Alexander the great

[Alexander-hellenist]

Tyrant they shout so easily, but there is more to the man than people care to think about, for me personaly his crys for unification between barbarian and greek were the first marxist remarks of all time

When he conquered he built citys, built roads trained and educated the persian workers , visionary, dreamer he almost certaily lay down the blueprint for unification between all humanity

[Tower of Bebel]

He was not a 'tyrant', as in that time tyrants were sometimes also the equivalent of the 'enlightened' despots of the 18th century. I think he was just a briliant general and king.

I do not think he unified the Persians, Macedonians and the Greeks. He just ruled them. He concurred the known world (except for the colonies of Carthago). I think his conquest was a search for hegemony. Just like the Roman senate did. He did not unify the whole superstructure of the empire. He left the old traditional structures for what they were, but placed close friends and generals on top of them.

He built cities and roads for his neww empire to grow wealtier and also made new cities to house his veterans.

[Hit The North]

for me personaly his crys for unification between barbarian and greek were the first marxist remarks of all time

Then you must have a very unique take on what Marxism is about.

[Dimentio]

Well, if Stalin and Mao were "progressives", then why not Alexander?

Of course, we have to ignore the fact that an estimated 680.000 Asians were killed during his wars.

I recently read a very good Alexander biography by a guy named Bengt Liljegren, who compares all known sources on the Macedonian king. He have found it most likely that Alexander was driven by his own urge to reach a glory higher than his idols Achilles and Hercules. Moreover, it was strategic reasons that "forced" Alexander to expand his empire after the initial conquest of Persia. Alexander's method of pacifying the borders was through constant expansion, not creations of fortresses.

Some 19th and early 20th century historians saw Alexander as a predessecor to the world government idealists and hellenism as the forerunner of progressive liberalism.

After the second world war, another school was established which claimed Alexander as a tyrant and his empire as a regiment of terror and devastation. This was of course a result of the recent second world war.

One has to remember that Alexander's death caused a 40 year long civil war between his generals, and the eventual downfall of Greece.

Most Greeks did not like Alexander (during his life-time) either. They viewed him like most Europeans in the occupied territories viewed Hitler during the Second World War. The Macedonians was of course a Hellenic people, but patriotism during that time was shown to the city-state.

Alexander was one of the most competent strategists ever, but judging from sources and frm his actions, he was more engaged in expanding his dominion than consolidating it. The reason why he is thought to have cherished egalitarian beliefs is that he once said, to the Egyptian priests: "God has created all people as his children, but some are valued more". I interpret it more that Alexander saw himself as more worth than others.

My favourite historical person from the Ancient Era is Qin Shi-Huang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang). Like Alexander, he unified a nation and turned it into an empire. Unlike Alexander, it is possible to say that his empire still exists.

[Tower of Bebel]

Moreover, it was strategic reasons that "forced" Alexander to expand his empire after the initial conquest of Persia. Alexander's method of pacifying the borders was through constant expansion, not creations of fortresses.

Indeed, which was the same method as the Romans used untill 117 AD (death of Traianus), the inevitable downfall of the Roman empire began several years later (the 3rd century became the century of the general-emperors, which you could compare to Alexanders generals).

[Dimentio]

Initially, Roman expansionism was halted already in year 14 after the Roman retreat from Germania. Claudius invaded Britain in year 43 AD, but the next step in imperialism was taken first with Trajanus year 96-117 AD.

Rome really did a good work to keep the empire united. One could claim that Rome did not fell until 1453.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:32 pm
Initially, Roman expansionism was halted already in year 14 after the Roman retreat from Germania. Claudius invaded Britain in year 43 AD, but the next step in imperialism was taken first with Trajanus year 96-117 AD.

Rome really did a good work to keep the empire united. One could claim that Rome did not fell until 1453.
Rome could have done far better by making transfers of power more uniform and effective. When you have people like Caligula, Nero and Commodus in power (just to name a few), your Empire is in trouble. The Roman Empire spread far, no doubt, but the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe was hard to keep together, and these factors combined with mass migrations and invasions (Gothics, Persians, Huns, Celts were all fighting the Romans, not to mention the constant cycle of civil wars within the Roman Empire itself) to pummel the Roman Empire into falling.

You'd be hardpressed to claim that ROME didn't fall until 1492, Rome was sacked and its political power scattered long before that time. The Eastern Roman Empire, however, lasted longer because it had the advantages of strategic positioning and commerce from Eurasia, whereas the Western Roman Empire was isolated and increasingly weaker (until it was destroyed and replaced by the feudal states of Europe). The Byzantine Empire, as it came to be known, kept itself alive by somehow generating a strong Emperor whenever it looked doomed for sure. The Crusades threw the Byzantines a lifeline for a time, as well, until the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in a tragic comedy of errors in 1204. If you ask me, the Byzantine Empire had no chance of recovering after this point, its wonderous capital was ransacked and its empire depleted, and its fate was sealed when the Turks finally got their acts together under Osman and pushed further West.

[La Comédie Noire]

Didn't he give his armies' opium for motivation? Then didn't they run out of opium and his whole military end up strung out? :o

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 01, 2007 03:38 pm
You'd be hardpressed to claim that ROME didn't fall until 1492, Rome was sacked and its political power scattered long before that time.
Well, the city of Rome fell way before 1453, but the Roman Empire fell in 1453.


Didn't he give his armies' opium for motivation? Then didn't they run out of opium and his whole military end up strung out?

I don't know where you heard that from, but it probably isn't true

[Tower of Bebel]

The Roman Empire spread far, no doubt, but the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe was hard to keep together
As long as the elite is "Latin" or "Greek" there is no structural problem. Just like with Alexander's empire it was not because of the differnet cultures that the empire collapsed, it was because of the constant wars of succesion (if I may call it like this) of his generals and their successors.
The cultural revival in the north of the Roman empire was even accompanied with the last economic growth of the empire (4th century).


and these factors combined with mass migrations and invasions (Gothics, Persians, Huns, Celts were all fighting the Romans
This indeed was the main problem. It caused the economy to crumble (to many taxes, threats and enforcements), and the forced maintenance of the empire made a virtual end to the slave society.


not to mention the constant cycle of civil wars within the Roman Empire itself) to pummel the Roman Empire into falling.
The civil wars of the republic cleared the path for the emperor: the principate. The emperor looks like a bonapartist dictator. The importance of the military gave why to the century of the general-emperors (3rd century). This century of wars gave way to the dominate, in which a strong emperor almost decided everything (which looks like mussolini's fascisme).

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by manic expression+September 01, 2007 03:38 pm--> (manic expression @ September 01, 2007 03:38 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 06:32 pm
Initially, Roman expansionism was halted already in year 14 after the Roman retreat from Germania. Claudius invaded Britain in year 43 AD, but the next step in imperialism was taken first with Trajanus year 96-117 AD.

Rome really did a good work to keep the empire united. One could claim that Rome did not fell until 1453.
Rome could have done far better by making transfers of power more uniform and effective. When you have people like Caligula, Nero and Commodus in power (just to name a few), your Empire is in trouble. The Roman Empire spread far, no doubt, but the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe was hard to keep together, and these factors combined with mass migrations and invasions (Gothics, Persians, Huns, Celts were all fighting the Romans, not to mention the constant cycle of civil wars within the Roman Empire itself) to pummel the Roman Empire into falling.

You'd be hardpressed to claim that ROME didn't fall until 1492, Rome was sacked and its political power scattered long before that time. The Eastern Roman Empire, however, lasted longer because it had the advantages of strategic positioning and commerce from Eurasia, whereas the Western Roman Empire was isolated and increasingly weaker (until it was destroyed and replaced by the feudal states of Europe). The Byzantine Empire, as it came to be known, kept itself alive by somehow generating a strong Emperor whenever it looked doomed for sure. The Crusades threw the Byzantines a lifeline for a time, as well, until the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in a tragic comedy of errors in 1204. If you ask me, the Byzantine Empire had no chance of recovering after this point, its wonderous capital was ransacked and its empire depleted, and its fate was sealed when the Turks finally got their acts together under Osman and pushed further West. [/b]
The question with Rome is not why it fell, but why it kept together so long.

And the Roman empire finally fell with the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

I do think that Caligula, Nero and Commodus might have been a bit black-painted. Think about the social origination of the chronicles. What these three emperors had in common was that they levied taxes on the elite to give money to the poors.

[Tower of Bebel]

I like Nero. He was painted black because he became the opposite of the senate. He hated the bloody games (gladiator and animal fights) and prefered Greek plays instead. He also attacked the tax collectors. This made him a "bad" emperor.

Wasn't it Caligula who made his horse consul? The Roman writers wrote he was nuts. But Some historians think he made his horse a consul because he opposed the senate and said he could better make his horse a consul. His horse would follow him if the senate didn't want to.
And when he ordered his legions to play in the sand at the Canal :D . The latest hypothesis is that he order his soldiers to play because they didn't want to invade England.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Alexander the Great...good Iron Maiden song. :ph34r: :lol:

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:50 pm
Alexander the Great...good Iron Maiden song. :ph34r: :lol:
Yes, his best basis for culture.

The question is if we should judge Alexander according to modern or ancient standards. In modern standards, we would view him as an aggressor and imperialist, and even in ancient standards, he was'nt that progressive.

Ancient progressive leaders where men like Caesar, Cyrus and Qin Shi Huangdi.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:59 am
The question is if we should judge Alexander according to modern or ancient standards. In modern standards, we would view him as an aggressor and imperialist, and even in ancient standards, he was'nt that progressive.

Ancient progressive leaders where men like Caesar, Cyrus and Qin Shi Huangdi.
Of course we should judge him by ancient standards. And he was progressive in the way he brought Hellenic civilization to so many different peoples and faraway lands.

While many historians criticize him because he brought an end to the civilization of Classical Greece, I argue that the age of Classical Greece was already in steady decline. If anything, Alexander gave impetus to Hellenic civilization.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Alcaeos+September 09, 2007 12:17 am--> (Alcaeos @ September 09, 2007 12:17 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 09:59 am
The question is if we should judge Alexander according to modern or ancient standards. In modern standards, we would view him as an aggressor and imperialist, and even in ancient standards, he was'nt that progressive.

Ancient progressive leaders where men like Caesar, Cyrus and Qin Shi Huangdi.
Of course we should judge him by ancient standards. And he was progressive in the way he brought Hellenic civilization to so many different peoples and faraway lands.

While many historians criticize him because he brought an end to the civilization of Classical Greece, I argue that the age of Classical Greece was already in steady decline. If anything, Alexander gave impetus to Hellenic civilization. [/b]
Was Hellenic civilisation really that progressive?

[Led Zeppelin]

I wouldn't say Alexander was that progressive, compared to such people as Cyrus the Great.

What is your point in saying that he was so great anyway? Are you saying that his invasion of the "barbarians" was justified because they needed to be "taught a lesson"?

Watching crappy movies like Alexander and 300 would give such an impression to people who don't know history, so I would suggest that if you do hold that view you'd rethink it, because the Persian empire was as advanced culturally, if not more, as Greece/Macedonia.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:27 am
Was Hellenic civilisation really that progressive?
Of course it was. In fact, all of Western civilization has its origins the civilization of ancient Greece.


What is your point in saying that he was so great anyway? Are you saying that his invasion of the "barbarians" was justified because they needed to be "taught a lesson"?

It is not that they needed it be taught a lesson. I have no idea where you got that from. He is great because he spread Hellenic civilization to so many places and initiated a period known as the Hellenistic Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Age


Watching crappy movies like Alexander and 300 would give such an impression to people who don't know history, so I would suggest that if you do hold that view you'd rethink it, because the Persian empire was as advanced culturally, if not more, as Greece/Macedonia

If you think I got that impression from watching movies such as Alexander and 300, then you are mistaken. In fact, I read many books about the ancient world. And when you state that "the Persian empire was as advanced culturally, if not more, as Greece/Macedonia" (Macedonia is a part of Greece), then you are just plain wrong. As I stated earlier, our civilization(culture, philosphy, politics, art, liturature, architecture, science, mathematics, drama, to some degree language, alphabet) is based on the civilization of ancient Greece. To claim otherwise would be flying in the face of historical facts.

[Led Zeppelin]

Obviously your knowledge of ancient Persian culture is lacking, or maybe you're just a chauvinist Euro-centric when it comes to history.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 09, 2007 04:45 am
Obviously your knowledge of ancient Persian culture is lacking, or maybe you're just a chauvinist Euro-centric when it comes to history.
Why would my knowledge of ancient Persian culture be lacking? In fact, I do have a lot of respect for it.

And acknowledging the fact that one society is more culturally advanced than another is not being chauvanistic.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:29 pm
And acknowledging the fact that one society is more culturally advanced than another is not being chauvanistic.
Culturally advanced?

Question - would you consider the Aztec or Inca cultures as less 'culturally advanced' than the Spaniards?

[Faux Real]

Now, I am not trying to bash on you, but exactly how much more 'advanced' culturally were the Macedonians over the Persians?

I wouldn't place their differences in culture as advanced or not, but rather their technology which gave way through to the conquests. I apply this to my example above as well.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 09, 2007 05:38 am--> (rev0lt @ September 09, 2007 05:38 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 10:29 pm
And acknowledging the fact that one society is more culturally advanced than another is not being chauvanistic.
Culturally advanced?

Question - would you consider the Aztec or Inca cultures as less 'culturally advanced' than the Spaniards? [/b]
Yes.

Depends on what standards are you fitting everything in though. The Aztecs and Incas were pretty damn advanced, and surpassed the Spaniards in some aspects, but Spain was more advanced technologically. A marxist would find Spain "culturally" more advanced simply because we generally see culture as part of the superstructure, with economics and technology as the base.

This is not "chauvinistic", this is just the marxist view on history. (I am mexican btw)

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Marmot+September 08, 2007 11:18 pm--> (Marmot @ September 08, 2007 11:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]ember 09, 2007 05:38 am

[email protected] 08, 2007 10:29 pm
And acknowledging the fact that one society is more culturally advanced than another is not being chauvanistic.
Culturally advanced?

Question - would you consider the Aztec or Inca cultures as less 'culturally advanced' than the Spaniards?
Yes.

Depends on what standards are you fitting everything in though. The Aztecs and Incas were pretty damn advanced, and surpassed the Spaniards in some aspects, but Spain was more advanced technologically. A marxist would find Spain "culturally" more advanced simply because we generally see culture as part of the superstructure, with economics and technology as the base.

This is not "chauvinistic", this is just the marxist view on history. (I am mexican btw) [/b]
Ah yes, that definition of cultural advancement. Hadn't heard of it in a while. I remember now, thanks. :)

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:18 am
Depends on what standards are you fitting everything in though. The Aztecs and Incas were pretty damn advanced, and surpassed the Spaniards in some aspects, but Spain was more advanced technologically. A marxist would find Spain "culturally" more advanced simply because we generally see culture as part of the superstructure, with economics and technology as the base.

This is not "chauvinistic", this is just the marxist view on history. (I am mexican btw)
Exactly, which is why Persia was more advanced than Greece.

Technologically it was superior in most, if not all, aspects.

[Tower of Bebel]

The only hellinists in the Middel East were the aristocracy, and Alexander's veterans.

And maybe only the aristocracy who were contacts of the courts.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+September 09, 2007 07:19 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ September 09, 2007 07:19 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 06:18 am
Depends on what standards are you fitting everything in though. The Aztecs and Incas were pretty damn advanced, and surpassed the Spaniards in some aspects, but Spain was more advanced technologically. A marxist would find Spain "culturally" more advanced simply because we generally see culture as part of the superstructure, with economics and technology as the base.

This is not "chauvinistic", this is just the marxist view on history. (I am mexican btw)
Exactly, which is why Persia was more advanced than Greece.

Technologically it was superior in most, if not all, aspects. [/b]
Economically, it is generally acknowledged that Greece had the most advanced economy in the ancient world. It was a free market economy based on commerce with limited government intervention (in most places). This was a rarity in the ancient world. In fact, slave society, although it did not originate or end in ancient Greece, reached its peak in ancient Greece.

Philosophically, it was also superior. Great philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus, and many others came from ancient Greece. In fact, we owe our understanding of materialism and dialectics to the ancient Greeks.

Technologically, save for a few respects, Hellenic civilization was more advanced than any other civilization existing at the time. This is also generally acknowledged by most serious historians.

Just to mention a couple of the numerous inventions: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/SCAMKythera.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

Also, it might be a good idea to look at this:

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/188...family/ch05.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch05.htm)

[Dimentio]

Yes, the Hellenes also had developed the water-wheel in the 300;s BC which allowed them to mobilise a bigger segment of their population in warfare than earlier possible.

[Red Flag Rising]

The idea that Alexander was a progressive is stupid.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Red Flag [email protected] 11, 2007 05:50 pm
The idea that Alexander was a progressive is stupid.
Mind explaining why the idea is stupid? Because if you can say nothing more than that, then it is clear whose claims are more valid.
I have already backed up my claims in an earlier post, by the way.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Alcaeos+September 09, 2007 06:30 pm--> (Alcaeos @ September 09, 2007 06:30 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 09, 2007 07:19 am

[email protected] 09, 2007 06:18 am
Depends on what standards are you fitting everything in though. The Aztecs and Incas were pretty damn advanced, and surpassed the Spaniards in some aspects, but Spain was more advanced technologically. A marxist would find Spain "culturally" more advanced simply because we generally see culture as part of the superstructure, with economics and technology as the base.

This is not "chauvinistic", this is just the marxist view on history. (I am mexican btw)
Exactly, which is why Persia was more advanced than Greece.

Technologically it was superior in most, if not all, aspects.
Economically, it is generally acknowledged that Greece had the most advanced economy in the ancient world. It was a free market economy based on commerce with limited government intervention (in most places). This was a rarity in the ancient world. In fact, slave society, although it did not originate or end in ancient Greece, reached its peak in ancient Greece.

Philosophically, it was also superior. Great philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus, and many others came from ancient Greece. In fact, we owe our understanding of materialism and dialectics to the ancient Greeks.

Technologically, save for a few respects, Hellenic civilization was more advanced than any other civilization existing at the time. This is also generally acknowledged by most serious historians.

Just to mention a couple of the numerous inventions: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/SCAMKythera.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

Also, it might be a good idea to look at this:

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/188...family/ch05.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch05.htm) [/b]
Stop feeding me bullshit. Just because you say that something is "generally accepted as" or that "most historians agree that" doesn't make that thing true. The majority of historians today also believe in positions that Marxists disagree upon, does that make them right versus Marxist historians on such questions just because they are in the majority?

Your appeal to authority is pretty unMarxist of you, but then again so is your Eurocentric view of history.

The Persian empire (Achaemenid) was the largest empire ever seen in the history of mankind by that time. It was the first civilization that drew up human rights, it was the first civilization who freed slaves and took up parts of the civilizations they conquered instead of destroying it. It was the wealthiest civilization able to bring up hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

Engineering wise they were brilliant, seen in the creation of two massive bridges over the Hellespont, this was never before done in history. In terms of water placement they invented underground waterways which connected cities to water supplies miles away, enabling them to erect cities wherever they wanted. This caused them to construct Persepolis, known as the greatest city of the ancient world.

I'd concede that philosophically the Greeks had more in store than the Persians, but philosophy isn't the only indicator of civilization. If so the Germans are "better" than the Russians because on average they had more philosophers. Such a view is pretty awkward to say the least. The superstructure of society determines it's development, and Persia was in this respect far more advanced than Greece ever was.

[Led Zeppelin]

Here is a documentary on the Persian empire: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/5102

It's pretty good, it shows how advanced they were in terms of technology, civics, culture, architecture and engineering.

I'm not taking a chauvinistic point of view here in this thread, I am merely going by the historical facts. The Roman empire, for example, was superior to the Persian in most respects, if not all. But it is obvious to anyone who's not Eurocentric in their history that the Persian empire was superior to the Greek city states, they weren't even united in one nation! They were a collection of warring city-states!

It's typical that people believe the Greeks were the "cradle of civilization", the "champions of democracy" and the "destroyers of tyranny" versus the Persians who are portrayed as savages and barbarians, because mainstream culture portrays it as such, see the movie 300 for the latest example of this crap.

[Dimentio]

Persia was not a slavery-based civilisation, at least not under Korosh II.

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm not sure who that was directed to, but if it was directed to me, I never said it was based on slavery throughout its existence.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 09:40 am
I'm not sure who that was directed to, but if it was directed to me, I never said it was based on slavery throughout its existence.
Directed in general.

The question how the economic fundament of Persia was structured under the Achamenids.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 02:06 am
Stop feeding me bullshit. Just because you say that something is "generally accepted as" or that "most historians agree that" doesn't make that thing true. The majority of historians today also believe in positions that Marxists disagree upon, does that make them right versus Marxist historians on such questions just because they are in the majority?

Your appeal to authority is pretty unMarxist of you, but then again so is your Eurocentric view of history.


And were did you get the idea that Persia was more advanced than Greece? I'd guess from some sort of crackpot historian.

And something that is generally accepted does not necessarily have to be false. This should be pretty obvious. And if you make a claim that goes against the general opinion, the burden of proof falls squarely on you.

If you call me a Eurocentric, then I would imagine you'd call Marx, Engels,and Lenin the same thing, because they had an opinion on ancient Greece similar to mine.


The Persian empire (Achaemenid) was the largest empire ever seen in the history of mankind by that time.

And Alexander's empire was even larger than the Persian empire


It was the first civilization that drew up human rights, it was the first civilization who freed slaves and took up parts of the civilizations they conquered instead of destroying it. It was the wealthiest civilization able to bring up hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

The largest and most powerful city of Greece, Athens, was much better with human rights than Persia. In fact, Greece is the birthplace of democracy.


Engineering wise they were brilliant, seen in the creation of two massive bridges over the Hellespont, this was never before done in history. In terms of water placement they invented underground waterways which connected cities to water supplies miles away, enabling them to erect cities wherever they wanted. This caused them to construct Persepolis, known as the greatest city of the ancient world.

The Greeks were also brilliant engineers. It is not a small feet to construct a building like the Acropolis. And 4 out of the 7 ancient wonders of the world are Greek-built (I am not counting the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus because although the chief architect was Greek, it was built in the Persian empire).

Persepolis is not considered to be the greatest city of the ancient world. The two cities that are considered to be the greatest of the ancient world are Athens and Rome.


Here is a documentary on the Persian empire: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/5102

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/5091

I could not find any more documentaries on ancient Greece, but there are tons in the History Channel and various other channels


they weren't even united in one nation! They were a collection of warring city-states!

Yes, but they were eventually united by Alexander, which is another reason Alexander could be considered progressive.


It's typical that people believe the Greeks were the "cradle of civilization", the "champions of democracy" and the "destroyers of tyranny" versus the Persians who are portrayed as savages and barbarians, because mainstream culture portrays it as such, see the movie 300 for the latest example of this crap.

That is not the only reason why most people believe (and rightly so) that the Greeks were the cradle of civilization, the champions of democracy, and so forth. I'd say the biggest reason is education.

[Led Zeppelin]

You didn't really refute anything I said, you merely responded with some achievements of the Greek. I'll let the people decide for themselves which was superior. Oh and by the way, I never said that Alexander's empire wasn't superior to the Achaemenids, obviously it was or else he wouldn't have been able to conquer it.

I was referring to the Greek-Persian conflict that existed before Alexander.

The idea that Greece "founded democracy" is pretty ridiculous by the way. Athens wasn't a democracy as you see in the bourgeois-republics of today, even though historians and people such as yourself like to portray it as such. Slaves and people of lower class (and women apparently) were not allowed to vote:


Numbers of slaves and metics (resident aliens) in particular will have fluctuated. During the 4th century BC, the population of Athens may well have comprised some 250,000—300,000 people. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 will have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_demo...n_and_exclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Participation_and_exclusion)

That's not democracy, that's a fucking joke. To counterpose this "democracy" with the "tyranny" of Persia is no argument, it's a joke that Eurocentric historians parade around to justify their views of Europe being the "cradle of democracy" as far back as the ancient world. If this crap was true, then I guess the Roman "tyranny" also destroyed democracy, right? But of course you never heard that, jee, I wonder why.

And no, I don't get my views from any crackpot historian, it's called critical thinking; learn it.

[Dimentio]

Everyone knows which the real craddle of civilisation is. :D

Gethica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getica)
The Goths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothicismus)
Olof Rudbeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaus_Rudbeckius)

So now, we have concluded that Sweden is the oldest high civilisation on Earth, and that over 100 nations in Europe, Africa and Asia descends from the Swedes. It was also the Swedes who brought down the Roman Empire.

:D :D :D :D :P

[Comrada J]

Ancient Greece had it's fair share of progressive thinkers, alexander was not one of them.


Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 30, 2007 09:29 pm

for me personaly his crys for unification between barbarian and greek were the first marxist remarks of all time

Then you must have a very unique take on what Marxism is about.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 13, 2007 09:08 am
You didn't really refute anything I said, you merely responded with some achievements of the Greek. I'll let the people decide for themselves which was superior.
I think you somewhat missed the point of my post. I wasn't trying to deny or downplay the achievements of the Persians, which I admire as well. I was just responding to the claim that they were superior to the achievements of the Greeks. And I too will let the readers decide. I just hope they make the right choice.


The idea that Greece "founded democracy" is pretty ridiculous by the way. Athens wasn't a democracy as you see in the bourgeois-republics of today, even though historians and people such as yourself like to portray it as such. Slaves and people of lower class (and women apparently) were not allowed to vote:

QUOTE
Numbers of slaves and metics (resident aliens) in particular will have fluctuated. During the 4th century BC, the population of Athens may well have comprised some 250,000—300,000 people. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 will have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_demo...n_and_exclusion

That's not democracy, that's a fucking joke. To counterpose this "democracy" with the "tyranny" of Persia is no argument, it's a joke that Eurocentric historians parade around to justify their views of Europe being the "cradle of democracy" as far back as the ancient world. If this crap was true, then I guess the Roman "tyranny" also destroyed democracy, right? But of course you never heard that, jee, I wonder why.

What do you call a political system where all the citizens, both rich and commoners alike, have an equal say in the affairs of the state? A democracy. You might argue that the democracy of Athens was limited because only Athenian male citizens were able to vote, but you cannot deny that it was still a democracy. Even Engels called Athens a democracy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...family/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm)

Moreover, the head of state of the Persian empire was a despot, not someone elected by the citizens (as in Athens).

And the bourgeois-republics of today are still democracies, even though they are not as democratic as they should be. It is a system called parliamentary democracy, in case you have never heard of it. If you wish to debate this, then you might want to start a new thread.

[Led Zeppelin]

No I don't wish to debate that, and there was no hint of a wish in it in my previous post, so I have no idea why you felt the need to even mention that. A democracy has various degrees of course, but only a real democracy, that is, a democracy by all the people for all the people, is worthy of the name democracy, at least in the sense Marxists use it.

Only people who don't use the Marxist definition of the term would claim that Greece was a democracy. Engels, unlike you, is a Marxist, and refers to it as "a primitive natural democracy". Primitive, hinting at, not real, complete, full democracy.

And unlike you I don't really care if people "make the right choice" about the issue of which civilization was superior. I'm not a nationalist or chauvinist, it is merely a historical interest of mine, it's purely theoretical for me. Unlike for you, for which it seemingly is an issue of great practical importance.

[Faux Real]

Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic were democracies alright; democracy for the wealthy male, land/slave owners.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 13, 2007 06:16 pm
No I don't wish to debate that, and there was no hint of a wish in it in my previous post, so I have no idea why you felt the need to even mention that.


I got that impression that you didn't think that the bourgeois republics were democracies. I didn't force you to start a new thread. All I said was if you want to do it, which you apparently don't, and that's completely fine with me.


A democracy has various degrees of course, but only a real democracy, that is, a democracy by all the people for all the people, is worthy of the name democracy, at least in the sense Marxists use it.

Well, a socialist democracy might be the highest form of democracy, but that does not mean that the democracy of Athens wasn't just as real.


Only people who don't use the Marxist definition of the term would claim that Greece was a democracy. Engels, unlike you, is a Marxist, and refers to it as "a primitive natural democracy". Primitive, hinting at, not real, complete, full democracy.

If I am not mistaken, the primitive natural democracy Engels refers to is the "democracy" that came before civilization, not the democracy of ancient Greece.


And unlike you I don't really care if people "make the right choice" about the issue of which civilization was superior. I'm not a nationalist or chauvinist, it is merely a historical interest of mine, it's purely theoretical for me. Unlike for you, for which it seemingly is an issue of great practical importance.

Well, it might not necessarily be an issue of practical importance, but unlike you, I care if people know the truth.

[Dimentio]

Cannot someone see and realise the inherent greatness of Sweden? :P