Which civ was the most powerful in all history?

[dexters]

All I want to say is I am somewhat amused by the ignorance shown by people here.

The answer is clear, the United States of America has the most powerful military force in history.

It's not about loyalty, or being patriotic to your own country, its a simple issue of numbers.

A single American carrier with its complement of Marines, and fighters/bombers can probably destroy the entire Roman , Chinese armies from the ancient Era.

It's not saying the Romans and the Chinese did not dominate in their time. They did. It's just that the Quality and Quantity of American military hardware allows it to cause damage unlike anything we've seen in human history.

[jasev]

Dexters, the spanish army (and it's absolutely pitiful) could easily beat roman, persia, chinese etc armies from the ancient era. That's not the question. We're talking about power, but relative to the age and to the neighbours, of course.
And not only about military power but also about cultural one. The romans conquered Wester and Southern Europe, Northern Africa and Eastern Asia; everywhere they went, they brought a cultural legacy. The roman roads, the buildings, the roman laws still remained when the romans left. The proof is that before Napoleon, almost every european code of laws was based on Roman Code. Napoleonic code was based on Roman Code too, and French, Spanish, Italian and German Codes (as I know) are based on Napoleonic. The cultural inheritance of the roman empire can also be seen on my own language, Spanish, as fas as on French, Italian, Romanian, Serbo-croatian and Portuguese.
Greece created the western civilization; Rome exported it to every corner of the known world; that civilization persisted when the romans left, and it is still there.

[dexters]

Jasev, and the rest

My apologies then for misreading the question. I agree, Rome , was, is and will always be the model for western civilization. Its influence on our collective imagination is unescapable. Paris, Berlin, London, Washington D.C. -- all great Capitals of western powers and even superficially you see the attempt to emulate Roman architecture in their public buildings. The Dome, the Roman columns. Yes, I agree, Rome is of superlative importance.


But the assertion still stands that the United States of America is still the most powerful even if we took each civilization in their historical context and not compare them over time.

No other civilization has had power on a global scale like we've seen with the Americans. Before you merry Ole English blow up on me and point out the extent of the British Empire, let me clarify my point.

1st, culturally, American culture, lifestyle, is highly desirable and emulated even in almost every country in the world (even those hostile to the United States) Even in countries like China--the world's most populous nation, Americans may be distrusted, but most regular Chinese admire what America stands for, its industrial strength, its cultural icons--best represented in the popularity of American movies in China and elsewhere. What we call Soft Power In fact, the Chinese word for the United States of America is Mei Kuo or Beautiful Country.

2nd Militarily, American military power is projected around the world, 24/7. The advent of the Carrier Battle Group has allowed America, as a REPUBLIC no, not an Empire, to pursue its interests and threaten would-be thugs as well as back-up allies of the United States.

3rd. In most respects, the great Empires of the past, including Japan, Germany, and especially Great Britian have essentially been integrated in support of American power. Britian in particular sees America still as an extension of its power. Like a proud parent, Britian is in almost all cases, on side with the United States, to the point where the two countries are essentially one. Australia, and Canada, both former colonies of Britain are also pretty much in this English speaking clique under the banner of the United States. Japan, while maintaing a safe distance, is America's hammer in the East. Despite is low profile, the Japanese Self-Defense force is a formidable force. The IJN- Imperial Japanese Navy is perhaps THE most capable force in South China sea. Economically, Japan, while in competition with America is part of the American economic bloc, along with Britain and Canada. These three countries along often go up AGAINST the rest of Europe in most issues.

4th American economic dominance is undisputed. A lot of anger towards globalization is the fact that many people see it as Americanization not Globalization, as America is at the head of this global trade enterprice. In terms of wealth, no Empire has matched what American economic dominance has been able to produce

5th Intangibles are strong. America is an idea. People like to call it an Empire, but it is very much arguable. Every country on this planet want to influence things around them to their advantage. It just so happens that the United States have the capacity to do it.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by dexters
My apologies then for misreading the question. I agree, Rome , was, is and will always be the model for western civilization. Its influence on our collective imagination is unescapable. Paris, Berlin, London, Washington D.C. -- all great Capitals of western powers and even superficially you see the attempt to emulate Roman architecture in their public buildings. The Dome, the Roman columns. Yes, I agree, Rome is of superlative importance.

I agree--Rome certainly has had a great influence on western culture, language, and architecture. But it's not the *greatest* influence on world culture, as I said before (and argued pretty well, I think)

But the assertion still stands that the United States of America is still the most powerful even if we took each civilization in their historical context and not compare them over time.

No other civilization has had power on a global scale like we've seen with the Americans. Before you merry Ole English blow up on me and point out the extent of the British Empire, let me clarify my point.

1st, culturally, American culture, lifestyle, is highly desirable and emulated even in almost every country in the world (even those hostile to the United States) Even in countries like China--the world's most populous nation, Americans may be distrusted, but most regular Chinese admire what America stands for, its industrial strength, its cultural icons--best represented in the popularity of American movies in China and elsewhere. What we call Soft Power In fact, the Chinese word for the United States of America is Mei Kuo or Beautiful Country.

This is absolutely true, I could hardly have said it better myself.

As for the Chinese, you must be one of those crazy Wade-Gilesing Hong Kongers or Taiwanese, because /here/, America is Meiguo

Great post!

[MrNett]

USA

Well, after reading many posts here, maybe I have to rethink my opinion about the most powerful civ. Or maybe not...

IMO it is not reasonable to argue that a nation is the most powerful/influential civ ever just because they are it now. Can you imagine how the situation was 150-200 years ago?! The British Empire had such a HUGE influence and impact to the rest of the world, without the help of modern communications!
To that times there was no other empire that was so powerful
like the British. There was no equal opponent regarding power, economy and influence!

Today the USA have equal opponents in several fields (for example economy: Germany, Japan! In military questions e.g. Russia or China!). Sure, the US have the modernest army of the world, but not necesseraly the most powerful.

As many people mentioned it before: Without the British imperialistic expansion the USA never would exist!
And English probably would not be the "world language".

If you want to argue that finally the USA carried out what was
started by the British empire I also could say that for example
Japan made the same in the last 50 years. And China is
starting to carry out the "american" model now, and much
quicker than the USA 100 years ago!

To avoid misunderstandings: I am a really BIG fan of the USA! I love California and the american way of life! I also "love" McDonalds, Coca Cola, and so on

I am only trying to argue in an objective and rational way.

Peace!

[Sun Zi 36]

"Sun Zi - you have a very narrowminded opinion of the definition of culture"

Maybe that is bcos i define culture with cultural aspects rather than politcal borders or nationalistic feelings. There are certainly more cultures in the world than countries. I understand that it would require a very broad veiw of culture indeed to define America as a cultural entity. Simply put, if it is a single culture then it is not a multiple of cultures, if it is a multiple of cultures then it is not a single culture.

"Distinctly American contributions to world culture:

Jazz.
No other country originated this musical form. You can say it was the product of transplanted African cultures, but you'd be missing the point; nowhere in Africa did this musical form exist. It's a product of the American experience, and American history. And it isn't restricted to the African American community....

The Blues/Gospel.

Again, distinctly and uniquely American .............................."

Why is the cultural contribution attributed to "Americans" as a whole rather than groups of people under a different title? U r still implying that America is a cultural entity before even first establishing it is. U are saying that it is "world culture" but at the same time "distinctly American", i think it is very inconsistent. U set out to answer my claims that Americans themselves do not share common culture but ended up talking about cultures shared by people around the world originated from a politcal entity called America. Just answer the question directly: does Americans share common culture distinct from other peoples at any point in time? If so what, is the aspect of culture distinctly shared by them? u will find it difficulty to answer in the affirmative.

"WW2 (1939-1945)- America didn't join in until the end of 1941 but never the less America was THE big power which broke the axis. Everyone knows enough about this one so we'll leave it alone."

Hahahaha, that is just classical American arrogance typically displayed by people who watched too much Hollywood movies. All they can think of is the greatness of their own country. They will just not accept that the main war- in Europe- was won by the USSR.

"2nd Militarily, American military power is projected around the world, 24/7. The advent of the Carrier Battle Group has allowed America, as a REPUBLIC no, not an Empire, to pursue its interests and threaten would-be thugs as well as back-up allies of the United States."

Please, do not twist logic in order to get to your conclusions. Are you trying to say that u expect Ancient Rome to be able to extend its influence all around the world, possess weapons that could destroy the world and economically affect the whole world in order to be classified as the most powerful in history?

"but most regular Chinese admire what America stands for, its industrial strength, its cultural icons--best represented in the popularity of American movies in China and elsewhere. What we call Soft Power In fact, the Chinese word for the United States of America is Mei Kuo or Beautiful Country."

Pls do not twist facts. America is called Mer Kuo bcos it translates to that pronounciation which in coincidence means Beautiful Country. "Mei" is just the short hand for the full translation.

[Martinus]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by IncreduloDriver

Aye, you're right, I should've said 1776 (the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was indisputably the first legal document in the history of the world to recognize unalienable human rights) instead of 1789--I apologize for my slip. 1789 was the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, which transformed the principles of the Declaration of Independence into the political system America still uses today. It is that system to which I refer when I say that America pioneered Democracy and proved to the world that it works. It is the unalienable human rights of Declaration of Independence to which I refer when I speak of cultural domination of the world. Only the combination of the two could've been so successful (a working democracy founded on unalienable human rights beats rights without democracy and democracy without rights), but they both continue to have significant impacts individually as well as jointly.

In case you didn't realize, the French Revolution was a consequence of the American Revolution. The French helped out the US quite a bit, and it emptied France's royal coffers. So, the French are running about helping America fight this war, meanwhile they're going backrupt, so they've got to raise taxes to compensate. This makes the starving French people even less happy. Meanwhile, the French intellectuals are saying, "Okay, we just helped these Americans fight for unalienable rights, but we don't have any ourselves! What's the deal with that?" This makes French people even less happy still. So, when the Revolution is in full swing, these intellectuals, who are enamored with the 1776 Declaration of Independence listing the unalienable rights of man, decide to incorporate those ideas into the First Republic. I realize that this is the "match box" summary of the French revolution (for space's sake), but let me ask you, if you didn't even know that much, what does that say about *your* grasp of European history?[quote]
Yes, I *do* know that. I was only attacking your point about 1789. Frankly speaking, not only the mistake you made, but a bit arrogant way you presented it in, convince me to respond.
Now, I would be grateful if you could refrain from putting words in my mouth and then challenging them - a tactic called as "strawman" is possible the most annoying of them all.

Yeah, as I already said, slavery existed in the US. Until 1865, no less. Doesn't change the fact that the US pioneered individual rights (the core of any decent definition of democracy), even if it wasn't fully consistent in its approach. Aside from that, a lack of racial slavery is not indicitive of possession of unalienable rights.

Well, you do it again, putting words in my mouth. Please stop.

The point I was trying to make was that the US corrected its terrible mistake. You missed it, I explained it. Case closed.

See supra

Aye, see above.

Ditto

If you really want to get technical here, a pocket Latin dictionary will tell you nothing of the phrase "ad hominem" other than to tell you that homo means man and ad means toward (plus the accusative, of course). I advise checking an English dictionary, and you'll see that a remark designed to rile a person's sense of patriotism instead of making a logical arguement is, in fact, an ad hominem arguement.

At best that could be called a snide remark. I certainly wasn't making an arguement with it, though.

Uhmm...not really, again. The "ad hominem" argument involves a direct (or indirect) attack on the dispute opponent personal characteristics, rather than his convictions/theses. You have done it quite clearly with your cereal remark.
Otoh, Serb's patriotical referrence constitutes more of an "ad populo" argument, which is basically, referrence to the emotions of the crowd/public.

Yes, I stated before that the Greek philosophy of reason and the Roman system of law form the foundation of American culture. Just as arithmatic and writing form the foundation of calculus. However, I'd hardly call the US a rehash of Greece or Rome anymore than I'd call calculus simply a rehash of arithmatic. The ideas America embodied weren't all invented in 1776 and 1789, but many of them were, and America was certainly the first country to implement them. You could say that America is a logical conclusion of the synthesis of Greek philosophy, Roman law, and John Locke's political philosophy, plus many new American ideas (seperation of powers, for instance), just as Calculus is the logical conclusion of the synthesis of many different fields of mathematics adapted to fit new environments. American culture *is* a new creation because it had never been done before. And that's why America is the dominant cultural influence today--because it was the first to reach that logical conclusion.

One correction again - US didn't invent separation of powers, only were first to introduce them. The theoretical invention goes to Monsieur Montesquie and Mr. Hume.

Now, to sum things up. You show certain level of historical knowledge - that I admit - which however far from perfect is satisfactory. As all, you make mistakes. However not the mistakes, but the arrogant way you deny them, while quite rudely attacking similar mistakes made by others makes this otherwise interesting discussion an annoying tedium. A grain of humility would be advisable - otherwise you could end up in this debate alone, putting fallacious words into your fictional opponents' mouths and then arguing with them. While certainly winning with oneself grants certain ego boost, it is kind of childish IMHO. Perhaps, though, this would change with age. Best wishes and thank you.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver


I agree--Rome certainly has had a great influence on western culture, language, and architecture. But it's not the *greatest* influence on world culture, as I said before (and argued pretty well, I think)

But neither US.
The point being it is impossible to quantify or even compare influence of US with that of Rome simply because the Roman influence no longer exist in a living form. Only when the US dominance falls in some time, we would be able to compare the two and see which one is higher.

Analogically, undoubtedly Roman influence was much greater than today in the times of the Roman Empire - simply because it existed. How far of the American influnce remains after its fall is a moot point at the moment.

[Keygen]

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

Who told you that the British invented Democracy?

Several ancient Greek cities, Rome, Arians (India) and several Italian cities of the middleage had Democracy long ago before the British got one.

Originally posted by Wulfram
Alexander wasn't greek, he was Macedonian and his empire didn't even last a decade.

Who told you that the ancient Macedonians weren't Greeks?

Most historians and archeologists claim that the Macedonians where Greeks.
Besides Greece was devided into several different tribes. One of them were the Macedonians.

Originally posted by Wulfram
The Romans had a very different culture to the Greeks even though they learnt from them after conquering them.

The Romans had a very different culture from the Greeks?

You must be joking! They did had several differences indeed but their civilization was based on the Greek civilization in elemental level.

Common man, your bookseller must have fooled you

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Martinus
Well, you do it again, putting words in my mouth. Please stop.

Regarding supposedly putting words in your mouth, especially about slavery: I didn't realize your comments regarding slavery had nothing to do with America and the recognition of individual rights. I had no idea that you were including those comments about European colonial abolition of slavery for no reason whatsoever, completely unrelated to my discussion on individual rights and the connection with American and world culture. From now on, I won't make any logical connections between your writings and the topic of discussion. Give me a break...

Uhmm...not really, again. The "ad hominem" argument involves a direct (or indirect) attack on the dispute opponent personal characteristics, rather than his convictions/theses.

Okay, I absolutely *hate* nearly pointless semantical arguements, but I'll bite. Here's the American Heritage's definition of "ad hominem," courtesy of Dictionary.com:

"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"

I'd certainly call an individual's pride a personal consideration. And I didn't see any logic in Serb's warrior people mini-rant.

You have done it quite clearly with your cereal remark.
Otoh, Serb's patriotical referrence constitutes more of an "ad populo" argument, which is basically, referrence to the emotions of the crowd/public.

The cereal remark was just a snide remark, which I then proceeded to support with a correction of Serb's facts. It is not an arguement. It's an assertion I backed up with logical arguement. That's certainly not an ad hom. All the same, I wouldn't call it "ad populo" since he's not trying to rile an entire people, just trying to hurt the pride of an individual.

That's all I'm going to say about this semantical silliness.

One correction again - US didn't invent separation of powers, only were first to introduce them. The theoretical invention goes to Monsieur Montesquie and Mr. Hume.

I'll concede the point that the American revolutionaries certainly did derive much influence from Montesquieu, but the seperation of powers was born of a practical necessity for a strong, federalist government after the failings of the Articles of Confederation. We could quibble about this for a long time, but I think it's unnecessary. Surely, you agree that the American system of government was unique? (This was one of my main points, in case you missed it.)

Now, to sum things up. You show certain level of historical knowledge - that I admit - which however far from perfect is satisfactory. As all, you make mistakes. However not the mistakes, but the arrogant way you deny them, while quite rudely attacking similar mistakes made by others makes this otherwise interesting discussion an annoying tedium.

Okay, this is just baseless. I admit my mistakes openly, and if it's an important mistake (which the 1776/1789 mistake certainly was not [see below]), I will concede defeat on a point. However, after correcting the mistake, rather than argue the point, you have done nothing. You have again told me I've made a mistake--which I freely admit, and have corrected with a reasonable explanation. So, would you like to argue it, or try to pass off a declaration of my arrogance as a rebuttal?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't see the irrelenvency of my 1776/1789 mistake. I could have, rather than simply concede the point and admit a mistake, argued quite successfully that, in 1789, America was the only country to adopt individual rights both de facto and de jure. It's the two of them together that really matter! (Throughout the PRC's existence, for example, it has recognized "freedom of speech" de jure, but not de facto. Thus, it meant nothing to 1 billion Chinese under Mao.) You'd have a very hard time defending the position that the First Republic vigorously enforced freedom of speech as the United States did.

A grain of humility would be advisable - otherwise you could end up in this debate alone, putting fallacious words into your fictional opponents' mouths and then arguing with them. While certainly winning with oneself grants certain ego boost, it is kind of childish IMHO. Perhaps, though, this would change with age. Best wishes and thank you.

I don't see how I can "put words into your mouth" by clarifying my position. That simply doesn't make sense. Two of the accusations you made against me were for just that--clarifying my own position. An a crafty pre-emptive arguement on my part--making sure you wouldn't argue that the French Revolution had nothing to do with America. And, as I said, it was only "In case you didn't realize." If you did, great, we're both on the same page.

The only words I've "put into your mouth" have been the most direct, logical conclusions of your statements. Don't get mad at me because you don't like the logical conclusions of YOUR statements, please! Find one place in all my posts where I misrepresented your position through no fault of your own and then attacked it (straw manned it--I agree, terribly annoying), and I'll apologize to you immediately. Nota bene, however, that it's *really* difficult for me to misrepresent your arguments since you've made almost none, and most of the assertions in this discussion have been from me. (You've got to do your part--present a solid case *against* American cultural dominance!)

Now, let me summarize my arguements in one brief paragraph. Feel free to rebute any of my *actual arguements,* which I've already made in previous posts. (FYI--correcting a technicality does not constitute refuting a logical arguement--if I left out a period, forgot a comma, or made an inconsequential mistake, the essential point still must be answered.) I'd be more than happy to respond in a reasonable way.

The signing of the Declaration of Independence reflected the uniquely American view of unalienable individual rights. As the cornerstone of American culture, it eventually spread throughout the entire civilized world. The signing and ratification of the Constitution of the United States transformed the concept of individual rights into a working government which proved to the world that a government based on unalienable individual rights was, indeed, possible. These two American creations--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America--spwaned from a culture of freedom and equality, have been the greatest force of change in the history of the world.

I challenge you or anyone to make a decent arguement against my points. Use any combination of logic and empirical evidence you can muster--but please, don't get hung up on pointless technicalities. Correct any you find--I'll be quite glad if you do--but make an arguement, too!

And, by the way, I argue with myself all the time, I just don't do it in public forums. And it's certainly not for an "ego boost," at least in the sense in which you mean it.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Martinus
Analogically, undoubtedly Roman influence was much greater than today in the times of the Roman Empire - simply because it existed. How far of the American influnce remains after its fall is a moot point at the moment.

American influence has spread to every civilized country and then some. That's a lot more than the Romans could ever have hoped to achieve.

When the banner of freedom no longer flies over America, that'll be a terrible day, not only for Americans, but for the rest of the world. Once America submits to tyranny, the rest of the world will soon follow (if it hadn't already).

[Martinus]

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver


American influence has spread to every civilized country and then some. That's a lot more than the Romans could ever have hoped to achieve.

[/b]
You cannot make such a comparison simply because the level of communication is glaringly different. Romans could have not spread their influence to Australia, however they had tried, simply because they had no technical measure to do so.

This, however, doesn't say a lot about the importance of the cultural influence they were spreading. You have to compare things in their context.

When the banner of freedom no longer flies over America, that'll be a terrible day, not only for Americans, but for the rest of the world. Once America submits to tyranny, the rest of the world will soon follow (if it hadn't already).

Ok, so according to your definition it is an "ad hominem" argument, as you refer to emotions.

When 1700 years will pass from this tragic day though, we will be able to compare whatever is left of the Roman and American cultural impact, respectively.

[Dauphin]

When the banner of freedom no longer flies over America, that'll be a terrible day, not only for Americans, but for the rest of the world. Once America submits to tyranny, the rest of the world will soon follow (if it hadn't already).

Very Americo-centric self involvement.

When Germany fell to tyranny it was sad day, but the rest of the world was able to overcome. So if the US became tyrannical, we would unite in our fervant opposition to the US and slay it with all our might.

(I think we are doing that now anyway )

Alternatively when Russia and China both fell to tyranny did the rest of the world follow them into the abyss. No.

[dexters]

Sigh,

well, I suppose I'll descend into self glorified patriotic gibberish as the rest of you.


In anycase, historians in the future may see the entire western civilization as a movement of Roman life from Rome, to the rest of barbarian Europe and from Europe to the new world. It can be argued that Rome still lives, and I would argue the Roman empire is still very much alive. What matters is not the historical landmass Rome once occupied, but its influence. And if you see the Roman Empire not as a people (Italians) or a country (Italy) or a city (Rome) you see that the Roman Empire is still around, its called the the West. This includes Western Europe, and the United States.

For those of you who know how to use big words, you'll know so much of spoken English is infact derivative of Latin. Heck, my name is a Latin word.

And as for the resentment over American power, its understandable. Everyone wants the top spot, and they take pot shots about American Hegemony, or America not being all the power when they aren't there yet. But we all know they are gunning for that spot. The anger displayed really goes to show that people are just sticking to their cultural biases. They don't care about facts, they just want to feel good about their own. Perfectly understanble, but we shouldn't take their rants seriously either.

And lastly, someone made a remark earlier that America cannot be defined as a culture because it has a multiple of cultures in its borders. I beg to disagree.

In the East, as they embrace their new found prosperity and a modern way of life, we see the culture adapting. We refer to it as Chinese culture in the modern era, Islamic culture in the modern era. Most nation states in the world have a pre-established culture that is adapting to modern life. The American culture is decidely different. It is not adapting so much as it is evolving and in many ways, it is setting the pace for the change in the world. The cultures that have come to its borders are influencing its culture, and American music, Jazz, is infact created by a process of hybridizing culture. It is difficult to explain without going into a long descriptive post I'm sure no one will read. Suffice to say American culture isn't better than the rest of the world, but it is different. Where the rest of the world is adapting, Americans are evolving, because American culture is infact progress itself. It does not hold on to past traditions as fervently as other civilizations, because the tradition it does hold on to is change. And that is the strength of America's cultural power.

[Jayis Solis]

We can banter about power transition theory and long cycle theory and all sorts of "hegemony" arguments, but what it amounts to is, imho, the very thing that denies an empire greatness-- the inability to see and incorporate the contributions of other societies.

We can scream USA, USA until we are red, white, and blue in the face and we can hold the Romans on some high pedastal, and extol the virtues of your "country xyz" that is better than so and so's.

And you know what, good for you for feeling that way, no matter what your view, pretty cool that you can share it in an open forum where you can be praised or chided by your peers. The concept of democracy and free speech, to my knowledge, first came into being in the Athenian city-state.