Which Civ5 civilisation had the biggest impact on history?

PrimoXanthous · Mar 28, 2014

Securion said:
.. built the atom bomb...

i love america but...
should the people there would really be proud that they have created and use such weapon that wipe out 2 city and kill thousands of innocent people???
(not to mention that it's not really necessary to use that time) that is the worst thing human civilization ever created. nobody should be proud of that.

Tyo · Mar 28, 2014

Right, wrong or indifferent, it is impactful.

PhilBowles · Mar 28, 2014

Krajzen said:
I agree
Wow, I didn't know that Spanish influence is so weak (although I learnt a lot about Latin American diversity and culture from Leugi's South American civilisations Also I know that there is a big impact of indigenous people)

I'll grant that I probably overstated the case (after all, they also have guitars), and the Latin American territories still treat Spanish history as their own. But the Spanish colonial experience was very different from the British one, and the formerly-Spanish territories are not just Spanish-flavoured versions of the US or Canada; Spanish influence is much lower, and the countries are not obviously defined by particularly Spanish values, they don't tend to have Spanish foods, musical styles, clothing, or architecture, they don't use Cervantes as a reference for their literature as the Anglicised world does Shakespeare, etc. etc.

For one thing, I've already noted that most Latin American territories have populations characterised by indigenous or (more often) mixed ancestry - this did not happen in most later European colonies, where the English (or other northern European, or in the cases of places like the Caribbean and Suriname, the imported slave/worker population) population wholly displaced the indigenous people. Some indigenous elements undoubtedly entered these societies through contact, but adding to a base culture that was at the start wholly that of the European parent territory; modern America owes more to fusion of British culture with that of imported West Africans than it does to any of the native tribes.

Secondly, Spain's colonial period was earlier and Spain itself younger than the northern European territories when their colonial period began - there wasn't really a unifying Spanish culture beyond being evangelical Catholics until rather later. Although Spain retained the colonies for centuries, and so undoubtedly introduced later Spanish culture to them over time, this was adding to colonial cultures that had emerged more or less in parallel and at the same time; again there was no wholesale replacement as there was in the English world.

Spanish power lasted for ~one century and then this country fell in total economical void and currently is definitely the weakest Big Western Post - Imperial Country (weaker than UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, even Italy). So... yeah, it shouldn't be in the first 10

While I think it's true to say (and did say) that Spain never really recovered from the loss of its empire (which was a bit later than you suggest - the final end of Spain as a major power in Europe was its ultimate defeat in the Thirty Years War, in the mid-17th Century), I don't think that can be entirely blamed for its current problems. If not for first Napoleon, and later Mussolini and Hitler, using Iberia as a playground for their own wars - and Franco's survival in power until the 1970s - the country could be doing a great deal better today than it is.

Lol I was afraid someone will point that - I mean, French tourism > Chinese MAIN COUNTRY tourism, but if we add Hongkong, Macau, Singapore and Taiwan tourism to China, then Chinese tourism > French tourism (in this particular case I treat these states (?) as representants of 'Chinese Culture' )

I can't imagine Macau changes the figures much, and Singapore has no place in that list - it's neither Chinese territory nor adjacent to China; the population is ethnically Chinese, but on that basis you could add much of Belgium, Switzerland and Canada to the figures for French tourism.

PhilBowles · Mar 28, 2014

SickFak said:
Where is Polandball?

into space?

PhilBowles · Mar 28, 2014

Tyo said:
If America hadn't existed it would be up for debate how WWI (and by extension WWII) would've happened, but I don't think that's what really matters on the grander scale - compared to other things at least. It would seriously be up for debate whether countless inventions would have been made, at least in the timeframe that they were. Who knows if Tesla would have been given enough resources to conduct his research on alternating currents? Who knows if flight would have been in use as early? Who knows if the Maxim gun would have came around as early? Would the British be as dominant in its colonial reach without it?

The rest of the world was only a few years behind on flight, and I've already noted that American intervention was largely irrelevant to the outcome of WWI (the final German offensives having been repelled in battles with very limited American involvement, and almost prior to their arrival in Europe), but the bolded part is a subtle yet extremely important one, given that the Maxim is seen as one of the keys to British imperial success.

A lot of the discussion downplaying American importance has dismissed America as little more than an extension of British imperialism, but it's important not to forget that British imperialism itself was laid on partly American foundations.

If the world did play out similarly to OTL with an allied victory in WWII, does this mean the Soviet block is the dominant power? Would it be farfetched to say that the world would look a lot more red than today?

Don't forget Japan - it's possible that without America they wouldn't have broken isolation, but had they done so it's quite easy to imagine a world where Japanese imperialism went unchecked, with a Soviet Union dominating its real-world territory (plus West Germany), and most of Asia and Polynesia east of India part of the Japanese empire. Australia might have been absorbed into Japan. Perhaps there would have been knock-on effects in Britain; squeezed between two major powers, would India have pursued independence? As the major surviving Western power, Britain would almost certainly be more reluctant to allow secession of its Asian territory or to permit the later African rebellions to succeed - perhaps they'd have lost Kenya (they can hardly be accused of not trying to put down the Mau Mau), but a scenario like that would probably have inspired more nationalistic fervour for holding onto the remaining bits of the empire that seceded with less of a fight (and we wouldn't have fought and lost a war in Malaysia in the '60s).

I suspect that if America hadn't been there, the world would have looked a lot different, and much more complex, than just "Soviets win the Cold War" - I actually read a couple of days ago that a new book contends that American involvement in the Cold War was heavily influenced by a post-WWI British desire to contain communism, so Britain would probably have taken on America's role (almost certainly less successfully, as the country was overstretched and had just been heavily battered by a war that in the real world left America largely unscathed).

Tyo · Mar 28, 2014

All that speculation is exactly what I mean. The world can be invariably changed without the existance of America, which is why it's impact is not something to be taken lightly. Is it more important than Britain or India all things considered? Not really, but it's very important in its own rite, certainly integral to how the world looks today - which is what we're talking about, right?

PhilBowles · Mar 28, 2014

Tyo said:
All that speculation is exactly what I mean. The world can be invariably changed without the existance of America, which is why it's impact is not something to be taken lightly. Is it more important than Britain or India all things considered? Not really, but it's very important in its own rite, certainly integral to how the world looks today - which is what we're talking about, right?

I don't disagree at all - partly I just like imaging alternative histories (the above might not be all that plausible if America didn't exist, since Japan wouldn't have industrialised as fast without America, but if America existed and didn't get involved in the war it's a tenable scenario), but more pertinently to the thread even those pointing out America's significance focus rather narrowly on its significance to Europe (yes, eurocentrism is alive and well), particularly in WWII and the Cold War.

Even in America itself, WWII these days is seen as a valiant conflict against Hitler in which America's main role was the Normandy invasion. The Normandy invasion was in 1944 - America had been in the war for three years by that point, with little significant presence in Europe, and it did not enter the war to defeat Hitler, seen as a European problem. On a similar basis, detractors of America's role in the world claim (quite correctly) that Hitler would have been defeated without American intervention, and all American involvement in Europe really achieved was to prevent Soviet domination of Germany. From this they draw the conclusion that the war as a whole would have been much the same without America. Both are wrong, and both understate the way the world would have changed without America's involvement.

adwcta · Mar 28, 2014

PrimoXanthous said:
i love america but...
should the people there would really be proud that they have created and use such weapon that wipe out 2 city and kill thousands of innocent people???
(not to mention that it's not really necessary to use that time) that is the worst thing human civilization ever created. nobody should be proud of that.

Proud? No. Impactful? Hell yes. Let's also not forget who invented and then socially spearheaded this thing we're all communicating with...

IMO America's biggest contribution to shaping the world: internet, online retail/banking, then social media. We don't think of the Internet as American, but it is.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

seancolorado · Mar 28, 2014

adwcta said:
Proud? No. Impactful? Hell yes. Let's also not forget who invented and then socially spearheaded this thing we're all communicating with...

IMO America's biggest contribution to shaping the world: internet, online retail/banking, then social media. We don't think of the Internet as American, but it is.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

In the context of history it's hard to pinpoint exactly where "America's legacy" will fall, but we can't deny that today America is the "civilization" of civilizations and what you point out definitely plays a huge part in that.

As someone who grew up in Asia and Africa, it's hard not to notice the massive impact of American culture (a term people unwittingly love to mock, as if America has no culture, when in reality America's culture is the "Grand Temple" equivalent in how much pressure it exerts).

This whole globalization culture has a lot to do with American cinema, music, cuisine, values, fashion, dance, etc, and how other countries adopt it and make it their own. Take hip-hop for example. Once strictly an American form of expression, but now most countries and cities - from Medan to Cape Town - use this tool to express their own unique problems and this has rallied followers in unprecedented ways: Since the 90s Arab hip-hop has flourished, but its most significant effects have been seen during the recent Arab uprisings. Hip-hop is a special kind of language that goes beyond borders but conservative values have done a good job at belittling its true place in the world today. It is the most effective form of poetry because it is the most natural form of poetry for people in very bad situations. Since almost the entire planet is in a bad situation, it's not surprising that the youth of today have adopted it with open arms.

This cultural homogenization almost seems like an inevitable process thanks to the natural flow of information that we now experience today. America happens to be at the forefront, but only because that's how the cards of history have been played out.

reddishrecue · Mar 28, 2014

PhilBowles said:
I'll grant that I probably overstated the case (after all, they also have guitars), and the Latin American territories still treat Spanish history as their own. But the Spanish colonial experience was very different from the British one, and the formerly-Spanish territories are not just Spanish-flavoured versions of the US or Canada; Spanish influence is much lower, and the countries are not obviously defined by particularly Spanish values, they don't tend to have Spanish foods, musical styles, clothing, or architecture, they don't use Cervantes as a reference for their literature as the Anglicised world does Shakespeare, etc. etc.

For one thing, I've already noted that most Latin American territories have populations characterised by indigenous or (more often) mixed ancestry - this did not happen in most later European colonies, where the English (or other northern European, or in the cases of places like the Caribbean and Suriname, the imported slave/worker population) population wholly displaced the indigenous people. Some indigenous elements undoubtedly entered these societies through contact, but adding to a base culture that was at the start wholly that of the European parent territory; modern America owes more to fusion of British culture with that of imported West Africans than it does to any of the native tribes.

Secondly, Spain's colonial period was earlier and Spain itself younger than the northern European territories when their colonial period began - there wasn't really a unifying Spanish culture beyond being evangelical Catholics until rather later. Although Spain retained the colonies for centuries, and so undoubtedly introduced later Spanish culture to them over time, this was adding to colonial cultures that had emerged more or less in parallel and at the same time; again there was no wholesale replacement as there was in the English world.

While I think it's true to say (and did say) that Spain never really recovered from the loss of its empire (which was a bit later than you suggest - the final end of Spain as a major power in Europe was its ultimate defeat in the Thirty Years War, in the mid-17th Century), I don't think that can be entirely blamed for its current problems. If not for first Napoleon, and later Mussolini and Hitler, using Iberia as a playground for their own wars - and Franco's survival in power until the 1970s - the country could be doing a great deal better today than it is.

I can't imagine Macau changes the figures much, and Singapore has no place in that list - it's neither Chinese territory nor adjacent to China; the population is ethnically Chinese, but on that basis you could add much of Belgium, Switzerland and Canada to the figures for French tourism.

That does make sense in a way since the majority of the people in the Americas speak European languages like English, Spanish or French. While in Europe, divided countries have made their own languages, but its not the majority. Sort of like the descendants of the native Americans who have become few and probably still speak the native language of their ancestors.

andreafin · Mar 29, 2014

i would like to point out some things which i dont think people have considered when discussing east v west for influence, or whether america belongs in the list now. the world wasnt really 'globalised' for much of its history, thats a fairly recent thing with the advent of fast communications and transport. i think its not so easy to say which one culture was most influential in all of history precisely because while there were trading links between china, india and europe they were all pretty much developing in their own areas; IMO china was dominant influence where it is. Mongols it has been noted took a lot of chinese ideas, so did japan when they were forming the early government, adopting the institutions while adapting the language and script for example. i dont believe the interchange of ideas was large enough to say 'this was the most influential' until much later in history perhaps; but then the british empire owed a lot to greek and roman influences, yet it never conquered europe. europe has a legal system influenced by napoleonic law, where british legal system developed differently. britains' naval prowess had a lot of influence, but i am not sure japan really noticed it. it took american warships to rip japan out of the isolation introduced by the tokugawa shogunate after its civil war. yet japanese writing is still based on chinese characters, more than the roman alphabet.
On the subject of should america be considered, i think we need to also take account of time and the pace of technological advancement. the USA is dominating the world in so many ways now, and because the pace of advancing tech has been speeding up since probably even before the industrial revolution, to see it in perspective to other nations from earlier times you need to try to rebalance the equation - america is dominating when the world is truly connected. china is a big player where it is and always was, but its influence is beginning to grow on the world stage now, in a similar way. i dont see how we can really compare the ancient world where what happened in the roman empire didnt really affect much in china of the same era, with how an american company creating stealth tech today affects the whole world in terms of military power.
the only way i can think to put it is, like the old empires can appear like huge heavy mountains because they occupy a lot of time-area and a lot of 'mass' or influence. the british empire you could liken to a neutron star - lot of influence but not a very long time it covered compared to other empires, and the american influence today a pinpoint singularity - a black hole. those last two dont have much 'time' size but they have a lot of 'mass' or influence.

actually i think the question cannot be answered yet. because what happened in various eras didnt truly affect the whole world, but i think its too soon still now we are a global aware race to figure which will be the most influential civilisation. the 'struggle' is still ongoing. the closest we can say is the anglo saxons have tried hard to stamp their own concepts of human rights on the world and with few exceptions most of the world has adopted them, even if some nations break them routinely, they still claim to believe in them. not all of the anglo saxon moral prejudices are justified, but whether they are or not places like japan and other eastern nations have been pressurised into changing their laws to suit angloamerican prejudices, though changing the culture is debatable. i cant say if thats entirely healthy or not; but once the whole world has truly adopted a global language taught in all schools as the 'native' language, and a more or less uniform culture, based on either anglosaxon christian/secular, or chinese, or something we havent yet seen, the question cant be answered in its current form.

PhilBowles · Mar 29, 2014

andreafin said:
i would like to point out some things which i dont think people have considered when discussing east v west for influence, or whether america belongs in the list now. the world wasnt really 'globalised' for much of its history, thats a fairly recent thing with the advent of fast communications and transport. i think its not so easy to say which one culture was most influential in all of history precisely because while there were trading links between china, india and europe they were all pretty much developing in their own areas; IMO china was dominant influence where it is. Mongols it has been noted took a lot of chinese ideas, so did japan when they were forming the early government, adopting the institutions while adapting the language and script for example. i dont believe the interchange of ideas was large enough to say 'this was the most influential' until much later in history perhaps; but then the british empire owed a lot to greek and roman influences, yet it never conquered europe. europe has a legal system influenced by napoleonic law, where british legal system developed differently. britains' naval prowess had a lot of influence, but i am not sure japan really noticed it. it took american warships to rip japan out of the isolation introduced by the tokugawa shogunate after its civil war. yet japanese writing is still based on chinese characters, more than the roman alphabet.
On the subject of should america be considered, i think we need to also take account of time and the pace of technological advancement. the USA is dominating the world in so many ways now, and because the pace of advancing tech has been speeding up since probably even before the industrial revolution, to see it in perspective to other nations from earlier times you need to try to rebalance the equation - america is dominating when the world is truly connected. china is a big player where it is and always was, but its influence is beginning to grow on the world stage now, in a similar way. i dont see how we can really compare the ancient world where what happened in the roman empire didnt really affect much in china of the same era, with how an american company creating stealth tech today affects the whole world in terms of military power.
the only way i can think to put it is, like the old empires can appear like huge heavy mountains because they occupy a lot of time-area and a lot of 'mass' or influence. the british empire you could liken to a neutron star - lot of influence but not a very long time it covered compared to other empires, and the american influence today a pinpoint singularity - a black hole. those last two dont have much 'time' size but they have a lot of 'mass' or influence.

actually i think the question cannot be answered yet. because what happened in various eras didnt truly affect the whole world, but i think its too soon still now we are a global aware race to figure which will be the most influential civilisation. the 'struggle' is still ongoing. the closest we can say is the anglo saxons have tried hard to stamp their own concepts of human rights on the world and with few exceptions most of the world has adopted them, even if some nations break them routinely, they still claim to believe in them. not all of the anglo saxon moral prejudices are justified, but whether they are or not places like japan and other eastern nations have been pressurised into changing their laws to suit angloamerican prejudices, though changing the culture is debatable. i cant say if thats entirely healthy or not; but once the whole world has truly adopted a global language taught in all schools as the 'native' language, and a more or less uniform culture, based on either anglosaxon christian/secular, or chinese, or something we havent yet seen, the question cant be answered in its current form.

The globalisation issue has been raised, particularly by those of us pointing out that the last three centuries - in which Europe and latterly America were dominant - have allowed direct global exchange of dominant societies' ideas and culture, and direct expression of political power, at a level grossly disproportionate to the length of time they were dominant.

Regarding earlier regionalisation, I stand by my contention that India was a far more significant power in that regard than China for most of its history. China's writing system and much of its culture did indeed spread to Japan ... but to nowhere else. Even the other mainly Chinese-influenced states, Korea and Vietnam, have their own indigenous writing systems (in Vietnam now largely replaced by the Latin alphabet). Tibet uses a Brahmic writing system, as do Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, testifying to the extent of influence of the Indian scripts. A similar pattern can be seen in religion - Buddhism spread from India throughout mainland eastern Asia (including Japan, and indeed China itself); Hinduism as far as Indonesia. Daoism and Confucianism are limited to China and Korea.

As much as China influenced the Mongols, and despite the Mongols' territorial extent, the Mongols' own influence in the areas they occupied was mostly not lasting - those who later conquered China took on the local culture wholesale and to all intents and purposes became Chinese, but this was after the rest of the Mongol empire had collapsed.

For Japan's part, the country is now a substantial economy but has deliberately followed a policy of political near-isolation since the end of WWII, ceding regional superpower status to China (a situation Shinzo Abe is perhaps overly keen to change). The elements of Japanese culture that have become widespread in the West are mostly very modern, with no direct Chinese precursors - and Japan isn't in the poll as one of the world's most influential civilisations. Japan can take credit for its role in shaping the modern world by effectively destroying the declining British Empire during the Pacific War, but its historical links with China had nothing to do with that. So I'm not sure influencing Japan is a great metric by which to judge China.

InDubioProReo · Mar 29, 2014

sherbz said:
That America has received so many is equally laughable IMHO. They have been the dominant power for about a 100 years, which really is almost no time at all. They might make the list in the future, but as we are deciding on it now they dont deserve to be that high. Britain, Mongols, China, Rome, Greece, Egypt, Ottomans, France, all deserve to be higher IMO. The ottomans had an empire that lasted almost 1000 years and had a huge impact in the middle east and Asia (and Europe). Britain had the biggest empire (most populous). the Chinese were enormous and the most technologically advanced people of their era. Rome dominated all of Europe, which is a feat no one but them has managed. Greece is responsible for the basic principles in mathematics and philosophy. Mongols had a truly enormous empire for the age, they definitely fit into the most impressive category. Egypt was again a scientifically and highly advanced civilization and their monuments were by the standard of the times, out of this world. And the French, like Britain, also had a highly impressive world empire.

If your argument is that America gave us hamburgers and denim jeans and therefore deserves to be on the list then i think that pretty much sums up your argument . Im not saying they have not done some great stuff, its just that others have more impressive things. As a great British industrialist remarked "The british invent it, the Americans develop it, the Japanese exploit it, and the french resent it".

This guy speaks the truth. U.S is just a child compared to all the others.

Tyo · Mar 29, 2014

Except America is more than hamburgers and jeans. Impact is more than what a country invents. America has directly impacted how the world looks today invariably.

reddishrecue · Mar 29, 2014

PhilBowles said:
The globalisation issue has been raised, particularly by those of us pointing out that the last three centuries - in which Europe and latterly America were dominant - have allowed direct global exchange of dominant societies' ideas and culture, and direct expression of political power, at a level grossly disproportionate to the length of time they were dominant.

Regarding earlier regionalisation, I stand by my contention that India was a far more significant power in that regard than China for most of its history. China's writing system and much of its culture did indeed spread to Japan ... but to nowhere else. Even the other mainly Chinese-influenced states, Korea and Vietnam, have their own indigenous writing systems (in Vietnam now largely replaced by the Latin alphabet). Tibet uses a Brahmic writing system, as do Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, testifying to the extent of influence of the Indian scripts. A similar pattern can be seen in religion - Buddhism spread from India throughout mainland eastern Asia (including Japan, and indeed China itself); Hinduism as far as Indonesia. Daoism and Confucianism are limited to China and Korea.

As much as China influenced the Mongols, and despite the Mongols' territorial extent, the Mongols' own influence in the areas they occupied was mostly not lasting - those who later conquered China took on the local culture wholesale and to all intents and purposes became Chinese, but this was after the rest of the Mongol empire had collapsed.

For Japan's part, the country is now a substantial economy but has deliberately followed a policy of political near-isolation since the end of WWII, ceding regional superpower status to China (a situation Shinzo Abe is perhaps overly keen to change). The elements of Japanese culture that have become widespread in the West are mostly very modern, with no direct Chinese precursors - and Japan isn't in the poll as one of the world's most influential civilisations. Japan can take credit for its role in shaping the modern world by effectively destroying the declining British Empire during the Pacific War, but its historical links with China had nothing to do with that. So I'm not sure influencing Japan is a great metric by which to judge China.

Yea, right? Indigenous people that remained minorities with ancestral languages also existed in Asia as well, not only in America and Europe. China and its great firewall is another way indigenous people were able to preserve their ancient culture in modern times by reducing influence from other cultures. Other continents like Africa or Australia could also have indigenous minorities who have a majority of English or Spanish speakers nearby.

DWilson · Mar 29, 2014

Okay guys, if we're going to acknowledge America, we have to correctly identify it's greatest contribution to the world- i.a. Duct Tape (or, as often misnamed, Duck Tape).

(p.s., the i.a. was a joke. I know a lot of people that incorrectly assume that mean in English, playing on that fallacy, i.a. is worse, meaning in American.)

(p.p.s., Japanese does make regular usage of the Chinese writing system, but do not forget they also have two syllabaries, and technically a roman alphabet which is mostly used for style. Essentially, the Japanese hav e four writing systems- kanji (Chinese characters), hiragana (the traditional syllabary), katakana (used for loan words, onomatopoeia, emphasis), and romaji (style, advertisements, pop culture, etc.))

LoneRebel · Mar 29, 2014

PhilBowles said:
Regarding earlier regionalisation, I stand by my contention that India was a far more significant power in that regard than China for most of its history.

Hear, hear.

andreafin · Mar 29, 2014

PhilBowles said:
Regarding earlier regionalisation, I stand by my contention that India was a far more significant power in that regard than China for most of its history. China's writing system and much of its culture did indeed spread to Japan ... but to nowhere else. Even the other mainly Chinese-influenced states, Korea and Vietnam, have their own indigenous writing systems (in Vietnam now largely replaced by the Latin alphabet). Tibet uses a Brahmic writing system, as do Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, testifying to the extent of influence of the Indian scripts. A similar pattern can be seen in religion - Buddhism spread from India throughout mainland eastern Asia (including Japan, and indeed China itself); Hinduism as far as Indonesia. Daoism and Confucianism are limited to China and Korea.

i did not intend to minimise indian contribution in my post, i mentioned it because i do not have a great knowledge of indian history beyond some mathematical contributions, and i think i am right that they stopped alexander of macedons expansion, and their great sagas about a massive war which i remember from seeing parts of bollywood films about; but the more i learn the more admiration i feel for indian culture. i didnt want to not mention it, but also didnt want to place as reasons, things i might have been in error about. i was more thinking of india as being on same level of influence as china, which i know also had influence on korea; because i know a bit of japanese history where they aided one of the korean states by sending infantry only to be routed by cavalry. i must admit i entirely forgot about the religious stuff; i should not have given my interest in the sengoku period and knowing of takeda shingen and his enemy uesugi kenshin among others.

Tempestangel · Mar 30, 2014

I picked England, Germany, Greece, and Babylon.

England: The nation of England has had a very large impact on our world, their expansionist methods around the world are well known, having strongholds in every major continent of this world, which lead to many of our modern civilization's as we know them (America, India, China)

Germany: Germany has a rich history of battle, whether they be as barbarian Guerrillas, Feudal lords, or spearheading the 2 great wars that have effected most of modern History. (The U.N. would not have formed without the failure "League of Nations" which formed because of their power in the first war.)

Greece: Along with being a precursor to the great Roman Empire, the Greek's can be attributed with the creation of great concepts behind Political thought, and the art of philosophy.

Babylon: I ask people of other nations about history in regards to America, England, Germany, Greece, etc, and they typically have little to no knowledge on the deep history of these peoples, but I can ask anybody about Babylon and they will know enough to spark a conversation.

Babylon is truly a cradle of civilization, having inspired concepts such as Law, freedom, and are responsible for many of the ancient technological developments throughout history.

We all learn of babylon.

Anyways this is my view, hope it helps.

Krajzen · Mar 30, 2014

Wow, currently Rome has exactly 50.00% of votes. Such... beautiful symmetry, Roman order

Which Civ5 civilisation had the biggest impact on history?

Which of these civilisations had biggest impact on history, or were most impressive?

America - Power of Freedom

Maya - 2012

Aztec - Ancient Mexico

Inca - Mountain Empire

Brasil - Emerging Power

Egypt - Pyramid Makers

Ethiopia - Citadel of Christianity

Rome - Eternal Empire

Spain - Sword and Cross

Portugal - Masters of Exploration

France - the City of Lights

England - Greatest Naval Empire Ever

Germany - Steam and Glory

Russia - Eurasian Bear

Greece - the Cradle of Philosophy

Ottomans - Between Orient and Occident

Arabia - Voice of Prophet

Babylon - the Cradle of Civilisation

Persia - First Civilised Empire

India - the Temple of Mind

Mongolia - Greatest Land Empire Ever

Japan - Samurai and Anime

China - Great Dragon

Celts - Fathers of Europe

Byzantium - Roman Citadel

~ knightmare13 ~

HANDS HIGH TO THE SOUND

Deity

Deity

Deity

HANDS HIGH TO THE SOUND

Deity

King

Deity

Some dude on civfans

Prince

Deity

Warlord

HANDS HIGH TO THE SOUND

Some dude on civfans

Where am I? What turn is it?

Emperor

Prince

Chieftain

Deity

Similar threads