I'd actually say...

Hmm... pretty hard... but maybe the Americans, in proportional influence (meaning they only influenced the world for 50 years, not for centuries, although that doesn't mean they are the greatest influence now)...

Probably Egypt, in my view.

Can you define civilization?

Can you define civilization?
Well there are many ways to define it. Maybe you can revive the What makes a Civilization thread.

I agree with Plotinus and I say the Byzantines because they were fizzling out their whole life. They were just a roman legacy and testamen to their influence.

I agree with Plotinus and I say the Byzantines because they were fizzling out their whole life. They were just a roman legacy and testamen to their influence.

Well, the Byzantines had a different language, religion, fine arts style (painting, sculpture), music, architecture, cultural centers, philosophy and weaponry to the Romans. Suuuure.... just a continuation of the Romans. :crazyeye: And Plotinus said Egypt...

China, by a very very large margin.

Yeah, they were very innovative and have existed for ages. But nowadays there is a trend to trace every single modern device to some chinese origin. "The chinese had a colourful box with a candle inside, therefore they invented television 2,000 years before the West!".

Call to Power II.

I would say America.

Possibly China. It was too isolated for too long a period in world history. Sure it was a great civilization but it doesn't mean it was influential in other parts of the world.

Compare it say to India and you'll see how much more influential India is.

The only periods in history in which China was really isolated were certain periods of the Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty. At other times China was really influential outside its own borders. Confucianism and Taoism for example spread far beyond its borders.

I am going to go with my own. Goethe, Bach, Friedrich II, Grass, etc... our culture was never that great. it was just our incomprehensible language that lead people to believe it was really deep. Really, if you can string a sentence on for over 2 pages it has to be deep..... well, it isn't really... it's a regular German sentence. we talk like that!

I would say America.

huh... good one and I would have to second it. I have been influenced by US media as much as anybody. I love it! reasons? I can understand it and it is easily accessible.

I'm gonna go romans they pretty much just spread greek culture.

yeah but they got us the aqueducts and peace and citizenship....

to support China: just the very invention of Gunpowder (and Rocketry along with it) is enough to make it one of the top influential nations in post-classical history, even if not culturally. If it weren't for that, there wouldn't an invansion of Iraq by America.


Actually, I think the post-classical Western World is overrated. Yes, i can say it is pretty influential, very, but its just that there is the belief that it was almost only the Western World that made history. HA. Ever heard of China, India, and the Muslim Civilizations? Or how abuot the Mongols? Their influence influenced the influences that the Western World would make.

yeah but they got us the aqueducts and peace and citizenship....

I always thought the last thing the guy said was "kitties". Was it actually "citizenship"? I'm not sure I don't like my version better.

I was thinking Rome, in how most of their stuff had origins in Greece/Greek culture.

America and maybe Spain. (Don't know where I got that, maybe colonization)

If not for the Romans, Greek culture would have been a curiosity in one corner of the Mediterranean. Sometimes spreading something is just as influential as creating it.

yeah but they got us the aqueducts and peace and citizenship....

And the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health...

And the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health...

and a little thing called Latin:lol:

and a little thing called Latin:lol:

Somebody doesn't watch too many movies.

Rome is overrated. Not because Rome was not important but because many other civilizations are underrated compared to Rome.
Romanes eont domus !

to support China: just the very invention of Gunpowder (and Rocketry along with it) is enough to make it one of the top influential nations in post-classical history, even if not culturally. If it weren't for that, there wouldn't an invansion of Iraq by America.

This is making the extremely unlikely assumption that nobody else would have invented gunpowder. Fact is modern gunpoweder has very little to do with the ancient one, and was not invented in China but in the West.

I'm going to have to go with either Egypt or Japan.

This is making the extremely unlikely assumption that nobody else would have invented gunpowder. Fact is modern gunpoweder has very little to do with the ancient one, and was not invented in China but in the West.

The same asumption could be made about any other civilization. Anyoneelse could have invented democracy, or capitalism, anyone could have been first to discover the Americas, China COULD have decided under some dynasty to build a globe-spanning empire...but they didn't.

Yes, the European refined and perfected gunpowder to the point that it hasn't that much to do today with the original design, but the Chinese still invented it in the first place.

Rome is too ovverated.

Fact is modern gunpoweder has very little to do with the ancient one, and was not invented in China but in the West.

the same overlying principles, to my understanding, used in modern gunpowder and ancient gunpowder are still similar and related. also, i'm not sure if rifles were first made in China, but i know rockets, even extremely primitive and extremely not-as-awesome prototype two-stage rockets were made in China (not enough to blast to space, but eough to deal some serious damage)

The same asumption could be made about any other civilization. Anyoneelse could have invented democracy, or capitalism, anyone could have been first to discover the Americas, China COULD have decided under some dynasty to build a globe-spanning empire...but they didn't.

Yes, the European refined and perfected gunpowder to the point that it hasn't that much to do today with the original design, but the Chinese still invented it in the first place.

Certainly, gupowder is chinese. My main point is that it is not so complicated as to not be invented elsewhere.

However, many devices that are sometimes credited or partially credited to the chinese are not, at all, chinese.

the same overlying principles, to my understanding, used in modern gunpowder and ancient gunpowder are still similar and related. also, i'm not sure if rifles were first made in China, but i know rockets, even extremely primitive and extremely not-as-awesome prototype two-stage rockets were made in China (not enough to blast to space, but eough to deal some serious damage)
The chemical composition of modern gunpowder is disticnt from ancient gunpowder. The modern version is usually made of nitrocellulose combined with nitroglycerin, as well as a number of stabilizers and ballistic modifiers. Really not the similar to the old, saltpeter-based one.

As for fire arms, to the best of my knowledge they were first used by the byzantines and the turks. Muskets were invented in Europe (Italy?).

And my main point is that there are very few things that are so complicated they couldn't have been invented elsewhere.

Ultimately, we can only measure civilizations by what actually happened, not might-have-been.

(And which specific inventions do you have in mind, out of curiosity? I don't doubt you that there are, I'm just curious which ones you are thinking of)

The chemical composition of modern gunpowder is disticnt from ancient gunpowder. The modern version is usually made of nitrocellulose combined with nitroglycerin, as well as a number of stabilizers and ballistic modifiers. Really not the similar to the old, saltpeter-based one.

i dont mean composition. i mean the general concept of how it works - something pops out and hits somebody.


As for fire arms, to the best of my knowledge they were first used by the byzantines and the turks. Muskets were invented in Europe (Italy?).

the first known firearms were made by the Song Dynasty, 1200s, bamboo muskets. but it is quite posisble they were made as early as two centuries past, maybe even eariler. chinese rockets were also used at the same time.

There is also the fact that we cannot give all the credit for an invention to a civilization that was the first to do it. For example, the Sumerians were the first to have an alphabet, but "the concept of alphabet" was "discovered" in many parts of the world independently, and we don't have to thank the Sumerians for the myriad of alphabets existing in India. It is of course important who the first one was, but it's also important how extensively it was used, promoted, in what way it was used there, and from the worldwide use of the invention, how much it happened in the country that had the honor of being the motherland of its inventor(s).

In other words, influence is about impossible to quantify.

And my main point is that there are very few things that are so complicated they couldn't have been invented elsewhere.

Ultimately, we can only measure civilizations by what actually happened, not might-have-been.

I never claimed otherwise. My reply was to the claim that the american invasion of Iraq was somehow related to the chinese invention of gunpowder, which is completely false. The way we make our gunpowder and the way we use it has nothing to do with the way the chinese alchemists did.


(And which specific inventions do you have in mind, out of curiosity? I don't doubt you that there are, I'm just curious which ones you are thinking of)
Severall. For exemple, it is frequently stated that the seismometer is a chinese invention because of a device that Zhang Heng built in the 2nd Centrury that could, it is claimed, point to the place where an earthquake was happening. I don't see how this can be called a seismometer if it is not measuring anything.

I've seen people claim that steel, the parachute, the odometer, the camera obscura, etc, all are chinese inventions, and all of that is pretty debatable to say the least.

Rome is too ovverated.

overrated? maybe. influential though? hell yeah.

in civ terms this would be the culture that would flip cities in a heartbeat. about a thousand years after your civilization has vanished you still manage to have a huge impact on basically all of Europe to adhere to your (perceived) ideals (although you somehow have to share it with the greek, which makes sense)?

I don't think you can call that overrated anymore. so much of what Europe -and by extension the Americas- makes Europe what it is is based on Roman/greek influence. Maybe excessive would be the right and politically correct word. The classic world had an excessive influence on Europe during it's formation period. Dunno, sounds better to me. By terming it overrated you somehow question your entire heritage if you are European, North American or Latin American. Seems like a paradox to me. If you were not part of that heritage you would not be able to state such a claim. Anybody outside of Roman influence can fire away as they please, however.

If not for the Romans, Greek culture would have been a curiosity in one corner of the Mediterranean. Sometimes spreading something is just as influential as creating it.

Actually, the Greek colonies around the Mediterranean (Syracuse, Massilia, Neapolis, Alalia, Zacynthus, Miletus, Naucratis, Cyrene, Olbia, Cumae, Salamis, Tanais, Panticapaeum, Chersonesus, etc) and post-Alexander Hellenistic states (Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Bactrian, etc) were doing a fine job of spreading Greek culture until the Romans come around.

By terming it overrated you somehow question your entire heritage if you are European, North American or Latin American. Seems like a paradox to me.

The notion that our "entire" heritage is of Mediterranean derivation is just a Renaissance myth. I'd be inclined to see the cultural influences from Rome as pretty analogous to the linguistic influences we're discussing in the other thread. English culture, for example, has a primarily Germanic and northern European heritage, sprinkled over with a considerable seasoning from the Mediterranean.

Portugal. They were important in the early stages of colonization, but their influence isn't even close to that of the other great colonial powers of Europe (Spain, France, Britain & The Netherlands).

The notion that our "entire" heritage is of Mediterranean derivation is just a Renaissance myth. I'd be inclined to see the cultural influences from Rome as pretty analogous to the linguistic influences we're discussing in the other thread. English culture, for example, has a primarily Germanic and northern European heritage, sprinkled over with a considerable seasoning from the Mediterranean.

meh, true. I exaggerated.

Portugal. They were important in the early stages of colonization, but their influence isn't even close to that of the other great colonial powers of Europe (Spain, France, Britain & The Netherlands).

I'd say that Portugal is generally underrated. Their influence is smaller than that os Spain, but "not even close" seems like a strech to me. Half of South America speaks Portuguese. In Africa, the Portuguese were more influent than the Spanish, and in Asia it is hard to tell. I'd also rank Portugal above the Netherlands as far as long term influence goes.

Touch and go. The Neths, in general, had far greater influence in Europe than Portugal - owing to geographic positions as much as anything. Though granted outside Europe portugal probably gets the upper hand.

Touch and go. The Neths, in general, had far greater influence in Europe than Portugal - owing to geographic positions as much as anything. Though granted outside Europe portugal probably gets the upper hand.

Yes, good point. Also, the dutch produced a far greater number or renowned artists and scientists (in fact they rival with the greats of the world in that regard).

I'd say, though, that Portugal left it's mark in a greater number of people, with more intensity, and more spread throughout the world.

All in all, as Eran said, it is almost impossible to quantify influence and the Netherlands vs Portugal comparation illustrates this very well.

Portugal was certainly influential. I just said it because I hear frequently from people who should know better than it was a world power on par with Spain or Britain which is pretty silly.

Another one that comes to mind is Babylon. It was an important regional city-state, but in terms of empires many of the other powers that controlled Mesopotamia. But because of their significant role in the Old Testament they are more well known than more influential powers like the Sumerians or Assyrians.

overrated? maybe. influential though? hell yeah.

in civ terms this would be the culture that would flip cities in a heartbeat. about a thousand years after your civilization has vanished you still manage to have a huge impact on basically all of Europe to adhere to your (perceived) ideals (although you somehow have to share it with the greek, which makes sense)?

I don't think you can call that overrated anymore. so much of what Europe -and by extension the Americas- makes Europe what it is is based on Roman/greek influence. Maybe excessive would be the right and politically correct word. The classic world had an excessive influence on Europe during it's formation period. Dunno, sounds better to me. By terming it overrated you somehow question your entire heritage if you are European, North American or Latin American. Seems like a paradox to me. If you were not part of that heritage you would not be able to state such a claim. Anybody outside of Roman influence can fire away as they please, however.

Case in point....Rome is overrated.

You know, if everyone agrees that something is overrated, it isn't.

I'd say that Portugal is generally underrated. Their influence is smaller than that os Spain, but "not even close" seems like a strech to me. Half of South America speaks Portuguese. In Africa, the Portuguese were more influent than the Spanish, and in Asia it is hard to tell. I'd also rank Portugal above the Netherlands as far as long term influence goes.
I think that would be a matter of perception of certain things as specifically Portugese or specifically Dutch.

The Portugese spread their language, and will be associated with that achievement very visibly, or audibly, if one prefers.:)

The Dutch didn't. They spread things like banking, modern credit, engineering, military innovations and scientific machinery and discoveries. None of which are percieved as very specifically Dutch in reprospect. You tend to need a rather specialised knowledge often to even notice the hand of the Dutch in that part of history, but they were hugely influential.

Don't forget the importance of these nations to the spread of religion. In Asia, the areas where Catholicism is important today are basically those areas where Portuguese influence was strongest in the past. The Portuguese weren't necessarily the ones spreading the word - the missionaries were often Jesuits of various nationalities, especially Italian - but they operated most successfully where the colonial powers were Catholic, and in Asia that meant the Portuguese. Similarly, Protestantism tended to flourish where the Dutch - and, later, the British - were. However, the Catholics were generally far more enthusiastic about mission than the Protestants during that period (Protestants didn't get begin to get keen about overseas mission until the late eighteenth century), so the lasting influence of the Catholic Portuguese is generally greater than that of the Reformed Dutch. This is why there aren't a whole lot of Reformed Asians, but there are an awful lot of Catholic ones.

Don't forget the importance of these nations to the spread of religion. In Asia, the areas where Catholicism is important today are basically those areas where Portuguese influence was strongest in the past. The Portuguese weren't necessarily the ones spreading the word - the missionaries were often Jesuits of various nationalities, especially Italian - but they operated most successfully where the colonial powers were Catholic, and in Asia that meant the Portuguese. Similarly, Protestantism tended to flourish where the Dutch - and, later, the British - were. However, the Catholics were generally far more enthusiastic about mission than the Protestants during that period (Protestants didn't get begin to get keen about overseas mission until the late eighteenth century), so the lasting influence of the Catholic Portuguese is generally greater than that of the Reformed Dutch. This is why there aren't a whole lot of Reformed Asians, but there are an awful lot of Catholic ones.
There is a well established disparity in "conversion success rate" between Catholicism and Protestantism. As it's usually explained by anthropologists, the Protestant powers, the Dutch in particular, were less interested in conversion than trade and/or settling, while the Catholics tended to adopt more of a perspective of eternity.

Catholic missions had the luxury of going for a slow but steady process of conversion where the Protestants were often required to show results fast, in particular those sent out by the privat missionary societies of the 19th c. In this case the demands of efficiency in souls converted in order to recieve further funding seems to have worked against them.

Otoh from what I understand "reformed" forms of Christianity is making inroads among the poorer people in places like Central America and Brazil these days.:)

That's not Reformed with a capital R, though, like Dutch Christianity - it's more likely to be some kind of Pentecostalism, which is very different indeed.

It's certainly true that, throughout colonial times, the Catholics usually had far superior approaches to mission than most Protestants, even in the nineteenth century when Protestant mission really got going. The reasons behind this are manifold and complex, as usual.

I suppose the fact that the Roman Catholic Church can outfund and outman the pants off of any individual missionary society helps things.

There's something about Brazil that I've never understood. How a small country such as Portugal, with only 10 million people today, could give birth to a giant nation such as Brazil, with 180 million people??

I guess this is especially impressive to me considering I come from a country that never really succeeded to people any of its colony. It's also true that France has never known a real demographic booming. As a matter of fact the largest demographic "booming" in the whole French History is actually happening currently (since the 50's). As a result, I guess there were lesser motives to emigrate from France than from other European countries. The only colony that France has peopled was Algeria, which ironically turned out by all of them getting expelled to France in the early 60's. But anyway, it still surprizes me that Brazil is 18 times more populated than Portugal. That seems so huge.

There's something about Brazil that I've never understood. How a small country such as Portugal, with only 10 million people today, could give birth to a giant nation such as Brazil, with 180 million people??

I guess this is especially impressive to me considering I come from a country that never really succeeded to people any of its colony. It's also true that France has never known a real demographic booming. As a matter of fact the largest demographic "booming" in the whole French History is actually happening currently (since the 50's). As a result, I guess there were lesser motives to emigrate from France than from other European countries. The only colony that France has peopled was Algeria, which ironically turned out by all of them getting expelled to France in the early 60's. But anyway, it still surprizes me that Brazil is 18 times more populated than Portugal. That seems so huge.

Portugal's administration of it's South American colony was indeed extremely succesful, in many ways.

It's noteworthy that per the Tordesillas Treaty, Brazil would occupy less than half of the territory it does today. The portuguese managed to peacefully and succesfully negotiate with the more powerful Spain. Also the portuguese managed to install a far more centralised and stable colonial administration than the spaniards, which explains why the portuguese colonies sticked together while the spanish ones fragmented (truth, it was an impossibility for say Mexico and Chile to be part of the same country, but what can explain the fragmented mess that is Central America?).

As for populational growth, we have to take into account that besides the portuguese, Brazil received millions of immigrants from elsewhere in Europe as well as millions of slaves (no country received as many slaves as Brazil). But most of our enormous populational growth is internal, and happened in the 20th Century. Brazilian families of the first half of the 20th Century were just enormous. My paternal grandfather had more than 20 brothers and sisters (his father married 3 times). This was not unusual at all. In contrast, my maternal grandfather, who is european, "only" has 7 brother and sisters.

wasn't the treaty of Tordesillas the one that granted Portugal (issued by a Spanish pope, hoping there would a lot more terra incognita beyond that line which would then fall to Spain) every latin American land extending up unto 300-odd miles from... can't even remember... to Portugal? was that the one?

yeah but they got us the aqueducts and peace and citizenship....
Ducts where not a roman invention, Rome was almost constantly at war (I think the doors were closed only two ro three times), and people were citizens before Romans.

You missed the joke . . .

There's something about Brazil that I've never understood. How a small country such as Portugal, with only 10 million people today, could give birth to a giant nation such as Brazil, with 180 million people??

I guess this is especially impressive to me considering I come from a country that never really succeeded to people any of its colony. It's also true that France has never known a real demographic booming. As a matter of fact the largest demographic "booming" in the whole French History is actually happening currently (since the 50's). As a result, I guess there were lesser motives to emigrate from France than from other European countries. The only colony that France has peopled was Algeria, which ironically turned out by all of them getting expelled to France in the early 60's. But anyway, it still surprises me that Brazil is 18 times more populated than Portugal. That seems so huge.

What about Quebec?

Which Civilization do you guys think was the most overrated in Influence?

I get tired of hearing about China throughout history.

You missed the joke . . .

There's never anything funny about woodenly trotting out Python references...

the same overlying principles, to my understanding, used in modern gunpowder and ancient gunpowder are still similar and related. also, i'm not sure if rifles were first made in China, but i know rockets, even extremely primitive and extremely not-as-awesome prototype two-stage rockets were made in China (not enough to blast to space, but eough to deal some serious damage)

i dont mean composition. i mean the general concept of how it works - something pops out and hits somebody.

the first known firearms were made by the Song Dynasty, 1200s, bamboo muskets. but it is quite posisble they were made as early as two centuries past, maybe even eariler. chinese rockets were also used at the same time.

I get tired of hearing about China throughout history.

The point is that rockets were used in China, but rockets were absolutely useless for everything except being noisy and scaring mindless chickens until very recently.
The Chinese may have invented gunpowder, but it took people from further west to invent means to use the explosions in efficient death-dealing devices. Initially there were cannon, which Europeans refined to become useful; we had given up on giant artillery when the East was still building bigger and better ones.
The first battles with gunpowder were fought in China in 1132, and in Europe in 1248.
The idea (without gunpowder) was first thought up by, surprisingly enough, a Greek.

All facts from Wikipaedia.

There's never anything funny about woodenly trotting out Python references...

I didn't say the joke was funny, just that it was there.

wasn't the treaty of Tordesillas the one that granted Portugal (issued by a Spanish pope, hoping there would a lot more terra incognita beyond that line which would then fall to Spain) every latin American land extending up unto 300-odd miles from... can't even remember... to Portugal? was that the one?

You are thinking of the right one, but I don't know if you have the numbers right. Portugal only got a small fraction of the Americas; at the time of of the Treaty nobody knew that there would be so much land to the West, and so it seemed a fair deal.

Portugal was very skilful in disrespecting the deal in a peaceful manner and then oficializing it's additions.

I was going to say the USA, but that's not quite true- while American civilisation (or whatever you want to call it) has not had the depth of influence that, say, Greece or Babylon have had, it's had a far wider influence than any other in history.
Basically, in terms of depth of influence, America is fairly overrated (although not necessarily "most over-rated"). In terms of width, it is, if anything, under-rate.

Probably Egypt, in my view.
First civ I thought of when I read the thread's title. I repeated this at CFC over and over, but to me Ancient Egypt had little influence, in comparison to how it is known (and loved). A few years ago, I couldn't agree with a friend about this...

If not for the Romans, Greek culture would have been a curiosity in one corner of the Mediterranean. Sometimes spreading something is just as influential as creating it.
First sentence : not quite ! Second sentence : good thought !

There is also the fact that we cannot give all the credit for an invention to a civilization that was the first to do it. For example, the Sumerians were the first to have an alphabet, but "the concept of alphabet" was "discovered" in many parts of the world independently, and we don't have to thank the Sumerians for the myriad of alphabets existing in India. It is of course important who the first one was, but it's also important how extensively it was used, promoted, in what way it was used there, and from the worldwide use of the invention, how much it happened in the country that had the honor of being the motherland of its inventor(s).
Very good post, except for the alphabet : this was not invented by the Sumerians for the first time, but by the Phoenicians. This alphabet probably has unknown roots somewhere, but definitely not as old as the golden age in Sumer (3000BC to 2000BC). You're confusing the alphabet with writing. In other words, you played too much Civ1or2or3 recently.

In other words, influence is about impossible to quantify.
Oh yes it can be. It is just not as simple as counting inventions...

Very good post, except for the alphabet : this was not invented by the Sumerians for the first time, but by the Phoenicians. This alphabet probably has unknown roots somewhere, but definitely not as old as the golden age in Sumer (3000BC to 2000BC). You're confusing the alphabet with writing. In other words, you played too much Civ1or2or3 recently.

You are right. In my defense though, Romanian doesn't difference between the two, so I think that's why I didn't realize my wrong wording in English. Here, any drawing that has a meaning is either "alphabet" or "drawing that has some message to say". :) "Writing" is only the action of creating the said drawing.

The point is that rockets were used in China, but rockets were absolutely useless for everything except being noisy and scaring mindless chickens until very recently.
The Chinese may have invented gunpowder, but it took people from further west to invent means to use the explosions in efficient death-dealing devices. Initially there were cannon, which Europeans refined to become useful; we had given up on giant artillery when the East was still building bigger and better ones.
The first battles with gunpowder were fought in China in 1132, and in Europe in 1248.
The idea (without gunpowder) was first thought up by, surprisingly enough, a Greek.

All facts from Wikipaedia.


Actually, the Chinese built sophisticated rockets for use in warfare, as early as the 12th century, as did the Mongols and Indians (and of course the Koreans who developed the famous Hwacha). The Chinese also used handcannons and cannons around the same time and the technology soon spread to other parts of Asia (the Arabs used it at Ain Jalut, and the defenders of Malacca used cannons against the Portuguese for instances).

Article on rocketry: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186694

And even so, China has had major economic influence for practically the entire history of the world starting with the Classical Age. In other words, some things have been "Made in China" for a while.

The two main trading routes from China to the rest of the world were the Silk Road and the Indian Maritime Route. China produced a lot of pretty silk. People elsewhere liked the pretty silk. Like the Romans. Or the Arabs. Or even the Vikings. Or even the Zulus' ancestors.

Nevertheless, these routes created one of the worlds' first real international trading systems. Their importance lies in:

1. Creating cultural and political exchanges between various nations and cultures, and encouraging economic growth.

2. There are barbarian nomads. Some were greedy and liked gold. But then, there was Genghis Khan, who respected merchants and encouraged trade in his empire, which helped to make my fourth point below even go quicklier.

3. Spreading Chinese technolgies such as gunpowder and the printing press to the Middle East and then Europe.

4. Pretty much the subtle reason why Europe wanted to, and thus became, powerful. The Europeans really liked the goods that could only generally be obtained from the Silk Road and the Indian maritime trade routes. But, with the coming of the Ottomans taking down Constantinopole, this waswn't going to be as easy. So, what else did they have to do? Their only choice was thus to explore the world, and we know what happened because of that.


And now, these days, who doesn't know of the productive capabilities of China to produce tons of things from books to purses to toothpicks to poisonous food and toys?

France, at least relative to how they rate themselves (not to mention in the minds of many others, who just go along with the idea). In all seriousness. I'm not saying France wasn't influential, but to -supposedly- compare alongside nations like the UK... I don't think so. The UK actually deserves it's high rating. France is a bit of a tag-along poseur in that regard.

I hate to say it, but that's the way I see it.

Anyway I certainly agree about Egypt, now that I think about it. Their influence never really projected that far/strongly. As for Rome, I'd say their rating is justified. I would say the Ottomans are over-rated, but in reality I guess they're not that highly rated in the minds of most people, so I'll refrain.

Also, anybody that says the USA is over-rated, needs to consider it's CAPABILITY. Russia for example throughout most of (namely quasi-recent) it's history has this massive influential reputation, but in reality how much could they truly project that? They can bully/annex the people right next to their heartlands, and then rattle some chains & bang their shoe at the podium in the U.N. But, if anybody can actually show up within 72 hours and actually WIPE your country OUT, it's the United States. Moreso than any other, at least. So, that's pretty influential, when you think about it.

I am going to go with my own. Goethe, Bach, Friedrich II, Grass, etc... our culture was never that great. it was just our incomprehensible language that lead people to believe it was really deep. Really, if you can string a sentence on for over 2 pages it has to be deep..... well, it isn't really... it's a regular German sentence. we talk like that!

I would call Germany (and all it's former political incarnations/names - but anyway that area, those people) the 'dark horse'. The potential power/strength is plainly there, but for one reason or another every time they get a good thing going, they get aggressive and it all falls apart prematurely due to their location & circumstances. But if things had gone differently they could certainly have been as influential as their 'rating' indicates. Probably more so.

It was primarily the UK's jump on you... in terms of naval power and world empire, that stopped Germany from becoming the most influential nation in the world. They had the jump on you, and then suffocated your attempts to bridge the gap, as you were a late-comer in that game. Then you tried to suffocate them in kind via U-boats. But... too little, too late. Though, you've heard that before, I'm sure.

France, at least relative to how they rate themselves (not to mention in the minds of many others, who just go along with the idea). In all seriousness. I'm not saying France wasn't influential, but to -supposedly- compare alongside nations like the UK... I don't think so. The UK actually deserves it's high rating. France is a bit of a tag-along poseur in that regard.
And to think that France brought the Lumières to the world... which definitely inspired the American Revolution ! :crazyeye: And then I don't mention things brought by our own Revolution, or by Napoleon. We could also talk about many sport events (modern Olympic Games come to mind first)... Oh yes, the French like to brag about their (now) virtual influence, but the thing is France had a strong influence on a large part of the world. Not the most overrated nation to me.

I am going to go with my own. Goethe, Bach, Friedrich II, Grass, etc... our culture was never that great. it was just our incomprehensible language that lead people to believe it was really deep. Really, if you can string a sentence on for over 2 pages it has to be deep..... well, it isn't really... it's a regular German sentence. we talk like that!

Please don't go into German music... Bach is my favorite composer, Beethoven is my second favorite (though together with some others), and I think Wagner and Brahms are fantastic. And there are so many more. In classical music, Germany pwned absolutely everyone in the world except Italy.

Also, from the mid-eighteenth century onwards, Germany (and German-speakers) has been absolutely dominant in both philosophy and theology. In most areas of these fields, as well as various others, the German language is second only to English in importance. I mean that if you want to read modern scholarly articles or books in the humanities, then German is the most useful language to know after English. Which is striking given that until Wolff there was virtually no scholarly writing in German at all - its image was transformed within a generation from that of a slightly embarrassing uncouth tongue to the vehicle of the most important thinking being done in Europe.

Also, from the mid-eighteenth century onwards, Germany (and German-speakers) has been absolutely dominant in both philosophy and theology. In most areas of these fields, as well as various others, the German language is second only to English in importance. I mean that if you want to read modern scholarly articles or books in the humanities, then German is the most useful language to know after English. Which is striking given that until Wolff there was virtually no scholarly writing in German at all - its image was transformed within a generation from that of a slightly embarrassing uncouth tongue to the vehicle of the most important thinking being done in Europe.

Until WWII... This is so true and yet so sad. :(

If it weren't for the events of WWII, the German language would be rivaling English as a language of science, humanities and scholarly discourse. It would truly be a language without borders like English. But as it is ...

hmmm actually I agree that German as a language seems to be ideally suited for scientific/scholarly discourses or works. Only redeeming aspect of the language I can come up with.

In support of German importance: Bach. Every classical composer during his lifetime and after his lifetime studied his work, and learned from his work. EVERY. ALMOST NO EXCEPTIONS. Hadyn, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Brahms, whatever - they all had to learn from Bach.

But of course hes just one guy that could've died as a baby or in an accident, so...

And to think that France brought the Lumières to the world... which definitely inspired the American Revolution ! :crazyeye:

I'm so picturing George W. right before the Delaware, keeping his troops happy with a timely use of L'arroseur arrosé (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6nJfXAuHQ)! :lol:

In support of German importance: Bach. Every classical composer during his lifetime and after his lifetime studied his work, and learned from his work. EVERY. ALMOST NO EXCEPTIONS. Hadyn, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Brahms, whatever - they all had to learn from Bach.

But of course hes just one guy that could've died as a baby or in an accident, so...

I agree 100%. :D And not only him. Look at the bolded people in your list. What nationality are they? ;)

^Mozart was an Austrian, not a German. :p (that means hes still Germanic)

^Mozart was an Austrian, not a German. :p (that means hes still Germanic)
Plus, during Mozart's time Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations, that period's equivalent of Germany. Modern Germany- Kleindeutschland (Lesser Germany)- is comprised of the areas of Germany which came under Prussian influence, while Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) also includes Austria.

^Mozart was an Austrian, not a German. :p (that means hes still Germanic)

Austria speaks German, not any other Germanic language, and at the time it was part of the HRE of German Nation. Sorry but I see absolutely no difference between Austria (at that time; tbh I didn't see any significant difference today either but I don't want to offend any nationalist :crazyeye:) and Germany.

Plus as Traitorfish said the Great Germany comprises Austria.

Plus, the OP said civilization, not nation.

I know, i know. The Germanics were very important, to Western Civilization at the least. They finished up Rome, helped in the crafting of the future world power England, and gave us Bach.

I know, i know. The Germanics were very important, to Western Civilization at the least. They finished up Rome, helped in the crafting of the future world power England, and gave us Bach.

What we were trying to say is that Austrians qualify as Germans, not just Germanics, at least for the period when Bach lived. :)

well... funny thing about Austrians. they will claim every positive piece of the German heritage but will insist that for example the Anschluss was just a propaganda hoax....

my experience... commence the flames

well... funny thing about Austrians. they will claim every positive piece of the German heritage but will insist that for example the Anschluss was just a propaganda hoax....

my experience... commence the flames
Eh, you get the same with some Scots. Happy to take credit for their part in the positive aspects of the Empire, but as soon as slavery, oppression and general arseholery are mentioned "Aw, no, mate, that was the English. We had nothing to do with it." (Well, it's actually more like "Wi heed nooth'n ta dee wiyit", but y'know what I mean...)

And somehow the Austrians get away with making Mozart an Austrian and Hitler a German.

And somehow the Austrians get away with making Mozart an Austrian and Hitler a German.

Actually they have a good argument because Mozart was born, worked and died in Austria. Whereas Hitler was only born in Austria. He rose to power in Germany, led Germany and died in Germany. It's not about the country you're born in but that one that you adopt.

Actually, the Chinese built sophisticated rockets for use in warfare, as early as the 12th century, as did the Mongols and Indians (and of course the Koreans who developed the famous Hwacha). The Chinese also used handcannons and cannons around the same time and the technology soon spread to other parts of Asia (the Arabs used it at Ain Jalut, and the defenders of Malacca used cannons against the Portuguese for instances).
So it appears from Rambuchan's article that even when the Indians had refined rockets they were still mostly for noise and show and were inaccurate. I hardly call that sophisticated.
Gunpowder rockets were mostly a military dead-end, with projectile weapons such as cannons and muskets proving far more useful.
And even so, China has had major economic influence for practically the entire history of the world starting with the Classical Age. In other words, some things have been "Made in China" for a while.

The two main trading routes from China to the rest of the world were the Silk Road and the Indian Maritime Route. China produced a lot of pretty silk. People elsewhere liked the pretty silk. Like the Romans. Or the Arabs. Or even the Vikings. Or even the Zulus' ancestors.

1. Creating cultural and political exchanges between various nations and cultures, and encouraging economic growth.

3. Spreading Chinese technolgies such as gunpowder and the printing press to the Middle East and then Europe.

The silks and spices from China were desired, but were hardly vital, and they didn't spread Chinese culture much given how much trade happened along the routes.
It's like claiming that South Africa is infulential because of its diamond mines. Well, yes, people like diamonds, but they're not important.
We've already had someone comment (maybe not in this thread) on how the printing press did not spread from China, but was invented in Europe. If the Chinese did have it, it was invented separately, apparently.

As Rambuchan suggests in his post on rockets, some inventions (like rocketry or gunpowder weapons) are difficult to attribute to one person or even one nation, but developed bit by bit in different places. Was gunpowder really the important invention, or was it using it in muskets? Was the invention of the flintlock more important than either, or would rifling count as the major advance?
Are muskets not really important, since longbows and crossbows were fairly good, and we should actually be thinking about cannon, which changed fortification and strategy, if not tactics as much?

Steam power was (re-)invented in Britain, along with railways, and was actually used to good effect in mills and railways. Such inventions can truly be cited as a source of influence for Britain because not only were they made here, but their influential use was mostly perfected here.

The silks and spices from China were desired, but were hardly vital, and they didn't spread Chinese culture much given how much trade happened along the routes.
It's like claiming that South Africa is infulential because of its diamond mines. Well, yes, people like diamonds, but they're not important.
We've already had someone comment (maybe not in this thread) on how the printing press did not spread from China, but was invented in Europe. If the Chinese did have it, it was invented separately, apparently.

As Rambuchan suggests in his post on rockets, some inventions (like rocketry or gunpowder weapons) are difficult to attribute to one person or even one nation, but developed bit by bit in different places. Was gunpowder really the important invention, or was it using it in muskets? Was the invention of the flintlock more important than either, or would rifling count as the major advance?
Are muskets not really important, since longbows and crossbows were fairly good, and we should actually be thinking about cannon, which changed fortification and strategy, if not tactics as much?

Steam power was (re-)invented in Britain, along with railways, and was actually used to good effect in mills and railways. Such inventions can truly be cited as a source of influence for Britain because not only were they made here, but their influential use was mostly perfected here.


I'm not saying that because of the trading that made China the world's ultimate cultural power. Im just saying because of it, it has had an economic impact on the world.

The Europeans would've never bothered to explore the world, at least that early and as we know it, if they didn't want Chinese stuff. The Romans wouldn't have gotten into debt (which helped to lead to their collapse) if they didn't buy that much silk (along with other goods). Sure, it is true Europeans aren't using Chinese technical terms, but the Silk Road has had a subliminal influence.

The Silk Road was a major route, a place where different cultures met and exchanged many many things. Althuogh Alexander the Great and his conquests played an important role in the making of the Silk Road, it was really China that was the key factor.

I'm not saying that because of the trading that made China the world's ultimate cultural power. Im just saying because of it, it has had an economic impact on the world.

The Europeans would've never bothered to explore the world, at least that early and as we know it, if they didn't want Chinese stuff. The Romans wouldn't have gotten into debt (which helped to lead to their collapse) if they didn't buy that much silk (along with other goods). Sure, it is true Europeans aren't using Chinese technical terms, but the Silk Road has had a subliminal influence.

The Silk Road was a major route, a place where different cultures met and exchanged many many things. Althuogh Alexander the Great and his conquests played an important role in the making of the Silk Road, it was really China that was the key factor.

I think your mistake here is that you're assuming all the desired good came from China. The europeans wanted chinese silk, yes, but they also wanted the spices from India, tapestry from Persia, all sorts of goods from Africa, etc. Chinese goods were hardly the ultimate motivation for european maritime expansion, or for roman debt, even if it surely played it's part.

^ In fact, I'd say India has a much, much higher influence than China when it comes to exporting goods to Europe. :) After all, even Columbus was searching for India, not for China. And that's just one sole example.

So it appears from Rambuchan's article that even when the Indians had refined rockets they were still mostly for noise and show and were inaccurate. I hardly call that sophisticated.
Gunpowder rockets were mostly a military dead-end, with projectile weapons such as cannons and muskets proving far more useful.


Actually no, because gunpowder rockets are, in some ways, the basis for later solid and liquid fuel rockets that got us to the moon and back.

Indian and Chinese were inaccurate, so? They are pretty deadly. Early cannons are inaccurate, as are muskets. And they're fired in groups, not individually.

IMHO Ancient Greek civilisation is over rated.

People claim that the Greeks invented:

democracy, logic, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, rheteroic, science

But most of the mathematics, medicine and science was picked up from their neighbours.

The democracy degenerated into mobocracy, and the philosophy and rheteroic went off into dead ends of symbolism and abstraction.

Whether those things "degenerated" like that or not, that doesn't change the fact that the Greeks invented them...

The Europeans would've never bothered to explore the world, at least that early and as we know it, if they didn't want Chinese stuff.

The Silk Road was a major route, a place where different cultures met and exchanged many many things. Althuogh Alexander the Great and his conquests played an important role in the making of the Silk Road, it was really China that was the key factor.

Surely we can hardly give China more influence via the silk road than the Europeans who created the demand? We should share the influence. Trade can't happen without a buyer just as much as it can't happen without goods to sell.

Whether those things "degenerated" like that or not, that doesn't change the fact that the Greeks invented them...

There's evidence of democratic systems of government not unlike one of the Greeks in ancient Sumer, and many early prehistoric tribes appear to be democratic and egalitarian in nature.

Athenian democracy wasn't genuine democracy (many people are excluded from voting, including all women) and it degenerated and collapsed. Greece only became a democracy again in 1975 IIRC.

Anyway, although most of Greece's mathematics, science and medicine were indeed picked up from their neighbours, the Greeks did expanded on them a lot, in the same way the Arabs later picked up Greek science and expanded on them. While I think Greece tends to be overrated in Western minds it's still a very influential civilisation, as much as say, Egypt or even China.

While I think Greece tends to be overrated in Western minds it's still a very influential civilisation, as much as say, Egypt or even China.

I found this funny because Egypt and China are the two civilisations that I find most over-rated, and I'd place their influence on my country and culture as insignificant when compared to that of Greece.
Their influence on the world also hardly compares.
Someone graciously granting Greece perhaps as much possible influence as them is amusing. It's a bit like someone saying that a Jaguar is actually quite a nice car: it's maybe even as nice as a Skoda or a Daewoo.

I think any historian who answers this question and truly believes in what he's saying should look in the mirror and apologize to him/herself and history as a science.

If we overrate something, it's simply because we lack knowledge of other influences! So overrating something merely is a lack of knowledge ;)

Well, the Byzantines had a different language, religion, fine arts style (painting, sculpture), music, architecture, cultural centers, philosophy and weaponry to the Romans. Suuuure.... just a continuation of the Romans. :crazyeye: And Plotinus said Egypt...

Don't forget that they also recaptured the old Roman Empire while under the rule of Justinian (I believe).

I would say France. Though I'm sure this will generate some hostility against me.

Don't forget that they also recaptured the old Roman Empire while under the rule of Justinian (I believe).

Only a small part of the Old Empire though, and it only lasted a few years. :( While I do believe they deserve huge credit for this, we can't simply equal them to the original starters of those territories they managed to reconquer in the times when most of Europe was in anarchy.

I would say France. Though I'm sure this will generate some hostility against me.
No! Why would it?

:trouble:

But you could explain why you thing so. Just choose your words carefully

:trouble:

France has been less influential than Spain, and Spain has been less influential than Britain. Yet, somehow France is supposedly right up there w/ Britain. Hence... overrated.

France beats out the Netherlands, though. :pat:

Most overrated? I don't know but if I could name an underrated Civ, I'd say Assyria. I mean, they were excluded from Civ!

France has been less influential than Spain, and Spain has been less influential than Britain. Yet, somehow France is supposedly right up there w/ Britain. Hence... overrated.

It's an explanation that explains nothing. Without any real argument, it is as valid as me saying the USA have less influence than Canada, which have less influence that Andorra.

France has been less influential than Spain, and Spain has been less influential than Britain. Yet, somehow France is supposedly right up there w/ Britain. Hence... overrated.

France beats out the Netherlands, though. :pat:
Which brings it round to how this supposedly works.

Covering vast swathes of the New World with nations of the same language after a couple of centuries of convergent history? Spain over France.

Being the catalyst for the political and social structure of European societies were reformed in the 19th c.? France over Spain.
Even for the people living through the events beginning with the French Revolution there was a distinct sense of how the world worked "before" and "after". And this was France in a relative slump as to international influence, after being the European hegemonic power since the 17th c.

Modern science, over the last two centuries? France slaps Spain silly.

The things about French influence is that it has for two centuries been couched as "universal". The Germans competing with France around 1900 were going potty over this situation. Everything the French did, was cast as "universally beneficial", "for the good of man", while anything the Germans did was cast as somehow "typically Germanic/German".

It was the flip side of cultivating a highly particular sense of nationhood, something that makes you distinct. Germany did it. So did, and does Russia. France and the US are going for "universal" and "modern". Less specific, easier to apply as influence, as it advertises itself less.

To put it rather simplistically: Spain was a major cultural player in the sixteenth century, giving us Suarez, Cervantes, Molina, Banez, and a host of others. Since then, it's been culturally practically inert (how many Spanish thinkers or writers of global stature can you name from after the sixteenth century?). France, by contrast, came to cultural prominence in the seventeenth century and has pretty much remained there ever since - from Descartes to Derrida, Molière to Camus, and all in between. To say that France has been less influential than Spain without even addressing this fact is ridiculous.

Or there have been 23 Nobel Prizes awarded to Spanish speaking countries (9 from Spain itself).
54 for France (and 114 for UK :( , and 305 for the US :( :().

Or there have been 23 Nobel Prizes awarded to Spanish speaking countries (9 from Spain itself).
54 for France (and 114 for UK :( , and 305 for the US :( :().

So UK and US slaps France silly in influence? However I think US is overated. Alive for only a bare 200 years, the first 100 a regional power picking on the Mexicans and NIndians and the next 100 being a plain Isolanist. Basically another imperialistic nation whose impact is minimal until the good period between the Spanish-American War and the Great Depression. After that it goes downhill from there. Then so called culture that America produces, a bunch of movies and songs is simply a lot of fuzz over things that only supply our material needs and desires for about 38 mins. Its millitary gets bogged down and taken a bashing in Vietnam and agaisnt the Chinese in Korea. The fact such a rich country did squat to life millions of others out of poverty. And then a sharp fall starts when the millenium begins Its economic influence is a small pingpong ball being pushed about by China and the EU. Its civil department on the brink of destruction. Education is ignored. America's pretisge is also going down with the war and the blackwater company and its president.... And yet I still hear some people say its the most powerful, best, greatest, most influential country on the planet. Some say because of their movies and American Idol. Overated.

So UK and US slaps France silly in influence?
The real question would be how many US Nobel prize are recent immigrants ;)?
But, UK and US slaps France silly in terms of Nobel Prize.
Germany also has almost twice more Nobel Prize than France.
However, France is 4th, not to bad.

There is one thing where they COMPLETLY crush the UK/US influence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Metric_system.png

And this one where we had also more influence.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png

I actually think France is underrated. I never hear anyone prasing the French for the (magnificient and easy to learn) metric system. And their 246 kinds of cheeses

And their 246 kinds of cheeses
That's because we have between 350 and 400.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_cheeses

Ahhh... French Cheese....I would try them all if I wasnt so disgusted by their foul smell....Oh well back to Durian

Ottoman empire

Some say because of their movies and American Idol. Overated.

Actually, American Idol is British. The original was called Pop Idol; for some reason they customised the title in each country where it was franchised out.

People who denigrate American culture always seem to overlook music. The US gave us jazz, blues, and rock and roll, which is pretty impressive.

To put it rather simplistically: Spain was a major cultural player in the sixteenth century, giving us Suarez, Cervantes, Molina, Banez, and a host of others. Since then, it's been culturally practically inert (how many Spanish thinkers or writers of global stature can you name fromafter the sixteenth century?). France, by contrast, came to cultural prominence in the seventeenth century and has pretty much remained there ever since - from Descartes to Derrida, Molière to Camus, and all in between. To say that France has been less influential than Spain without even addressing this fact is ridiculous.
...Precisely it was the 17th century (AKA the gold century) when Spain reached his peak culturally speaking with writers as Francisco de Quevedo, Calderon de la Barca, Luis de Gongora to name some or artists as Diego Velazqez. The Quijote was edited and in the 17th century. But after that there have been loads of prominent figures (not counting the hispanic ones of course) as Pablo Ruiz Picasso, Ramón y Cajal, Severo Ochoa, Federico García Lorca, Salvador Dalí, Antoni Gaudí, Francisco de Goya, Antonio Machado, Gregorio Marañón, Ortega y Gasset, Camilo José Cela, Juán Ramón Jiménez, Manuel de Falla, Luis Buñuel...

I think the main problem when judging American influence on the world is trying to figure out where British influence ends and American influence begins. We can all agree that certain cultural and political achievements are uniquely American, but there is a lot of grey area with regards to many things especially the further back in history you go.

France though was the dominate continental power in Europe for 300 years and a significant world power on top of that. If you consider as many do that Franks = French, then they are even more influential as a people. Personally, I'd have them as the third most influential Western power after Britain & Rome.

Another problem with American influence is that a lot of it is modern. Many of it after WWII, but almost all of it within the last century.

But there is one thing that American cannot be underrated for - Democracy. Its victory against the British set a chain of events even American-haters know determined the course of modern history well.

Why do people have such a hard time accepting America as the power of today.

America. DUH! :lol:

Why do people have such a hard time accepting America as the power of today.

Same reason France can't accept the fact that she's slipped into an oblivion that is the dustbin of history.

Same reason France can't accept the fact that she's slipped into an oblivion that is the dustbin of history.
Which is complete bull****, but go on... :rolleyes:

America is the primary world power, no question. But that does not relegate every other nation- let alone economic giants like the leading EU states- to the status of "puny foreign vassal". Do you realise the influence that France has in Europe and Africa? Do you realise how many countries France can get to follow it's lead in the UN? Do you actually understand what you're talking about?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say "no".

Maybe he was being facetious . . .

America has influenced the world in the last half century, no doubt. But thats just 50 years. The entire world history is about 5000 years at the least, and Modern History itself is generally considered to be the last 500 years.

We must give America more time before we can completely, and in an unbiased way, evaluate its influence.

^Not really necessary. It's plainly obvious when you watch Star Trek that the whole 'Federation' thing is really just a futuristic extension of one United States of America. They even talk just like Americans, so the influence is overwhlemingly apparent. Kirk, the ace of the fleet, is from where? Iowa. Not Paris. And another thing that should be plainly obvious by now, is that reality more or less follows the path of sci-fi, as we move into the future. So, that is what we have to look forward to. Exciting, and definitely predominantly USA-infuenced. Not France, who colonized a bunch of wasteland (the leftovers Britain didn't want, or didn't intimidate France into not taking) and made absolutely nothing out of them.

Then again at the grocery store the other day, the checker was this black chick from the Caribbean, and her 1st language was French (I asked). So, there's the influence, for ya. Of course, I work with a black chick who's from Jamaica, and English is her 1st language (though certainly not a dailect I can easily understand), and she has a MUCH better job. Yet another case of British influence being more successful.

USA is only influential in the past 50 years? Yeah, that's it. Basically the U.S. has been a vacuum cleaner sucking immigrants out of the whole world (namely Europe) for much longer than that. So how about that for influence? Where would those European nations be today had they never lost all those people to emigration? So, that's influence, right from the beginning. The USA is like that 'sleeper' dragster you never payed attention to, until it was in the lead. Now you're ticked off because you didn't see it coming. Hey man, the influence was there whether you knew it or not - that's why it effectively has you in the position of being SPANKED at this time.

That's what I'm talkin about... *high-fives*

that's why it effectively has you in the position of being SPANKED at this time.

Vietnam never gets spanked, i assure you that. :)


Anyhow, I am not denying that the US has had influence in the past 50 years. But it is ONLY the past 50 years.

Rome, for example, has influence for, say, 2000 years. Take something like Rome, or maybe the Muslim World, or Britain out of the picture, and you get a world much more different than if you take America out of the picture.

^Not really necessary. It's plainly obvious when you watch Star Trek that the whole 'Federation' thing is really just a futuristic extension of one United States of America. They even talk just like Americans, so the influence is overwhlemingly apparent. Kirk, the ace of the fleet, is from where? Iowa. Not Paris. And another thing that should be plainly obvious by now, is that reality more or less follows the path of sci-fi, as we move into the future.
Agreed, Kirk or Riker, the "action men" are American. Picard, the wise captain who organize and use his brain is French.
By the way, did you notice that your extension of the United States of America is a society with no capitalism at all?


Then again at the grocery store the other day, the checker was this black chick from the Caribbean, and her 1st language was French (I asked). So, there's the influence, for ya. Of course, I work with a black chick who's from Jamaica, and English is her 1st language (though certainly not a dailect I can easily understand), and she has a MUCH better job. Yet another case of British influence being more successful.
OMG! you have one instance of black (what does it have to be a factor by the way?) girl who is speaking English and has a better job that one other instance of a black girl who is speaking French! That's a definite proof the English influence is more successful. :rolleyes:

Ottoman empire

Surely being shown on all maps in Wiki and in some others in other encyclopedias as covering almost 130% of the territory it ever conquered makes it underrated, no? :p

*Sillyness, including but not limited to taking 60s sci-fi as the Word of God, pointless anecdotes that don't prove anything and demonstrating a complete inability to comprehend the economic and political background of European immigration to the USA.*
So you don't have any idea what you're talking about? Good to know. :rolleyes:

Anyhow, I am not denying that the US has had influence in the past 50 years. But it is ONLY the past 50 years.


What about the US role in World War I? What about its role in the world economy and its role in the Great Depression? What about its imperialism in the 19th century?

So you don't have any idea what you're talking about? Good to know. :rolleyes:

I did not type that which you (mis)quoted. But, I sense that you wanted to hurl an insult in my direction regardless - and it's the thought that counts, so to be sure your sentiment/intention is warmly well received. :cheers: :xmascheers:

What about the US role in World War I? What about its role in the world economy and its role in the Great Depression? What about its imperialism in the 19th century?

well, yes, 1 century, but i meant more or less superpower influence. in those days, it wasn't really superpower status yet - sort of like China or India today - rising, but not there yet.

but even 1 century, that is... just 1 century.

^Not really necessary. It's plainly obvious when you watch Star Trek that the whole 'Federation' thing is really just a futuristic extension of one United States of America. They even talk just like Americans, so the influence is overwhlemingly apparent. Kirk, the ace of the fleet, is from where? Iowa. Not Paris. And another thing that should be plainly obvious by now, is that reality more or less follows the path of sci-fi, as we move into the future. So, that is what we have to look forward to. Exciting, and definitely predominantly USA-infuenced. Not France, who colonized a bunch of wasteland (the leftovers Britain didn't want, or didn't intimidate France into not taking) and made absolutely nothing out of them.
]

How is a piece of futuristic non-fiction made in America suppossed prove that America will continue to dominate and influence the world?

Though America has recently had a lot of influence on the world I think it is most overated due to the blatherings of unintelligible nationalist sentiment and the state of America being the current world power.

What about the US role in World War I? What about its role in the world economy and its role in the Great Depression? What about its imperialism in the 19th century?
World War I? Not so big. It had more in WWII.
Imperialism in the 19th century for the US was very limited compared to France or Great Britain.

World War I? Not so big. It had more in WWII.
Imperialism in the 19th century for the US was very limited compared to France or Great Britain.

That's not what your President said recently, when he spoke before our Congress. Plus I could have sworn there was a famous top-dog British General who said American oil was the backbone of winning the war effort for the Allies in WWI. (And of course, the same applied in WWII.)

And as for imperialism in the 19th century, you're right... we only managed to annex, integrate & make flourish the better part of the world's 3rd largest continent. No way that could possibly compare to some jungles, wasteland desert, and miscellaneous islands.

Plus I could have sworn there was a famous top-dog British General who said American oil was the backbone of winning the war effort for the Allies in WWI
It was more won with blood than with oil. Sure, you helped, I won't deny it, but the impact of US in WWI is small compared to what is was in WWII.


And as for imperialism in the 19th century, you're right... we only managed to annex, integrate & make flourish the better part of the world's 3rd largest continent. No way that could possibly compare to some jungles, wasteland desert, and miscellaneous islands.
Sure, "conquering" some almost inhabited lands and moving colonists coming from all other the world toward the west is very impressive. Much more than for England to dominate India, a country with many more inhabitants.
Beside, the USA are not the "better part" of the American continent. Canada is bigger. You did very little in South America...
In fact, you only occupied an empty continent, except during the war with Mexico.

I did not type that which you (mis)quoted.
The term is actually "paraphrased". A "quote"- accurate or otherwise- is an attempt to directly reproduce what was said, or give the impression of such a reproduction, which my post clearly did not contain.
Of course you didn't say what I quoted. If you'd said that then it would be patently obvious how ridiculous it was. You needed all the extra stuff to maintain the illusion of reason.

I don't believe that a civ can be overrated in influence. Every major civilization influenced at least something in our lives.

I don't believe that a civ can be overrated in influence. Every major civilization influenced at least something in our lives.
But the question is the extent of that influence when compared to the perception of influence. "Overrated", after all, is a relative term- it's quite possible for a civilisation to be both highly influential and be overrated in terms of influence.

id say greece as underrated. forerunners of modern democracy (go monarcy!) and westernized, erm, the west.

^Not really necessary. It's plainly obvious when you watch Star Trek that the whole 'Federation' thing is really just a futuristic extension of one United States of America. They even talk just like Americans, so the influence is overwhlemingly apparent. Kirk, the ace of the fleet, is from where? Iowa. Not Paris. And another thing that should be plainly obvious by now, is that reality more or less follows the path of sci-fi, as we move into the future. So, that is what we have to look forward to. Exciting, and definitely predominantly USA-infuenced. Not France, who colonized a bunch of wasteland (the leftovers Britain didn't want, or didn't intimidate France into not taking) and made absolutely nothing out of them.

Then again at the grocery store the other day, the checker was this black chick from the Caribbean, and her 1st language was French (I asked). So, there's the influence, for ya. Of course, I work with a black chick who's from Jamaica, and English is her 1st language (though certainly not a dailect I can easily understand), and she has a MUCH better job. Yet another case of British influence being more successful.

USA is only influential in the past 50 years? Yeah, that's it. Basically the U.S. has been a vacuum cleaner sucking immigrants out of the whole world (namely Europe) for much longer than that. So how about that for influence? Where would those European nations be today had they never lost all those people to emigration? So, that's influence, right from the beginning. The USA is like that 'sleeper' dragster you never payed attention to, until it was in the lead. Now you're ticked off because you didn't see it coming. Hey man, the influence was there whether you knew it or not - that's why it effectively has you in the position of being SPANKED at this time

thats complete rubbish. i know nothing about star terk but i know its american made. In futurama, the flag of earth is the flag of the USA with a glove on it and it has "the president of earth". Again american made. Just because americans make shows where their the top dog means nothing of influence. Every country does/will/can that. and as for immigrants, its not america that was influencing the immigrents, it was the new world. People who immigrated to the US didnt even know where it was, jsut that they were gonig there. also canada has a massive immigrent population but they arent increbly influencable.

id say greece as underrated. forerunners of modern democracy (go monarcy!) and westernized, erm, the west.

Oh please democracy for about what, 90 people in all of athens? You can't vote if you are a women, slave, foreigner blah blah. I rather live in Persia

women couldnt vote til 1920 in america and slaves couldnt vote til whenever (dont no much about american slavery)

So that doesnt make them much of a democracy either

Britian and Netherlands should be the forerunners of Democracy.

Oh please democracy for about what, 90 people in all of athens? You can't vote if you are a women, slave, foreigner blah blah. I rather live in Persia

:confused: You would rather live in Persia? How was Persia more "democratic" than Athens, if that was what you were implying. The fact that Athens wasn't a full blown democracy doesn't take away at all its importance, in my opinion. The full rights that were given to males was revolutionary in a time that rule was established by "tyrants". And wasn't Sparta the only known, or one of the few, to have a "direct democracy".

:confused: You would rather live in Persia? How was Persia more "democratic" than Athens, if that was what you were implying. The fact that Athens wasn't a full blown democracy doesn't take away at all its importance, in my opinion. The full rights that were given to males was revolutionary in a time that rule was established by "tyrants". And wasn't Sparta the only known, or one of the few, to have a "direct democracy".

No I just like Pesian Architeratue better....

Surley you guys aren't under the impression that the U.S. was the only country in the world that had slavery in the 19th century...

Granted the southern States in the USA were some of the last to finally (after being forced) to abolish it, but to sit there and say other nations being talked about here had nothing to do w/ slavery is the biggest pile of BS I've yet to read in this thread.

So, the ACW gets all the press, and meanwhile all the other European (and worldwide) participants in slavery get to just slip into the background, and proclaim their hands are clean.

That's laughable. But what else is new.

thats complete rubbish. i know nothing about star terk but i know its american made. In futurama, the flag of earth is the flag of the USA with a glove on it and it has "the president of earth". Again american made.
That's actually a parody of the whole "Planet America" thing you get in shows like Star Trek. (And it's the US flag with a picture of the Earth (western hemisphere, of course. Not sure where you got "glove" from...) The point is that the "United States of Earth" shown in Futurama is essentially identical to the modern USA, but expanded to cover the entire planet.

You would rather live in Persia? How was Persia more "democratic" than Athens, if that was what you were implying. The fact that Athens wasn't a full blown democracy doesn't take away at all its importance, in my opinion. The full rights that were given to males was revolutionary in a time that rule was established by "tyrants". And wasn't Sparta the only known, or one of the few, to have a "direct democracy".

Persia was still more civilized and had better organization than Greece. really.

Greece was more closer to a bunch of barbarians that Persia. Persia was the biggest, richest empire on earth at the time.

Persia was still more civilized and had better organization than Greece. really.

Greece was more closer to a bunch of barbarians that Persia. Persia was the biggest, richest empire on earth at the time.

I guess thats my mistake. I was under the impression that it was the opposite. I knew that were the greatest empire at the time, but thanks for the clarification.

I'm just getting into Ancient Greece.

At least you weren't thinking the way 300 was. :)

Not sure where you got "glove" fromtpyo fo globe

and lotus (not putting down the US) wasnt america the only nation to have a war over the ending of slavery in the west?

:confused: You would rather live in Persia? How was Persia more "democratic" than Athens, if that was what you were implying. The fact that Athens wasn't a full blown democracy doesn't take away at all its importance, in my opinion. The full rights that were given to males was revolutionary in a time that rule was established by "tyrants". And wasn't Sparta the only known, or one of the few, to have a "direct democracy".

Just to let you know Persia had a bill of rights and was just as advanced if not more and were definitely more cultured and wordly than the Greeks who championed the white man's democracy; no power to women, slaves, foreigners and poor white men. I also hear the Persians had no slaves but I don't believe that. Hollywood likes to paint pics of a civilized west vs. a barbaric east where it is really the other way around.

Just to let you know Persia had a bill of rights and was just as advanced if not more and were definitely more cultured and wordly than the Greeks who championed the white man's democracy; no power to women, slaves, foreigners and poor white men.
Well, brown-ish man's democracy- northern Europeans such as ourselves (unless you're something else) where seen as pale, sun-starved barbarians who could barely be trusted not to set themselves on fire, let alone run a city. (Remember, the idea of "white" Greco-Roman culture is an invention of the 19th century, one which most classical Greeks and Romans would have laughed at.)

^bravo, bravo.

But there is one thing that American cannot be underrated for - Democracy. Its victory against the British set a chain of events even American-haters know determined the course of modern history well.

So that doesnt make them much of a democracy either

Britian and Netherlands should be the forerunners of Democracy.

Americans rebelled against a democratic country. We had a Parliament, and had had for quite some time.
Just to let you know Persia had a bill of rights and was just as advanced if not more and were definitely more cultured and wordly than the Greeks who championed the white man's democracy; no power to women, slaves, foreigners and poor white men. I also hear the Persians had no slaves but I don't believe that. Hollywood likes to paint pics of a civilized west vs. a barbaric east where it is really the other way around.
I think you may have a slight bias on this one. Obviously it depends what period we're considering, but Ancient Greek civilisation was certainly the most advanced in thought and technology at its peak.
There was a great deal of interaction with Asia Minor via the colonies, so I'm sure that people exchanged ideas; some great Greek thinkers were from the colonies.
The Persian organisation and bill of rights died ignominious deaths and had no further influence, whereas Greek thought and culture formed the basis for the Roman empire and, later, western culture and the enlightenment.

Americans rebelled against a democratic country. We had a Parliament, and had had for quite some time.

To call eighteenth-century England a democracy is ludicrous; about three people in the country could vote, and the monarch still had real power. Merely having a parliament doesn't make a country democratic. Our parliament was not instituted as a tool of democracy - its origins were more of a tool of oligarchy, to limit the powers of the monarch in favour of the land-owners. The fact that it has since become a (mostly) democratic institution is a sort of accident of history. I don't see that one could plausibly argue that Britain was a democracy at any time before 1918, since before that date, most adults could not vote.

Of course, the United States wasn't founded as a democracy either. Democracy as we know it was an ideal held by very few people, if any, at that time.

The point of the Magna Carta was not to give power to the people but to limit the power of the King. In the normal run of things the Barons would have put a new King on the throne but all the alternatives were worse, or at least more French which amounted to the same thing. So the same King is kept but under, as it were, restrictions.

Assuming that is right Plotinus, what were the reasions for the expansion of voting over the centuries?

common US "propaganda" (for lack of better wording): Britain at time of of American Revolution was evil, king was tyrant, and so on.

truth: Britain, actually having a parliament (whether effective or not) and actually having something like the Magna Carta, was actually arguably one of the most liberal and "free" countries in the world at the time of the American Revolution

The question isn't whether the English parliament in the 1770s was "effective". That's neither here nor there. It may have been very effective (I don't know enough about the period to say); the point is that its purpose was to be neither democratic, nor liberal, nor "free". Simply having a parliament doesn't make a country any of those things; was England liberal and free under Henry VIII? As I said before, the purpose of parliament was for centuries to limit the power of the king - in favour of barons, landowners, and other elites. A bit like having a dictator who is advised by old Etonians, and no-one else. That may be less autocratic than having a dictator and no old Etonians to advise him, but it is not more democratic, liberal, or free.

[GinandTonic] As I understand it, the franchise wasn't really much extended until the nineteenth century, when it was extended in a series of Reform Acts, notably those of 1832, 1867, and 1884. There were different, and complex, motives behind each of the acts. Briefly, the main motive behind the first was to remove corruption and rationalise the voting system; allowing more people to vote (one in five men!) was just part of that. The 1867 act allowed any man in a city who owned a house (or paid substantial rent) to vote (which meant working-class men could now vote), and the motive behind this was more political: Disraeli backed it in order to split the opposition, the Liberals, who couldn't agree among themselves whether reform was good or bad. It was also believed that the newly enfranchised workers would be grateful and vote Conservative. The 1884 act was pushed by Gladstone, on the grounds that rural workers should be given similar voting rights to those of the city workers enfranchised by the previous act (and Gladstone also thought it was simply the right thing to do). And the 1918 act basically allowed pretty much all men to vote, and most women (though only over the age of 30, and if they owned property - it wasn't until 1928 that they could vote on the same basis as men). The rationale behind this is debated, but one major factor is that politicians were scared of communism and thought that concessions such as this would keep the workers happy.

So it's not like people decided that democracy was a good thing and all the reforms came from that; the ideal developed gradually, and many people (such as Salisbury) opposed the reforms because they feared that they were leading to democracy, which they viewed as a bad thing.

^i agree with you, but im saying, the very "concept" of a parliament already made Britain ridiculously more liberal than a lot of other countries.

Cheezy posted a stat a while back that C. the US revoloution x Brit gov had been elected with the votes of something like 3% of the population. This would seem to imply a 5%ish franchise. So, assuming my memory and Cheezy's stat are correct there would seem to have been a vast increase in the franchise over the last 540ish years.

The voters around magna carta were a frection of a percent, and Im facinated by how they became several percent.

^i agree with you, but im saying, the very "concept" of a parliament already made Britain ridiculously more liberal than a lot of other countries.

Compared to the Russian Empire for example.

I can understand cybrxkhan's point about the American viewpoint on the American Revolution though. I can perfectly understand that they think they were the in the right and they were fighting for their freedom and so on, but when you have films like The Patriot that basically portray the British as equivalent to the Nazis it has gone too far.

Compared to the Russian Empire for example.
Which in fact did have the institution of the "Duma" with pretty much the same advisory capacity as the English parliament Plotinus has pointed out.:)

Duma in early Russian history
The term comes from the Russian word думать (dumat’), "to think" or "to consider". Boyar Duma was an advisory council to the grand princes and tsars of Muscovy. The Duma was discontinued by Peter the Great, who transferred its functions to the Governing Senate in 1721. However, the Duma would be re-introduced later in Russian history by Tsar Nicholas II, in the pre-Revolutionary period, with the aide of his many advisors such as Stolypin, Snydercha (translated from Сґђде,) amongst others.

In fact, parliaments have been around in every European society able to back-track to old Germanic political institutions. The advent of royal absolutism in the continental monarchies just meant parliament activity was suspended, in the case of France for a couple of hundred years. While at the same time Sweden had as at least as much "parlamentarianism" as the UK from 1721 to 1772, and has had a constitutional "freedom of speech act" in place since 1766.

And even with no actual "parliament" the rest had almost always something similar, like the Russian "Duma".

Edit:
Which means my conclusion is that while Britian was vastly more liberal than most European societies in the 17th and 18th c's, this wasn't really an effect of the institution of the parliament or the concept of parlamentarianism, but had to do with other things.

One shouldn't overestimate the "liberalism" of late-eighteenth-century Britain, though. This was the age of the Gordon riots. Sometimes, the government was considerably more liberal than society at large.

Definitely the Egyptians.;)

common US "propaganda" (for lack of better wording): Britain at time of of American Revolution was evil, king was tyrant, and so on.

truth: Britain, actually having a parliament (whether effective or not) and actually having something like the Magna Carta, was actually arguably one of the most liberal and "free" countries in the world at the time of the American Revolution

Yes, Britain was NOT the EVIL that pretty much Everybody says they were in America. Here in Hawaii, we KNOW that Britain wasn't evil. So they brought rats, mongooses, wasps, diseases, oh and ummm, oh yeah MOSQUITOS. They're DEFINITELY not evil.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Actually, they did discover Hawaii adn they brought us up to date with the world.;)

hmm how is hawaii, never been there but sounds like a wicked vaction....

anyways, what is the power balance between the parliment and monarch now?

The monarch has no effective power of any kind.

I'd say the Maori (New Zealand), Sotho, Zulu & other South African cultures (among others elsewhere) would disagree about the gentleness involved with British colonialism.

The Brits really were atrocious and nasty in the 13 colonies, btw - down at the local level, interacting with the people... the kind of numerous historical 'footnotes' they don't teach in depth at Oxford & Cambridge. I think we have at least a couple of Brits within the past half-dozen or so posts that have been subjected to a lifetime of counter-propaganda.

Next thing you know a Japanese will show up and say how civilized they were to the Filipinos & Chinese in WWII.

"No. We did not throw Filipino babies up in the air and catch them on our bayonets. That is merely American propaganda... the most overrated culture of all time, btw."

The point is not that British colonists were kind, peaceful and heavenly, but that compared to anyone else at the time they weren't particularly atrocious. There have always been barbarians within any society, and there will always be societies/people who find themselves in positions of power.
To claim that one society is worse than another with no justification of why that other would have behaved differently had it been in the same situation is silly.
These historical footnotes aren't necessarily taught at good universities because we have this strange thing called specialisation, whereby we don't all study self-flagellation as part of a liberal arts degree, but do useful things like research into medical science.
Is it counter-propaganda that we're subjected to when most modern historical takes on the subject portray Britain as an evil empire spreading misery and taking resources under the pretence of spreading civilisation? Or could it be that these universities actually encourage thinking for oneself and realising that if we judge past societies by today's standards they all come up short?

And anyway, the colonists are actually the descendants of the people in the colonies, not of the people over here.

The monarch has no effective power of any kind. For Now...

The Brits really were atrocious and nasty in the 13 colonies The Colonials were pretty nasty to the Loyalists too, I.e, stealing/burning homes and a number of murders which can be classified as an atrocity

hmm how is hawaii, never been there but sounds like a wicked vaction....

anyways, what is the power balance between the parliment and monarch now?


GREAT PLACE. Good beaches, nice people, nice weather, GREAT football (american football) team for college. Girls with Bikinis EVERYWHERE. and nice place. You should come here one day.:D

I have no idea how Hawaii turned from British to American and why the British flag is still in the state flag of Hawaii

I have no idea how Hawaii turned from British to American and why the British flag is still in the state flag of Hawaii

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_harbor#1800s) section (1800s) describes how it all began. The real meat of it is the last 3 or 4paragraphs of that section.

Much more civilized than how the British handled the New Zealand situation, in which they merely crushed the revolts with sheer force, after the natives had gotten fed up from being ripped off, cheated, lied to, etc.

Same thing happened in British Columbia (Canada), btw. "Oh, there's gold?" Well, you natives can go f-#$ yourselves, this here is ours, now!" - pretty much sums it up. Yet, the U.S. gets all the bad press regarding taking lands from native Americans, forcing them to relocate, etc. -Same thing happened throughout Canada.