What was the greatest civilization ever? simply write what you think[punch]

Ancient China, it was leading in everything in the imperial ages, and then there was the Manchurians....

I like Scandinavia. Best culture without doubt.

I voted for Britain. Considering their empire covered one fourth of the earth's land surface and that so many great inventors and scientists were British. And I always vote for Britain anyway.

Britain, for the above reasons :)

Ancient China? What about modern China?

But for now, the good old US of A

Rome- developed a good deal of what it traditionally attributed to China (like water mills) on its own, or based on Greek research only to be lost in the dark ages, the basis of all modern western culture, and civilization, if you live int he west you only need look around, or open a book to see the impact of Rome on your life today

Blighty, of course - all the lovely pink on those old maps. Now this, my friends, is what we British call an Empire:

Egypt. In it's day, it was the most advanced nation in the world. For most of it's history, it was lightyears ahead of everyone else. It's influence had expanded to the Tigris river. It didn't actually have that place, but nobody up to the Tigris River could withstand them. Unfortunately, Egypt fell to a line of conquerors after the darn Romans. :p And the Egyptians were technologically stagnant after awhile...:(

They also (along with the Chinese) lasted longer than any other civilization. They invented the plow, created 2 wonders of the near-political collapse, which normally kills off a civ right on the spot. The only way the Persians won was through an underhanded tactic I'll post later.:p:D

I feel inclined to say USA, though I'm not so sure.

Western European, easily. So I guess you could "Christian civilization", even though it really exploded when it became a little less religious.

My vote goes to Scandinavia of course. :D

Why aren´t the Portuguese in that poll?

World map in the time of the treaty of tordesilhas - Dividing the colonies between Spain & Portugal 1494:

China or Rome. The British empire was only greatest in possesions.

After the Irish I would say Rome, God only knows how the west would have turned out if it haddened been for they're influence on western thinking and...pretty much everything else.

India also had its time in the sun and i'll vote for it.

I voted Britain being of British decent, however honestly I don't think you could really rank something like this.

UN civilization? what is this?

This poll is ridiculous. Civilizations encompass so many areas such as religion, science, culture etc, and each had have(had) their own weaknesses and strong points. How can you surmise this question in a one or two line post?

Originally posted by ss3goku
India also had its time in the sun and i'll vote for it.

Then why is India still 0%.

he might have mis-clicked on mongolia

Britain: Just for the way it ended.

Never in history has an empire or a civilization reliquished its hold ended so peacefully (Have a look you won't find any) The closest exception is Rome morphing into the Byzantine empire but normally that isn't included because the empire split into two long ago and is more considered the rise of Byzantia than anything else.

Besides an old world power is needed to keep these young 'uns in line ;P

~ Boli

Originally posted by Boli

Besides an old world power is needed to keep these young 'uns in line ;P

~ Boli

in that case Brittania is a misireble faileure :p

Yeah but at least we try.

~ Boli

The british empire didn't last that long though. In its day (circa 700 AD-1400AD) the Arabs were doing fairly well. Most advanced technology wise and they spread Islam from West/South Africa to Indonesia. They were also tolerant for the times with conquered people. Ottoman expansion and the discovery of America kinda doomed them though.

Originally posted by Boli
Britain: Just for the way it ended.

Never in history has an empire or a civilization reliquished its hold ended so peacefully I think this part of your nation's history may have been written by a propagandist. That is usually how it goes. The British Empire was built with the blood of the innocent just like all the others. If you are talking about influence on history I would go with Rome or China. If you are talking about pure economic and military power the US is the only possible choice but only because it is the most modern.

Originally posted by Drewcifer
I think this part of your nation's history may have been written by a propagandist. That is usually how it goes. The British Empire was built with the blood of the innocent just like all the others

:hmm:

You realise he said the way it ended, not started?

Originally posted by Drewcifer
If you are talking about pure economic and military power the US is the only possible choice but only because it is the most modern.

What does that have to do with it?

Originally posted by phoenix_night


:hmm:

You realise he said the way it ended, not started?



What does that have to do with it?
Yes, but it ended with it's share of blood as well (see India, the US, Ireland, South Africa, others). I think the British empire is romanticized much more by the British and their colonizers (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) than by the people they subjugated. An analogy I would make is to romanticization that some American right wingers have for the US's "liberation" of Iraq that is probably not shared by most Iraqis.

A civilization's greatness can be determined by many criteria. If you are using the criteria of greatest concentration of absolute power and wealth not relative to the era it is obviously the US. If you are using other criteria it is most obviously not the US. I am not much of a nationalist. My main patriotism is to the human race. I am just trying to state my opinion as neutrally as possible.

Greatest civilisation ever in terms of culture and power period is probably the usa, although most of it's culture is inherited from other great civs that came before it, and also, this will change very quickly, chinas economy for example is set to double in the next 10 years, and in the next 30, surpas the usa. And it's power lies only in it's conventional forces. Unconventionaly, the us is at par with the other nuclear wielding nations in terms of military power.

Greatest civilisation of the middle ages is probably england or russia. Both encompassed huge areas and one of them still does, and both were very culturally advanced at that time.
The many principalities that were then china, were also very advanced culturally, and technologically even more so, but fell behind later on.

Greatest civilisation in the ancient world was probably rome or greece. Yes, egypt was culturally advanced, but otherwise, nothing more. Rome was a military powerhouse, and greece a cultural meltingpot, from which most of todays western civs inherited their ideas from. Speaking of western civs, the first western style democratic governments originated in the middle east, so the west, east, middle east, divisions we speak of today are simply demographic, not geographic.

However, greatest civ of all time, if forced to choose, I would have to say.....the EU. (European Union). It has the largest economy, largest military and one of the largest populations (800 million) of all. Culturally it is unsurpassed, if you add all of the culture points attributed to all of the european nations, especially england, spain, portugal, italy etc etc and so on.

Originally posted by MeNeedsHelp
Culturally it is unsurpassed, if you add all of the culture points attributed to all of the european nations, especially england, spain, portugal, italy etc etc and so on.

...Culture points? :confused:

If the question is of civilisations, I would have to say The West.

As for nations, I can't deside betwean Rome, USSR, Britain or USA.

USSR? I can't believe you said that! You meant Russia, didn't you?

Didn't you?

Originally posted by Drewcifer
Yes, but it ended with it's share of blood as well (see India, the US, Ireland, South Africa, others). I think the British empire is romanticized much more by the British and their colonizers (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) than by the people they subjugated. An analogy I would make is to romanticization that some American right wingers have for the US's "liberation" of Iraq that is probably not shared by most Iraqis. Indeed. Coming fr one of the ex-British colonies, I can tell you that any countryman of mine doesn't care at all for the British empire, except for the hardcore Anglophiles (usually very elderly people by now). We celebrate our independence every year. :)

The British dominated the world for hundreds of years; now our spawn, the renegade British who call themselves Americans, dominate the world. British and American culture has permeated every aspect of very civilization. English is the international language, and is used in aviation, business and medicine to name but a few. Inventors, writers and great men of every kind have hailed and continue to hail from our fair isle, and it is my humble though rather conceited opinion that the British empire had more effect on the world than anything else. The UK is one of the only countries that puts more money into the EU than we take out, and we help our glorious and powerful daughter state to police the world. Whilst it is true that colonialism did a lot of harm, it also did a lot of good. Furthermore, Britain and our children, the USA, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, dominate the globe to a very great extent indeed.

Originally posted by Eastern Knight
USSR? I can't believe you said that! You meant Russia, didn't you?

Didn't you? Czarist Russia? The czars hardly achived anything. As for whats there now, it's a very weak and by no means great gov't.

Though now that I think about it the USA came out greater in the end.

USA all the way. Becoming the richest, strongest, and most influental in a mere 200 years.

The British Empire - humanities finest hour.

I voted for the Brits, in part because the USA is really an offshoot of jolly old England.

The British Empire. Nothing else really comes close.

The British. With the Economic and Expansionist traits, you can simply buy and build your way to a spaceship victory in no time at all!

Alotosia.

I think rome is the best

To answer all of your questions.
Porteugle was not trully a great power.
It had some great moments but in the scale of hiustory you must lump it with spain.
The UN Civilization i mean is all of the little nations that are part of the modern day UN. It is as much as a confederacy as the holy roman ewmpire or the arab empire (which in fact was a mere confedration of blood thirsty bastards)
I hope that answers your questions.

Greece every thing the romans got they got from the greeks.
Religon
Arcitecture
millitary statigy
Machimatics

Romans killed scientists

Like achimets

He was drawing in the sand. then a roman soulder came in and arcimetes last words were something like "don't touch my doodles (drawings)"

Greece and then Rome.

USA it's not a civilization...it doesn't even have 300 years of history..

I'd say it's Britain

i would have to say the roman empire...for they controlled all of the known world at that time

Define the "known world" in roman times? Surely they knew of the existence of lands like Germany (beyond the rhine) and others?

I voted USA just because I couldn't live with myself that Russia was considered "greater". HAH! Which part, the purges, the industrial collapse, the repression?

Originally posted by justarious
i would have to say the roman empire...for they controlled all of the known world at that time

I never understand this reasoning.

Because they were unaware, ignorant of other lands, that makes them great?

Because their "known world" really wasn't very much?

As far as I'm concerned, the term "known world" is really quite useless.

the "known" world was actually mopst of the old world stretching from the very tip of sub sahran africa, all the way to China...

saying they controled all the know world ist right- saying they controlled the largest single area of it in there time is right

Originally posted by Xen
the "known" world was actually mopst of the old world stretching from the very tip of sub sahran africa, all the way to China...

saying they controled all the know world ist right- saying they controlled the largest single area of it in there time is right

The whole point is the term "known world" is worthless!

So, what? You controlled all this land, and because you didn't know about the rest of the world, that makes it even better?

:crazyeye:

The rest of the world still exists! Whether it's "known" or not!

you dont seem to understand the concept of "known"- the known world is how much of the world is know to europe at any one paticuler time.

you also dont seem to get the point I was trying to make- ROme knew of just about everything from ice land to Ethiopea, and from The Britishisles to China- it also controlled more territory then anyother nation at the time

Originally posted by Xen
the known world is how much of the world is know to europe at any one paticuler time.

Exactly! That's the stupidity of it!

Originally posted by Xen
you also dont seem to get the point I was trying to make- ROme knew of just about everything from ice land to Ethiopea, and from The Britishisles to China- it also controlled more territory then anyother nation at the time

I don't care what Rome controlled. I'm not just making a point about Rome (well, maybe I am, but not only Rome), but about the stupidity of the term "known world". It's like a "get out of jail free" card for those not so big empires, or those trying to sound more impressive.

when you control all of south europe,hell, ALL of the meditteranen basin,have a strip of land encirciling the black sea, your territory touches the caspian sean, own a good deal of central europe, own just about all of north africa worth owning at the time, and are just about as badass as the come, its not what i would call a "not so big' empire- particuraley if you start lopping on the vassal states to territorial total ;)

It's not the biggest ever though :p

but was the biggest in the world at the time ;)

Originally posted by Xen
when you control all of south europe,hell, ALL of the meditteranen basin,have a strip of land encirciling the black sea, your territory touches the caspian sean, own a good deal of central europe, own just about all of north africa worth owning at the time, and are just about as badass as the come, its not what i would call a "not so big' empire- particuraley if you start lopping on the vassal states to territorial total ;)

Well, in comparison to others...

But I don't want to argue against Rome; I'm simply stating the stupidity of claiming <insert state name here> controlled all of the "known world". As if, all you have to do have a great empire, is to not know of lands outside your own borders...

but the point I'm trying to make is empires like ROme, and PArthias, and CHina are still great, despite the fact that they full well all the territories, and empires in at least the immediate vicinity

In terms of influence and power per citizen, the Iroquois are unsurpassed. And they did it all without the Mounted Warrior too. :)

Originally posted by Xen
but the point I'm trying to make is empires like ROme, and PArthias, and CHina are still great, despite the fact that they full well all the territories, and empires in at least the immediate vicinity

I'm not trying to say Rome is bad, Xen.

But the term "known world" is worthless.

I voted for "Christian" civilization, precisely because it covers Russia, England, Germany, USA, etc, and the Byzantine and late Roman worlds too. I don't think there is much question about it to be honest. China, Rome, India, Islam, Mesoamerica, etc all did great things, but even if you combine all these civilizations, they pale into inignificance compared to the Christian West (including Russia)

My vote is for the USA. Though Britain and Rome are tempting as well.

Its not just about how much territory a civilization controls, but how much of an affect it has on the world (known or otherwise). For example people in all corners of this planet buy American products, model their economies and governments on American systems, and English has become the common world language.

Heck look at all of us, the folks in this forum are from all over the world but we come here to an English speaking forum. (American English I might add) to talk about American computer games.

Whatever the indicator, technology, wealth, military power, music, science, sports, the US is dominant. The only strike against us is longevity, because this level of dominance has only been around for 50-100 years. Whereas Rome was around for a thousand.

I argue Britain was short lived as well. It reached and held its zenith for 100-150 years or so. So at this moment the US is more dominant than any other civilization in the history of mankind. If China and/or the EU pass the US by in the next 50 years, then my vote would deffinately go to Rome, because the US had only a short time of dominance.

Haha "UN civilization", riiight :rolleyes:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
My vote is for the USA. Though Britain and Rome are tempting as well.

Its not just about how much territory a civilization controls, but how much of an affect it has on the world (known or otherwise). For example people in all corners of this planet buy American products, model their economies and governments on American systems, and English has become the common world language.



funny many of the 'American' products I have say 'made in China' though.

USA is just a modern Rome basically, currently they are powerful, but we'll see how thing are in 100 years or so.

I chose Rome as one of my top picks mainly becuase they built the first good road network, cuz 'all roads lead to Rome'. There are a couple 'Civilizations' that could be considered the greatest, but many ppl seem to be biased to their descent.

My top picks were Rome and China, but the coin landed on Tails so I voted for Rome.

I have to say that dumping today’s present situation on the past would be illogical.Todays situation is different than say a few Hundred thousand years ago. The world was ruled by one race only and if you look hard enough you might find the truth. africans

Originally posted by Eastern Knight


Then why is India still 0%.

Rather insulting , don't you think ? I accept my country isn't on the top of the world currently , but I'd call that a bit too much . Why else would some states of the USA resort to protectionist policies when it comes to IT related jobs ? IMO , it's rather hypocritical to talk grandly of free trade , and then implement such policies when you see that free trade doesn't really get you those votes you depend on .

Definetly Ancient China gets my vote.

and why ancient China?

Egypt, Rome or Britan.....

Originally posted by Sarevok
Definetly Ancient China gets my vote.


Really even when the get defeated all the time and isent a hole kingdome for a long time and there only great feat is the wall which is more truble than its worth....

Originally posted by Ribannah
In terms of influence and power per citizen, the Iroquois are unsurpassed. And they did it all without the Mounted Warrior too. :)

yes your so right all those things they have have given the world.... hey wait a minute they havent done anything...... face it dumass on the large scale of history they dont even show up
warned, flaming. Lefty

Originally posted by CIVPhilzilla
USA all the way. Becoming the richest, strongest, and most influental in a mere 200 years.

its been done alot faster by other nations and more importantly usa has only done it once......

Originally posted by Zardnaar
The british empire didn't last that long though. In its day (circa 700 AD-1400AD) the Arabs were doing fairly well. Most advanced technology wise and they spread Islam from West/South Africa to Indonesia. They were also tolerant for the times with conquered people. Ottoman expansion and the discovery of America kinda doomed them though.

yes and the fact that they lost all major conflicts.... mongols, world war one (ottomans)

This poll is pretty stupid. Some of these civilizations never even existed. Like the U.N. civilization... what the hell is that? And Christian civilization? Only such thing I could think of would've been the Byzantines and Holy Roman Empire.

Originally posted by Blue_Raven


yes and the fact that they lost all major conflicts.... mongols, world war one (ottomans)

Except of course the Persians, Byzantines, Spain, India, the Crusades, and other such wars. Along with the fact that the Mamelukes kicked the Mongols ass. But I guess those would be minor conflicts.

Originally posted by Blue_Raven


yes your so right all those things they have have given the world.... hey wait a minute they havent done anything...... face it dumass on the large scale of history they dont even show up
They certainly forgot to teach the Blue Ravens of this world some manners, but maybe the BR's aren't ready for civilization yet. :rolleyes:

http://home.hccnet.nl/g.den.broeder/ribannah/Civilization/iroquois_animatedflag.gif

Except of course the Persians, Byzantines, Spain, India, the Crusades, and other such wars. Along with the fact that the Mamelukes kicked the Mongols ass. But I guess those would be minor conflicts. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah dude spain was a divide kingdom who when it stop waring on it self kicked them out... Byzantines was destroyed by the 4th crusade.. the crusade lost becouse of there leaders(theye was winning the war) as for the mongols well they left after a few years..... i will giv them persia but it was in no way a great land then....

Originally posted by Blue_Raven
Originally posted by AAminion00

Except of course the Persians, Byzantines, Spain, India, the Crusades, and other such wars. Along with the fact that the Mamelukes kicked the Mongols ass. But I guess those would be minor conflicts.

Ah dude spain was a divide kingdom who when it stop waring on it self kicked them out... Byzantines was destroyed by the 4th crusade.. the crusade lost becouse of there leaders(theye was winning the war) as for the mongols well they left after a few years..... i will giv them persia but it was in no way a great land then....

Yet the Byzantines held off for more than a hundred years after the 4th Crusade, not to mention that they lost most of their territory to the Arabs before the 1st Crusade even. You also forget to say anything about India, or the ruthlessly efficient Balkan campaigns of the Ottomans.

Your whole view of the matter is more than slightly hypocritical. Take Andalusia and the Crusades as an example. The first Crusade managed to shock the Turks and by some divine miracle they took the holy land from the Arabs, who were essentially under Turkish rule and bitterly divided going for centuries. Even with the Muslims divided the Crusaders managed only to lose territory. When Nuradin, Saladin, and Beybers finally united most of Islam, the Crusaders were promptly kicked out. However, in your view this occured not because of the brilliance of people like Saladin or the overall advantage the Muslims held, but simply because of bad leadership on the part of the Crusaders. This of course doesn't even take into account the many periods of time that the Crusaders had great leadership, such as Richard Cour de Leon and Baldwin the lepper.

In Spain, the Moors conquered a whole peninsula and made it a center of Islamic culture in Europe. They held on to it for 700 years (3 times longer than the Crusaders held on to the Holy Land) before a newly united Christian Spain, along with a string of weak rulers, finally pushed them out. However in your opinion, the Muslim success in Spain was merely a product of weak divided Visigoth kingdoms, and if the Visigoth kingdoms had chosen to unite at any time between 711 and 1492 they could've easily pushed the Arabs out.

If you're going to take a side, please be fair and balanced.

p.s. No, I don't think the Arab or Ottoman empires were greatest in history.

Rome, naturally, with only one real competitor: China.

1. Rome
2. China

Then there comes nothing for a long time and then maybe India, Israel, France or Greece.

France is the most important of the last millenium, I think. Arts, technologies, science, culture, Napoleon, Code Civil, main power in Europe longer then any other, including Romans, all of nobility and wealthy upper class spoke French and acted French, France ended Dutch hegemony at sea and trade, Britain's olicy was always tuned to what France did, same to a large extend for Prussia/Germany, introduced kilometres, liters and kilograms to a lot of countries and made it the standard, helped the USA to win independence, French Revolution, and so on and so forth. Britain/England would be second and Prussia/Germany third (of the last millenium). Would it be of the last 200 years then the US would be in the top 3 for sure.

I have just got to say USA. We have culture from every part of the world, most of our population lives pretty decently, a pretty much fair justice and goverment system, and although we have done alot of nasty things it is still outweighed by our good I think. It can't be denied we have picked up most other civilizations best points. So maybe we are not the most orginal civilization, but our great power of diversity makes us just as remarkable as anciant Greece or Rome.

Originally posted by bombshoo
I have just got to say USA. We have culture from every part of the world, most of our population lives pretty decently, a pretty much fair justice and goverment system, and although we have done alot of nasty things it is still outweighed by our good I think. It can't be denied we have picked up most other civilizations best points. So maybe we are not the most orginal civilization, but our great power of diversity makes us just as remarkable as anciant Greece or Rome.



USA is a great country indeed, but the greatest civ should be the civ with the greatest (positive) influence in world history. The US hasn't been around long enough to have a decisive impact on the world. If you leave out the US out of history a lot would have looked different in the world. Europe would be one big Nazi or Commie paradise, Indians would rule the North American plains and a lot of inventions would have been invented later in time.
But we all still would speak latin languages. The justice system would be about the same. Arts would be the same. Politics (democracy, republic, communism, fascism) would all occur or still be here. And so on.
Now try to leave out Rome, Greece, China or France. The world would really be extremily different.

Ancient Egypt was so radical, it deserves much credit.

China, Japan, USA and Britain... just look at a map and you know the story, anyone can do it.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Ancient Egypt was so radical, it deserves much credit.

China, Japan, USA and Britain... just look at a map and you know the story, anyone can do it.




Japan?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

You name Japan and not Rome or India? Greece? Germany? France?

Originally posted by Tavenier
Japan!?

I didn't mean Japan belongs in the hall of fame; those were examples of geographically blessed nations I listed off. If anything, Japan deserves

sharp words:nono:

for past performance. Compare its sisterland England.

I nominate the Aztecs and (more recently) the Portuguese for sow's ear to silk purse award.

I'll also go USA. We aren't exactly an "empire" in the ways the Huns or the British, but in modern times, we have more world influence than anyone ever has, and our citizens are freer than any one of those old empires in history. Sure maybe the Mongols or Huns or Romans had more land, kicked more ass militarily and lasted longer, but would you rather be an averge citizen in Mongolia or the USA? I think it is the quality of life and personal freedoms that the average US citizen has that is 10x greater than anything the ancient empires ever acheived. One free peasant is greater than 10 rich kings.

And for the inevitable person saying that Romans lived as well, I'd say, sure, Roman nobility and politicians lived very well, maybe even better, but I'm talking average people. I guarantee you the average farmer or carpenter in the Roman empire didn't live nearly as well as ours do. (In relation to our politicians.)

it depends, by the time actual citizenship was extended to a people, they really did live, that in comparison with the modern world, is pretty damn close indeed- though consider its hard to make an exact comparison, as so many of the specifics are rather garbeled...

and in realtion to out politicians, well, politicans have mor eor less been rich kids no matter what nation, or time they are in- Rome, and the US are no exceptions to this

I know, I'm sayin the gap between the rich kid politcians and average Joe is smaller now than it was, which is a good thing IMO. But as far as pure ass kicking goes, I'd have to vote for the Mongols.

Originally posted by AngryGerbil
I'll also go USA. We aren't exactly an "empire" in the ways the Huns or the British, but in modern times, we have more world influence than anyone ever has, and our citizens are freer than any one of those old empires in history. Sure maybe the Mongols or Huns or Romans had more land, kicked more ass militarily and lasted longer, but would you rather be an averge citizen in Mongolia or the USA? I think it is the quality of life and personal freedoms that the average US citizen has that is 10x greater than anything the ancient empires ever acheived. One free peasant is greater than 10 rich kings.

And for the inevitable person saying that Romans lived as well, I'd say, sure, Roman nobility and politicians lived very well, maybe even better, but I'm talking average people. I guarantee you the average farmer or carpenter in the Roman empire didn't live nearly as well as ours do. (In relation to our politicians.)



Totally irrelevent. Sure thing nowadays Americans have a better life then average Romans or Mongols. But the average Dutchman, Brit, Italian, Greek or Norwegian has too. And the USA isn't the most free country in the world. I know, I am from Holland. And here the average person is much freer to do as he or she wishes then in the States.

I voted USA. How can Russia be beating America? Is that a joke?

Funny thing is, Russia is second best, but no one has even discussed it on the thread!

Benderino.. USA has been what... 200 years... Russia has been like. a thousand years.

Originally posted by Ukraineboy
Funny thing is, Russia is second best, but no one has even discussed it on the thread!

Benderino.. USA has been what... 200 years... Russia has been like. a thousand years.

Russia as we know it has been around for 13 years. Where do you get 1,000? Not to mention if we were to go by your "1,000" then you must understand that America existed as a series of colonies (13) as well, so it really goes back to 1607 and Jamestown.

Anyways, Russia, until Peter the Great (1689-1725) was known as a land of barbarians (if it was known of at all). The Russians had little culture compared to their Western European counterparts. It was ruled for several centuries under the watchful eye of the barbarous Mongols and Tartars. 1,000 years! HAH! :lol:

Even after Peter the Great and up until 1917, the Tsars existed, as well as serfdom. Through the reigns of Catherine the Great and Alexander III, etc. their reigned a cruel and despotic world of slavery, plantation systems, and slave masters. Culture...enlightenment...modernism...HAH! CIVILIZED? How so?

Then comes Communism. That's like German Fascism but lasting a lot longer and instead of being called for the "good of the state" it's called for the "good of the people". All labels. All lies.

Now we have Putin and his totalitarianism...has there ever been a "Russian" civilization?

Originally posted by Benderino


Now we have Putin and his totalitarianism...has there ever been a "Russian" civilization? Probably because of the dangers of it's politics I think most of Russia's great minds went into the arts. I can only name one great Russian leader but several dozen great writers and composers. In terms of cultural output Russia has to be in the top tier.

Ok, now that I think about it, some come to mind, like Tchaikofsky and that "Crime and Punishment" writer...but who else? How many more make it so that Russia may enter "the top tier"? If you look at other countries, it would seem, they outnumber Russia in talent and in the span of existence. France had famous people in the 14th Century and even before that. So did England, and Holland, and Italy, and Spain...Where was Russia's "Civilization". It didn't exist. They were "Dwarf tossing" in those days. No joke.

Russia did free the serfs sometime before WW1 iirc.

Originally posted by Benderino
Where was Russia's "Civilization". It didn't exist. They were "Dwarf tossing" in those days. No joke.

You're right. Culturally, Russia sucked. The serfs were so mashed they had little more than some wooden icons to pray to, and the aristocracy mainly spoke bad French about the latest German moustache style.

Originally posted by Benderino
Ok, now that I think about it, some come to mind, like Tchaikofsky and that "Crime and Punishment" writer...but who else? How many more make it so that Russia may enter "the top tier"? If you look at other countries, it would seem, they outnumber Russia in talent and in the span of existence. France had famous people in the 14th Century and even before that. So did England, and Holland, and Italy, and Spain...Where was Russia's "Civilization". It didn't exist. They were "Dwarf tossing" in those days. No joke.


'Rus' means something like viking. In nowadays Russia there were several states (Muscovy, Novgorod, Golden Horde, Pskov, Lithuania, Kazan, Tver, Suzdal and so on), but never a Russia. Muscovy and Novgorod were the largest and Muscovy eventually 'won' the power race. This was all not longer then 500 years ago. In those early days one real big thing happened and that was the fall of Byzantium. The patriarch moved to Moscow and that was culturally quite an impact. Further there was little else that could even be compared to events in Iberia, France or the Italian peninsula.
I think Russia became important since Peter the Great, but that is only 300 years ago (100 years after Jamestown, Benderino!). From then on it was an important country, but by far not the greatest civ.

One comment on you, Benderino. I agree with your comments except two things. I can see why you don't think of Russia like the greatest civ, but why vote USA?! It was tempting for me to vote Netherlands, but realism stopped me and made me vote Rome. I think USA gets so many votes out of pure patriotism and sometimes stubberness of the voters.
Second thing is this. You can say many things of Russia why it shouldn't be number one, but when it comes to arts or writers there are thousands of really good examples of sheer brilliance in Russia. I even would go so far as to call the Russian writers the overall best of the world, at least of the last 100 years. They are not so known to the average westerner, but that doesn't mean they are not good.

Originally posted by Tavenier

One comment on you, Benderino. I agree with your comments except two things. I can see why you don't think of Russia like the greatest civ, but why vote USA?! It was tempting for me to vote Netherlands, but realism stopped me and made me vote Rome. I think USA gets so many votes out of pure patriotism and sometimes stubberness of the voters.
Second thing is this. You can say many things of Russia why it shouldn't be number one, but when it comes to arts or writers there are thousands of really good examples of sheer brilliance in Russia. I even would go so far as to call the Russian writers the overall best of the world, at least of the last 100 years. They are not so known to the average westerner, but that doesn't mean they are not good.

Oh, well, simply...not because I truly feel that the USA is the greatest civ, because it isn't...yet, ;) however, I just couldn't bear (heheh...bear, the pun is good) it that Russia was considered more "civilized" than America. I think that that is complete rubbish.

And the USA isn't the most free country in the world. I know, I am from Holland. And here the average person is much freer to do as he or she wishes then in the States.

Talk about irrelevancy. I was comparing the freedoms of modern Americans to that of the ancient empires, not to Holland. My point was, the US has the world power, the wealthy middle class AND the freedom all at once. I can't think of anyone else who can make that claim other than Britain.

Originally posted by Tavenier



Second thing is this. You can say many things of Russia why it shouldn't be number one, but when it comes to arts or writers there are thousands of really good examples of sheer brilliance in Russia. I even would go so far as to call the Russian writers the overall best of the world, at least of the last 100 years. They are not so known to the average westerner, but that doesn't mean they are not good.

I'm not your average westerner though. I whole-heartedly agree with you that Russian writers, if I may say, are the best in the world.

Yes, Dostoevsky is a great writer, I have just finished Crime and Punishment and now I am starting "The Idiot" by Dostoevsky.. after that i'll probably read the Karamazov brothers.

Originally posted by AngryGerbil


Talk about irrelevancy. I was comparing the freedoms of modern Americans to that of the ancient empires, not to Holland. My point was, the US has the world power, the wealthy middle class AND the freedom all at once. I can't think of anyone else who can make that claim other than Britain.


Talk about missing the point.
You said the USA are the best civ because the average American is better off then the average Roman or Mongol. That is completely irrelevent. That's like saying US armies travel faster then Carthage armies.

The modern man's freedom is very limited compared to that of primitive man, and in the USA more so than in Europe. Sure, you, can make a lot of small decisions about your life, but in the big things you have little say. The rules of modern society are strict and plentiful and you can't escape them by going your own way or elsewhere. You have way less free time, for starters, and much less community support. People of authority generally won't listen to you. And new laws that decide things for you are made every day without much influence from you.
Games and art, the measuring sticks of freedom in a society, are largely commercialized.

Originally posted by Ribannah
The modern man's freedom is very limited compared to that of primitive man, and in the USA more so than in Europe. Sure, you, can make a lot of small decisions about your life, but in the big things you have little say. The rules of modern society are strict and plentiful and you can't escape them by going your own way or elsewhere. You have way less free time, for starters, and much less community support. People of authority generally won't listen to you. And new laws that decide things for you are made every day without much influence from you.
Games and art, the measuring sticks of freedom in a society, are largely commercialized.



True.
There are probably a lot of comments I could think of to criticise this, but I could also think about a lot of them to support it.

Yes, honestly though, USA is like a Monarchy... all the CEO's are the Nobles. and everyone else is a serf.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ribannah
You have way less free time, for starters, and much less community support.

Community "support" can often hinder one's freedom, not grant it. Look at the play "Fiddler on the Roof", for instance. This really depends on which community youu live in. There is a lot of support in mine.

Games and art, the measuring sticks of freedom in a society, are largely commercialized.

Are you kidding? This is just pure cynicism, at its worst. First off, this is a trend happening EVERYWHERE, not just in the US. Europeans are by no means exempt from this. Secondly, "largely" is a relative term. What's large to you--say 4%--could be meaningless and tiny to someone else. You have little basis for such a claim that these cultural items are "largely commercialized". Where do you reside?

Originally posted by Ukraineboy
Yes, honestly though, USA is like a Monarchy... all the CEO's are the Nobles. and everyone else is a serf.

Nonsense! Do you live here? No one is a serf. Who is the monarch? I've never heard of any monarch who holds elections and gets voted out of office every 4 years. The 'big bad' "CEO's" control nothing but wealth (which they earned) unlike the nobility of the past who had manors. Can we not just insult the US for a little bit...as hard as that sounds for some of you.

u have ancient african civs and no japan?

that was w.out honor

Originally posted by Benderino


Nonsense! Do you live here? No one is a serf. Who is the monarch? I've never heard of any monarch who holds elections and gets voted out of office every 4 years. The 'big bad' "CEO's" control nothing but wealth (which they earned) unlike the nobility of the past who had manors. Can we not just insult the US for a little bit...as hard as that sounds for some of you.

LMFAO

your saying they earned this? HAH, most of them use extortion and blackmail and other illegal things to get there money...

or cheap labour....

Earned.. yeah right..

Warned for trolling; since you're new, I'll let you off this time... - XIII

Originally posted by Ukraineboy


LMFAO

your saying they earned this? HAH, most of them use extortion and blackmail and other illegal things to get there money...

or cheap labour....

Earned.. yeah right..

how did the rich people where you live get their money? do only american corperations crawl their way to the top over others?

Britian or Christian civilization as a whole.

your saying they earned this?

Yes.

Voted for AChina, because it is the only ancient civilization left in the world today :).

Originally posted by Benderino
You have little basis for such a claim that these cultural items are "largely commercialized". Where do you reside?

Where we don't have (semi-)professional college teams, and some artists and top sportspeople receive a grant from the government.
But where my claim still holds, IMHO.

(Can you guess where, from this info? ;) )

Originally posted by lord_yoshi
Voted for AChina, because it is the only ancient civilization left in the world today :).

They have been conquered and ruled over though, by the Mongols, for about 300 years between something like 1300-1600AD. I think that thins out the original Chinese civilization a little. Other than this glitch though I agree, however, because they were conquered they dont get my vote.

My vote goes to Britain. 1/4 of the worlds land mass and 1/3 of the worlds population were ruled simultaneously by Britain. Thats the largest ever civilization on both counts in the whole of history - and they acheived this in a more peaceful manner than any of the previous world powers/empires. Coupled with this they either built, or showed other nations how to build, the modern world. The started and drove the industrial revolution and if it hadnt been for the crippling cost of two world wars and therefore having to succumb to the American wishes of adopting capitalism over Imperialism who knows where they would be today.

They were also the biggest European influence by far in founding and basically giving birth to the nation that eventually superceeded them as the worlds superpower/largest empire (albeit a financial empire, not land/pop) - America.

Lets also not forget that despite countless attempts by many other civilizations spanning century after century the British(or previous to unification the English) have succesfully defended their homeland from invasion for over 950 years, who else in the world can make that claim?

And all that from an island so small you could sink it in Lake Superior.

There is no contest.

Originally posted by Ribannah


Where we don't have (semi-)professional college teams, and some artists and top sportspeople receive a grant from the government.
But where my claim still holds, IMHO.

(Can you guess where, from this info? ;) )

No--no, I cannot. Sorry to disappoint you.

Originally posted by fret
They have been conquered and ruled over though, by the Mongols, for about 300 years between something like 1300-1600AD. Fr 1279 till 1368 actually; less than a century. The Mongols refused to rule China according to time-proven Chinese methods (and culture) and were thus tossed out. The successors to Khubilai were also all pretty weak.

OTOH, the Manchus ruled China fr 1644 to 1911. They lasted so long, mainly because they tried to be more Chinese than even the native Chinese.

I think that thins out the original Chinese civilization a little. Other than this glitch though I agree, however, because they were conquered they dont get my vote. Hardly. When the Ming restored Chinese sovereignity in 1368, the first thing the new emperor did was to restore the old ways.

In many ways, the period of Mongol rule led to the Chinese to becoming more xenophobic, and fossilized Chinese thinking into a perceived glorious past mode. That, along with the tendency towards stronger absolutism, as practised by the Mongol emperors.

All roads lead to Rome.

If your talking about the greatest empire ever, the mongol empire was the best.

Originally posted by fret


They have been conquered and ruled over though, by the Mongols, for about 300 years between something like 1300-1600AD. I think that thins out the original Chinese civilization a little. Other than this glitch though I agree, however, because they were conquered they dont get my vote.

My vote goes to Britain. 1/4 of the worlds land mass and 1/3 of the worlds population were ruled simultaneously by Britain. Thats the largest ever civilization on both counts in the whole of history - and they acheived this in a more peaceful manner than any of the previous world powers/empires. Coupled with this they either built, or showed other nations how to build, the modern world. The started and drove the industrial revolution and if it hadnt been for the crippling cost of two world wars and therefore having to succumb to the American wishes of adopting capitalism over Imperialism who knows where they would be today.

They were also the biggest European influence by far in founding and basically giving birth to the nation that eventually superceeded them as the worlds superpower/largest empire (albeit a financial empire, not land/pop) - America.

Lets also not forget that despite countless attempts by many other civilizations spanning century after century the British(or previous to unification the English) have succesfully defended their homeland from invasion for over 950 years, who else in the world can make that claim?

And all that from an island so small you could sink it in Lake Superior.

There is no contest.


It wasn't 1/3 of worldp population. But it still was much.
You didn't vote China with the arguement that is was conquered, and it indeed was only less then a century.
Britain was conquered by Rome, but I can see that doesn't count. Then still it was conquered by William the Conquerer of Normandy.
Britain was only succesful with the help of others. Just like virtually any other modern European power. They couldn't defeat the Dutch Republic (1672), Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm or Hitler alone. They needed other countries/colonies for wealth and even needed foreigners as kings or other important positions.

China on the other hand never needed anything or anybody else. Half of the world-economy in the middle ages was in China. In exploration/imperial age only thing they wanted was gold or silver, not the unworhty products made in Holland, France or Britain.
It was only due to conservatism that China eventually fell behind in tech and trade. But that is only in the last part of the tremendous Chinese history. Today stll China has its own movies and music and it is not old fashioned, or something. I have been there many times and if communism finally goes then it will become world power number one in a matter of years.

I love Britain and go there almost every year, but even on the greatest civ of Europe poll it would not score higher then a third or fourth place. Britain accumulated a tremendous econmy/trade empire and it started the Ind. Rev. But that's not everything to make it the greatest. Culture, science and arts count too, and although Britain has it share of that too (Shakespeare, Newton) it does not compare to France or Germany or Rome.
I can see why Americans vote Britain, because of the historical ties and the alliance and all, but I think it is because the US sounds less significant if their founders aren't the greatest civ.

And I do not understand the thing you wrote about Britain acquiring their empire (relatively) peacefully?!?!?! Boer war? Zulus? India? Aboriginals? And by the way, has anybody seen a Tasmanian guy lately?

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
All roads lead to Rome.

If your talking about the greatest empire ever, the mongol empire was the best.


Why did it not last then?

Britain/England doesn't compare to France? :lol:

I'm certainly no Anglophile, but that's just nonsense as far as I can see. If you had backed it up, then things might've been different though...:P

This looks silly... 18 votes for Russia and 15 for USA while Egypt has 3 and India 2? Russia is by no means "a great civlisation". Never was. USA may very well go down in history as such but have only existed for a wink so they should not even be in the poll. And Middle Eastern Civs has 2 votes... OMG.. This is strange...

Originally posted by calgacus
Britain/England doesn't compare to France? :lol:

I'm certainly no Anglophile, but that's just nonsense as far as I can see. If you had backed it up, then things might've been different though...:P


Ok, here goes.

French was for centuries THE language all rich and noble people spoke. France was on many occasions the mightiest country in the world. In Europe it was the mightiest country longer then any other civ ever, including Rome. French culture is abundant in all of the western world and in many aspects of culture, like arts, literature and philosphy.
Britain always ruled on actions France took. They mostly based their decisions depending on what France did. Napoleon was (at least one of) the greatest conquerer(s).
The most important political revolution ever was the French. Louis XIV was the longest ruling king ever and one of the most influental ever. Modern thinking is largely based on Frenchmen, like Voltaire and Rousseau. A lot of inventions were done in France. The Franks were the most important people of the middle ages (for large parts of the world).

And if I want I could go on and on and if I consult some of my books then more and more reasons would fill the list.

In my greatest civ top 3 France would be third, after Rome and China.

Originally posted by WickedSmurf
This looks silly... 18 votes for Russia and 15 for USA while Egypt has 3 and India 2? Russia is by no means "a great civlisation". Never was. USA may very well go down in history as such but have only existed for a wink so they should not even be in the poll. And Middle Eastern Civs has 2 votes... OMG.. This is strange...


I don't understand the votes for Russia or the USA either. Especially when countries as India and Egypt get so few and for example Spain gets none.

Originally posted by Tavenier



In my greatest civ top 3 France would be third, after Rome and China.

Well, at least you're prepared to defend your statement :)

Originally posted by Tavenier

Ok, here goes.

French was for centuries THE language all rich and noble people spoke. France was on many occasions the mightiest country in the world. In Europe it was the mightiest country longer then any other civ ever, including Rome. French culture is abundant in all of the western world and in many aspects of culture, like arts, literature and philosphy.


Well, this is somewhat of an exaggeration. French was the noble language of France, as well as Flanders and England in the high/late middle ages. Only after the years of Louis XIV did it gain more prestige....spreading to Russia as a result of the westernization engaged by Peter and Catherine the Great.

Today, there are 14 languages more commonly spoken than French, including European languaged like English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and German.

Originally posted by Tavenier

Britain always ruled on actions France took. They mostly based their decisions depending on what France did. Napoleon was (at least one of) the greatest conquerer(s).


Napoleon, that great proto-Hitler, was defeated by the DUke of Wellington. France is only a dominant European power between the 30 Years War (effective dissolution of the German Empire) and the Napoleonic Wars (defeat of France). France is thereafter a tragic, even somewhat pathetic a figure. The only successes are the conquests of northern Africa and Indo-China. France in fact loses 2 of the 3 most important wars she fights thereafter (Franco-Prussian War and World War II), and depends on England and then America for success (Crimea, World War I).

France becomes pathetically dependent upon England. France waits slavishly in the late 30s for England to decide war with Germany. She struggles in World War I, and it is the Anglo-Saxon allies who win the war for her.

Originally posted by Tavenier

The most important political revolution ever was the French. Louis XIV was the longest ruling king ever and one of the most influental ever. Modern thinking is largely based on Frenchmen, like Voltaire and Rousseau. A lot of inventions were done in France. The Franks were the most important people of the middle ages (for large parts of the world).

And if I want I could go on and on and if I consult some of my books then more and more reasons would fill the list.

Disagree. The American Revolution overshadows the French in current historiography. You see, it turns out that many of the leading revolutionaries were veterans of the American Wars of independence. The French Revolution was actually merely a copy of the American Revolution.

Modern thinking actually owes more to English (Hobbes, Locke, Newton, Darwin), Scottish (Smith, Hume, Maxwell) and German(ic) (Kant, Marx, Freud, Einstein) than French thinking. French intellectualism has little practical impact on the world by comparison.

Sure, a lot of inventions were done in France, but not overshadowing England, Scotland, Germany and USA.

The Franks were actually Germanic - not French. Although in post-Carolingian times the term "Frank" broadens its meaning.

Calvin ?

That "germanic"-speaking is giving me the creeps.

Forgetting Hegel, anyway.

The impact of the French revolution in Europe was way more important then the American revolution, which in the end only consisted of copying the UK, calling the king president and the house of lords senate.

Originally posted by Yago
Calvin ?


Indeed. The most important French intellectual by a distance was Descartes. But it's about comparisons here! ;)

Originally posted by Yago

The impact of the French revolution in Europe was way more important then the American revolution, which in the end only consisted of copying the UK, calling the king president and the house of lords senate.

I'd be interested to hear you explain this contention...:)

Calgalus, you talk only of the last 300, 400 years. The Franks were indeed mostly Germanic, but the English are too. Anglo-Saxons come from Northern Germany, Denmark and Holland.
Indeed if you only discuss the last couple of centuries the Anglo-Saxon world is dominant in a lot of areas. But before that Spain and France were way more important.
Without whos help would the USA not have gained their independence?

How can you say the American revolution overshadows the French? That is outright ridiculous and with that statement you made all your other statements much weaker in my eyes, and that's a pity. You have far too much an American point of view. Idealizing Britain and only discuss the centuries in which America(n colonies) also existed.
How can the independence of a bunch of colonies be more important then the people of the most important European nation of that time killing their king and seize power? The Am Rev paved the way for other colonies, but that is nothing compared to the impact the French Rev had on the world. How do you think all kings felt after that? And their reactions?
And Wellington defeated Napoleon indeed, but without the help of the 130.000 Prussians he was surely defeated. And don't start to even try to deny that, because the Battle of Waterloo is my speciality and I know the battle minute by minute and visited Waterloo many times.
In fact England never defeated any major foe on its own. Except for native tribes with spears. They always needed Prussia, the USA, Russia or others. France did too, but only in the last 150 years, Britain always.

Don't get me wrong, I love Britain, as I said before, and I have no special relationship with France, but I just want to break the ignorance and shirtsightedness of people who think the world only exists of US and UK. Just look at historical Hollywoodmovies. How many about England?

Well, Calvin invented the religion that crippled my ancestors, that's reason enough for mentioning. But what do you mean, the copying of the British system according to Montesqieu in the US constitution or the impact of the revolution in Europe ? Well, both are children 17 th and 18 th rationalism and enlightment. Indeed, it's actually interesting, how many jesuit-raised played a part in the French revolution. But anyway The French and the Prussians shaped the continent, even if the Russians and British preferred pleasant isolation. Now, for the impact, look how the continental European countries are shaped after principles of the French revolution and the most important equality. Equality was a prominent feature of the French revolution and still is a the continent shaping principle, indeed the British 2-party system with relative votes and the continental proportional system, seperate the anglo-saxons form the continentals, while the proportional system is based on equality and the principle of one man one vote. The Amercians would import the principel of equality only with the 14th. amendment and then wait a long time to implement it really. Further the schools-system, the constitutions, the judicary system, the law-codeifications, the parliaments, the metric system, even the flags of many countries are inspired by the French revolution. Not by the American one.

Originally posted by Yago
Well, Calvin invented the religion that crippled my ancestors, that's reason enough for mentioning. But what do you mean, the copying of the British system according to Montesqieu in the US constitution or the impact of the revolution in Europe ? Well, both are children 17 th and 18 th rationalism and enlightment. Indeed, it's actually interesting, how many jesuit-raised played a part in the French revolution. But anyway The French and the Prussians shaped the continent, even if the Russians and British preferred pleasant isolation. Now, for the impact, look how the continental European countries are shaped after principles of the French revolution and the most important equality. Equality was a prominent feature of the French revolution and still is a the continent shaping principle, indeed the British 2-party system with relative votes and the continental proportional system, seperate the anglo-saxons form the continentals, while the proportional system is based on equality and the principle of one man one vote. The Amercians would import the principel of equality only with the 14th. amendment and then wait a long time to implement it really. Further the schools-system, the constitutions, the judicary system, the law-codeifications, the parliaments, the metric system, even the flags of many countries are inspired by the French revolution. Not by the American one.



And imagine the impact it had on all Europeans, kings and commonfolk, for French commons to invade the kings palace, taking him outside and behead him! And I am not talking about political impact alone, but also mentally. A king, chosen by God to rule the country, was negated that rule by lesser people. That didn't do much good to the position of all other rulers anywhere. And the people started to become aware that you don't really need a king and that he is just a man, like anybody else. That is one major step forward to free minds and equal rights.

Originally posted by Tavenier
Calgalus, you talk only of the last 300, 400 years. The Franks were indeed mostly Germanic, but the English are too. Anglo-Saxons come from Northern Germany, Denmark and Holland.
Indeed if you only discuss the last couple of centuries the Anglo-Saxon world is dominant in a lot of areas. But before that Spain and France were way more important.
Without whos help would the USA not have gained their independence?


Yes, but the English are Germanic by definition. In the high middle ages, western Europe has one major power - Germany. In the later middle ages Spain, France, Sweden and England emerge as rivals.


Originally posted by Tavenier

How can you say the American revolution overshadows the French? That is outright ridiculous and with that statement you made all your other statements much weaker in my eyes, and that's a pity. You have far too much an American point of view. Idealizing Britain and only discuss the centuries in which America(n colonies) also existed.


I don't see it as an American point of view at all. Just not a Francocentric one :p

Originally posted by Tavenier

How can the independence of a bunch of colonies be more important then the people of the most important European nation of that time killing their king and seize power? The Am Rev paved the way for other colonies, but that is nothing compared to the impact the French Rev had on the world. How do you think all kings felt after that? And their reactions?


Most of the European liberal tradition of the 19th century follows the English model of Constitutional monarchy, rather than French dynasticide.

The American Revolution 1) Provided the first successful modern precedent 2) inspired the French Revolution and 3) led to a wave of revolutions across the Americas (a Eurocentric approach may make us forget this!)

Originally posted by Tavenier

And Wellington defeated Napoleon indeed, but without the help of the 130.000 Prussians he was surely defeated. And don't start to even try to deny that, because the Battle of Waterloo is my speciality and I know the battle minute by minute and visited Waterloo many times.

He won, didn't he?! :eek:

Originally posted by Tavenier

In fact England never defeated any major foe on its own. Except for native tribes with spears. They always needed Prussia, the USA, Russia or others. France did too, but only in the last 150 years, Britain always.

Don't get me wrong, I love Britain, as I said before, and I have no special relationship with France, but I just want to break the ignorance and shirtsightedness of people who think the world only exists of US and UK. Just look at historical Hollywoodmovies. How many about England?

I don't see how this makes a difference! War is always in the first instance a diplomatic "game". War is won by whatever means necessary. England's policy of "Splendid Isolation" was the most successful and consistant policy in modern European history.

Let's get things into perspective. France spawned no successful independent daughter nation. England have USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. English is the first and only ever "World Language". Despite originating in the south-eastern section of a small Atlantic archipelago, it is today the world's 2nd largest language. French is confined almost totally to France, with some native speakers in Quebec and elsewhere.

Placing England behind France strikes me as absurd - frankly ;)

*English is the first and only ever "World Language".*

And what about latin? It was spoken all through the known world.


*French is confined almost totally to France*

Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Congo, Mali, Senegal, Guinee, Ivory Coast, Burkino Faso, Niger, Chad, and so on. Almost all of Western Africa. Confined to France? Stop making me laugh at your statements.



*Placing England behind France strikes me as absurd - frankly *
What did England do in, say 800? 900? 1000? Being conquered by Danes and Northmen. What did France do? Building an empire spanning most of Western Europe and lay the foundations not only for modern France, but also Germany and to some extend Italy.

Quit the short sighted thingy, read a book on the middle ages and then come back.

Netherlands, allthough I would say Holland instead ;)

Originally posted by Tavenier
*English is the first and only ever "World Language".*

And what about latin? It was spoken all through the known world.


*French is confined almost totally to France*

Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Congo, Mali, Senegal, Guinee, Ivory Coast, Burkino Faso, Niger, Chad, and so on. Almost all of Western Africa. Confined to France? Stop making me laugh at your statements.


Latin was spoken in the Roman Empire, and then Western Christendom - a relatively backward part of the medieval world. The civilizations of the Arabs, Persians, Russians, Indians, Central Asians, Chinese, Koreans, and sub-saharan Africans - never mind the Meso-Americans and Incans never used Latin at any level. :p

Surprisingly to most people, Swizerland and Belgium have more Germanic speakers (Swiss German and Flemish) than French. As you should know, the majority of Swiss are Germanic.

Actually, only the elites (pretty small) of these African countries know French. AFAIK, English is becoming more widespread nowadays.

Originally posted by Tavenier

*Placing England behind France strikes me as absurd - frankly *
What did England do in, say 800? 900? 1000? Being conquered by Danes and Northmen. What did France do? Building an empire spanning most of Western Europe and lay the foundations not only for modern France, but also Germany and to some extend Italy.

Quit the short sighted thingy, read a book on the middle ages and then come back.


Well, I happen to be a trained medievalist :lol: Goodness me - you're funny :goodjob:

"Building an empire spanning most of Western Europe and lay the foundations not only for modern France, but also Germany and to some extend Italy". :lol:

800, 900, 1000 - France was in pieces! What the frig are you on about :eek: After Henry II, the English king ruled more of France than the king of France.

@Tavenier

France was a great power at it's height, but greater than the British Empire? Think about it, when you just say the words "British Empire" everyone knows how mighty it was. Have you ever heard anyone say "the French Empire" in even a remotely similar way?

Im not belittling the French here at all, they were certainly powerful. I just think not quite as powerful as the British.

Your comments about Waterloo are really strange, by the way. Napoleon had one army. Wellington had to combine Prussians, Dutch (Netherlands), and British. This is obviously the more difficult task but you talk as if ordering three groups of armies about is easier than just one group. Plus Blucher and Wellington had to be united. Napoleon didn't have that problem.

I think in the event Wellington and Napoleon both made serious errors, but Wellington made his first (and got them out of the way, if you like) whereas Napoleon did manage to separate the Prussians and British, but totally failed to capitalise on it.

I can't say I know the battle minute by minute, but I do know that Wellington kept a cool head, kept his men out of a lot of the danger from the French Artillery by using natural cover, and at the start of the day, the Prussians were miles away, half of Wellingtons troops were of low quality and Napoleon had a massive advantage. At the end of the day, the Prussian intervention was decisive, that is true. But it was Wellingtons tactics during the day without the Prussians that enabled this to be true. Also that Napoleon held back the troops Ney needed to properly attack the British Centre and if he hadn't, the French would probably have won (as they had already beaten the Prussians once and that Blucher rallied them is incredible really).

Anyway, that's my view gained from TV history shows, but I'm definitely no expert on it.

Originally posted by polymath
@Tavenier

France was a great power at it's height, but greater than the British Empire? Think about it, when you just say the words "British Empire" everyone knows how mighty it was. Have you ever heard anyone say "the French Empire" in even a remotely similar way?

Im not belittling the French here at all, they were certainly powerful. I just think not quite as powerful as the British.

Your comments about Waterloo are really strange, by the way. Napoleon had one army. Wellington had to combine Prussians, Dutch (Netherlands), and British. This is obviously the more difficult task but you talk as if ordering three groups of armies about is easier than just one group. Plus Blucher and Wellington had to be united. Napoleon didn't have that problem.

I think in the event Wellington and Napoleon both made serious errors, but Wellington made his first (and got them out of the way, if you like) whereas Napoleon did manage to separate the Prussians and British, but totally failed to capitalise on it.

I can't say I know the battle minute by minute, but I do know that Wellington kept a cool head, kept his men out of a lot of the danger from the French Artillery by using natural cover, and at the start of the day, the Prussians were miles away, half of Wellingtons troops were of low quality and Napoleon had a massive advantage. At the end of the day, the Prussian intervention was decisive, that is true. But it was Wellingtons tactics during the day without the Prussians that enabled this to be true. Also that Napoleon held back the troops Ney needed to properly attack the British Centre and if he hadn't, the French would probably have won (as they had already beaten the Prussians once and that Blucher rallied them is incredible really).

Anyway, that's my view gained from TV history shows, but I'm definitely no expert on it.



True on most parts. Only that Wellington did not command Prussians!!! He had about 90.000 troops. 1/3 British, 1/3 Dutch and 1/3 German (other then Prussian) roughly. France had about 110.000 troops. Wellington made mistakes and good decisions, just like Nap. He especially brilliantly held off French attacks on two farms in the midst of battle. Nap had to send more and more troops there and it was held by only a handful (relatively) of allied soldiers.
Napoleon would have ultimately won (IMO) if it weren't for the Prussians under Blücher. But till the last minute Wellington was not sure if they would come.
I am not saying all this because I am pro-France or anti-British, because I am proud Wellington won, I am Dutch and the Dutch were under the command of the Dutch prince or Orange, who was wounded and on that spot is the largest Waterloo monument. I am just trying to be realistic.

Calgalus.

There is no point continuing this conversation. You just go on and on on the same things which I try to explain differently on and on.
For example: I said that in Belgium and Switzerland people speak French. Then you try to win the arguement by saying the French speakers aren't in the majority there. I know that, like most people! I didn't say they were the majority! I know, Belgium is our neighbour and the Northern part speaks Dutch (Flemmish isn't a language, just like American isn't). Only the rich part of West Africa speaks French?!?!?!? That's silly. Everybody there speaks French! Ok, they mostly have another African language too, but the neighbouring tribe doesn't understand that, so they speak French outside their tribe.


If you are a medievalist, you probably weren't paying attention at some colleges, hahaha.

In 800 France was in pieces? Interesting statement, coming from a medievalist, haha. In England the largest part was occupied by Vikings. eg The Five Boroughs lasted from 877 till 942.

But like I said this discussion could go on and on. And everything I say you try to avoid by giving an arguement missing the point on purpose, acompanied by smilies.......

Originally posted by Tavenier
Calgalus.

For example: I said that in Belgium and Switzerland people speak French. Then you try to win the arguement by saying the French speakers aren't in the majority there. I know that, like most people! I didn't say they were the majority! I know, Belgium is our neighbour and the Northern part speaks Dutch (Flemmish isn't a language, just like American isn't). Only the rich part of West Africa speaks French?!?!?!? That's silly. Everybody there speaks French! Ok, they mostly have another African language too, but the neighbouring tribe doesn't understand that, so they speak French outside their tribe.


You're not very informed about western Africa, are you? Never mind :p

Originally posted by Tavenier
Calgalus.

In 800 France was in pieces? Interesting statement, coming from a medievalist, haha. In England the largest part was occupied by Vikings. eg The Five Boroughs lasted from 877 till 942.

But like I said this discussion could go on and on. And everything I say you try to avoid by giving an arguement missing the point on purpose, acompanied by smilies.......

I meant 800 as in 9th century. France didn't exist in 800 as a state. I mean, properly speaking, it's difficult to say it existed before the election of Hugh Capet, but one could start with Verdun (843)

Originally posted by Tavenier

If you are a medievalist, you probably weren't paying attention at some colleges, hahaha.


Come on, Tavenier, you're not exactly setting the heather alight with your knowledge of medieval Europe. :confused:

Originally posted by Tavenier
Calgalus.

There is no point continuing this conversation. You just go on and on on the same things which I try to explain differently on and on.


I agree. Continue if you want. You're hardly giving me a tough time. You should probably put more thought into your future posts. I'm not trying to insult you...just giving some advice! :)

My neighbour is from Congo. And at my sportsclub are some more West Africans. And you probably know better then them. They were just born there.

I ddn't said it was a state, there you go again.

Hardly giving you a tough time? Wasn't suppose to do so. But you are hardly giving any good comments from your side. And an advice to you. Don't say you are a "medievalist" and then back up an arguement about Britain or France totally neglecting the middle ages! That's sounds a bit silly. You said giving more thoughts in future posts, and you hardly giving any good comments on mine so far? Back it up with real comments and you are entitled to arrogance, a trait of yours? I teach Dutch history so I am no beginner in such matters. Only difference is that you have the advantage of having a discussion in your mother tongue and I have to do it in another language, which I don't control fully, unfortunately. That's a real disadvantage for me.

But another thing. What did you vote?

Come on, Tavenier, you're not exactly setting the heather alight with your knowledge of medieval Europe.



True. I admit I don't know everything about medieval Europe (only about Holland in the middle ages I know a lot). But you just show arrogance and don't admit you were wrong on other subjects. Everybody reading this agrees you lost your statement about the French Revolution, for example. But do you admit? No, you try another thing and eventually hope to 'win'. And furthermore you show some genuine American arrogance! And on these forums I think the Americans were not into that, but at least one is, and that's a pity.

Originally posted by Tavenier



It wasn't 1/3 of worldp population. But it still was much.
You didn't vote China with the arguement that is was conquered, and it indeed was only less then a century.
Britain was conquered by Rome, but I can see that doesn't count. Then still it was conquered by William the Conquerer of Normandy.



True, I know the land they now occupy has been invaded, by the Romans, the Viings, William the 1st etc, my point regarding invasion though was that since 1066 they have upheld their soverignty 100%

Never since that date has a force invaded, or attempted to invade and survived - this includes the Germans during the 2nd WW (the Battle of Britain occured 6 months before US joined the war remember)


Britain was only succesful with the help of others. Just like virtually any other modern European power. They couldn't defeat the Dutch Republic (1672), Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm or Hitler alone. They needed other countries/colonies for wealth and even needed foreigners as kings or other important positions.

Hmmm, you could pick individual battles or wars to highlight that any nation hasnt won every battle they have ever had.

For example, while they lost to the Dutch republic in 1672 it was the Dutch who got the severest of severe kickings 21 years earlier i nthe 1st Anglo Dutch war, and didnt the British win New York(New Amsterdam) from the Dutch in the 2nd Anglo Dutch war?

I'm not sure what you mean that they didnt defeat Napolean?? The Duke of Wellington gave him a right seeing too and where did he end up?.... Exiled to St Helena - if that isnt defeat I dont know what is.

China on the other hand never needed anything or anybody else. Half of the world-economy in the middle ages was in China.

This is a very valid point, you got me there :)

I have been there many times and if communism finally goes then it will become world power number one in a matter of years.

I would love to go to China, I'm jealous :), your right there as well, they allready are a world power wihtout doubt. Especially militarily, theyve overtaken France and California in terms of economy and are catching up with UK fast - if they do switch to Capitilism then Germany and Japan will be overtaken in less than a decade and America will follow soon after.

I love Britain and go there almost every year, but even on the greatest civ of Europe poll it would not score higher then a third or fourth place.

I cant agree here. I know they have serious competition to the title, especially from Rome and Spain, Spain almost matched them in terms of expansion and the Romans gave their empire a sort of technological revolution that wasnt matched for over a 1000 years, but the British did both in bigger way.

And I do not understand the thing you wrote about Britain acquiring their empire (relatively) peacefully?!?!?! Boer war? Zulus? India? Aboriginals? And by the way, has anybody seen a Tasmanian guy lately?

I worte they did it in a more peacefull manner than any previous Empire before them, which is true ,I didnt say 'they did it peacefully'

Some good points their Tavenier but I'm staying with the Brits.

All Empires Fall, the British empire eventually fell also.

Originally posted by Tavenier
My neighbour is from Congo. And at my sportsclub are some more West Africans. And you probably know better then them. They were just born there.


Indeed :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tavenier

I ddn't said it was a state, there you go again.


Didn't say that you said it was a state :p


Originally posted by Tavenier

Hardly giving you a tough time? Wasn't suppose to do so. But you are hardly giving any good comments from your side. And an advice to you. Don't say you are a "medievalist" and then back up an arguement about Britain or France totally neglecting the middle ages! That's sounds a bit silly.


The topic of the poll is greatest civilization ever. Europe is so backwards and peripheral in the middle ages - that it hardly matters what was happening then. And anyway, I didn't ignore the middle ages. I pointed out that France wasn't any more of a big fish then than later. I also pointed out that Germany was the big fish of western Christendom in the high middle ages, and that Spain, France, Sweden and England became rivals later on.


Originally posted by Tavenier

You said giving more thoughts in future posts, and you hardly giving any good comments on mine so far? Back it up with real comments and you are entitled to arrogance, a trait of yours? I teach Dutch history so I am no beginner in such matters. Only difference is that you have the advantage of having a discussion in your mother tongue and I have to do it in another language, which I don't control fully, unfortunately. That's a real disadvantage for me.


I'm satisfied with my contribution. I've responded to everything to my own satisfaction.

Originally posted by Tavenier


But another thing. What did you vote?

"Christian Civilization"

Originally posted by Tavenier


True. I admit I don't know everything about medieval Europe (only about Holland in the middle ages I know a lot). But you just show arrogance and don't admit you were wrong on other subjects. Everybody reading this agrees you lost your statement about the French Revolution, for example. .

I don't think I've been wrong so far. If I am, then I'll admit it.

Originally posted by Tavenier
But do you admit? No, you try another thing and eventually hope to 'win'


Hope to win? I'm just trying to have a historical discussion


Originally posted by Tavenier


And furthermore you show some genuine American arrogance! And on these forums I think the Americans were not into that, but at least one is, and that's a pity.

I'm not American :lol:

Fret,

Indeed the Brits are sovereign since 1066. And the wars against the Dutch were mostly sccesful, but do you remember the Dutch sailing up the Thames and occupying parts of London? It was a part of London, I can't remember the name right now.
Indeed New Amsterdam was lost to the British. Then recaptured by the Dutch and then traded to parts of Northern Brasil, nowadays Surinam. There the English and Dutch were competing and the English promised to leave there in exchange for New Amsterdam, without bloodshed. An uneven trade, of course, but the Dutch agreed, because a battle over NA they would have lost for sure.


I didn't mean that Wellington didn't won, or anything. But Blücher of Prussia was just as good a victor as Wel was. Although of the two Bl"cher was a better tactician IMO, Wel was a brighter man, trying everything to win, and succeeded fantastically.


Britain could score second in a European poll, but after much consideration and many discussions! Rome could never be less then first. Britain did everything to a larger extend, but it was in a totally different time, which you just can't compare. To put it simple, without Rome, no Britain (or Spain, France, Italy or whatever). At least not in that form.


You should go to China if you gt the chance. Only the flight is expensive, hotels and restaurants are cheap. For me to go to Britain for two weeks is overall just as expensive as 2 weeks of China.


I agree with you that Britain gained territory quite peacefully. But don't forget Rome got most of its territory also by diplomacy and the promise of protection against enemies. For example Syracuse on Sicily asked Roman help against Carthage. They did conquer large amounts of land by bloody wars (Carthage or Gaul) but I think more land by diplomacy, but I am not 100% sure about that.

Calgalus, where is Seattle then? Or are you just living there?
And what nationality do you have? French? Haha ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tavenier


True. I admit I don't know everything about medieval Europe (only about Holland in the middle ages I know a lot). But you just show arrogance and don't admit you were wrong on other subjects. Everybody reading this agrees you lost your statement about the French Revolution, for example. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think I've been wrong so far. If I am, then I'll admit it.



Arrogant AND stubborn! You still think the American Revolution OVERSHADOWS the French Revolution in importance?!?!?!

Originally posted by Tavenier
Calgalus, where is Seattle then? Or are you just living there?
And what nationality do you have? French? Haha ;-)

I'm a man of the world. :D

Actually, the answer is in my title! ;)

Originally posted by Tavenier

Arrogant AND stubborn! You still think the American Revolution OVERSHADOWS the French Revolution in importance?!?!?!

Yep! :p

I wait to be persuaded otherwise! :)

Originally posted by calgacus


Yep! :p

I wait to be persuaded otherwise! :)



Yago and I should have. If not, then it is just stubborness. I am sorry to say, but all the points I made could not be pusuasive, or something, but no historian in his right mind could say the Am Rev overshadows the French. If you think it is more important then I could understand that that's a fact for some regions, especially the US itself, or course. But to say 'overshadows' is way too much. You have to have some pretty good comments supporting that. I think even Washington or Cornwallis couldn't think of any comments supporting the word overshadows.

Ok just some comments:

And Wellington defeated Napoleon indeed, but without the help of the 130.000 Prussians he was surely defeated. And don't start to even try to deny that, because the Battle of Waterloo is my speciality and I know the battle minute by minute and visited Waterloo many times.

In the campaign there might have been 130,000 Prussians, but at the battle no more than perhaps 87,000 ever arrived let alone saw action, a figure that would have been even less. Most of these merely engaged one single corps of infantry backed by some Guard battalions and cavalry. Near the end much of this entire force was driven out of Plancenoit for some time by less than 1200 men! :eek: (the guard battalions, two of them to be exact)

The prussians were important, that's for sure, but their effect was not the sole deciding factor in victory either. Indeed the Prussian high command was quite concerned about fighting with Wellington due to political manouvers before the return of Napoleon and the inability of Wellington to arrive at the battle of Ligny due to the fighting at Quatre Bras and the miscalculations of his staff. Because of this when the Prussians moved on Waterloo, their furthest corps marched through the other two that were nearer in order to delay their arrival. All of these hampered allied chances of sucess and makes Wellington's stand brave and equal in credit to the Prussian attempts.

Wellington had to combine Prussians, Dutch (Netherlands), and British.

Possibly you mean Germans rather than Prussians, Wellington commanded Brunswickers, Hanovarians, The Kings German Legion and Nassauers (though the latter under dutch command and part of their forces)

True on most parts. Only that Wellington did not command Prussians!!! He had about 90.000 troops. 1/3 British, 1/3 Dutch and 1/3 German (other then Prussian) roughly. France had about 110.000 troops.

Uhmmm no, Wellington commanded some 67,000 men and 156 guns, Napoleon some 72,000 and 270 guns. You perhaps mistake your figures for the campaign totals. I have a number of reference works on the battle, none cite more than those figures present on the field. The figures you refer to are the campaign totals on the eve of the start of fighting, something I thought I'd best clear up a little as it's not certain which you refer to. :)

Wellington made mistakes and good decisions, just like Nap.

In my personal experience, Napoleon's only good decision during the entire campaign came during the planning stage, and even some of that he failed in. His battlefield tactics were woeful, his strategy in the field even worse. Wellington's biggest mistakes came from his underestimation of his Dutch-Belgian allies, his initial inability to recognise the invasion had happened and his failiure to take the initiative during Waterloo.

Privatehudson,

Indeed Prussia was not the sole reason for victory. And even though most Prussians of the army didn't see a lot of action it was still very important to morale (on both sides) and the French commanders had to send troops, even though this was not a large part of the army. But I do think you underestimate the role of Prussians. The artillery played a very important role and fired from a large distance well before the regular troops arrived.

And yes, with the numbers I meant the campaign numbers. If the battle would have been undecisive then the total number would have mattered a lot. If it was a defeat for Wellington then Prussian forces would be even more important, and that's also reflected in morale.

You were right about the German troops. Mostly Hannovarians. And the Germans for Nassau were fighting in Dutch ranks (the Prices of Orange originate from Nassau).

I will send you some pictures I made of Waterloo a couple of months ago.

Oh indeed, Wellington would not have even stood at Waterloo but for the promise of Blucher to come to his support, but the number needed according to Wellington was no more than 1 corps. It is to be assumed from this that Wellington could have easily pulled off a draw with this single corps supporting him forcing a strategic stalemate, something that Napoleon could not afford due to the grand strategy he was following.

On the Prussians, I'm personally of the opinion that their role was not vital to the battle as a whole, but the battle would not have ended the same way without them. I think Wellington could have pulled off a draw had he bothered to recognise the ability of his allied forces. A draw would have forced Napoleon back, he needed to destroy both armies relatively quickly and easily, drawn out battles with heavy losses and no definative result were fatal to his chances of persuading the other allied nations to sue for peace. Wellington could and should have fought the battle more aggressively, but his mistrust of his Dutch troops and officers, and especially the Prince or Orange (whom he felt lacked the experience to lead half of his forces when compared to others in his own army) stopped that.

Basically put I don't think Prussian intervention was an absolute neccessity in the battle or campaign. It was important to the eventual result that is for sure, and their contribution to the rapid decimation of Napoleon's men, and by extension empire was good, but not vital, sooner or later, the volume of other allied nations would have swamped him. I do believe they deserve equal credit for the result, but I don't believe that their performances were brilliant in most battles they fought due to their army being partly landwehr. This is borne out in the ludicrous loss of Plancenoit to a miniscule French force for example.

A draw napoleon could not afford, within a month or two some two armies would descend on Eastern France, both larger than either of those allied armies in the Netherlands. A draw would mean a stalemate, a stalemate would prevent the French from disengaging and fighting the Austrians, Russians and others.

Oh and I know the Nassauers were under the Dutch army, I have a book on them during the entire war under Napoleon and then under the Dutch army

And cheers for the pics :goodjob:

Cool pics, right? You're welcome!

Yes, Wellington mistrusted the Dutch. Two reasons. Main reason was that a lot of those Dutch soldiers fought under French banner not long before Waterloo. The Netherlands were literally made a province (three, actually) of France.
Second reason was, as you said, his doubts of the competence of the Prince. He was inexperienced and not too talented when it came to military tactics. He was given the command purely out of political and diplomatical reasons. And the Dutch would fight better under a Dutchman.
But I do believe it was Wellington who said that what he lacked in strategic insights he made up for in pure bravery. He fought amidst his cavalry and got wounded. By the way, he later became King Willaim II of Holland. He was also a weak king, unlike his father, and during his rule the constitution changed and the power of the king was reduced to almost purely ceremonial acts.


And on the pics, did you recognize that farm?

I'm not sure what you mean, I've not seen any yet... I was thanking you for the offer. :confused: Send them to neilaholesuk@yahoo.com and it should get to me :)

And yes the Prince was brave, but some of his decisions caused the deaths of many allied soldiers through his lack of experience. He apparently had a habit of ignoring the presence or possibility of French cavalry and tended to order his troops out of square quite often. Then again he is supposed to have been mostly responsible for the presence of the Allied forces at Quatres Bras the night before the fighting there, forcing Ney to fight for the vital position and tying down half of Napoleon's army at that vital stage. Good and bad I'd say, but overall I would agree with Wellington that whilst neccessary, he wasn't the best commander of men.

Anyway this is going way off topic, so I'll shut up now :D I still feel Britain leads the way in civilisation stakes due to it's influence on the majority of the world in so many ways. :)

Originally posted by privatehudson
I'm not sure what you mean, I've not seen any yet... I was thanking you for the offer. :confused: Send them to neilaholesuk@yahoo.com and it should get to me :)

And yes the Prince was brave, but some of his decisions caused the deaths of many allied soldiers through his lack of experience. He apparently had a habit of ignoring the presence or possibility of French cavalry and tended to order his troops out of square quite often. Then again he is supposed to have been mostly responsible for the presence of the Allied forces at Quatres Bras the night before the fighting there, forcing Ney to fight for the vital position and tying down half of Napoleon's army at that vital stage. Good and bad I'd say, but overall I would agree with Wellingt