What are the greatest civilizations of all time?

siredgar · May 4, 2002, 03:10

Here is my list (in some kind of order):

1. English (Europe)
2. Chinese (Asia)
3. Romans (Europe)
4. Americans (Americas)
5. French (Europe)
6. Spanish (Europe)
7. Russians (Europe-Asia)
8. Egyptians (Africa)
9. Babylonians (Asia)
10. Germans (Europe)
11. Arabs (Asia)
12. Greeks (Europe)
13. Indians (Asia)
14. Japanese (Asia)
15. Portuguese (Europe)
16. Dutch (Europe)
17. Koreans (Asia)
18. Persians (Asia)
19. Turks (Asia-Europe)
20. Phoenicians (Asia-Europe-Africa)
21. Mongols (Asia)
22. Assyrians (Asia)
23. Vikings (Europe)
24. Inca (Americas)
25. Khmer (Asia)
26. Mayans (Americas)
27. Ethiopians (Africa)
28. Polish (Europe)
29. Malians (Africa)
30. Celts (Europe)
31. Aztecs (Americas)
32. Huns (Europe)

P.S. I reserve the right to change my mind at any time because I only took five minutes to make this list.

Dauphin · May 4, 2002, 11:02

England #1!

Damn the political correctness of the Victorians (and the requirement of calling it the British Empire.)

Coracle · May 4, 2002, 23:46

You have the Greeks too low. Hellenic influence was IMMENSE.

Phoenicians includes Carthage, I assume.

siredgar · May 5, 2002, 00:00

Originally posted by Coracle
You have the Greeks too low. Hellenic influence was IMMENSE.

Phoenicians includes Carthage, I assume.

Perhaps, but I do not believe that I am underestimating the influence of the Greeks. After all, I am also taking into account territorial expansion, too. All of the civilizations ranked higher than the Greeks (and some that were even ranked lower) had conquered more territory.

siredgar · May 5, 2002, 00:04

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
England #1!

Damn the political correctness of the Victorians (and the requirement of calling it the British Empire.)

Well, I was debating on whether to call them the British, but decided against it for several reasons:

1. They are called the English in Civ 3.

2. The English conquered the Scots, Welsh, and Irish and then formed the British Empire.

3. It is English not British that is the world's universal language.

4. Most of the important rulers and leaders of the British Empire were English.

Drake Tungsten · May 5, 2002, 02:04

Originally posted by siredgar
4. Most of the important rulers and leaders of the British Empire were English.

What about the Tudors? Or the Stuarts? Or the house of Windsor? A suprisingly large number of English monarchs have not actually been English...

If you're talking about PM's, OTOH, I'll agree with you.

Dauphin · May 5, 2002, 06:16

There have been many more French and German descent monarchs of England. The fact the Tudors were of Welsh or Stuarts Scottish descent is not that important.

Drake Tungsten · May 5, 2002, 06:48

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
There have been many more French and German descent monarchs of England. The fact the Tudors were of Welsh or Stuarts Scottish descent is not that important.

I'm well aware of this. Siredgar's post, however, mentioned the Scots and the Welsh specifically, so I figured that the Stuarts and the Tudors would be good examples.

Dauphin · May 5, 2002, 07:22

Despite being descended from many various nationals, the Royal family is still full of inbreds.

KrazyHorse · May 5, 2002, 08:15

Originally posted by Coracle
You have the Greeks too low. Hellenic influence was IMMENSE

Agreed. And why are the Egyptians so high up? Their ancient culture had remarkably little impact on the rest of the world, and in more modern times they were swallowed up by Arabs.

KrazyHorse · May 5, 2002, 08:17

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
There have been many more French and German descent monarchs of England. The fact the Tudors were of Welsh or Stuarts Scottish descent is not that important.

The fact that the Stuarts were from Scotland was supremely important in your history.

Boris Godunov · May 5, 2002, 10:23

Originally posted by siredgar

Perhaps, but I do not believe that I am underestimating the influence of the Greeks. After all, I am also taking into account territorial expansion, too. All of the civilizations ranked higher than the Greeks (and some that were even ranked lower) had conquered more territory.

What?! Alexander's Empire was far larger than anything conquered by the Egyptians or Babylonians, and Greek historical and cultural influence was far greater than them as well. Remember, much of Rome's culture was built on Greek foundations. And it was a revival of interest in Greek classical works that developed in the European Renaissance, which in turn lead to European worldwide cultural dominance.

Boris Godunov · May 5, 2002, 10:24

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Agreed. And why are the Egyptians so high up? Their ancient culture had remarkably little impact on the rest of the world, and in more modern times they were swallowed up by Arabs.

I certainly wouldn't put the Egyptians higher than the Greeks, Arabs or Germans.

Boris Godunov · May 5, 2002, 10:27

Oh yeah...and the Celts should be higher. Remember that prior to the Roman Empire, Celtic culture spanned across all of Western and Central Europe.

jdd2007 · May 5, 2002, 12:54

babylonians in the top ten?

i think they should be in the top 25 or 20, but ranking them over greeks, arabs and japanese does not make sense. the one great contribution to the world from the babs was the Code of Hammurabi. i agree with everyone else about the greeks. the great minds of the ancient world were all greek until the romans came along and built upon the greek foundation.

two civs that could be in there are the hebrews/israelis and the scots.

i think that the french should be a little lower, as well as the egyptians, but overall i think that is a pretty accurate. its hard to compare civilizations that have left their impressions on history in different ages and in different ways.

for example, the mongols were overwhelmingly militaristic.

Whoha · May 5, 2002, 15:06

yea its kinda subjective, remember, that is his list not yours.

Dauphin · May 5, 2002, 18:05

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The fact that the Stuarts were from Scotland was supremely important in your history.

Not in the context of Anglicising the world. Unless you believe that without the Scottish the English would not have spread across the globe.

jdd2007 · May 5, 2002, 18:26

i understand that it is his list. i was just stating what changes i would make in my list

KrazyHorse · May 5, 2002, 18:47

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Not in the context of Anglicising the world. Unless you believe that without the Scottish the English would not have spread across the globe.

Maybe it's not the only factor, but uniting the crowns was an important step in freeing up resources for colonisation and Imperial wars...

Dauphin · May 5, 2002, 18:54

The uniting of the crowns was important in the development of a United Kingdom (obviously), but the same result would have happened if the Scottish throne had been inherited by an English King as opposed to the English throne being inherited by a Scottish King.(?)

KrazyHorse · May 5, 2002, 18:56

True, but the other way around would have been harder to accomplish. With an Anglicised Scots king the Scottish were able to say that they were in charge while the English kept their mouths shut and laughed all the way to the bank.

Amesjustin · May 5, 2002, 19:11

The Atlanteans???

siredgar · May 5, 2002, 21:38

Yes, your comments are valid and appreciated. I was wrong about British rulers being mostly English. There is a lot of German blood, etc. I guess I was thinking mostly of PM's.

Based on your comments and some further thought, here is my second draft:

1. English (Europe)
2. Chinese (Asia)
3. Romans (Europe)
4. Americans (Americas)
5. French (Europe)
6. Spanish (Europe)
7. Russians (Europe-Asia)
8. Greeks (Europe)
9. Germans (Europe)
10. Arabs (Asia)
11. Portuguese (Europe)
12. Japanese (Asia)
13. Egyptians (Africa)
14. Indians (Asia)
15. Persians (Asia)
16. Dutch (Europe)
17. Babylonians (Asia)
18. Koreans (Asia)
19. Turks (Asia-Europe)
20. Phoenicians (Asia-Europe-Africa)
21. Mongols (Asia)
22. Assyrians (Asia)
23. Vikings (Europe)
24. Celts (Europe)
25. Inca (Americas)
26. Khmer (Asia)
27. Mayans (Americas)
28. Ethiopians (Africa)
29. Aztecs (Americas)
30. Malians (Africa)
31. Polish (Europe)
32. Huns (Europe)

Please feel free to put up your own lists, too.

Serb · May 6, 2002, 07:05

Originally posted by siredgar
What are the greatest civilizations of all time?

Well, well, well. They closed your favorite "Stop the America bashing" so you decided to start it again? Good.

Too bad it was closed before I could reply to your insult in one of your last post. (About how Russia can't feed itself)
So, I'll do it here if you don't mind.

* WARNING * All the text below is just a trolling, bashing, provocation and my personal revenge to siredgar.

Ok, English, Chinese and Romans at least I could understand (I wonder that you never heard about the Alexander and his military conquests), BUT who is number 4 in your list? What type of civilization it is? You've made a question about greatest CIVILIZATIONS of all times, not about the greatest bunch of arrogant rednecks of all times (you take the pize for sure).
To be more glorious civilization then say Greeks or Indians you need something more then 300 years of history. You may be a pretty powerfull country during last years, but you suck as civilization even in compare with Aztecs or Incas.

*The end of trolling*

*Super Herecy* The West is suck, Russia Forever!!!

Have a nice day.

Drake Tungsten · May 6, 2002, 10:11

Russia doesn't belong at number 7, Siredgar. How can you put them ahead of the Greeks, when so much of Russian culture is based on Byzantine influence? The Russians don't belong ahead of the Mongols either, as the Mongols conquered Russia quite easily back in their day. And how do you explain Russia being ahead of the Vikings, when the Vikings were the ones who created a Russian civilization? Russian don't deserve to be any higher than the Vikings, so 24th is a generous position for them to occupy. I'd drop them out of the top 25 altogether as punishment for the types of posters they have unleashed upon the internet.

Ribannah · May 6, 2002, 10:50

I'd put Russia a lot lower than Siredgar, too.
And Spanish and Portuguese ahead of the Dutch? No way!
Some remarkable omissions IMHO are the Hebrews, the Polynesians and of course the Iroquois

siredgar · May 6, 2002, 11:49

Drake,
The influence of the Russians has been on a global scale. They helped propogate communism in dozens of countries all over the world and threatened capitalism's advance and even global peace for that matter. They have also had the largest amount of territory in the world by far for the past few hundred years. Their empire extends from the Baltic Sea to the Sea of Japan. They still rule many peoples. Despite their weaknesses now, they are still a major power and exert heavy political, economic, and military influence, especially in surrounding nations. In addition, many Russians have made significant contributions to science, literature, philosophy, music, and the arts. While the Greeks had a glorious civilization, it was still relatively small and had only regional influence. Anyhow, it's not so much a matter of who learned from who, but what you do with that knowledge. That's why the Romans are ahead of the Greeks and the Japanese are ahead of the Koreans. I do feel, however, that the Russians as a group had a net negative impact on global affairs despite the many accomplishments of individuals.

Ribannah,
Perhaps the Iroquois can replace the Huns in spot #32. I am strongly in favor of putting the Spanish and the Portuguese ahead of the Dutch, however. Both have strong cultural influence over Latin America and parts of Africa and Asia. Their voyages opened the eyes of Europe to the rest of the world, leading to the age of European colonialism and domination. The Dutch are already high up there for a sub-civilization. Some would include them with either the Germans or Scandinavians. I feel differently. Anyhow, they are still considered a relatively small civilization even though they had some great achievements and built a significant empire. This is because the remnants of Dutch influence is not strong today, even in places like South Africa where the British influence has overtaken.

Dauphin · May 6, 2002, 12:09

They have also had the largest amount of territory in the world by far for the past few hundred years.

Alaska is by far the largest state in the US, but I doubt it is that important in the US. The same with Russia, it is a large land mass, but most of that land is inhospitable.

According to your list 8 out of the top 11 are European civs. That is a lot for such a small place. Africa, the Americas and Asia are far larger.

Quality not quantity is the key.