Greatest Civiliztion in History

[Barnabas]

China, greece, roma, jews/hebrews/israelites

[Eli]

Eli, You still have 4 nominations.

I don't think any other civilization even comes close. Actually I'm not even sure if the Persians deserve to be on my list.

[Arrian]

Will,

Italy?? Rome I get. Italy? Explain.

I'll go with China, Rome, Egypt and Persia (although that last one depends on exactly how you define Persia, I suppose). These have, of course, already been nominated, as have most others that occur to me (India, England/UK, Mongols...).

I'm not entirely sure how "historical significance" is really separate and distinct from the other categories. A civs impact on history is likely due to its military, economic and cultural power, no?

So I vote against doubling the value of the category, and further suggest it be removed entirely.

4 finalists sounds right to me.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Will,

Italy?? Rome I get. Italy? Explain.

Something about Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Petrarch, Verdi, and a whole bunch of other fellas, Id imagine.

Or do we have to consider Venice, Florence, Genoa, etc all seperate civs? In which case we really mean "states"

[Arrian]

Nah, I think it's ok to consider the various Italian city states as the same, much like we might lump Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc. together and discuss "ancient Greece." Or talk of Germany before Bismark got 'round to putting Germany together into one state.

I'm not ragging on Italy. The various Italian states had quite a bit of economic power (which was at times transformed into military power) and cultural influence.

But up against Rome? China? Ancient Egypt?

It just stuck out.

-Arrian

[Will9]

Originally posted by Arrian
Will,

Italy?? Rome I get. Italy? Explain.

If you look at my catagories Italy does very good in many of them. The city-States even managed to keep decently sized armies despite their small size. The only catagory Italy do decently in Centraliztion.

I'll go with China, Rome, Egypt and Persia (although that last one depends on exactly how you define Persia, I suppose).

All already nominated. If think all incarnations of Persia should be included, say so.

I'm not entirely sure how "historical significance" is really separate and distinct from the other categories. A civs impact on history is likely due to its military, economic and cultural power, no?

So I vote against doubling the value of the category, and further suggest it be removed entirely.

4 finalists sounds right to me.

-Arrian

Just because a civ does good in all the other catagories, that doesn't mean it has much of a historical significance. The Maya are one example of this. If anyone else shares Arrians view on this plaese say so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Nah, I think it's ok to consider the various Italian city states as the same, much like we might lump Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc. together and discuss "ancient Greece." Or talk of Germany before Bismark got 'round to putting Germany together into one state.

I'm not ragging on Italy. The various Italian states had quite a bit of economic power (which was at times transformed into military power) and cultural influence.

But up against Rome? China? Ancient Egypt?

It just stuck out.

-Arrian

In terms of cultural significance, yeah. They virtually invented the modern "West". Every field of cultural endeavor, from science to art to music to literature to philosophy to architecture . They also invented many of the institutions of modern capitalism, as well as being huge traders themselves. And they invented alot of the techniques of modern warfare, and diplomacy. Now their period of maximum cultural dominance was relatively short (1300 or so to 1500) but theyd done important things both before and after.

[Arrian]

On the military power of Italian city-states... "for their size" is important. Are we, in this discussion, grading militaries on their relative or absolute power? Can the army of a city-state beat out, say, the Roman Empire in the military category?

Hmm... thinking more about "historical significance" LotM's comment on the relatively short period of Italian "cultural dominance" reminded me that staying power is one of the keys. Military, economic and cultural power PLUS staying power = major impact on History.

Anyway, the impact category just struck me as duplicative, because it seems to me to be the result of the other categories.

As for the Maya... I don't think they were a top-tier civ in the underlying categories (military/economic/cultural power). They get points for architecture, certainly. But ok, I agree that their impact on history (or lack thereof) is not completely captured in the underlying categories, because of their geographical isolation.

-Arrian

[Eli]

What's up with Egypt? It didn't have really significant influence on culture and it didn't have any empire to speak of. It's only merit is being among the first great powers. It can be easily argued Babylon and Assyria had more influence, they just didn't have enough surviving big monuments and therefore they are less prominent in the eyes of a modern observer.

[Arrian]

In my mind, they get bonus points for doing what they did so early on, keeping good records of it (another point for the catch-all "historical significance" category, I suppose ), and of course they score a 10/10 in architecture.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

staying power. So how long is Persian 'staying power', their period of cultural and poltical dominance is basically from 500 BC to 300 BC or so, and then a brief revival under the Sasanids (?), and then its basically their influence on later Islamic civ thats important. Compare that to the Italian Renaissance.


Italys political role isnt THAT short lived. They played a role during the crusades, the Genoese empire was powerful in the 14th c, played in the Balkans and the Med, and were still huge players at Lepanto in the late 16th c. Not to mention the huge role played by Genoese and other Italians in the Spanish empire.

[lord of the mark]

and how long was China really culturally creative? Or rather, China for most of its history was making marginal improvements on early themes, refining and commenting on the chinese classics, gradually modifying artistic and craft traditions. Italy invents as much as China, and concentrates it in a period of brief revolution. that Italy loses its dominance is precisely because its themes, and its incrediable dynamism, are passed on to some degree to direct imitators, in France, England, the Netherlands. Each of whom has a "brief" period of dominance.

Longevity necessarily a bias against the West, both because of the Wests dynamism (versus the conservativism of an Egypt or China) and the constant shifting of leadership among multiple "civilizations".

(remind me again, if the Italians invent, say, the sonnet, and the English keep it going, which "Civ" owns the sonnet. Or the Madrigal. How about French haute cuisine, directly transferred from North Italian cooking. Or Baroque architecture, or .........)

[Barnabas]

I have never been very interested in the english, but industrial revolution + newton + british empire may and spreading their langauge aroudn the globe, giving birth to the USA, unifying India etc etc, may deserve a top 4..

can I change my list?

by the way, I think 4 is a too small number

[Will9]

Originally posted by Barnabas
can I change my list?

The civs you nominated had already been nominated, so you you still have 4 to nominate.

[Barnabas]

Ah, I didnt understand

Well, I nomitate

Spain

Sumeria

And mayas