Civilization Most Overrated in Influence.

[Plotinus]

You missed the joke . . .

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

 

[Brighteye]

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

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

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

I get tired of hearing about China throughout history.

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

All facts from Wikipaedia.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

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

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

 

[luiz]

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

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

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

 

[Traitorfish]

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

 

[kryszcztov]

Probably Egypt, in my view.

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

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

First sentence : not quite ! Second sentence : good thought !

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

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

In other words, influence is about impossible to quantify.

Oh yes it can be. It is just not as simple as counting inventions...

 

[Mirc]

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

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

 

[Tee Kay]

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

All facts from Wikipaedia.

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

 

[Tee Kay]

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

 

[cybrxkhan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Lotus49]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lotus49]

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

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

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

 

[kryszcztov]

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

And to think that France brought the Lumières to the world... which definitely inspired the American Revolution ! And then I don't mention things brought by our own Revolution, or by Napoleon. We could also talk about many sport events (modern Olympic Games come to mind first)... Oh yes, the French like to brag about their (now) virtual influence, but the thing is France had a strong influence on a large part of the world. Not the most overrated nation to me.

 

[Mirc]

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

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

 

[Plotinus]

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

 

[Bast]

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

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

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

 

[scherbchen]

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

 

[cybrxkhan]

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

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

 

[Sofista]

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

I'm so picturing George W. right before the Delaware, keeping his troops happy with a timely use of L'arroseur arrosé!

 

[Mirc]

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

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

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