By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Although one can go on and on about the moral consequences of some civilizations' influences, the thread is only about who had the most influence: morality is technically outside the scope of this discussion.

I tend to consider some of the listed civilizations, influence-wise, as continuations of their predecessors, particularly in terms of Greece/Rome and UK/US. But in terms of influence on the current state of the world in forms that those civilizations might still recognize, I would consider it a toss-up between three: Anglo-American, Greco-Roman, and Chinese. It is true that Islamic dynasties have also had some influence, but many of the forms those influences took have been altered to the point where they're no longer recognizable unless you really dig deep. Case in point: it's thought that common law as used in most English-speaking countries (as opposed to civil law, popular in countries with a stronger Roman influence) was heavily influenced by Islamic law, but few people on either side of the equation actually know this.



Complexity is not depth. Machismo is not maturity. Obsession is not dedication. Tedium is not challenge. Support gaming: support the Wii.

Be the ultimate ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! Poisson Village welcomes new players.

What do I hate about modern gaming? I hate tedium replacing challenge, complexity replacing depth, and domination replacing entertainment. I hate the outsourcing of mechanics to physics textbooks, art direction to photocopiers, and story to cheap Hollywood screenwriters. I hate the confusion of obsession with dedication, style with substance, new with gimmicky, old with obsolete, new with evolutionary, and old with time-tested.
There is much to hate about modern gaming. That is why I support the Wii.