Sure, thanks.
Posted on 11/15/2002 2:10:24 PM PST by Sparta
I think you misunderstood.
Athens struck a new vein of silver. Instead of squandering the newfound wealth, they used it to build up their navy to protect them from the invading Persian hordes. They did exactly what you seem to be chastising them for supposedly not doing.
There are some other interesting facts about the Spartans though:
The Spartans didn't socialise well with people that were not Spartans, and were basically considered the outcasts of the Empire. Many historians believed that as a general rule the Spartans were homosexuals. They think this because every boy was surrounded only by men from the age of 9, until they retired.
The Spartans embraced homosexuality as strength, as a bulwark against the feminine.
Also the women were made to look like men, they had to have very short hair, they were allowed to wear no make-up, etc.
I will compliment you on one thing. Seldom have I seen a person argue a point which is basically half truths and outright nonsense so stubbornly.
There is one thing you are basically correct in tho. The Spartans while being admirable for their courage and fighting ability, as well as their integrity when dealing with other Greeks, were just plain brutal to the Helots. Their treatment of the Helots was probably neccessary to maintain their style of City State but nothing can excuse the barabous treatment.
You are free to believe otherwise but that doesn't make it so. In fact most of our knowledge of Greek thought is derived from documents which were preserved in the East, not the West!
Sure, thanks.
The Greeks invented rational thinking and scientific inquiry. They almost ignited the industrial revolution as the Greeks in Alexandria were experimenting with steam power. The Greeks idealized man-boy romantic relationships. They were indeed very different.
The great sea battle of Salamis stopped the inavsion dead in it's track. The entire city of Athens was willing to bear exile but they would never surrender their liberties. Aeschylus who was a veteran of the battle wrote that all the citizens of Athens lined the shore as they sang and chanted songs in praise of their Gods as their fleet began to sail. The crews responded in kind as they closed on the fleet of the Tyrant. They knew what was at stake; "the graves of their forefathers, the liberties of their women and children." On that day, Zeus and Athena triumphed over the slave minions of Ahura-Mazda, Baal and Yahweh.
Heraclitus summed up the Greek perspective; "Man could know himself and think in a rational manner." Man was not a slave to the Gods or God. He can create his own destiny. Not too many subscribe to that notion or want to it seems.
No. What I mean was that Greek city states, while fighting amongst themselves frequently in a very orderly, regulated manner in which only the warriors were involved, were not a part of any imperialistic endeavor until the Macedonian Alexander conquered them.
Xerxes, by contrast, was not interested in trade and expansion of living standards. His focus was on building empire, and getting his neighbors to bend their knee to him. Such were his predecessors as well. That is what I meant by requiring only cravenness and servility in Persian subjects, whereas Spartans required self-sufficiency and a desire to defend yourself for the right to be called a citizen.
Frankly, the only reason the Persians of that time get a bad shake from history is that they were soon (in an historic sense) overrun by Alexander and what passed for a Greek Army.
That's hardly the only reason. There is also the rank incompetence displayed at Marathon, Thermopylae etc, where it became obvious that the only ones who need fear the Persians are those that fear numbers alone. Compare that with the success Hannibal would have later with highly diversified units, and you can see that there is no excuse for failing with such superior numbers and resources at his disposal.
I don't really see the relevance of Alexander, beyond the fact that he was able to succeed for various reasons where the Persians failed miserably again and again. He had his own vision of what culture he desired, shared by his father as well, and acted accordingly.
Of course, the Persians had no slaves/sarcasm.
The matter you raise is an important one, but not as relevant to your Orientalist points as you imply. The ancient world was obviously quite different than the modern world, where simple economics in addition to an evolution of modern morality made slavery obsolete first, and immoral second. In a world where economies were largely based on barter and whim, slavery was and would continue to be a common institution.
The difference is that it was recognized from the start that becoming a Helot or its equivalent in the other Greek states was the logical result of defeat in warfare. One's status could be changed with the purchase of one's freedom.
You keep bringing up the Jewish involvement in Persian polity. Simply because the Jews throughout history have so often been oppressed and hated does not make their utilization by Xerxes a particularly wonderful example of tolerance; rather, he treated them as all he conquered who surrendered abjectly, as tools. While that is certainly better than extermination, it does not point to any particular respect for individual rights or anything of the sort.
I don't know about that, but the Persians did not oppress the Jews - they liberated them and as far as any ancient society could do, they assimilated them.
The only reason to bring the Persian/Jewish relationship into this discussion is to point out that the West's primary source of a moral viewpoint has been the Judeo-Christian tradition which derives directly from the Persian/Jewish civilizing ethos.
There may have been other important forces in the West BEFORE 538 AD, but AFTER 538 AD and 900 years of Dark Age, the only one that counted was the one that emenated from the East - from Persia to be specific.
But, not to worry, the Persians and Medes were Indo-European people, as are the Kurds. Even the Semitic speakers share a common language with the really ancient Indo-Europeans. Recent genetic testing has demonstrated that the Kurds and the greater part of the Jews are one and the same and differ only in language, religion, history and culture! (And despite all of that, they have more in common with the modern West than any ancient Greeks).
The Jews were not biological cousins of the Medes. The Medes were Iranians, closely related to the Persians; the Medes and Persians were related to the Aryans who invaded India and more distantly to the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, Armenians, Slavs, etc., all speakers of the so-called Indo-European languages, whereas the Jews are Semites and the Hebrew language, and the other Semitic languages, belong to a different language family (Afro-Asiatic).
The Athenians GAVE UP their personal shares of the silver and spent it to build up their navy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.