What are the greatest civilizations of all time?

[siredgar]

Hmmm, well, most people who speak English as a first language do so because of English colonization: South Africa, Australia, Jamaica, New Zealand, Canada, and many more including the U.S. Most of those who speak it as a second language, however, I would have to say do so because of American influence. That is with the exceptions of India, Malaysia, Singapore, Jordan, etc. It's also true that French, not English, was the language of diplomacy for a long time until U.S. power rose. But I still feel that the English legacy is quite strong. Nevertheless, I put the Americans at #4 because they've had linguistic influence, too.

[thinkingamer]

yes, it would. IF (only if) America's official language is French, the rest of the world would teach French as a sencond language.

[thinkingamer]

most people who speak English as a first language do so because of English colonization

Good point SirEdgar, but due to English failure to maintain America, US became independent from England, and therefore all the countries that speak American English is American influence, not England's.

[Dauphin]

Ok, I respectfully disagree, but so as not to detract from the topic I have started another thread in the OT for it:

http://64.246.32.51/~admin1/forums/s...threadid=50197

[The Vagabond]

My list:

1) English
2) Chinese
3) Romans
4) Greeks
5) Russians
6) Spanish
7) French
8) Americans (too young a civ to be any higher, besides civilization-wise is not completely independent civ but rather a legacy of the English one)
9) Indians
10) Germans
11) Arabs (perhaps deserve to be higher on the list, but the modern Arabs spoil the impression)
12) Italians
13) Japanese
etc.

[SpencerH]

I'm constantly surprised by how high the Indians keep getting placed on these lists.

[siredgar]

Me, too, Spence.

[Akka]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm constantly surprised by how high the Indians keep getting placed on these lists.

Perhaps because you don't know a lot about Indian's culture. It's always harder to judge things you're not accustomed to.

[Dauphin]

Indians are high on the cultural ladder, yes, if you congolomerate them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't India made up of several different groupings for most of their history - hence rating them is a bit like rating the European Union?

[jdjdjd]

Most of the large civs were made of groupings, ie, the USA, Chinese, Spanish, etc, at some point in their history (or maybe all their history). I don't think that should count as a hit on the Indians. Other points to consider for the Indians, Hinduism is the largest practiced religion in the world, the impact of Indian culture has effected the area in and surrounding India for thousands of years, and their Civ has withstood the test of time...while they may not be the greatest, they definetly are in the top ten or fifteen.

[Dauphin]

But if you can do that, why not group Europe into a single category?

[Maelhavok]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by thinkingamer
[QUOTE]Which civilization? The New World Order. UU-Spin Doctors With the special ability to piss on your back and tell you its raining and to have (seemingly) everybody believe them, just look at thier polls

Im sorry, but i did not understand this. Can u explain (or anyone) what u were trying to say? And what do u mean by New World Order

thinkingamer- The short answer is that it is clear to me, civilization is an evolution based upon communication. This communication , or exchange of information, is rooted in language. So, if we can understand each other, we share a civilized frame of reference and we do not have to kill one another out of inability to understand one another. English is the world's language in this age of information (OK base 2 computer code is a contender but is somewhat inaccessable, but lookout, world translator is coming)
New World Order - An unproven belief that a secret society of the elite rich and powerful run the world according to their own unknown agenda.
The Unique Unit- is a bitter joke


Maelhavok

[Rosacrux]

Oh, hell, I'll give it a shot. Here we go:

- Greek civilization
It's something more than to what we refer to as "ancient Greece" - as "ancient Greece" we usually define the classical ages (practically two centuries) and the Greek civilization spanned way past them. It started off 2000 BC and goes along pretty fine even today, if you take into consideration that it's the foundation of the western civilization that's dominant today. Don't forget Byzantium, because it is actually a Greek civilization (Greek-orthodox, with Roman elemens, but Greek by any means).

- Rome, is actually a cultural offspring of the Greeks - the predominatory influence behind Rome are the Greek settlements in Italy. From those Rome got Democracy (which they adopted as Republic, aristocracy, the rule of the "better"), Alphabet and law-making. And Rome at it's peak, after the Greek conquest, became really a cultural powerhouse, but only by adopting the Greek culture (they didn't distinguish their culture and that of the Greeks, you'll find out if you dig into the sources).
Of course Romans went farther than the Greeks in law making, masonry and especially military technology and practice, and those distinct them from their mediteranean neighbours.

- China. Actually not much of a nation or a single culture, what we call "the Chinese civilization" survived admirably (and despite it fell under several conquerors over time) until today and is still a very influental culture nevertheless.
Durability and mass influnce is their strength in this "clash of the civilizations".

- Same goes for India. I can't understand Siredgar's objections, surely the Indians are quite above the Anglo-Saxon culture the English and American represent. They got a 5000 year culture and history behind them and untill you baby-civs (with less than 800 and 200 years of distinct history respectively) go past that point, you have no right of judging them.

- I could place here the Egyptian civilization and some of the various mesopotamian civs, and I guess they do deserve a place in the highest ranks (at least Egypt). I don't think any of our works shall stand 4000 years from now - but the Pyramids still stand. Isn't that something?

- Arabs: The banner Islam should be placed for those and several others (Turks, for instance). They are responsible for radical changes of this world, actually still active nowadays. Lately they seem to have lost contact with their times, but they have showed great adoptibility throughout the ages, so I guess they'll bounce back.

- Anglo-Saxon culture. The English and the Americans are the most prominent representatives of this culture, but they have a very long way to go until we can place them up there with those I mentioned before. Suffice to say they are in this list because of the impact they make in todays world, and nothing more. Actually, I wouldn't call the american mass under-culture garbage a "civilization" even at the point of a sword.

-The French culture, on the other hand, has given this world loads of things (pretty distinctive too) but is also very young and so can't be adressed but in a contemporary manner.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Perhaps because you don't know a lot about Indian's culture. It's always harder to judge things you're not accustomed to.

Perhaps its because I know more about India than the people who are ranking it so highly.

Most of the large civs were made of groupings, ie, the USA, Chinese, Spanish, etc, at some point in their history (or maybe all their history). I don't think that should count as a hit on the Indians.

The problem with that logic is where to draw the line whether it belongs to the civ or not. That argument has been used for including the US with England. We could go further back and include the franks and germans with the US with England (I guess under the german banner). If we do that you can forget countries and we end up with very few cultural groupings to compare. IMO, Northen Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Arabs, Indians, North American Indians, Central American Indians, South American Indians, Polynesians, Aboriginal Australians, and some kind of breakdown of the orientals.

[siredgar]

Let's see some evidence then. Why should the Indians be considered one of the truly greatest civilizations in the world? I already ranked them at #14 on my list which I thought was generous enough.

I am not convinced by the arguments based solely on longevity and religious contributions. First of all, there was not a single "Indian" civilization that existed continuously throughout this period. Thus, it would be difficult to argue that it is truly one people that should be identified together. Secondly, Buddhism is no longer very prevalent in India and I would treat it more as an East Asian religious philosophy anyhow. Also, Hinduism did not have much of an impact outside of India.

So, let's take a look at Indian inventions. Chess and the peace movement? Give me a break. There has got to more than this if you wanted to be ranked as one of the greatest civilizations of all time. While I have given the Indians a good rank because of their composite cultural contributions, I place a higher priority to scientific inventions and I don't see much there. Please feel free to convince me otherwise, however.

[siredgar]

Oh, yes and the Indians "invented" the number zero. LOL! There must be an ironic twist there.

If the greatest things a population of hundreds of millions of people can come up with is the number zero, chess, the peace movement, yoga, and Hinduism, then it should be punished and ranked lower.

[Dauphin]

Personally I think that using cultural diveristy as a yardstick of a civilization is overated. You are really just rating them on the number of idiosyncrasies they have. After all isn't that all culture really is?

Acheivements are far more important IMHO.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Personally I think that using cultural diveristy as a yardstick of a civilization is overated. You are really just rating them on the number of idiosyncrasies they have. After all isn't that all culture really is?

Acheivements are far more important IMHO.

IMO a civs culture is defined by the concepts unique to that civ from two standpoints. There are concepts that define that civ to the people within the civ but there are also the concepts that define that civ to people from outside of that civ (and they're not necessarily the same thing).

[Dauphin]

What you are describing is basically self-definition versus stereotyping. When all is said and done. they are simply methods od describing idiosyncrasies, no?

Either way, in my book it does not impact on ones greatness as a civilization as much as other things do.

[SpencerH]

I think idiosyncracy is the wrong term in that it is too limited in scope. Metaphor, in the sociological sense, is a better term. I think one reason that this discussion goes around and around on various threads is because of the lack of definitions.

Its not that I necessarily disagree with you, but again "greatness" has to be defined. If you compare a polynesian island culture to western europe with respect to technological advancement then it seems reasonable to say that the western european civ is greater. But if greatness is defined by the happiness of the people (whatever that is) or absence of war and crime then the reverse may be true.

[dervish]

Well, if you ask me what the greatest civilization of ALL TIME is, you know what my answer would be??? - Right, you all sprang up from the primitive cave civilizations of the barefoot people.

[siredgar]

Haha, three days later and no one has offered any evidence of the Indians having established one of the greatest civilizations of all time! I still don't know how they could be possibly ranked in the top 10...

[dervish]

Which Indians do you mean American Indians or Asian Indians?? Asian Indians have strongest cultural stamina (to oppose flipping over to other culture) or at least stronger than AmerIndians who already flipped over to the AmerEnglish. And Asian Indians have their own distinguishable culture that resists OK to both EuroEnglish and AmerEnglish. Do you understand it?

[Rosacrux]

Originally posted by siredgar
Haha, three days later and no one has offered any evidence of the Indians having established one of the greatest civilizations of all time! I still don't know how they could be possibly ranked in the top 10...

if you don't consider this

- Same goes for India. I can't understand Siredgar's objections, surely the Indians are quite above the Anglo-Saxon culture the English and American represent. They got a 5000 year culture and history behind them and untill you baby-civs (with less than 800 and 200 years of distinct history respectively) go past that point, you have no right of judging them.

as "evidence", then I think you got a serious problem. There is no need for evidences other than the pure existence of said culture for more than 5000 years

[grapedog]

Well, if it was for like Civ IV, then I would have to say, in no order.

China
England
Rome
Greece
Spain
Celts/Scotland(one of the few countries to defend against the Angle Germans, Romans and Vikings(Picts(Pre-Celts)) and retain their own distinct culture, even if it wasn't influential by itself).
Japan
Mongols
Aztecs
Myans
Germany
Russia
Egyptians
America
France
Africans
Vikings
Babylonians

those would be the ones i want at LEAST...

[History Guy]

The Phoenicians were an interesting race as well. The only thing I hate about them is the fact that they had a love for passing their babies "through the flames", aka sacrificing them to 'Moloch'. I admit it ain't too much better than what some "civilized" groups do today, but it was pretty bad. In fact, when the Carthaginians were attacking Rome, the Romans liked to say that, whatever may happen, they would not lose the war, as they would not lose against baby killers.

[trickey]

where is canada. *ducks as rocks come flying throug the window from accrose the border*

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Rosacrux

if you don't consider this as "evidence", then I think you got a serious problem. There is no need for evidences other than the pure existence of said culture for more than 5000 years

No, I'm sorry I don't have a "serious problem", but it sounds like you may have one.

Using your logic, civilizations would be ranked by the number of years in existence. If that was the case, then England, Rome, and the United States would not be ranked up there. And yet, we all know that power and influence are the most significant factors. If not, wouldn't Korea which has also had 5,000 years of history would be ranked in the top 10 by these same posters, too?

Anyhow, please look up the word evidence and show me some if and when you can find it. Terribly sorry, but yoga, the "peace movement" (quite ironic considering India and Pakistan are on the verge of war), and the number zero (LOL) don't quite do it for me.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by trickey
where is canada. *ducks as rocks come flying throug the window from accrose the border*

This is a valid question considering that the Americans are considered a separate civilization and yet the Canadians are often overlooked.

I think that this is partly because Canada has long been within the influence of the British Empire and only since the end of World War II has gotten out of that only to move closer to the U.S.

Anyhow, the Brazilians are probably more likely to be ahead of the Canadians if more "modern" civilizations were to be added to any list.

[Rosacrux]

Originally posted by siredgar
Anyhow, please look up the word evidence and show me some if and when you can find it. Terribly sorry, but yoga, the "peace movement" (quite ironic considering India and Pakistan are on the verge of war), and the number zero (LOL) don't quite do it for me.

You consider the number "0" a minor invention? Yeah, right. Just shows how well the american education system works. Sorry, we are on a different level here.

Keep your ironic all-but-witty remarks to the time when your "civilization" shall stand in ruins... I presume that day isn't all that far.