Which civ was the most powerful in all history?

[Joe R. Golowka]

Probably the United States. Why? It's the only world empire in human history. The US has exterminated huge numbers of people and subjectated even more. The American domestic thought control system is also unprecedented - theyv'e managed to brainwash the majority of the population into believing that they're a democracy despite clear evidence to the contray (look at the last election). Americans have even been fooled into thinking they're fighting a war on terrorism despite the fact that the US government is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism worldwide.

Of course, technically America should probably be considered a subset of the Western Civilization. They just inherited Britain & France's Empire and then expanded upon it. I suppose the USA is really a frankenstein creation of England.

[pumph]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Actually, they would be better off going to the source: Africa.

Yes yes of course, but apart from looking to Africa for African music (obviously!) I'd said better Ligeti *than* jazz. [BTW my apologies for mangling his name earlier; it was Gyorgy Ligeti I meant]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Now as to jazz being part of the musical canon of Europe- some of its influences come from there, I never denied that, it is after all a Creole hybridized culture; but the fact of its hybridization means you cannot claim it all for Europe.

Jazz played on industrial-age tempered keyboards and written using bar lines is African? Really? Remember, the big debate about African polyrhythm is whether it is polymetric; if not, then one must perceive the underlying pulse - it has initially pulse rather than beat - as being very very fast indeed, subordinate pulses occuring as fast as twelve per second. Even Ligeti, by using sixteen fast pulses per measure in 4/4 time to produce a background ostinato only manages a crude approximation of the true complexity of polyrhythm. Refer to Arom's "Polyphonies et polyrhythmies instrumentales d'Afrique centrale", where he states that African music does not rely on the Western concept of meter. According to Ligeti (in the introduction) Arom "opens the door leading to a new way of thinking about polyphony, one which is completely different from the European metric structures, but equally rich, or maybe, considering the possibility of using a quick pulse as a 'common denominator' upon which various patterns can be polyrhythmically superimposed, even richer than the European tradition".

Originally posted by molly bloom

Now as for its being merely a style: which style is it? Bebop, hot jazz, trad, big band, swingtime, New Orleans, jazz-funk, East Coast, West Coast, Latin jazz, fusion,.....

It is interesting to note that jazz itself underwent a process of what one might call "decolonization", or perhaps a trend towards modernism. You find this beginning in the transition from New Orleans to Kansas City jazz, and in Charlie Parker's bebop but above all in the dissolution of the chromatic scale in pieces by Thelonius Monk. However, true modernism arrives with free jazz, which dissolved the still-present neo-national harmonic and rhythmic constraints of bebop by "sublating the instrumental technique of the jazz solo into the aural palettes of a multinational studio and recording technology". Finally, Coltrane's Manifestations contain no less than "the iterative repetition of every possible tone-cluster at every conceivable pitch interleaved with the objective materials of Second and Third World musical styles": jazz is thereby "brought into contact with the decolonized materials of its musical prehistory".

So, a jazz parallel to Ligeti's modernist art music! If jazz was an "African hybrid" at more than an entirely superficial level, why the need to decolonize it and reintroduce it to its African roots in such a way as to shatter its original *Western* musical form of tempered chromaticism and metric beat?

I'm aware that all this is going very OT this thread. Does *nobody* want to take up my earleir comments about the significance of Cinema as the great new art form of our age and relate that to American Civilization?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by pumph

Jazz played on industrial-age tempered keyboards and written using bar lines is African? Really?

Neither European nor African, but American:

'.....powerful polyrhythms that are perhaps the most striking and moving element of African music. In the same way that Bach might intermingle different but interrelated melodies in creating a fugue, an African ensemble would construct layer upon layer of rhythmic patterns, forging a counterpoint of time signatures, a polyphony of percussion. We will encounter this multiplicity of rhythm again and again in our study of African-American music, from the lilting syncopations of ragtime, to the diverse of offbeat accents of the bebop drummer, to the jarring cross-rhythms of the jazz avant-garde. "

www.allaboutjazz.com/journalists/Gioia4.htm

www.gse.uci.edu/Lessons/blues.html

www.worldbook.com/fun/aamusic/html/intro.htm

www.duke.edu/~wvg/page2.html

[Fresno]

Why didn't anybody reacted to my post about the Jews being the most influentive civ? The later Romans, the later Greece, all the European peoples and all Muslim peoples have religions rooted in the Jewish faith.

[9 ECAC Titles]

For most powerful over all of history (accumulation of power): China. 6000 years of dominance in their huge region, with gigantic population and well developed culture. Often invaded yet never conquered (absorbing their conquerors instead). No question.

For most powerful at the height of their power (highest spike): Rome. The Mediterranean as a Roman lake, control of every cradle of ancient civ within their reach, and well ahead of the eastern empires in terms of concentraiton of power, learning, and tech.

The US has been extremely powerful across the board for 50 years, and if we hang on to #1 for another 150-250 years then we'll start to show up on the historical radar screen. Until then, we're a blip. As for highest spike, no modern nation will ever approach the highs of the ancient civs -- wealth, power, and tech are far more widely distributed now, and the exchnage of information makes monoplies of power, by an empire or by a ruling elite, impossible to sustain.

[EdwardTKing]

My review of civilisations is as follows:

Babylonians
Egyptians
Romans
Chinese

were all very powerful in their day; but their power never extended beyond their particular part of the world. Most of the world never interacted with them. Much of the world had never heard of them then.

I do not regard the Mongols as a real civilisation but more as a pyramid style warrior cult (jump on your horse and go forth and murder as many people as possible with your bow and lance; sparing only those who will join you to do likewise) being quite similar to the more recent Hitler cult (jump inside your panzer and murder as many people as possible one way or the other). The Mongols did not last more than a few generations (Genghis to great grandson etc) and left absolutely nothing of value behind.

The Spanish and British Empires had a global reach via naval power.

The British Empire was probably more powerful than Spain; it being able
to conquer much of Africa, India and defeat China (in the Opium wars) while Spain's victories were primarily against the more sparsely populated Americas and unknowingly aided by bacteria and viruses for which the indigenous amerians had little natural immunity against.

However even at the height of the British Empire (from 1815 defeat of Napoleon to 1870 emergence of Germany) there were always parts of the world (typically inland e.g. Afghanistan, Mongolia and Switzerland; but occasionally maritime Japan and USA) which remained fully independent.

The most powerful civilisation is the U.S.A. which has a clear lead in:

"Global Reach" with air power and space power (remember the Americans are the only people to have walked on the moon - congratulations and by the way - please - are they going to land on Mars too before I die).

"Economic Power" (Wall Street rules; London is just a franchise now).

"Legal Power" (Americans have been able to impose their invention
"intellectual property rights" over most of world (only China, India, Bin Laden and Linux guerrillas really resisting) whilst ignoring attempts by rest of the civilised world (to ban land mines, halt global warming, biological weapons inspections treaty).

"Scientific Thrust" (there are many good scientists throughout the world; but the Americans have currently produced or bought more than any other civilisation).

"Political Power" (although representational democracy and civil rights were essentially european; their current take-up world wide (e.g. in Japan after world war 2) reflects current american, not european, power.

the only two factors for which america does not have a lead are
"Land Area" (I disregard the unproductive tundras of Canada and Russia; and the deserts of Australia; regarding the contest as nearly equal between China, India, Russia and USA) and "Total Population" for which the USA is clearly third to China and India.

I do not accept the (not entirely serious) views (of in my mind envious fellow europeans) that the USA is not actually a civilisation (although - ha ha - it is amazing that so many americans have let them themselves be easily wound up in this discussion.

I understand that while the USA has a very diverse culture (which is a strength) mixture, it is united by (acceptance of capitalism, use of english, respect for constitution, flag, love of motor car, individual persuit of happiness and wealth, understanding as to what is American and what is not, and its own unique games such as American Football; and BaseBall) and is therefore undoubtedly a de facto civilisation.

In my opinion US power has been pre-eminent for about 80 years from about 1920 (although many did not realise that before Hiroshima 1945) to today 2001.

The reason the Hebrews/Israelites have not been selected as a civilisation in the game? I suspect Sid Meier is Jewish and wishes to maintain a healthy separation of his professional life (producing the computer game) from his own private cultural background.

Edward the Englishman

[Fresno]

This thread is about all history. America won't be so powerful for ever.

During the reign of Louis XIV, France had a reputation similar to the American reputation today. Now look at the poll results: how many voted for the French?

[tomcat ha]

turkey is the best(patriotistic)
without them the ressisance woud never start.
and genghis khan is in fact turkish and mongolian.
and and and and hmmm
o yeah they make the start of the ressisance

[cavebear]

(accidental sending of partial message)

[cavebear]

Originally posted by tomcat ha
turkey is the best(patriotistic)
without them the ressisance woud never start.
and genghis khan is in fact turkish and mongolian.
and and and and hmmm
o yeah they make the start of the ressisance

*Smile*

1. Ghengis Khan was not Turkish, his people were a couple of thousand miles away.

2. The Arabs got the culture and science from the Greeks. They also got a lot of culture and technology from the Chinese.

3. With the cultural momentum from that, they managed to establish a fairly high culture for a few hundred years. On their own afterwards, they fell behind rather rapidly.

4. Other than the scientific knowledge they gained from the Greeks, the main historical contribution of the Arabs to Europe was the Bubonic Plagues that wiped out 1/4 of the population. To be fair, they were just passing it on from Eastern Asia, but that is where it arrived in Europe from.

5. On its own, Middle East culture after a few centuries of Islam has been one of decline and anti-modernism.

6. Once isolated from Europe and China, Islamic culture essentially collapsed until the past century. It did not have the resources or cultural skills to progress on its own.

7. If it were not for oil, the entire Middle East would be like Ethiopia.

8. That having been said, I very much respect the Turkish people for having established one of the very few Islamic Nations with even remotely democratic/secular traditions.

[ranskaldan]

cavebear, i'm shocked.

i don't exactly have time to rebut your points fully right now, since it's pretty late. but i can tell you that from 800 to 1600, the arab and turkish cultures were among the most advanced, open, and secular in the world. only after the Renaissance did Europe become even in sight behind them.

As for the 'inheriting the science from the Greeks' part, well, so did the Europeans. So what? It's what's new that counts. And the Arab contribution to chemistry, astronomy and algebra is simply immense. Even the world 'algebra' is an Arabic word. So is 'alkali', in fact, and a lot of the names of the stars in the night sky.

only in the last 100-200 years did Islam become the relatively more radical religion (compared to Christianity), and fall behind in technology and political development. But that is no reason to disregard the 800 years of enlightenment, civilization, and development that came before.

[Fresno]

Absolutely. That's why I think it is a shame that there isn't a single Muslim civ in Civ2. I'm not sure about Civ3, but I can't remember having read about them being included this time.

[PSetzer]

I chose USA simply because I thought that the whole question was on military might. Mahan would consider the current crop of boats to be the ne plus ultra of naval might. The American idea of a destroyer is a 9000 ton boat capable of lobbing missiles to targets a whole two squares away. A dozen nukes in the mix, and Afghanistan wouldn't be there for the evening news. US Aircraft Carriers haul along a carrier wing about the size of most countries' air forces. We have 12 of the damned things. We have however many divisions of troops, a whole bunch of tanks.

With other considerations like culture, it's a different story.

[chiren]

Originally posted by Faeelin
Because hwile the British may have invented Democracy, the US took it to where it is today.

the us has no democracy only a republic system. they elect people to for them (senat) like the romans did similar 2000 years ago.

in switzerland there is a democracy today (or what is very close to it)

[chiren]

Originally posted by cavebear


1. Ghengis Khan was not Turkish, his people were a couple of thousand miles away.

Ghengis Khan was turkish an mongolian !

2. The Arabs got the culture and science from the Greeks. They also got a lot of culture and technology from the Chinese.

they mixed it and make their own
like you do in deity-games

7. If it were not for oil, the entire Middle East would be like Ethiopia.

maybe

[Wulfram]

Originally posted by PSetzer
I chose USA simply because I thought that the whole question was on military might. Mahan would consider the current crop of boats to be the ne plus ultra of naval might. The American idea of a destroyer is a 9000 ton boat capable of lobbing missiles to targets a whole two squares away. A dozen nukes in the mix, and Afghanistan wouldn't be there for the evening news. US Aircraft Carriers haul along a carrier wing about the size of most countries' air forces. We have 12 of the damned things. We have however many divisions of troops, a whole bunch of tanks.

With other considerations like culture, it's a different story.

You have to see this relative to who ever is around at the time, and on that criteria the US doesn't come out too amazingly well.

Sure, it's got the most Nukes, but Russia and China each have enough to render the US practically uninhabitable, there's not much difference between 7000 and 8000 nukes, your dead whichever size is shot at you.

In naval power the US is easily the most powerful at the time, however the British Empire had a greater dominance of the sea, and you can't win a war by naval power alone.

In ground forces the US is at best 2nd as China, with it's greater population, has far larger Armed forces, and could easily increase that amount, and any way the Roman Empire was far more dominant in this area

So, in conclusion, the US is a great power, but not in the same league as the greatest empires of the past, such as the Romans, the Mongols, the Chinese and the Persians

[chiren]

china is growing much more than the us. so in 10 years they can be much stronger than they are now and maybe much stronger than the usa is. they have a lack in technologies but thats just a question of time

[Crom]

The great portion of this thread seems to be a discussing a three way race between Rome, England and the USA.

However if we are looking at the situation historically do England and the US qualify as seperate civs? Will historians looking back at our era not see an Anglo-American culture that has dominated the world for the last 300 years?

Both nations seem to have far more in common than they would like to admit, including at the very least language, history, law, popular culture and economics (the UK and USA are each the largest foreign investor in each others economy). As well as a very similar foreign policy over the last 50 years(give or take the odd Suez crisis).

Not only should these two be given a single entry, but their history has yet to run it's course. For that reason more than any other the vote should go to one of the classic civs with the Romans getting my support, for their dominance of the known world and the lasting effect that culture still has on us today.

Other than that I have really enjoyed reading this thread, although it has taken me the afternoon to read it all.

[ranskaldan]

Ghengis Khan was turkish an mongolian !

whether or not he was turkish, the mongols are a distinct, separate race from the turks.

[G' Stath]

Originally posted by Faeelin
USA. Because hwile the British may have invented Democracy, the US took it to where it is today.

emmm... If I remember right it was Greeks who "invented" Democracy (and that's why it is called "democracy", Demos=people + Cratos=Power=> Power to the people). The British developed a variant of Democracy (prime minister).

As for the USA, it is indeed a democratic country, but not the only one with high democratic standarts. I really can not think what gives USA the title more democratic than let's say Germany, France, Cyprous etc



but anyway. This is a subjective thing (after 200years or less it won't be subjective)

G!

[G' Stath]

Originally posted by EdwardTKing
My review of civilisations is as follows:

The most powerful civilisation is the U.S.A. which has a clear lead in:

"Global Reach" with air power and space power (remember the Americans are the only people to have walked on the moon - congratulations and by the way - please - are they going to land on Mars too before I die).

we hope that man on mars this is going to happend as soon as possible.

Britan had also global reach (during its golden age). ("Global reach" in terms of that time.)

"Economic Power" (Wall Street rules; London is just a franchise now).

true. for the last 100 years (less actually). Babylonians were a economic power for much longer. The same is true for Egypt, Rome and many other civs...!

"Legal Power"

"Scientific Thrust" (there are many good scientists throughout the world; but the Americans have currently produced or bought more than any other civilisation).

!!!! I won't comment that!!!!

I like american hambrugers though.

I do not accept the (not entirely serious) views (of in my mind envious fellow europeans) that the USA is not actually a civilisation (although - ha ha - it is amazing that so many americans have let them themselves be easily wound up in this discussion.

no, I won't comment that too...

I understand that while the USA has a very diverse culture (which is a strength) mixture, it is united by (acceptance of capitalism, use of english, respect for constitution, flag, love of motor car, individual persuit of happiness and wealth, understanding as to what is American and what is not, and its own unique games such as American Football; and BaseBall) and is therefore undoubtedly a de facto civilisation.

...and hambrugers!

I agree to the term civilization.

In my opinion US power has been pre-eminent for about 80 years from about 1920 (although many did not realise that before Hiroshima 1945) to today 2001.

I'd never dare to compaire 80, 100, or 200 years of power of civ X to the 800, 1000, 2000 or more years of dominance of civ Y.

ie
Y= Egypt
=Byzantine Empire


Americas influence on the rest of the world is enormous. Greek Influence from 400BC until rome appeared was Enormous. Romes influence was also enormous. What I want to say with all that is that America (or rather USA) is the most powerfull civ now. Maybe this is gonna be true for the next 100,1000, 10000 years. But up to now you have not passed the "TEST OF TIME". If the year was 1AD the most powerfull civ would be the roman Empire...


My opion about the " Which civ was the most powerful in all history?" is

Egypt, China, Byzantine Empire (not in the game) and Rome!


G!

PS: I do not mean any offence with all this, I don't speak that good English

[9 ECAC Titles]

Good enough English to be understood (which is something many natives have trouble doing).

US global reach is a bit of an exageration. We do have the ability to project power to any spot on the globe -- but we can only do so effectively with the approval or at worst neutrality of our many economic and political allies, and a strong commitment by the friendly governments in the area of the intervention to lock down dissent among their populations. Hence the Kissingerian approach to foreign diplomacy the farther off shore we go -- power and stability, with totalitarian control of local population, is what makes a "good" ally. Human rights is actually a backward step, since it allows the wogs to complain whenever we accidentally do a fly-by of an elementary school on the wrong side of border.

The Roman's idea of a major power coalition was "Carthage must be destroyed." Their dalliances with diplomacy in the north and west amounted to playing tribes off against one another and then creaming the winner. In other words, they treated the Known World like the US treated the native tribes.

Not even the Brits at their best had that sort of carte blanche, and the US doesn't even approach.

And nukes don't count. Suicide is not an act of dominance.

[siredgar]

While I initially wanted to vote for the Mongols simply based on territorial reach, it is really the English that had the strongest impact on the world. The British Empire, dominated by the English clan, spanned across the globe in nearly every time zone. It gave birth to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other major countries. English is now more accepted as a universal language than any other tongue before it. The English had more influence than any other civilization in history. Simple as that.

Sir Edgar

[kailhun]

The civ that had the biggest impact on World history may well have been the Mongols. They destroyed the old Chinese, first Islamic and Roman empires. Effectively kickstarting a new age. True the Mongol civ in itself wasn't very cultured, or lasted long, but as a catalyst they are very powerful.
As to most powerful. Tricky. Is the USA more powerful than the Roman empire? I'd say the USA could conquer all of the Roman Empire (more or less did so in WWII). But relatively speaking? Taking into account differences in time-period, and not just looking at military power, I'd say it too early to tell as far as the USA is concerned. Rome lasted, from the earliest beginnings to the fall of the Byzantium, more than 2000 years. That's 2000 years of influence, in one way or another.
When did the USA start? Not sure what a good date would be.

Another candidate would be the Islamic empires. My history is very shaky here. As I understand it there were two great Islamic empires in the Middle East. The first one was centered on Bagdad and became a very advanced civilization, coming up with the concept of germs and atomic energy. This was destroyed by the Mongols. The turks, who had been tagging along as one of the Mongol people/vassals established themselves in the area, and formed the second Islamic empire, the Ottoman empire which was detroyed after WWI. The first Islamic Empire is definately a candidate for the most powerful civ. in all of history.
Rather depressing to see how far the people in this area have fallen. Let's hope that the future has better in store for our descendants.

Robert

[EEKthedog]

The reason so many people voted America is because most ppl posting here are Americans, who simply do not get enough education about the other nations in the world and their history.
Americans are even taught in schools they are the best and biggest etc.
This entire debate is completely drowned in patriotism and chauvinism.
Nowadays the Americans are world power #1, but in respect to other civs in other times the Americans are way down the list.
The claim that America is the only nation in the world ever to be able to destroy the world with 1 click on a button has everything to do with technology, which is linearly alligned to time.
The Chinese couldn't do this, simple because buttons weren't invented yet in the time they were the dominating civ. (in a matter of years/decades they will be the dominant economic force in the world again).

So all you yanks voting for yourself: Have a seat and read some history before voting yourself.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by EEKthedog
The reason so many people voted America is because most ppl posting here are Americans, who simply do not get enough education about the other nations in the world and their history.
Americans are even taught in schools they are the best and biggest etc.
This entire debate is completely drowned in patriotism and chauvinism.
Nowadays the Americans are world power #1, but in respect to other civs in other times the Americans are way down the list.
The claim that America is the only nation in the world ever to be able to destroy the world with 1 click on a button has everything to do with technology, which is linearly alligned to time.
The Chinese couldn't do this, simple because buttons weren't invented yet in the time they were the dominating civ. (in a matter of years/decades they will be the dominant economic force in the world again).

So all you yanks voting for yourself: Have a seat and read some history before voting yourself.

Absolutely. I know what you mean. On another thread, I learned very much about American nationalism. Many of them seem to be unable to comprehend America also has its flaws. Here in the Netherlands, we once were that nationalist too (1950's). I'm glad we left that time behind us.

[Dauphin]

I'd say the USA could conquer all of the Roman Empire (more or less did so in WWII

I'd like to see the USA attempt to conquer all of Europe by itself. Heck when they "did it" in WW2 the only people they were fighting were Germans, and they had British, Russian, Canadian, ANZAC, French etc... at their side.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

I'd like to see the USA attempt to conquer all of Europe by itself. Heck when they "did it" in WW2 the only people they were fighting were Germans, and they had British, Russian, Canadian, ANZAC, French etc... at their side.

Well, not just the Germans, but I see your point.
Even though, I think the USA has the people to conquer Europe.
There wouldn't be much left of it and the USA would also suffer damage not to mention a lot of casualties. But from a military point of view they could do it.
Fortunately the American armed forces have an achilles heel: american politicians. As soon as the casualties start mounting (at say 10 dead soldiers) the American public would mutter and the politicians would start dithering. At 20 it would be 'another Vietnam', the Americans would leave and decide to fight a defensive war. Perhaps with a little bombing for good measure.

I have never seen a country so scared of casualty lists. If you choose to be a soldier, don't you choose to risk the possibility of death/wounds? It kinda comes with the territory. In itself I don't mind. It would be great if everybody had that attidtude, but with all the evil people running around the best the USA can do is bomb peasants. Not impressed (and doesn't stop terrorism either; just makes more people mad at the US)

Robert

[alskdj80]

The difficulty with comparing civilizations is the difference in time. There are too many aspects and compensations that one has to consider. In fact, this argument will never be settled. Even so, it's still fun to discuss.

In my opinion, the Roman Empire, the US, and China are possibly the most powerful civilizations in history. It really depends on how you define power though, but I do believe that a civilization needs to leave something behind to be considered powerful.

How can you vote against the Romans? They held an absurd amount of territory for an absurd amount of time, more than the Greeks, Mongols, or any other conquering civ. They were influential, building on the knowledge of the Greeks, and refining it. It is fair to say that Europe was shaped by the Romans, since most of their culture and language comes from them.

I don't believe anyone would disagree when I say that the Americans are the most powerful civilization in the world today. I believe that the main brunt of their power comes from unrivaled nationalism. The only flaw in the power of the Americans is that they have only come into power recently, and it is difficult to gauge it until it has diminished. Only then can one step back and sense all that they have accomplished. Many argue that the US is not a civilization because it is a mixture of culture. However, isn't this mixture a uniqueness on its own? However, this isn't the right forum for this argument, so I won't elaborate.

The Chinese, clearly the oldest civilization in the world still standing, since Egypt is no longer Ancient Egypt (but don't quote me on this). The culture in China is unrivaled. Although it had fallen behind in technology during the past few hundred years, it was one of the most advanced civilizations before that. In fact, in an ironic twist of fate, gunpowder was invented in China and later used to defeat it. Military achievements are not always an accurate definition of power. Although China had the potential to conquer much of the world during its most dominant times, it neglected to do so. However, its power cannot be ignored. During the Han dynasty, the Huns were decisively defeated and scattered. Half of them went west and disappeared from Chinese history. Some time later, they appear and caused the domino effect that destroyed the Western Roman Empire. It must be recognized that the Romans had fallen in power at that time, but it is a measure of power for the Chinese, who were clearly far more powerful than the Romans at that given time. Besides, a civilization does not last as long as China did without doing something right. Perhaps it had fallen asleep for some time, but today, it is again one of the leading powers in the world.

My verdict? Hey, I'm a nationalist myself, and so I'll vote for China (even though I'm Taiwanese, and despite the current tensions, which I don't want to discuss and personally don't care for). After centuries of shame and defeat, it's a relief to see it up and running again. Ignoring my prejudice, though, I'd have a deadlock between the Romans and the Chinese. The Americans do have economic control over the world right now, but it is easier now than before, due to the development of technology, which has made the world much smaller. I know that people will continue to argue over this embattled topic, but I don't care, I've put in my two cents .

[siredgar]

it never had the GLOBAL reach of Britain.

English is used everywhere. I bet you'll find signs in English even in Kabul somewhere. On the other hand, I don't think you'll see the influence of the Chinese all over the world to the same extent.

The Chinese had tremendous regional influence, however, and I do admire its relative benevolence to its neighbors. This is partly a reason why it didn't have a global reach because they did not aspire to dominate the world like Britain. Chinese ships reached Africa before many Europeans did, but all they did was trade not invade. Hey, that rhymes!

I think if China emerges as the strongest power in the world, it will still not want to dominate global affairs like the Americans do.

Nevertheless, the British were more powerful than the Chinese. Clear evidence: they beat them in a war!