# Your top 5 civilizations or empires



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

What are your top 5 civilizations or empires


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

Stupid arguments are guaranteed with this thread.
People always are proud of really ancient civilizations, only because they found themselves born in the same area where the empire thrived, or that they are the same race...which I dont understand. They have very little to do with them! 

Well, in no order, here are mine from the top of my head--again:

American
Persian
Greek
Chinese
Indian


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

Egyptian
Indian
Chinese
Roman
Persian


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Greek, Mongol, British,....

all of them were big and brutal.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

Indian
Chinese
Greek
Roman
British


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

Roman and Greeks the best ever!


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

ancient times: Greek, Roman, Egypt, Persian, Meso America (Aztecs/Toltecs/Mayas/etc)...
Post Ancient: Arab, Ottoman, Chinese, Mongol, Inka...
modern times: Dutsh, British, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian....


----------



## Zabonz (Feb 5, 2007)

Rome
Egypt
Greece
England
America


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Indian - incredibly advanced culture, science, arts, mathematics, and architectural works, MANY inventions. 

Chinese - advanced culture, many inventions, quite a few inventions.

Egyptian - incredible history, from the Pharaohs through the Mamluks.

Persian - great Middle Eastern power, the link between asia and Europe

British - the largest empire ever amassed, greatest navy and shrewd diplomacy brought Britain to the top

...American if that counts..


----------



## CongTuSaiGon (Dec 31, 2006)

Mongol - Largest land empire ever with a meteoric rise to dominance.

Chinese - Enduring empire with highly advanced culture and many inventions

Persian - Preeminent power in the Middle East throughout history.

Roman - Empire that lasted 1000 years and contributed much to the modern world.

Egyptian - Among the oldest and longest-lasting empires. A huge legacy imprinted in monuments and scrolls.


----------



## Occit (Jul 24, 2005)

*- Roman
- Egyptian
- Chinese
- British
- Spanish*


----------



## NMBS1 (Feb 5, 2006)

Greek 
American
Roman
Chinese
British


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Indian - incredibly advanced culture, science, arts, mathematics, and architectural works, MANY inventions.
> 
> Chinese - advanced culture, many inventions, quite a few inventions.
> 
> ...


My reasons for citing the empire/civilizations I did are exactly the same as yours; my top 5 being the Chinese, Egyptian, Persian, Indian, and Roman. My list was in no order but my top 4 are the Chinese, Egyptian, Indian, and Persian and then I hesitated between the Roman, American, and British.

Sometimes I think monuments, historical buildings, museums & artifacts look more impressive in pictures, but when I visited Egypt (and esp. the Cairo museum)I was blown away. :nuts:


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

do you visit Abu Simbel, Gizé or Karnak temple? museums only have in general small artifacts, to see the grandeur of a civilization nothing like go to the ruins (field):yes:


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Very ancient:
1) Egyptian
2) Mesopotamian

Ancient:
1) Greece
2) Rome
3) Persia
4) Indus Valley
5) Mesoamerican Empire

Post Ancient/Early Modern
1) Arab Empire
2) Ottoman Empire
3) Chinese Empire
4) Indian States
5) Aztec Empire

Modern:
1) British Empire
2) Spanish Empire
3) French Empire
4) Portuguese Empire
5) Russian Empire


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

Arpels said:


> do you visit Abu Simbel, Gizé or Karnak temple? museums only have in general small artifacts, to see the grandeur of a civilization nothing like go to the ruins (field):yes:


Unfortunately I didn't have time to visit the south of the country-Luxor and Aswan. I only got to visit Cairo and the surrounding areas including Giza & Saqqarah (I also visited Alexandria). At first I thought 8 days in Cairo was a lot and I had plans to visit the south but 8 days in Cairo turned out to be perfect. 

I agree with you that to appreciate the grandeur of a civilization, there's nothing like the ruins. In the Cairo museum there are some pretty big artifacts though. What impressed me most about the pharaonic artifacts in the mueum was their meticulous attention to detail. And also seeing the mummies with their teeth and hair as well as mummified animals.
Speaking of the Cairo museum- it was the first thing I visited in Cairo and while I was visitng one of the rooms, a guy working there came up to me and grabbed my breasts. hno: Fortunately, I had already visited the most interesing stuff because it shocked me and I was unable to continue my visit. ( I had other bad experiences in Egypt but that's not the point of this thread.)


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Greece, (Spartans and Macedonians in particular) Hellenistic Greece. 
Rome (Carrying on Greek Culture)
Persia (Interesting culture)
China (good contribution)
Byzantine Empire (Most advanced medieval empire...Greek peoples rose again)


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

now you have a motivation to turn to Egypt  despiste that bad experience in Cairo, that guy should send out of the museum, its almoust impossibel to see everithing in one trip :yes:


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

1 Roman - by faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar
2 Minoean (well Empire is too much said but it was kind of one and craddle of European culture)
3 Chinese/Mongol - I combine them
4 Inka
5 France - Charles le Magne and Napoleonic era


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Kuesel said:


> 1 Roman - by faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar
> 2 Minoean (well Empire is too much said but it was kind of one and craddle of European culture)
> 3 Chinese/Mongol - I combine them
> 4 Inka
> 5 France - Charles le Magne and Napoleonic era



Minoan over Greece in general? hno:


----------



## Petroshky (Dec 1, 2005)

Does the people on this board not know how to read timellines? The commonly described Ancient Period is anything predates 400 CE or AD. 

The Aztecs or Toltecs and to some extent Maya doesn't not fit that criteria, their civilizations only records to Middle Ages, yet some people classify them as ancient. The Spanish Empire and the Ottoman Empire are about the same age, yet some people here lists them as Modern and Middle Ages separately? 

The Chinese Empires or Dynasties (such as the Han Dynasty, which predates Roman Empire and founded the Silk Road) goes beyond ancient times, yet some people list them as Middle Ages?


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

in accordance with the historians the antiquity finished in 476 wen the last Roman emperor of the west abdicated, the civilization Maya have ther classic period between 200 and 900 AC :dunno:


----------



## Petroshky (Dec 1, 2005)

Yeah that's right. Mayan civilizations, especially pre-classical are definitely ancient, maybe just not empires; that is why I said to some extent. Perhaps it would help to know how far back does their written history dates back to, or when was their earliest writing system.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Petroshky said:


> Does the people on this board not know how to read timellines? The commonly described Ancient Period is anything predates 400 CE or AD.
> 
> The Aztecs or Toltecs and to some extent Maya doesn't not fit that criteria, their civilizations only records to Middle Ages, yet some people classify them as ancient. The Spanish Empire and the Ottoman Empire are about the same age, yet some people here lists them as Modern and Middle Ages separately?
> 
> The Chinese Empires or Dynasties (such as the Han Dynasty, which predates Roman Empire and founded the Silk Road) goes beyond ancient times, yet some people list them as Middle Ages?


The Chinese Empires spanned from pre-ancient times up til 1913. This doesnt mean the fall only under pre-ancient, correct?

Also, the Ottomans and Spanish Empires are not Modern, but late Middle Ages. The Ottoman Empire did however pull through until the modern era.


----------



## Petroshky (Dec 1, 2005)

the Nigel Effect said:


> The Chinese Empires spanned from pre-ancient times up til 1913. This doesnt mean the fall only under pre-ancient, correct?
> 
> Also, the Ottomans and Spanish Empires are not Modern, but late Middle Ages. The Ottoman Empire did however pull through until the modern era.


Of course Ottomans and Spanish Empires are not "Modern" empires, but some users list them under separate time periods when in fact, they are both founded around the same age.

I know that the Chinese civilization stretches back several thousand years to the modern age, but some users list it under Middle Ages and nothing else, which is puzzling.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Petroshky said:


> I know that the Chinese civilization stretches back several thousand years to the modern age, but some users list it under Middle Ages and nothing else, which is puzzling.


I agree, but I think its because the Chinese were best documented as a world power in the middle ages.


----------



## diz (Nov 1, 2005)

America was not an empire.


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

Petroshky said:


> Of course Ottomans and Spanish Empires are not "Modern" empires, but some users list them under separate time periods when in fact, they are both founded around the same age.
> 
> I know that the Chinese civilization stretches back several thousand years to the modern age, but some users list it under Middle Ages and nothing else, which is puzzling.


Chinese is for sure ancient times, Xia Dinasty datas back to XXI BC for exemple, wath age you advance for the empires Ottoman and Spanish? in my opinion Ottoman empire (XIII AC to XX AC) is meadle ages and Spanish empire Modern ages (XV AC to XIX/XX AC)....


----------



## Petroshky (Dec 1, 2005)

the Nigel Effect said:


> I agree, but I think its because the Chinese were best documented as a world power in the middle ages.


How so? I think that is incorrect. The Qin and Han Dynasties were huge in terms of its size compare to contemporanous civilizations (larger than many later Chinese dynasties); as well as being very powerful. The Han Dynasty is particularly noted for its military conquest, such as expansion of its empire to central Asia and the defeat of the Huns, as well as inventions, paper, silk trade... Previous dynasties, such as the Zhou Dynasty was also very influential (Confucianism and Taoism, The Art of War, classical texts, etc.).


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Petroshky said:


> How so? I think that is incorrect. The Qin and Han Dynasties were huge in terms of its size compare to contemporanous civilizations (larger than many later Chinese dynasties); as well as being very powerful. The Han Dynasty is particularly noted for its military conquest, such as expansion of its empire to central Asia and the defeat of the Huns, as well as inventions, paper, silk trade... Previous dynasties, such as the Zhou Dynasty was also very influential (Confucianism and Taoism, The Art of War, classical texts, etc.).


I did not say that they WERE the world power in the time period mentioned, I said they were BEST DOCUMENTED (by Western sources) as the world power.


----------



## Neutral! (Nov 19, 2005)

Roman
Greek
American
British
Indian
Chinese


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

We can only know if US belongs to the list 1000 years from now, when its achivements are judged from a historical perspective.
putting US into the list right now is just plain stupid.


----------



## Kelsen (Jul 29, 2006)

Roman
Greeks
Persian
British
Byzantine

kay:


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Sen said:


> We can only know if US belongs to the list 1000 years from now, when its achivements are judged from a historical perspective.
> putting US into the list right now is just plain stupid.


Why? I think the Romans were also aware of their empire and domination at their time and so are the US...


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

Metsada said:


> Egyptians seem to be very courteous.


I forgot to mention that the guy who volunteered to lead me to the museum asked me my religion. He asked me if I was muslim or christian and when I told him he was like "great, that's wonderful". And I was wondering what difference it could possible make to him. 

In any case Egypt is such an incredible country that I definitely wouldn't hesitate to return.


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

kenny_in_blue said:


> Sorry but you cant even compare Arabic culture with todays modern culture, todays culture is much more significant today then what Arab culture was/is.


Today's culture is a continuum of past cultures, is it not? 
But obviously thanks to the modern means of communications, today's cultures is going to have a global impact that past cultures couldn't.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

(alphabetic order)

*TOP Ancient Civilizations*

Ancient Greece
Ancient Egypt
Ancient Rome

*TOP Empires*
British Empire
Portuguese Empire
Spanish Empire


IMO my far the most remarkable civilizations and adventurous empires.

I see China, india, Maia,Inca, Aztec as exotic places, but not TOP, at all.


----------



## kenny_in_blue (Jul 3, 2006)

Purple Dreams said:


> Today's culture is a continuum of past cultures, is it not?
> But obviously thanks to the modern means of communications, today's cultures is going to have a global impact that past cultures couldn't.


Like i said, the culture we live in today is more significant then any past culture.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> (alphabetic order)
> 
> *TOP Ancient Civilizations*
> 
> ...


..perhaps you should read up on the accomplishments of these "exotic" civilizations that dont deserve to be on top.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

The rankings of countries and empires are generally about as useful as trying to rank colleges and universities. That being said, there is a certain degree in the "greatness" of empires. I've read a number of accounts on this, and I reflect the opinion of a scholar who has been studying the subject for over 15 years. His conclusions were :

The titans:
#1 China - founded by Qin Shihuang
#2 Islamic Caliphate - founded Muhammad and Umar Ibn al-Khattab 
#3 Roman Empire - founded by Romulus and Remus

Honorable mentions:
#4 Spain
#5 Macedonian Empire
#6 Britain

We can see that populations of the most powerful ones were quite high in their heyday - the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty boasted each over 60 million citizens. Both their populations collapsed after that, but China made a quick comeback, thanks to a succession of strong dynasties after the Han (most notably the Tang when Europe was in the pits). Which explains why China's population has been the largest in the world for two millenia. It's a historical legacy of prosperity and power.

Note : Noah Webster once predicted around the 1700s/1800s that English would surpass Chinese as the most spoken language in the world. It didn't happen.


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

the Nigel Effect you are Asian,Indian?so i wouldn't expect you to admire the Greek and Roman empires


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

SouthernEuropean said:


> the Nigel Effect you are Asian,Indian?so i wouldn't expect you to admire the Greek and Roman empires


I do admire both civilizations and I have quite an obsession with the Roman one - it is one of my favourites and I especially love the Republic and the functions of the Senate- Greek I dont really care much for, but still. 

Also, you will find that its vice versa - the Europeans tend to ignore / purposely belittle the great advances of Asia


----------



## Metsada (Oct 22, 2006)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Also, you will find that its vice versa - the Europeans tend to ignore / purposely belittle the great advances of Asia


Exactly, I had bought some seemingly great history books, however, most of them (as usual) evolve around "Western civilization" (except one of the books). It's really annoying and unfair. We already know enough about the 'great' Romans and Greeks, the Reformation, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and imperialism.


----------



## BaalNamib (Jul 7, 2006)

1. Greece
2. Egypt
3. Roman
4. Arabs
5. China


----------



## iaro (May 7, 2006)

Romans-Greece
Arabs 
Spanish-Portuguese
Egypt
China


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Metsada said:


> Exactly, I had bought some seemingly great history books, however, most of them (as usual) evolve around "Western civilization" (except one of the books). It's really annoying and unfair. We already know enough about the 'great' Romans and Greeks, the Reformation, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and imperialism.


My thoughts exactly. However, a good new trend you will find in (at least North American) history books (especially longer ones) are an increased amount of time devoted to Asian history. Good trend.


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

i like Asian cultures as well,like the Chinese and the Japanese and of course the Persian.the rest are a bit crap imo


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Facial said:


> 23. Luxembourgian


Ol'mighty Luxembourg :cheers:


----------



## Hanshin-Tigress (Apr 10, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said:


> My thoughts exactly. However, a good new trend you will find in (at least North American) history books (especially longer ones) are an increased amount of time devoted to Asian history. Good trend.


 I actually learned more about asian history during my school in the US then i do here in japan(we learn 'asian' history more but basically only japanese). While i do agree that most westerners 'belittle' the cultural significance of asia and the history of Asia, i still dont think the western civilization is 'overrated' since it dominates. If say chinese culture 'dominated' the world then it would be vice a versa with asian 'belittling' the western history/culture. I look at it like this when people learn history it should be like 60-40 .60% of what they learn should be about the west and its history and 40% about asia instead of the basically 80-20 or in some cases 90-10.


----------



## Hanshin-Tigress (Apr 10, 2007)

SouthernEuropean said:


> i like Asian cultures as well,like the Chinese and the Japanese and of course the Persian.the rest are a bit crap imo


Eh what about the indians...the mongolians....the koreans,etc. hno:.


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

i don't like the Indian culture-it's too overrated in my opinion and Mongolian is just military culture and i never heard of the Korean


----------



## Metsada (Oct 22, 2006)

SouthernEuropean said:


> i like Asian cultures as well,like the Chinese and the Japanese and of course the Persian.the rest are a bit crap imo


There are no crap cultures.


----------



## Metsada (Oct 22, 2006)

SouthernEuropean said:


> i don't like the Indian culture-it's too overrated in my opinion and Mongolian is just military culture and i never heard of the Korean


Perhaps you have too little knowledge on Indian culture and civilization to judge?


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

excuse me but i judge cultures like other judged my culture.. -i got some knowledge although i am not an expert on each culture-(subculture)


----------



## hanys (Apr 7, 2006)

Well As I read the history I see that the bigger empire was, the more cruel it has fought, the worse politics it had, the worse society it brought. As I look at the history of my country(Poland), that IMHO, died because of it's idealism. We used to be the strongest beetween Austria, Prussien (germany) and Russia. They started to put money in army, we tried to make a bit of democracy, the ideas of ancent greece, the freedom, the law, etc. .... We've been conquered in 1795. For 123 years divided into 3 parts owned by our fellows. And what I mean is - the empires grow strong and they will not let others be on the side - if you wanna survive you need to take part in this race for war. If you put money into army you don;t put it into society. 

But anyway for me the most interesting is the Novogordian Civilisation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic Conquered by Moscow. They was sth like phenicans. But they didn't like to fight, they wanted to make a cosy land on their ground, and breed a civilisation. Moscow didn't let them, and now we have the russian mpire, from Peter I, to Alexander I, Stalin, Lenin, Gorbaczow, to my dear fu*ker Putin.


----------



## uA_TAGA (May 23, 2007)

*PLEASE DONT FORGET 
OTTOMAN OTTOMAN OTTOMAN ...  *


----------



## uA_TAGA (May 23, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said:


> K, Ill go into detail as well.
> 
> *Far Ancient Times*
> - Indus Valley Civilization
> ...





The best answer ever


----------



## Metsada (Oct 22, 2006)

SouthernEuropean said:


> excuse me but i judge cultures like other judged my culture.. -i got some knowledge although i am not an expert on each culture-(subculture)


I don't recall someone saying Greek culture is crap.


----------



## persian (Sep 15, 2005)

My top 5 would be

-Persian
-Greek
-Roman
-Mongol
-British

there are other great ones such as Egyptian, Chinese and South American empires


----------



## MasonicStage™ (Dec 30, 2006)

1. Rome
2. Greece
3. Egypt
4. China
5. Mayas


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

kenny_in_blue said:


> I just dont find some cultures fascinating but i agree i might have been a bit harsh, crap isnt an appropiate word.


Thats totally understandable. I personally don't find Greek or Roman culture fascinating. Interesting yes but not fascinating.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

kenny_in_blue said:


> I just dont find some cultures fascinating but i agree i might have been a bit harsh, crap isnt an appropiate word.


I see. Makes more sense now.


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

here's something interesting for the haters:

Indo-Greek Kingdom...:

During the two centuries of their rule, the Indo-Greek kings combined the Greek and Indian languages and symbols, as seen on their coins, and blended ancient Greek, Hindu and Buddhist religious practices, as seen in the archaeological remains of their cities and in the indications of their support of Buddhism. *The Indo-Greek kings seem to have achieved a very high level of cultural syncretism,the consequences of which are still felt today, particularly through the diffusion and influence of Greco-Buddhist art.*

well......who said that two different cultures can not be combined to create something special?

you can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek


----------



## Luskan (Jun 2, 2007)

My top 5 is
1. Roman Empire- The most Advanced Empire in the past, responsible for the creation of highways and the aqueducts. Has created the nearly invincible testudo formation. Very strong armored soldiers.
2. Carthaginian Empire- Was among the most richest Empire with improve trade network connecting nearly all parts of the mediterranean, its capital city of Carthage has walls and gates within the waters of its harbor!!
3. Seleucid Empire- It's Army has a mix of both Persian and Greek style. 
4. Ottoman Empire- has very powerful siege weapons and gunpowder units
5. Byzantine Empire- This empire is responsible for the spread of Christianity, responsible for the creation of the Greek fire(a fire that is known to ignite in the water) has a good mixed of powerful infantries but weak gunpowder units.

These Sources are from Rome Total War and Medieval Total War 2 games,
I increasingly love history because of these games


----------



## VaastuShastra (Jun 20, 2005)

^^
I dont see what the big deal is, afterall, every culture on the planet effects every other, there is no such thing as purity.


----------



## ÜberMaromas (Aug 27, 2005)

Vulcan by far





:jk:


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Luskan said:


> My top 5 is
> 
> 
> These Sources are from Rome Total War and Medieval Total War 2 games,
> I increasingly love history because of these games


Great games - I love them and own them!

Problem here is these dont cover the Eastern World or the Americas (MTW2 does a wee bit but not really) - so you dont get the details on other civilizations like China, India, Japan, Khmer etc


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Maki-chan said:


> Indian culture is definately not over rated if anything it is under rated. It has influenced many things science math etc, even religions the major religion of asia buddhism started in india.


I would agree with that. While many Western, Middle Eastern, and Chinese contributions and dynamics get talked about in relative comparisons Indian civilization gets a bit overlooked when it certainly an equal peer in influence and in terms of intricate history.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

1- Western civilisation - what else to say, the biggest and most successfull civilisation of all times,since it embraces almost the whole world

2- Romans

3- Ottoman empire

4- Arab empire

5-Russian - pre soviet era

5-


----------



## VaastuShastra (Jun 20, 2005)

nomarandlee said:


> I would agree with that. While many Western, Middle Eastern, and Chinese contributions and dynamics get talked about in relative comparisons Indian civilization gets a bit overlooked when it certainly an equal peer in influence and in terms of intricate history.


I agree. Im no nationalist, but I do think India is overlooked.

India as a geographical region had the largest economy of the ancient world for one and a half millenia. At one point, the economic output of the Indian subcontinent is estimated to have been one third of the world total. Its first united state ruled one third of humanity. 33% of Earth's economic output and 33% of Earth's population is pretty impressive. Plus of course, there is all the cultural influence - the invention of the number system we use today, the invention of the concept of zero, several philosophical systems like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.


----------



## kuskus (Jun 19, 2006)

Nemo said:


> @SHOGUN
> You can't compare the three-and-a-half centuries long Dutch colonial history with countries like Germany, Italy or Belgium who joined in only from the 1880's!! Thats almost 300 years after the foundations of the Dutch Golden Age ofthe 17th century were founded.
> 
> The main colonial empires in chronological order;
> ...


That´s not truth, the dutch had many defeats during the dutch-portuguese war. Don´t forget that we were under spanish rule, that neglected the portuguese empire. The dutch were defeated in Brazil and Africa after we regained independence from the spanish Hasburgs (dutch conquests in portuguese America and Africa were short lived), but in India we lost the trade monopoly to the Netherlands and England. We puted a hell of a fight even under foreign rule, against the dutch, the english and a lot of asian enemies.


----------



## Luskan (Jun 2, 2007)

VaastuShastra said:


> ^^
> I dont see what the *big deal* is, afterall, every culture on the planet effects every other, there is no such thing as purity.


:fiddle:


----------



## Luskan (Jun 2, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Great games - I love them and own them!
> 
> Problem here is these dont cover the Eastern World or the Americas (MTW2 does a wee bit but not really) - so you dont get the details on other civilizations like China, India, Japan, Khmer etc


:hi: :cheers1:


----------



## VaastuShastra (Jun 20, 2005)

Luskan said:


> :fiddle:


That post was a reply to the one above yours


----------



## sergioaguero (Apr 21, 2007)

Greek
United States
Roman
Chinese
Aztecas


----------



## Luskan (Jun 2, 2007)

VaastuShastra said:


> That post was a reply to the one above yours


Ooops, Sorry :bow:


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

rocky said:


> 1- Western civilisation


hmm...better make a preemptive argument.

I initially thought that was too broad of a classification, but it actually does work--only in modern times of course. The European system was so unique, that it is hard to either use each nation within seperately, or use all nations within collectively.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

SouthernEuropean said:


> here's something interesting for the haters:
> 
> Indo-Greek Kingdom...:
> 
> ...


What haters? Oh, you mean that one guy who said Indian culture was "crap"? Oh...


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

hey i posted this to show some people that Greek and Indian culture combined their powers and lived peacefully and was one of the most successful combinations,check the bold sentence taken from wikipedia.

HEY


----------



## zazo (Dec 5, 2005)

SPANISH empire, all south and central america, California, Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, the cost of British Columbia (Vancouver..)..others I can't remember , Caribbean islands, Central America, Philippines, Taiwan, Guinea, Portugal, Holland, part of Belgium, Milan, Southern Italy(Napoli, Pompei,), Sicily, Sardinia, Parts of France, Sahara, Areas of China, India and Africa, and of Course Spain (In the age of the biggest splendour



But not everything is lost.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispanophone_World.png


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

^^ you can't attribute Portuguese possessions to sSpain, only to the Philips.

If Portugal and Spain remained together and with a good strategy not allowing that stupid defeat (Spanish Armada thing), the world today would speak Portuguese and Spanish, some historians predict. Although, It would be a boring planet, but very different from today's world.


----------



## zazo (Dec 5, 2005)

PeterGabriel said:


> ^^ you can't attribute Portuguese possessions to sSpain, only to the Philips.QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Portuguese possessions were spanish for almost a century, yesss


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

no, it wasn't. Philip I, II and III were Portuguese kings, Portugal SHARED king with Spain. In practice was the same thing and Spain was the common name for all kingdoms, but it is not correct what you're trying to state, you are considering Spain (the modern country known as Spain).

And that map is incorrect, Equatorial guinea was Portuguese, only ceded to Spain at a much later time, as all Africa was a Portuguese area.


----------



## satwa2 (Jun 4, 2007)

how come there is no mention the empire of arab spain? they revived so much of the lost ways of ancient greece and rome.


----------



## zazo (Dec 5, 2005)

In 1581, king Sebastián I of Portugal dies in Alcazarquivir Batle so Philip II of Spain became the new Portugal and Spain king, called Philip I of Portugal, after him, Philip III of Spain (Philip II of Portugal) and finally Philip IV of Spain (Philip III of Portugal), in 1668 The Empire let Portugal become independent

So.. if you don't know what you're talking about...please, just don't talk


----------



## Cerises (Apr 17, 2005)

Greek
Roman
Byzantine (Eastern Roman/Greek Empire)
Persian
Egypt


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

zazo said:


> In 1581, king Sebastián I of Portugal dies in Alcazarquivir Batle so Philip II of Spain became the new Portugal and Spain king, called Philip I of Portugal, after him, Philip III of Spain (Philip II of Portugal) and finally Philip IV of Spain (Philip III of Portugal), in 1668 The Empire let Portugal become independent
> 
> So.. if you don't know what you're talking about...please, just don't talk


:lol: Are you trying to teach me Portuguese history. We do have a holiday which is the "restauration of the independence". But it's an holiday.



> in 1668 The Empire let Portugal become independent


that one killed me.


----------



## zazo (Dec 5, 2005)

PeterGabriel said:


> :lol: Are you trying to teach me Portuguese history. We do have a holiday which is the "restauration of the independence". But it's an holiday.
> 
> 
> 
> that one killed me.


Say whatever you want... everybody know what they have to know, and none can change that thinking, so I stop and you too, our minds are consolidated. ok?


----------



## zazo (Dec 5, 2005)

satwa2 said:


> how come there is no mention the empire of arab spain? they revived so much of the lost ways of ancient greece and rome.


which spanish arab empire? in a begining, people from the glorious Bagdad came to Spain and became it a part o the islamic empire, with a Califa, but some years later, the arabs who lived in Al-Andalus (Southern Spain) decided to form another Califato, with another Califa: one for Al-Andalus and another for the rest of the world, so this state became very very rich and prosperous, but it never was an empire


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

zazo said:


> Say whatever you want... everybody know what they have to know, and none can change that thinking, so I stop and you too, our minds are consolidated. ok?


none could change your truth, there is the truth you dont now, Portugal was roole by the Philips, that is truth, but Philipe the II, Philipe the III and Philipe the IV of Spain, are Philipe the I, Philipe the II and Philipe the III of Portugal, it was an honer at that time have several crowns in one persson, Philips have some crowns, including the Portuguese one, a series of Spanish vice kings nominated by the king had governed Portugal and colonies in ther name, the lost vice king (vice queen Margarida of Savoy-duchesse consort of Mantua) was removed by the future Portuguese king D. João IV in 1635/1637:


take something in Spanish abouth that time too: http://www.fuenterrebollo.com/Heraldica-Piedra/duque-olivares.html


This is a list of Spanish Viceroys of Portugal from 1580 to 1640
1580 : Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba 
1583 : Albert VII, Archduke of Austria 
1593 : First Junta de Gobierno 
Miguel de Castro, Archbishop of Lisbon 
João da Silva, Conde de Portalegre 
Francisco Mascarenhas 
Duarte Castelo-Branco, Conde de Sabugal 
Miguel de Moura 
1600 : Cristóvão de Moura, Marqués de Castel Rodrigo (1st time) 
1603 : Afonso Castelo-Branco, Conde de Coimbra 
1605 : Pedro Castilho, Bishop of Leiria 
1608 : Cristóvão de Moura, Marqués de Castel Rodrigo (2nd time) 
1614 : Alejo de Meneses, Bishop of Guarda 
1615 : Miguel de Castro, Archbishop of Lisbon (Interim) 
1615 : Diego de Silva y Mendoza, Conde de Salinas (1st time) 
1621 : Second Junta de Gobierno : 
Martín Alonso de Mejía (1621-1622) 
Diego de Castro and Nuño Álvares de Portugal (1622-1623) 
Diego de Castro and Diego de Silva y Mendoza (2nd time) (1623-1626) 
Diego de Silva y Mendoza and Alfonso Furtado de Mendonça (1627-1630) 
Antonio Ataide and Nuño de Mendoza (1631-1633) 
1633 : João Manuel, Archbishop of Lisbon 
1633 : Diego de Castro, Conde de Basto 
1634 : Margarita de Saboya, Duquesa de Mantua


----------



## Marco_ (Jan 15, 2006)

the Nigel Effect said:


> K, Ill go into detail as well.
> 
> *1700s*
> - British Empire
> ...


Did you ever heard of the Dutch golden age during the 17th century? hno:


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Marco_ said:


> Did you ever heard of the Dutch golden age during the 17th century? hno:


Yes.


----------



## Nemo (Jul 5, 2004)

> @KUSKUS
> That´s not truth, the dutch had many defeats during the dutch-portuguese war. Don´t forget that we were under spanish rule, that neglected the portuguese empire. The dutch were defeated in Brazil and Africa after we regained independence from the spanish Hasburgs (dutch conquests in portuguese America and Africa were short lived), but in India we lost the trade monopoly to the Netherlands and England. We puted a hell of a fight even under foreign rule, against the dutch, the english and a lot of asian enemies.


Not quite true. I think you have to read some more history and preferably non Portuguese; like a standardwork for History students at University; McKays History of World Societies. 

Dutch-East India Company governed half the former Portuguese Capitania's for over 40 years, although more money was earned by raiding Portuguese sugarfleets. It was the D-EIC who had to give up Brazil (The Second Battle of Guararapes was a defeat for the Dutch East India Co-troops) after the Dutch government did not give any support for the cause. In fact, the government opposed any suggestion made by the Company. So we could have easily established a Dutch colony in he same way we did all over South East Asia; especially because Portugal was weak. But the government and with it, the national fleet would not support the D-EIC undertakings in Brazil. The remainder was thus kicked out only, because the government of the Dutch republic let it be that way! 

Apart from that, the D-EIC took over Brazil, Sao Thome&Principe, Angola and Mocambique and many other African factories on the coast (apart from East Asian poss) in just a very short period. The fact that Portugal remained in those colonies has more to do with Dutch political aims than due to Portuguese power. The States of Holland established a lasting colony on the Goldcoast up until 1870 when we sold it. If Angola and Mocambique were really that special fot the Dutch, they would have kept them by force. We fought great battles for commercially interesting places and for a long time the Dutch fleet was the most powerful in the world. The Portuguese fleet was in shambles by that time, because from the 1600's it were the Dutch and the English that checked the seas and also the Mediterranean. Even the Spanish could not create a fleet, large enough to take a stand and finally lost their prestige in 1639, when the Dutch destroyed the Spanish Second Armada. So you show me that defeats by the portuguese fleet, because since the beginning of the 1600s, there only have been large encounters between Dutch and English or Spanish fleets. So maybe you are referring to minor engagements, and even then I don't knwo what you mean with 'many defeats'. You show me. 

Portuguese colonial history is impressive and they were the first to control areas all over the world. Both colonial empires declined after occupation of the motherland. Portugal when Spain occupied its land, so the Dutch and English took over almost everything at first hand. Netherlands when the French occupied our country in 1795; the English took over our Cape Colony, Ceylon, Mauritius and most of our possessions in India.


----------



## Nemo (Jul 5, 2004)

@MARCO
@NIGEL EFFECT

@NIGEL, that is a typical example of neglecting important historcal facts. (not mentioning the Dutch Republic and its colonial empire) I hope you did that not on purpose.

The Spanish empire was not able to control one of its own small but most profitable vasal states; the Netherlands. 

March 1607, admiral Heemskerck completely destroys the Spanish fleet at Gibraltar. All Spanish ships were lost. Exit admiral Don Juan Alvarez D'Avlia and Spanish prestige on the seas.









The Spanish Flagship explodes.
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Ca. 1621. painter; Cornelis Claesz. van Wieringen 

And within a decade, this former subject state destroys one Spanish fleet after another, creating room for combined Dutch and English rule in the Mediterranean Sea, the backyard of Spain. It had already lost its First Almighty Armada against combined Anglo-Dutch power and some help of the weather. Never before and never again had a Spanish fleet controlled the North Sea; the backyard of England and the Netherlands. 

A Dutch fleet took an entire Spanish SilverFleet outside Matanzas Cuba in 1628. This feat of admiral Piet Hein was never to be surpassed ever in the long history of prize taking. Years and years of hard work, now in Dutch hand, thus financing the conquest against Spain for many years, until finally Spain bowed and a peace treaty was signed.

Afther that in 1639, the Second Mighty Armada took off against the Dutch Republic, but was destroyed by admiral Maarten Tromp. Exit Admiral D'Oquendo. Spain lost .....40 ships and 1800 sailors were captured. The Dutch lost ...1.....ship; The end of Spanish power on the seas.


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

...


----------



## VaastuShastra (Jun 20, 2005)

This thread was foolish to begin with - one cannot choose 5 empires or 5 civilizations without leaving out important ones.

And, predictably, it has almost descended into nationalistic banter.


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

VaastuShastra said:


> This thread was foolish to begin with - one cannot choose 5 empires or 5 civilizations without leaving out important ones.
> 
> And, predictably, it has almost descended into nationalistic banter.


The question was asking for personal favorites; it wasn't meant to establish some kind of ranking.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

I don't understand why anyone would choose the Byzantine Empire, unless perhaps all those posting have secret eunuch fetishes. Disgusting. 

The Byzantines revived neither the greatness of Rome nor that of the Hellenisitic World, for most of the last centuries of its rule it was an empire waiting to be put out of its misery. They achieved little in philosophical or scientific terms and aren't really worthy of a place in the top ten.


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

Many reasons i would include Byzantine Empire in the top 10 at least....if not top 10 then definitely their contribution is not insignificant!................hmm just to name a few......

*first hospitals ever created similar to what we know today....,with doctors graduating from universities......*
hmmm what else? 

*maybe spreading Christianity all over East Europe?*

*something else?oh yes,preventing Islam from becoming the religion of Europe? not enough?*

*Then maybe the little fact of creating a damn whole alphabet for Belarus,Bulgaria,FYROM, RUSSIA,Serbia,Ukraine?*

*Maybe that the Byzantines copied and translated the works of Ancient Greeks?transferring their knowledge to the rest of the world?*

*Architecture miracles?...check Hagia Sophia*

*Some innovating creations....like the liquid fire-known as Greek fire as well...known as the first flamethrower and bazooka of it's time...*

anyway..those-first coming to my mind and more...are enough for this Empire to gain my respect at least.....


----------



## VaastuShastra (Jun 20, 2005)

> first hospitals ever created similar to what we know today....,with doctors graduating from universities......


Are you sure? China and India also claim that.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

neorion said:


> Fair enough. I didn't say they were the greatest, but I did find your posts purposely playing down their influence, what some might liken to anti-Greek, God knows what for.
> 
> Anyway I'd say they've been influential for no less than the reasons you've stated, but like I also said, for better or worse.


I never really played them down - I simply said they are overrated - since many here have stated that the Greeks were the greatest, I simply said they were overrated, hence, not the greatest.


----------



## VaastuShastra (Jun 20, 2005)

I also feel that nigel is under-rating them slightly, but at the same time, the rest of you shouldnt mistake the fact that Greco-Roman civilization is more accurately chronicled for 'more influencial'.


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)




----------



## neorion (May 26, 2006)

the Nigel Effect said:


> I never really played them down - I simply said they are overrated - since many here have stated that the Greeks were the greatest, I simply said they were overrated, hence, not the greatest.


 That's cool, no hard feelings. I can also see why people may consider them over-rated. Away from the Western world and increasingly in the West itself people see it as only one part of world civilization, not THE influential part. :cheers:


----------



## VaastuShastra (Jun 20, 2005)

^^
Yeh, thats how I see them - one of the great five of the ancient world, rather than the greatest period.


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said:


> EDIT: I would encourage you Hellenophiles to view the thread title. It says "Your top 5". I am entitled to my own opinion, am I not?


:yes:



neorion said:


> Personally I have an admiration for Indigenous cultures, such as the Australian Aboriginals, who can teach us a lot about living in harmony with the Earth and not just exploiting and destroying it. Something Europeans and others are very ignorant of.


what do you mean by indigenous cultures?


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

Purple Dreams said:


> :yes:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by indigenous cultures?


none said you're not entitled to your opinion and well done for expressing yourself politely...i think this discussion is over :O


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

I repeat what I posted in this thread earlier, which still holds true.



_00_deathscar said:


> What a ridicuous thread; how can one justifiably claim any one civilisation or empire was more influential than another of similar stature?


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

SouthernEuropean said:


> none said you're not entitled to your opinion and well done for expressing yourself politely...i think this discussion is over :O


I'm assuming you meant to quote sth. else? :?


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

Purple Dreams said:


> I'm assuming you meant to quote sth. else? :?


yeah!.. :0


----------



## CrazY (Dec 17, 2005)

Persian and Greek Civilizations

and the British Emipre


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

btw i really admire the Persian Empire...for many things


----------



## neorion (May 26, 2006)

Purple Dreams said:


> what do you mean by indigenous cultures?


 Indigenous cultures are the native peoples of the so-called 'New World', former European colonial lands, like the Native Americans (First Nations), Australian Aboriginals etc. They have another view of the world that many of us are ignorant of or can not comprehend. For instance, Australian Aboriginals believe that individuals shouldn't own land, that an individual can not own a landscape. They believe the land owns you and that rules govern the way you treat the land and need to be strictly adhered to. What we may think is 'primitive philosophy' adds up to what we now call sustainability. Unlike Westerners who have accelerated its destruction to the edge of no return. So it begs to ask, who are the wisest, those 'primitive peoples' that can live in harmony with their surrounds or those that have become self-destructive?


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

neorion said:


> Indigenous cultures are the native peoples of the so-called 'New World', former European colonial lands, like the Native Americans (First Nations), Australian Aboriginals etc. They have another view of the world that many of us are ignorant of or can not comprehend. For instance, Australian Aboriginals believe that individuals shouldn't own land, that an individual can not own a landscape. They believe the land owns you and that rules govern the way you treat the land and need to be strictly adhered to. What we may think is 'primitive philosophy' adds up to what we now call sustainability. Unlike Westerners who have accelerated its destruction to the edge of no return. So it begs to ask, who are the wisest, those 'primitive peoples' that can live in harmony with their surrounds or those that have become self-destructive?


well said.


----------



## Metsada (Oct 22, 2006)

neorion said:


> Indigenous cultures are the native peoples of the so-called 'New World', former European colonial lands, like the Native Americans (First Nations), Australian Aboriginals etc. They have another view of the world that many of us are ignorant of or can not comprehend. For instance, Australian Aboriginals believe that individuals shouldn't own land, that an individual can not own a landscape. They believe the land owns you and that rules govern the way you treat the land and need to be strictly adhered to. What we may think is 'primitive philosophy' adds up to what we now call sustainability. Unlike Westerners who have accelerated its destruction to the edge of no return. So it begs to ask, who are the wisest, those 'primitive peoples' that can live in harmony with their surrounds or those that have become self-destructive?


:applause:


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

DonQui said:


> Very ancient:
> 1) Egyptian
> 2) Mesopotamian
> 
> ...




exactly I agree


----------



## YelloPerilo (Oct 17, 2003)

DFM said:


> exactly I agree


LOL

It's a first for me that the Chinese Empire is younger than Greek or Roman Empire. :nuts:


----------



## Stifler (Apr 11, 2006)

neorion said:


> So it begs to ask, who are the wisest, those 'primitive peoples' that can live in harmony with their surrounds or those that have become self-destructive?


Yeah, people like Aztecs were dearly beloved by their neighbours. They only conquered huge territories and sacrifided (or ate) hundred thousands of their enemies. And all that before any Westerner arrived there.

Sorry, but America wasn't the paradise of peaceful people you tried to describe.


----------



## Federicoft (Sep 26, 2005)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Is it wrong to opine that the British, Indians, Chinese, and Spaniards were far more influential than the Greeks?


Nobody can say it's wrong.
It's just quite lunatic.


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

:O lol


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Egypt, Greece and Scandinavia represent the mediterranean and northern Europe.

Where are Asia, Africa and the Americas in this?

It as diverse as a game presenting han chinese, tibetan and Cambodian mythology.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

PeterGabriel said:


> *that's one of the most insane thing I've ever heard.*
> 
> Greek Empire wasn't important, but the civilization sure, was crucial for Europe, and next the planet, expanded to the entire globe by the Portuguese, Spanish, British, Dutch and French. From theatre, philosophy to architecture, Greece was of major importance to the planet's current shape, has it was the major influence of the Roman Empire, cradle of later European empires.



Why?


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Maki-chan said:


> ^^ Isnt their like 600 of them??


600? You have missed a lot of zeros..


----------



## Okan (Feb 5, 2007)

*THE TURK-HUN EMPIRE* it has expand from Central Asia to Europe  

Yeah :cheers: 





























*THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE* Yeah :cheers: 



















*
The Rome Empire*











*The ancient Egyptians*










*ancient Babylon and Mesapotamia (the first civilizations in world history)*


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 17, 2004)

1. Roman Empire
2. China
3. Egypt
4. Greece
5. Mesopotamia

I guess these 5 had the biggest influence on history.


----------



## neorion (May 26, 2006)

Maki-chan said:


> "*But i dont see how greece and rome are overrated(culturely wise) considering they are the birthplaces of 'modern' western culture and we all know how western culture is around the world now...*"
> .


 It's not that simple because you mustn't forget that along with Graeco-roman culture another major cultural influence on the west has been Judaeo-Christianity and it can be argued that revivals of Graeco-Roman culture, such as the renaissance and neoclassicism were due in part (large part) to counter the dogma of religion. 

Also, if i could use the metaphor of dynamite being Greek culture and put it like this. Mankind can use dynamite to blow up a rockface to extract stone to build houses for shelter or it could use it to blow up people. The blame should not fall on the scientist who invented the dynamite, but rather the culprit for using it for ill means. I hope you understand what i'm trying to say. Unfortunately today there are signs that we a reverting to religious dogma to explain and justify our ways in the world, but the humanistic philosphy of ancient greece tells us to summon reason, not God to solve our man-made problems.


----------



## Gandhi (May 31, 2005)

For me:

1) Aztecas ( Mexico)
2) Inca ( Peru)
3) India
4) China
5) Greece - Rome.


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

*the power of the word is much stronger then the power of the sword*


the world is based upon the Hebrew/Jewish civilization basics (purple) 

"Dharmic" (dark yellow)," Taoic" (light yellow)


----------



## neorion (May 26, 2006)

A great chunk of the world isn't, population wise, and it's debatable how beneficial Middle-Eastern religions have been to the world. 

Hellenic text, the _logos_, is the word of science. Humanism and reason (Hellenic inspiration), dogma and the supernatural (Hebrew inspiration) Both ancient texts have had a powerful influence on world civilization. Both have been carried to other parts of the globe...


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

hebrewtext said:


> *the power of the word is much stronger then the power of the sword*
> 
> 
> the world is based upon the Hebrew/Jewish civilization basics (purple)
> ...


:nuts:


----------



## bobdikl (Jul 20, 2004)

YelloPerilo said:


> LOL
> 
> It's a first for me that the Chinese Empire is younger than Greek or Roman Empire. :nuts:


There are so many ignorant people here. 

Wikipedia on China:
It is one of the world's oldest civilizations, consisting of states and cultures dating back more than six millennia.
China is one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations. It has the world's longest continuously used written language system, and is said to be the source of some of the world's great inventions, including the Four Great Inventions of ancient China: paper, the compass, gunpowder, and printing.
Ancient China was one of the earliest centers of human civilization. Chinese civilization was also one of the few to invent writing independently, the others being Mesopotamia, Ancient India (Indus Valley Civilization), Maya Civilization, Ancient Greece (Minoan Civilization), and Ancient Egypt.


----------



## bobdikl (Jul 20, 2004)

Maki-chan said:


> Is ancient greece over rated? No, just that the people that talk about ancient greece basically know nothing about ancient china,japan,india.


:lol:


----------



## Maszkaron (Sep 6, 2005)

1. Roman Empire
2. Phoenicia/Carthage
3. Ancient Greece
4. Ancient Egypt
5. China
6. Mongol Empire
7. Maya civilization
8. Babylon/Sumer


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Don't put useless religion into this. LOL. 

no-ones knows for sure if the Gardens of Babylon really existed.


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

PeterGabriel said:


> Don't put useless religion into this. LOL.
> 
> no-ones knows for sure if the Gardens of Babylon really existed.


religion = culture = civilization

same as language/poetry/laws/art/spiritual/regime-admanastrive method/writing/music/etc. = culture = civilization


----------



## YelloPerilo (Oct 17, 2003)

^^

LOL

By your definition, China does not really have a culture and civilisation, as China does not really have a religion. So full of yourself! LOL


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

hebrewtext said:


> religion = culture = civilization
> 
> same as language/poetry/laws/art/spiritual/regime-admanastrive method/writing/music/etc. = culture = civilization


Every single society has a culture.

Civilisation is a debatable term with no strict meaning.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

hebrewtext said:


> *the power of the word is much stronger then the power of the sword*
> 
> 
> the world is based upon the Hebrew/Jewish civilization basics (purple)
> ...


May be on paper but Christianity is too European to be actually part of "your" world.


----------



## ahmed07 (Jun 15, 2007)

i can't believe that no body said NUBIA....hno:


----------



## SouthernEuropean (Apr 2, 2007)

what is Nubia???explain so more people will know..


----------

