Greatest & Most Influential Civilization

[Fairy In Boots]

2 hours ago, Harvsky said:

As inhabitants I'm not sure the Romans left much in Britain apart from the old A1   

Their cultural influence seems more reimported from Irish monks in Iona and Lindesfarne and by intellectuals love affair with Roman literature.

Certainly the infrastructure had an effect, the various kingdoms that came and went after they withdrew centrered around the cities they founded the roads they built. 

Plus let’s not forget that they smashed the indigenous beliefs and paved the way for Christianity which they themselves controlled well into the Elizabethan era. One of defining factors against the Vikings was Christianity being a somewhat unifying factor for the Saxon kingdoms. 

That’s had a big effect on everything our education, law, culture etc stemmed from the  Holy Roman Empire & eventually the papacy. 

One of Rome’s greatest attributes and indeed all the great civilisations attributes was the absorbing of new better methods from vassal states within their dominance. Seems silly but Romans got soap from the Celts. 

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Certainly the infrastructure had an effect, the various kingdoms that came and went after they withdrew centrered around the cities they founded the roads they built. 

Plus let’s not forget that they smashed the indigenous beliefs and paved the way for Christianity which they themselves controlled well into the Elizabethan era. One of defining factors against the Vikings was Christianity being a somewhat unifying factor for the Saxon kingdoms. 

That’s had a big effect on everything our education, law, culture etc stemmed from the  Holy Roman Empire & eventually the papacy. 

One of Rome’s greatest attributes and indeed all the great civilisations attributes was the absorbing of new better methods from vassal states within their dominance. Seems silly but Romans got soap from the Celts. 

Perhaps on the infrastructure front, but perhaps not. The infrastructure left behind became ran down, to the point where there were next to no stone buildings and no stone masonry in use in Britain from a couple of centuries after the fall of Rome until the Normans brought architects and expertise. The tribes, the Angli, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Vikings that all followed were living in a very different settlement type. The locations were often the same but perahps because of the land and rivers. Roman fortifications along the Tyne were in different locations to that chosen by the Angli and the Normans. In York for example the Roman settlements were beneath the Viking rather than used by them. The stone of Hadrian's Wall was picked away for purposes that would be so inferior as to vanish.

My point in relation to everything you mention after the first paragraph is that this was all brought back rather than left here. Christianity in Britain today was the result of Irish monks. The Angli people's were converted by Aidan under King Oswald. The Vikings were converted by the descendents of the Angli settlers.

[Fairy In Boots]

18 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

Perhaps on the infrastructure front, but perhaps not. The infrastructure left behind became ran down, to the point where there were next to no stone buildings and no stone masonry in use in Britain from a couple of centuries after the fall of Rome until the Normans brought architects and expertise. The tribes, the Angli, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Vikings that all followed were living in a very different settlement type. The locations were often the same but perahps because of the land and rivers. Roman fortifications along the Tyne were in different locations to that chosen by the Angli and the Normans. In York for example the Roman settlements were beneath the Viking rather than used by them. The stone of Hadrian's Wall was picked away for purposes that would be so inferior as to vanish.

My point in relation to everything you mention after the first paragraph is that this was all brought back rather than left here. Christianity in Britain today was the result of Irish monks. The Angli people's were converted by Aidan under King Oswald. The Vikings were converted by the descendents of the Angli settlers.

Hang on Christianity had a beach head before Oswald who was only an Northumbrian King anyway. St Albans’s is a English martyr from 300 something AD I believe, you’re correct it kicked on with Columba and other Irish priests afterwards but that was at the behest of Rome. 

England didn’t really unite until the Normans anyway and you are correct they did bring improved building skills. I meant that the Saxons used the infrastructure and built on top of Roman settlements. York I class as Viking to be honest

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Hang on Christianity had a beach head before Oswald who was only an Northumbrian King anyway. St Albans’s is a English martyr from 300 something AD I believe, you’re correct it kicked on with Columba and other Irish priests afterwards but that was at the behest of Rome. 

England didn’t really unite until the Normans anyway and you are correct they did bring improved building skills. I meant that the Saxons used the infrastructure and built on top of Roman settlements. York I class as Viking to be honest

St Alban was of Roman Britain era. The Romans brought Christianity but it appears to have disappeared. In the dark ages following the withdrawal of the Roman army, the hierarchy and society of the Romans that remained collapsed and seems to have been consumed by pagan tribes by the time the next settlers came to do battle. 

Northumbria at its peak ran from the forth to the humber. The first large kingdom of that era and intellectually advanced area, no secluded small fry. Lindesfarne became the base for missionary work across the whole of the east and south east due to common language and race. From tales the new settlers encountered pagan forces in the west and Wales so they were probably converted by missionaries and invasions from the east at a later date.

York was a Northumbrian stronghold before the Vikings. As the kingdom was weakening it lost from the Forth to the Tweed to the Scots tribe (which is why Scotland speaks English and its capital has an Anglo-Saxon name) and the Tees to the Humber was lost to the Viking settlers.

Eng in England and English means Angli, land of the Angli, language of the Angli. The Angli are specifically the settlers down the east from Lothian to Norwich. Their intellectual reach over the island is substantial.

[Fairy In Boots]

22 hours ago, Harvsky said:

St Alban was of Roman Britain era. The Romans brought Christianity but it appears to have disappeared. In the dark ages following the withdrawal of the Roman army, the hierarchy and society of the Romans that remained collapsed and seems to have been consumed by pagan tribes by the time the next settlers came to do battle. 

Northumbria at its peak ran from the forth to the humber. The first large kingdom of that era and intellectually advanced area, no secluded small fry. Lindesfarne became the base for missionary work across the whole of the east and south east due to common language and race. From tales the new settlers encountered pagan forces in the west and Wales so they were probably converted by missionaries and invasions from the east at a later date.

York was a Northumbrian stronghold before the Vikings. As the kingdom was weakening it lost from the Forth to the Tweed to the Scots tribe (which is why Scotland speaks English and its capital has an Anglo-Saxon name) and the Tees to the Humber was lost to the Viking settlers.

Eng in England and English means Angli, land of the Angli, language of the Angli. The Angli are specifically the settlers down the east from Lothian to Norwich. Their intellectual reach over the island is substantial.

Northumbria was overun and held onto longest by the Vikings after the initial invasion. Mercia & Wessex had similar periods of dominance with Wessex being the later that eventually became England. I’m detecting a bit of North Eastern Bias here mate 

I’m not disputing Lindasfarne was a huge cultural significance to Christianity in the UK but even that must have been governed by Rome & the papacy.

Christianity was here before the Anglo Saxon kingdoms anyway, there was a significant amount of Christianity that existed in Roman Britain, most celts who lived in those areas and who were the indigenous population would have been Christian. Before being forced into the corners they now inhabit were when they battled the Anglo Saxon invaders who were pagan. By the time the Vikings came the Saxons had settled and had mostly converted which I agree was done via Kent & Northumbria. 

Canterbury was the initial dioceses of St Augustine and it was reintroduced to the pagan Saxons from there. It didn’t go away in sub roman Britain it just wasn’t dominant because Saxons were driving the indigenous population who’s own pagan beliefs had been smashed by the Romans off the land. 

Thats my point the Romans cleared the competing ideology originally and when another ideology filled the vacuum because of migration they set about converting that ideology also. I attribute Christianity in the U.K. to the Romans because of that, they may have used Irish, Brits etc but those individuals were acting at Rome’s behest. 

[Honey Honey]

20 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Northumbria was overun and held onto longest by the Vikings after the initial invasion. Mercia & Wessex had similar periods of dominance with Wessex being the later that eventually became England. I’m detecting a bit of North Eastern Bias here mate 

I’m not disputing Lindasfarne was a huge cultural significance to Christianity in the UK but even that must have been governed by Rome & the papacy.

Christianity was here before the Anglo Saxon kingdoms anyway, there was a significant amount of Christianity that existed in Roman Britain, most celts who lived in those areas and who were the indigenous population would have been Christian. Before being forced into the corners they now inhabit were when they battled the Anglo Saxon invaders who were pagan. By the time the Vikings came the Saxons had settled and had mostly converted which I agree was done via Kent & Northumbria. 

Canterbury was the initial dioceses of St Augustine and it was reintroduced to the pagan Saxons from there. It didn’t go away in sub roman Britain it just wasn’t dominant because Saxons were driving the indigenous population who’s own pagan beliefs had been smashed by the Romans off the land. 

Thats my point the Romans cleared the competing ideology originally and when another ideology filled the vacuum because of migration they set about converting that ideology also. I attribute Christianity in the U.K. to the Romans because of that, they may have used Irish, Brits etc but those individuals were acting at Rome’s behest. 

The Viking arrival on the scene is well over a century after Northumbrian cultural dominance. Northumbria had largely weakened and divided off before then with many incompetent King's, even Bede is long dead before the Vikings first raid.

The Romans cannot have cleared the competing ideology because we know that the resistance to the first large wave migrants (the Northumbrians) is from a large pagan force from Wales, the West and the Midlands. They march to drive the new settlers out in numerous big battles. 

There are some theories why the new settlers do not encounter Christianity or any semblance of Roman sophistication. One of which is that during the 1 or 2 centuries between Roman rule and the arrival of the new settlers is that a plague devastes the country and destroys the left over Roman power. Once the Roman army is withdrawn Celtic culture somehow comes back to the fore. That might shed some light on how the Romans ruled Briton, that rather than an ethnic and religious clearing they ruled by doing deals with the locals within their borders and those on the otherside of their frontier. Much like the British Empire's rule. Even Hadrian's wall is now believed to not be about keeping invaders out but marking a frontier to control trade and divide and conquering the people's on either side. 

[Guest]

On 17/7/2018 at 12:46, The Artful Dodger said:

The South American civilisations like the Incas and Mayas are fascinating but sadly I think they have largely been marginalised in the modern world.

The Incas were much later. Really there are only 5 empires that come to mind for me

Greek, Romans, Japanese, Chinese and Egypt.

[The Artful Dodger]

Just now, Blue said:

The Incas were much later. Really there are only 5 empires that come to mind for me

Greek, Romans, Japanese, Chinese and Egypt.

I didn't say they were at the same time.

[Guest]

Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

I didn't say they were at the same time.

I know, but I was just stating. I'm very proud of my countries history but we did come at a much later time given everything here at least written was AD. 

My opinion is that Japan is the oldest civilization but I wouldn't say the most "influential"

[Dr. Gonzo]

How many languages are Latin based? Italian, Spanish, and French. Portuguese too, right? English is like a mix of Germanic & Romantic right? That surely has to count under the Roman's influence doesn't it?

[RandoEFC+]

I've heard good things about Civilization 5 and it was Civ 2 which really got me into the series when I was younger, so could arguably be the most influential, but Civilization 4 was the one I sunk the most hours into, and I even still have it installed on my laptop, so it has to be that one for me.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, RandoEFC said:

I've heard good things about Civilization 5 and it was Civ 2 which really got me into the series when I was younger, so could arguably be the most influential, but Civilization 4 was the one I sunk the most hours into, and I even still have it installed on my laptop, so it has to be that one for me.

Civ 4 was class.

[SirBalon]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How many languages are Latin based? Italian, Spanish, and French. Portuguese too, right? English is like a mix of Germanic & Romantic right? That surely has to count under the Roman's influence doesn't it?

There's also a big influence of Greek in ancient Latin and subsequently modern Latin and its derivatives we have today.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, SirBalon said:

There's also a big influence of Greek in ancient Latin and subsequently modern Latin and its derivatives we have today.

Yeah, I think if it's not the Romans then it's probably the Greeks, as they influenced the Romans so heavily in so many regards.

However thanks to @RandoEFC now all I can think about is playing Civ 4 and trying not to piss Gandhi off so he won't kill me in one of the petty wars he ends up starting.

[RandoEFC+]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah, I think if it's not the Romans then it's probably the Greeks, as they influenced the Romans so heavily in so many regards.

However thanks to @RandoEFC now all I can think about is playing Civ 4 and trying not to piss Gandhi off so he won't kill me in one of the petty wars he ends up starting.

Gandhi was a soft cunt. It was Montezuma and Tokugawa that you had to look out for.

Not to mention Genghis Khan if you played Beyond The Sword too.

[SirBalon]

 

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

trying not to piss Gandhi off so he won't kill me in one of the petty wars he ends up starting.

[Spike]

On 7/13/2018 at 09:48, Dr. Gonzo said:

The Romans.

1. Architecture, most obvious example - the aqueduct 

2. Roads

3. Concrete

4. Stole a lot of Ancient Greek culture, including political and philosophical thinking and were responsible for spreading that around Europe; then further economic and political development on that

5. Books

There’s a lot more too.

Hellenic. Philipp II of Macedon's hard on for the southern-Hellene's culture and military tactics, led to Alexander conquering 'the known world' opening up trade routes, languages, cultures, cities(!!!) and religions, from modern Greece to India. Without the whirlwind of Alexander's conquests, and his father's Hellenophilism the world would be completely different. There is no ~10 year span that has affected the world more. The funny thing is that before Phillipp II, the Macedonians were more 'babarian' than 'Hellene'.

36 minutes ago, Blue said:

I know, but I was just stating. I'm very proud of my countries history but we did come at a much later time given everything here at least written was AD. 

My opinion is that Japan is the oldest civilization but I wouldn't say the most "influential"

Most ancient Japanese culture is derived from pre-existing Korean and Chinese traditions that developed in a vacuum on their island. Think of the Galapogos Islands and how two birds started out as the same creature and deviated from their origins. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Gandhi was a soft cunt. It was Montezuma and Tokugawa that you had to look out for.

Not to mention Genghis Khan if you played Beyond The Sword too.

I had one save where Gandhi was a dangerous lunatic and Montezuma was surprisingly not a problem at all. In another game, I had a problem where Gandhi's India actually fucking liked me for once... but literally everyone else hated them. So if I traded with India everyone would get pissed off with me. Truly irritating.

I think the first time I played though I couldn't understand why Montezuma was such a brutal cunt.

[RandoEFC+]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I had one save where Gandhi was a dangerous lunatic and Montezuma was surprisingly not a problem at all. In another game, I had a problem where Gandhi's India actually fucking liked me for once... but literally everyone else hated them. So if I traded with India everyone would get pissed off with me. Truly irritating.

I think the first time I played though I couldn't understand why Montezuma was such a brutal cunt.

You ever read about the guy who continued his Civ 2 save for literal years? Interesting read:

https://www.pcgamer.com/ten-year-game-of-civ-2-results-in-hellish-nightmare-planet-permanent-nuclear-war/

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

You ever read about the guy who continued his Civ 2 save for literal years? Interesting read:

https://www.pcgamer.com/ten-year-game-of-civ-2-results-in-hellish-nightmare-planet-permanent-nuclear-war/

 

Can you imagine a world in a state of permanent nuclear war? Mental. Also hilarious.

[Spike]

In the scope of the 'Anglosphere' their are certain figures more influential than others. Oliver Cromwell (English!), Edward the Confessor (Anglo-Saxon), Guillaume le Conquérant (Norman), are just a few 'watershed' individuals whose direct or indirect influence has shaped half the world.

I feel this probably best broken down into 'regions'. For instance for West-Europe - The Romans, Central-Europe - Germans, Southern-Europe - Greeks, North-West-Africa - The Moors, East-Asia - The Hans, Central Asia - Persians, etc.

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

In the scope of the 'Anglosphere' their are certain figures more influential than others. Oliver Cromwell (English!), Edward the Confessor (Anglo-Saxon), Guillaume le Conquérant (Norman), are just a few 'watershed' individuals whose direct or indirect influence has shaped half the world.

I feel this probably best broken down into 'regions'. For instance for West-Europe - The Romans, Central-Europe - Germans, Southern-Europe - Greeks, North-West-Africa - The Moors, East-Asia - The Hans, Central Asia - Persians, etc.

Central Asia, even though I'm Persian, I'd probably say the Arabs of the Islamic Golden Age were the most influential civilization. Granted, they were influenced by the Persians they had conquered. But the Islamic Golden Age was noted for a hell of a lot of influential schools of thought/advancements/whatever-the-fuck that still live on.

It's really hard to categorically state "which is the most influential" when you've got one culture making a marked influence on another culture, who will then go influence another culture, which will then influence other cultures.

This discussion also highlights how people who get all upset about "cultural appropriation" are such fucking morons. One culture "appropriating" from another culture is something that humans have been doing for fucking ever. Imagine if no culture ever was copied by another. The world would be so fucking weird. I bet TF365 wouldn't exist.

[Spike]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Central Asia, even though I'm Persian, I'd probably say the Arabs of the Islamic Golden Age were the most influential civilization. Granted, they were influenced by the Persians they had conquered. But the Islamic Golden Age was noted for a hell of a lot of influential schools of thought/advancements/whatever-the-fuck that still live on.

It's really hard to categorically state "which is the most influential" when you've got one culture making a marked influence on another culture, who will then go influence another culture, which will then influence other cultures.

This discussion also highlights how people who get all upset about "cultural appropriation" are such fucking morons. One culture "appropriating" from another culture is something that humans have been doing for fucking ever. Imagine if no culture ever was copied by another. The world would be so fucking weird. I bet TF365 wouldn't exist.

Cultural appropriation doesn’t exist as every culture is just a deviation of another. The reason I said Persian is because it exists still to this day (albeit different) despite being conquered by Arabs, making it possibly the oldest ‘continuous’ culture in the world.

And  ‘true Roman culture’ pretty much existed in modern day Lazio and nowhere else, that’s why the Italian peninsula was fractured through most of history.

[Honey Honey]

10 minutes ago, Spike said:

In the scope of the 'Anglosphere' their are certain figures more influential than others. Oliver Cromwell (English!), Edward the Confessor (Anglo-Saxon), Guillaume le Conquérant (Norman), are just a few 'watershed' individuals whose direct or indirect influence has shaped half the world.

In what sense are you thinking?

I actually think in historical hindsight Cromwell made a hash of things. The Glorious Revolution got the job done a bit more efficiently instead.

[El Profesor]

There is a very interesting anecdote I listened on the "History of Byzantium" podcast that ilustrates how the "Byzantium" - "Rome" dichotomy is anachronic. Byzantium was Rome. In that sense,  one could argue the roman empire survived until 1453 and not until 476.

And until very recently, in some parts of Greece, the inhabitants still considered themselves "romans". 

 

Quote

On 8 October 1912, the island of Lemnos became part of Greece after being captured from the Ottoman Empire. Peter Charanis, born on the island in 1908 and later a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University, recounts when the island was occupied and Greek soldiers stationed themselves in the public squares.

Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked.

‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied.

‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ a soldier retorted.

‘‘No, we are Romans."