If real life were Civ3, who'd have the highest end score?

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Rome. Hands down. No other city has ever, or will ever effect the history of the world to such an extent as it has.

Argue all you want. Scream into the wind while you're at it. The fact is the children of Rome have us all speaking the same language on this board right now. Not Chinese. Not Hindu. Nuff said.

Salve

This despite the fact English is primarly a Germanic language?

English is a somewhat strange language in that it was first entirely Germanic after the Anglos and Saxons invaded. They never adopted latin. But later on when William the Conqueror led in a French speaking Germanic tribe they became the new elite. Eventually the two languages merged. That doesn't happen very often in history.

English is not a Romance language...

[Ninot]

Long live the Canucks, the peacekeepers!
Im glad to see I'm not the only one supporting the glory of Rome. Also glad to see the fevor for China has lessened, for a more inteligent thread..

quick question for notyoueither... are you Canadian too? A Quebecer too? (from what i might gather from your response to my "Vive la France" post... if so, i can see im in good company, for my love of Rome.

This is probably my favorite thread, so even if this post is for nothing else... welll then... BUMP!

but seriously. Fuddle duddle (woo Trudeau) to anyone who says Rome isn't deserved of high cultural respect. Like has been said, Christianity, modern alphabet, heck, we've even named half the planets in the solar system after Roman gods. Rome is immortal.

And, well, as for Greece's effect on Rome, let's look at it from Civ3 terms. Rome invades Greece, cuz its strategically smart to do so. Helenism isn't bothered too greatly by this, and sure, it spreads a bit to the Latin peninsula. In civ3 terms, Rome moved a few greek workers to their own cities. But, by the time of Christianities flourishing, Helenism started to fade. Just like, with the turns of a game, the Greeks would fade out as well. Helenism, in today's world, is pretty much non-existant. But, so many of the things that were Roman, are still around.

Also, just a tidbit. In Ancient Rome, a city wasn't truly prosperous untill it had some kind of colloseum or sports stadium. The same can be said about current western cities. The most flourishing cities, have nice big stadiums. Yet another Roman custom.

[Captain]

quick post this time
I know it seems like I spend all my time here but I do have a life outside Civ...

I acknowledge Rome is way up there, but I disagree with counting all of Europe as a Roman successor. Rome did not continue to exist as an entity. It broke up, merged, changed, improved, expanded, and reformed. Holy Roman Empire was nothing like Rome. England took a lot from Rome, but it is an amalgam. Major changes occurred from a variety of influences. If you added Greco-Roman accomplishments to English ones, maybe. But I don't think that's valid. It is definitely not the same entity.

Against China, in which the Mandate of Heaven still applies. Even though the communists are totally atheistic. It is still the same entity. I won't go much further into unless you want me to.

Very few on these boards have posted of China's accomplishments. Mainly because most of the vocal folks here are Westerners. Obviously we are more familiar with Rome and Eurocentric history, that is the product of our school system. Like I said in my last post, it is natural to know more about the civ that one is raised in.

Now, let us assume that you CAN lump (Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian Rule of Law Habeus Corpus Representative Govt Individualism Civil Liberties Socialism Technologicultism Growth-Economics, etc...) all into something we call Western Civilization. That's powerful.

BUT as powerful as Westernism is, it is not globally dominant.
Modern Western Civ acounts for maximum of 2 B people. China alone accounts for 1B. Add in rest of Asia into "Sinic Civ", that's 2B. Same as Mod West Civ. India 1B. Islam 1B. Cannot be counted as either Sinic or Western (India has western trappings but underneath is intrinsically different).

That's 6B. But that's already giving lot of credit to Western Civ. I've thrown in Africa and south America, even though I would normally count them as separate civs. If we take them out, and we take Japan out of Sinic Asia, we're still neck and neck between Mod West Civ and Sinic Civ.

I have dual heritage. I prefer Western culture and thinking, but I deny that it reigns supreme in the globe. We think it does because we're using Western standards to judge it. But in Civ 3, its all abstracted, so my specific preferences should not be allowed to bias my vote towards Western Civs. China would tie Western Civ. But if we cannot clump together a "western" civ (as Civ 3 does not), then China is the only remaining entity with that kind of clout.

Thus, China remains the winner. Disagree if you like, just don't insult me as being less than intelligent. That's a cheap shot.

ok, so that really wasn't quick at all...

And yes, I am Canadian too.

[JohnnyCanuck]

It really has to depend on your definition of "culture."

Political structure and organization is a very different animal than cultural achievements. Besides, the Greeks developed all those systems of laws well before the Romans: they merely adapted them. Look up the Athenian law system sometime. Rome did not remain a republic forever either.

The Romans never really improved upon Greek cultural achievements. The Romans built a great and powerfull civilization with "wonders" of the time in aqueducts, collaeseums and plumbing. Even their basic military unit, the legion, was an adaption and improvement of the Greek Phalanxes.


For those of you who believe Hellenism has no effect on our culture today, you are sorely mistaken. When Europe emerged from the Dark Ages they began to re-learn not Roman, but Greek knowledge. This knowledge was, fortunetly, preserved by the Arabs to a large extent. Unforutunetly many important works were lost forever when the Great Library burnt down. It is true that Alexander's Empire was short lived. That has nothing to do with its cultural impact. Consult a historian/good book and you will quickly find that Alexander's conquest of "the world" was the single greatest event of a culture spreading throughout our world. We are talking about a people whose cultural origins began in 2100 BCE in Crete.

At the particular instance in history when Alexander united Greece, their culture was so infathamably far ahead of everyone else in the world that in my opinion it would constitute a "cultural victory." How else can you explain how every part of his conquered empire adopted Hellenism in an instant. Remember that with the exception of the Yellow River Civilzation in China, he conquered every major civilzation of that time period.


I'll try to summarize Greek Cultural Achievements:

Society: Law ruled. Equality amoung male citizens.

Literature: Greek Drama, Plays, Tragedies, Poetry, Chorus, Comedies. Themes done in Greek plays are still being regurgatated today in Literature. Think about that...

Art and Architecture: The Temple of Artemis, The Mausoleum, The Acropolis, The Temple of Athena, The Parthenon, The Statue of Zeus, The Collossus, The Great Library and Lighthouse in Alexandria. 5 out of 7 wonders of the Ancient world built by Greeks and the other 2 were under Greek control (in Babylon and Egypt).

Historians: Herodotus and Thucydides both set standards for historical writing that has seldom been equaled in the nearly 2500 years since they wrote. Their literary style became the model later on for the Romans.

Medicine: Created the Hippocratic school of medicine: Hence medical school graduates take the "Hippocratic oath" today.

Philosophy: Too much to say here, we all know Greek philosophers' achievements and reputations.


You can argue all you want about things that happened in history after Greece's hayday. That does not change the fact that Greece's culture was totally and utterly dominant over the world at its zenith.

[nato]

Now that I've had a chance to read it, I just wanted to say that your first long post was cool, and well thought out, Captain.

I agree with it mostly, though I'm a little less impressed with India, and a little more impressed with Britain, myself.

Ninot, I don't think any of the pro-China posts could be described as unintelligent, unless your definition of intelligent is agreeing with you.

I absolutely love the West (my name is nato) and I see Rome (with Greece and Germans) as the big forefathers of the West. So I love Rome.

However, we are talking about the Romans themselves, not the West. (All the West together, sure no contest!) Rome alone just doesn't stack up well against China. If Rome had been at its height for many centuries before and after it actually was, then they could compare. As it is, Rome just didn't last long enough.

Further, China is a source of "Eastern" culture comparable to Rome as a source of Western culture. As a die-hard Westerner I like Western ideals better, but its wrong to say they count as something special while Chinese culture doesn't.

Thats all just how I see it.

Anyway, I don't mean to be argumentative. Rome makes my top list too ... I just don't think anyone can match China, and there are compelling, intelligent reasons to believe so.

[Ninot]

i hope this will be a quick reply to Captain, but i can get carried away.

My argument has less to do with the populations of the Asian continent, and the population of all nations considered western, but more to do with how, in relativity, the accomplishments of Roman culture are more asstounding than those of Chinese culture.

I mean, sure, China, India, the Buddhist countries, they all truly do have amazing culture. But, (provided you say Rome is gone by 500 ad), they have had 1500 years more to gather and preserve culture. And, eastern culture is (arguably, as proven) no more penitrating than western culture is. But, Rome only had roughly a millenia to become the fore-father of the western world. Rome hasn't been around the past 1500 years, to ultimately ensure the survival of Roman culture. But Roman culture has survived, and spread. Without Rome existing, it will always be rememberd, and its customs may go on forever. And, it was able to reach this goal by 500 a.d.

But all of that is meaningless, cuz Canada will surely win, either due to the amazing cultural influence of the C.N. Tower , or by the amazing diplomatic abilities of Jean Chretien . Blessed are the peacekeepers.

(this is the edited part) Oh, and well, as for my comments on unintelligent China posts (as observed by Nato). Im not saying that any post involving pro-china views is dumb. What im saying is that such posts as "China been around long long time, many folk in China, China win"(exagerated for the puposes of the argument) are too simplistic to make the debate interesting. I would prefer to be completely stopped dead in my tracks by one amazing pro-china post, than read twenty posts saying "China big, China old"

So far, the remark ive seen that has made me think thrice i cant remember who it was by, but it was roughly "Does any civ have the double culture of any other civ, needed to get a culture victory?". Thats thought inspiring! "China big, China old" is what i deem unintelligent.

[nato]

Ok now I've read Captain's second post (I'm a little slow).

If you put all of the West together I think it would be number 1. I think this because of the Industrial Revolution.

I would say that China had a very long and good size lead. The West would start to catch up in per-turn score around the Renaisance, but still be far behind in overall points. Then the Industrial Revolution ... bam! The West starts raking in huge points per turn, because industrializing puts it so far above China in production. I think the West would pull in so many more points per turn during the last 500 years that it would amazingly overtake China's centuries long built up lead.

This is because before industrialization, China and the nascent West were both agricultural civs ... China was just much better and much much bigger at it. So its per turn lead would be big, but not gigantic. After industrialization, the West is fundamentally different, exponetially greater. So its per turn lead would be gigantic.

That is totally just my opinion, and totally just theoretical, since there is no uber West civ. I do agree that Westernization is not at all universal in the world today, and the Muslim world and East Asia are clearly angrily rejecting it.

JohnnyCanuck, cool stuff on Greece. I have to admit I tended to think of Rome instead of Greece.

Hmm ... I must be like the only non-Canadian here!

[Ninot]

Ok, i gotta say something now that i read Nato's post.

The REASON why i deny any merrit to a "China big, China old, China wins by score" argument, is cuz, like i said once, 48 years is a LONG time, for a lot of stuff to happen. It is wrong to count out any country before 2050, and all that score China has racked up might be worthless by 2050.

I say we oughta look at the victory conditions, carefully.

[Dida]

Western culture achievement surely is very impressive, but Roman should not take credit for all of that. In fact, Greek culture is the origin of Western Civilization. Roman was never considered as a great civlization. It was an great empire, but to be a great civilization, you will need more than just a powerful military and big land mass. In fact, even at the height of Roman power, Chinese military might could have well match that of Rome. Rome can never match Chinese achievement in philoshophy, science, literature and history and Fine Art etc.

[nato]

Well I'll admit "China Big, China Old" is pretty simplistic ...

But isn't that essentially what would translate into a high Civ3 score? (I'm not arguing, I'm seriously asking, that would give a high Civ3 score right?)

Now if we go outside of a Civ3 context, into just who we think was "greatest" in real life, thats different. I would still have enormous respect for Chinese acheivements (which are immense). But I can't bear some aspects of Chinese values and would definitely have to go with a Western civ.

But in Civ3 terms ... how can there be a question? "China Old, China Big" wins it.

Edit: I also want to say, that part of the "Big" includes social, cultural, scientific, and political advances ... China was a lot more than just a lot of bodies.

[Ninot]

Exactly the Chinese view! The ONLY civilization, the one true source, surrounded by barbarians

Actually I remember a cool quote from a history book ... it said that the only time ancient China ever met a cultural equal was when it made contact with Rome. (just what the book said)

That quote is from Nato. I now bow out, to allow Dida the chance to explain why China exactly is so much better at being a civ, at being cultureful than Rome.

I admitt, China very well probably is a great equal to Rome, but... what Dida explains China is, i most definately disagree with.

(edited after reading Nato's fresh post... we should be in a chat room)
Well, sure, China old and big wins it, IF nothing serious happens by 2050... but what are the odds of a very bland 48 years, without a serious event coming to pass? I agree, China is ahead in score... but we aren't fortune tellers... maybe Jamaica will make a super banana, and win by diplomatic victory threw a banana-brainwash?

well not me! i dont eat bananas!

[nato]

Chat room, no kidding!

Ok don't take this wrong, this is more for fun, but ...

The one thing we know for sure about the next 48 years is it won't help Rome!

The only thing that could happen in that time is the US could overtake China ...

However, all the big hype is how powerful China is getting, and that it will be the next hegemon (I know, the EU has some hype too, but so does China). So if anything, the near future just looks good for ... China.

Of course those Jamaicans are pretty crafty...

[nato]

OMG I've just figured it out ...

All these years Rome has just been biding its time!

On some little traveled square in the Alps, there they sit ... Legion upon Legion upon Legion! They don't need supplies, and they last forever ...

Just waiting ...

To pounce upon a complacent Europe! Now that Europe thinks its safe from the Soviets, they'll be totally taken by surprise. And who wouldn't?

Rome will get a huge last minute boost, just enough to push its previous score (what they refer to as "Golden Age #1") over the top! Just as they planned, all along.

Ok, I'm getting a little carried away.

Anyway, like I said Rome makes my short list of contenders too, no question. I hope I didn't like chase you away from the thread or something, Ninot. Now I'll stop spamming this thread, heh heh...

[Dida]

Originally posted by Ninot

why China exactly is so much better at being a civ, at being cultureful than Rome.

I will not give a lecture on oriential or classic culture here. But before I say anything more, make sure you first make it clear, the difference between a great empire and a great civilization.

[Ninot]

no, didn't chase me away. i was getting tired of keeping up with the pace of a chat room... in a forum.

The one thing we know for sure about the next 48 years is it won't help Rome!

You have quite the point there.

But hey, who knows? im personally of the opinion that the EU is gonna surpass the USA in most areas eventually(thats just mostly guesswork tho). Im also of the opinion that China is on the right track to great things (or greater things, depending on your point of view).

Now if only them legionaries come out at JUST the right time... I have a feeling they superfreezed Juluis Caesar with them too... they just gotta figure out how to cure the common death by multiple stab-wounds...

[Captain]

Good points all!

We've brought up some great stuff here, but to return to the original question (and since we cannot predict the future), we will have to go with a retirement at this time (2002).

what is the Civ 3 scoring system?
Well, China big and China old.

Do I wish it factored in more than that?
Of course.

But it doesn't! So while it may be repetitive or "unintelligent", it is the key argument. According to Civ 3 scores, that's what counts.
Further, "Western" civ as a whole is not included.

But back to more interesting discussion,

As for the Greek Hellenistic culture reigning supreme at its time, I think not. We just have better records of its existence. It held considerable sway over mideast, north africa, balkan & mediterranean europe. that is not remotely the world.

You've still left out northern central europe, north america, south america, southcentral africa, asia, 'russia', oceania...Just because our current knowledge has fewer records of the civilizations of the time, did not mean those civs were non-existent. They might have been, but not necessarily. we only know that we do not have as detailed records as we do for mesopotamia and the mediterranean civs.

And some records do exist. We are simply not aware of them because we as westerners do not care (*in general, of course there are exceptions). But you can find it. Read some Indian history of the time. Read some Chinese history of the time. Harder to find but it exists. Btw, Alexander & Hellenism was stopped cold by India.

The reason we bank so much on euro-mideast civs is because western heritage derives itself from this. We call the Tigris and Euphrates the cradle of Civ because that is the immediate predecessor to Judaism (thus Christianity and Islam) and palestine is the crossroads of three continents. thus the mingling of Greek classicism with Roman and Semitic culture. Throw in Egypt too, but they're less influential (unless you buy into Alan Moore's "From Hell" Freemasons). We go from this to a regression in the feudal age but a restoration in the renaissance and expansion from there to the rise of the nation-state* . Then we can trace the path from Renaissance Italy to France and England. (Or better yet, from the Irish to the English). Then from the British Empire to NA (current US & Can), and nominally to Africa & India (see earlier long post), plus Australia. We can add that English society meddled alot in continental affairs, incl. a driving power in WW1&2. It is a bit of a leap to say England was the new Rome. It was substantially different and much of our current western civ was developed there and cannot be traced to Rome or Greece. (Rationalism & Enlightenment is oft attrib'd to France, but France's Voltaire got it from England.) Add in Industrial Rev. Bam! I can see how persuasive it is.

((*Nation State. Feudal society was not "national" and territories and people were often "traded"). The nation-state is the requirement for a civilization entity. Greece had it. Egypt had it. Rome had it. Byzantium had it. Medieval Europe generally did not. Holy Roman Empire did not. Germanic states did not (we see them as highly nationalistic now, but before unification they saw themselves as primarily Bavarian, or Prussian, or Hessian, not German). France acquired it during the time of Jean D'arc. England acquired it after Norman invasion, or a little later. Italy certainly did not until Garibaldi. ))

For the Greek argument to work, you may as well say Minoan culture wins because on Crete it was supreme for a while. Every civ is supreme in its local area. None is globally dominant (yet), and none really outweighs any of the others.


Let me restate my point, you can make plenty of arguments for the contributions of Rome, Greece, and England to the "world", but what you are really referring to is the Western world (which is only 1/3 of the global pop, and even less if we track back through time. let me also add that military-political-economic dominance does not equate to civilizational dominance. you must factor in culture. Also note that most colonies & treaty ports were ruled like the khanate. overlordship but local administration & customs. import culture for the foreign nationals who must be there, not for the local masses.)

Yes, Rome, Greece, and England dominate the western world, but only the western world. Not the whole world. And not even for "most" of history. just most of the history we are taught in schools (because that's our focus, and our historians write about our civ, not others. you must take into account this bias if you want to be balanced.) We do not acknowledge the specifics of other civs because we don't know them! We can only aggregate them. If we took the time to study, and did the research, and learned the non-Romance languages (many not even phonetic*), we may come to appreciate the way in which Sinic (or other) culture affect the lives of non-western world. It still will not mean as much to us because we do not live or think in those ways, but we may see how deep and broad it reaches into daily life, just like how the Western Civ does with us.

((*That brings up another point. While phonetic languages are technically superior due to abstraction, they have not been fully adopted by everyone yet! (it's the same argument for metric SI being superior to Imperial, but US economy is huge and inertia to change is only beginning to shift now.)))


So, again another long post. hopefully this makes more sense now. you've all brought up some great points that made me think longer and harder about it. I have no problem changing my mind, but my argument was too robust for me to deflate. it survived. I'm sticking with my vote. For either the Civ 3 reason, or the "can't lump all as Western Civ and even if you could it is arguably not superior to Sinic Civ" reason.


Or the fact that Canada will conquer the world before 2050! Just you wait! You think we're all nice and friendly, but that's just Chretien garbling his words again. You think he's saying "I hereby dedicate this new arena to the gold medal winning Canadian Olympic hockey team." Really, he's saying "All your base are belong to us!"

[notyoueither]

So many things to say, so much risk of spam if I say them all...

Anybody mind if I point out a problem with the *Old, Big* arguement in strictly Civ3 terms? OK thanks for not complaining before I hit the submit button...

The problem is that the scores for the original Chinese (Han) civ and the original Indian (Gupta?) civ stopped the moment the Monguls conquered China and India.

Kublai did in the original succession of Chinese dynasties in... let's see here... about 1279 by the final conquest of the Sung Empire. Varous Mogul rulers completed the conquest of India during the 14th century (it was a much longer, drawn out affair than had been the case in China).

BTW, the world was not without a direct successor to the political power of Rome until 1921. I can go more into it later if you wish.

My biggest observastion is in line with the Captain's statements about how we are more focused on where ever we are from. I agree with him wholeheartedly, to a point.

Most people in the West are largely unaware of the subtleties of Asian history. Therefore to many of us, China looks like one big monolithic civ, when in fact is was not.

In the same vein, we are all to well aware of the funny short guys running around in togas with red strips on their heads. When those guys are no longer running around, their civ must also be gone. This is where I diverge from the Captain.

The more one learns about European history, the more one will become aware of the continuity from the Greco-Roman world down through the centuries to this very date. Thus, while it may seem absurd for someone to be sitting here with a Legionaire as an Avatar proclaiming the dominance of Rome, it might not be entirely absurd after all. I believe the argument that the Roman civ survived the departure of Caesars from Rome is an entirely viable one. Please indulge me as I continue to explore it.

Salve

[Captain]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The problem is that the scores for the original Chinese (Han) civ and the original Indian (Gupta?) civ

IIRC, the "first" Indus Valley Civ was settled by the Aryans. (Not the same blond-haired blue eyed constructs that Hitler envisioned. Interesting, isn't it?)

stopped the moment the Monguls conquered China and India.

Kublai did in the original succession of Chinese dynasties in... let's see here... about 1279 by the final conquest of the Sung Empire. Varous Mogul rulers completed the conquest of India during the 14th century (it was a much longer, drawn out affair than had been the case in China).

BTW, the world was not without a direct successor to the political power of Rome until 1921. I can go more into it later if you wish.

Salve

hmmm. we can't have it both ways. if you consider China to have ceased as a civ under Mongol conquest, then how can you consider Rome to have continued after the disintegration of the empire?

(I assume you speak of western rome, not Byzantium, which stood for a while longer but was much more Hellenized. In fact, it was almost Asian style in the Imperial Court.)

If you can make an argument for Roman civilization (as an entity*) surviving to this day and age, then perhaps you would agree that the argument is easier to make for China (whose political & military control passed to the Mongols, but whose cultural and societal norms were unchanged. Note, it wasn't that quick either. South China held out for a while.) Except for people who lived in Rome, no one identified themselves as primarily Roman (not the Germanic tribes, not the Magyars, not the Slavs, not the Brit-Germanic tribes, not the Vandals, the Muslims, the Arabs... none of the former Roman holdings continued to consider themselves Roman. The Byzantines barely even referred to themselves as Roman.) They may have been influenced by Rome, but the founders of the Renaissance were still Florentine, Venetian, Milanese, not Roman (except Rome but those were Papal states). The English certainly do not consider themselves the same as the Romans.

But, the Chinese always have considered themselves Chinese. They "see" themselves as inherently Chinese (ethnic homogeneity is a part of that but culturally, assimilation did occur).


(*I use the word entity alot. Hard to define but offhand it's a "significant" and cohesive demographic group that identifies itself primarily as the same civilization throughout generations, and maintains its culture and societal structure. )

Nothing's perfect, but China fits that better than Rome.


But keep posting, I like reading what you're writing. you make a strong case. but again, it comes back to applying only to western civ.
the rest of you too! you've got some great arguments.

all right, time for sleep. see you all later.


P.S. Should I call you notyoueither or Salve? is Salve your name or just a sig ref?


one last thing, if China had not historically considered the rest of the world not worth bothering about, we might be more aware of Sinic culture. In fact, I guarantee more and more you will be IF the influx of mainlander immigrants increases. (right now, not so much since many of the Chinese you probably know are second-gen Western raised. they're very different from the mainlanders.)

[jadlakha]

IM AM OUTRAGED AT THE EXCLUSION OF INDIA FROM THIS POLL!!!!!!!!! India wins hands down from culture. The Hindu religion is one of the oldest in the world. Bhuddism, Sikhism, Jainism, and other eastern religions are merely offshoots of Hinduism. Sanskrit is probably one of the oldest languages in the world also. Indian civilization was their LONG before Chinese civilization.

[Captain]

Originally posted by jadlakha
IM AM OUTRAGED AT THE EXCLUSION OF INDIA FROM THIS POLL!!!!!!!!! India wins hands down from culture. The Hindu religion is one of the oldest in the world. Bhuddism, Sikhism, Jainism, and other eastern religions are merely offshoots of Hinduism. Sanskrit is probably one of the oldest languages in the world also. Indian civilization was their LONG before Chinese civilization.

good points. if you read my super long first post (I don't blame you if you didn't, it's loooong), you'll see I put India as a close second to China (as well as my reasoning).

But put me in my place! Tell me more about India. I am always interested in learning more.

[notyoueither]

Well, it's final. They're singing 'Oh Canada' on 'The West Wing.' Our reverse infiltration of American culture is nearly complete.

I guess we're winning.

China next.

Captain: It's NYE. Salve is a statement. Pronounced *salway.* It's a funny spin on classical Latin. It's odd (my usage) but so am I. Be well.

I agree with you re the double standard. I was trying to highlight how most are discounting the lack of continuity in those who rule the geographical areas of China and India, but are all to aware of the political evolution of Europe.

I'll argue that Roman (and Greek) culture absorbed all conquerors (Germans), just as others have said that China absorbed the Monguls. BTW. Western Europe withstood the Monguls. Not many did. Rome won that one.

Ninot: I am seperated from perfection by about 1500 miles. I'm on the Prairies. Haven't made it to Montreal yet, but I intend to.

Salve

[Selkirk]

Originally posted by Captain
Or the fact that Canada will conquer the world before 2050! Just you wait!

I just knew there was something sinister about the strong beer, polite friendly people, and strange ice sports played with granite accessories.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck


This despite the fact English is primarly a Germanic language?

English is a somewhat strange language in that it was first entirely Germanic after the Anglos and Saxons invaded. They never adopted latin. But later on when William the Conqueror led in a French speaking Germanic tribe they became the new elite. Eventually the two languages merged. That doesn't happen very often in history.

English is not a Romance language...

Whose alphabet are we using? BTW, I count at least 7 words in your post that are imports from Latin (easily recognized). There are more that I cannot spot easily.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm fairly WASPish in my upbringing, but English would be a language more suited to calling pigs were it not for the French (Romance), Greek and Latin influence. Add to that the current political system in Britain dates from the conquest of England by the Normans (French not German, there's a big difference). Add to that many Britons have and do run around trying to be as *classical* as they can be. I'll argue that the Romanisation of Britain is fairly complete.

Salve

[jadlakha]

Originally posted by Captain


good points. if you read my super long first post (I don't blame you if you didn't, it's loooong), you'll see I put India as a close second to China (as well as my reasoning).

But put me in my place! Tell me more about India. I am always interested in learning more.

Well I posted this before I bothered reading any of the other posts, and I do agree with your long post(which to compliment you is probably the best post in this discussion).

I guess to add more to my original post, Alot of the Eastern languages came from Sanskrit also, Such as Arabic, and Hindi, as well as the 16 or so other official languages of India. Well I guess the fact that India has so many languages can damage its argument in score cause it can be used to weaken the culture argument for India, but India does have a surprisingly diverse culture.

Another argument for India is the fact that arguably the oldest language in the world, Sanskrit, is still around today, and the original Hindu texts are studied in the original language.

The Hindu texts and the religion of Hinduism have survived the test of time, and most of it has remained largely unchanged. This is unlike Christianity which has changed much over the years. Many Christain denominations today have only been around for a few hundred years at most.

Also I stand by my argument that India is the oldest civilization in the world(thats still around and successful today), Theyve been around much longer then the Chinese according to my sources, but of course they could be wrong.

Arguments on cultural influence, Transcendentalism most likely came out of Hinduism. Marthin Luther King's civil right movement and Nelson Mandela's anti-apartheid movements were both inspired by Gandhi, and Gandhi did what he did because of the Hinduistic beliefs, and Hinduism has been around along time. While people may think that the culture of India doesnt have much Influence on the world, much of the concepts of nonviolence and civil disobedience come out of Hinduism.

India also produces the most movies per a year then any other country. They have their own version of Hollywood called Bollywood. Well again this probably hurts my argument cause Bollywood was a rip off of Hollywood, and also those Indian movies are basically quantity over quality, they are all terrible. But I live in Houston, TX and their are several Indian movie theatres around here.

Anyways I guess looking at all the arguments, India is a close contender, however I dont think they are the hands down winner like I originally said. But I guess I am going to stick with India as a winner in my mind because I am Indian and biased, and it makes me feel better in my mind .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Captain
IIRC, the "first" Indus Valley Civ was settled by the Aryans. (Not the same blond-haired blue eyed constructs that Hitler envisioned. Interesting, isn't it?)

What's fascinating is that these Aryans and the German tribes are likely of the same stock but divergent by about 4000 years. Makes certain 20th century theories of races seem fairly absurd.

BTW. They (the Aryans) displaced the first culture. Harappan. The fuzion of these 2 cultures gave rise to the Vedic civ under which Hindu culture evolved. Like I said, Asian cultures are more than monolithic entities that sprang from scratch into their present forms.

Salve

[Miznia]

Jadlakha, I regret omitting India.

I can't get "quote" to work for some reason, but you said Arabic came from Sanskrit, which I don't think is true. Sanskrit is Indo-European, and Arabic, I believe, is Afro-Asian and Semitic, like Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian, I believe.


What direct successor to the Romans comes in 1921? What on earth happens then?!

Miznia

[Ninot]

Ninot: I am seperated from perfection by about 1500 miles. I'm on the Prairies. Haven't made it to Montreal yet, but I intend to.

Ahh. Yeah, im at perfection...save me
Heh, j/k.. Woo Montreal! Stanley Cup in 2007!!! (I'm realistic...)

As for the thread, bravissimo! Its been quite a wonderful read since yesterday.

My own knowledge of Rome isn't extensive enough for me to understand the "Rome untill 1922" claim. Someone explain it please? Holy Roman Empire? Whats the deal?

But Notyoueither brought out a point i made early on. China was defeated by the mongols in the 13th century. Now, I myself I would declare the Roman Empire to be either deceased at 500 a.d. (the end of the true empire, no denying it... East Rome was far more of an Arabic state... still under Roman rule tho). OR, if you wanna stretch it, say when the Turks finnally beat the Byzantines. But even then, like as I said, Byzantine was slightly swamped by arabic culture. But, if you wanna argue the other side, Istanbul is, (well, ignoring Israeli cities) hands down, the most western of the Arabic cities of the world. So, i donno, thats for another thread, possibly asking "When did Rome die?"

So, going on the point Notyoueither made recently, China's score stopped adding up in the 13th century. If you ask me, Rome's score stopped adding up in the 5th century. So, sure, China has got some points for it that way. But, the score stopped adding up in the 13th century ultimately. It doesnt matter if Chinese culture survived, all of its cities were captured at a certain point (even if Genghis Khan couldnt capture the south, Kublai did).

And, well, what Captain proposed, setting 2002 as a retirement date, well that just seems worse than claiming Buddism is a credit to India. A game of civ3 never ends in 2002 unless someone gets one of the 5 winning conditions. And, ultimately, this thread is about who would win a game of civ 3, not a modified, shortended version of civ3.

So, this is what I propose. Kick culture out the window, cuz we could argue till the cows come home about whos religion is better, and so forth. But, like was said before, can we TRULY prove that any one culture is, or was at one time, twice as good as the culture of any other civ? I don't truly think so. We don't exactly have a true universal measure for culture after all.
And, of course, everyone is biased about something so subjective as culture, so its not as clear cut as anything.

I also propose we say China was conquered in 13th century AD, and Rome was conquered in 5th century AD. For China, its undeniable that the mongols swamped them. As for Rome, (*although i love my Rome*), it basically became two different nations at the division of East and West, and the west was undeniably swamped by the German barbarians in the 5th century. No matter if the Germans became slightly assimilated by Roman culture afterwards, Rome was conquered, point finale.

I hope this thread has made some people happy, I also wonder if we could find a true winner if we deny culture? is it possible?

Well, here is my final say. Canada by conqest in 2043
under the leadership of an OLD Stockwell Day

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Rimpy
There are no events in Civ3 that parallels, for example, North America breaking away from England/France, or South America from Spain/Portugal.

However, I'm happy that Civ3 doesn't model these real world events, as that would make for some pretty sucky games. Imagine city flipping and multiple the frustration by ten. Can you imagine if you were playing on a real world map, and you occupied the British Isles and North America, and then North America revolted and formed a new Civ that was no longer under your control? That wouldn't be very fun, although it'd be realistic.

Sorry if this has been said before, but how about the MoO3 solution to this problem: If a civilization splits, you can choose which of the pieces to continue playing as and which side to let go.

[jadlakha]

Originally posted by Miznia
Jadlakha, I regret omitting India.

I can't get "quote" to work for some reason, but you said Arabic came from Sanskrit, which I don't think is true. Sanskrit is Indo-European, and Arabic, I believe, is Afro-Asian and Semitic, like Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian, I believe.


What direct successor to the Romans comes in 1921? What on earth happens then?!

Miznia

I guess I stand corrected on the Arabic language. I do think however Sanskrit and other languages of the region did have some influence on some of Arabic. But in its place I guess Ill add that Urdu came from Sanskrit.

[Changmai Beagle]

Being an old guy - it seems like the pink area on the Cadbury company maps of the British Empire (upon which the sun never set ) we had in our school rooms in the 50's might have covered 2/3 of the world. (Canada, India, Australia, large parts of Africa, etc.)

Therefore a victory for the British. (With bonus points for creating the "White House" after it was whitewashed to cover the damage when it was shelled)

The U.S. might claim cultural victory based on Coke and the size of the audience for the Oscars - although I think the World Cup and maybe even the U.S. Canada Olympic final just might have beaten that.

China for the 'usual reasons' above.

I can make no claims for Thailand (Siam).