My Views on the Merits of Civilizations

Post Reply New Topic

I intend this thread to be a place for discussion and debate about the merits of the great civilizations as well as how they should most accurately be ranked in different spheres.

To start, let us define what I mean by a "civilization": A civilization is a complex society with a distinct and basic core of institutions, views and practices. Thus, France is not a civilization but the West is: In most cases, civilizations correspond to basic cultural spheres that developed more or less independently of each other in ancient times until at least the Middle Ages. So here are, for the purposes of this debate, the world's 7 great civilizations, in no particular order:

West Africa, as exemplified by the Benin Empire, Nri, Kongo and to a lesser extent the Sahelian Empires; the Andes, as exemplified by Wari, Tawantinsuyu and Chimor; the West, as exemplified by Rome, Greece, France and Britain; the Middle East, as exemplified by Ancient Egypt, Sumer, the Abbasid Caliphate and Persia (I will lump together Egypt, Persia and Mesopotamia both for convenience and as they had significant contacts with each other since the beginning of recorded history); China, as exemplified best by China, the world's sole state that is also a civilization, but also including the rest of the Sinosphere; the Desi Subcontinent, including the Gupta Empire, the Indus Valley Civilization, the Republic of India and the Mauryan Empire; and Mesoamerica, as exemplified by the Maya civilization, Teotihuacan and the Aztec Triple Alliance.

Now, I will give my opinions on the merit of each civilization in some general areas.

In sociocultural terms, the Chinese were the most advanced in terms of their value on education, as exemplified by the strongly meritocratic nature of the civil service examinations, though they had a major flaw in their extreme sexism, something which was much less pronounced in other civilizations such as Mesoamerica, the Andes and, probably most of all, the civilizations of West Africa, which had democratically elected women heads of government, for example, and the Desi Subcontinent (Desi sexism really only became firmly established with the coming of Islam.) In addition, the Aztecs of Mesoamerica had mandatory public education for both genders, giving them some points.

In terms of technology, we see China as being more or less the most advanced civilization on Earth from the High Middle Ages until the Industrial Revolution, while we see the Preclassical Middle East being the most advanced in the very beginning with Sumer and the Old Kingdom Egypt save the remarkably advanced IVC, then stagnating in many ways until it became China's only major rival in technology in the High Middle Ages. We also see the West being the most advanced in Classical Antiquity and then going into a long period of backwardness after the Fall of Rome until the Enlightenment at the earliest and quite possibly the incredible industrial Revolution. Andean Civilization also deserves credit for its superb civil engineering, with that of the Inka being arguably the best between the Fall of Rome until the Industrial Revolution, with paved roads, systematic waste collection and widespread running water. And Desi Civilization was the most advanced in what was for the West the Dark Ages.

In terms of economics, I would argue that the Andeans were the most advanced, reaching their splendid peak with the Inka economy. Unlike all other major states, the Inka had essentially no poverty, starvation, homelessness and built incredible public works via their Mit'a system of labor taxes. Even China, with its incredible technology, could not achieve this, even during Imperial China's height in the T'ang and Song Dynasties.

And in terms of sustainability and longevity, Chinese civilization is clearly the best, with essentially all its core traits going back to at least the Han Dynasty and most core traits going back to the Shang Dynasty of the Late Bronze Age. However, though long gone, Ancient Egypt also endured for about 3 millennia with very little change.

Thus, it is my view that Chinese, Desi and Andean Civilizations are the best and roughly on a par due to their respect of education, order and their excelling in at least one area (such as sociocultural for the Desi, technology for the Chinese or economics for the Andeans) and are at least average in most others. The West and the Middle East are in the Middle, for different but similar reasons given that they share much history, with the West being the most technologically advanced in Classical Antiquity and High Modernity and the Middle East being the most technologically advanced in Preclassical Antiquity. I ranked West African and Mesoamerican Civilizations at the bottom due to their violence, tribalism/nationalism, low level of development and general lack of order.

And now, I wish to hear other's views on my opinions and to hear other's own opinions.

The Chinese in their prime were more potent then the Hellenistic civilizations.

How did the Chinese loose their way?

When Zheng He sailed he should have made land fall in what is now called the Americas. Why not?

Why didn't the Chinese develop full blown physics?

ruveyn

eunuchs

The reason for your question about Zheng He is probably best answered, at least with my knowledge, in addition to the obvious Haijin decree by the Hongwu Emperor, by the Chinese feelings of superiority and contentment. In contrast to the constantly warring states of Late Medieval Europe, China has been united more or less all the time since the Qin Dynasty: Even when the Mongols and the Manchus invaded, they kept China intact as a state and could never destroy its civilization, which was far to sophisticated, educated and developed by the time of Kublai Khan to tear apart like the Abbasid Caliphate or the Kievian Rus. Since the Han Dynasty, even including the 3 Kingdoms Period, there had been no real threats to Chinese Civilization on the level of the Achaemenids to the West or the Rashiduns to the Persians. The Chinese, due to their belief in the superiority of their civilization and the belief that the holder of the Dragon Throne already, at least in theory, held control of the entire civilized world was unlike that of the West which felt the need to expand after the coming of Christianity to spread the "good news" for their god as well as for more pragmatic reasons, such as the diminutive size of Western states, compared to vast and wealthy China, leading to a strong drive to expand. In a way, the Chinese really did have all they needed in the Ming Dynasty: The Empire of the Great Ming was perfectly adequate in size and resources to give its population a high standard of living, especially when compared with the West.

As for the lack of development in physics, I believe that the pragmatic Chinese approach to philosophy as opposed to the theoretical approach favored in the West led to the Chinese not developing logic (save during the Hundred Schools of Thought by Mozi) nor advanced physics; by contrast, this focus on the practical led to China being more politically developed, with the Imperial Examinations and having scholar-bureaucrats instead of nobility since at least the Sui Dynasty, as well as more socially developed, as can be seen in China's incredible endurance.

So, does anyone else have any opinions on this topic? I would love to hear others' reasoning.