3 ms·

No matter how you define or name these things, your definitions will still be arbitrary. Polity. Empire. Civilization. It's like defining species, or musicals g

No matter how you define or name these things, your definitions will still be arbitrary. Polity. Empire. Civilization. It's like defining species, or musicals genres. There's obviously a there there, but it's not discreet. Civilization or polity don't really have discrete meanings or beginning/end dates. Did Cyrus' civilization really end when Alexander beat the Persian imperial armies? Most of the political structures endured and then evolved under Hellenism. Did Hellenism end when Rome conquered the "world?" Well... Greek language and culture continued to dominate politically for another 1000 years.

mannykannot 8y ago
While the physical and temporal scope of a particular empire, and the civilization it ruled over, have sometimes been co-extensive, that does not mean that the definitions are arbitrary or interchangeable. My understanding is that 'civilization' refers to a social organization in which populations, economic and political activity are concentrated in cities, and is independent of which political entity is running the show. In ancient times, civilization did come and go in various regions (e.g. the Indus valley and the Amazon basin), while in the last thousand years, empires have come and gone while the civilizations they fought over have endured. To be clear, the world did not switch uniformly from one mode to the other. In the Nile and Yangtze valleys, for example, civilization has persisted through several millennia of political change. Cyrus' empire did end with Alexander's invasion, but the underlying civilization of the region remained.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  Take turkey.... Did the Byzantine/Roman civilization end when the ottomans took over? Social organization changed, but not wholesale. social organization in which populations, Economic and political activity continued, concentrated in cities. Greek remained a major language, as did many Greek laws. Incidentally, why was Rome/Byzantine civilization Greek speaking in anatolia? Because it had been Hellenised long before Rome conquered it. ..and language isn't everything. Before the Greeks were others, notably the hittites, a great civilization. What I mean by arbitrary is that whether your chart shows continuity of a civilisation or not depends on how you define the term. One chart will show continuity from the bronze age to the present (or maybe until 1908). You could make that case. The cities mostly remaining occupied and the political organization probably had a lot of continuity. Another chart (like this one) will have Hittite, Hellenic, greco-roman, Byzantine, ottoman, etc. Civilisations lined up one after the other
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    What you are doing here is writing 'civilization' where 'empire' is the more appropriate usage. Up to that transformation, we are in agreement. I assume the author of the second chart that you mention is doing the same thing. Frequency of use is not the most important issue, but Google estimates 75,400 hits for "Byzantine civilization" (plus 15,400 for "Byzantine civilisation"), and 4.3 million for "Byzantine empire".
    - dalbasal 8y ago
      S'not me. It's the article, and the comments... and everyone. I think you hit these sorts of problems regardless though. You could say empire, civilization, polity, society, culture... They're all fuzzy classifications. They aren't discreet terms. A civilization doesn't begin or end at a certain date.. unless you agree to some specific formulation. But, that will not be an exact fit when you try to apply it elsewhere. Taken totally literally, civilization just means urbanism. But obviously, that's not what we're talking about here.
      - mannykannot 8y ago
        I see that you have gone back to claiming an interchangeability in meaning that is not supported either by dictionaries or general usage. The 'fuzziness' is just a consequence of your (and the article's, and some comments, but by no means everybody's) idiosyncratic usage: by treating 'Byzantine empire' and 'Byzantine civilization' as if they were interchangeable terms, then you have to explain that civilization on the Bosporus did not end with the fall of Constantinople, as you did a couple of posts ago. If, however, you stick with the usage that is preferred by a ratio of 50:1, then the fuzziness and potential confusion goes away, as then you would be using two distinct terms for two distinct concepts. Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur, as the issue is not whether 'civilization' just means urbanism here, but whether it means the same thing as 'empire'.

mannykannot 8y ago

While the physical and temporal scope of a particular empire, and the civilization it ruled over, have sometimes been co-extensive, that does not mean that the definitions are arbitrary or interchangeable. My understanding is that 'civilization' refers to a social organization in which populations, economic and political activity are concentrated in cities, and is independent of which political entity is running the show. In ancient times, civilization did come and go in various regions (e.g. the Indus valley and the Amazon basin), while in the last thousand years, empires have come and gone while the civilizations they fought over have endured. To be clear, the world did not switch uniformly from one mode to the other. In the Nile and Yangtze valleys, for example, civilization has persisted through several millennia of political change. Cyrus' empire did end with Alexander's invasion, but the underlying civilization of the region remained.

dalbasal 8y ago
Take turkey.... Did the Byzantine/Roman civilization end when the ottomans took over? Social organization changed, but not wholesale. social organization in which populations, Economic and political activity continued, concentrated in cities. Greek remained a major language, as did many Greek laws. Incidentally, why was Rome/Byzantine civilization Greek speaking in anatolia? Because it had been Hellenised long before Rome conquered it. ..and language isn't everything. Before the Greeks were others, notably the hittites, a great civilization. What I mean by arbitrary is that whether your chart shows continuity of a civilisation or not depends on how you define the term. One chart will show continuity from the bronze age to the present (or maybe until 1908). You could make that case. The cities mostly remaining occupied and the political organization probably had a lot of continuity. Another chart (like this one) will have Hittite, Hellenic, greco-roman, Byzantine, ottoman, etc. Civilisations lined up one after the other
- mannykannot 8y ago
  What you are doing here is writing 'civilization' where 'empire' is the more appropriate usage. Up to that transformation, we are in agreement. I assume the author of the second chart that you mention is doing the same thing. Frequency of use is not the most important issue, but Google estimates 75,400 hits for "Byzantine civilization" (plus 15,400 for "Byzantine civilisation"), and 4.3 million for "Byzantine empire".
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    S'not me. It's the article, and the comments... and everyone. I think you hit these sorts of problems regardless though. You could say empire, civilization, polity, society, culture... They're all fuzzy classifications. They aren't discreet terms. A civilization doesn't begin or end at a certain date.. unless you agree to some specific formulation. But, that will not be an exact fit when you try to apply it elsewhere. Taken totally literally, civilization just means urbanism. But obviously, that's not what we're talking about here.
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      I see that you have gone back to claiming an interchangeability in meaning that is not supported either by dictionaries or general usage. The 'fuzziness' is just a consequence of your (and the article's, and some comments, but by no means everybody's) idiosyncratic usage: by treating 'Byzantine empire' and 'Byzantine civilization' as if they were interchangeable terms, then you have to explain that civilization on the Bosporus did not end with the fall of Constantinople, as you did a couple of posts ago. If, however, you stick with the usage that is preferred by a ratio of 50:1, then the fuzziness and potential confusion goes away, as then you would be using two distinct terms for two distinct concepts. Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur, as the issue is not whether 'civilization' just means urbanism here, but whether it means the same thing as 'empire'.