300

[Efstathios]

I would like to add another thing. We see a civilization from it's accomplishments in architecture, wealth, litterature, it's society, and all these things. The Persian empire was according to Greeks also, a very wealthy empire, with magnificent buildings and palaces, and beurocracy. But where is the litterature? Possibly it was a privilledge of the nobles. Still, we have not that many pieces of litterature coming from the empire, as if it was almost non existant. How do you explain that? Something should have survived. Greece was occupied by the Romans, and the Othomans, and the greatest library of the world which contained 700.000 papyroi was destroyed, but still we have lot of Greek litterature available. Why not Persian?

That shows the character of the empire. Which is somewhat how the Greeks described it.

By the way, have you seen or read Tolkien? Lord of the rings that is. The whole perception of the bad guys, Mordor and it's hordes, and the orcs, must have been based at the Persian Empire and the Othomans. The Armies that come from the East. The big city of Gondor which is at the border with Mordor , the last frontier (Constantinopole),which gets sieged. The whole description of the siege of Gondor is very alike to the siege of Constantinopole by the Othomans. Tolkien surely got many elements from the Greek-Persian wars, and the Greek- Othoman wars.

It's no wonder though that this ,the hordes from the east vs the more civilized west, is a stereotype. We have 3 such occassions in the past. The Persian empire, the Khan, and the Othoman turks. The 3 of them have tried to invade europe. Of course the discrimination of what is civilized or not is difficult to make. Surely the Khan or the Othomans, were not as the rest of Europe or even China, in terms of civilization, culture, litterature. But we cannot put all of the east and all of the civilizations there in the same bag.

[smittysmitty]

A common misconception by most people is that Greece at the time of the Greco-Persian wars, in some shape or form was a semblance of the Athens we have come to admire of the 'Classical Period'.

For the most part, mainland Greece, at least archeologically, presents itself as a rather backward area with little and possibly no monumental architecture. In Greece, if we can call it that during this period, life in general took the form of clusters of villages leading fairly ordinary life styles with little more than some fabulous pottery - but in general the art, monumental architecture and even literature for the most part remain undetected, at least for now. What we have become reliant upon of this period (and far too much in my opinion) is the writings of Greeks who wrote much later, either Classical or Hellenistic period.

It was not until Pericles, some half a century after the wars and his 'Mafioso' style of extorting money from the other confederate Greeks that Athens is able to rise to the splendorous city she became. Indeed, how much of the Persian King's purse was involved in such a transition remains speculative and very few moderns are brave enough to comment.

For the most part, the acceleration of the arts, architecture etc in mainland Greece has often been attributed to the Ionians or East Greeks (living on the western Anatolian coastline) who for centuries had been influenced by surrounding Near Eastern cultures.

What we may say, and this is I realize is a generalization; that the Greeks for the most part were great copiers of other more advance civilizations. In addition, they had the uncanny ability to take the best of various other cultures and build upon it even further. We must acknowledge this ability as a great achievement in its own right.

Secondly, I think the thing that disturbs me most, is the amount of scholarship over the past century that tends to make 'all things great are Greek'! Fortunately this is changing, and archaeologists are no longer sitting on the bench and are prepared to make their mark on interpreting history and not leaving it up to historians, philologists etc.

Greek historical prose that has come down to us from the Classical and Hellenistic period is so full of itself that we really need to be cautious when attempting to understand what is 'history' and what is 'fiction'.

The thing that baffles me is why should such a World Empire as that of the Achemenids, concern itself with an insignificant people on the periphery. The obvious answer is that it chose to continue its expanse in a westerly direction. How real were the wars as recorded by the Greeks and how significant were they to Persian affairs – unfortunately we only have a Greek sided view of this?

For my mind, they had little significance, and for those astute enough to see through the Greek propaganda machine of the time, you'll probably find that it was Persian gold and the King’s benevolence that allows the Greeks to reach the level of supposed 'civilized superiority' to emerge.

Hope this doesn't sound like I'm belittling the Greeks, which I'm not. But there was a largely civilized world that existed, long before the emergence of the Greeks.


Cheers!

[Paralus]

The Persian empire's armies have been known as "hordes". Meaning troops that acted like masses. Soldiers that didnt actually want to be there.

But except Herodotus, we get the same descriptions about the Persian empire from other writters too, and even from the biographers of Alexander. People like Ptolemy, who were there and saw it first hand. Would all these people just lie?

Michael, what is your image about the Persian empire?

I’ve done the numbers thing sooo many times and sooo many different ways. I’ve attempted to use not only logic but logistics. I might have thought my workings with respect to the amount of time an army of 1,700,000 may have taken to use any one of the passes in Greece or the bridge at the Hellespont might have given pause. Imagine, at five abreast, a column of men 510 kilometres long queing to cross? the last to cross will have been marching for over four days solid, without rest, before they managed it. Spongebob Squarepants territory that. I noticed – in passing by my tv – on Sunday a quotation from a Crusader describing his army crossing a pass in the Taurus range (most likely either the Cilician or Amanid Gates). In single file it apparently took three or more days (can’t quite remember). I didn’t hear the numbers but these armies were not huge: 20,000 or so. Now, were it the Bogtcte Pass (Amanid Gates) that Darius used – and he might hardly have got behind Alexander via the Syrian Gates – how long do you think it might take him to march 600,000 through onto the plain at Issus in a move that took Alexander completely by surprise?

That without any consideration of Amyntoros’ out of the box question on what ever became of the several hundreds of thousands of prisoners (something in the order of the entire population of Attica and more) that Arrian – on the absolutely truthful accounting of Ptolemy and Aristobulus – took from the 1,000,000 that fronted at Gaugamela. I notice that, to this day, the question loiters plaintively on the thread like the unwanted kid always left to last at team selection. I wonder why that might be?

The answer is simple: the numbers are plainly and ridiculously inflated. Hellene-o-wood could teach Hollywood plenty methinks.

For “soldiers that didn’t want to be there” they did an awful lot of conquering, re-conquering and empire building. An awful lot of soldiers who “didn’t want to be there” fought and conquered Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt (several times), Lydia and India – to name a few.

What’s my view of the first “world” empire? Different to yours I’d suspect. I’ll likely post something on it one day – when I’ve finished the current volumes. In the meantime, in a effort to broaden viewpoints, perhaps you might browse this page on the “Cyrus Cylinder”. It is, in fact, kept at the United Nations (a copy that is). It’s not likely that you’ll find it in Herodotus: it doesn’t actually suit the barbarian descriptor. You will, though, find a nice story of the taking of Babylon by Cyrus in which he not only gets Nabonidus’ name (the Babylonian monarch) incorrect but disagrees entirely with the Babylonian rendition of their army being defeated in the field north of the city (nearer modern Baghdad).

Then again, Herodotus was only half Persian.

Further illumination can be found at the above site or in Lindsay Allen’s and Pierre Briant’s works

[Efstathios]

Thank you for the links Michael, i will look into them. However, i dont think that the Greeks ever spoke of the Persians as complete Barbarians. They recognised some impressive aspects of their civilization. But still, in terms of litterature they thought that the Persians were on a "barbaric" level. Again i will remind that we have very little or almsot non existant Persian litterature. The empire left behind great buildings and proof of wealth, but not poetry, plays, philosophy, e.t.c.

that the Greeks for the most part were great copiers of other more advance civilizations.

Heh, where exactly do you base this? I was about to write a flaming post, but didnt because i know, or at least i want to believe that you do not serve any agendas.

The Greeks copiers of more advanced civilizations? Are you confusing the Greeks with Romans? Let me remind you that philosophy in it's essence is a Greek invention. And everyhting that comes out of philosophy. And that is most of the modern world and it's theories.

Must i remind you that the great European philosphers, scientists, and writters, during the illumination period gave the credit of their work to the ancient Greeks? Galileo, Copernicus, De Cart (cant remember the spelling), Russeau and the others. Uppon whom our modern civilization is based uppon.

Must i remind you that Einstein himself said that if it wasnt for Democritus we would be nowhere in the science department? Tell me who, before Democritus, said about the atom e.t.c.? The Babylonians? The Persians? The Egyptians?

Surely some of the Greek ideas were based on some older ideas by other civlizations. But most of them were newly founded by the Greeks. And not copied.

I can bring you a thousand more examples, but it wont make a difference, you should know by yourself why people said that our civilization ows a lot to the ancient Greek classical and hellenistic period.

[Paralus]

that the Greeks for the most part were great copiers of other more advance civilizations.

Heh, where exactly do you base this? I was about to write a flaming post, but didnt because i know, or at least i want to believe that you do not serve any agendas.

Copiers indeed. Archaic art (Greek) owes much to the Levant and Egypt: think Koures and kore for beginners.

As to Persian plays etc. Egypt was backward and ignorant: no Aristophanes. Babylonia too was ignorant: no Euripides. Persia is very much in line with other near eastern and middle eastern cultures: no Menander.

Persian society did not "favour" the rising to prominence of an Aristophanes or an Herodotus. That is not to say they did not write and they did not entertain themselves. One might also recall that it wasn't untill the flourishing of "democracy" in Athens that tradgedy and the comic poets were born.

As an aside, just how much of Sparta's plays, poetry and literature survive? Not much: backward, uncivilised swill!

Gotta go to bed......

[jasonxx]

Efts

With your remark about Greeks labeling Peoples Barbarians. Is just a label. A label that can be really only be used in jelousy. As Smitty said the Greeks did indeed have fabulous art Philosophy etc. But it was pretty elitist to certain parts of Greece. And it is also fair to say how Persia Viewed Greece in respect of conquest, as a whole greec Is a pretty rugged Country with little resources I would say the Persians really needed as they had it all any way.

Maybe it was a Persian Expansion exersize. I dont really think The Greeks or any one could call the Persians Barbarians and I think Alexander realised that from the start. It demonstrates this factor by the general consensus that Alexander had no real gusto to return to Greece.

Smiity Smitty is also correct about the Greeks having an [edited] opinion of there own importance. Hence labelin something you probably realise is superior more so Persia and in similar respect Macedonia. Anything you feel a threat to your upper ideas would easily be regarded as some kind of insulting label.

One line in Alexander where Alexander is rebuking his old school boys is the remarks about Persian Culture been far older than there own thats true.The way the Greeks excel in these periods is for times when they have there backs against the walls. Forget Persian gold and in nano seconds fight for a national cause. Only to be broken and returned to the Intercity back stabbing arguments indeed funded by Persian gold.

Its fair to say that the Greeks in my opinion were only ever any good when bossed by the Macedonains. Then they had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

Efts your remarks about Tolkien books based on Eastern Invaders. Those books were drawn from his own experiences of the German threat . He was in amongst it. But all the treat are percieved in exactly the same way.

kenny

[Efstathios]

As an aside, just how much of Sparta's plays, poetry and literature survive? Not much: backward, uncivilised swill!

Ineed they were. A military tribe at the most. But i think Sparta is unique throughout history. A tribe that was solely devoted on military things, and forgot all the rest. That being said, it's not like the Spartans lived in huts. They had a level of culture. It just wasnt like the rest of Greece.

And no, we are not talking about Athens only. Other places too were advanced. Like Thebes, some islands, Ionia, Macedonia (under Philip II), e.t.c. I twas just that in Athens most things flourished.

Kenny. Alexander didnt have the chance to return to Greece. He was too occupied with his conquests.

[smittysmitty]

'Heh, where exactly do you base this? I was about to write a flaming post, but didnt because i know, or at least i want to believe that you do not serve any agendas.

It seems rather odd that you would want to write a 'flaming post' (not sure what that actually means - perhaps along the lines of setting something on fire?)?or that there is an agenda. I guess the agenda is that you need to be more aware and knowledgeable of the ancient world outside of Greece? You probably also need to be more aware of Greece and its development during the archaic period?

Most prolific among the Greek movement in Art, Architecture, Philosophy, etc. etc. (I can't be bothered name dropping - you can check it out for yourself) are those of East Greek origin. That is, the western Anatolian coastline - todays Turkey.

Ask yourself why? whats the significance?

Ask yourself, what was happening in mainland Greece - whilst this somewhat intellectual explosian was happening in Ionia.

Find out, when was this happening and what was happening else where in the world.

In any event, I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you or whoever else wants to jump on the bandwagon about Greece's history and its repercussions on the modern world. If you are that interested, do the research and if your not sure how to do that, I'm quite happy to steer you in the direction which may help you to enlighten your understanding of 'archaic Greece'.

perhaps a good place to start is to look up the urbanisation of ancient Greece - when did this phenomenon occur and how.


cheers!

[marcus]

By the way, have you seen or read Tolkien? Lord of the rings that is. The whole perception of the bad guys, Mordor and it's hordes, and the orcs, must have been based at the Persian Empire and the Othomans. The Armies that come from the East. The big city of Gondor which is at the border with Mordor , the last frontier (Constantinopole),which gets sieged. The whole description of the siege of Gondor is very alike to the siege of Constantinopole by the Othomans. Tolkien surely got many elements from the Greek-Persian wars, and the Greek- Othoman wars.

Nonsense. Apart from the fact that up to his death Tolkien denied that there were any intentional parallels, it is more likely, given the time he was writing the books, that any (unintentional) parallel was with either Nazi Germany or, with the later volumes, Stalinist Russia. But he certainly didn't intend it that way.

It is also unlikely that even unintentionally he was drawing parallels with Ancient Persia or the Ottomans. For a start, he was not a classicist, and although he almost certainly had read many of the classics, he did not study them; and his interest most definitely finished before the Ottomans took any power in Turkey - heck, he even thought Chaucer was a bit too modern for him!

So no, sorry, that's a complete red herring.

ATB

[rjones2818]

Remember that in the beginning, as far as we can tell, the term barbarian simply meant one who did not speak Greek. There apparently wasn't anything perjorative about it. The line is that the Greeks all thought that other languages sounded like 'bar bar bar' to them.

As far as the greek view of Persia being rather poor, it may have been for the general empire, but on several occasions we see differently, mainly though Xenophon. I would also argue, to an extent, that Herodotus wasn't that anti-Persian or anti-barbarian. He may well have thought that greek ways were the best, but that many of the barbarian ways were not that different or horrible.


Now, as for Persian politics....

[Paralus]

[ Ineed they were. A military tribe at the most. But i think Sparta is unique throughout history. A tribe that was solely devoted on military things, and forgot all the rest. That being said, it's not like the Spartans lived in huts. They had a level of culture. It just wasnt like the rest of Greece.

Well then, how about this one: how many a Macedonian Aeschylus and Aristophanes are extant before Archelaus began his "Hellenisation" programme? How many after? None

Indeed, how many a Macedonian "Herodotus" and "Thucydides" can you name me before Marsayas Macedon recorded the doings of Philip's courtin the late 300s?

Do you think it might anything to do with the - literally - "top down" nature of the society?

Uncivillised swill! All they left us was their buildings and art.

The Persians too had a high culture: it just wasn't like the rest of Greece

[marcus]

I can bring you a thousand more examples, but it wont make a difference, you should know by yourself why people said that our civilization ows a lot to the ancient Greek classical and hellenistic period.

And, just to be a bit naughty here ... and it was, of course, almost entirely thanks to the Muslims that we in the "West" have been able to use the knowledge of the ancient Greeks for the furtherance of our own civilisation. Yet look how the neocons portray Muslims today!

No wonder the Iranians are less than happy about "300".

ATB

[marcus]

The thing that baffles me is why should such a World Empire as that of the Achemenids, concern itself with an insignificant people on the periphery. The obvious answer is that it chose to continue its expanse in a westerly direction. How real were the wars as recorded by the Greeks and how significant were they to Persian affairs – unfortunately we only have a Greek sided view of this?

Because, Smitty, Darius was a bit fed up of the Athenians (mostly) sticking their nose in along the Ionian coast and inciting rebellion amongst the Anatolian satrapies against the 'legitimate' rule of the Great King. Athens had also engaged in an entirely unprovoked attack on the Great King's territories, killing the Great King's subjects and burning the Great King's buildings, all in the name of "freeing" the Greeks who happened to be living, quite peacefully and contentedly, under the benign rule of the Great King.

What ruler would not want to punish those who had behaved aggressively against him and his possessions?

Darius was beaten, to his great surprise and chagrin. He died before he could mount another expedition; but his son, quite rightly and with all the honour a son should show to his father, mounted a second expedition to salvage the pride of the Empire and the Great King.

Unfortunately he, too, had rather underestimated the "insignificant people" on the periphery of his empire!

ATB

[marcus]

Maybe a key element in this matter and in the authenticity of Herodotus' sayings, is that he was half Persian, from a Scythian mother. Although he was probably feeling maybe totally Greek, still being a half Persian must have made him a little bit more objective and not biased.

Is that so? I'd never heard that before.

Are you saying that he was half-Persian because his mother was Scythian - but that his father was Greek? In which case he wasn't half Persian, but half Scythian. If his mother was Scythian and his father was Persian, then he wasn't at all Greek. And, to be honest, as he came from Halicarnassus, it's possible that he wasn't even half-Greek, as he would have been Carian.

Sorry, it's not that I'm doubting you, but I would like some clarification, because this is the first time that I've heard that he was half-Persian (or half anything else, for that matter), so I would appreciate some more info on this one. As you can see, I'm fishing for clarification!

ATB

[Efstathios]

Ask yourself, what was happening in mainland Greece - whilst this somewhat intellectual explosian was happening in Ionia.

What exactly drove Anaxagoras to go to Athens instead of staying at Ionia?

I guess the agenda is that you need to be more aware and knowledgeable of the ancient world outside of Greece?

I have a pretty clear idea of what happened outside Greece. And as i said, some things were indeed taken from other cultures, in the form of Knowledge exchange, mostly through trade that allowed the Greeks to come in contact with other civlizations, and vise versa. But, the biggest amount of inventions, literature, and science that came out of Greece, was born in Greece.

For example the alphabet, and the common (deliberate?) misconception that it is phoinician in origin. An oppinion that was formed 150 years ago, before the "grammiki writting" was found in Greece, that predates the Phoinikes, and has 17 similar symbols to those of the Greek alphabet. The phoinikes appeared around 1300 bc, while the one of the oldest writtings ever found in Greece that resembles the Greek alphabet was from 6.000 b.c. It was found in Alonisos, in the northen Sporades islands by an archaiologist and director of prehistoric and historic antiquities, mr. Sampson.

Such myths, as the phoinician alphabet just prove that a lot of things that were considered to have been initially foreign to Greeks, were indeed not, but in contrary, they were born there.

That being said, i repeat for once more that i dont say that everything came out of Greece. But the characterizations you made, about Greeks being copiers and all that are just unfaire, and wrong.

Most prolific among the Greek movement in Art, Architecture, Philosophy, etc. etc. (I can't be bothered name dropping - you can check it out for yourself) are those of East Greek origin. That is, the western Anatolian coastline - todays Turkey.

Yes. But i cant see what's your point here. And since you mentioned about the urbanization of ancient Greece, i will only remark here that Ionia was colonized by mostly people from Attica.

Anyway, i will again ask with my narrow minded Greek way of thinking, what is that legacy that the Persian empire left behind?