Another look at the Greeks....

[RadioRaheem84]

Modern Bourgeois history tells us that despite their misgivings, ancient Greeks and later Romans gave us such great ideas of democracy and republicanism. While I agree to a certain extent, it would be no different than looking at the positive aspects of other pagan empires such as the Egyptians and the Aztecs. They all believed in a cosmology that relied on an order/chaos complex. We came out of nature, therefore we are an extension of that nature, etc. The Aztecs relied on the jungle, the Egyptians on the desert and the Greeks on the city-state to explain order and that we could achieve divinity through acts of righteousness that appease or mimic the gods.

IMO, I reject the modern notion today that the Greeks really didn't believe in the religious aspects of their culture and that they were a rational ancient example of democratic unity that respected individualism, secularism, etc. From what I've read so far, they were proto-fascist as their center of orientation was not on the individual but the city-state and it's destiny. It was a frickin' shame culture like that of feudal Japan (samurais) not the bedrock of modern western civ.

Any thoughts?

[Demogorgon]

Well it was a slave based society, so it doesn't exactly match what would be considered a free society in modern times. What you had was a privileged citizen class being sustained by the work of slaves and contributing considerably less than they were receiving.

What is interesting though is that to one extent or another, and most noticeably in Athens is that rather than a small elite of the citizenry ruling all adult males from the citizen class took part, including those who were really quite poorly off. Further the institutions in place were clearly democratic to the extent that people had a vote at all.

The Roman Republic is a similar sort of case, again there was a privileged citizen class being sustained by slaves taking part in the political process but it was noticeably less democratic and is interesting instead for the way in which it represented the people taking on the elite and obtaining certain rights for themselves versus the aristocracy.

The way you would generally expect a slave based society to be run is much as it was during the Roman monarchy or the early republic. That is a small elite at the top that ruled, a broader class of free men benefitting economically from slavery but still oppressed by dictatorial rule from above and a vast amount of slaves keeping everything going.

Both Rome and Greece represented class conflict changing this. In Greece this free but formerly politically powerless class took control, in Rome it managed to establish itself rights against the small elite and the right to share power with them (much like the way in which the bourgeoisie in Britain established a constitutional way to share power in Britain with aristocracy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries).

The material conditions in Rome and Greece were not those of what we would consider a free society, the plain fact is that it was based on slavery and all that follows from that and the conditions were not there for the overthrow of the slave based system. But it is interesting because we do see clear class conflict between the non slave classes resulting in a shift of power away from those right at the top. That is why we tend to think of Greek Democracy and Roman Republicanism as looking forwards.

[RadioRaheem84]

The chaos/order dialectic of the ancient cultures were all the same and all led to a radically "elite" order of top, down social structure. Their beliefs in the origin of the universe as done by the gods then left them to emulate that order too on Earth. As there were elite gods so were their elite men. In ancient Egypt, acts of righteousness granted you closer to the gods. Games, heroic acts, strength, use of the mind made one closer to the gods. There was no way out of this in any society unless you proved yourself worthy and most of the time it was through warrior like abilities.

The ancient Greeks, like the ancient Egyptians are useless references to seek out a way for modern society to emulate.

[ComradeOm]

Why bother with the pagans in the first place? The basis of Western (or at least European) 'civilisation' lies with the Franks and not any ancient Mediterraneans

[Pavlov's House Party]

What do you mean by "basis"? Also, why the Franks?

I'd say it has something to do with their creation of feudalism: when the Roman Empire was declining in the 5th century the Franks and other Germanic tribes conquered a lot of Western Europe from the Romans, swept away the Roman political system and offices (but retained the Christian churches) and implemented the feudal system. The ancient Greeks had no influence whatsoever on the Feudal order, and later in the Renaissance, ancient Greek ideals and philosophies went head to head with the dominant feudalist ideas.

[btpound]

It is because in a world conqoured by the west it is the history of the west that is important. Might equals right. Because Europe became so powerful, it is naturally because their ideas were the best! I am so sick of turning on the history channel and seeing nothing but the history of Europe. What about Africa, south america, asia? Its a subtle white power dynamic that uplifts only europeans as the most enlightened people on the globe.

[Pavlov's House Party]

It is because in a world conqoured by the west it is the history of the west that is important. Might equals right. Because Europe became so powerful, it is naturally because their ideas were the best! I am so sick of turning on the history channel and seeing nothing but the history of Europe. What about Africa, south america, asia? Its a subtle white power dynamic that uplifts only europeans as the most enlightened people on the globe.

I'm sorry, but how is this relevant to a discussion about ancient Greece?

[ComradeOm]

What do you mean by "basis"? Also, why the Franks?Because Western European society essentially evolved from traditions and structures established not by Greece or Rome but by the 'barbarian' tribes that migrated into Europe about 1500 years ago. Of these tribes the Franks were by far and away the most influential


The ancient Greeks had no influence whatsoever on the Feudal order, and later in the Renaissance, ancient Greek ideals and philosophies went head to head with the dominant feudalist ideas.Broadly correct except for this. Greek and Roman ideas/philosophy did become popular amongst the intelligentsia in the late medieval period (and onwards) but did not go "head to head" with anything or have much meaningful influence on anything but language. Most early 'democrats' (Lilburne et al) were influenced more by the very feudal concept of 'freeborn rights' than anything written by long dead Greek philosophers. Democracy is very much a product of feudalism

[Dimentio]

Modern Bourgeois history tells us that despite their misgivings, ancient Greeks and later Romans gave us such great ideas of democracy and republicanism. While I agree to a certain extent, it would be no different than looking at the positive aspects of other pagan empires such as the Egyptians and the Aztecs. They all believed in a cosmology that relied on an order/chaos complex. We came out of nature, therefore we are an extension of that nature, etc. The Aztecs relied on the jungle, the Egyptians on the desert and the Greeks on the city-state to explain order and that we could achieve divinity through acts of righteousness that appease or mimic the gods.

IMO, I reject the modern notion today that the Greeks really didn't believe in the religious aspects of their culture and that they were a rational ancient example of democratic unity that respected individualism, secularism, etc. From what I've read so far, they were proto-fascist as their center of orientation was not on the individual but the city-state and it's destiny. It was a frickin' shame culture like that of feudal Japan (samurais) not the bedrock of modern western civ.

Any thoughts?

I think you would have enjoyed the series "The Barbarians" by a certain Terry Jones. It is criticising our views of the Romans, showing that the so-called "barbarian" cultures were equally and often more "civilised" than the Romans. To be fair, Romans were quite "western" or "modern" and would certainly be viewed as the most "modern" of the ancient peoples. The question though is whether "modernism" in itself is something to be celebrated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9hAo8h2gYA

[Demogorgon]

The chaos/order dialectic of the ancient cultures were all the same and all led to a radically "elite" order of top, down social structure. Their beliefs in the origin of the universe as done by the gods then left them to emulate that order too on Earth. As there were elite gods so were their elite men. In ancient Egypt, acts of righteousness granted you closer to the gods. Games, heroic acts, strength, use of the mind made one closer to the gods. There was no way out of this in any society unless you proved yourself worthy and most of the time it was through warrior like abilities.

The ancient Greeks, like the ancient Egyptians are useless references to seek out a way for modern society to emulate.
You have it backwards. They weren't trying to emulate their beliefs. Their beliefs were formed because of the society they lived in. They had a very hierarchical society (because they had a slave based economy) and hence their religion affected that.

Their interest to us is the way class conflict nonetheless led to democracy for non-slaves.

[Dimentio]

You have it backwards. They weren't trying to emulate their beliefs. Their beliefs were formed because of the society they lived in. They had a very hierarchical society (because they had a slave based economy) and hence their religion affected that.

Their interest to us is the way class conflict nonetheless led to democracy for non-slaves.

A slave-based society with colonies inevitable leads to an accumulation of landed wealth and the creation of a middle class with interests in trade and services, forming enough wealth to educate and get taste of politics. It also gives room for the arising of a large permanently unemployed social segment of formally free people, thus creating weight behind the demands for democratic rights for all "freedmen and citizens".

A society where automated factories and machines have taken over most menial tasks will also probably see intensified class conflicts as it will sustain a large, unemployable underclass.

[Bitter Ashes]

Ancient Greece is not so easy to fit into place. Before Alexander the Great's father (his name's slipped my mind), there was no such thing as a Greek nation. There were lots and lots of little city states. The main three bieng Sparta, Athens and Thebes. Each was totaly independant from the other and entirely autonomous.

As you may, or may not know, each one of these states was ruled in different ways. Sparta appointed two kings; one beurocrat and one war leader. The Athenians had a mix of direct democracy and representative democracy, although the majority of residents of Athens were not entitled to vote. I'm unsure what the system was in Thebes, but other smaller cities usualy had either direct democracy or a sherriff system in place.

Once Greece was united by the conquests of Philip of Macedonia (I remembered his name, yay!) then it turned into a blanket feudal system. The king of Greece did not have absolute power and had to face rebellion by the "lords" refusing to pay tithe or military support.

As for the Romans, it's a pretty similar story. It began as independant city states, each with thier own forms of goverment and eventualy became a feudal system. The main difference being that it went through a phase of Republicanism before it went to feudalism. Again, most residents were not entitled to vote.

I've heard it said that Saxon kings were elected, but I must admit that I havent looked into it too much.

[RadioRaheem84]

You have it backwards. They weren't trying to emulate their beliefs. Their beliefs were formed because of the society they lived in. They had a very hierarchical society (because they had a slave based economy) and hence their religion affected that.Are you sure about that? Their society seemed strongly influenced by their religious beliefs. The thought alone of the mind being close to divinity and shouldn't be disturbed gave rise to a host of cultist ideas of not eating beans of all things.
It just seems like the Greeks, Athenians mainly, get a pass over all other ancient cultures. Historians look over their religious and dogmatic beliefs in the polis and think of them more as cultural aspects of their society, as you pointed out. Nothing tobe taken seriously, more or less. I don't believe that and think that it had a large part to do with how their society was structured. Much like the Aztec Empire and it's beliefs. When the Spanish wanted to rid the practice of human sacrifice among the Aztecs, their leaders replied back in horror and literally believed the Spanish wanted to undue the universe. The religious belief couldn't have been separated from that culture and the same with the Greeks.

Each city-state granted had a different set up, but it was all about keeping order and that order was what kept the universe in motion for them. My professors were always trying to whitewash the Greeks (Athenians especially) erratic and irrational behavior. Oh, Pythagoras was a small cult that wanted to eliminate beans from the Greek diet. OK, but what about Callimachus and Empedocles who also wrote of beans and their detriment to the mind. Oh, well it was because the fava beans of the Mediterranean contained an anemic substance that caused stomach pains and hard flatulence. Even so, the idea is irrational because it stems from the presupposed belief that the mind shouldn't be disturbed because it's close to the divine. This is the stuff I am talking about. Just because the Athenians had some small highly exclusive semblance of representative and popular democracy (which was really majoritarian in my opinion) that we must excuse them or whitewash their entire history to match it up to ours. Well you find semblances of democracy in a lot of ancient cultures, and it didn't spring up from rational people, sometimes more irrational than the Athenians. But we somehow think it's out duty as defenders of western civilization to make the Athenians look the least mental than any other ancient society. Alex the Great brought back tales of democratic cities in India that were predominately Buddhist, but these were cast off by modern scholars because of their presupposed belief that Indians were inherently caste-like. All this despite the fact that the Greeks themselves were hierarchical, their religious creed breathed hierarchy and yet they believed so much in Athenian democracy!
Why is there a special place for these Athenians and not other ancient cultures with similar democratic leanings?

[Demogorgon]

Are you sure about that? Their society seemed strongly influenced by their religious beliefs.
No. Once again their religious beliefs were reflecting their society. We don't just randomly come up with religious views and then try to live to them irrespective of our material circumstances.

As I say again, if you want to understand the way Greek society worked, look at its economy.

[RadioRaheem84]

We don't just randomly come up with religious views and then try to live to them irrespective of our material circumstances.

I agree, but the whole structure of certain societies like the Aztecs reflect their cosmovision. Why can't the same be said of the Greeks. Maybe what you explained it the actual explanation for their societies, but I don't think they themselves believed that.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

To Mr Ranma42


Ancient Greece is not so easy to fit into place. Before Alexander the Great's father (his name's slipped my mind), there was no such thing as a Greek nation. There were lots and lots of little city states. The main three bieng Sparta, Athens and Thebes. Each was totaly independant from the other and entirely autonomous.

There was the concept of a 'greek nation', pan-hellenism is a common concept (oft used to politcal ends) after the Greco-Persian Wars.


The Athenians had a mix of direct democracy and representative democracy, although the majority of residents of Athens were not entitled to vote.

There was no representation in the Athenian system, nor any delegation, possitions were filled by either election (for executive positions) or by lot (jurors, beaucratic roles, to provide a random cross-section for part of the legistlature).

The population of Athens by around the mid 300s was about 90,000-70,000, and the voting population (not the citizen population) was around 20,000, of which some 13,500 could sit in the Pnyx (assembly). The Citizen body was formed of all males above the age of 18 (however you need to go through two years' military service, so infact only 20 year olds could attend the assembly).[1]


I'm unsure what the system was in Thebes, but other smaller cities usualy had either direct democracy or a sherriff system in place.

Thebes had an oligarchy, only people who held propery or an estate worth more than a certain value could take a political role. Few cities had a direct democracy or a 'sherriff system'[2]


Once Greece was united by the conquests of Philip of Macedonia (I remembered his name, yay!) then it turned into a blanket feudal system. The king of Greece did not have absolute power and had to face rebellion by the "lords" refusing to pay tithe or military support.

Philip of Makedon never united greece, he conqured it under an alliance/quasi-empire, called 'The League of Corinth' similar to how the USA/USSR controlled their allies via the alliances they held (NATO/Warsaw Pact). Each state in the 'alliance' was largely left alone, so long as it did not 'break the agreement with Philip, nor take up arms on land or sea, harming any of those abiding by the oaths.Nor shall I take any city, or fortress, nor harbour by craft or contrivance, with intent of war'[3].

Under Alexander satraps (governors) were appointed to rule greece in his stead, this continued during the period of Successors, until central Rule collapsed and one such Satrap (Antigonos the One Eyed) claimed Makedonian kingship. But that is another story...

1 Hansen, Mogens H, 1987, Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes
2 Fox, Roblin L, 2005,The Classical World
3 Inscriptions Greecae, Vol II Inscription No 236

To Mr RadioRaheem84.


Their society seemed strongly influenced by their religious beliefs. The thought alone of the mind being close to divinity and shouldn't be disturbed gave rise to a host of cultist ideas of not eating beans of all things. It just seems like the Greeks, Athenians mainly, get a pass over all other ancient cultures.

It was, in many texts events are explained by interferance by the Gods, the majoritiy of Greeks were highly religious, for example, in Xenophons Anabasis, about the exploits of a Greek Mercenary army, they are holding an assembly of all the troops to decide what to do, just after one proposal is made, someone sneezes, this is immediatly assumed to be a sign from the gods and that proposal is followed. Also in Anabasis, we see the same army constantly performing libations. Indeed, all Athenian political inscriptions start with 'ἐπὶ' Gods. (this only changes during the Oligarchic Revolution under Phocion). This points to a heavily religous society.[1][4]



Historians look over their religious and dogmatic beliefs in the polis and think of them more as cultural aspects of their society, as you pointed out. Nothing to be taken seriously, more or less.
I don't believe that and think that it had a large part to do with how their society was structured.

Religous aspects are very important to the cutural life of a Polis. However, Greeks had a diffrent relation to religion that most other societies (including modern ones). For the Greeks, the Gods were not all-powerful, while certain signs (celestial movments for example) were treated as important, for the most part, the Gods were not somekind of all-knowing, all-seeing, deities, they were above all falible. This Falibility ment that while libations would be given, and the Gods treated with respect, they were not the masters of all, as the christian god is or as the Aztec Gods were. In short, while religion was important, it was not all-encompassing as in other societies.[1][2][3]

Furthermore, several historians are defiantly atheist, Thucyidides in his preamble to The Peloponnesian War states that he will categorically not put down any actions to intervention by the gods. Other historians follow this similairly.[6]

In addition to more 'earthly' historians, we see several phliosophical movments which either are seceptical of the Gods, or are outright disbleavers.


Each city-state granted had a different set up, but it was all about keeping order and that order was what kept the universe in motion for them.

No, this is wrong, the Greeks were not the Aztecs who were a theocracy and to whom religion held the highest place in life. Many Polis went under radical change without people fearing the end of the universe.[2][5]


My professors were always trying to whitewash the Greeks (Athenians especially) erratic and irrational behavior.

Then you have shit professors.


Oh, Pythagoras was a small cult that wanted to eliminate beans from the Greek diet. OK, but what about Callimachus and Empedocles who also wrote of beans and their detriment to the mind. Oh, well it was because the fava beans of the Mediterranean contained an anemic substance that caused stomach pains and hard flatulence.

Even so, the idea is irrational because it stems from the presupposed belief that the mind shouldn't be disturbed because it's close to the divine. This is the stuff I am talking about.

Callimachus is in a diffrent period, and is not even from mainland Greece. He is a Ptolemic Greek. Similarly Empedocles was a Sicilian Greek, these places had somewhat diffrent cultural developments, your ignoring facts to support your argument.

You seem to be confusing a poorly developed medical knowledge for somekind of all-encompassing religous aspect to Greek society, when no logical, explainable alternative was avalible to the Greeks they put it down to the Gods, the same happens today, ever watched any of those shit haunted shows on crap digital channels? Unexplained facts, which without proper investigation have been put down to 'the paranormal'.



Just because the Athenians had some small highly exclusive semblance of representative and popular democracy (which was really majoritarian in my opinion) that we must excuse them or whitewash their entire history to match it up to ours.

To be fair sir, Athenian Democracy was more inclusive that all modern Democracies, in any 'democractic' state can 13,500 people directly influence politics? No. It is no more than a few hundred who belong to a small section of society. No one is denying that Athenian democracy was sexist and racist, but, which modern democracy isn't, no-one is whitewashing history, the ancient society america claims to be modeld on is not Athens but Rome, a far more facistic state. Politicians claim that modern democracy is based on the ancient politics of Greece, but few serious historians would.


Well you find semblances of democracy in a lot of ancient cultures, and it didn't spring up from rational people, sometimes more irrational than the Athenians. But we somehow think it's out duty as defenders of western civilization to make the Athenians look the least mental than any other ancient society.

Do we? Athens has as much to do with western civilization as the mongols do, and no-one says they are. The attitude you are taking towards this would have been a viable claim in the enlightenment perhaps, but I don't think anyone who has studied Ancient Greece would consider it 'western'. I don't, and I doubt few of my lecturers do as well. [3][4]


Alex the Great brought back tales of democratic cities in India that were predominately Buddhist, but these were cast off by modern scholars because of their presupposed belief that Indians were inherently caste-like. All this despite the fact that the Greeks themselves were hierarchical, their religious creed breathed hierarchy and yet they believed so much in Athenian democracy!

The are cast off by modern Scholars due to little evidence, the Greeks had a nice little tendecy to make up lots of bullshit about far away lands, a little healthy scepticism when it comes to dealing with Greek discriptions of foriegn lands is not a bad thing. [2]


Why is there a special place for these Athenians and not other ancient cultures with similar democratic leanings?

Simple. Its all the records; we have the entire history of the Athenian state, its constitution, legal battles fought over the constitutionality of new laws, while many claim that the Celts were democratic due to a few off-hand refrences in Caesers' and Tacitus' works, with regards to Athens we have the inner workings, lists of who was officals on what dates, who proposed laws, etc. [2][6]


1 Xenohpon, Anabasis
2 Fox, Roblin L, 2005,The Classical World
3 Ken Dowden 2008
4 Andrew Bayliss 2009
5 Hansen, Mogens H, 1987, Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes
6 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War

[RadioRaheem84]

Religous aspects are very important to the cutural life of a Polis. However, Greeks had a diffrent relation to religion that most other societies (including modern ones). For the Greeks, the Gods were not all-powerful, while certain signs (celestial movments for example) were treated as important, for the most part, the Gods were not somekind of all-knowing, all-seeing, deities, they were above all falible. This Falibility ment that while libations would be given, and the Gods treated with respect, they were not the masters of all, as the christian god is or as the Aztec Gods were. In short, while religion was important, it was not all-encompassing as in other societies.So what if they weren't infallible? That didn't make them any less religious in their outlook. Most the stuff you write is well grounded and I agree with a lot if it. But I think that the scholarship you've posted tries too hard at making the Greeks seem like religion has little to no bearing on their social structure. It is a whitewashing in my opinion to try and make them seem more like our democratic ancestors. V. David Hansen is one of the worst of this.

There is some validity that Greek thought even from its inception was more naturalistic than other societies but the religion of the greeks always an nature creed.


No, this is wrong, the Greeks were not the Aztecs who were a theocracy and to whom religion held the highest place in life. Many Polis went under radical change without people fearing the end of the universe.Changes were ok under the greek chaos/order dialectic because it did not represent unltimate dualism but aspects of being and stages of growth. The center of gravity of Greek life lied in the polis, thus to describe the polis was to describe the whole of greek life. What helped the city-state was good, what injured it was bad. The city-state was itself the cosmos; the order of being. [1]


Then you have shit professors.No I just have very classically Enlightenment-minded professors who insistt upon a neutral rationality and by-pass the religious aspects of the Greeks as being somewhat spurious to their daily lives.


Callimachus is in a diffrent period, and is not even from mainland Greece. He is a Ptolemic Greek. Similarly Empedocles was a Sicilian Greek, these places had somewhat diffrent cultural developments, your ignoring facts to support your argument.Cultural development? You can trace similiar cosmovisions between the Aztecs, the Mayans and several other Mesoamerican cultures from different times and places.


You seem to be confusing a poorly developed medical knowledge for somekind of all-encompassing religous aspect to Greek society, when no logical, explainable alternative was avalible to the Greeks they put it down to the Gods, the same happens today, ever watched any of those shit haunted shows on crap digital channels? Unexplained facts, which without proper investigation have been put down to 'the paranormal'.No, I am not. Religious and esoteric aspects are pervasive in Greek thought. What they "lacked" they willfully attributed it to supernatural explanations. Quite like today science has nailed monotheism yet adherents ignore the science in favor of supernatural reasoning. Minoan culture which preceded the greeks gives extensive evidence of having reached scientific stages never approached by Greeks. Why then of these well known historical facts, are the Greeks usually given priority in the history of human thought? Egyptians, Syrians and Babylonians made excellent use of their natural resources by giving us examples of terrifice scientific management of soil and water. The ancient greeks on the other hand reduced greece to a barren and impoverished land. [2] Why then ascribe the most desirable qualities in modern culture to greek culture?


Do we? Athens has as much to do with western civilization as the mongols do, and no-one says they are. The attitude you are taking towards this would have been a viable claim in the enlightenment perhaps, but I don't think anyone who has studied Ancient Greece would consider it 'western'. I don't, and I doubt few of my lecturers do as well.Benjamin Farrington pg .13 of "Greek science constitutes a veritable miracle". But my theory is that some historians like Farrington attribute wonders to the Greeks because they tried to give (in his eyes) a natural explanation to the universe as a whole, which other cultures obsviously didn't. What other cultures and civilizations triumphed in science and showed a higher intelligence and rationality was downplayed because it wasn't as "naturalistic" as the Greeks. HDF Kitto, The Greeks, page 7; "[the greeks] showed for the first time what the human mind was for". Now there is a belief among some scholars that the Greeks taught an exoteric philosophy while the hidden truth belonged to the members of the school. According to Aristotle, no one was able to understand public texts except those who had the oral tradition.

According to George E. Mylonas in his book Religion in Pre-Historic Greece pg. 164, "the religion of the Greeks was always a nature creed", "out of chaos came the broad flat green earth, the true mother of all things, gods as well as men". The pressuposed concepts of the chaos/order dialectic and the concept of continuity gave them an idea that there was a oneness of being in the cosmos but a difference in power. It pervaded the whole of Greek thought. It gave them their outlook on women (chaos as the womb of being is the femal principle, order being male principle), government (unity of the polis). It is evident in their tales; Apollo in the Eumenides of the Aeschylus declared that: the mother is no parent in that which is called her child but only nurse of the new planted seed that grows. All of this when it is an inescapable fact that man's birth is from a woman. Lycurgus found it absurd that men in other nations bred fine dogs but kept their wives to be mothers only to themselves. Children were not property of the mother but of the commonwealth entire, and he would not have citizens begot by firstcomers but by the very best men. After birth, the male child was to be purged throught rites and initiations of female-ness and chaos. [3] The irrational uncaring for the sick and the needy, Plato's apologizing for Spartan eugenics? No this society was highly immersed in the chaos/order religious belief and it dominated their society and structure of the polis. Democratus beliefs were attributable mostly to his religious outlook not some fault in not knowing any better. "Man is a universe in little (microcosm)", Man was a little cosmos; a walking order, walking law unto himself. Woman, the void. "To be ruled by a woman is the ultimate outrage for a man". "Rule belongs by nature to the strong". Slaves were to used "as parts of the great body". Man was the social atom, and his desires, the social law.
E.R. Dodds in his great book The Greeks and the Irrational thinks of the ancient Greek Culture as a shame culture more closely associated with Japanese feudal Samurai culture than to modern western civ. [4]


1. Werner Jaeger: Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, pg. 21,33

2. HDF Kitto, The Greeks pg. 34, 37 Plato in the Critias, called the once forrested mountains "now only afford sustenance to the bees" and in comparison of what then was "only the bones of the wasted body...all the richer and softer parts of the soil had fallen away" and a mere skeleton of the country was left.

3. Plutarch: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, "Lycurgus", pg. 61

4. Dodds cites the emphasis on face and public honor: Homeric highest good is not the enjoyment of a quiet conscience, but the enjoyment of time and public esteem."
In a great chapter titled "The Fear of Freedom" , "men [in ancient greece] knew it was dangerous to be happy".

[RadioRaheem84]

Comrade wolfie, what I am going for is the foundation of belief. The presupposition. What the Greeks thought about democracy was highly, highly influenced by their religious belief in the chaos/order dialectic. That influenced the way women, the weak, slaves, etc. had a role in their society.

As an example, I differentiate between the golden rules of both Jesus and Buddha. Even though both say "love thy neighbor" they each say it based on totally diverse religious beliefs and presuppositions. One sees it as a way to reach enlightenment while the other sees it a command by a triune God. Similar outcomes but based entirely on two different viewpoints.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Man, this is badass discusion. Far better than the usual leftist mudslinging and sectarianism.


So what if they weren't infallible? That didn't make them any less religious in their outlook. Most the stuff you write is well grounded and I agree with a lot if it. But I think that the scholarship you've posted tries too hard at making the Greeks seem like religion has little to no bearing on their social structure. It is a whitewashing in my opinion to try and make them seem more like our democratic ancestors. V. David Hansen is one of the worst of this.

Infaliblity, is an important concept when discussing faith. If your entire world-view is based up a pantheon of gods, who are just as easily corruptible and falible as you, then the faith isn't as important, its relative, its more of making a deal with the respective god, its not all-ruling, as in the christian system, or in the Aztec.


There is some validity that Greek thought even from its inception was more naturalistic than other societies but the religion of the greeks always an nature creed.

I disagree, I would say that Greek-poytheism was always more humanist, far more focused on people, The Gods were almost always depicted as humans, it comparison to celtic faith which was always centred around physical aspects of their environment, rivers, groves, forests, springs etc. I would disagre, most focus on the politico-social aspects, while the second lecture I refrenced, was on religous aspects of Greek life, It emphasised its strong relation to Greek culture. Religion was one of the unifying factors of the Greek world, along with language, and a common history it formed part of the pan-hellenic identity which was so important to the Greeks.


Changes were ok under the greek chaos/order dialectic because it did not represent unltimate dualism but aspects of being and stages of growth. The center of gravity of Greek life lied in the polis, thus to describe the polis was to describe the whole of greek life. What helped the city-state was good, what injured it was bad. The city-state was itself the cosmos; the order of being. [1]

The city-state was the centre of Greek life, but I disagree about it being the order of being, perhaps in Sparta, (a unique case at best), it was more the centre of social life rather than the centre of a greeks' being, there are plenty of examples of Greeks who have swapped polis, and some even leaving the polis based culture of Greece for Persia or Makedon, a good example being Alkibadies in the late Peloponnesian War (around 430-411)


No I just have very classically Enlightenment-minded professors who insistt upon a neutral rationality and by-pass the religious aspects of the Greeks as being somewhat spurious to their daily lives.

Ancient Historians and Classists tend to be somewhat backward, but that is an odd opinon, perhaps you should ask them if the vandalism of the Hermae was spurious too the Greeks, or the affair of the 8 Generals. (In Thucydides)


Cultural development? You can trace similiar cosmovisions between the Aztecs, the Mayans and several other Mesoamerican cultures from different times and places.

True, but Ptolemic Egypt was a colonial Empire without a homeland, it lead to an interesting bi-cultural system, wherin both Greeks and Egyptians share a common culture together, but maintained seperate cultures appart, even at the highest levels of government. Sicily was also diffrent, exposed to the cultures of proto-Rome and Carthage. The Mesoamericans were exposed to no other cultures, until the Spanish, perhaps explaining the culture-shock that destroyed them.


No, I am not. Religious and esoteric aspects are pervasive in Greek thought. What they "lacked" they willfully attributed it to supernatural explanations. Quite like today science has nailed monotheism yet adherents ignore the science in favor of supernatural reasoning.

I did not deny this fact, however, the majority of Greek intellectuals and scientists seemed to reject both direct and indirect interferance by the Gods, the majority of philiosphers, especially those from the academy in Athens.


Minoan culture which preceded the greeks gives extensive evidence of having reached scientific stages never approached by Greeks.

I want evidence of this, I've never come across this statment before, not to be insulting, but, I'm afraid I just can't take this fact without support.


Why then of these well known historical facts, are the Greeks usually given priority in the history of human thought? Egyptians, Syrians and Babylonians made excellent use of their natural resources by giving us examples of terrifice scientific management of soil and water. The ancient greeks on the other hand reduced greece to a barren and impoverished land. [2] Why then ascribe the most desirable qualities in modern culture to greek culture?

How did the Greeks reduce Greece to an impoverished and barren land? Have you studied Greek geography, its largely mountainous, little areas of flat land, and an arrid mediterranian climate, with little rain. The Fertile cresent and the Nile are vastly more fertile areas, and only under the (Greeco-Makedonian) Ptolemies did Egypt start producing enough crops for export, and by the end of the Roman period, Rome relied on Egyptian Grain. The Greeks were hardly people with a limited agricultural knowledge.[1]


Benjamin Farrington pg .13 of "Greek science constitutes a veritable miracle". But my theory is that some historians like Farrington attribute wonders to the Greeks because they tried to give (in his eyes) a natural explanation to the universe as a whole, which other cultures obsviously didn't. What other cultures and civilizations triumphed in science and showed a higher intelligence and rationality was downplayed because it wasn't as "naturalistic" as the Greeks.

I don't really get what your going at here, so I feel ill equipped to comment, this is more a theological-philiosophical discussion, and as a Ancient Historian/Archaeologist, I'm out of my depth.


HDF Kitto, The Greeks, page 7; "[the greeks] showed for the first time what the human mind was for". Now there is a belief among some scholars that the Greeks taught an exoteric philosophy while the hidden truth belonged to the members of the school. According to Aristotle, no one was able to understand public texts except those who had the oral tradition.

That seems to be a little too much conspiricy-da vinchi code, since we have the philosophical texts and treatises, there is no 'hidden truth' within (unless you belive in that atlantis nonsense). It would be illogical to build these huge stelae for an illterate population, In largely illterate societies (such as in Minoan Society) texts were used primarily for records, (the huge trade lists written in Linear B), furthermore, in the practice of Ostracism, whereby every citizen could write the name of a man they wished to have ostracised (removed from political life) for 4 years, since this require 60% of the voting population it would seem that much of the populace was literate, further evidence from inscriptions, (carved in walls, pot sherds, etc) as well as the fact that virtually all recoverd decorated pottery (while made for the elites, it was manufactured by the urban poor, small craftsmen etc) has text upon it discribing the events dipicted.


According to George E. Mylonas in his book Religion in Pre-Historic Greece pg. 164, "the religion of the Greeks was always a nature creed", "out of chaos came the broad flat green earth, the true mother of all things, gods as well as men". The pressuposed concepts of the chaos/order dialectic and the concept of continuity gave them an idea that there was a oneness of being in the cosmos but a difference in power. It pervaded the whole of Greek thought.


It gave them their outlook on women (chaos as the womb of being is the female principle, order being male principle), government (unity of the polis). It is evident in their tales; Apollo in the Eumenides of the Aeschylus declared that: the mother is no parent in that which is called her child but only nurse of the new planted seed that grows. All of this when it is an inescapable fact that man's birth is from a woman.

Your forcing this order/disorder dictonamy, the Greek outlook on women was that they were sent to punish men for Prometheus' theft of the fire. Your second is a quote from a poem/play, it is the equvelent of using shakespears' sonets and plays as a reflection of tudor life, it is a literary device used to illustrate the scean. Shall I compare thee to a summers day? for example.


Lycurgus found it absurd that men in other nations bred fine dogs but kept their wives to be mothers only to themselves. Children were not property of the mother but of the commonwealth entire, and he would not have citizens begot by firstcomers but by the very best men. After birth, the male child was to be purged throught rites and initiations of female-ness and chaos. [3] The irrational uncaring for the sick and the needy, Plato's appologizeing for Spartan eugenics? No this society was highly immersed in the chaos/order religious belief and it dominated their society and structure of the polis. Democratus beliefs were attributable mostly to his religious outlook not some fault in not knowing any better. "Man is a universe in little (microcosm)", Man was a little cosmos; a walking order, walking law unto himself. Woman, the void. "To be ruled by a woman is the ultimate outrage for a man". "Rule belongs by nature to the strong", Slaves were to used "as parts of the great body". Man was the social atom, and his desires, the social law.

Two points;

1:Lycurgus is a quasi-mythological character, his role in the Spartan foundation mythos is simliar to the role of King Arthur to Medieval Europe, an example of all that is good and a rolemodel to follow.

2: Sparta is unrepressentative of the Greek world and its culture, its crypto-facist, Eugenics, infantacide and enforced homosexuality mean that it has little to tell us about Greek culture as a whole, and a whole lot about facism. Sparta is best used as an example of a proto-facist state rather than as an example of Ancient Greek society, this point is moot.



E.R. Dodds in his great book The Greeks and the Irrational thinks of the ancient Greek Culture as a shame culture more closely associted with Japanese fuedal Samurai culture than to modern western civ. [4]
It was a highly

Having not read that text, and it does seem very interesting, I will only make a short comment, that 'Greek Culture' varied from polis to polis, little was common beyond a few small commonalities, a shared religion, language, and some shared arts (drama, poetry) and sports. The ins-and-outs of just how a society set its rules on acceptablity and social norms. However, one thing I will add about the text, is that in my readings I have never come across this theory, which to me, suggests that this theory holds little credance.


1. Werner Jaeger: Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, pg. 21,33

2. HDF Kitto, The Greeks pg. 34, 37 Plato in the Critias, called the once forrested mountains "now only afford sustenance to the bees" and in comparison of what then was "only the bones of the wasted body...all the richer and softer parts of the soil had fallen away" and a mere skeleton of the country was left.

3. Plutarch: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, "Lycurgus", pg. 61

4. Dodds cites the emphasis on face and public honor: Homeric highest good is not the enjoyment of a quiet conscience, but the enjoyment of time and public esteem."
In a great chapter titled "The Fear of Freedom" , "men [in ancient greece] knew it was dangerous to be happy".

Homer and his mythos is far removed from the acctuality of real live an culture in Greece. Its like trying to base your opinions of modern catholic culture on the Bible or modern Israeli culture on the Old Testament

1 Can't remeber the author, but it was from 1954, The History of Ptolemic Egypt

For other refrences, see my other post. peace out peoples of the forum

[RadioRaheem84]

this is more a theological-philiosophical discussion, and as a Ancient Historian/Archaeologist, I'm out of my depth. You're a historian? An Archeologist? Damn, I thought you were just a guy with a really strong interest in ancient civilization (well you are but educated on it). I am way out of my league arguing with you. I am just a guy with a theory I am trying to work out. :blushing:

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

You're a historian? An Archeologist? Damn, I thought you were just a guy with a really strong interest in ancient civilization (well you are but educated on it). I am way out of my league arguing with you. I am just a guy with a theory I am trying to work out. :blushing:

Continue posting, I was enjoying the discussion, I'm not gonna mercilesly brow beat you because you haven't read the most up-to-date excavation report on the Athenian Agora. I was genuinly intrigued as to how you came to forumlate this order/disorder dictonomy, and its implications for the Greek world.

[Random Precision]

Alex the Great brought back tales of democratic cities in India that were predominately Buddhist, but these were cast off by modern scholars because of their presupposed belief that Indians were inherently caste-like. All this despite the fact that the Greeks themselves were hierarchical, their religious creed breathed hierarchy and yet they believed so much in Athenian democracy!

The are cast off by modern Scholars due to little evidence, the Greeks had a nice little tendecy to make up lots of bullshit about far away lands, a little healthy scepticism when it comes to dealing with Greek discriptions of foriegn lands is not a bad thing. [2]

Um actually there were many Indian cities on the Ganges plain that functioned as "democracies" around the time of Alexander's arrival there. They were called gana-sanghas (gana = equals, sangha = assembly). In them the leaders of the ruling clans, or the leaders of families in the clans would get together and run things for the city. Of course like in the Greek "democracies" and oligarchies the vast majority of people were excluded from representation and denied access to resources. Most of these cities were run by ksatriyas and hence were depicted in Brahmin histories as degenerate and not respecting of the Vedic rituals.

As for Buddhism, Gautama Siddhartha himself rather than being a prince was the scion of a ruling family in a gana-sangha of the Shakya clan. So was Mahavira, credited with the founding of the Jain Dharma. That these cities departed from Vedic orthodoxy meant that rival traditions were more respected in them and hence Buddhist histories described them as the ideal form of government

Romila Thapar, Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, 146-150

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Um actually there were many Indian cities on the Ganges plain that functioned as "democracies" around the time of Alexander's arrival there. They were called gana-sanghas (gana = equals, sangha = assembly). In them the leaders of the ruling clans, or the leaders of families in the clans would get together and run things for the city. Of course like in the Greek "democracies" and oligarchies the vast majority of people were excluded from representation and denied access to resources. Most of these cities were run by ksatriyas and hence were depicted in Brahmin histories as degenerate and not respecting of the Vedic rituals.

As for Buddhism, Gautama Siddhartha himself rather than being a prince was the scion of a ruling family in a gana-sangha of the Shakya clan. So was Mahavira, credited with the founding of the Jain Dharma. That these cities departed from Vedic orthodoxy meant that rival traditions were more respected in them and hence Buddhist histories described them as the ideal form of government

Romila Thapar, Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, 146-150

Fair enough, never really stuided India history, except from a greek point of view, and they do tend to make shit up, I wasn't denying the fact that Indian Democracies didn't exist, I was mearly pointing out the fact that Greeks like to make stuff up about 'barbarians'.

Also: I like cocaine!