Most Deserving Civ

[Sun Zi 36]

Romans 13 and Chinese 11while Russians 2 and Indians 0??

Surely anyone arguing for the Chinese can use the same logic for the Indians. This is what I call bias. The East Asians are on the rise and began influecing the West while the Indians are absolutely neglected.

And people who are voting for the US....pls, I don't want to hear anyone starting arguments for it. I think I am going to start a "who thinks the US deserves to be included as a civilisation" poll.

Anyway, I would vote for the Chinese. Imagine you can only choose 2 civilisations for the world. There are no single "the West" civilisation. There are a lot of civs that are part of the West you can choose from for one of the 2. But the Chinese, a lone civilisation that represents so much, definitely would be the second one of the two.

[shade]

GREEKS although they were conquered millitary by the Romans,they conquered the Romans socially and culturally.
(on number 2 ROMANS because they build an empire that lasted >1000 years,and they assimilated everything they met(unlike other long existing empires like Egypt&China)

Shade
(btw wasn't the limit 10 items for a poll???)

[Footie Mad]

Voted for the Russians, mostly because I think they deserved more votes than they had.

[Simon Loverix]

I'm convinced the West is one and the same civilization. They are a cultural unity. A testimony of this are art movements: Roman, Gothic, Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque, Romanticism,... Other shared institutions, traditions and movements are Roman Law, the Roman alphabet, humanism, nationalism, the Enlightment, colonization, ...
The only argument against the West being a civilization is the lack of political unity. They have been united repeatedly (Romans, Carolus, Napoleon,..) and now there are in fact only two blocks in the West (US and EU), and still they are military linked in the NATO.
China is the 'most deserving' civ by Chinese standards, and vice versa for the West. And undoubtly they are second only to each other.

[campmajor!]

Why do all these polls and discussions end up in a fight about I am right and you are wrong?

How can you compare civs? Each one has its positive things and his negative things...

Well, I'm afraid I will not participate anymore in these kind of discussions...

Peace.

[ancient]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
China was as advanced, but it didn't affect history that much (unless of course you consider Mongolia a Chinese-type civilization) Affecting much in the idea that they spread their technology. Yes, china conquered large stretches of land, yes they tried to colonize Japan, yes they invented fireworks... They are easily the equals of the Greeks- but the Romans?

The Romans were a military machine, much like Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Greeks. They exerted as much influence as china ever did in its golden ages.

China never developed gunpowder except in fireworks- the europeans invented gunpowder in guns.

Unique chinese history- they have 2 official languages for heavens sake, that means there are at LEAST 2 different cultures... China is a model for cooperation of peoples, but they havent really merged together well it seems...

Thats a very poor arguement. Chinese did develope Gunpowder weapons they made land minds and grenades that used gunpowder, the were very much tech savy, and they traded their china and silk with the rest of the world which is what dot europe out of the dark ages, china has influenced the modern world, perhaps more than any other nation.

Originally posted by YefeiPi

China has given the world gun powder, I mean which is more practical? Aren't all wars fought with gun powder? How else did English colonize so many countries? With pitchforks?

I just look it up. According to Scientists man has been on planet Earth 2,002,001 years. Guns have only been around since about 1242AD. I would guess the pitchforks has conquer more territory than guns. Guns have only been part of Man for .000379% of Mans history.

Also when you say that the Western Civilization on Earth is far more powerful today than any in Earth's history. How can you pitch the entire western civilzations against China's single history?

It really easy, because the youth of today want to be like us, (Europe, Canada and America) dress like us, hang out like us, drink Coke and Pesi, wear Calvin Kline, Nike, go to McDonald, listen to the latest Rock and Roll bands from Europe and America. I would bet that most young people in China are petty much like most the young people in the Western Countries. They want to have fun, without any restriction on their fun.

[shade]

I just look it up. According to Scientists man has been on planet Earth 2,002,001 years. Guns have only been around since about 1242AD. I would guess the pitchforks has conquer more territory than guns. Guns have only been part of Man for .000379% of Mans history.

=>probably "American" scientists,the age of humanity accurate to 1 year=> yeah right,never heard of evolution theory???
rather say there has been a human civilization for 15000 years
(ie only the last 15000 years wars have been fought with pitchforks and stuff)
so 759 years of gunpowder would count for 0,506% of human history.
(btw because of the peacefull nature of humanity I am pretty sure every square meter of this planet has been conquered at least once by guns)

Grtz Shade

[YefeiPi]

China was as advanced, but it didn't affect history that much (unless of course you consider Mongolia a Chinese-type civilization) Affecting much in the idea that they spread their technology. Yes, china conquered large stretches of land, yes they tried to colonize Japan, yes they invented fireworks... They are easily the equals of the Greeks- but the Romans?

The Romans were a military machine, much like Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Greeks. They exerted as much influence as china ever did in its golden ages.

China never developed gunpowder except in fireworks- the europeans invented gunpowder in guns.

Unique chinese history- they have 2 official languages for heavens sake, that means there are at LEAST 2 different cultures... China is a model for cooperation of peoples, but they havent really merged together well it seems...

China did not affect history that much? Are you joking? Look at Asia alone, Japan is still using Chinese characters in their writing, in Korea, you see Chinese labels everywhere. And I'm sure the effect does not stop in Asia.

The Romans conquerored a lot of land, no doubt about that. But Mongols has conquerored even more, does that make them a greater civ than Romans?

Gunpowder is one of China's four most influential invention, it's just that China and the west each used it for different purposes.

2 official languages for China? You are joking again. For PRC, mandarin is the only official language, cantonese is just another southern dialect that many people speaks. Just like in English, you have different flavors.

[KrazyHorse]

'Kay, who in their right minds chooses Iroquois over Indian or Persian or Japanese?

[DarkCloud]

Shade- Mods can edit polls to have more than 10 options

Others China was just as invaded as the others:
The Mogol influence, the Xin Xia influence, and toher influences from various parts of China... They had various religions that were different- they are as varied as the Europeans.. .the only thing they really kept was the same country name. Their country was as varied in different periods as European countries were during different periods.

How could Silk get Europe out of the dark ages... Europe got out of the dark ages because of the MUSLIMS and the people who saved the writings of the GREEKS and the ROMANS.

Chinese were not the first to use guns- that is why the Europeans counquered them.

Yes, but Mandarin and Cantonese are more different than the Enlglish dialects... I understand that they are at least as different as the Romance Languages.

---Krazy Horse- They just chose them to piss me off

[YefeiPi]

Chinese were not the first to use guns- that is why the Europeans counquered them.

I think you can't read, Dark Cloud. Whoever said the Chinese were the first to use guns? I said Chinese invented gunpowder. Not guns! Also Europeans conquered China? Define "conquered" a bit further please. You mean like how Mongol conquered Europe or what? Anyway, China is still alive and well. Isn't it?

Yes, but Mandarin and Cantonese are more different than the Enlglish dialects... I understand that they are at least as different as the Romance Languages.

They are less different actually, the writing for mandarin and cantonese are very much alike except cantonese have more strokes. Only the way it is spoken that is different. I don't even think you know Chinese.

Originally posted by YefeiPi


I think you can't read, Dark Cloud. Whoever said the Chinese were the first to use guns? I said Chinese invented gunpowder. Not guns! Also Europeans conquered China? Define "conquered" a bit further please. You mean like how Mongol conquered Europe or what? Anyway, China is still alive and well. Isn't it?

DarkCloud can speak for himself, however sometimes in the English language, we will used a word like "conquered" to mean that we are controling key port, key Cities, etc.
When Rome conquered, it was everything, the total area.
When we conquered Japan in WW II, we did not invade Japan itself, but we conquer them.
In the early 1900s Europe control key port Cities in China, so in the minds of European China was conquered.
The same when Japan invaded China. In the west China was Conquered by Japan. However Japan only control a small part of China.

[fred]

All are soo wrong about your gunpowder, FRED WINS AGAIN!

Gunpowder, known as “Black Powder” or “Saracen Powder” to the people of Medieval Europe, is generally thought to have originated in China, where explosive grenades, bombs, and rockets were already in widespread use by 1000 CE. Because it is a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter (potassium nitrate), gunpowder must be mechanically, and very carefully, mixed. Highly sensitive to sparks, it is a very delicate mixture, which often led to explosions and death because of careless handling of the ingredients. Adding to its value was the fact that, in the beginning, the “recipe” for gunpowder was not common knowledge, and only a few special weapon-makers knew how to make gunpowder at all.

So it has been said that Chinese did use gunpowder for weapons a few centuries before anyone in Europe got wind of it. Only throw the arabs did that happen.

Second Mandarian and Cantonese and all the other regional dialects share a common character system that dates back (I believe) to the Win dynasty. If not the Qin then a Dynasty that was based out of Xi'an. Making it definatly a common character system by 900 ad. This is very unlike western latin writing. The characters do not make up an alphabet but more of a pictograph. So that Cantonese and Mandarian can both read and write the same language. Thus making the languages very similar more so then Spanish and English etc. The only difference comes in the pronounciation. But this can also occur in English where there are places in the world where English is spoken but can not be inturprettted by north american english speakers. But both can read and right. A good example would be to watch the movie "The Snatch" where it becomes almost impossable to understand the pikes, but very humourus to do so.

Silk road info:

[YefeiPi]

In the early 1900s Europe control key port Cities in China, so in the minds of European China was conquered.

Then it's a very foolish thought, you think by controlling key ports? You "conquered" China? Haha, that's a fresh one. Back then, in the early 1900s. Eight european countries (including Japan, which is not European country) allied up to "conquer" China which is nothing more than invasion, sure they had advantages with their guns and binoculars in the beginning, however, they were still driven out of China eventually. Considering that China, back then, had next to nothing because of isolationism. Today, don't even try thinking about conquering China, Joseph. It's not going to be a reality.

Also, you are not even European, how can you say that in the minds of Europeans, China was conquered? It's a joke! Speak for yourself next time.

Originally posted by YefeiPi

Also, you are not even European, how can you say that in the minds of Europeans, China was conquered? It's a joke! Speak for yourself next time.

Because I have always been a student of History, and I can read.
I look at thing in the world and then sit back and study it and only than will I come to a conclusion.
Another thing going for me is that I'm many years older than you. You are 16, and I'm 57. When I was 18/19/20 I visited Asia, not all, but a lot.
Japan
Korea
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Phillippines
Okinawa
You know my wife has a cousin that came from China 30 year ago and spoke like you. Today she speak a lot difference.

[Transcend]

joseph1944, your definition of "conquest" is pathetic. Occupying a few ports of a big nation temporarily implys conquest? You better go back re-learn English!

[YefeiPi]

Because I have always been a student of History, and I can read.

No, you are not a student of history because then you wouldn't have said a lot of nonsense that made you look foolish.

I look at thing in the world and then sit back and study it and only than will I come to a conclusion.

Sure you do. Yeah, like how you said Tibet was a small empire before China was even a country.

Another thing going for me is that I'm many years older than you. You are 16, and I'm 57.

What's your point? No offense or anything, from the inaccurate posts you made, I thought you were younger than me. Also age is not that important, sure I respect the elderly, but it's the knowledgeable ones that I respect more.

When I was 18/19/20 I visited Asia, not all, but a lot.
Japan
Korea
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Phillippines
Okinawa
You know my wife has a cousin that came from China 30 year ago and spoke like you. Today she speak a lot difference.

Looks like you have never EVEN been to China. You sound like you know about the nation like the back of your hand, but since you never been to it, now I totally understand your lack of knowledge of it completely.

Originally posted by Transcend
joseph1944, your definition of "conquest" is pathetic. Occupying a few ports of a big nation temporarily implys conquest? You better go back re-learn English!

If I was as smart as you!!!!
See if you can understand this. If some people from Kansas came to Denver and took over the city including the Airport and made everyone in the greater area pay them a tax on everthing they wanted to send by air from Denver, would they not control a large part of CO.?
That is what the European did to China. They control the major ports in China. Anything coming in or leaving China had to be cleared by the European power. That is how you control.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by YefeiPi


I think you can't read, Dark Cloud. Whoever said the Chinese were the first to use guns? I said Chinese invented gunpowder. Not guns! Also Europeans conquered China? Define "conquered" a bit further please. You mean like how Mongol conquered Europe or what? Anyway, China is still alive and well. Isn't it?

I read that somewhere in this thread... perhaps it was a typo, but that is what I read... The British "occupied" China... They 'conquered' it more in the way of the Mongol's conquering Europe-
The Chinese beat back the British mostly because the Chinese had more people.

And yes, British did not conquer all of China. they went inland a bit. They occupied it for a number of years... I still maintain that Rome is better than China.

They are less different actually, the writing for mandarin and cantonese are very much alike except cantonese have more strokes. Only the way it is spoken that is different. I don't even think you know Chinese.

I dont. I never said I did. If what you say is true, I was incorrect. But what you say is not what I have heard. Perhaps I should do more research on that subject.

--

YeFei-

1. have you ever been to China?
2. no student of history can be an expert in everything.

[DarkCloud]

joseph- I think he meant that China was isolationist and that that did not hurt the country- he probably wants you to prove that by taking the port cities, England hurt China.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by joseph1944

If I was as smart as you!!!!
See if you can understand this. If some people from Kansas came to Denver and took over the city including the Airport and made everyone in the greater area pay them a tax on everthing they wanted to send by air from Denver, would they not control a large part of CO.?
That is what the European did to China. They control the major ports in China. Anything coming in or leaving China had to be cleared by the European power. That is how you control.

Well, the US controlled all major cities in South Vietnam. Did they conquer the nation? No. They couldn't even protect South Vietnamese villagers from Communist incursions.

Foreign powers did control several Chinese ports indeed. Did majority of Chinese population submit to them? No. Did these powers created their own administrations in China proper? No. They might have controlled the foreign trade of China back then, but 95% of the Chinese had nothing to do with these trade anyway.

Conquest would be far reaching, like what British did in India: absolute control of the majority of Indian population under direct British administration and taxation. China, except during the Japanese invasion, had never been placed under any of these systems. At most other times, foreign merely excersized an influence, sometimes strong, on Chinese government.

As you see, conquest and influence are very different things. I'm amazed that you, joseph1944, fail to understand such simple differences.

[YefeiPi]

And yes, British did not conquer all of China. they went inland a bit. They occupied it for a number of years... I still maintain that Rome is better than China.

Ok, if occupying Hong Kong for some years makes you think English "conquered" China, haha, then by all means, it is "conquered"

I maintain the position that China is better than Rome though.

They control the major ports in China. Anything coming in or leaving China had to be cleared by the European power. That is how you control.

Hong Kong isn't the only major port in China. You love control don't you, joseph? Where is the European control now? You are not even English, I don't think they need you to feel proud for them.

Originally posted by YefeiPi

Hong Kong isn't the only major port in China. You love control don't you, joseph? Where is the European control now? You are not even English, I don't think they need you to feel proud for them.

Actually I don't like control so why say I do?
I could care less where the European control is today.
Actually through my Father and his Father etc. we are from England. however since my ancestor came from England in 1634 to America, I have no connection to England.

[Transcend]

The reason I pick Chinese over Romans is because Romans were completely conquered in the end. They didn't manage to assimilate the Germanic invaders and many of their civilizational achievements were lost in Europe until after the Age of Reformation. Western Civilization is no doubt the greatest in World today, its achievement unrivaled by any other's. But Rome was not solely responsible for its glory. Western Civilization had its root in Ancient Greece, expanded by Rome, changed by Christianity which itself was derived from Jews, thrashed by Germanic Barbarians, revived 1,000 years later by Italians, and finally brought to its peak by the French, English, Germans, and Americans. They all deserve credits for today's Western Civilization. I would go so far as to say that even English/British deserved more credits than the Romans: representative democracy, rule of the law, capitalism, and industrialization. Especially the Industrialization and Capitalism are the characteristics of the Western Civilization that set it apart from other civilizations and gave its dominance today.

However, just by taking each Western country on its own, then I think China still has the advantage.

[fred]

Actually Hong Kong is not the port that would be the top of China's list. Shanghi was the port that the Europeans occupied which was more valuable. But those Europeans where in Shanghi by right of the Chinese Dynasty. Since Shang hi was important to the trade the Chinese government allowed them access and divided the city into different quarters.

And Yes i have been to china .

[ranskaldan]

it all depends on how you look at it... I mean, if you look at the Romans, they didn't exactly exist for a very long time, but their culture was very influential, ultimately becoming the source of Western civilization, which is, in addition, the dominant force of the world today. The Chinese stayed there for a really long time (5000 years to be exact), assimilated all the invaders, and made a lot of contributions to science and art --- but its influence today is less far-reaching. So basically, the Chinese are more important than the Romans, but the influence of the Romans is more far-reaching than the Chinese. (But my vote goes to the Chinese. We are looking at the individual civilizations here, not their influence after they had disappeared.)

And as for the part about languages... from a speech point of view, the various dialects of Chinese are indeed as divergent as the Romance languages, but when you write them down, they all look very similar. This is because the Chinese writing system is word-based, so it can basically ignore variations of pronunciation between the dialects, while the European writing system is sound-based, so when the sounds of the languages differ, the writing has to, also.

(However, in addition to pronunciation, the dialects of Chinese differ in grammar too. So actually the writing of Cantonese and Mandarin still differ, but it's not that different.)

(Also, about the point that Cantonese writing has more strokes than Mandarin --- that is a difference in 'font', not language. It is equally possible (and indeed is still done) to write Cantonese in the less-strokes method or Mandarin in the more-strokes method.)

[Transcend]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
it all depends on how you look at it... I mean, if you look at the Romans, they didn't exactly exist for a very long time, but their culture was very influential, ultimately becoming the source of Western civilization, which is, in addition, the dominant force of the world today. The Chinese stayed there for a really long time (5000 years to be exact), assimilated all the invaders, and made a lot of contributions to science and art --- but its influence today is less far-reaching. So basically, the Chinese are more important than the Romans, but the influence of the Romans is more far-reaching than the Chinese. (But my vote goes to the Chinese. We are looking at the individual civilizations here, not their influence after they had disappeared.)

Have you read my previous post? Here is the reason why Romans should not be placed ahead of Chinese: Romans cannot claim the sole credit for Western Civilization. It was a combined effort by the Greeks, Romans, Italians, Spanish, French, British, Germans and Americans. Several most important concepts of the Western Civilization, such as human rights, representative democracy, industrialization, and capitalism, had nothing to do with Romans.

The Western Civilization as whole outshines the Chinese one, but China outshines each country individually.

[shade]

if you look at the Romans, they didn't exactly exist for a very long time,

>1500 years,nah that isn't that long

The Chinese stayed there for a really long time (5000 years to be exact), assimilated all the invaders, and made a lot of contributions to science and art

And the Romans assimilated all those they conquered,they were able to expand like they did because they absorbed knowledge like a sponge and adapt it to their needs.
I also would dare to say that they did some substantial contributing to science and art.(but their scientifical achievement are rather of the engeneering kind)

Shade

[YefeiPi]

The Western Civilization as whole outshines the Chinese one, but China outshines each country individually.

Wouldn't it be unfair to compare the ENTIRE Western civilization to China? Anyway, yes China has far less influence nowadays due to its isolationism, that's something for a fact. However, China has realized the negative side of isolationism and is opening the country up more and more to the world. It is on the rise very rapidly again, I believe it will return as a world superpower very soon again. World leadership is a strange thing, it alternates between sides, first China then West, who knows where it is in the future.