I will respond to you Horace, as you show decorum in your reply. However, Bryce330, please refrain from further discussion with me until you learn some manners. I think what you do not understand is that there is a difference between a civilisation and a culture, a culture contributes to literature, civilisation creates a society. Society was already in practice in Europe prior to the early nations, such as Wessex, Brittany, and Prussia. The UK, France and Germany (or the second Reich to be precise) simply adopted that society; hence, once again by definition of the word civilisation, they are not civilisations. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am quite sure that the US does not have gentry.
First of all, I do not appreciate your unwarranted personal attacks on me. Second, as LA Guy and Fabienne have pointed out, there are many ways to define "civilization": however, I'm not aware of any definition under which a civilization has to "create a new society" rather than "adopt an existing society." All of the civilizations you listed in your earlier message were based on existing cultures to various extents: i.e. the Aztecs were based on the foundations established by the Olmecs, Teotihuacanos, Toltecs, and others, while Roman civilization was based almost entirely on the accomplishments of Greek and Hellenistic culture. Also, according to this definition, the US and the UK can never be "civilizations" since they supposedly adopted existing societies. However, in your original post you claim that the English and French "have not reached" civilization yet, suggesting that they can still somehow reach a state of civilization. Please explain how the US and the English are supposed to become civilized if civilization requires the creation of an entirely new society.