New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

[Tee Kay]

This is not about ethnicity though so much as it is about the persistence of culture. The English may have been ruled by Normans (and later Angevins), but they didn't become Normans. In fact, those Normans who came to England merged into the English instead. We're not writing in French after all, or Norse.

The merging took 400 years, and what emerged out of it was a culture that shared both Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon characteristics (with the result that a third of the Modern English vocabulary are French loanwords). A similar process occurred for Sumerian and Akkadian.

Sure they were, at least roughly. Each subsequent dynasty may have conquered different neighboring regions, but the core appears to be basically the same. Mainly though it simply appears to me that these different polities did share a similar culture. There were different dynasties and ethnicities involved over time, but they all ultimately flourished in Mali.

Then why do you separate the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and the Assyrians? Or for that matter, the Myceneans, the Greeks, the Macedonians and the Hellenistic Kingdoms? Or the Etruscans, Romans and Italians? The case is the same; different ethnicities and dynasties and religions, but same geographical region.

This is what people mean when they say the list is have is arbitrary. Sometimes the basis for defining a "civilisation" is geography (how big should the area be? what geographical, historical, cultural boundaries should be taken into account?). Sometimes it's language (how distinctive does a language have to be to be considered a basis for a separate civilisation?). Sometimes it's certain prominent empires or nation-states (how prominent? How do you measure this?).

I get that you're trying to make a comprehensive list, but "comprehensive" is not "as many as I can get away with". Your list is based on inconsistent definition, and in effect includes everything from very broad groups of completely unrelated or very loosely related peoples (eg the Bantus, the Tatars, the Huns) to groups of autonomous states sharing to varying extent some aspect of culture (eg the Sumerians, the Latin Americans) to individual empires or states or even a particularly era of an Empire (eg the Byzantines), all with wildly varying degrees of closeness and interaction.

I suggested an alternative way of looking at this a few posts back; that's a flawed approach, but at least I had a consistent definition/methodology as my foundation. People here are trying - not in the most tactful way possible, I'll admit - to get you to recognise this fundamental flaws in your approach, something which so far you have failed to grasp.

 

[Domen]

the Slavs (AD 900) - eastern European civilization consisting of various tribes and kingdoms including Poland

A bit earlier than AD 900. The first known from written sources Slavic states were:

- Samo's state (7th century),
- Principality of Carantania (7th - 9th centuries),
- Principality of Nitra (ca. late 8th century / early 9th century - 1108),
- Principality of Moravia (ca. 805 - 907),
- Principality of Lower Pannonia (840 - 901)

The state of the Polans (which later - due to conquest of neighbouring tribes by the Polans - turned into Poland) - also emerged already before AD 900 - most likely in mid-8th century, as archaeological research of Polan gords proves. Polan dukes before Mieszko I (who is considered as the first historical ruler of Poland*) were Siemomysl (Mieszko's father), Lestek (Mieszko's grandfather) and Siemowit (Mieszko's great grandfather) - and today historians largely recognize them as real, historical persons, not just legendary ones. When Mieszko I became the duke, the state-organization as well as military forces (druzhina) were already fully developed. He inherited and expanded, but not created one. So it is obvious that this credit must go to his ancestors - Siemowit, Lestek, Siemomysl. Gords such as Gniezno or Poznan, which were the most important cities during the rules of Mieszko I - existed already before he became the duke.

*But for the first time name "Poland" in surviving to our times written sources was mentioned already during the rules of his son - Boleslaw I.

 

[The Kingmaker]

A bit earlier than AD 900. The first known Slavic states were:

- Samo's state (7th century),
- Principality of Carantania (7th - 9th centuries),
- Principality of Nitra (ca. late 8th century / early 9th century - 1108),
- Principality of Moravia (ca. 805 - 907),
- Principality of Lower Pannonia (840 - 901)

The state of the Polans (which later - due to conquest of neighbouring tribes by the Polans - turned into Poland) - also emerged already before AD 900 - most likely in mid-8th century, as archaeological research of Polan gords proves.

Thanks for your input. Since I'm using cities as the key indicator here, could you give me some more information on the key urban centers of those polities in the era you mentioned?

 

[The Kingmaker]

I suggested an alternative way of looking at this a few posts back; that's a flawed approach, but at least I had a consistent definition/methodology as my foundation. People here are trying - not in the most tactful way possible, I'll admit - to get you to recognise this fundamental flaws in your approach, something which so far you have failed to grasp.

You don't think I recognize that this is an imperfect model? Human civilization is so vast that any attempt to categorize it will ultimately be flawed. I acknowledged at the beginning that the list was sorely incomplete and that I wanted to discuss how to expand it.

Your model is just as imperfect, because it condenses all of human civilization into a mere handful of continental boxes. For one thing, I wouldn't be so quick to cram so much into what you label as Eurasian, if only for the fact that European and Near Eastern/Islamic civilizations are so disparate. And where would Egypt, Kush, Axum and the other early African civilizations go? Are they all Eurasian as well? That feels very imprecise to me.

All I was hoping to do was engage in some fun historical discourse. I did not expect to encounter so much outright hostility. I'm sorely tempted just to ask the mods to lock this and just call it all off.

 

[Domen]

Since I'm using cities as the key indicator here, could you give me some more information on the key urban centers of those polities in the era you mentioned?

Yes, sure. Some examples:

1) Samo's state:

- Wogastisburg - it was located most likely somewhere in Moravia (most likely capital)

2) Principality of Carantania:

- Gospa Sveta (capital)
- Krnski grad

3) Principality of Nitra:

- Nitra (capital)

4) Principality of Moravia:

- Velehrad (first capital)
- Mikulčice (second capital)
- Ducové

5) Principality of Lower Pannonia:

- Blatnograd (capital)

6) Polan state:

- Giecz (built in ca. AD 860 - most likely first capital)

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yes, sure. Some examples:

1) Samo's state:

- Wogastisburg

2) Principality of Carantania:

- Krnski grad
- Gospa sveta

3) Principality of Nitra:

- Nitra

4) Principality of Moravia:

- Velehrad
- Mikulčice
- Ducové

5) Principality of Lower Pannonia:

- Blatnograd

6) Polan state:

- Giecz (built in ca. AD 860)

Thanks again for the input. I'm not well-versed on the earliest Slavs. Tell me more about them. What sort of population are we looking at? What sort of architecture? How wide was the multiplicity of trades, industry and agriculture? And what percentage of the population was urban vis a vis rural?

 

[Domen]

I'm not sure - probably little is known. For example we don't even know the exact location of Wogastisburg.

You might want to Google some information about them, if you are interested in more detailed info.

How they looked like? They could look like this (this is Gniezno, Poland, in AD 900s):

Inhabitants - between few and several thousands in capitals, although there could be also larger civic centers.

 

[The Kingmaker]

@ All: I might well have simply said in the OP: "these are groups that I've studied and know about. Tell me about groups not yet on the list that you feel belong there." I was never asserting this imperfect methodology as the "be-all, end-all" in and of itself. The whole goal of this project was to learn about as many different world civilizations as possible, especially those that are often overlooked.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I'm not sure - probably little is known. For example we don't even know the exact location of Wogastisburg.

You might want to Google some information about them, if you are interested in more detailed info.

How they looked like? They could look like this (this is Gniezno, Poland, in AD 900s):

Inhabitants - between few and several thousands in capitals, although there could be also larger civic centers.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the info.

 

[Domen]

Yeah, so I told you about some of these groups.

Thanks for the info.

NP.

=====================================

Some maps:

Principality of Carantania in ca. year 800:

Spoiler :

Principalities of Nitra and Moravia before they merged into Great Moravia (i.e. before ca. year 833):

Spoiler :

Great Moravia (after Nitra & Moravia merged) at its greatest extent (ca. year 894 - death of Svatopluk I):

Spoiler :

Principality of Lower Pannonia:

Spoiler :

Early Poland (mid-9th - mid-10th century):

Spoiler :

Gniezno, Polish capital, 10th century:

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yeah, so I told you about some of these groups.

NP.

Pretty cool. I've read up a fair bit on Poland, but the finer details on entities like Great Moravia, etc. has always been something of a mystery to me. I'll definitely have to read up on them some more.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Principality of Carantania in ca. year 800:

Carantania is more or less synonymous with what's now "Carinthia," right? I recognize a similarity to the German pronounciation "Kärnten."

 

[Domen]

Yes. Many German geographical names are derived from older, Slavic names.

In 828, western part of Carantania was conquered by the Frankish Empire (eastern part had been regained by Avar tribes already between 745 and 795) and became a margraviate of the Frankish empire. The March of Kärnten was created within the Carolingian Empire in 889.

Carantania / Carentania (in Old Slavic: Korǫtan&#1098 is the original name from which later German Kärnten was derived (i.e. name was germanized).

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yes. Many German geographical names are derived from older, Slavic names.

In 828, western part of Carantania was conquered by the Frankish Empire (eastern part had been regained by Avar tribes already between 745 and 795) and became a margraviate of the Frankish empire. The March of Kärnten was created within the Carolingian Empire in 889.

Carantania / Carentania (in Old Slavic: Korǫtan&#1098 is the original name from which later German Kärnten was derived (i.e. name was germanized).

I suspected as much. I knew about the Franks meddling with the Slavs, inserting themselves into the region and creating the march there, but less so about what was there before. So thanks again.

 

[Algeroth]

Yes, sure. Some examples:

1) Samo's state:

- Wogastisburg - it was located most likely somewhere in Moravia (most likely capital)


4) Principality of Moravia:

- Velehrad (first capital)
- Mikulčice (second capital)
- Ducové

I would only add that noone knows where Wogastisburg was, it could be anywhere from western Bohemia to western Slovakia.

The situation with Veliegrad, the capital of Great Moravia is slightly better - we don't know where it was, but we have several candidates - Mikulčice, Uhrské hradiště, Nitra, Velehrad or Devín.

 

[Tee Kay]

Your model is just as imperfect, because it condenses all of human civilization into a mere handful of continental boxes.

"More" is not always "better". My "handful of continental boxes" fully embraces all of complex urban societies, recognises the interaction between them, allows for syntheses and overlaps between civilisations, and allows for the possibility of any number of subcivilisations or subcultures depending on how you want to approach a particular aspect of history. In other words, it's concise and very flexible.

For one thing, I wouldn't be so quick to cram so much into what you label as Eurasian, if only for the fact that European and Near Eastern/Islamic civilizations are so disparate.

Not at all if you compared the difference between European and Near Eastern civilisations with the difference between them and, say, Mesoamerican civilisation or even Sinic/Chinese-influenced civilisation. Christiandom and Islamic World for instance are both on the same foundation - universal monotheism; there was and is constant and close interaction between them, peaceful and non-peaceful, with both frequently trading and borrowing technologies and customs and languages from one another.

And where would Egypt, Kush, Axum and the other early African civilizations go? Are they all Eurasian as well? That feels very imprecise to me.

Depends. Egypt and Axum would definitely be in the Eurasian group; that's the group by which they were most influenced and in which they were most influencing. They are separated by geographic barriers from the other two areas of African civilisation; the Niger River and West African states and the Congo-Zambezi region; in both cases the polities of those regions were linked by trade routes and often also shared culture and political organisation (cavalry-based elites in West Africa, Lunda/Luba style kingship in south-central Africa) and separated from the other region by geographic barriers.

All I was hoping to do was engage in some fun historical discourse. I did not expect to encounter so much outright hostility.

This is a history-based categorisation exercise. I don't blame you and I don't think I'm being hostile (such a harsh word, that). We're humans, we categorise things. It's an impulse. I object to your list not because I don't think you're knowledgable (you have to be) but because your basis for categorisation doesn't make much sense.

 

[The Kingmaker]

This is a history-based categorisation exercise. I don't blame you and I don't think I'm being hostile (such a harsh word, that). We're humans, we categorise things. It's an impulse. I object to your list not because I don't think you're knowledgable (you have to be) but because your basis for categorisation doesn't make much sense.

I wasn't singling you out for individual accusation. Just saying that the response here has been largely quite negative or at least hypercritical.

My point is that the act of categorization itself is not the main focus here. My primary goal in this project has always been to expand my horizons to learn about civilizations that I'm less familiar with (or entirely unfamiliar - I knew precious little about the Tartessian culture for example before I started).

That's the problem I have with your particular categorization system. Your system is very concise and to the point, and it highlights some differences that your 10 groups have in world-view. I'm just not really looking to simply box things up like that. I want to delve into cultures that I don't know so much about.

That's why I've appreciated Domen's discussion of the early Slavs - I'm not as familiar with those groups at that early date and love opportunities to learn.

It's just hard to engage in a friendly discussion of content when so many other people prefer to focus on how they don't like how said content is arranged methodologically, which was only ever of a secondary nature in the first place.

 

[sophie]

I didn't really get all that aggressive until you got so damned defensive about your categorization system. All I wanted you to do is understand that your definition and categorization methodology is entirely arbitrary and in places doesn't make any sense. If you want to talk about various cultures and polities around the world that's fine, but don't throw it all under some loaded, blanket term like "civilization". It makes you look out of date and rather like the hundred other civfanatics who stumble in here every year thinking they own the world because they have read a Jared Diamond book.

Besides aggressive attacks are half of what history is all about. It takes a strong stomach to be a historian, because as soon as you publish you can be sure every historian and their mother is going to be attacking your argument, and you'll be doing the same to them.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I didn't really get all that aggressive until you got so damned defensive about your categorization system.

I don't think I got particularly defensive. I simply tried to explain my thought processes, where I was coming from. I didn't use any invective or place any discourteous labels on anyone who disagreed with me. You however have a habit of interjecting curse words (which makes your assertions seem more hostile) as well as labeling those who disagree with you with derogatory adjectives. This makes it difficult for me to converse with you.

All I wanted you to do is understand that your definition and categorization methodology is entirely arbitrary and in places doesn't make any sense. If you want to talk about various cultures and polities around the world that's fine, but don't throw it all under some loaded, blanket term like "civilization". It makes you look out of date and rather like the hundred other civfanatics who stumble in here every year thinking they own the world because they have read a Jared Diamond book.

I'm not writing my dissertation here, just looking for a friendly chat on a discussion board. If you're going to make me an offender for a word, how I am ever to discuss anything? I'd like for us to be able to move past obfuscating arguments about less-important things like categorization and nomenclature. Look, I get that you don't like how I've got things set up. I really do. But the thing is, I'm not really all that attached to that setup. Should I continue on with the project, it'll likely go through countless revisions and clarifications. (Though even then I'll bet you won't like it. )

When one disagrees with another, the best course of action is to engage in reasoning to attempt to persuade the other party to accept your argument. Simply tearing down the other person, on the other hand, is more likely to just cause them to desire an end to the interaction with you. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

For the record, I've never deigned to read any Jared Diamond.

but don't throw it all under some loaded, blanket term like "civilization".

I find this quite amusing. We're having this discussion on a site called "Civilization Fanatics."

Besides aggressive attacks are half of what history is all about. It takes a strong stomach to be a historian, because as soon as you publish you can be sure every historian and their mother is going to be attacking your argument, and you'll be doing the same to them.

Professional critiques do not equal personal attacks. Courtesy, accuracy and constructive criticism are more than welcome, but discourtesy and invective are bad form. We can have a pleasant discussion if you're willing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And the Franks were a Germanic tribe...

So? I thought the criteria was self-identification, and loads of Franks thought of themselves as Roman, and if they're Germanic tribe now, why are they French?

I feel really bad about this, because it's very clear you've put a lot of effort into this project, but this project is built on a flawed base, and until you fix that base, no amount of effort can overcome these flaws.