Civilization Most Overrated in Influence.

[Kahran Ramsus]

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

 

[scherbchen]

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

meh, true. I exaggerated.

 

[luiz]

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

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

 

[Evie]

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

 

[luiz]

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

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

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

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

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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

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

 

[silver 2039]

overrated? maybe. influential though? hell yeah.

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

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

Case in point....Rome is overrated.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

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

 

[Verbose]

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

I think that would be a matter of perception of certain things as specifically Portugese or specifically Dutch.

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

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

 

[Plotinus]

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

 

[Verbose]

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

There is a well established disparity in "conversion success rate" between Catholicism and Protestantism. As it's usually explained by anthropologists, the Protestant powers, the Dutch in particular, were less interested in conversion than trade and/or settling, while the Catholics tended to adopt more of a perspective of eternity.

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

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

 

[Plotinus]

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

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

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

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

 

[Marla_Singer]

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

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

 

[luiz]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[scherbchen]

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

 

[Theryman]

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

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

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You missed the joke . . .

 

[Damnyankee]

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

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

What about Quebec?

 

[Godwynn]

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

I get tired of hearing about China throughout history.