Donkey Puncher
Prince
opps left out england
Hi, rank BTS Civs in true world importance (opinion)
- Thread starter CarpeDiem
- Start date
Yes, when other avenues failed the British did use military muscle to open up new markets, (i.e. they took out the French in India on the coast regions via military force and then opened up internal trade routes by supporting one local ruler or another), but they did not go around the world with a 5 million strong army hitting native peoples until they started singing Rule Britannia. In the early days of the Empire there simply was no British Army, and even when they did eventually build a "Standing Army, it contained less than a 100,000 troops, and was a fraction of the size of other European powers.
I am not saying that the British Empire was created for philanthropic reasons, but I do believe it was the most benign empire the world has ever known, if for no other reason than it voluntarily gave up its Empire, and did its best for the Native peoples when granting them independence. The British Commonwealth is the second largest representative body on the planet after the UN, and the participating countries are all parts of the old British Empire.
World empires are bad things, and native peoples understandly give them a huge negative thumbs down once they are gone and they start printing their own history books. On balance, I think history will view the British Empire for what it was, which was a trading empire. The British people did not set out to conquer the world using military means, and their influence spread via trade and commerce. You have to build and nurture to produce trade and commerce, whereas military empires impose their will via deliberate premeditated use of force.
The British Empire was an unplanned event that came into being more by accident than intent, and it was maintained using the smallest comparable military force of any world empire. Other World Empires needed a comparably huge military force to impose their will upon the native peoples they conquered. The British didn't, mainly because they had the cooperation of the native peoples within their empire.
Needless to say, I hope that it's the last empire the world will ever see, because like I said, Empires are bad things.
Regards - Mr P
I am not saying that the British Empire was created for philanthropic reasons, but I do believe it was the most benign empire the world has ever known, if for no other reason than it voluntarily gave up its Empire, and did its best for the Native peoples when granting them independence. The British Commonwealth is the second largest representative body on the planet after the UN, and the participating countries are all parts of the old British Empire.
World empires are bad things, and native peoples understandly give them a huge negative thumbs down once they are gone and they start printing their own history books. On balance, I think history will view the British Empire for what it was, which was a trading empire. The British people did not set out to conquer the world using military means, and their influence spread via trade and commerce. You have to build and nurture to produce trade and commerce, whereas military empires impose their will via deliberate premeditated use of force.
The British Empire was an unplanned event that came into being more by accident than intent, and it was maintained using the smallest comparable military force of any world empire. Other World Empires needed a comparably huge military force to impose their will upon the native peoples they conquered. The British didn't, mainly because they had the cooperation of the native peoples within their empire.
Needless to say, I hope that it's the last empire the world will ever see, because like I said, Empires are bad things.
Regards - Mr P
Howard!
Remembering
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 201
The United States emerged as the greatest power on the planet following the resurgence from the great depression. Though they had shown the world what they could do during the first world war they returned to isolation following it (a mistake they did not repeat). The problem I see with China becoming the new superpower is their population. China has allot of very poor people working for very. On the other hand America has already done away with this. While the US is now losing valuable jobs overseas due to the fact their labour prices are through the roof (in comparison) China will inevitably have to face this problem themselves. China also has a top heavy age rise, with the one child policy (mainly enforced in the cities) the population will get older on average, even if only for the time being. Now the problem of a top heavy population is being addressed here in Australia. The one child policy may help with population, but they work force will again rapidly. Another potential issue is when the workers begin to get as much money as those in America. China can't base an economy entirely on cheap labour (and it isn't) but this is another issue that will slow china down.
In actual fact I see the European Union and India as the next major powers in the world. I also don't see the United States going that far, there will not be a Sovietesk collapse. As for this odd thing about oil, the entire world will be affected, we must act now. Developing more renewable sources of power. Now, you may not agree with me, but I back Nuclear (Fission and Fusion... it will work someday). At least then we can safe guard our futures. If nothing down the lines of solar, wind, wave or hamsters in a wheel eventuates into something then at least we have something we can rely on for a time. I know nuclear has a bad image, but that is mainly a left over from the cold war (and idiots at Chernobyl, trainees at the helm of a nuclear test... Why not!). America is not going to collapse, and China won't succeed it.
In actual fact I see the European Union and India as the next major powers in the world. I also don't see the United States going that far, there will not be a Sovietesk collapse. As for this odd thing about oil, the entire world will be affected, we must act now. Developing more renewable sources of power. Now, you may not agree with me, but I back Nuclear (Fission and Fusion... it will work someday). At least then we can safe guard our futures. If nothing down the lines of solar, wind, wave or hamsters in a wheel eventuates into something then at least we have something we can rely on for a time. I know nuclear has a bad image, but that is mainly a left over from the cold war (and idiots at Chernobyl, trainees at the helm of a nuclear test... Why not!). America is not going to collapse, and China won't succeed it.
What do you mean, the US didn't repeat that mistake? They repeated it again in WWII, when they didn't join the fight for 3 years after the rest of the allies were already in it. (And only then, because they were attacked themselves.)
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
Were we the ones who played the appeasement game with Hitler and Mussolini while they walked into Austria, Sudetenland, and Albania? No that was the rest of Europe. We had heavy isolationist tendencies. You guys (allied Europe) had some rather naive 'Peace in our time' tendencies. You guys eventually joined the fight because you had to. (Always the possibility that Britain may have avoided it if they could. Germans liked and even to some extent admired them. But France was toast if they didn't come guns a blazin) Germany's expansionists tendencies were obvious and you guys were too close to ignore it. We could.
However despite heavy opposition at home to yet another 'European war', our leadership didn't ignore it. We heavily supplied all of the allies until Pearl Harbor finally gave us a legitimate cause to join the combat.
Now every country that participated can be proud that they played a part in taking down the NAZI threat. Most made enormous sacrifices of man, resources, and machinery. But neither the United States, Britain, Canada, France or anybody else of the 'west' won that war. Russia did. The Western front was a holiday compared to the scale, ferociousness, and atrocities of the eastern.
Of course while Russia was individually more important to the war effort in Europe than the rest of the allies combined...you can say the same thing about the US in the Pacific. (honestly, I think the greatest allied contribution to the European theater...beyond starting the Western front to ensure that Soviet expansion didn't reach the Atlantic...was keeping Russia supplied early on in the war when they were getting battered hard)
On the Brits. Ask a nearly wiped out race of native Americans (Sure the US finished the genocide, but you guys started it.), grossly depopulated Australian aborigines, millions of African slaves (a third of all transported), 1 in 7 dying in transit, Tens of millions dead from Indian famines spawned (in part) by British indifference and negligence. You guys were not the benevolant tyrants. Just tyrants.
And your 'trade empire' made it a point to militarily destroy any opposition to its 'trade' expansion. Hell, the major trading companies had private armies that rivaled mainland european national forces in size. And the later stages of the British Empire did indeed go for outright domination and subjugation. In the territories where the native population is still statistically and culturally dominant, they tend to hate you.
Improvements made were not done out of benevolence. They were done to increase profit margins. If the cost outweighed the potential profit growth, than improvements generally were not made.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
US and Britain are arguably two of the least important major empires in history.
Why?
They haven't been around long, and so have only had an opportunity to impact on a few centuries.
IMO the civs with the biggest impact on history are the earliest ones - Sumeria, Egypt, and China coming in as the top 3. They developed all the patterns and core technologies like strains of domesticated plants that would govern the entire span of human history.
Britain, Spain, the US and other recent empires were simply inevitables once those seeds had been sown; things that would have happened one way or the other, by someone or another. But the first civilizations set the foundation and their decisions determined the shape of the entire span of human history.
Why?
They haven't been around long, and so have only had an opportunity to impact on a few centuries.
IMO the civs with the biggest impact on history are the earliest ones - Sumeria, Egypt, and China coming in as the top 3. They developed all the patterns and core technologies like strains of domesticated plants that would govern the entire span of human history.
Britain, Spain, the US and other recent empires were simply inevitables once those seeds had been sown; things that would have happened one way or the other, by someone or another. But the first civilizations set the foundation and their decisions determined the shape of the entire span of human history.
mintyfreshdeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 223
You know what the problem is with you people? You're all video gamers and nerds. You all think in terms of lists, catagories and teirs
Howard!
Remembering
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 201
What I mean is they actually used what power they had in the World to keep the peace in Europe after World War II instead of leaving them to rot like after the First World War. They were the ones who had proposed the League of Nations and then didn't back it. It was a Huge mistake, so was making Germany pay reparation, but that is a story for another day.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
They didn't just fail to back the League, they were never even a member. Kind of like starting a club and expecting everyone but yourself - the founder - to join.
Principally because of pressure from German-Americans who didn't like the Treaty of Versailles, incidentally ...
1. English/British. (Largest empire the world has ever seen, most widespread language, used to be a large superpower, and still is to this day. Colonized many parts of the world.)
2. India (Origins can be traced back to 7,000BC along Indus Valley, contributed 2 large world religions, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Important technologies/information was made here, such as Algebra, and decimal system. Currently supports over a billion people, considered a rising superpower.)
3. China (Origins can also be traced back to 7,000BC, contributions of many technologies, a few being paper and gunpowder, supports over a billion people, considered a rising superpower.)
4. America (New to the world, but has contributed a lot in few centuries it has been around. Set a model for democracy, many inventions made here as well. Large military superpower.)
5. Persia (Composed of many modern day countries in the Middle East. Persia has contributed a major world religion, Islam, as well as many scientific and mathematical advances. It also has historical had large armies that have invaded Europe, Africa, and Asia.)
All the countries I listed (expect for America) have had long histories, and didn't just last for a little while, but for millenniums. They have also contributed a lot throughout time. I still respect and acknowledge all the Egyptians, Mayans, Incans, etc have done, but all of them were only prevalent and influential in a certain area, and for a shorter period of time then the ones I mentioned above. There are of course many others that should continue along on this list, but it's late at night and didn't want to write more than 5.
This is all just my opinion though.
2. India (Origins can be traced back to 7,000BC along Indus Valley, contributed 2 large world religions, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Important technologies/information was made here, such as Algebra, and decimal system. Currently supports over a billion people, considered a rising superpower.)
3. China (Origins can also be traced back to 7,000BC, contributions of many technologies, a few being paper and gunpowder, supports over a billion people, considered a rising superpower.)
4. America (New to the world, but has contributed a lot in few centuries it has been around. Set a model for democracy, many inventions made here as well. Large military superpower.)
5. Persia (Composed of many modern day countries in the Middle East. Persia has contributed a major world religion, Islam, as well as many scientific and mathematical advances. It also has historical had large armies that have invaded Europe, Africa, and Asia.)
All the countries I listed (expect for America) have had long histories, and didn't just last for a little while, but for millenniums. They have also contributed a lot throughout time. I still respect and acknowledge all the Egyptians, Mayans, Incans, etc have done, but all of them were only prevalent and influential in a certain area, and for a shorter period of time then the ones I mentioned above. There are of course many others that should continue along on this list, but it's late at night and didn't want to write more than 5.
This is all just my opinion though.
Well, I chose Vikings over Egypt for the simple fact that the Vikings spread their blood out to essentially become the English, Russians, Normans, Germans, Danes, Swedes, Sicilians, etc. Culturally they may not have been as accomplished as the Egyptians with their pyramids, but I think their impact on world affairs has been far greater.
Generally, the Egyptians were a "stay at home" kind of people and rarely ventured far from their lands, either in pursuit of exploration or battle.
Firstly England, the main building block of Britain, has been around as a unified country since the 10th Century. The United States is newer, though it's not that new, having been established during the 18th Century. Also consider the fact that both have had unbroken histories since their establishment.Secondly... in the "brief" time the British Empire was about (though it wasn't brief at all - early 18th Century to mid 20th Century) it changed the world. Not just a continent, but the world. The technologies, institutions, language, sports, legal and constitutional methods, trade, etc etc have influenced so much of the modern day world. The role of the British in the Napoleonic Wars, World War One, World War Two and numerous wars before and since WW2 has been paramount.
The United States continues to be the world's greatest power today, though it is in relative decline. However, it will continue to be about for a damn long time yet. It will be joined by other great powers of the 21st Century (the European Union and China namely) but will remain a very powerful force for our lifetimes at least.
So, I'm sorry, but the English/British and the Americans are two of the most influential nations ever in human history. Yes, in the most recent millennium of human history, but these two nations effectively built the world we know today.
Ok, I'll take a shot as well... Being a history student and all (not for more than 3 years though 
)
First of all, as said many times before, a realistic game, in sense of having the most "important" civs included, would probably be a bad game, mostly because of Europe. However, I find the discussion more interesting if not regarded, as a help for the OP (sorry)
I would say, that the most important is the continuity of the culture of a civilization, for me. Then goes economical considerations, and succes in war, great colonial power, etc.
I would go: (in particular order)
-China (the most consistent culture)
-India (Less consistant due to being a colony, but still very old)
-Greece (not much left as a culture, in regards of language and borders, but in regards of philosophy and learning, extremely important still)
-Romans (not important philosophy-wise, but in regards of alot of practical developments, and a great warmongerer)
-England (I would prefer them in comparison to France, if not for anything, then for better war results)
-Egypt (Had a major impact on cultural and religious development, also after falling into both greec and roman hands)
-Arabs (I've always been in doubt of this, as I regard the arabs more of a people, rather than a civilization, but the Arabs has had unarguably large impact)
-Germany (Quite interesting, since it can both be regarded as the most important player of modern history (at least up until after 2nd ww) but also, if you regard it as it was before it uniting. However, then comes the discussion about HRE)
-Spain (So many people speak spanish, and I think the argument with the first empire, in which the sun never set, says it all)
-United States of America (Its a hard one as it goes against the continuity of culture, but has had a major impact, if not for anything than due to its size, since the inderpendence. And together with China, the arguably most powerful civilization today (though something about economy isnt that good at the moment)
-Russia (more or less same explanation as USA)
-Japan (Both a pretty ancient civilization, with VERY strong cultural caracteristics, and an upcomming power, with a very good economy)
-Persia (If I should choose one of the ancient civs from the middle eastern area, it would be Persia. I would say that there culture (due to the consitency of that, during the hellenistic period) was the most persistant)
-France (ok, if not for anything then a very powerful culture, and they were a major power in both the medieval and in the rennaisance, they just LOST so damn much)
thats my five cent (or two, or whatever you say)
EDIT: I need an argument as to why the Ethiopians isnt the biggest wildcard in civ - the one with least impact on world history. Thats what I think it is
)First of all, as said many times before, a realistic game, in sense of having the most "important" civs included, would probably be a bad game, mostly because of Europe. However, I find the discussion more interesting if not regarded, as a help for the OP (sorry
)I would say, that the most important is the continuity of the culture of a civilization, for me. Then goes economical considerations, and succes in war, great colonial power, etc.
I would go: (in particular order)
-China (the most consistent culture)
-India (Less consistant due to being a colony, but still very old)
-Greece (not much left as a culture, in regards of language and borders, but in regards of philosophy and learning, extremely important still)
-Romans (not important philosophy-wise, but in regards of alot of practical developments, and a great warmongerer)
-England (I would prefer them in comparison to France, if not for anything, then for better war results)
-Egypt (Had a major impact on cultural and religious development, also after falling into both greec and roman hands)
-Arabs (I've always been in doubt of this, as I regard the arabs more of a people, rather than a civilization, but the Arabs has had unarguably large impact)
-Germany (Quite interesting, since it can both be regarded as the most important player of modern history (at least up until after 2nd ww) but also, if you regard it as it was before it uniting. However, then comes the discussion about HRE)
-Spain (So many people speak spanish, and I think the argument with the first empire, in which the sun never set, says it all)
-United States of America (Its a hard one as it goes against the continuity of culture, but has had a major impact, if not for anything than due to its size, since the inderpendence. And together with China, the arguably most powerful civilization today (though something about economy isnt that good at the moment)
-Russia (more or less same explanation as USA)
-Japan (Both a pretty ancient civilization, with VERY strong cultural caracteristics, and an upcomming power, with a very good economy)
-Persia (If I should choose one of the ancient civs from the middle eastern area, it would be Persia. I would say that there culture (due to the consitency of that, during the hellenistic period) was the most persistant)
-France (ok, if not for anything then a very powerful culture, and they were a major power in both the medieval and in the rennaisance, they just LOST so damn much
)thats my five cent (or two, or whatever you say
)EDIT: I need an argument as to why the Ethiopians isnt the biggest wildcard in civ - the one with least impact on world history. Thats what I think it is
r_rolo1
King of myself
Again, this is not true..... Portugal was the first empire where the sun didn't set (10/15 years ahead of Spain ) BTW there are almost as much people talking Portuguese as native language in the world as there are people talking Castilian ( Spanish , as a language, doesn't exist ) as native language... Then why Portugal doesn't even appear on your list?
P.S not a fanatical Portuguese... just pointing some facts
If someone has pointed that out before, I must have missed it, there's so many posts in here, and I appologize for that. Eventhough I have studied some of spanish history, their colonial history has remained untouched yet, so Im sure I was erronious here, if you say so. Also, of cause Castillian would have been the right term in regards of the language. I would however still hold on to Spain in comparison to Portugal. If not for anything, then because their interference in rennaissance Europe, though the country in some ways were very isolationistic. They had the habsburg posessions through inheritance, and the war with the Nederlands due to this. I think that gives them the edge in regards of who had the largest impact, in my opinion
mintyfreshdeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 223
Australian civilization is between 40,000 to 70,000 years old. It deserves to be recognised and respected. I'm talking art, music, poetry, spiritual beliefs and cultural customs; some of which are thousands of years old.
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
First geographic placement doesn't help. If you have a real earth map with both Spain and Portugal, won't be alot of room to expand. Also while Portugal was the first to launch of age of discovery, it wasn't long before they were supreceded (sometimes their trading posts and colonies directly taken over) by English and Dutch. And the Spanish took down some fairly major empires in the America's while Portugal did very little similar. Not to mention that Portugal was never the player on the European stage that Spain was, especially when they were involved with the Habsburgs. At times Portugal had an almost vassal status towards Spain. Important, but not if I was making a top 10 list.
This is silly. Native Australians were by far the least developed civilization in the entire world. Random islanders a thousand miles from anyone in the middle of the Pacific had more advanced architecture, technology, agriculture and transportation. Having people at a certain place does not equal a civilization. And you'd be hardpressed to call anywhere in Australia one before first European contact. Hell, if we're using your standard than we can call the first homo sapien in Africa the beginning of the earliest civilization, hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. While we're at it, why not add Neandrethals to the list. Modern archeology already suggests that they were more developed than we previously thought. Why don't we include cave painters from northern europe!
mintyfreshdeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 223
No the native Australians weren't neanderthals. They didn't develop agriculture because the Australian environment is one of the most fragile in the world and any kind of sustained European style working of the land would have rendered it barren tens of thousands of years before the white settlers arrived.
I don't really see the indigenous inhabitants and the European settlers (and all who have migrated there since) as two separate entities when seen in a broader societal context. I think non-indigenous Australians could rightfully look upon 40,000 to 70,000 year history of the original people of Australia (whom they themselves came from what is now Indonesia) as being a legitimate part and important part of their own history - as Australians.
edit: What I'm trying to say is that Australia should be recognised as a legitimate civilization. It already is recognised as such by people who are not familiar with the arbitrary rules, regulations and conditions set forth to determine these things by civfanatics forum regulars, but perhaps not in the way that I am trying to describe. People claim that Australia does not qualify in part because it is not much over 200 years old but this, to me, is a fallacy. Australian civilization stretches tens of thousands of years back, but it was only through European settlement that it took on a form that most people would find recognisable.
Similar threads
