-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
What is the best civ?
- Thread starter Graeme the mad
- Start date
I'm a great admirer of Chinese culture. And Indian culture for that matter. But I stick to my views stated previously. I'll restrict myself to a few replies:
I think you're listening to too much Chinese state propaganda here. This is not going to happen ... sorry.
Democracies have an indirect system of meritocracy at their core. For instance he "elite" of the British Empire (the rich, people of status) sent there children to be taught at "public" schools. These children were being explicitly raised to be the nations future leaders (in all fields). The same with modern day America. The leaders tend to be drawn from the "power elite" - a very small percentage of the population who are educated privately.
This is a very good point you stubbled on. I agree. But this is true for every nation. All the civilisations discussed have needed luck to get were they are ... even the Chinese (see my post on geographic, demographic and ethnic factors that the Chinese "lucked out" on). The British were lucky to be in such a position of strength at the beginning of the modern era ... but they were ... and that's the point ... the industrial revolution happened, and it happened in Britain ... nowhere else ... luck or no luck.
I don't think that that's anything to boast about. Nepal is a very small and sparsely populated country ...
I think you're listening to too much Chinese state propaganda here. This is not going to happen ... sorry.
Democracies have an indirect system of meritocracy at their core. For instance he "elite" of the British Empire (the rich, people of status) sent there children to be taught at "public" schools. These children were being explicitly raised to be the nations future leaders (in all fields). The same with modern day America. The leaders tend to be drawn from the "power elite" - a very small percentage of the population who are educated privately.
This is a very good point you stubbled on. I agree. But this is true for every nation. All the civilisations discussed have needed luck to get were they are ... even the Chinese (see my post on geographic, demographic and ethnic factors that the Chinese "lucked out" on). The British were lucky to be in such a position of strength at the beginning of the modern era ... but they were ... and that's the point ... the industrial revolution happened, and it happened in Britain ... nowhere else ... luck or no luck.
I don't think that that's anything to boast about. Nepal is a very small and sparsely populated country ...
Groovin'
Prince
Regarding Chinese language overtaking English internationally, can you please explain how this would come about anywhere in the near future?
The only way i could see how is by China expanding and taking over half the Western world!
AdamSmo
Chieftain
You do realize that you wouldn't have half of the modern conveniences now without the United States..
But, yeah, I would say either Rome or China.
Yeah ... like I said, Burger King, McDonalds ... oh and Vacuum Cleaners. Most of the huge corporations have their base in America. But don't kid yourself, they don't call them "multinationals" for nothing. Like I said, America is currently at the head of the GLOBAL economic monolith. This will shift to the East before to long (if it hasn't already) when China opens her borders to the exploitative excesses of global capitalism ... poor China ... look what capitalism did for Russia ... :suicide:
Apart from conveniences (is this a condition for "greatness"?) what else ...
I will give you one thing ... Australia ... maybe we can call Australia the 51st State ... with their new national motto ... "We Know How To Smell Cheese". Modern day Austrailia seems like the mutant love child of Disney World and Las Vegas ...
Jimcat
Culture Vulture
Cybernut, I respect your opinions and I can see why you disagree with my assessments of the "top scoring" civilizations. You make good arguments for your case. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because we are using different standards for judgment.
My criteria for the "top" civilizations is based more or less on the Civ3 histograph score criteria: population, land area, military power, and culture, multiplied by longevity. By those tokens, large, early civilizations like China and Egypt would score higher because they had few enemies for a long time.
When it comes to measuring cultural influence, one thing to keep in mind is the proportion of a society's population to the total human population. Consider: since the dawn of civilization, anywhere from 20% to 25% of the humans alive at any given time have been Chinese. So that culture has directly affected about one out of every five people who have ever lived! You may disagree, but I say that this alone qualifies for making it the most influential civilization on Earth. The fact that it was the richest and most advanced nation for much of that time just clinches the deal.
By my criteria, civilizations that do a lot in a short time, but don't last long, don't "score" as high. But you're free to measure differently. Your point about the Aztecs is well taken. What they did in their short lifetime as an empire was quite impressive.
You also make a good point about the British influence, though I would steal a line from Winston Churchill and call it the culture of the "English Speaking Peoples". English culture spread around the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, and paved the way for American culture in the 20th. If the British Empire hadn't made English such a widespread language, American culture wouldn't have had such an easy time spreading around the world after the Second World War. As it turned out, the Britain-to-America transition sealed the dominance of the English-speaking culture through the end of the 20th century. Only time will tell how long it will last, but I think there is good reason to believe that on the long time scale, the English-speaking people will prove to be as influential as any of the others on my original list.
I'll close by repeating my original caveat: it's still early to tell about the newer civilizations; after a few thousand years the picture will be much clearer.
My criteria for the "top" civilizations is based more or less on the Civ3 histograph score criteria: population, land area, military power, and culture, multiplied by longevity. By those tokens, large, early civilizations like China and Egypt would score higher because they had few enemies for a long time.
When it comes to measuring cultural influence, one thing to keep in mind is the proportion of a society's population to the total human population. Consider: since the dawn of civilization, anywhere from 20% to 25% of the humans alive at any given time have been Chinese. So that culture has directly affected about one out of every five people who have ever lived! You may disagree, but I say that this alone qualifies for making it the most influential civilization on Earth. The fact that it was the richest and most advanced nation for much of that time just clinches the deal.
By my criteria, civilizations that do a lot in a short time, but don't last long, don't "score" as high. But you're free to measure differently. Your point about the Aztecs is well taken. What they did in their short lifetime as an empire was quite impressive.
You also make a good point about the British influence, though I would steal a line from Winston Churchill and call it the culture of the "English Speaking Peoples". English culture spread around the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, and paved the way for American culture in the 20th. If the British Empire hadn't made English such a widespread language, American culture wouldn't have had such an easy time spreading around the world after the Second World War. As it turned out, the Britain-to-America transition sealed the dominance of the English-speaking culture through the end of the 20th century. Only time will tell how long it will last, but I think there is good reason to believe that on the long time scale, the English-speaking people will prove to be as influential as any of the others on my original list.
I'll close by repeating my original caveat: it's still early to tell about the newer civilizations; after a few thousand years the picture will be much clearer.
Fayadi
Technocrat
I dont live in China.I am a Chinese born Indonesia who study in Singapore.I never trusted propaganda at all,but i have met a lot of propaganda in my life from America,China,Russia either from books or tv.
Chinese language will overtook English as the international language you know why?
This is not only from my opinion you know.This is what some of American experts had said.Due to China rising population and economy it will soon be able to influence other countries around her.Do you still remember how Britain exported English language?Yes China is going to do the same thing.
Western nation are declining due to low birth rate,high immigration rate from other countries and that means they are losing their cultural value .An expert even mentioned US and most western nation will become third world by 2050!It was a UN statistics!Yeah the main problem is Western nation is just losing their cultural value
One fact ,Chinese language is spoken by more people than English Language you know!Even when Chinese has not exported their language.One more amazing facts,there are more english speaking people in China than America
About the invention stuffs sure Western Nation invented the most partly because of Industrial Revolution
but dont forget China has the greatest scientific achievements in the ancient time!
Western nation are lucky because they get prosporous easily without much hardwork.Despite Chinese hardwork in 19th and 20 th century they cant achieve the same prosperity like the west.Oops I forgot to mention countries like India are very hardworking too
Chinese language will overtook English as the international language you know why?
This is not only from my opinion you know.This is what some of American experts had said.Due to China rising population and economy it will soon be able to influence other countries around her.Do you still remember how Britain exported English language?Yes China is going to do the same thing.
Western nation are declining due to low birth rate,high immigration rate from other countries and that means they are losing their cultural value .An expert even mentioned US and most western nation will become third world by 2050!It was a UN statistics!Yeah the main problem is Western nation is just losing their cultural value
One fact ,Chinese language is spoken by more people than English Language you know!Even when Chinese has not exported their language.One more amazing facts,there are more english speaking people in China than America
About the invention stuffs sure Western Nation invented the most partly because of Industrial Revolution
but dont forget China has the greatest scientific achievements in the ancient time!
Western nation are lucky because they get prosporous easily without much hardwork.Despite Chinese hardwork in 19th and 20 th century they cant achieve the same prosperity like the west.Oops I forgot to mention countries like India are very hardworking too
Like I said previously, any "who's the best" question is going to be open to as many interpretations as there are perspectives. That's what makes it fun -- because there is no right or wrong ... just opinions and preferences backed up by facts and argument. Too many people hazard opinions without backing them up ... this is criminal in a "history" forum. And I think some on this board have to try and divorce "fact" from propaganda and gun-ho jingoism.
In any case, Jimcat is quite correct in his assessment of the "greatness" of Chinese civilisation. I guess the only thing that differentiates his analysis from mine is the conditions we use for greatness. For me it has to be an equal combination of all factors - military (including conquest), economic, culture (including the arts), science, language, the affect on other cultures, lasting influence ... the list is endless. In my opinion, only the Greeks and British qualify fully in all of these categories ... closely followed by the Chinese (but like I said, it was a fluke of nature that they never had the same competition as these nations, but by the same token, they might not have lasted so long if they had have had ... it's a two way-street).
My top five would be:
1. Greece
2. Britain
3. China
4. Rome
5. Egypt
In any case, Jimcat is quite correct in his assessment of the "greatness" of Chinese civilisation. I guess the only thing that differentiates his analysis from mine is the conditions we use for greatness. For me it has to be an equal combination of all factors - military (including conquest), economic, culture (including the arts), science, language, the affect on other cultures, lasting influence ... the list is endless. In my opinion, only the Greeks and British qualify fully in all of these categories ... closely followed by the Chinese (but like I said, it was a fluke of nature that they never had the same competition as these nations, but by the same token, they might not have lasted so long if they had have had ... it's a two way-street).
My top five would be:
1. Greece
2. Britain
3. China
4. Rome
5. Egypt
Please ... I'm laughing now ... I said to back up your claims with facts. This goes beyond propaganda ... this is mere fantasy ...
This is a very misleading "fact". Sure, as far as the spoken "mother tongue" is concerned, Chinese is the most spoken language. But English is most peoples' second language. English will not overtake other primary languages (why would it?), its power lies in its communicative power as an additional language, as a global language which transcends localised communication. Cantonese WILL NEVER fill this role (and besides there isn't any homogeneity within the Chinese linguistic familly. The different local dialects are almost like autonomous languages in themselves).
I think if you stick to the "facts", you can provide enough argument for China's "greatness" without having to descend into jingostic fantasy.
Jimcat
Culture Vulture
Fayadi, that "American expert" you cited who said that the US and other Western nations are "losing their culture" and will become "third world" nations... that wouldn't happen to be Pat Buchanan, would it? Sounds just like his brand of inflammatory wind-blowing. He's been trying to scare people into seeing some sort of threat to the Great White Race since his days as a speechwriter for Reagan.
And if you think that the Western nations got rich without hard work, you need to open your eyes and mind, read some history and look at what life is like in the real world. Hard work built the railroads, factories, shipyards, and the Internet. Hard work made all those cars, TV's, telephones, and computers, and made the people prosperous enough to afford them. Hard work put men on the moon and brought them safely back.
You think that Westerners don't work hard? Tell that to a Russian nuclear engineer. Tell that to a Polish coal miner. Tell that to an Irish pharmaceutical manufacturer. Tell it to a German automobile designer. Tell it to Bill Gates, tell it to Larry Ellison, tell it to Colin Powell. Tell it to a single mother working two jobs to feed her kids. Tell it to a New York firefighter who dug body parts out of the World Trade Center wreckage.
Sure, the West has some people who abuse the system and get rich on income they didn't earn. But there are a lot more of us who get out there and make things happen.
If you really believe that "Westerners are lazy" rhetoric, then you've been living in Singapore too long. Singapore is a high-tech dictatorship that subjects its people to even more propaganda than the US, China, Nazi Germany, and the USSR on their worst days. Once you finish your studies in Singapore, try applying for a job in the US and taking a look at what really goes on here.
And if you think that the Western nations got rich without hard work, you need to open your eyes and mind, read some history and look at what life is like in the real world. Hard work built the railroads, factories, shipyards, and the Internet. Hard work made all those cars, TV's, telephones, and computers, and made the people prosperous enough to afford them. Hard work put men on the moon and brought them safely back.
You think that Westerners don't work hard? Tell that to a Russian nuclear engineer. Tell that to a Polish coal miner. Tell that to an Irish pharmaceutical manufacturer. Tell it to a German automobile designer. Tell it to Bill Gates, tell it to Larry Ellison, tell it to Colin Powell. Tell it to a single mother working two jobs to feed her kids. Tell it to a New York firefighter who dug body parts out of the World Trade Center wreckage.
Sure, the West has some people who abuse the system and get rich on income they didn't earn. But there are a lot more of us who get out there and make things happen.
If you really believe that "Westerners are lazy" rhetoric, then you've been living in Singapore too long. Singapore is a high-tech dictatorship that subjects its people to even more propaganda than the US, China, Nazi Germany, and the USSR on their worst days. Once you finish your studies in Singapore, try applying for a job in the US and taking a look at what really goes on here.
Kennelly
Starfleet Admiral
It´s true in numbers of native-speakers English (7,6%)is way behind "Chinese"(Mandarin 15,2%,Chinese languages total 18,8%),but Language always goes in line with power.English is the Lingua Franca because at first Britain and now America are the most powerful countrys (No doubt about that).And the widespread languages are of imperial powers (Islam,Spain,
Russia).But in the Future Chinese power will rise and American will decline.So Chinese will become more and more common,or do you think that so many westerns learn Chinese for fun?No,because they think that China+SE-Asia is the future (and they´re right,I think,unfortunately these things with low birthrates are true).
BUT English will never vanish,it will stay an important language,but not the only one.I´ve just read a report that there will be only 3 languages in the future:Spanish,English,Mandarin-that goes exactly in line with power in the future:America/West+China/SE-Asia/Latin America,only the Indian languages are missing.
To the original topic,I go with the greeks because there "hasn´t been much new on earth since the days of Sokrates and Platon".If there had been a use for the steam power machines of Heron (there were enough slaves in the antica,so there wasn´t any use or wish for new workpower) world would look very different.And the Romans took most of their sciences,Arts and Philosophy from the Greeks.
Russia).But in the Future Chinese power will rise and American will decline.So Chinese will become more and more common,or do you think that so many westerns learn Chinese for fun?No,because they think that China+SE-Asia is the future (and they´re right,I think,unfortunately these things with low birthrates are true).
BUT English will never vanish,it will stay an important language,but not the only one.I´ve just read a report that there will be only 3 languages in the future:Spanish,English,Mandarin-that goes exactly in line with power in the future:America/West+China/SE-Asia/Latin America,only the Indian languages are missing.
To the original topic,I go with the greeks because there "hasn´t been much new on earth since the days of Sokrates and Platon".If there had been a use for the steam power machines of Heron (there were enough slaves in the antica,so there wasn´t any use or wish for new workpower) world would look very different.And the Romans took most of their sciences,Arts and Philosophy from the Greeks.
Fayadi
Technocrat
Not fantasy,the US and western countries becomes thrid world by 2050 is a UN statistic which I read in newspaper damn.This is not fantasy!Hey you guys sounds like dont accept new facts?Sure I want back up with evidence,but how?I read it in the newspaper.
You have to know how to differentiate between fantasy and realistic!Give me evidence that I am merely talking by opinions not facts.I dont think so what I have spoken so far are not opinions!
"If you really believe that "Westerners are lazy" rhetoric"
I didnt say westerners are lazy at all,I am just saying they arent hardworking as the Indian and Chinese.You know even you pay them with low salary they are willing to work 16 hours a day!Compare them with the westerners how many hours of work they can do a day?
"Tell that to a Russian nuclear engineer"
Russian arent western!They are neither east or west!Their culture is totally different from west!
"Singapore is a high-tech dictatorship that subjects its people to even more propaganda than the US, China, Nazi Germany, and the USSR on their worst days"
This really makes me laugh give me evidence.The fact that Singapore can be a high-tech city is because Singapore education is one of the best in the world.There are no propaganda at all,Schools dont discuss politics!You can even compare the innocent Singapore govts with those evil governments,how ridiculous!
You read it in the newspapers ... well I'm sorry for ever doubting your opinion. I guess if you read it in the newspapers, then it must me true! (that's sarcasm if it doesn't translate). You should really try and venture your own opinions.
I think if (when) the Chinese do become an economic powerhouse (along with America, Europe, India ...) it will merely proliferate the use of English as the global language. India will (by 2020) have the largest population in the world (superceding China) and thier "official" second language is already English. The Chinese will learn English (for good or bad), the rest of the world will not be learning Chinese. If there is going to be One market, then there has to be One language ... English is ALREADY accepted as the international language and besides, Chinese is an incredibly difficult language to learn.
Fayadi
Technocrat
Not really,Many westerners are learning Chinese language now you know,those British universities are hiring more and more Chinese teachers.Chinese language are very beautiful,especially the poems and literature.Heck I know a lot of westerners that knows more Chinese literature than me because they really can appreciate it.Ooh yes many Chinese poems are translate to English ,one of the most famous poet is Li Pai
Fayadi
Technocrat
"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! "
One more facts to add,Tang Dynasty furthest west expansion was till Iran! It was even further from Changan (the capital) than from Athens till Pakistan.Think about it From Iran till Korea(Tang Dynasty conquest) ,how far was it?We colonised Afghanistan and most of Central Asia for a few decade time not like Greek were they were so fast defeated by the Indians as soon as Alexander dies
I dont believe it that how can you compare years to define greatness?
One more facts to add,Tang Dynasty furthest west expansion was till Iran! It was even further from Changan (the capital) than from Athens till Pakistan.Think about it From Iran till Korea(Tang Dynasty conquest) ,how far was it?We colonised Afghanistan and most of Central Asia for a few decade time not like Greek were they were so fast defeated by the Indians as soon as Alexander dies
I dont believe it that how can you compare years to define greatness?
AdamSmo
Chieftain
Oh, yes! After thoursands of years of Europe being first world countries, they're just suddenly going to be third-world. Yeah, right. Plus, the US gets 16,000 people a day from Mexico, so there's certainly no shortage of people there.
And, Chinese is a VERY difficult language for Westerners to learn. I'm not kidding, at all, and I don't think it will be spoken much in the Western World much in the future.
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
Originally posted by Cybernut
I will give you one thing ... Australia ... maybe we can call Australia the 51st State ... with their new national motto ... "We Know How To Smell Cheese". Modern day Austrailia seems like the mutant love child of Disney World and Las Vegas ...
Cybernut, care to enlighten this cheese loving Aussie as to what you mean by this statement, particularly the bit about the cheese?
Just a joke dude 
. I love Austrailia, I just hate the way you sell yourselves. I recently downloaded a documentary about the new Star Wars movie being made in Oz, and there was this cheesy 5 minute intro. It made me cringe. It made Austrailia look like some prettier version of Las Vegas ... with crappy [ironic] South Park style "big-hair" 80's vocal back-track ... "Austraaaaailia, the land of the brave ... cooome oon ... Austraaaaailia ... the land that I crave ..." ... holy s***.
There is something unique about the Austrailian way of life, I just don't know why it has to be marketed in this "cheesy" cringe-worthy way. Even your TV. For instance, I remember when I was a kid (back in the 80's) watching mini-series' (and yes soap-operas) from Oz ... they had something really appealing ... but now its just a "pretty factory" with pretty people doing pretty things ... eeeek. The way Austrailia is marketed is just too cheesy ... a country just dying to live in the present with no reference to the past ...
. I love Austrailia, I just hate the way you sell yourselves. I recently downloaded a documentary about the new Star Wars movie being made in Oz, and there was this cheesy 5 minute intro. It made me cringe. It made Austrailia look like some prettier version of Las Vegas ... with crappy [ironic] South Park style "big-hair" 80's vocal back-track ... "Austraaaaailia, the land of the brave ... cooome oon ... Austraaaaailia ... the land that I crave ..." ... holy s***.There is something unique about the Austrailian way of life, I just don't know why it has to be marketed in this "cheesy" cringe-worthy way. Even your TV. For instance, I remember when I was a kid (back in the 80's) watching mini-series' (and yes soap-operas) from Oz ... they had something really appealing ... but now its just a "pretty factory" with pretty people doing pretty things ... eeeek. The way Austrailia is marketed is just too cheesy ... a country just dying to live in the present with no reference to the past ...
You taæk about how the chinese people will work all day, not complaining - and that your school system is the best. Well, yes, chinese and japanese workers do work very hard, and schools are very hard. But at what cost. Children kill them selves because they do not get good grades, and the ordenary office guy do not have a life besides work, lives in a 2 square meter apartment and earn no money. This is true, and impresing I must say. Very efficient labor, but again at what cost.
I believe that the way your system is will destroy your own contries. the middleclass cannot keep this culture up, and will eventually slow the progress in china and contries in the east down.
About the language, english is the prime language of the world. I work in a company with many connections to Japan and china, but whenever visitors come, they speak english, we don't speak Chinease. And that goes the other way around too. English is the financial language...
And about the newspapers. If everyting the newspapers say is true, the world would be in the middle of a nuclear winter right now, or aliens would have destroyed us, or we would only eat chocolate 'cos it was believed to be the most healthy substance on earth.
I believe that the way your system is will destroy your own contries. the middleclass cannot keep this culture up, and will eventually slow the progress in china and contries in the east down.
About the language, english is the prime language of the world. I work in a company with many connections to Japan and china, but whenever visitors come, they speak english, we don't speak Chinease. And that goes the other way around too. English is the financial language...
And about the newspapers. If everyting the newspapers say is true, the world would be in the middle of a nuclear winter right now, or aliens would have destroyed us, or we would only eat chocolate 'cos it was believed to be the most healthy substance on earth.
This discussion won't end ever because it's impossible to set the values of each criteria over each other. I mean, territory size, is it more important than cultural influence? The migthy of the army is in any sense a larger avance than the amount of prodution?
It's impossible to set that because the answer is always "depends". It depends on what were the values that were currently standing in the world by the time each particular civilizaztion rules.
Let's take for instance the British empire. People here are continuously agreeing that It's a possibility due to it's longevity and it's influence over the globe.
However, it didn't happen because the english language or ulture were in any way better or more appealing than any other. It happened because the british army forced other civilizations to subdue to the British way.
In fact, the British empire were literally swallowed by the pacific resistance they met in Gandhi's India, what is a clear signal that it's culture wouldn't bend for the culture of the opressor.
I am from Brazil, and here we speak portuguese not because the natives recognized it was better than our original (and now wiped out) dyaleths (tupi-guarani was the most commom), but because the Portuguese empire - the largest in the world by that time, along with the Spain - came here and and used it's swords and muskets to shred the tribes.
Ok, Brazil never had an actual Civ in it's territory, it was a colony that was conquered over lots of tribes... But here in America there were 2 great Civs - The Mayas and the Incas - and they were in strong by the time of Europe's great navegations.
They had the biggest marketplaces in the world - They were larger than any European one by that time, and they were only defeated by both the new deseases (as very well put in an early post) and the use of gunpowder, what is, by the way, a Chinese invention.
It's true that both Portugal and Spain failed in building dynastys such as England, but when you speak of it's worldwide influence, you are speaking of it's army strenth, that's all.
If it's a commendable way to expand your culture, it's a decision a leave to the reader.
But there's more to that. The reason the British and the Romans (and even the Greek, to a certain degree) expanded themselves culturally was the mechanism of their echonomics. British empire was the Gold Star of the Merchatilism practise, and it had to travel a lot to practise commerce, and it imposed it's culture (i emphasize imposed) in the process of conquering land. A military achievement.
China, however, never had the sligthest interest in the territory outside it's borders. It became strong without exploiting other people and practised the "live and let live" (well, there was internal wars, like the fighting states - i don't know if that's the way they are called in english, i read "the art of war" in portuguese - and some territorial expansion, but not colonies) and yet people go to chinese restaurants once a month and practise martial arts and use acupuntry).
What i mean is: we are comparing a ravenous philosophy that expanded itself by conquering and destroying others with another culture that influenced people naturally. Of course that the first one, being sucessfull, is more spread; but the other one, being naturally accepted, can, by the reasonable criteria of it's appeal, be considered of higher value. Again, it's up to the reader to decide.
When we speak of Romans, it's culture (ok, ok, a continuation of the Greeks) expanded so much and kept alive until modern times both because a similar expansion (seeking slaves), and because of the Catholic Church (that originaly was a proscrit from it's exactly empire), that in it's large effort to keep people ignorant have FORCED the entire europe to live by roman cultural standarts during the entire Middle Age (even if in a limited sense).
People who dared to disagree with the ancent trues would be burn to the ground back then (nice way to keep the "status quo" in a closed rigid society). And the Church factor is also true about the greeks.
On the other hand, The Afro-American culture cannot be denied, and also can't other important african influences that digs even deeper. Have you guys ever heard of vodoo dolls, just to speak of the religious aspect of some ancient tribes culture? It's a myth that lives up to this day, even having being brought inside slaveships.
Can we ignore that each civilization had some influence over the others, and that it's hard to measure the depth of it? Here in Brazil, there are costumes with deep African influence in some poarts of the country, and they are as rooted as the Roman influence that reached us here.
And "Dragon Ball Z" and "Pokemon" are on the tv as i write this, in english, using the amrican invention called internet.
What i mean from all that is: ALL civilizations have shaped the world, not just a few. Some more obviously, some more visibly, but all of them changed the others equally, both by impregnating them with their costumes or passively being the subject of the other's decisons or demands.
All of them were remarcable in the field that they excelled best.
USA is what it is because of the romans and the british and the zulus and persas and the list goes on and on. And so is Brazil and so is even Afeghanistan. The historical process that interfere in the shaping of each civilization is far too complex and far to intrincate to be analized with black-and-white clains like "they had more battleships and more countries workships their Gods and their language is the most spoken".
Lemme put it like this: If i had a civilization in wich the most desired achievement is to stay in the countryland and build a temple, and i do it, i think it's a more sucessfull civilization than one that wants to conquer the world and stops 3/4 of it.
Specially, because if a civilization is prospering, meeting it's goals, it simply doesn't care if the others are impressed or not with it, even tough they probably will be.
It's all about the gap between what you want and what you get.
Of course, it's just me and i can be wrong...
It's impossible to set that because the answer is always "depends". It depends on what were the values that were currently standing in the world by the time each particular civilizaztion rules.
Let's take for instance the British empire. People here are continuously agreeing that It's a possibility due to it's longevity and it's influence over the globe.
However, it didn't happen because the english language or ulture were in any way better or more appealing than any other. It happened because the british army forced other civilizations to subdue to the British way.
In fact, the British empire were literally swallowed by the pacific resistance they met in Gandhi's India, what is a clear signal that it's culture wouldn't bend for the culture of the opressor.
I am from Brazil, and here we speak portuguese not because the natives recognized it was better than our original (and now wiped out) dyaleths (tupi-guarani was the most commom), but because the Portuguese empire - the largest in the world by that time, along with the Spain - came here and and used it's swords and muskets to shred the tribes.
Ok, Brazil never had an actual Civ in it's territory, it was a colony that was conquered over lots of tribes... But here in America there were 2 great Civs - The Mayas and the Incas - and they were in strong by the time of Europe's great navegations.
They had the biggest marketplaces in the world - They were larger than any European one by that time, and they were only defeated by both the new deseases (as very well put in an early post) and the use of gunpowder, what is, by the way, a Chinese invention.
It's true that both Portugal and Spain failed in building dynastys such as England, but when you speak of it's worldwide influence, you are speaking of it's army strenth, that's all.
If it's a commendable way to expand your culture, it's a decision a leave to the reader.
But there's more to that. The reason the British and the Romans (and even the Greek, to a certain degree) expanded themselves culturally was the mechanism of their echonomics. British empire was the Gold Star of the Merchatilism practise, and it had to travel a lot to practise commerce, and it imposed it's culture (i emphasize imposed) in the process of conquering land. A military achievement.
China, however, never had the sligthest interest in the territory outside it's borders. It became strong without exploiting other people and practised the "live and let live" (well, there was internal wars, like the fighting states - i don't know if that's the way they are called in english, i read "the art of war" in portuguese - and some territorial expansion, but not colonies) and yet people go to chinese restaurants once a month and practise martial arts and use acupuntry).
What i mean is: we are comparing a ravenous philosophy that expanded itself by conquering and destroying others with another culture that influenced people naturally. Of course that the first one, being sucessfull, is more spread; but the other one, being naturally accepted, can, by the reasonable criteria of it's appeal, be considered of higher value. Again, it's up to the reader to decide.
When we speak of Romans, it's culture (ok, ok, a continuation of the Greeks) expanded so much and kept alive until modern times both because a similar expansion (seeking slaves), and because of the Catholic Church (that originaly was a proscrit from it's exactly empire), that in it's large effort to keep people ignorant have FORCED the entire europe to live by roman cultural standarts during the entire Middle Age (even if in a limited sense).
People who dared to disagree with the ancent trues would be burn to the ground back then (nice way to keep the "status quo" in a closed rigid society). And the Church factor is also true about the greeks.
On the other hand, The Afro-American culture cannot be denied, and also can't other important african influences that digs even deeper. Have you guys ever heard of vodoo dolls, just to speak of the religious aspect of some ancient tribes culture? It's a myth that lives up to this day, even having being brought inside slaveships.
Can we ignore that each civilization had some influence over the others, and that it's hard to measure the depth of it? Here in Brazil, there are costumes with deep African influence in some poarts of the country, and they are as rooted as the Roman influence that reached us here.
And "Dragon Ball Z" and "Pokemon" are on the tv as i write this, in english, using the amrican invention called internet.
What i mean from all that is: ALL civilizations have shaped the world, not just a few. Some more obviously, some more visibly, but all of them changed the others equally, both by impregnating them with their costumes or passively being the subject of the other's decisons or demands.
All of them were remarcable in the field that they excelled best.
USA is what it is because of the romans and the british and the zulus and persas and the list goes on and on. And so is Brazil and so is even Afeghanistan. The historical process that interfere in the shaping of each civilization is far too complex and far to intrincate to be analized with black-and-white clains like "they had more battleships and more countries workships their Gods and their language is the most spoken".
Lemme put it like this: If i had a civilization in wich the most desired achievement is to stay in the countryland and build a temple, and i do it, i think it's a more sucessfull civilization than one that wants to conquer the world and stops 3/4 of it.
Specially, because if a civilization is prospering, meeting it's goals, it simply doesn't care if the others are impressed or not with it, even tough they probably will be.
It's all about the gap between what you want and what you get.
Of course, it's just me and i can be wrong...
Similar threads
