What nation shaped the world the most?

[Ancient Grudge]

Britain becuase i come from there and im baised and thats my justification

 

[Sir Oswulf]

Hey, watch it! You're endangering my naive assumption that we Americans have a monopoly on conceited national self-aggrandizement!

 

[civilleader]

Hey I included Spain, Portugal as one since they are approximately in the same region, and I had only 20 spaces.

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Sir Oswulf
Hey, watch it! You're endangering my naive assumption that we Americans have a monopoly on conceited national self-aggrandizement!

You own the monopoly on blatant conceited national self-aggrandizement

We on the other hand are much to polite and are subtle in our conceit

 

[andrewgprv]

OMG!

Give me a break, Britain?! Rome ?!

This board is so western biased it is ridiculous.

 

[privatehudson]

And you're nomination would be?

 

[andrewgprv]

mesopotamia

 

[privatehudson]

Interesting, but hardly more valid in my eyes because of the reasons I already mentioned about earlier not being more important.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

But, the Greek influence reached what we call today "West", filtered through Rome, the dominant power for several centuries and the empire that shaped the ancient world by it's actions. The Roman paternalism, pragmatism and positive thinking, heavily influenced the Greek culture they adopted (Xen, the indigenous Latin culture is a tiny dwarf compared to the classical Greece and you know it) from the Greeks, and that is what "the West" got from the Romans.
.

a dwarf eh?woe to thee who doust underestimate Roman culture!

first off, a few facts-

A) a little known fact is that it was in italy that the first use of democratric assemblies in both greek colonies, and native itallic cities is seen, infact, Rome itself was a republic before Athens was a democracy

B)the fact that schools dont teach old Roman legends is sad, people today think that the romans adopted whole sale greek culture, fact is, thats false- yes, Rome did take a great deal of phiolosophical concepts from greece, but what western/middle eastern nation didnt? there was also a coelesnce of religion, more or less creating the form of niversal polytheism i my self adhere to, but fact is, despite the fact that most people dont seem to realize it, there is a great deal of colour to the old Roman legends, legends based not on the deeds of immortals, though once in a while, though rarelly they make an apperence, but on the deeds of mortals, very much setting the pace for Roman culture as a practicle culture oriented on living your life, and acheiving the best deeds that you while your alive, and not leave your fate in the hands of the gods- its your life, and your supposed to live it- a concept which has left an indellibel mark on western society- the thought that no, youe entire destiny has not already been decided, but you fashion it by your own hand, at least if you take the initiative to go and do it.

C)there is als a great deal of artistic values passed down by Rome- the mosticible if which is true realism, which was infused into rome early in its hostry from the Etruscans- yes, the greeks were realised, but at the same time they were idealists as well- how many times will you see a facial blemish on greek sculpture? ou wont sinply, and yet with roman sculpture we see a true portrait of of the face, blemishes and all.

D)going further, we see that the Roman virtues have left on undenyable mark on western society, particuraley in the realm of law and justice- remember, it is Libertas, and Justutia who are the national American godesses

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
As far as the world the way it is today, Britain.

The Pre-Christian Romans had little effect on them - considering they didn't become a globally influential power until more than a millenia after the Romans left the Isles.

Had the formative years of Britain occurred during Roman rule, obviously the answer would be different. But they essentially had to rebuild from scratch. I would say the Normans had a much greater impact on Britain than the Romans did.

soemone is forgettin g the great revival of roman culture in europ lknown as the great rebirth when the flamne of rom,an spirit was rekindeld, and left its mark on the world once again, though intermediary nations such as mighty Britania

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by andrewgprv
OMG!

Give me a break, Britain?! Rome ?!

This board is so western biased it is ridiculous.

then why dont give a suggestion to a eastern nation who has shaped the world, and then back it up, and dont crap out and say gunpowder by the chinese, any historian will tell you that Eurpeans werent far off in developing thier own version indipendtlly of China, and as far asd paper goes, wood pulp paper didnt become populer until the 19th century in the new world (not sure abotu the old world) but even then, paypyrus and vellum were used just as much, and have proved ot be the heartier material for preservation regardless- I'm not sayin gthe orient hasnt contributed, it has, and the world would be a much more boring poace without, but its ludicrious to seriossly contend for a second that any eastern nation has had the impact of so,e of the great western powers of history such ROme, Greece, and Britain

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by andrewgprv
mesopotamia

mesopotamia isnt a single nation- it weas united under several empires, but those would be differtn nations wouldnt they

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Xen


mesopotamia isnt a single nation- it weas united under several empires, but those would be differtn nations wouldnt they

The Poll did not ask what nation influenced history most, it asked who influenced history most, and mesopotamia was on the poll.

Let's think of just a few things Mesopotamia gave us.....hmmm how about? Civilization itself!, cereal farming, writting, the first states, laws, domestication of farm animals, etc.....

Rome was great and all but it was not nearly as influential as the foundations of human civilisation.

 

[fret]

Britain shaped the industrialized world, there is simply no argument against that. Regardless of whereabouts in the world you are, if you are industrialized, or in the transition to industrialization, youve got the Brits to thank for it.

They also shaped modern world trade, theres not much of an argument against that either.

They gave us the modern world international language of business.

IMO -

Who shaped the modern world, post ~1600 - Britain, no contest.

Who shaped the world in times gone by pre ~1600 - various other nations.

 

[Evie]

Except of course that to say that Mesopotamia *FOUNDED* civilization is rather the cliché, and therefore mostly mistaken.

It got there first, certainly, but the thing is, the other great civilizations generally did not form as such due to mesopotamian contact- they formed as civilization well on their own.

Xen - I don't dispute that Rome was one of the greatest influence on the Western World. However, I hold by my earlier statements - there are simply too many "worlds" to this planet to designate anyone as being the most important influence upon all these worlds. The same goes for individual as well as religion. Certainly Jesus had a great influence upon the western world, but his influence upon the Eastern world is, to say the least, virtually inexistant compared to Confucius or Buddha.

As for the ongoing spread of capitalism - yes, it's true that capitalism is (in part at least - the capitalism you have in Asia is heavily laced with Confucean notions throughout) spreading, but then again, the backlash influence factor comes in again - the spread of capitalism in Asia and the rise of these nations has in turn come back to influence how the western nations view their economy with the rise of billion-peoples markets.

History isn't a one-way street of influences coming from one of the World toward the others, it's an ongoing ping-pong games of the various worlds influencing each other back and forth.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by andrewgprv


The Poll did not ask what nation influenced history most, it asked who influenced history most, and mesopotamia was on the poll.

Let's think of just a few things Mesopotamia gave us.....hmmm how about? Civilization itself!, cereal farming, writting, the first states, laws, domestication of farm animals, etc.....

Rome was great and all but it was not nearly as influential as the foundations of human civilisation.

take a look at the name of the thread there

as for mesopoatima- no, they did NOT invent civlization- the oldest known cites are OUTSIDE of mesopotami, mnore close to Modern turkey, and Syria- well out of mesopotamia, and considering that several other civlization deveoped indipendent of mesopotamia, its a DRASTIC overstatement to credit them with inventing civlization, as well as all the other things you attribute to it- like domestication of animals- I have news for you, by the time the the first civlizations arise, just about all the crops to be used, and all the animals to be domesticated have been, and all future domestications, and crop development do not come from mesoptamia, there is also a great deal of evidence that it was an archaic form of Ehyptian, and not a oreviouslly thought mesopatiman cuniform that was the first writtin language, and its been known for a long time that fuirst lage organized state was Egypt, and not a mesoptamian civlization- dose that make mesopotami unimportant/ no, by no means, it just means that theor role is more of a secondary "passer on" of knowledge, and not, as once thought and hekd holy the great developers of all mankind.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga

Xen - I don't dispute that Rome was one of the greatest influence on the Western World. However, I hold by my earlier statements - there are simply too many "worlds" to this planet to designate anyone as being the most important influence upon all these worlds. The same goes for individual as well as religion. Certainly Jesus had a great influence upon the western world, but his influence upon the Eastern world is, to say the least, virtually inexistant compared to Confucius or Buddha.

cultureally, i agree with you, but in terms of government there is firm western tradition spread liberally throught the globe, and considering modern democarcy actual has far more in common with the roman republics system of government... well, I think that speakes vloumes in and of itself

 

[Evie]

One wonder what would democracy as we like it be without free press?

And I seem to remember the paper you so cleverly dismissed earlier being, because of its cheap availability, rather important to the rise of free press - I don't fancy many people would have been willing to buy papyrus newspaper in the XIXth century. Or even now.

Oh, perhaps other things would have come along to replace it...

But then again, if roman democracy hadn't come along, I'm sure some other example would have come along. Like, say, Athens.

As I said - back-and-forth ping-pong Xen. The worlds keep influencing each others.

Not that there are that many countries outside the western world really worth being called democracies at present (democracy in the "American democracy" or "British democracy" sense, not in a literal reading, that is. Not a single country is a literal democracy). Though things are improving.

 

[Sir Oswulf]

The dictionary lists "nation" as synonymous with "tribe". One definition of "tribe" is, "a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest". By far, the most profound shaping of the world came from the development of sentience--so whatever "nation" of cavemen first became sentience gets my vote.

Or, by a more litteral definition of _shaped_ the _world_, probably the United States for the combined effects of pollution, the atomic bomb, and other assorted reshaping to locate and usage of a plethora of natural resources.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Xen


take a look at the name of the thread there

as for mesopoatima- no, they did NOT invent civlization- the oldest known cites are OUTSIDE of mesopotami, mnore close to Modern turkey, and Syria- well out of mesopotamia, and considering that several other civlization deveoped indipendent of mesopotamia, its a DRASTIC overstatement to credit them with inventing civlization, as well as all the other things you attribute to it- like domestication of animals- I have news for you, by the time the the first civlizations arise, just about all the crops to be used, and all the animals to be domesticated have been, and all future domestications, and crop development do not come from mesoptamia, there is also a great deal of evidence that it was an archaic form of Ehyptian, and not a oreviouslly thought mesopatiman cuniform that was the first writtin language, and its been known for a long time that fuirst lage organized state was Egypt, and not a mesoptamian civlization- dose that make mesopotami unimportant/ no, by no means, it just means that theor role is more of a secondary "passer on" of knowledge, and not, as once thought and hekd holy the great developers of all mankind.

Your right civlisation has popped up independently other places, but the earliest were in the fertile cresent, did they domesticate all animals no, but they did domesticate a good portion of them not to mention the many cereals that were domesticated first in the fertile cresent.

Rome and Britain could be argued to be "passer oners"