New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[Domen]

a huge multicultural Empire was created, the Soviet Union.

We can talk about a state being multicultural when all those cultures have equal rights and are not discriminated by the state and / or no of those cultures is state-promoted and considered supreme. Which is not at all characterisation of the Soviet Union.

 

[sophie]

There is no need to define civilization.
It is not a strict term.
What you can do is to debate about each one, and to decide wether it is a civilization or not.

The term civilization includes political entity, ethnic defenition, and territorial defenition.
But doesn't have to include all of them.
For example, Roman civilization and Italian civilization are not the same one in my opinion.
Babylonian and Akkadians are not the same civ as well.
However, Achaemenid Persia and Khwarezmian Persia are the same civilization in my opinion.

Why would you say that? You see, you need to define your terms, because otherwise everything just comes out all arbitrary.

 

[Absolution]

This isn't mathematics.

 

[Civciv5]

Maybe you should add these civilizations?
The Lao (AD 1300) - Southeast Asian civilization in Laos
The Sinhalese (BC 400) - South Asian civilization in Sri Lanka
The Bhutanese (AD 1600) - Himalayan civilization in Bhutan
The Nepali (AD 400) - Himalayan civilization in Nepal

 

[sophie]

This isn't mathematics.

No, but it is history. And in history it is prudent to define your terms so everybody else knows what you are talking about.

 

[innonimatu]

We can talk about a state being multicultural when all those cultures have equal rights and are not discriminated by the state and / or no of those cultures is state-promoted and considered supreme. Which is not at all characterisation of the Soviet Union.

I don't know what you are ranting about now, of all imperialist states the USSR turned out to be the one which most encouraged the preservation of the different cultures of the peoples it incorporated while granting them full citizenship rights. Other empires were busy either encouraging local cultures so that they didn't had to extend citizenship, or trying to create a culturally homogeneous state. Granted, the USSR got some "unfair advantage" over the other empires in the contemporary age by doing away with competitive elections, which made extending citizenship without forcing cultural uniformity less risky. But they did it. Despite those few cases of deportations caused by Stalin's paranoia the USSR remained a mosaic of cultures, the Russian federation still does. That was one of the things later contributing to its dissolution.

 

[Leoreth]

No, but it is history. And in history it is prudent to define your terms so everybody else knows what you are talking about.

Actually this is even true to any form of human communication unless you want to be stuck in vagaries and misunderstanding. "This isn't mathematics" is only a valid statement insofar that the definitions are probably a bit less rigorous, but they are necessary nonetheless.

 

[Absolution]

Maybe you should add these civilizations?
The Lao (AD 1300) - Southeast Asian civilization in Laos
The Sinhalese (BC 400) - South Asian civilization in Sri Lanka
The Bhutanese (AD 1600) - Himalayan civilization in Bhutan
The Nepali (AD 400) - Himalayan civilization in Nepal

Weren't the Lao included?
They must be in.

No, but it is history. And in history it is prudent to define your terms so everybody else knows what you are talking about.

There are many exceptional civilizations, and that's why you have to consider each one and to be creative. You can't just decide if a group is a civilization or not by checking if it fits some patterns.
There are many civilization(or not civilizations?) which can't be really decided by terms, but by specific discussions. Catalans, Byzantines, Mamluks, Seljuks, Indians...
There are disagreements about those. Terms can't solve it.
Only a discussion.

 

[christos200]

 

[Traitorfish]

There are many exceptional civilizations, and that's why you have to consider each one and to be creative. You can't just decide if a group is a civilization or not by checking if it fits some patterns.

"Civilisation" doesn't actually exist. It's a construct, something we made up to help us understand human societies, a tool. If you can't offer a coherent explanation of what it is, and then apply it in an at least makeshift manner to given historical examples, then it's a bad construct, a tool of no utility.

 

[sophie]

There are many exceptional civilizations, and that's why you have to consider each one and to be creative. You can't just decide if a group is a civilization or not by checking if it fits some patterns.
There are many civilization(or not civilizations?) which can't be really decided by terms, but by specific discussions. Catalans, Byzantines, Mamluks, Seljuks, Indians...
There are disagreements about those. Terms can't solve it.
Only a discussion.

History doesn't work that way. You can't define something by just listing examples of it. When has it been established that the above listed are civilizations. You need to first define what a civilization is, and then explain why the above civilizations satisfy the parameters of your definition. That's how it works.

 

[Masada]

The Lao (AD 1300) - Southeast Asian civilization in Laos

Aside from some linguistic variations (not materially different from those which prevailed inside Thailand until recently), the Lao weren't at all different from other Tai. Modern nationalism has stressed those few differences and the dominance of southern Thailand over the North has weakened some of the traditional cross-border linkages... but there's still not all that much difference. If the French hadn't intervened, the Lao would have become Thai by now. Imperial alchemy and all that.

 

[Absolution]

History doesn't work that way. You can't define something by just listing examples of it. When has it been established that the above listed are civilizations. You need to first define what a civilization is, and then explain why the above civilizations satisfy the parameters of your definition. That's how it works.

If so, define the term "capital city".

Many historical cities we now consider capitals weren't exactly what we mean when we say capital.

Today a capital is a center of government or a place who represents the state culturali and politically.
But when we talk about historical capital cities, some of them didn't fit those terms.
Still, we call them capitals.
Because the general atmosphere around them and their role was of centrality and importance.
It's a bit more intangible and not always simple or scientifical.
This is because a capital city is a historical term, and many ancient cultures weren't fimiliar with it.

The same happens with civilizations.
There is a basic definition. Of course. (culture, political entity, ethnic origin...)
But there are some civilizations which you can consider as civilizations by looking at their history, even if they didn't fit all of the terms. (only a few civilizations are like that, but still there are).
As one of you said, a civilization is a historical term. Not a political, cultural, or ethnic term.
So many civilizations are also "tested" by their "role" in history.
This is another main reason to consider Rome and Italy as different civilizations.
I'm not yet sure about it, but I think I can also consider Franks and French as different civilizations the same way.

Most civilizations fit perfectly to the terms, like Chinese, Portuguese, Russians, Sumerians, Japanese, Hittites, Koreans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Bulgarians, Incans, Mongols, and so on.
But there are others who need some consideration: the difference between Hellenists and Greeks, the difference between Romans and Byzantines, the difference between the main 3 Scandianvian groups, the difference between Turkic groups.
This is why this thread was started. To discuss the exceptionals. Not to find a wide and perfect term for all civilizations. Because you simply can't find one.

 

[Civciv5]

Aside from some linguistic variations (not materially different from those which prevailed inside Thailand until recently), the Lao weren't at all different from other Tai. Modern nationalism has stressed those few differences and the dominance of southern Thailand over the North has weakened some of the traditional cross-border linkages... but there's still not all that much difference. If the French hadn't intervened, the Lao would have become Thai by now. Imperial alchemy and all that.

I don't think so.
If the Kingdom of Lan Xang didn't collapse into a succession war then Laos today would cover Laos and a large part of Thailand and Cambodia.
The Kingdom of Lan Xang was a strong and good organized state that rivaled the Kingdom of Ayutthaya and was able to successfully defend itself against Vietnam,the Ayutthaya Kingdom and Burmese Empire.
It also managed to invade the Cambodia and the Kingdom of Ayutthaya and Lan Xang conquered some territories of them.
If the Kingdom didn't collapse,then it would have likerly modernized itself and would be a state like the present day Thailand.

 

[Masada]

It was still Tai. Besides which, using that kind of logic I could push for the inclusion of Suhkothai and Chiang Mai as viable civilizations in their own right.

 

[Civciv5]

Yes,but Tai isn't the same as Thai (Siamese).
The Thai and the Lao (who are both ethnic groups) are both grouped within the larger Tai ethnic group.

 

[Masada]

Yes,but Tai isn't the same as Thai (Siamese).

I know that. That's why I've been using Tai, in preference to Thai. Except when I suggested that the Lao could well have been Thai, much like the Isan are, had France not got involved.

I also think the use of Thai and Siamese is ********, as the former refers to the modern Thai nation-state and the latter to a stupid European naming convention.

 

[Tee Kay]

I know that. That's why I've been using Tai, in preference to Thai. Except when I suggested that the Lao could well have been Thai, much like the Isan are, had France not got involved.

I also think the use of Thai and Siamese is ********, as the former refers to the modern Thai nation-state and the latter to a stupid European naming convention.

I prefer Siam, myself.

 

[Masada]

As the name of a civilization, both suck.

 

[Civciv5]

The Kingdom of Lan Xang was a part of the Laotian civilization founded by the Lao.
Sukhothai,Ayutthaya and Chiang Mai were part of the Thai civilization founded by the Thai
If we follow your kind of logic then the Indo-Europeans,Sino-Tibetans,Austronesians are all civilizations,but they are not,they are ethnic groups.
Ethnic groups≠Civilizations