What is the best civ?

[Knowltok]

A thought on WWII and the US's entry: I don't think in Sept. of '39 it was well known what Hitler was up to and going to be up to. From the American perspective, WWII as it started in Europe was just another in an extremely long line of European wars. These countries had been fighting each other off and on since they first started to form as countries. Americans were a little nearsighted about the global impact of the war, but I don't think they were aware at that time about the concentration camps. The number one lesson that comes out of WWII applies to all nations, and that is to not let an agressor go unchallenged.

 

[ibollica]

yeah sure USA.. all us use english here, as most of in internet or etc.. mc donalts, pepsi, cocacola, ibm, microsoft etc.. they got the power... they bombard where they want, and only a few tiny aganist said to not bombard there.. all world watch them...
china will be past time (i think they are better then rome)

but don't forgot TURKs. Turkic people are living on a land between europe to china. Ottoman Emp was a great power, göktürk, kutluð, uygur, hun empires were too. atilla, fatih the conq, süleyman the magn. are great leadders. Istanbul (const. at that time) was said 'unconquerable' but conquered by Turks.. After Russias grows to south, most of turkic groups lost their power but now they are libareted. Turkey is in economic problems but still has a powerfull economy, army, and high population etc... i don't say best but a good one is Turks...

 

[Han Wu Di]

Woof this Forums got different sorts of interesting posts!
I am joining in!

Personally I believe China is the best Civ


Longevity / Timescale / Status

China is the superpower of the history.I believe she is superior than any western nation from 202 BC-1800 AD
The Iron production of China in Ming Dynasty is More than the Iron production of British during the early period of Industrial Revolution several centuries later!I agree China is weak during the 19 th and 20 th century.21 st century will be ruled by China considering their potential and massive economic growth

Military
China military is superb and can be considered one of the greatest for extending its empire as far as Iran.Mongol do not conquer China for centuries.It don't even reach a century, 1280-1368 AD.Manchus are Chinese and Ming Dynasty do not fall because of the Manchus keep that in mind.

Economy
In most period of the history,China had the world's largest economy i think it is from 618-1800 AD.During Tang Dynasty,China's GDP is about half of the World!Her economy is the largest until 1800 ,even during the 18 th century which is the early period of Industrial Revolution for the western nation,China owns 33 % of the world's GDP that which is more than the combined Western nation's GDP and it is a clear evidence it is superior than any nation on Earth.Cybernut you mention about England becoming a great nation for 500 years.I only believe it is a great nation from 1800-1930's.With China the only superpower before that and US the only superpower after that. This information is obtained from "The Rise and Fall of The Great Power" and "The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order".

Expansionist
China is the first one to rule the ocean,there is this fresh news that China is the first one to reach America and Australia according to a British historian.
http://english.people.com.cn/200203/07/eng20020307_91604.shtml
The father of Silk Road is a Chinese,Zhang Qian .
This shows they were great explorers

Technology and Industry
The world will not be what it is today without paper.It is the infrastructure of everything today
British Empire will not colonise so many countries without the invention of gunpowder
Saw is invented by the Chinese .Can you imagine how are you going to cut trees and woods without Saw?

Greece and Egypt are only a small nation
British was once a big and great nation but only for a while

 

[Mr. Baggins]

My first post!
In my opinion, the best ancient civ would be the Romans. Their culture still surrounds us today, and they conquered one of the largest empires in history.

 

[Hitro]

How did this come back?
Anyway, I would say the most succesful has always been a mixture of cultures/civilizations. Examples:
The British empire was huge and extremely powerful at it's golden age. But where did it come from? The British are partly celtic and partly germanic, and besides that influenced by the Romans. So that all together formed the famous empire.

Europe once ruled the world (more or less). But where would Europe have been without the cultural and scientific influence from the arab world and the far east, in particular china?

The best example: The United States of America. Though being dominated by descendants of Europeans, the US of A are THE mixed culture in the world. And it worked quite well...

 

[Amenhotep IV]

What's the best civ ?!!!
No doubt - THE EGYPTIANS !!!!!!

 

[Cybernut]

Yeah ... this thread has been dredged up from the grave. Still stick to my original belief that it's the Greeks, the British and the Chinese. All European culture (even stretching to modern day USA) come from the Greeks. The British had an Empire (miltitary, commercial, scientic cultural) that will be unsurpassed in human history, and the Chinese for longevity.

The Egyptians stil exist in name, but only name. Their golden period was many thousands of years ago, and unlike the Chinese for instance, they haven't maintained economic, political and cultural dominance over thie region for the whole period.

Remember, the auspices of the thread was "the best civ" based loosely on Civ 3 scoring.

Jon

 

[Thorgalaeg]

This is completely inaccurate. Britain's dominance stems from from Elizabeth I (with the defeat of the Spanish Armada) to the end of WW2 ("her greatest hour"). That's 500 years!

Lets see.... 1945-1588 = 357!

In the other hand Spain was the greatest world power since the end of 15th century to 1713 (Utrecht peace), owned most sudamerica, centroamerica, Mexico, some USA regions until first 19th century and the spanish empire lasted (although very diminished) with Cuba, Filipinas and other possesions until 1898.

England only was the major superpower during a short period of time compared with spain, never had power over Europe and British Empire was purely colonial and commercial.

 

[West German]

The Greeks established the base for modern Europe. I believe they are #1 because without Europe there would be no America.

 

[Cybernut]

Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
Lets see.... 1945-1588 = 357!

I think the timescale says very little. If you draw a graph of historical progress, and chart science, culture, military achievement, power, lasting influence, you'll find that graph takes a steep climb with the beginning of the British Empire. The industrial revolution is probably the single most important period in human history (from a transformative perspective). This was born and bred in Britain. We still live in its shadow. This alone puts her well ahead of any other modern Euopean power. Add into that equation the largest global Empire in history, the cultural proliferation of her language, and all the scientific, artistic and military achievements -- no other modern power comes close.

The Spanish merely conquered and plundered. On a civ 3 points basis, they would score very low, and they never successfully defeated any other major power in that period. So militarily they were a failure ... conquering natives with spears is hardly constitutive of military achievement.

Jon

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I think the timescale says very little.

Yes, sure.

Empire in history, the cultural proliferation of her language, and all the scientific, artistic and military achievements

All extremely subjetive. Say me some really important British painter or sculptor, please. I would say there are much more importants scientifics and cultural achievements in Germany or France.

The Spanish merely conquered and plundered.

Sure, in America there are not cities and countries with Spanish names, only ruins of Indians villages.

they never successfully defeated any other major power in that period. So militarily they were a failure ... conquering natives with spears is hardly constitutive of military achievement.

Spain won innumerable battles and wars against the French, Dutch, Turks... IN Europe. Read some history book about the "tercios".
The decadence of the Spanish empire was not becuase military defeats, but to economic and social factors that weakened the empire along the centuries.

 

[Cybernut]

All extremely subjetive. Say me some really important British painter or sculptor, please. I would say there are much more importants scientifics and cultural achievements in Germany or France.

Well Constable and Turner for a start. They fit right in the middle of the historical period in question. I could write about achievements in literature, poetry, science, technology, industry, music, politics, philosophy, warfare ... but they're so well documented, I don't want to waste my time.

Sure Germany might have a better record in music and philosophy for example, but they don't have the full package (no empire). Remember, this was started as a thread about the best Civ in Civ 3 scoring conditions.

I'm not disin' Spain. That was a really important and interesting period in European history. But in terms of the bigger picture, I don't see how it can compare. Spain would be in my top 10.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Constable and Turner

They are really important only in England. I could say a zillion of much more relevant painters in any European country .

I don't see how it can compare

Of course it can.

 

[TNG]

My top 5

#1 China
#2 Greece
#3 Rome
#4 Britain
#5 USA

 

[Cybernut]

They are really important only in England. I could say a zillion of much more relevant painters in any European country

Shows how much you know. Constable and Turner (as well as that whole generation of British painters) changed the face of art. The FRench basically copied everything from them. Their naturalistic style came to dominate, and was the major factor in the shift away from the French romanticism of the previous century (especially IN France!). All of the great French painters from the 19th century (from Gericoult and Delicroix to Cezanne) were directly influenced by Constable, Turner, Bonington etc.

And the British school of this period pratically invented watercolour painting, and made even the French take it seriously.

Just because you don't know this information probably reflects your own ignorance rather than the lack of importance of the painters in question.

Jon

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Shows how much you know

Here you have made a mistake, boy. I am an semi-pro painter with some individual expositions in my curriculum.

I will tell you that, in fact, Monet and Pissarro were attracted by the diffuse tones of Turner, nevertheless only monet continued faithful to this style, while Pisarro evolved toward the divisionism.

The impresionistas were based mainly in the Barbizon school: in Corot, Boudin, Courbet... The style of Manet, considered for many as the first impresionist nothing had to do with Turner.
On the other hand, it is ironic that the major achievement of the british art is to inspire others that would be really important.

As for the watercolor, it is in fact,a very old medium, the English discovered it thanks to Paul Sandby, he was dedicated to color engravings made in Italy. To say that the English invented the watercolor is as saying that Bhor invented the atom. What the English made was to consider watercolor an important medium, while in Europe it was considered a secondary and low merit medium. Only for sketchs and auxiliar purposes.

Sorry, but It is absurd to deny that Great Britain is a very little prominent country in painting, compared with Italy, France or Spain.

 

[Cybernut]

I never said Britain were as prominant as France or Italy. But you said that there was not a single prominant painter who came from Britain, which from a "semi-pro painter", is quite a startling over-sight. I understand your prejudices, and your desire to talk up your own history. But this thread is about the "great Civs", and Spain just doesn't not qualify on the same level as Greece, China, Rome or Britain. Name me some "prominent" Spanish painters from the "golden period" you spoke about? And please use your own criteria for prominence. While you're at it, name me some great scientists, philosophers, ecomomists etc who can compare to those who came from Britain during her "golden period". Painting is just one field of the arts. Few, if any nation, can claim to have excellence in all of these fields (music, literature, poetry, sculpture, painting, dance ...).

it is ironic that the major achievement of the british art is to inspire others that would be really important.

Importance is often a misleading idea my friend. A proper historian would acknowledge the originators of a movement or an idea, and not just who became famous as a consequence. France, Holland and Italy have the major traditions in art, therefore, it's not surprising that people have traditionally looked to their painters. It a contradiction on your part that you claim Turner's importance, an the same time as rejecting him on account of the fact aht he wasn't French or Italian. If Turner or Constable were French for instance, then they would be much more famous than they already are. But then again, no French painter could ever have painted those paintings at that time.

Painting is not an important debate anyway ... certainly not in a Spain verses Britain debate.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Name me some "prominent" Spanish painters from the "golden period" you spoke about?

I didnt spoke about the golden period you did. But if you want...

Only Velazquez would be suficient but i can remember now , Ribera, Zurbaran, Murillo, el Greco... (You can considerate him spanish), plus many painters from Europe that only painted for Spanish kings (Tizziano, or Rubens) , you can see all his work in the Prado Museum, Madrid, there you can see more than 9000 pictures, most from that historic period.
Of course i could add Goya, Picasso, Dalí, Miro, Sorolla, Zuloaga... in other centuries. Could you say me some painters more relevant that Picasso or Goya?.

In literature and philosophy, only in the golden Age: Cervantes, Quevedo, Gongora, Calderon de la Barca, Garcilaso de la Vega, Tirso de Molina, San Juan de la Cruz, Santa Teresa de Jesus, Fray Luis de Leon......

In sciencies Spain was not relevant in the golden age (as Britain was not in arts ) becuase religious and social circumstances but we can remenber an important figure: Miguel Servet.

But you said that there was not a single prominant painter who came from Britain

No, i didnt. i did say British painters was in general LESS prominent.

Importance is often a misleading idea my friend. A proper historian would acknowledge the originators of a movement or an idea, and not just who became famous as a consequence. France, Holland and Italy have the major traditions in art, therefore, it's not surprising that people have traditionally looked to their painters. It a contradiction on your part that you claim Turner's importance, an the same time as rejecting him on account of the fact aht he wasn't French or Italian. If Turner or Constable were French for instance, then they would be much more famous than they already are. But then again, no French painter could ever have painted those paintings at that time.

Nope. Importance come from pictures.

Painting is not an important debate anyway ... certainly not in a Spain verses Britain debate.

Then why you spoke about arts first?

But this thread is about the "great Civs", and Spain just doesn't not qualify on the same level as Greece, China, Rome or Britain

I wouls say That is only your HUMBLE opinion.

 

[Cybernut]

el Greco... (You can considerate him spanish),

Don't be ridiculous, he was Greek. Just because he lived and worked in Spain doesn't make him Spanish ... that's called clutching at straws.

Then why you spoke about arts first?

You brought it up first ... in your very first response.

I wouls say That is only your HUMBLE opinion.

Yes. Spain can't compete with China, Greece, Rome and Britain. Bottom line.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Bottom line.

Good argument