New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

When you say Thais, you refer to Central Thais or to the bigger Thai group?

All who identify as Thai. This includes Central Thais as well as Northern Thais, Southern Thais and Isan Thais.

I'm not sure, but I think that in the modern times the Central Thais are taking over most of the Thai groups, and it wasn't that way in the past.

Central Thais certainly have more influence due to political and economic circumstances. Luckily culture is not a zero-sum game. Central Thai culture doesn't "take over" as much as synthesises; though the degree varies. In the North and Isan local aspects (influenced by Lanna and Lanxang respectively) remain strong within the broader Thai culture/identity.

But it is not the same thing as Thai language. Thai language is the one who is spoken among the central thais (those of sukhuthai and ayutthuta).

I've never heard a Thai (north or south or central or Isan) refer to their dialects as anything other than Thai, albeit with a regional qualifier (so the Central dialect is Phasa Glang "Central Language")

Well, Lanna was a short lived civilization.
Maybe one of the shortest ones.

Five centuries is short-lived?

If you were trying to select the greatest civilizations in histroy it would matter, but here we just list every civilization.

But you're not. You're listing every significant empires, states, cultures, ethnic groups.

First you need to define what constitutes a civilisation.
 
Now combine those four and you have a defenition which can work for most of the world's civilizations.
 
So how would you describe a civilization?
Or do you think it is impossible?



I can't believe this kind of posts appear in 14th pages.... LOL
 
So how would you describe a civilization?
Or do you think it is impossible?

I'd define it as broad as possible, by identifying the most important shared features between cultures, states, ethnic groups, etc, for example, religion, extent of contact, trade links, environment, philosophy, modes of warfare, etc.

This way, the word "civilisation" actually has a meaning, besides being a word for "important cultures or empires". We'd also avoid the sort of discussion that plagues threads like these: namely, people pushing for a certain culture or country or nation to be called a "civilisation" purely because of the prestige of the word.
 
This is my definition of a civilization:
-A civilized and organized society with a political structure
-A society that has a sedentary way of living (settlements)
-A society that has a different culture than another society (things that make them different are architecture,political structure,arts,languages,philosphies,ethnic groups,traditions,religious beliefs,ways of living,customs,cuisine and a lot of other things)
-Empires and nations are not necessarily civilizations
-A society or community that has existed for more then 200-250 years
-A society could had multiple empires,kingdoms and dynasties
-A society that has accomplished great or noticeable things (conquests,monuments,inventions...)
 
-A society that has a sedentary way of living (settlements)
What about horse archer civilizations?

-A society that has a different culture than another society
Not always.
Most civilizations are different from each other, but I don't think this is the defenition.

-A society or community that has existed for more then 200-250 years
What about Akkad? And the Americans in 1900? Weren't they a civilization?



I think you forgot the most important thing which distinguishes different civilizations: their "role" in history.


I'd define it as broad as possible, by identifying the most important shared features between cultures, states, ethnic groups, etc, for example, religion, extent of contact, trade links, environment, philosophy, modes of warfare, etc.

This way, the word "civilisation" actually has a meaning, besides being a word for "important cultures or empires". We'd also avoid the sort of discussion that plagues threads like these: namely, people pushing for a certain culture or country or nation to be called a "civilisation" purely because of the prestige of the word.
Can you give an example?

And it might be interesting for you to know that in Hebrew there is one word for both civilization and culture.
 
What about horse archer civilizations?
They all had at least small settlements
Therefore a civilization doesn't have to be settled.
Xiongnu, Huns, and Uyghurs prove it.
They all had small settlements and some larger ones (Tongwancheng,Szeged,Ordu-Baliq...)
What about Akkad? And the Americans in 1900? Weren't they a civilization?
The Akkadians were a civilization,they lasted for more then 200 years.
The Americans are certainly a civilization,they are one the most important and influential nations in history.
Also,this argument is invalid if the civilization was very influential or did many great things in a time period shorter then 250 years.
 
Therefore a civilization doesn't have to be settled.
Xiongnu, Huns, and Uyghurs prove it.

Precisely the opposite. An unsettled people is not a civilisation; it's a tribe, a nation, or whatever you like, but not a civilisation. Civilisation implies cities.

The Americans are certainly a civilization,they are one the most important and influential nations in history.

It is doubtful whether the Americans are a nation today, but they certainly were not one in 1900.
 
The Huns and the Xiongnu weren't settlment-based civilizations.
I didn't know you consider it a settled society, but nevermind.


The Akkadians were a civilization,they lasted for more then 200 years.
The Americans are certainly a civilization,they are one the most important and influential nations in history.
Also,this argument is invalid if the civilization was very influential or did many great things in a time period shorter then 250 years.
I doesn't depend on times, nor on importance. Just about being a civilization or not.
In 1350 BC (150 years after the rise of Mitanni) the Hurrians weren't a civilizatons, and in 1300 BC they were?
In 940 BC the Israelites weren't a civilization, and in 770 BC they were?
In 130 AD the Kushans weren't a civilization, and in 350 AD they were?
In 50 BC the Xiongnu weren't a civilization, and in 30 AD they were?
In 1040 AD the Hungarians weren't a civilization, and in 1200 they were?


Nothing changed dramatically in those civilizations between those years.



***While it doesn't have to be influential or important, a civilization has to have a relatively unique "charachter".
For example, the Irish civilization.
 
The Huns and the Xiongnu weren't settlment-based civilizations.

Indeed. And accordingly were not anything civilisations. I think you're getting confused, so I'll just restate it - a civilisation by definition revolves around cities. Any society which does not do so is not a civilisation. That doesn't mean it's not relevant, or that it's not a political entity, or anything else.
 
Most civilizations are urbanized, but I don't think it is a defenition.
The Huns were different from other barbarians.
They were a real political entity, while Gauls and Germanic tribes weren't.
 
Yes. They were a political entity (as were several Gallic and Germanic tribes, though - Gallia omnis est divisa in partes tres). That does not make them a civilisation. You've got it backwards - all civilisations are urbanised, but not all distinct urban groups are individual civilisations. For example, Mancunians and Liverpudlians are all recognisably 'English'.

What do you think the term means?
 
Most civilizations are urbanized, but I don't think it is a defenition.
It's the literal meaning of the word: it derives from the Latin "civilis", meaning that which pertains to the meaning city (civitas) or the citizenry (civis).

The Huns were different from other barbarians.
They were a real political entity, while Gauls and Germanic tribes weren't.
Dachspwn in three, two, one...
 
Yes. They were a political entity (as were several Gallic and Germanic tribes, though - Gallia omnis est divisa in partes tres). That does not make them a civilisation. You've got it backwards - all civilisations are urbanised, but not all distinct urban groups are individual civilisations. For example, Mancunians and Liverpudlians are all recognisably 'English'.

What do you think the term means?

So according to that, which civilization are the Huns belonged to?
 
I think that the Huns are a civilization because they had cities (Szeged),but we don't know much Hunnic cities.
 
Back
Top Bottom