Most Important and Influential River in Human History?

[Alleniana]

What do you mean the river only has a 400 year old history

Well, it's obvious the Native Americans didn't really have a history. They were just loafing about, waiting for some white people to show up so the real fun could start.

The party don't start till I walk in
-Tik Tok, by Christopher Columbus

[Mushet]

How were those rivers not significant until a few hundred years ago?

Mississippi, though the centre of many pre-Columbian civilizations, did not really have much of an effect on anything until the colonies came.
Same for Amazon. The native civilizations did not affect a lot.

Native American cultures have had a fair amount of underestimated influence and the mississipi river happened to be important to the many nations living on it, it was also an important center for the extensive trade networks crossing the Americas and continued the be an important center after colonial invasion.

[Alleniana]

Mississippi, though the centre of many pre-Columbian civilizations, did not really have much of an effect on anything until the colonies came.
Same for Amazon. The native civilizations did not affect a lot.

Native American cultures have had a fair amount of underestimated influence and the mississipi river happened to be important to the many nations living on it, it was also an important center for the extensive trade networks crossing the Americas and continued the be an important center after colonial invasion.

I really can't think of anyway they have affected anything particularly majorly, except for perhaps Incan/Aztec/Mayan gold.

[Gidgetisms]

Amazon

[Alleniana]

Amazon

We were just talking about it

[Gidgetisms]

Amazon

We were just talking about it

it's almost 3 am, lemme 'lone

[Alleniana]

We were just talking about it

it's almost 3 am, lemme 'lone

[Gidgetisms]

it's almost 3 am, lemme 'lone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj45BTgF_YE

[Alleniana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj45BTgF_YE

I can;t see Youtube in China

[Neo Prutenia]

Oh please, that's most definitely what you were implying. It's what you fucking said.

In your opinion and interpretation. Prove it. I didn't say or imply that, and I don't need another person to explain to me what I said. I don't explain to you what your intention was, do I? As proven below, I specifically asked you if you were sensitive about this.

Are you perhaps sensitive about this issue?

I'm sorry that I'm allergic to eurocentrics who happen to be totally ignorant of world history ;'(

Again with the name-calling and accusations. I'm not ignorant of world history and I don't see how you got that impression. We can't talk about "World history" until a "World community" has been established, which happened about 400 to 500 years ago. That's the time frame all humans on the world started sharing one present and one history. Before that it certainly wasn't "World" history.

You seem to enjoy things with confidence about a country you clearly know nothing about. Why?

You seem to know with 100% certainty what I know and don't know about some topic, and what my intention was. If you're so confident that I know nothing about China, you explain it to me then.

China has a large amount of different ethnic groups, with large minorities including the Zhang, Hui, Tibetans, Manchus, Uyghurs, Miao, and Yi. Of course, there's a lot, lot more. If we go back thousands of years, most of the place didn't even speak a Chinese language. We'd have Tibeto-Burman speaking peoples in Sichuan (which actually developed civilization independently of the main civilization between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers), more of those in Tibet, Austronesian speakers in Fujian and Taiwan, Austroasiatic speakers in Guangdong, and much, much more.

All of which are Chinese now politically, and have been so for centuries, and all of which speak Chinese now. I don't recall multiculturalism being a thing in China.

Of course, this is nothing like the relatively puny differences between "Romantic" and "Germanic" in largely culturally homogeneous Europe, but rather more like the massive differences between "Indo-European" and "Semitic," or "Indo-European" and "Dravidian."

Yes, puny difference. Also, it's "Romance", not "Romantic". And Europe is culturally homogeneous. Europe. Because we all share one common language, one common political organisation, the exact same civilisational values, cultural heroes, religion, mythology, etc. Of course. From this statement, one could conclude that you don't know much about Europe. Even on the macrocultural level, there's Western Europe and Eastern Europe, which quite differ in values and have little to no overlapping, and Northern/Continental/Atlantic Europe and Southern/Mediterranean Europe, which have completely different outlooks on life, actually completely opposite ones. There's no singular "Europe" beyond textbooks about geography, nor one European culture. Europe isn't India or China. Maybe some day in the future it will be. Which would be great.

Culturally, these people were nothing like the Chinese, although many of them were assimilated into seeing themselves as Chinese.

No one cares. Especially since yes, they were assimilated. Now they're a footnote in history. Does anyone care about the peculiarities of Bavarians and Swabians? No, they were assimilated into the common "Deutsch" identity.

While some people may like to say that, let's look at

the vast majority of the Zhou dynasty - Chinese
Warring States period - Chinese
late Han dynasty - Chinese
late Tang dynasty - Chinese
Three Kingdoms period - Chinese
Warlords period - Chinese
hrmmmmm

I wonder what this is

An inability to recognise the same pattern repeating itself in a hydraulic empire, where the political establishment changed periodically due to various reasons, but the ethnolinguistic composition, everyday life, and social conditions remained the same for centuries. Mostly the same. Until those drug-peddlers came in their fancy boats and started shooting.

You know, this might be because China is a pretty big place. Like, y'know, 150% the size of Europe if you exclude Russia.

Yes, I figured that out. Thank you captain obvious. Now, look at the scoreboard - these rivers influenced one (large) political entity, while the Rhine influenced more than one. If you had one river starting in Kamchatka and flowing all the way to Saint Petersburg, it would still be relevant for only one country. Size doesn't matter. It's how many it influenced and what the results were.

It might help to have a size comparison for the size of the Sinosphere. Here's a rough equivalent. China has done a remarkable job of expanding its civilization, border, and culture.

I'm not impressed. It's still a localised acheivement, not a global one. It didn't even manage to encompass it's own continent as a whole, nor penetrate any further than that, despite having several opportunities. Again, look at the scoreboard. What we recognise as European or Western has global influence and presence. What we recognise as Chinese is firmly entrenched in East Asia and southeast Asia. Regardless of how big exactly that sphere is, it's not global.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with culture, but the fact that the Industrial Revolution first occurred in Britain, the geographical closeness between the Americas and Europe, and the fact that there were no large mammals able to be domesticated in the Americas.

The Industrial revolution is not a singular event, but a process spanning several decades which mostly simultaneously took place in Great Britain, France, the Low countries, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, before expanding further from there all over the continent and later the world. It was started in Great Britain.

Oh, we're talking about Diamond's "Gun, Germs, and Steel"? Yes, the nations which happened to be located in Europe had many, many advantages. We had luck. So? How does that change the facts?

India is most definitely not a monolithic block of similar culture. The only unifying similarity is Hinduism, which itself is a pretty modern concept. However, even then, there are a significant amount of Muslims in India, and even more before the division of British India.

India has been under two foreign regimes before it became the current singular political entity. It's been a monoculture for the past few centuries, with Hinduism being the only local unifying factor, barring the current political unity. Before that it was a collection of warring states, not unlike Europe. Unlike Europe, it never managed to stabilise and become a global power, or several. It's a shame, since they had a good chance.

Assuming that it's a monoculture, as you say, is as accurate as saying that Europe is a monoculture, although Europe doesn't tend to be as diverse.

Europe still isn't a monoculture, it works towards that goal. And the remark about Europe not being as diverse as India really holds no water. How do you even measure that? Both "entities" have hundreds of million of people, recognisable regional varieties, many languages, and differences in traditions, mythology, and religion. Prove to me please that India is somehow more diverse, even on an superficial level. It just has more people and its distinctive groups are numerically greater. Isn't that what your kind always places its bets on - numbers? Size? So, 250,000,000 Bengalis are more diverse than 2,500,000 Bavarians or 3,500,000 Bretons?

MEHHHH

Hm, more than I expected, but still not global, is it.

The number of countries it runs through is irrelevant. India isn't as politically fractured as Europe.

??? And those two thoughts form a coherent whole how exactly? OK, let's see. We have two (actually three) rivers, and we're trying to determine which has more influence. And you say its irrelevant through how many different groups the river passes. Obviously it doesn't matter how many groups said river influences to determine which river has more influence. Yes, I understand.

India isn't as politically fractured as Europe, since India is under one political regime and is a monoculture .

Perhaps because differences are real, whether or not different groups are independent? If all of Europe was united under France, but was then colonized by say, Korea, and then was given independence as a single nation, would you say the same?

Of course I would, I'm not a hypocrite, like some people. ^_^ I'm perfectly aware that the European nations had luck, compared to the Indian nations. I'm merely interested in the results, the scoreboard. What could have been is just a nice intellectual exercise, but nothing more. It literally doesn't matter, the same way the exact groups don't matter. I'm not holding it against some groups that they didn't achieve certain goals or didn't accomplish colonising India. It says nothing about said groups qualitatively. They're still irrelevant on a global scale, so I'm just indifferent towards them. At least in the context of "influence".

How so?

Mesopotamia was pretty diverse with a large number of differing peoples, especially if you consider Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and Liechtenstein to be so different.

Similar to China really, it was also mostly a hydraulic empire dominated by various local political powers. Generally the regimes only changed, while the living conditions, social organisation etc remained the same. The mythology, language, and customs also didn't change much until the arrival of foreigners like the Persians. Mesopotamia had a really lousy location in terms of political survival, but a great location for building a civilisation. Hence why the Persians managed to use that area for their ends, while the people of Mesopotamia didn't do the same with the Iranian plateau.

There's a difference between several sociopolitical entities existing in one location at the same time, and one location seeing different political regimes changing over the course of some time. Hey, Assyria had a good run. They were cool.

Of which Syria and Iraq happen to be states drawn with arbitrary borders made by colonial powers.

So? How does that concern me, you, or anyone else? How does that affect global, world history. You lose, you have to suffer the consequences. Simple as that.

Not to mention, the borders of Iraq were pretty much drawn to take up the vast majority of the river.

And thus it has become irrelevant to world history, no? How about the Mongols diverting that river? How about the time it was under the firm domination of the Islamic Caliphate? How about we stop pretending that just because it's the cradle of civilisation it has any special importance?
If you were born in a mud hut, you wouldn't be proud about it. You'd be proud about the brick house you moved into when you managed to scrounge up the money. No one cares how it started, merely the results affect us.

Together, that's about the size of Egypt alone. If China was fractured into a million different states, would you name every tiny one along the Yellow or Yangtze river?

Yes, since political autonomy largely affects cultural differences. Austria, Lichtenstein, German Switzerland have a recognisably different culture than Germany, or rather South Germany to be specific. They might as well be aliens to North Germans.

haha, don't be shitting me

Why are you taking it so personal? I want my river(s) to be recognised the same way you want yours.

[Alleniana]

On Chinese/Indian monoculture:
Yes, Europe is fractured.
But yes, China is also fractured.
And yes, India is even more fractured.
But not as fractured as Europe.

Neither China nor India are monocultures, which can be proved fairly well by that which is equivalent to a thousand words, or several:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chinese/maps/map2b.html Admittedly most is Han Chinese Mandarin, but a significant amount is not; nearly half, I think
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/i ... guages.jpg Note Hindi is scarcely 50%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_va ... of_Chinese The very existence of this list, and the fact that most aren't mutually intelligible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_gro ... bcontinent Same for this

[Arumdaum]

On Chinese/Indian monoculture:
Yes, Europe is fractured.
But yes, China is also fractured.
And yes, India is even more fractured.
But not as fractured as Europe.

Neither China nor India are monocultures, which can be proved fairly well by that which is equivalent to a thousand words, or several:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chinese/maps/map2b.html Admittedly most is Han Chinese Mandarin, but a significant amount is not; nearly half, I think
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/i ... guages.jpg Note Hindi is scarcely 50%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_va ... of_Chinese The very existence of this list, and the fact that most aren't mutually intelligible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_gro ... bcontinent Same for this

Not to mention the the spread of Mandarin is relatively recent.

[Shofercia]

8 pages and not one of you has mentioned "Tam."

I'm ashamed of all of you.

Sorry boss, won't happen again

[Arumdaum]

Oh please, that's most definitely what you were implying. It's what you fucking said.

In your opinion and interpretation. Prove it. I didn't say or imply that, and I don't need another person to explain to me what I said. I don't explain to you what your intention was, do I? As proven below, I specifically asked you if you were sensitive about this.

*sigh*

The Rhine; meeting point of two vastly different civilisation and culture types of the same large oikumene (Catholic/Protestant ; Germanic/Romance)

Well, because all the other rivers are part of larger monocultures - Tigris and Euphrates (Mesopotamia, i.e. all the historic versions of what is now Iraq, inc.), Nile (Egypt only), Yangtze/Yellow (China only), Indus/Ganges (India only).

Not to mention that rest of what you have been posting. I mean, you're continuously arguing the same thing, that Europe is endlessly diverse, while places such as India and China are monocultures.

I'm sorry that I'm allergic to eurocentrics who happen to be totally ignorant of world history ;'(

Again with the name-calling and accusations. I'm not ignorant of world history and I don't see how you got that impression. We can't talk about "World history" until a "World community" has been established, which happened about 400 to 500 years ago. That's the time frame all humans on the world started sharing one present and one history. Before that it certainly wasn't "World" history.

Perhaps it was your ignorance of the history of the vast majority of the world, and the amount of ignorance it takes to think that the Rhine is the most important river, while also thinking that Mesopotamia, China, and India are places with only a single culture.

However, if you're going with the bullshit route that "world history" did not start until all humans were connected, then we might as well still argue that we even still don't have a world history, due to the existence of tribes cut off from the rest of the world in places such as the Amazon. However, you're certainly forgetting that history in the world indeed happened before increasing amounts of globalization.

You seem to enjoy things with confidence about a country you clearly know nothing about. Why?

You seem to know with 100% certainty what I know and don't know about some topic, and what my intention was. If you're so confident that I know nothing about China, you explain it to me then.

I did? You'll notice that I do later on.

China has a large amount of different ethnic groups, with large minorities including the Zhang, Hui, Tibetans, Manchus, Uyghurs, Miao, and Yi. Of course, there's a lot, lot more. If we go back thousands of years, most of the place didn't even speak a Chinese language. We'd have Tibeto-Burman speaking peoples in Sichuan (which actually developed civilization independently of the main civilization between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers), more of those in Tibet, Austronesian speakers in Fujian and Taiwan, Austroasiatic speakers in Guangdong, and much, much more.

All of which are Chinese now politically, and have been so for centuries, and all of which speak Chinese now. I don't recall multiculturalism being a thing in China.

Sure. Keep on thinking that. I guess these guys are impossible to tell apart the Han? Fuck, not to mention that Chinese isn't even a fucking language. You might as well say that Romance is a language.

Of course, this is nothing like the relatively puny differences between "Romantic" and "Germanic" in largely culturally homogeneous Europe, but rather more like the massive differences between "Indo-European" and "Semitic," or "Indo-European" and "Dravidian."

Yes, puny difference. Also, it's "Romance", not "Romantic".

My bad, I should have known that. However, so what? You're just avoiding the point. There was historically much more linguistic and diversity present in China, but much of it still lasts today, although Mandarin is the lingua franca (still, not everyone speaks or understands it). India, on the other hand, still has those massive differences.

And Europe is culturally homogeneous.

Yes, quite so, if you're going to call India and China monocultures. It's generally grouped in as a single cultural region. Similar languages, similar clothes, similar uses of dairy products, similar thoughts, etc.

Europe. Because we all share one common language,

What does that have to do with cultural homogeneity? However, most of Europe does speak Indo-European languages, with the exclusion of the Altaic, Turkic, and Uralic minorities.

one common political organisation,

Heck, man, you might as well argue that Native Hawaiians and the Cherokee are culturally homogeneous because of this.

the exact same civilisational values,

Civilizations have values now?

cultural heroes,

Which I'm sure Europe has nothing of. Totally.

religion,

Christianity~

If you're going to go this into separate sects, I might as well delve into all the differing religions and the sects of those different religions present in both India and China.

mythology, etc.

All of which generally evolved from this, so meh.

Of course. From this statement, one could conclude that you don't know much about Europe.

Actually, one could probably conclude that you don't really know of any places enough to compare Europe to anything.

Even on the macrocultural level, there's Western Europe and Eastern Europe,

And if you look on another macrocultural scale, there's Europe! Tada!

which quite differ in values

Not really, no.

If so, what values? The result of the Soviet Union and its satellites?

and have little to no overlapping,

Yeah, no. It's a relatively recent thing based on the division of Central Europe at the end of WWII. Historically, there was quite a bit of overlap.

and Northern/Continental/Atlantic Europe and Southern/Mediterranean Europe, which have completely different outlooks on life, actually completely opposite ones.

Regions have outlooks on life now?

There's no singular "Europe" beyond textbooks about geography, nor one European culture.

Sure.

Europe isn't India or China. Maybe some day in the future it will be. Which would be great.

Are you suggesting that both China and India have all that?

Culturally, these people were nothing like the Chinese, although many of them were assimilated into seeing themselves as Chinese.

No one cares. Especially since yes,

Actually, I'm pretty sure historians, those who study linguistics, and those interested in East and Southeast Asia care. As well as like, you know, those who haven't been assimilated yet, as well as everyone who lives there.

they were assimilated. Now they're a footnote in history. Does anyone care about the peculiarities of Bavarians and Swabians? No, they were assimilated into the common "Deutsch" identity.

No, because you're assuming that the different groups which existed in China prior to the modern day were as similar as Bavarians and Swabians. They were all German, and all spoke German.

It'd be like if German had become pretty large, and gobbled up some Turks and Arabs, as well as perhaps some Hausa-speakers. The original inhabitants of Fujian were more similar to Hawaiians than to the Chinese.

While some people may like to say that, let's look at

the vast majority of the Zhou dynasty - Chinese
Warring States period - Chinese
late Han dynasty - Chinese
late Tang dynasty - Chinese
Three Kingdoms period - Chinese
Warlords period - Chinese
hrmmmmm

I wonder what this is

An inability to recognise the same pattern repeating itself in a hydraulic empire, where the political establishment changed periodically due to various reasons, but the ethnolinguistic composition, everyday life, and social conditions remained the same for centuries. Mostly the same. Until those drug-peddlers came in their fancy boats and started shooting.

Or maybe it's a lack of political continuity, because that looks much more like it.

However, no. Once again, your lack of knowledge regarding China is showing. Unless you're going to say that changes in everyday life were minor compared to what happened after industrialization, which is true, there were definitely big changes going on in everyday life.

Ethnolinguistic composition? Yeah, haha, no. The Austronesian languages of Fujian are dead. The Manchu have been overwhelmed by the Han. The Koreans are long gone, with the ones in Manchuria having arrived only in the past century. The Evenki are sort of... endangered. Mandarin has penetrated the Turkic speaking Xinjiang through China's historic colonization efforts, although many people there still speak Uyghur languages, as well as the Tungusic Xibe (basically Manchu).

Sichuan? Overwhelmed in 18th century, and the original civilization which developed in Sichuan independently of the one between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers has long since been gone.

Social conditions? There were massive changes following the introduction of the civil service exam, which resulted in some form of meritocracy. When nomads took over various parts of China, many people ruled them was their own feudal domains. If you really think that nothing changed in China prior to the arrival of mighty whitey, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Also, I'm pretty sure widespread usage of coal rather than wood for heat during the Song dynasty was a pretty big social change as well, as well people investing in joint-stock companies and buying entire mountains to cut down their trees.

You know, this might be because China is a pretty big place. Like, y'know, 150% the size of Europe if you exclude Russia.

Yes, I figured that out. Thank you captain obvious. Now, look at the scoreboard - these rivers influenced one (large) political entity, while the Rhine influenced more than one. If you had one river starting in Kamchatka and flowing all the way to Saint Petersburg, it would still be relevant for only one country. Size doesn't matter. It's how many it influenced and what the results were.

Holy shit man, why do you keep assuming that

more political entities = so so different

and

single political entity = EVERYTHING IS THE SAME I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE

Fuck, you want to argue about the similarities Siberian reindeer hunters and Russian kleptocrats or something? China and Russia have both created massive empires with a diverse amount of peoples, and have at least managed not to fracture forever, unlike Europe after the Roman Empire.

It might help to have a size comparison for the size of the Sinosphere. Here's a rough equivalent. China has done a remarkable job of expanding its civilization, border, and culture.

I'm not impressed. It's still a localised acheivement, not a global one. It didn't even manage to encompass it's own continent as a whole, nor penetrate any further than that, despite having several opportunities. Again, look at the scoreboard. What we recognise as European or Western has global influence and presence. What we recognise as Chinese is firmly entrenched in East Asia and southeast Asia. Regardless of how big exactly that sphere is, it's not global.

You know, that might be because Eurasia is a huge frekkin place, which not even the Mongols could wholly encompass. It's not very local, as going from the western to the eastern tip of China is like driving from France to Afghanistan. Not very local.

And, so what? If the Industrial Revolution had occurred during the Song dynasty, it'd have been the same, except with China.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with culture, but the fact that the Industrial Revolution first occurred in Britain, the geographical closeness between the Americas and Europe, and the fact that there were no large mammals able to be domesticated in the Americas.

The Industrial revolution is not a singular event, but a process spanning several decades which mostly simultaneously took place in Great Britain, France, the Low countries, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, before expanding further from there all over the continent and later the world. It was started in Great Britain.

That's... what I said?

Oh, we're talking about Diamond's "Gun, Germs, and Steel"? Yes, the nations which happened to be located in Europe had many, many advantages. We had luck. So? How does that change the facts?

Never read that, actually. However, the it makes the caveats which came about through overwhelming numbers, superior technology, and overwhelming industrial capacity much less impressive.

India is most definitely not a monolithic block of similar culture. The only unifying similarity is Hinduism, which itself is a pretty modern concept. However, even then, there are a significant amount of Muslims in India, and even more before the division of British India.

India has been under two foreign regimes before it became the current singular political entity. It's been a monoculture for the past few centuries, with Hinduism being the only local unifying factor, barring the current political unity. Before that it was a collection of warring states, not unlike Europe. Unlike Europe, it never managed to stabilise and become a global power, or several. It's a shame, since they had a good chance.

Holy shit man, when will you get that two cultures being located within a single political entity doesn't mean that they're the same?

Assuming that it's a monoculture, as you say, is as accurate as saying that Europe is a monoculture, although Europe doesn't tend to be as diverse.

Europe still isn't a monoculture, it works towards that goal. And the remark about Europe not being as diverse as India really holds no water. How do you even measure that? Both "entities" have hundreds of million of people, recognisable regional varieties, many languages, and differences in traditions, mythology, and religion. Prove to me please that India is somehow more diverse, even on an superficial level. It just has more people and its distinctive groups are numerically greater. Isn't that what your kind always places its bets on - numbers? Size? So, 250,000,000 Bengalis are more diverse than 2,500,000 Bavarians or 3,500,000 Bretons?

MEHHHH

Hm, more than I expected, but still not global, is it.

When did being global come into this? You're moving goalposts. This is about whether India's a monoculture.

The number of countries it runs through is irrelevant. India isn't as politically fractured as Europe.

??? And those two thoughts form a coherent whole how exactly? OK, let's see. We have two (actually three) rivers, and we're trying to determine which has more influence. And you say its irrelevant through how many different groups the river passes. Obviously it doesn't matter how many groups said river influences to determine which river has more influence. Yes, I understand.

Perhaps since you seem to be equating political independence with being a single culture?

Groups =/= countries

You do realize there's more than a single group in India or China, right?

India isn't as politically fractured as Europe, since India is under one political regime and is a monoculture .

Perhaps because differences are real, whether or not different groups are independent? If all of Europe was united under France, but was then colonized by say, Korea, and then was given independence as a single nation, would you say the same?

Of course I would, I'm not a hypocrite, like some people. ^_^

are u suggestin im a hypocrite mate

I'm perfectly aware that the European nations had luck, compared to the Indian nations. I'm merely interested in the results, the scoreboard. What could have been is just a nice intellectual exercise, but nothing more. It literally doesn't matter, the same way the exact groups don't matter. I'm not holding it against some groups that they didn't achieve certain goals or didn't accomplish colonising India. It says nothing about said groups qualitatively. They're still irrelevant on a global scale, so I'm just indifferent towards them. At least in the context of "influence".

What scoreboard? This is about cultural similarities, goddammit.

How so?

Mesopotamia was pretty diverse with a large number of differing peoples, especially if you consider Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and Liechtenstein to be so different.

Similar to China really, it was also mostly a hydraulic empire dominated by various local political powers.

And surely, while the differences in China and Iraq are only local, the differences between Germany and Austria are just so massive! Sure, sure.

Generally the regimes only changed, while the living conditions, social organisation etc remained the same. The mythology, language, and customs also didn't change much until the arrival of foreigners like the Persians. Mesopotamia had a really lousy location in terms of political survival, but a great location for building a civilisation. Hence why the Persians managed to use that area for their ends, while the people of Mesopotamia didn't do the same with the Iranian plateau.

*sigh*

this is relevant to Iraq being a monoculture how

There's a difference between several sociopolitical entities existing in one location at the same time, and one location seeing different political regimes changing over the course of some time. Hey, Assyria had a good run. They were cool.

What does this have to do with anything?

Of which Syria and Iraq happen to be states drawn with arbitrary borders made by colonial powers.

So? How does that concern me, you, or anyone else? How does that affect global, world history. You lose, you have to suffer the consequences. Simple as that.

How do you remember anything historical if you can't even remember the topic?

This isn't about "losing" or "winning." This was about you saying the Iraq was always a monoculture since it's a single country today, and me saying that it's only a single country since the British and French decided to draw arbitrary borders encompassing several different peoples while divvying up the Ottoman Empire.

Not to mention, the borders of Iraq were pretty much drawn to take up the vast majority of the river.

And thus it has become irrelevant to world history, no? How about the Mongols diverting that river? How about the time it was under the firm domination of the Islamic Caliphate? How about we stop pretending that just because it's the cradle of civilisation it has any special importance?
If you were born in a mud hut, you wouldn't be proud about it. You'd be proud about the brick house you moved into when you managed to scrounge up the money. No one cares how it started, merely the results affect us.

And the relevance of the British drawing borders on a map to take up most of the rivers to this isssss

Together, that's about the size of Egypt alone. If China was fractured into a million different states, would you name every tiny one along the Yellow or Yangtze river?

Yes, since political autonomy largely affects cultural differences. Austria, Lichtenstein, German Switzerland have a recognisably different culture than Germany, or rather South Germany to be specific. They might as well be aliens to North Germans.

Holy shit, I don't think I've met a more eurocentric person yet.

[Utceforp]

Yes, it's a bit random, but it's NSG. So, what was it? The most important and influential river to homo sapiens' history, development and everything about them. Consider all factors; environmental, scientific, war, etc. However, only consider fairly direct effects; no pulling some prehistoric river out of your ass saying without it reptiles and therefore humans would never have been, or something like that.

Here's a list of rivers which I'm fairly sure will make it to the top:

Tigris
Euphrates
Rhine
Danube
Nile
Yangtze
Yellow
Ganges
Indus

I won't be choosing one, merely discussing, by the way. Poll will be up after there's an idea of the main candidates, which I am guessing will be those 9, plus an "Other" option, because the Po or the Rhone or the Mississippi and the Amazon probably aren't quite as important.

I'd say that all of the "ancient" ones (Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Yellow, whatever American rivers the Meso, Southern and Northern American cultures developed around) all tie the most important, considering they were the place where writing, cities, farming, et cetera were first created. (Fertile river -> Irrigation -> farming -> food surplus -> everything else essential to civilization.)

[Utceforp]

Rhine has vastly different civilizations and cultures, Mesopotamia/China/India are all so similar

sure

keep on thinking that

You're free to try and convince me otherwise, although that's not what I said or implied. Are you perhaps sensitive about this issue?

There's no arguing that China is a monoculture, and has been such for thousands of years. It's the textbook definition of "uninterrupted political continuity", and both the Yangtze and Yellow River are relevant to China only. However, the Chinese civilisation and its values have not gone beyond their immediate neighbourhood, the Sinosphere. It's certainly a great contributor to human history and diversity, but on a global level, it has been outcompeted by other cultures.

India is a rather modern concept, barring a few early attempts to unify the sub-continent. Ashoka's Empire comes to mind. We could talk about a Hindu continuity and oikumene, and a unified Hindu monoculture, but it never achieved any particular success outside of its borders. Again, limited to its immediate neighbourhood. Plus, both Indian rivers run just through two countries each, India and Pakistan for the Indus, and India and Bangladesh for the Ganges. In addition, what do the local differences matter if they never managed to expose themselves and establish politically?

Mesopotamia certainly was a monoculture with shifting political regimes until it, like Egypt, was conquered by foreign political entities. In modern times, those two rivers go through three countries - Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, inc.

The Rhine is relevant to six countries, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland, and partially Austria and Lichtenstein. That's already more diversity than either of the six rivers mentioned above, and those came in pairs. How about we properly pair up the Rhine with the Danube over the Main? You'd have a connection from the North sea to the Black sea. Perhaps as pairs, the Indus/Ganges, Tigris/Euphrates etc can be candidates for most important/influential, but the Rhine can hold up to them alone.

Mesopotamia was not a monoculture. Nearly every individual city-state worshipped a different god, unless of course they were under the rule of another city (Such as Ur, Akkad, Assur or Babylon). Sumerian and Akkadian, while similar, are entirely different languages as well. It would be like saying that all of the countries of Europe are a single culture.

Also, India, China and the other groups you mentioned aren't monocultures either, but I don't know as much about them, so I'll let others argue that point.

[Northwest Slobovia]

For Europe, it's the Rhine. For Africa, it's the Nile. For the Middle East, it's both the Tigris and the Euphrates.

This is the closest to the truth so far. "Most Important" is a silly thing to worry about for history, period, and for rivers, which ones might make a top-5 list vary with the region and time.

The Mississppi wasn't very significant on a global stage until the arrival of Europeans in the Americas. But after that, it becomes increasingly important to the settlement of North America and the development of the US as an economic powerhouse. Meanwhile, the significance of the Nile has decreased in recent centuries, having been eclipsed by some ditch somebody dug nearby.

[Freelanderness]

Well, it's obvious the Native Americans didn't really have a history. They were just loafing about, waiting for some white people to show up so the real fun could start.

The party don't start till I walk in
-Tik Tok, by Christopher Columbus

no plz.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

For Europe, it's the Rhine. For Africa, it's the Nile. For the Middle East, it's both the Tigris and the Euphrates.

This is the closest to the truth so far. "Most Important" is a silly thing to worry about for history, period, and for rivers, which ones might make a top-5 list vary with the region and time.

The Mississppi wasn't very significant on a global stage until the arrival of Europeans in the Americas. But after that, it becomes increasingly important to the settlement of North America and the development of the US as an economic powerhouse. Meanwhile, the significance of the Nile has decreased in recent centuries, having been eclipsed by some ditch somebody dug nearby.

That's what I said earlier. Trying to say just one river has been the most influential and important, in all of human history, is pointless.

[Rio Cana]

I'd say that all of the "ancient" ones (Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Yellow, whatever American rivers the Meso, Southern and Northern American cultures developed around) all tie the most important, considering they were the place where writing, cities, farming, et cetera were first created. (Fertile river -> Irrigation -> farming -> food surplus -> everything else essential to civilization.)

The Pueblo native civilization of the Southwestern US seemed to have settled not far from the Rio Grande. But they were desert cultures.

See large map in spoiler

Rio Grande is that dark North to South line. The current NM. highway currently follows it.

[Mushet]

Native American cultures have had a fair amount of underestimated influence and the mississipi river happened to be important to the many nations living on it, it was also an important center for the extensive trade networks crossing the Americas and continued the be an important center after colonial invasion.

I really can't think of anyway they have affected anything particularly majorly, except for perhaps Incan/Aztec/Mayan gold.

Contributions in trading, discovery, agricultural technology, industrialization, the culinary field, hunting, realm of politics, the english language, fishing, healing, even where cities are today are largely built over already existing Indian settlements.

[Shofercia]

I really can't think of anyway they have affected anything particularly majorly, except for perhaps Incan/Aztec/Mayan gold.

Contributions in trading, discovery, agricultural technology, industrialization, the culinary field, hunting, realm of politics, the english language, fishing, healing, even where cities are today are largely built over already existing Indian settlements.

You didn't mention calendarmaking.

I wonder why

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Contributions in trading, discovery, agricultural technology, industrialization, the culinary field, hunting, realm of politics, the english language, fishing, healing, even where cities are today are largely built over already existing Indian settlements.

You didn't mention calendarmaking.

I wonder why

Putin.

[Mushet]

Contributions in trading, discovery, agricultural technology, industrialization, the culinary field, hunting, realm of politics, the english language, fishing, healing, even where cities are today are largely built over already existing Indian settlements.

You didn't mention calendarmaking.

I wonder why

Maya made a good calendar, not really their fault white people thought it predicted total armageddon.

[Aethrys]

The Volga.