tarheel91 said:
Akvod said:
tarheel91 said:
Akvod said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Wait a second. If we're looking at the most influential civilizations, why would it be ones in the last thousand years? Wouldn't it be something much earlier? For example, it's pretty tough to say the Ottoman Empire was the most influential empire when you considered how much of their entire existence is descended from the Akkadians. If I was going to pick the most influential civilization, it wouldn't be something from the last millennia, and certainly not the British Empire. It's kind of like asking who the most influential man in history was. It was probably the guy who first discovered fire (or something of the sort), but we don't know his name. But we do know about the first empires. |
Like I say when people bring up the Greeks, who do people look up to when they look at the similar/borrowed concepts? The Romans. And like I said, the Roman didn't just copy Greek culture word for word, just like Japan didn't just take Chinese, Korean, and eventually European/American cultures word for word, but adopted them, changed them, and made them their own, so that when future generations look for a foundation, they turn to them, not to the influencers of the influencers.
The Romans may not have been THE civilization that invented concrete, but did that civilization create the Pantheon? Did that civilization utilize it and spread it across like the Romans? Did the Greek conquer the West? No. They conquered the East, and soon Rome conquered that, and soon the Muslims conquered that as well.
But I think you do have a point in that maybe it's sorta pointless to ask my question. I mean, the Romans had a huge impact, but so did the British. Do we divide it up into spheres? That makes it even more complicated, way too much for the poll I made.
So I guess my poll is a bit pointless, but at least it's getting people to talk about history, and realize how interconnected we are, in both geography and time, and realize that each civilization, whether it is in a dark age, or a golden age currently, had their own glory once.
But I do want to reemphasize the point that "X civilization did it FIRST" is a bad way of judging things. I say that if we are going to try to debate it, we should remember that the question is who "influenced" the most? Simply tacking on the originator of some idea, to the executor of that idea is lazy. We should be asking, who actually spread that thing, X, around the world? Who actually is the one that, either through conquest, colonization, investment, immigration, etc imposed some idea, technology, etc to others?
|
I really don't like that last paragraph (and that's probably why I don't like your post in general). You think creating something isn't influential? It doesn't matter if Romans spread a concept (although that's VERY debatable, the Greeks actually recorded a ton of stuff, so most people go directly to the source of the classics if they want to study them), it's still Greek thinking that's influencing everyone. Is the Odyssey somehow Roman or even British because those were the civilizations that spread the story? No. It remains Greek. Is Plato considered a Roman? No. The same holds true for inventions. That's why I really think the only logical answer to this question is China. China was centuries ahead of the west for millenia when it came to technology, and a good portion of that technology DID influence the West, especially in the centures leading up to the Renaissance. At the same time, they exerted far more control, both culturaly and politcally, over the East than any civilization did over the West.
|
But I have 2 points:
1) The Greeks didn't spread that culture to the west. Alexander the Great only conquered the East.
2) Roman culture had developed for centuries after hellenization, and was there centuries before. Like I said, it wasn't simply a copy, but an adaption. And the one that influenced everyone, is not the Greek culture, but the Roman one.
Here's an analogy. Imagine there's a book, and then there's a movie. Imagine that the movie deviates, crucially, from the book. But the majority of people know the movie and have watched it, while the book isn't. Will you say that the book was influential, or the movie?
|
Again, I gave you that Rome spread Greek culture (although, really, after Rome, it was historical records that spread Greek culture more than anything). However, that doesn't change the fact that Greece is responsible for the great majority of classical culture. Even if you want to argue that Rome influenced everyone after them, Greece influenced Rome, and thus influenced everyone influenced by Rome. Coming up with something that affects others is the greatest form of influence possible.
To prove my point, when people think of classical philosophy, who do they think of? Plato. When people think of classical literature, who do they think of? Homer, Aristotle, etc. How do people know the names of the Greek/Roman Gods? By their GREEK names. Creation is far more influential that spreading or adaptation.
The issue with your analogy is that the differences between the book and the movie are crucial. That is not the case with Greek and Roman culture. The differences are subtle, and rarely, if ever, are the central ideas different. By inserting a crucial difference in the movie, the director of the movie is creating something of his own. That is why his influence can be recognized. Plus, regardless of whether they realize it or not, the moviegoers are still being greatly influenced by the writer of the book, as the majority of the content of the movie is still his creation.
|
