Which civilisation had the biggest impact on history?

[Masada]

Vedic texts are also, kinda, sorta, elite works that few to nobody actually had much to do with written in dead languages in archaic forms and with extremely complicated prose. You even had a whole religious caste built around reading and interpreting them for a ruling caste. Actual popular Indian religion, insofar as we can talk about "Indian religion", is hugely variable and really really hard to get your head around.

 

[Kyriakos]

I haven't researched this much but i did come across the claim that the Vedes are both the foundational texts of Hindu religion and later Hindu math. So they would be extremely influential as a common link, regardless if they were not (as you argue) as commonly read as the analogous works in the Greek archaic-classical-hellenistic era (Homer, Hesiod, others etc).

 

[Masada]

It's more complicated than that. The Vedes informed the "great tradition" of Indian religion, which was the preserve of the Brahmins. But Brahmanical influence wasn't that great outside of the elite. So the "small tradition" which the vast majority of people followed only had incidental Vedic influence.

 

[HannibalBarka]

If we're going to consider all india as the "indian civilization" than we really should talk about Western Civilization for the people living in western Europe from the middle age to today, i'd even put the new world colonies into it. And even by doing so we're still putting India as a single civ all through history while dividing western Europe into different civilization throughout time which is not necessarily justified (apart from a religious point of view as Hinduism have a been a constant thing throught indian history when europe went through at least two periods pre and post christianity)

 

[Domen]

from the middle age to today

Why only from the Middle Ages and not from Roman Imperial / Republican times ???

After all, barbarians who settled and established kingdoms in formerly Roman territories, largely adopted the legacy of the Roman Empire.

BTW - what defines boundaries of a particular civilization ???

To me, such a defining element (perhaps one of many, but certainly the most imporant one) is free exchange of thought.

Free exchange of thought is ensured as long as communication is possible - so we need one alphabet and one universal language to communicate.

By such standards there has been a Latin Civilization (not "Western"), which used Latin as universal language and Latin alphabet / Roman script.

Nowadays we still use Latin alphabet, but perhaps English replaced Latin as our universal language, serving the same purpose (exchange of thought).

Another unifying factor of that Latin Civilization was of course religion - Latin Christianity (aka the Latin Church, aka "Western" Christianity).

Merging Poland, Bohemia, Ukraine and Balkan countries as one (which is what Krajzen did) is in my opinion wrong, because they didn't belong to the same civilization. Poland and Bohemia were parts of Latin Civilization, but Ukraine not entirely. Balkan countries are even more complicated because there were at least three civilizations there, of which only Slovenia & Croatia belonged to Latin Civilization, while Bosnians & Albanians were parts of Islamic Civilization.

I tell you that if entire Balkans were parts of the same civilization, there wouldn't have been so many wars and brutal conflicts there...

 

[Krajzen]

If we're going to consider all india as the "indian civilization" than we really should talk about Western Civilization for the people living in western Europe from the middle age to today, i'd even put the new world colonies into it. And even by doing so we're still putting India as a single civ all through history while dividing western Europe into different civilization throughout time which is not necessarily justified (apart from a religious point of view as Hinduism have a been a constant thing throught indian history when europe went through at least two periods pre and post christianity)

Yeah, but most of people don't know much about Harappa/Maurya/Gupta/Chola/Mughals etc. so this is why I put India as simply India The same goes with China.

On the other hand you could argue about splitting
- France on Frankish Kingdom, Kingdom of France, French Empire
- Germany on Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, German Empire, Third Reich
- Russia on Tzardom, Empire, Soviet Union
etc... but I was trying to keep poll simple.

So far results are:
1) Rome
2) Greece
3) China
4) England
5) India
6) USA
7) Sumer
8) Arabia
9) France
10) Egypt/Persia/Spain/Portugal

I like that list.

When I did similar poll in Civ5 thread Mongols were very high on the list, Russia and Germany also were higher while India and Spain fell far behind.

 

[Domen]

Mesoamerican and Andean Civilisations

The importance of Native American civilizations was mostly about contributing with many domesticated plants and animals.

Apart from domesticating those plants and animals what other big impact did they have?

When I did similar poll in Civ5 thread Mongols were very high on the list

Why ??? To me the Mongols were a destructive rather than a constructive civilization. They destroyed more than they created.

So I would give them -10 points in your poll if I could vote like this.

Of course we can argue that they transferred some inventions from one region to another (not their own inventions, though).

But for example it is disputed whether it was the Mongols or the Arabs who transferred gunpowder from China to Europe.

I think those were rather the Arabs who met Crusaders in the Middle East and they brought gunpowder to Europe.

Arab achievements are also overestimated. Arabs conquered huge territory with many cultures who had their own achievements. The role of Arab conquest was that being united as one empire facilitated cultural & intellectual exchange between regions previously separated by political borders. But eventually Islamic conservatism hampered progress in that territory. So while in the short term Arab conquest was positive (due to increased level of free exchange of thought between conquered territories, due to giving various peoples a universal language to communicate, etc.), in the long run it turned out to be negative.

Russia and Germany also were higher while India and Spain fell far behind.

Spanish gold extracted in South America helped Europe to improve capitalism (of course English pirates benefited more than Spain itself).

Russia should be high - here I agree. Even though it also had its flaws and negative influences.

So far results are:
1) Rome
2) Greece
3) China
4) England

And these four are probably where they should be. I have more objections regarding the remaining 21.

 

[Krajzen]

The importance of Native American civilizations was mostly about contributing with many domesticated plants and animals.

Apart from domesticating those plants and animals what other big impact did they have?

Approximately 2/3 of current global crops have beginning in Indigenous America.
Obviously I lost the scientific source...

Why ??? To me the Mongols were a destructive rather than a constructive civilization. They destroyed more than they created.

The question I ask is about IMPACT, not MORAL REASONS. Mongol Empire had enormous impact on the world.

Of course we can argue that they transferred some inventions from one region to another (not their own inventions, though).

But for example it is disputed whether it was the Mongols or the Arabs who transferred gunpowder from China to Europe.

I think those were rather the Arabs who met Crusaders in the Middle East and they brought gunpowder to Europe.

First European firearms are from 14th century and adopted from Mongols, right? I don't know any cannons of Saladin

Arab achievements are also overestimated. Arabs conquered huge territory with many cultures who had their own achievements. The role of Arab conquest was that being united as one empire facilitated cultural & intellectual exchange between regions previously separated by political borders.

I'm not talking about the impact of geographical Arabia on the world but Arabian (such as Umayyad Caliphate) empires and Islam civilisation which is imho the most important for the world history right after China, India, Rome, Greece, 'West'

Also, the amount of Arabian scholars and polymaths is huge enough for me to praise the glory of Arabian Golden Age.

Abu Ali Husain ebn Abdallah Ebn-e Sina is for me enough to put this 'civ' very high on the list.

But eventually Islamic conservatism hampered progress in that territory. So while in the short term Arab conquest was positive (due to increased level of free exchange of thought between conquered territories, due to giving various peoples a universal language to communicate, etc.), in the long run it turned out to be negative.

1) 600 years - since Muhammad to the fall of Baghdad - is short term? Because this is basically Golden Era of Islam (not to mention relative prosperity of indirect offspring: Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire, Persia, Moroccan Empire etc even in 17th century)
2) Negative for what?
3) No Islam Civ = Western medieval science greatly slowed, no Exploration Era.

 

[Domen]

First European firearms are from 14th century and adopted from Mongols, right?

Had they been adopted from Mongols, firearms should have appeared in Eastern Europe - place actually visited by Mongols - first.

On the other hand, all available historical sources indicate that firearms appeared in Western Europe first, and it was in early 1300s.

Which indicates that Crusaders adopted gunpowder from Arabs or Turks (but it is of course entirely probable that Muslims got it from Mongols).

3) No Islam Civ = Western medieval science greatly slowed

Why ??? Western people also had access to Ancient Roman and Greek texts. Even without Arabs.

Actually Crusaders captured libraries with Ancient texts during the Reconquista in Iberian Peninsula, etc.

So at first Muslims captured those Ancient texts, and later Christians recaptured them back from Muslims.

Also, the amount of Arabian scholars and polymaths is huge enough for me to praise the glory of Arabian Golden Age.

Yes they contributed to maths. But apart from maths to what other sciences did they significantly contribute ??? Optics maybe.

Squonk is the one who can perhaps defend the good name of Arabs from my accusations. But until he proves me wrong I stick to my view.

The question I ask is about IMPACT, not MORAL REASONS. Mongol Empire had enormous impact on the world.

Yes, I understand. I just wanted to point out that their impact was mostly negative.

They totally decimated the prosperous and advanced Kiev Russian civilization, completely destroyed the Khwarazmian civilization, etc.

Do you know that after the Mongol genocide it took the city of Kiev some 550 - 600 years before it recovered to Pre-Mongol population level ???

And in case of Khwarezmian Empire - what used to be Northern Khwarezm remains a backwater until today. So it NEVER recovered...

1) 600 years - since Muhammad to the fall of Baghdad - is short term? Because this is basically Golden Era of Islam

Well, OK. And who destroyed the city of Baghdad ??? The Mongols. Just like in case of Kiev and other large prosperous Russian cities.

Except for Novgorod Republic, which was destroyed by Russians themselves - Muscovites under Ivan Grozny. He killed 40,000 Novgorodians.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes they contributed to maths. But apart from maths to what other sciences did they significantly contribute ???

Medicine, physics, chemistry and astronomy are the big ones. You could arguably count sociology, geography, psychology and economics, although I'm not sure if the fields as then-practiced would qualify as sciences.

 

[Domen]

Medicine, physics, chemistry and astronomy are the big ones.

Was that actual contribution of something new, or translating Ancient texts to Arab language?

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

As for firearms:

First confirmed instances of using firearms in Europe were in 1320s-1310s, and just about 50-60 years entire Latin Christian Europe already had firearms. So the spread of ideas and technologies was very fast within Latin Christendom, which is another argument that it constituted a single civilization.

 

[Traitorfish]

Was that actual contribution of something new, or translating Ancient texts to Arab language?

New contributions, yes.

 

[Domen]

Ok. BTW, I now begin to recall their achievements in medicine, indeed - Avicenna, etc. I remember.

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

I don't know any cannons of Saladin

Saladin died in 1193 and Crusaders continued to be present in the Holy Land for over 100 years after his death. In Cyprus even longer.

So they had enough time to adopt firearms. BTW Mongols invaded Europe also much later than 1193, ca. 40-50 years after Saladin died.

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

Some architecture from Shravanabelagola, 10th century AD India:

http://innemedium.pl/wiadomosc/slad...logii-w-kompleksie-shravanabelagola-w-indiach

 

[CaterpillarKing]

Mongolia I would argue. Really I would argue all but just for the heck of it I will say Mongolia. So when Ghengis united the Mongol tribes and created the massive empire he did a lot of things. He disrupted Chinese history, he united Russia, and killed a lot of Europeans. Now let me explain. Besides the fact that he killed of high percentages of people and that makes a big difference, Ghengis created the largest empire ever (I realize that his empire splits but the several empires that came out see all basically united and friendly so it doesn't matter). He caused the silk roads to reopen because it was now protected by Mongols. This lead to a lot of trade and death. The death coming from the fact that the Black Death spread to Europe by the trade routes. It is safe to say that without the routes the plague would not have been as bad in Europe if at all. Also, the Mongols in Russia gave the Russians someone to fight against and unify together against. If they didnt have that then they may have easily still been like Germany or Italy was in the 1800s, a bunch of holdings by separate cities, for a long time. Also, Mughal is actually Persian for Mongol so that means they affected India too. There you guys go!


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Krajzen]

Any empirical evidence of cannons in Saladin Era? During battle of Legnica Europeans seemed to be shocked by 'chemic weaponry' used by horde so it doesn't seem like they were really used to gunpowder/fireworks/whatever the hell was used by Mongols :d

Also, many historians say ridiculous stuff like Mongols killing 50 - 80 million people because they repeat ridiculous overstatements of medieval writers or Mongol terror propaganda (yes Genghis you totally killed 2 000 000 people in medieval Baghdad alone). Basic thinking proves that it would require
- Each average Mongol soldier killing hundreds of people without 20th century technology
- Completely ridiculous population levels of medieval states (also, those extremely high estimates would mean Mongols killed 10% of world population which sounds completely ridiculous as they would have to exterminate half of Chinese population, 1000 times bigger than Mongol army, to even come close... also historically China was not hit very hard!)

In fact, realistic analysis points rather at 'just' 11-15 million people killed in Mongol conquests. Eventually more if we count bubonic plague and natural cataclysms of this era.

While Mongols brought devastation they usually massacred only people resisting to them, while leaving surrendering cities only with tribute requirements. Out of territories conquered by them, definitely the worst fate has met Iraq and Iran. Fall and devastation/extermination of Baghdad was terrifying tragedy for Islam, Iraq and the entire world heritage.

 

[Domen]

During battle of Legnica Europeans seemed to be shocked by 'chemic weaponry' used by horde so it doesn't seem like they were really used to gunpowder/fireworks/whatever the hell was used by Mongols :d

I knew someone was going to mention this. This story is probably just a hoax. And actually that was not "chemical" but "magical", according to Jan Dlugosz. Below is what Jan Dlugosz wrote about that (most historians think that this part is just a legend created as an excuse for the defeat):

But among many banners of the Tartars, there was one huge banner, on which such a sign " X " was painted. And on top of the pole of that banner, there was a representation of an awful, black head, with chin covered by beard. When the Tartars fell back one staje behind [one staje = 134 meters], and were likely to start escaping, the standard-bearer of that banner started to, as hard as he could, shake that head, placed high on that pole.

Immediately some steam, smoke and mist belched from it and spread over the entire Polish army, its smell was so stinking that the fighting Poles, almost fainted and barely alive, weakened, becoming unable to fight. It is known, that Tatars since the very beginning of their existence until the present time have always been using both in wars and beyond them the art and science of predicting, divination, prophecies and sorcery and that they practiced it also in the battle fought at that time against the Poles. And there is no any other nation among the barbarians, which would more [than Tartars] believe in their divination, prophecies and sorcery, when some action has to be taken.

Therefore the Tartars, realizing the fact that the already almost victorious Poles under the influence of mist, smoke and stink were seized by fear and some sort of doubt, raising terrible battle cry, turned against the Poles, and disrupted their formations, which had been compact until that time, in the midst of enormous slaughter, in which gloriously fell son of the Margrave of Moravia Dypold - duke Boleslav called Szepiolka -, with many other knights

Apart from Dlugosz, no other source mentions this "chemical weapon", if I remember correctly.

It could be something gunpowder-related but this description is not exactly how gunpowder works.

And Dlugosz lived during the 15th century, when gunpowder was in widespread use in Poland.

Of course the story could be deformed over time, when told by original witnesses to other people, etc.

In fact, realistic analysis points rather at 'just' 11-15 million people killed in Mongol conquests.

Which is still a lot.

 

[CaterpillarKing]

Remember they also attacked china and Europe. Even if the numbers are exaggerated then you still have to take in account the times. If Ghengis killed the numbers you estimated and the bubonic plague killed as many as it did then you are looking at numbers like World War One and two. With one they are actually similar and with two they are proportionate between the disease of the time and the terrible war. All assuming the number made and accepted, generally, by historians is wrong. Regardless the Mongols clearly had a huge impact.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[HannibalBarka]

Why only from the Middle Ages and not from Roman Imperial / Republican times ???
After all, barbarians who settled and established kingdoms in formerly Roman territories, largely adopted the legacy of the Roman Empire.

Rome was a mediterranean civilisation. Western Europe was born by the actual mixing of Rome, Christianity and northern Barbarian basically.
Rome lacked the last two.

BTW - what defines boundaries of a particular civilization ???

that's a very complicated question indeed both in terms of geographical and temporal borders by the way. I am not even sure the definition exist. oh there are no cut boundaries by the way.

To me, such a defining element (perhaps one of many, but certainly the most imporant one) is free exchange of thought.

Free exchange of thought is ensured as long as communication is possible - so we need one alphabet and one universal language to communicate.

By such standards there has been a Latin Civilization (not "Western"), which used Latin as universal language and Latin alphabet / Roman script.

Nowadays we still use Latin alphabet, but perhaps English replaced Latin as our universal language, serving the same purpose (exchange of thought).

Everybody uses english now as a "communication" language, I don't think it can really be used as a "civ divider".

Another unifying factor of that Latin Civilization was of course religion - Latin Christianity (aka the Latin Church, aka "Western" Christianity).

Merging Poland, Bohemia, Ukraine and Balkan countries as one (which is what Krajzen did) is in my opinion wrong, because they didn't belong to the same civilization. Poland and Bohemia were parts of Latin Civilization, but Ukraine not entirely. Balkan countries are even more complicated because there were at least three civilizations there, of which only Slovenia & Croatia belonged to Latin Civilization, while Bosnians & Albanians were parts of Islamic Civilization.

I tell you that if entire Balkans were parts of the same civilization, there wouldn't have been so many wars and brutal conflicts there...

I do think religion is some time an important factor in defining a civilization. I however do not agree at all with your last sentence: being part of the same civ was rarely a reason for peace, quite the contrary usually as the most easy fella one can fight is your neighbour who is usually of the same civ .

 

[Domen]

Rome lacked the last two.

Christianity was the exclusive state religion of the Roman Emprie since 381 AD and barbarians served in Roman armies already long before that.

So Rome did not lack those two things. All barbarians who settled within the borders of the Roman Empire adopted Christianity from Rome.

Everybody uses english now as a "communication" language, I don't think it can really be used as a "civ divider".

This is why the fact that we are using Latin alphabet is more important. And Latin language terms are still widely used in law, sciences, etc.

Not to mention that we have plenty of words which originate from Latin in our languages. English language also has a lot of terms from Latin.

French as well as all other Romance languages (Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, etc.) actually evolved directly from dialects of Latin.

Rome was a mediterranean civilisation.

Not only:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall

Here is a map of Roman roads:

http://omnesviae.org/de/



And temporarily - before the battle of Teutoburg Forest - Roman north-eastern border was even farther east, along the Elbe River.

Contrary to popular beliefs, after Teutoburg, Romans didn't stop penetrating into Germania.

Just to mention the invasion by Germanicus (this one is commonly known, unlike several other ones):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus

Later - in 235 AD - Roman legions under command of Maximius Thrax penetrated several hundred Roman miles into Germania (according to "Historia Augusta"). In 2010 a team of archaeologists led by Petry Loenne discovered near the village of Hachelbich (Thuringia) a Roman military camp for 5,000 soldiers constructed during the 3rd century AD (see the link below). Another very similar camp was discovered near Göttingen in 2008.

"Ancient Roman Military Camp Unearthed in Eastern Germany":

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/05/ancient-roman-military-camp-unearthed-eastern-germany

And before Teutoburg, a few years BC, according to Tacitus (IV, 44), Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus with his army, sent by Emperor Augustus, crossed the River Elbe penetrating farther east than any Roman before him. Findings of Roman weapons along the Oder River are quite frequent. New archaeological findings such as camp for 5,000 soldiers discovered near Hachelbich are moving the eastern extent of areas controlled by Rome (at some point in time) further and further east. There were also naval expeditions. According to Pliny and "Res Getae", Roman fleet entered the Baltic Sea during the regin of Emperor Augustus.

There is also evidence of Roman colonization inside Germania - remains of a Roman city were discovered near modern Waldgirmes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldgirmes_Forum

Those things described above was penetration of Germania from the western direction (from Gaul).

There was also penetration of "Barbaricum" - both "Germania" and "European Sarmatia" - from the southern direction. For example expeditions during the reigns of Emperors Nero and Domitian, Roman military camp discovered in Trencin near the Carpathian Mountains, the Amber Road, Marcomannic Wars, Roman plans of creating new provinces of Marcommania and European Sarmatia, etc.

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

This is how Ptolemy defined boundaries of regions called by him "Germania" and "European Sarmatia":

Spoiler :

BTW - "Germania" literally means "Land of Neighbours" and "German" / "Germanic" means "Neighbour" / "Neighbouring":

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Germania#Etymology

The name "Germania" came into use after Julius Caesar adopted it from a Gaulish term for the peoples east of the Rhine that likely meant "neighbor".[1][2]

 

[CaterpillarKing]

Rome collapsed because of Christianity and barbarians in the end. By the time they adopted Christianity they were basically a cesspool of instability and death. You also can't really call the Byzantines true Romans as they are more Greek and just a successor state. You have a very predominant Latin culture in Southern Europe and Latin America because of its colonizers from Iberia. Then you have a predominantly Germanic Northern Europe with the languages using Latin letters but being nothing like their cousins to the South speaking Spanish and whatnot in structure. Germanic culture gave us English, German, Norse, and French while Latin gave us Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Then you have Greece and Byzantium being, well, Greek. The Russians were very heavily based off of Byzantine culture because of the missionaries Cyril and Methodius travel to Kiev.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk