What is the best civ?

[Graeme the mad]

YEs people that's right, ive started a completely non-contriversial subject. Which civilisation do you think is the best - society? in civ3 kind of score? - in success?.

I do not want blatant racism (obviously non blatant racism is ok (that was a comment put into annoy you mods (that was a not very funny joke))) but a real evaluation of the subject.

Pesonally I think the main contenders are
Germany (As I said in another thread only civ that really came close to world domination and in such a short time)
USA
Persia
Britain
Rome

At the minute I think Britain would win on Civ score, closely followed by US and the Germany

 

[Knowltok]

I don't know, I think a case could be made for Rome using Civ3 stats. Their culture is still around us today (Latin, architecture, Gladiator movies, etc.). They also had a good long run as the main power in their area. The religion they adopted is currently the most widespread in the world. The western world spent the better part of 1,000 years trying to recreate the glory of Rome.


All that said, don't leave out the Chinese from your list.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Oh my!! - your right, how could I forget china.
I re-evaluate my origianl opinion - china comes first now

 

[Kublai-Khan]

Persia is also very awsome,
Persia for 300 years ruled over 3 major civilizations (Egypt,India and Mesopotamia) with a very efficient government, it was the first great empire.And during the roman empire the parthians and sassanians were the power that kept Rome in the mare nostrum, they even kicked rome ass once in a while.

Also China is a great contender, most of its existance China has been the most populated and technologically advanced civilization on earth.And it still exists.

I think that Rome or China should win.

 

[Cybernut]

Alexander the Great not only ruled the known world ... he actually extended the limits of what was known. And remember, that the Romans modeled practically all aspects of their culture on the Greeks.

 

[Kublai-Khan]

Alexander didnt expand the limits of the known world.

 

[Magnus]

hmmmmm....

I will vote along linguistic lines - a strong indicator of cultural breadth and dominance. No particular order here.

China.

Greater Germania (Northern Europe, England, USA, Canada, Australia)

Greater Rome (Italy, Spain, Latin America)

Greater Arabia (Nothern Africa & Middle East)

 

[damunzy]

I'd have to vote for my own country, United States of America. The reason are too many to list.

 

[Groovin']

well....... The Maori of Aotearoa (now known as New Zealand) for fighting for the best deal of colonisation with the British Empire (well, in comparison to thier other colonies!) , nah....but seriously:

U.S.A. / China.......very, very tough when trying to compare modern day might vs. ancient greatness, outta my league to discuss so i'll let the one-eyed pro US / pro China guys battle it out

Would choose the Romans, but considering they havent survived the test of time...... same reasoning with Greeks etc.

 

[Magnus]

Originally posted by Groovin'
...Would choose the Romans, but considering they havent survived the test of time...... same reasoning with Greeks etc.

I say they HAVE - Rome romanized France and Spain and they both had huge colonial possessions that spanned the globe and who's cultural influence is still very strong to this day. Its a stretch, but to me, Roman culture is still alive and well, even if Rome itself is long dead. Hellenism, did not have lasting culture much beyond Greece itself, but did influence Rome, so they have played a formative role.

 

[Cybernut]

Perhaps the relatively modern day British empire (from 18th the mid 20th century) can compete, but I wouldn't disagree if someone adamently argued for the Romans or the Greeks. I would include the USA, but I don't consider isolationism as a factor that will contribute to "greatness", and I certainly don't consider McDonalds and Burger King as cultural factors!

In reply to the previous post by Magnus, I think that your missing an important aspect of Hellenic culture that survives intact to this day ... the Byzantine era. Greek culture became overshadowed during Roman times. But it remerged when Christianity began to spread in the wake of Constantine's transference of the Roman capital to Constaninople. The Byzantine empire dominated the near east until the rise of the Ottoman's (have the Ottoman's ever been part of Civilisation?) in the middle ages.

Although it was still technically the Roman Empire, when the church split between east and west, the Greek influences (which had been overshadowed during Rome's Golden Era) began to emerge again in the form of the Byzantine Empire ... the remnants of which remain in the form of Eastern European Orthodox Christianity (Russian and Greek).

Greeks Verses Romans

My argument is that the Roman's merely added their own ruthless brand of life onto the already establish creed of the Greeks. While their Military, technological and scientific advances are enough in themselves to warrant the status of Great (not to mention order, longevity ...), but we must also bear in mind that the foundation of this "way of life" are essentially Greek:

1. The Roman's copied Greek architecture which had been developed hundreds of years earlier.

2. They educated their children in the Greek language (which is at the roots of the latin language). Moreover, well-off Roman's sent their children to be educated in Greece.

3. They developed modes of warring based on Greek strategies, which pre-dated the Roman's by hundreds of years.

4. The Greek empire encompassed Persia, North Africa, the near East ... and it stretched as far as Afganistan and India under the rule of Alexander! The Greeks are one of the few nations ever to conquer the forboading terrain of Afgahanistan ... the British couldn't even manage that. The Roman's never tried to stretch to far beyond their means of management and control (Europe, North Africa and the near east) ... but this of course is part of the greatness of Rome - the scale and extent to which they managed to control their environment.

5. The Roman's religion and all of their gods were copies of the Greeks.

6. Greek intellectual life will never ever be surpassed in the remainder of human history : philosophy and democracy - the very basis of western civilisation - were "invented" by the Greeks. This alone is enough to warrant reference to the Greeks as the greatest Civ. The Greeks basically CREATED western civilisation. They did not copy or repeat what others had done before them. Britain have had the greatest impact on the modern world, but this pails in comparision to the Greek influence.

P.S. ... can someone please explain to me why so many people are arguing that American culture is in the same league? I'm not anti-American, not in any sense of the word, but I think some of you claiming the "greatness" of America should defend your position better than ...

P.P.S The Germans DID NOT nearly conquer the world! They got no further than the Romans, they lasted only 6 years, and they got hammered the minute they stepped foot in Russia. And in the first world war they barely got out of their own borders! One of the contributing factors for the outbreeak of WW1 was the German feelings of inferiorty against the British and French empires. This is hardly a condition for "greatness".

 

[Cybernut]

P.P.S The Germans DID NOT nearly conquer the world! They got no further than the Romans, they lasted only 6 years, and they got hammered the minute they stepped foot in Russia. And in the first world war they barely got out of their own borders! One of the contributing factors for the outbreeak of WW1 was the German feelings of inferiorty against the British and French empires. This is hardly a condition for "greatness".

If Germany (or the Germanic peoples) were to qualify for greatness it is in the field of the arts and science. German classical composers dominate (Bach and Beethoven are in my opinion the two greatest composers). As do their Philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein) ... also German scientific and academic reasearch is equal to, or better than any in the world (Einstein, Oppenheimer came from this tradition ...). Germany never had to look outside its borders for greatness ... but I guess persectives of what was considered "great" were different in the age of Imperialism. Germany's greatness will be found here, not in her failed and flawed attempts on the battlefield.

 

[Cybernut]

Originally posted by PaleHorse76
I'd have to vote for my own country, United States of America. The reason are too many to list.

America just happens to be at the head of global capitalism right now ... apart from this, what is it that makes America so great? What makes America stand out in the context of other "great" civilisations? The Greeks passed down the very building blocks of contemporary civilisation; the British Empire controlled 2/3 of the worlds surface, spawned the industrial revolution and capitalism, impossed its language and culture everywhere it went.

The Greeks and the British have shaped the world we live in more than any other civilisation. I'll simplify the question a little bit:

How can the USA be seen as "greater" than either the Greeks or the British?

(That should be contentious )

 

[Fayadi]

Allright lets face it ,I am not gonna be racist but I am going to be realistic.
China is the only Civilization with the continuous history records for over 2000 years.China is the country that fought the most wars in the history so they are really the best in strategy.Yeah we defeated UN forces in Korean war(if you want to argue further about Korea war,I am in!) even though our soldiers were not properly trained and not properly equipped with weapons!Shame!D-Day landings(ooh yes they did do some major landings) from US greatest general MacArthur poses no threat to China (it only worked against the Germans).We were the most cultured civ in ancient time.
"... and it stretched as far as Afganistan "
Tang Dynasty in 700 AD also expanded till Afghanistan and till northwest india.

By the way even though the greeks attacked till Pakistan,their presence did not last long,they were shortly defeated by Indian great leader Chandragupta i think

"They developed modes of warring based on Greek strategies, which pre-dated the Roman's by hundreds of years"

Chinese strategies were the best in the world .It cant be denied

Throughout the history of China we were never conquered by foreign power(except Mongols?I think they are the same people with us) ,throught dark ages and anarchy we never died,our civilization survived .Romans and Greeks definetely had good years but cant survive as long as China

 

[Jimcat]

See my recent post in the "Rome vs. China" thread. I think that, over all of human history, China wins hands down. Don't be fooled by their weakness caused by exploitation, wars, and internal mismanagement in the 19th-20th centuries. That was a temporary setback, and they have been making a good recovery since the 1980's.

By the same token, I would say that India comes in second. They had a large and prosperous civilization for thousands of years before the Europeans came in and messed things up.

Third place would go to... Egypt! One of the most powerful, most civilized societies on Earth for about 4000 years, which is longer than most modern "civilizations" have even existed.

Those three are in a class by themselves. No other society comes close in terms of longevity, cultural influence, or population.

Some contenders for the second tier:

Greece, whose influence covered the whole Mediterranean basin including that upstart empire of Rome. Greek culture was already old and established when Rome conquered them militarily. Greece then conquered Rome culturally from within. After the fall of Rome, the Byzantine "Roman" empire was more Greek than Latin. So Greece both preceded and succeeded Rome. Sorry, Roman fans. (-:

Japan, which would have been in the same league as China if not for its geographic isolation. Actually, I take that back: Japan would have fought a massive war with China a lot sooner if not for its geographic isolation. As it turned out, Japan was able to build a strong culture on its own little islands, and used Western knowledge to bootstrap itself from the Iron Age to the Information Age in a fraction of the time of its rivals.

Persia, which arose out of the old Mesopotamian civilizations and was the strongest power between the Mediterranean and India for thousands of years.

The Inca empire, another advanced society that grew and prospered through isolation. Could have reached the level of Japan if it hadn't been conquered by some technologically advanced barbarians.

On this scale, all of the European powers (and certainly the United States as well) are just blips on the radar screen. Let's face it, compared to the above civilizations, we're all just a few steps away from barbarians. Granted, Euro-American civilization has done quite a bit in a short time. But it's too early to see if they top the scores in the long run. Come back in about 3000 years for more accurate results.

 

[Cybernut]

I never thought about the continuity aspect of China. That is certainly a good point. I'll accept that I'm being a little Westo-centric here, but I still believe that the Greek and British civilisations have had more of an overall impact on global culture. The Chinese effect has been localised in comparision.

BUT there is still such a place as Greece (like China). Ancient Greeks are the ancestors of Modern greeks and they "basically" share the same language, just as the ancient Chinese are the ancestors of Modern Chinese.

I would also say that it was far more of an achievement for the Greeks to conquer as far as Afgahanistan and India than for China - and they did so almost 1000 years prior to the Tang Dynasty!

Also, the Mongols are not Chinese ... and they did conquered China - they were the reason the Chinese built a big long wall ... ring a bell? The Mongols look different, have a different language, culture and tradition. Geographical proximity is hardly an argument for them being "one of us". That's like saying the French and the English are the same - and they have the advantage of looking the same!

That said, I think the Chinese would come into my top 5 list. Chinese culture dominates the far east, and lives strong to this day. Perhaps its unfair (or unwise) to compare east and west in these terms. In any case, that is what the forum is about

China's legacy is not one of warring and conquest. Sure there have been wars etc, but that is to be expected in a 2000+ year history. And China are famed for the bravery and expertise of their warriors. But so too are the Japanese and the Nepalese.

That said, China's history has tended to be one of internal battling, rather than internal unity and external conquest. This is not a bad thing in my opinion. I think the fact that the Chinese were never preoccupied with "conquering the known world" is a credit in her favour.

The Chinese were also great thinkers, philosophers and scientists. They had it all ... almost ...

The fact that the enormous wealth of Chinese culture never passed over into the "modern" world stands against them. The west advanced were the east stood still for one reason: when the west got (gets) a new invention, it immediately finds the most effective military usage for that invention. The famed example of gunpowder - a Chinese invention that, centuries latter, was used against to conquer an outmoded Chinese army in, and proir to, The Opium Wars.

 

[Kublai-Khan]

I dont tend to consider India as one of the 4 ancient civilizations.
I mean, probably the harappan civilization was the oldest civilization in the world, but they disappeared 2500 years before jesus.
We dont know if the harappan civilization was a great empire or a collection of city states.
Then India had something like a dark age. (I forgot to say that the harappan civilization probably dissapeared becouse of an invasion of indo european people)

The Indians learned how to work the iron and how to write from the persians (when the indus valley was a satrapy), later alexander conquered the indus valley (that was no longer part of the persian empire) and later Chandragupa who was an indian companion of alexander formed the maurya empire.

I tend to consider India as contemporary of the helenistic kingdoms and rome, not contemporary of egypt and sumer, at least the classical period of indian history.


And i think that china or rome should win

 

[Cybernut]

I think that your list raises some very interesting questions. I guess there are always going to be issues with any "who's the best" subject.


The first problem I immediately have is with your conditions for "greatness" and the stress you place on continuity (longevity). Should time be the predominant factor? In stressing time are you not favouring quantity over quality? I personnally feel, that because we are dealing with a "who's the best" type question, quality really has to take precedence over quantity.

(a) I don't believe that the length a civilisation survived for bears as much weight as you claim. For instance, the Mongol civilisation was in it's prime for a very short time. But in that time it had a massive and lasting effect on both Eastern and Western history - even up until the 20th century. The Nazi hatred (or the more general Western hatred) of all the Slavik peoples to their East derives from the time of the Mongol incursions into the the Eastern reaches of Europe - building up a hatred of all things Eastern. The effect of the Mongol Empire was massively disproportionate the their size or continuity.

The Aztecs (the Incas too) provide another example. The Aztecs Empire rose from nothing in a matter of 200 years and then vanished. In that time it built the city of Tenochtitlan (modern day Mexico city) which historians believe had a population of 1 million people in its prime, making it the largest city in the world (if population is a factor, then what about that). They developed all that amazing architecture and conquered the entire region with deadly force. Then 15 years after the Europeans arrived it was all gone (80% dead due to the import of European diseases such as the cold). The Aztecs had a huge effect on the region in a very short space of time.

(b) The one thing that all your selections all have in common is coninuity. Why? This is becasue there was very little opposition to their rule during their reign. The reasons for this are geographical (environmental), demographic and ethnic.

The question of geography, demographics and ethnicity come together best with regards the Egyptians. Their homeland was basically unthreatened due to its geographical situatedness. To the south uninhabitable desert, to the east nomadic tribes. You have to go further east into Babylon and Persia to find any communities of peoples who collaborated into coherent cultures during this period. To the north of course the Mediterranian. The conditions existed for a long and largely "unaffected" history.

China and India are similar in many ways. Europe is dominated by Conquering nations. Not so in the East. China only ever felt threatened by the Mongol (and nomadic) raids from the north (hence the Great Wall). But they would come. Plunder. And then leave. China remained intact for so long becasue it was largely unthreatened from other "culturising" civilisations. The Mongols were not interested in impossing their culture. The same was not true in the West.

Specifically regarding ethnicity, all three of these civilisations encompass a relatively compatibile ethnical background which envelopes the whole region. There was no massive clash of cultures within the geographical proximity of these civilisations - unlike the Persians and the Greeks for instance. Perhaps the great conflicts of these nations took place in their pre-history, which might explain the reason why there are no clashes, but that's not our question.


The second problem I have is with your defintion of "cultural influence". I won't go into detail here, but in one of my previous posts I explain why I believe the Greeks and the British far outway all other civilisations.

The three cultures you describe at the head of your list had limited impact outside their borders. This is partially because they were not "culturising" conquest civs, but also becasue simply they were not the most influential civs.

Greek culture is the foundation stone of western civilisation, which for good or ill, is the new global culture. The British empire occupied 2/3 of the globe (now that's ****ing impressive); English is also the global language, and if more evidence were needed ... time itself is centred in London GMT. My ideas on this are listed above. These two civilisations where indisputable in their time, and their impact lives on today in a very explicit and direct manner.


This may be just a clash of perspectives here. But I think that a civilisation's "greatness" cannot be judged on purely internal issues (size, population, longevity). It's almost as if they (China, India, Egypt) were the greatest prize fighters of their time ... but we can never know how good they might have been because they never fought Tyson in his prime ...

 

[Cybernut]

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
And i think that china or rome should win

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons why. I just can't see how anyone could preference the Romans over the Greeks. The Romans just pilfered Greek culture. Jimcat is quite right in his analysis of the relation of Greece to Rome.

And I think that Chinese culture is perhaps too self-enclosed and insular to be considered "great" from the conditions we have to use. The Chinese only had limited cultural impact outside of their ethnical and geographical area. They were famed for turning their noses up to foreign influences. Of course this is great in itself, but I think that it only fullfils part of the conditions required for a "great" civ.

I feel that Greece and Britain have fulfiled all the conditions - lasting cultural influence both within and outside their borders, military excellence, conquest, empire (I'm not being judgmental ... its just a fact of history), science, the arts ... these civs (whether you like it or not ... I'm trying to be indifferent) have shaped the way we live today more than any other. This is the real defining factor.

 

[Fayadi]

Greek Empire is so short lived ,they didnt last long!
Forgot to add,Tang Dynasty also attacked till Bangladesh.Ming Dynasty attacked Sri Lanka.The greatest sea admiral of the history is Zheng He during Ming Dynasty.His ships is many times larger than Columbus ships that goes to America you know!


"I feel that Greece and Britain have fulfiled all the conditions - lasting cultural influence both within and outside their borders, military excellence, conquest, empire (I'm not being judgmental ... its just a fact of history), science, the arts ... these civs (whether you like it or not ... I'm trying to be indifferent) have shaped the way we live today more than any other. This is the real defining factor
"

Interesting facts,I love History arguments.Britain and Greece were no longer as great as before.yes you are right about the cultural influence by Britain.Britain biggest export to the world is English Language.You do have to know that Chinese language will overtake English as an international language in a few decade time.Chinese language websites are expected to be 70% of all internet websites by 2007.
Dont forgot the earliest school examination comes from China.We all went to schools,colleges to take examinations.but do you know who is the first do that?Greek invented Democracy,China invented meritocracy.While Greek uses Democracy to choose the leader,the Chinese uses meritocracy to choose the leader,it is a way which the leader will choosen through their ability by examinations.Democracy is not necessarily better than Meritocracy.Democracy cannot guarantee that you have a great leader,but Meritocracy guarantee that you a good leader to lead the country.In one way or another,Meritocracy was used globally.When you want to find a job,you need qualification.All politicians need to be educated before they took the jobs.But the meritocracy Chinese used to select their leaders method was never used in the modern world and the Chinese did not use that now I think

Britain and Western countries were lucky you know,if not for those great scientists like Isaac Newton(Why?he shoulb be born in China instead!)which were born miracelously,they would not have industrial revolution.If not for industrial revolution,Western nation will be probably inferior to the Asians now!

One more thing about greeks,Alexander the Great did ask their generals that has captured India to march all the way to China,but the generals refused you know why?China was too powerful for them at that time.I think all of you had little knowledge about Alexander,his motives were only attacking other countries you know,he attack other empires for no significant purpose as he always think war is like a sport and he loves war!.China's Han Dynasty too can march all the way to attack Rome but Chinese actually attack others for purpose.
Our views towards war is different ,if we get very agressive we could even march all the way to Roman Empire

"And China are famed for the bravery and expertise of their warriors. But so too are the Japanese and the Nepalese. "

Nepalese??This makes me laughs really we conquered them so many times,we swept them so easily.