Which civilisation had the biggest impact on history?

[daft]

come on! it's gotta be those Hellenistic Greeks, dude!. At least as far as the European Civilization is concerned, Rome was like Greece's child which grew very tall and strong, but it was the bearded father of Democracy and Philosophy who started it all.
Overall, considering the length and quality of their cultural value so far, and their effects still affecting our way of life today, I'd say:
1. Greece
2. Rome
3. China
4. India
5. Egypt
6. Babylon
7. Persia
8. Great Britain
9. France
10 Germany
Closely behind, not in order, USA, Spain, Japan and the Vikings.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why are France, Germany and Spain considered separate civilisations, but the entirety of India, geographically and chronologically, is treated as only one? That seems like a double standard.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe cause no other civ wants to be in league with them?

 

[gangleri2001]

Rome & China. Both of them are titans of human history.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Why are France, Germany and Spain considered separate civilisations, but the entirety of India, geographically and chronologically, is treated as only one? That seems like a double standard.

Plot already put a moratorium on this sort of discussion for this thread, otherwise I would have already been asking this.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=525179

 

[Absolution]

Why are France, Germany and Spain considered separate civilisations, but the entirety of India, geographically and chronologically, is treated as only one? That seems like a double standard.

It really is funny how people tend to forget history so quickly. In the 17th century nobody would have dreamed of addressing the whole history of that region as one "Indian civilization".

I think you took it even to lightly.
France, Germany and Spain are all Indo-European civilizations, who existed simultaneously most of the time.

The different civilizations in the Indian subcontinent are much more distinct.

France and Germany can maybe be compared to Vijayanagara and Madurai Nayak,
But the whole Indian subcontinent is maybe as varied as the whole European continent.

 

[Traitorfish]

I vote for a compromise: all Western European civilisations be removed from the list and replaced with a single entry, "Frangistan". Seems a fair equivalent to "India".

 

[timtofly]

Can't we just use Europe?

 

[Tahuti]

Can't we just use Europe?

No, because Poland can into distinctiveness from Western Yurop.

 

[Ajidica]

I vote for a compromise: all Western European civilisations be removed from the list and replaced with a single entry, "Frangistan". Seems a fair equivalent to "India".

I support this movement. Although I thought the generally accepted transliteration from Arabic was 'franj' not 'frang'.

 

[Tee Kay]

It really is funny how people tend to forget history so quickly. In the 17th century nobody would have dreamed of addressing the whole history of that region as one "Indian civilization".

Right, they would have called it "Hindoo civilisation"

 

[Terxpahseyton]

For all the diversity of India, I find it hard to believe that it is comparable to European diversity.

 

[Tee Kay]

For all the diversity of India, I find it hard to believe that it is comparable to European diversity.

Each of India's states could be split into four or five parts and can still be considered viable linguistically, culturally, ethnically, historically distinctive nation-states by European standards if they were independent.

 

[schlaufuchs]

For all the diversity of India, I find it hard to believe that it is comparable to European diversity.

Truthiness: one of Eurocentrism's greatest weapons.

 

[Masada]

Nagaland alone has something like thirty languages. So one of the smallest states in India would win the diversity stakes against, well, probably a dozen European states?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So if you say languages.
You mean languages?
Like without proper knowledge none of them would understand each other?

Each of India's states could be split into four or five parts and can still be considered viable linguistically, culturally, ethnically, historically distinctive nation-states by European standards if they were independent.

I hear you. But I can't help but remain skeptical.
That just seems improbable

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe most of the Indian states (despite the different size of the Indian mainland, of course) were somewhat linked overall in a manner similar to the different Greek polities which were linked by a common culture and customs, olympic games, codes of war, common foundation in literature (eg Homeric epics and Hesiod), and so on. I mean aren't the Vedic texts regarded as the basis of culture in most of the Indian world in the old times as well?

 

[Tahuti]

However, what about China? Every individual Chinese province is quite distinct from the other as to be essentially a country in its own right. The vast majority may speak Mandarin, though the cultural differences would still be perceptible, comparable to USA and Britain, Sweden and Norway, Azerbaijan and Turkey or the Netherlands and Flanders.

 

[Masada]

Chinese provincial differences are larger than that.

Like without proper knowledge none of them would understand each other?

Yes, one of the consequences was the decision of the government to use English as the language of school instruction and government.

 

[Tee Kay]

I mean aren't the Vedic texts regarded as the basis of culture in most of the Indian world in the old times as well?

So religion and some literature. Well, I could say the same for Europe and the Bible.

Of course not even factoring all the Indian Muslims, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, animists, etc.