[Quercus Robur]

I was just wondering why Ancient Greece seems so far 'ahead of its times'? I know very little on the whole subject so I'm not going to say anything. My questions would be - do you agree that Greece was exceptional and advanced and why do you think that is?

Some things I found on wiki:

Political structure

Ancient Greece consisted of several hundred more-or-less independent city states (poleis). This was a situation unlike that in most other contemporary societies, which were either tribal, or kingdoms ruling over relatively large territories. Undoubtedly the geography of Greece—divided and sub-divided by hills, mountains and rivers—contributed to the fragmentary nature of ancient Greece. On the one hand, the ancient Greeks had no doubt that they were 'one people'; they had the same religion, same basic culture, and same language. Furthermore, the Greeks were very aware of their tribal origins; Herodotus was able to extensively categorise the city-states by tribe. Yet, although these higher-level relationships existed, they seem to have rarely had a major role in Greek politics. The independence of the poleis was fiercely defended; unification was something rarely contemplated by the ancient Greeks. Even when, during the second Persian invasion of Greece, a group of city-states allied themselves to defend Greece, the vast majority of poleis remained neutral, and after the Persian defeat, the allies quickly returned to infighting.[13]

Thus, the major peculiarities of the ancient Greek political system were; firstly, its fragmentary nature, and that this does not particularly seem to have tribal origin; and secondly the particular focus on urban centres within otherwise tiny states. The peculiarities of the Greek system are further evidenced by the colonies that they set up throughout the Mediterranean Sea, which, though they might count a certain Greek polis as their 'mother' (and remain sympathetic to her), were completely independent of the founding city.

Inevitably smaller poleis might be dominated by larger neighbours, but conquest or direct rule by another city state appears to have been quite rare. Instead the poleis grouped themselves into leagues, membership of which was in a constant state of flux. Later in the Classical period, the leagues would become fewer and larger, be dominated by one city (particularly Athens, Sparta and Thebes); and often poleis would be compelled to join under threat of war (or as part of a peace treaty). Even after Philip II of Macedon 'conquered' the heartlands of ancient Greece, he did not attempt to annex the territory, or unify it into a new province, but simply compelled most of the poleis to join his own Corinthian League.

Initially many Greek city states seem to have been petty kingdoms; there was often a city official carrying some residual, ceremonial functions of the king (basileus), e.g. the archon basileus in Athens.[14] However, by the Archaic period and the first historical consciousness, most had already become aristocratic oligarchies. It is unclear exactly how this change occurred. For instance, in Athens, the kingship had been reduced to a hereditary, life-long chief magistracy (archon) by c. 1050 BC; by 753 BC this had become a decennial, elected archonship; and finally by 683 BC an annually elected archonship. Through each stage more power would have been transferred to the aristocracy as a whole, and away from a single individual.

Inevitably, the domination of politics and concomitant aggregation of wealth by small groups of families was apt to cause social unrest in many poleis. In many cities a tyrant (not in the modern sense of repressive autocracies), would at some point seize control and govern according to their own will; often a populist agenda would help sustain them in power. In a system racked with class conflict, government by a 'strongman' was often the best solution.

Athens fell under a tyranny in the second half of the 6th century. When this tyranny was ended, the Athenians founded the world's first democracy as a radical solution to prevent the aristocracy regaining power. A citizens' assembly (the Ecclesia), for the discussion of city policy, had existed since the reforms of Draco in 621 BC; all citizens were permitted to attend after the reforms of Solon (early 6th century), but the poorest citizens could not address the assembly or run for office. With the establishment of the democracy, the assembly became the de jure mechanism of government; all citizens had equal privileges in the assembly. However, non-citizens, such as metics (foreigners living in Athens) or slaves, had no political rights at all.

After the rise of the democracy in Athens, other city-states founded democracies. However, many retained more traditional forms of government. As so often in other matters, Sparta was a notable exception to the rest of Greece, ruled through the whole period by not one, but two hereditary monarchs. This was a form of diarchy. The Kings of Sparta belonged to the Agiads and the Eurypontids, descendants respectively of Eurysthenes and Procles. Both dynasty founders were believed to be twin sons of Aristodemus, a Heraclid ruler. However, the powers of these kings was trammeled by both a council of elders (the Gerousia) and magistrates specifically appointed to watch over the kings (the Ephors).

Also this wiki on transmission of greek philosophy back to the west

[Doomhammer]

Ancient Greece consisted of several hundred more-or-less independent city states (poleis). This was a situation unlike that in most other contemporary societies, which were either tribal, or kingdoms ruling over relatively large territories.

The Sumerians had a similar system in ~2000 B.C.
The Roman Republic was founded in 509 B.C. The Republic was no exemplar of democracy and human rights, but it worked for 4 centuries.

Personally, I don't believe that being divided into city-states or having "democracies" are a sign of being "advanced". On the other hand, if you were to point to Greek philosophy and science as a sign of advancement, then I would agree without hesitation.

I have an explanation but don't take my word on it:

[Note: These are from an essay I wrote a while back]

According to Michael Grant, Roman and Greek historiography are different. The former 'began with politics and the state’ and the latter stems from ‘geography and human behavior” (Keegan, 1976, 58).

[Geography] determines the distribution of resources. The distribution of resources, in turn, determines the distribution of people and their relations inter se.

Greece is mostly mountainous and thus areas suitable for large scale agriculture were somewhat limited. This is why populations tended to be more concentrated in some areas than others. This also meant some places were bereft of sufficient food sources, which fueled competition for land...

Keep also in mind that Greece was settled by Ionians and then overrun by Dorians; i.e. it was a highway for wandering people and had access to many land and sea routes for trade.

We have areas with concentrated population. This gives birth to the idea of a "polis" (how very Greek of me to say that lol) and of citizenship - this might partly explain the reason for the political developments. More importantly, living in cities is convenient. That is to say that many urban dwellers were free from constantly struggling against nature to make a living. These large urban populations made whatever off their lands and actively engaged in trade and setting up colonies in other places. The implications are twofold: One, a large section of the population, especially noblemen, had enough recreational time to devote to thinking beyond their immediate concerns. They could wander and conceive abstract ideas. Second - and this is a characteristic generally found in all naval/liberal societies - is that trade means you have to go out and explore; meet and deal with new peoples and lands. This is generally good in that it allows the exchange of knowledge and all sorts of ideas. Combine the two and it's no surprise that cities like Athens contributed so much to our knowledge.

And cities... urban life makes a lot of wonderful things possible. Like a decent literacy rate.

[pugsville]

I think the ancient greeks crossed some sort of threshold as to regards learning and culture where they were enough people involved to create a philosophic culture/dialog that enough the flow, interchange , devlopment of ideas that lead to some sort of ancient renassiace. Pherhaps the relatively minor roles (comparative to other societies) of government (empire) , religion and warfare enabled this to some degree. (I'm nt saying these things didnt impinge in drastic and major ways but they were not structual to their socities. (and to some degree parallels with renassice italy) It is not that the relative choas (and perhaps instability) of factional city states was in of itself a good thing in the development of ideas, but the lack of orgization (power, control) of church , state and military left room for this development.

[Doomhammer]

but the lack of orgization (power, control) of church , state and military left room for this development.

That's interesting because the opposite is true for the "Atlantic Renaissance" and the period that immediately preceded it. We have a weakening of the Papist yoke but it is replaced by increasingly more powerful, more centralized, nation states, some good old Protestant dogma and the eventual growth in the national militaries of Western Europe - which, purveyed enlightenment values like secularism was an engine for scientific discovery in Europe.

[pugsville]

I dont agree off the bat, what period and where for the "Atlantic Renaissance" ? Which parts of germany were developing ? Prussia ? Austria? Bavaria? or the choatic little rhineland states? Britain the driving force where the military was vanishingly small and had no role in society. I'd say (without any real anlysis) the most progressive parts of europe during the industrial revolution were the places with the smallist armies, least inflentual churches and were the government was less in it's impact on peoples day to day lives.

[Doomhammer]

I'd say (without any real anlysis) the most progressive parts of europe during the industrial revolution were the places with the smallist armies, least inflentual churches and were the government was less in it's impact on peoples day to day lives.
I dont agree off the bat, what period and where for the "Atlantic Renaissance" ? Which parts of germany were developing ? Prussia ? Austria? Bavaria? or the choatic little rhineland states? Britain the driving force where the military was vanishingly small and had no role in society. I'd say (without any real anlysis) the most progressive parts of europe during the industrial revolution were the places with the smallist armies, least inflentual churches and were the government was less in it's impact on peoples day to day lives.

Let's start with the Netherlands. It is the birthplace of international law and of various military and technical innovations. You'll agree that it also had a decent army and navy, and it was under a strong influence from the Reformation. Next we have Britain - or more specifically, Scotland. Scotland, which was poor and affected by Protestantism, produced many philosophers, economists and even served to create a modern education system that was later imitated in other parts of the world (namely, US) - this was time when Oxford and Cambridge were still nothing but fancy Church schools. France, you'll agree, was an absolute monarchy, a fortress of Catholicism. In France, the powerful military consolidated the power of the King (Louis XIV, in this case). Hundreds of forts were built or restored, dozens of math, engineering and artillery schools were opened during his reign. Later on, Russian and Prussian monarchs used their militaries to consolidate their power and bring about reforms (this was particularly the case for Russia under Piotr).

Of course, you are right about Britain being a free(r) society and probably the greatest contribute to progress. My claims only explain how militarism, religion and bureaucracy brought innovation to continental Europe (and how Scotland and the Netherlands created the modern world ).

[pugsville]

It's all rather vague, but the most militarist (Prussia) and the most religionious (Spain) are near the bottom of development and the least militarist and religionious (Britian) was at the forefront.

"My claims only explain how militarism, religion and bureaucracy brought innovation to continental Europe" would require some further elabortion.

In the ancient Greece the development of thought was pretty impressive but we are talking about a relatively small numbers of people. The lack of competition, lack of censorship, lack of control from overly strong religion, state or military may have reduced competition for tlented individauls help provide "mental space" for them to operate. I know it's pretty thin but it's but all I could come up with as far s "why greece" goes.

[Doomhammer]

The lack of competition, lack of censorship, lack of control from overly strong religion, state or military may have reduced competition for tlented individauls help provide "mental space" for them to operate.

Our conclusions are similar with regard to Ancient Greece. I say that urban life removed many restrictions on the Greeks and gave them the time and freedom to pursue abstract ideas; while trade and outside contact made them deliberate more on different ideas. Your "mental space" idea is similar but emphasizes the importance of lack of religious dogma or military repression.

So, that's good. Perhaps we should also hear a Greek view on this phenomenon.

It's all rather vague, but the most militarist (Prussia) and the most religionious (Spain) are near the bottom of development and the least militarist and religionious (Britian) was at the forefront.

I forgot about Spain... but the Spanish army had become irrelevant by the end of the 17th century.

I generally argue the same thing to explain Ottoman decline- that military interference (from corrupt Janissaries) and religious bigotry made it difficult to enact reforms.

[noemon]

You 've covered it, I dont have much to say.

3 things made the Greek miracle possible:

1) Maritime culture for all the things you mentioned.
2) The geologic problems that led to the formation of city-states which in turn led to fierce antagonism participated in keeping the Greeks on alert constantly.
3) The participation of normal citizens to public life which was natural to all Greek city-states, even in Sparta and Macedonia that were generally more authoritarian than Athens led to a curiosity that drove Greeks to experiment on political theory, which in turn produced all this philosophy.

As soon as the first step was made to include citizens in the decision-making process even for just a little, Pandoras box had been opened in order to philosophically grasp the success formula in the distribution of prerogatives among all the classes.

[telluro]

Because we are a result of Greek civilization? Because we're trained to think that democratic republics are superior and advanced.

It's like asking, wow, why am I so advanced and ahead of my time, I have these values which I like a lot, and others have their own values which I don't like - how come they haven't yet advanced to embrace my values?

[Verv]

I was listening to some of the In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg and they were discussing the origin of cities, and they pointed to Athens as a fundamental step in the political organization of the city.

No other place had said "Hey, let's have all of the citizens come to discuss the problems."

Of course, while there existed citizens there also existed slaves and other very undesirable positions.

But the point was that there was actually a situation where the people were not controlled by an authoritarian system.

-- HOwever, there have been other systems that were to some extent more or less advanced for their times, and to some extent tribalism fulfills democracy. But it must be remembered that tribalist communities deal with an entirely different set of problems that does not require absolute, infallible leaders and their sizes enable a coherent and often pseudo-democratic form in some instances.

[Reichstraten]

Personally, I don't believe that being divided into city-states or having "democracies" are a sign of being "advanced". On the other hand, if you were to point to Greek philosophy and science as a sign of advancement, then I would agree without hesitation.

According to Nietzsche, Socrates was a very democratic thinker. Without him we possibly had never heard of the two gigants Plato and Aristotle.

[Doomhammer]

According to Nietzsche, Socrates was a very democratic thinker. Without him we possibly had never heard of the two gigants Plato and Aristotle.

Ehh? As far as I know, Socrates did not write any philosophical texts. He is featured in the texts of his pupil, Plato, and Aristotle as well as Xenophon.

However, I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

[Reichstraten]

Socrates was marked by the relative democratic spirit of the Athene he was living in. What I'm trying to say is that you can't denounce Athenean democracy and favor Greek/Athenean philosophy simultaneously.

[Doomhammer]

Socrates was marked by the relative democratic spirit of the Athene he was living in. What I'm trying to say is that you can't denounce Athenean democracy and favor Greek/Athenean philosophy simultaneously.

It might help if you knew bit about Plato's and Aristotle's works. Both considered democracy to be a "deviant constitution" and explicitly criticized the democratic man for having fickle tastes. Plato, who supported a type of benevolent dictatorship (the Kallipolis), expressed the view that democracy paves the way to tyranny.

I found this in wikipedia for you:

The dialectical forms of government

Plato spends much of the Republic narrating conversations about the Ideal State. But what about other forms of government? The discussion turns to four forms of government that cannot sustain themselves: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy and tyranny (also called despotism).

Timocracy

Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by people who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold in society. Honor is often equated with wealth and possession so this kind of gilded government leads to the people valuing materialism above all things.

Oligarchy

These temptations create a confusion between economic status and honor which is responsible for the emergence of oligarchy. In Book VIII, Socrates suggests that wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship. This injustice divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge. The rich are constantly plotting against the poor and vice versa.

Democracy

As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the inexperienced oligarchs and soon grant liberties and freedoms to citizens. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class. However, with too much freedom, the people become drunk, and tyranny takes over.

Tyranny

The excessive freedoms granted to the citizens of a democracy ultimately leads to a tyranny, the furthest regressed type of government. These freedoms divide the people into three socioeconomic classes: the dominating class, the capitalists and the commoners. Tensions between the dominating class and the capitalists causes the commoners to seek out protection of their democratic liberties. They invest all their power in their democratic demagogue, who, in turn, becomes corrupted by the power and becomes a tyrant with a small entourage of his supporters for protection and absolute control of his people.

Ironically, the ideal state outlined by Socrates closely resembles a tyranny, but they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. This is because the philosopher king who rules in the ideal state is not self-centered but is dedicated to the good of the state insofar as the philosopher king is the one with knowledge.

[Reichstraten]

Ironically, the ideal state outlined by Socrates closely resembles a tyranny, but they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. This is because the philosopher king who rules in the ideal state is not self-centered but is dedicated to the good of the state insofar as the philosopher king is the one with knowledge.

Actually this is the ideal state as outlined by Plato, not Socrates. It was written in a Socratic dialogue.

[Reichstraten]

Anyhow, Plato and Aristotle wouldn't have written their critiques of democracy if they weren't living in a (relative) democratic state.

I still think it's odd to be positive about Greek philosophy while denouncing the democratic times in which it flourished.

[Doomhammer]

Anyhow, Plato and Aristotle wouldn't have written their critiques of democracy if they weren't living in a (relative) democratic state.

Why would tyrants or oligarchs object to the denunciation of democracy?

I find it unbelievable that Westerners place such an emphasis on Athens and democracy. The virtues of ancient Greece is not confined to the golden age of Athens and the short lived democracies in other city-states. That would barely constitute one page in the book that is the history of ancient Greece; the democratic experiment in Athens was a brief experience and ancient Greece was still a great civilization even without democracy.

[WisdomSeeker]

I was just wondering why Ancient Greece seems so far 'ahead of its times'? I know very little on the whole subject so I'm not going to say anything. My questions would be - do you agree that Greece was exceptional and advanced and why do you think that is?

The answer to your question is rather simple.What the earlier posters said is true,of course,but i would like to add two more reasons.

Because the greeks were the first people in history who changed the human way of thinking. Every earlier civilization had been majorly naturalistic under a philosophical point of view pointing and posing its questions towards nature (included religion) Greeks turned their philosophical ones towards humanity itself and human behaviour.By personifying and identifying with their gods,they expanded their universe.This,in my opinion,was the turning point. The philosophical interest changed towards the man,instead of his exterior environment.

The second reason was that they invented scientific method. Google for Erasistratus of Chios,the first ''scientist'' who applied experiments to prove his theories. And of course,the epitome of the aristotelian way of of thinking,is,what else? The scientific method itself.

Those two reasons made the greek way of thinking and doing so unique. Since when you asked about ancient greece you must have had in mind its philosophy and political sciences,as i suppose,this is under what principles it was evolved.

Regards,WS