As a growing number of people start to fret that Western Civilisation is under threat both internally and externally, some have been looking back at its history to seek to get answers as to how to proceed. There is also a view that at least some of the problem is that the glories of western civilisation and its unrivalled contribution to human progress aren't well understood by current generations since it is no longer taught or studied.

It is widely accepted that the West originated in 5th century Hellas (Greece). From that, a war that was fought to fend off a civilisation killing invasion has become an iconic symbol of the resilience of the West and a marker for the beginning of the West. 19th century historian Edward Creasy opined that "The battle of Marathon, even as an event in English history, is more important than the battle of Hastings."

Recently Brad Schaeffer had a series of articles covering the history of the Persian Wars. While necessarily condensed, its a reasonable summary and, I thought, something that might be of value to the members here....

Introduction - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45338/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-introduction-war-brad-schaeffer

Part 1 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45339/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-part-one-athens-makes-brad-schaeffer

Part 2 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45356/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-part-two-march-brad-schaeffer

Part 3 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45357/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-part-three-forlorn-brad-schaeffer

Part 4 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45413/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-part-four-treachery-brad-schaeffer

Part 5 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45414/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-part-five-destruction-brad-schaeffer

Part 6 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45466/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-part-six-fight-brad-schaeffer

Part 7 - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45467/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-part-seven-great-brad-schaeffer

Conclusion - http://www.dailywire.com/news/45469/schaeffer-greco-persian-wars-conclusion-aftermath-brad-schaeffer

Dear mhaze,

Aww mate, I'm feeling a bit sorry for you.

Okay, setting aside the fact this was another bash the muzzies sad attempt by you, we can have a conversation about it if you like.

I went to the Wikipedia page to see who started it and found this;

"The first Persian invasion was a response to Athenian involvement in the Ionian Revolt, when Athens and Eretria had sent a force to support the cities of Ionia in their attempt to overthrow Persian rule. The Athenians and Eretrians had succeeded in capturing and burning Sardis, but they were then forced to retreat with heavy losses."

Any comment?

To mhaze- Good post. I look forward to viewing the links. Thanks.

"I'm feeling a bit sorry for you. "

Why? Although, I was a little (but just a little) surprised that so few seemed interested in even a heavily summarised history of this vital period in Western culture. I'm on another group on Yahoo where we're up to 500 posts and several members have decided to read further eg Herodotus.

"....to see who started it... "

Well, it depends on where and how far back you go. Its certainly true that Athens participated in the revolt of the Ionian Greek states in Asia Minor against the Persian overlords. There are several reasons for Athens offering help:

1) the Ionian Hellenes were racially related to Athens. Its a difficult concept to understand from this distance, but these racial bonds were very important to the Greeks and were often used to invoke fraternal help. The ties went very deep. For example the ancient city of Massalia (Marseilles) was found by people who were related to Athens and even over those vast distances maintained fraternal ties with the original mother country. Equally Syracuse was able to call on help from its mother state, Corinth, when it needed help in 415BC.

2) Persia was an aggressively expanding state and it's probable that Athens adopted the view that it's better to fight them over there than over here. The Persian imperial philosophy was continued expansion based on the use of previously conquered nation's wealth and manpower. No one, least of all the Persians expected the Mede to stop at the shores of the Ionian Sea.

3) Athens had recently created the contours of their democracy. Much like France in 1789, they appeared to be anxious to encourage their allies to adopt the benefits of democracy.

"another bash the muzzies sad attempt "

All this occurred more than 1000 years before the rise of Islam. Good to see that your historical knowledge is up to (or down to) its usual levels.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“All this occurred more than 1000 years before the rise of Islam. Good to see that your historical knowledge is up to (or down to) its usual levels.”

My historical knowledge is fine, I also recognise this “Western Civilisation is under threat both internally and externally, some have been looking back at its history to seek to get answers as to how to proceed” along with this “a war that was fought to fend off a civilisation killing invasion has become an iconic symbol of the resilience of the West” is just another thinly disguised call to arms .

But perhaps I am wrong. Pray tell what internal and external 'civilisation killing' threats to Western civilisation do you think are at play and where would a 'civilisation killing' invasion most likely come from? I you provide a believable answer I am happy to withdraw my assessment.

"My historical knowledge is fine, "

Yes I've noticed how your historic knowledge is pathetic 4.3 nanoseconds before and 4.3 nanoseconds after I've given the historic data.

This is nothing about a call to arms or whatever idiocy you've misunderstood it to be about.

The victory of the Hellenes was about a victory of one freedom loving society over another freedom crushing society. It was about the victory one society which was learning the wonders of art and philosophy and free expression over another that was antithetical to those ideas. It was about one society that was starting a journey toward democracy over a society that had no notion of such a thing. It was about the victory one society that was about to usher in a true golden age of learning and create a civilisation that survives to today over a society that was already stagnating and was to last a mere 150 years hence.

Thinking it is a story just about war utterly misunderstands the era. Sure at the end of the day, swords have to be pulled and blood spilled, but that's not even close to the whole story.

Dear mhaze,

I asked a simple question; "Pray tell what internal and external 'civilisation killing' threats to Western civilisation do you think are at play and where would a 'civilisation killing' invasion most likely come from?"

Yet you couldn't answer it could you. So instead you diverted and spat out words like "pathetic". Hardly anything that was likely to sway my original assessment of your motives is there.

Care to try again or is it just a little too hard?

Nowhere did I say that an invasion was the issue. External threats come in all sorts of forms as do internal threats.

You always go down this path after you've made a monumental stuff up such as thinking this had anything to do with Islam. You immediately change the focus away from your monumental stuff up.

I'm not playing. Clearly you have no understanding about the period and its relevance to the west and why some would see studying the origins of our civilisation would be of value as it enters dangerous waters.

That's OK. There are millions like you who know not where we came from and therefore where we're headed.

Dear mhaze,

Well I see the 'civilisation killing' threats have been thankfully downgraded to 'dangerous waters'.

Yet we are no closer to learning what they are.

"I'm not playing" is of course just another way of saying 'I won't answer because I'm in a sticky spot'.

And indeed you are my friend, indeed you are.

Nowhere did I say there are current civilisation killing threats. This will be harder for you to follow but saying that there were such threats 2500 years ago doesn't mean they exist today. Today we have different but still significant issues.

You see its hard to have a rational conversation with someone who can't differentiate between problem 2500 years ago and those today.

Just as its hard to give even passing credence to someone who makes mistakes like your Islam guffaw.
You keep on laughably misreading g what I write and then demand that I explain your misunderstandings. Its both sad and funny simultaneously.

Look. Go back and read what I originally wrote. Then read it again. Then ask a 10th grader to explain it to you.

But I'll take some pity. I said that our present civilisation is under threat and some of the answers might be found in its history.

What type of threats?

Many of the pillars of our civilisation are being attacked internally and externally. Things like freedom of expression, freedom of thought, search and reverence for the truth,the work ethic,ethics in general,the family, pride in and willingness to preserve our history and heritage.

I assume I've lost you by now. But there's more than enough in there for you to misunderstand.

The years 509-338 B.C. were dramatic ones.
In Greece Athens, led by aristocrats, laid the
foundations of democracy, defeated the Persians,
acquired and lost an empire, and saw hegemony pass in
turn to Sparta and Thebes before it rested finally with
Macedonia.

These years embrace the Golden Age of Athenian art and
literature, followed in the fourth century by the
scarcely less impressive achievements of Demosthenes
in oratory and of Plato and Aristotle in philosophy.
In Italy Rome expelled its kings in the same year
(509 B.C.) as Athens expelled its tyrants, but
contrived to build an aristocratic constitution so
firmly that it established power over the Latin League
in the same year (338 B.C.) in which Athens lost its
political power forever.

It is worth noting that in two short years puny Greece
had thrown the Persian colossus back beyond the Straits.
Sparta and Athens shared credit for the victory.Sparta
withdrew from further competition as soon as danger to
the Peloponnese was past, whereas the vigorous Athenian
democracy went on to fill the vacuum created by the
collapse of Persian aggression, to create an empire in
its turn, and to express its exaltation in masterpieces of
art and literature.

cont'd ...

This information was taken from William L. Langer's -
"Western Civilisation: Paleolithic Man to the Emergence
of European Powers."

Dear Foxy,

Well that is certainly one take on it. I think we have the makings of a great discussion if you are up to it.

Try this for another take, the fruits of Greece were built on the large slave community which sustained them. Just as the tales of King Arthur come from an European elite where courtly idleness and largess enabled great works of art such as literature from Shakespeare and the King James bible and the music of the great composers, all on the backs of a largely indentured workforce living pretty miserable lives of servitude.

The Athenian reliance on the bondage of others was reknown.

“Modern estimations suggest that in Attica (Athens and its vicinity) from 450 to 320 BC, there were roughly 100,000 slaves. The total population of the region was around 250,000, which would give us a slave-to-free ratio of about 2:5.”
http://listverse.com/2016/09/29/10-fascinating-facts-about-slavery-in-ancient-greece/

The great Aristotle was pretty clear on his views regarding slaves;

“Aristotle wrote that some people were simply born to be slaves, while others were born to rule the slaves, a doctrine known as “natural slavery” (Politics 1, 1253b15–55b40). Slavery, Aristotle said, was a good thing for slaves, for without masters, slaves would not know how to live their lives. He also saw slaves as “animate tools”—pieces of property to be used, with no rights other than those granted by their masters.”

But the situation in Sparta was immeasurably more brutal. Their subjugation of the Helots is a case in point;

“The number of helots in relation to Spartan citizens varied throughout the history of the Spartan state; according to Herodotus, there were seven helots for each Spartan at the time of the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC.[3] Thus the need to keep helot population in check and preventing rebellion was one of the main concerns of the Spartans. Helots were ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered: every autumn the Spartans would declare war on the helots so they could be killed by a member of the Crypteia without fear of repercussion.”
Wikipedia

Cont..

Cont..

In Persia slavery was far less widespread;

“In general, mass slavery as a whole has never been practiced by Persians, and in many cases the situation and lives of semi-slaves (prisoners of war) were, in fact, better than those of the commoner.”

“On the whole, in the Achaemenid empire, there was only small number of slaves in relation to the number of free persons and moreover the word used to call a slave was utilized also to express general dependence.”

During the Sassanid period it was a crime to mistreat slaves; “The owner had to treat the slave humanely; violence toward the slave was forbidden. In particular beating a slave woman was a crime.”. Further “To free a slave (irrespective of his or her faith) was considered a good deed. Slaves had some rights including keeping gifts to them and at least three days of rest in the month."
Wikipedia

It was the Persains who freed the Jews captive in Babylon and because of their laws around freedom of religion allowed them the return to Jerusalem to build the second temple.

The Persian king Cyrus is a revered in Jewish religion and is the only gentile ever to be given the title Messiah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

“Cyrus the Great respected the customs and religions of the lands he conquered.[14] This became a very successful model for centralized administration and establishing a government working to the advantage and profit of its subjects.”

“Cyrus the Great is also well recognized for his achievements in human rights, politics, and military strategy, as well as his influence on both Eastern and Western civilizations.”

So dear Foxy, well may we all enjoy the 'fruits' of the Greek civilisation, but recognise they came off the backs of many thousands of brutalised slaves.

Know also when mhaze tries to paint this as “The victory of the Hellenes was about a victory of one freedom loving society over another freedom crushing society.” know quite clearly he is full of it.

P.S. Researching this has been great fun. Look forward to your response.

Steele,

Given that pretty much all societies lived off the backs of slaves, from the Pharaohs until at least the nineteenth century, what's your point ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Given my point was pretty obvious I suspect you are asking this because you don't like the answer.

Well here it is again;

"when mhaze tries to paint this as “The victory of the Hellenes was about a victory of one freedom loving society over another freedom crushing society.” know quite clearly he is full of it.

The notion that there was little to no slavery in the Persian Empire is rather ignorant. SR does this quite often when he does his targeted (ie form the answer then look for the data) 30 minutes of 'research'. That there were slaves aplenty in the empire is easily demonstrated from contemporary texts (slave contracts, records from slave markets) as well as writings such as those of Herodotus who toured the empire and talks about slavery there.

But in a sense, the people of the entire empire existed at the whim of one man and were his slaves. This is in stark contrast to Hellas.

Prior to the first invasion, the peoples of Athens and Eretria were told, by the Persians, of their fate. The men would be executed. The women sold in the markets in Asia. The prettiest of the young girls would be placed in the various harems of the nobles in Susa. The prettiest young boys would be castrated and sold as eunuchs. No slavery! As the Battle of Marathon was unfolding, the peoples of Eritria were already headed back to Asia and their fate.

When Xerxes felt that his conscript soldiers needed extra encouragement to force the pass at Thermopylae, he had them whipped into battle. No slavery!

By contrast, when little Plataea sent its 1000 soldiers out to fight alongside Athens at Marathon, they did it freely, without constraint. They recognised that their freedom was dependent on Athen's freedom. Each of them was a freeman and was prepared to die for that freedom. 11 did. They are memorialised in a mound on the plain of Marathon.

If someone wants to denigrate a society based on it not living up to present standards, they can surely do so. In some ways its a legitimate way to compare and contrast.

But its also a dead-end. It leads to utterly misunderstanding history and the significance of events and to false disparagement of past societies. For example, are we to dismiss the Whitlam government as undemocratic because a portion of what we now consider the electorate (18-21 year olds) were excluded from the vote?

That there were slaves in Hellas is true. There were slaves in every society in every part of the world at that, and at most, times. Athens, being the wealthiest of those states had the most slaves. Approximately 1/3 of the population were in some sort of servitude. A further 1/3 were non-citizen visiting merchants.

But this isn't the point. The point is that the civilisation being constructed was done by free citizens of those cities. The men on the plain of Marathon were fighting to maintain their freedom from suppression. The Thespians stayed at Thermopylae based on their own decisions, not those of some god-king.

At Athens, each man fought for his state, this family and his ancestral homes because he wanted to. The astonishing success of that system gave them confidence to breakout into other arenas. And as Foxy points out, they initiated a Golden Age of discovery, artistic development and innovation, unparalleled in human experience. It was pioneered in Athens and remained centred there for the next 500 years. (It is said that after Rome conquered Athens militarily, Athens conquered Rome culturally).

When Alexander conquered Asia, this Hellenistic revolution in thought spread as well, and ultimately fused with Judaism to produce Christianity.

The world change and Western thought and mores where invented in that 5th century BC Athens. The victories in the Persian Wars permitted that to happen. The societal confidence it gave the Athenians was the catalyst for it happening.

Foxy,

Fun fact.

"In Italy Rome expelled its kings in the same year (509 B.C.) "

In 390BC a Gaulish army under Brennus first defeated Rome and then occupied the city for several months. The city was utterly sacked and pretty much all its records were destroyed.

After regaining the city, the Romans set about rebuilding knowledge of their past. Since they had, essentially, a clean slate, they could order past events as it suited their needs.

At the time Athens was the most famous and admired city in Europe. It is pretty certain that these Roman 'historians' wanted to elevate their city by claiming that they achieved their Republic before Athens, by a few months.

The best research I've seen suggests that the overthrow of the monarchy probably happened a decade later.

It doesn't matter in the least since either way the Roman Republic was formed around that time. But I always find it interesting and a reminder that information from that period can be rather opaque. Its another example of why the other invention of Athens, - contemporary recording of history - as begun by Herodotus and brought to glorious fulfilment by Thukydides, is so important and yet another brick in the construction of Western civilisation.

Dear mhaze,

Strewth mate, I supplied quote after quote to make my case yet all you come back with is a load of unsubstantiated opinion and innuendo reading like one of Jordon Peterson rambles. You know the ones, where he steps outside of his field of expertise and pontificates at length with tenuous links and over-hyped perspectives. None of what you put really challenged any of my major points did it. Come on mate, you can do better.

By the way the Athenians who you hold in high esteem took an interesting approach to the Island of Melos.

“The Siege of Melos occurred in 416 BC during the Peloponnesian War, a war fought between Athens and Sparta. Melos is an island in the Aegean Sea roughly 110 km (68 mi) east of mainland Greece. Though the Melians were of the same ethnic group as the Spartans, they chose to remain neutral in the war. Athens invaded Melos in 416 BC and demanded that the Melians surrender and pay tribute to Athens or face annihilation. The Melians refused, and after a siege the Athenians captured their city, slaughtered the men, and enslaved the women and children.”
Wikipedia

This allowed Thucydides to write the Melian Dialogue in which he contended "By subjugating the Melians the Athenians hoped not only to extend their empire but also to improve their image and thus their security. To allow the weaker Melians to remain free, according to the Athenians, would reflect negatively on Athenian power". So it other words it would put the frighteners up everyone so slaughtering a people who wished to remain neutral was justified.

Thus was born the realism school of thought. Are we seeing a common theme yet?

Tell you what, here is a neat little lighthearted summary the position I put to Foxy. Go at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-mkVSasZIM

Poor old SR,

So desperate to get one up on me after being humiliated so many times. Oh mhaze likes Athens. Therefore SR must hate Athens. Let's go and find something in Athens's long history that's not exemplary and pronounce that to be evidence of their evil. And let's white-wash Persia.

If you doubt what I said about slavery in Persia as described by Herodotus then go read his Historia. I can't be bothered looking for something that you'll ignore anyway when it shows you to be wrong. Or Xerxes whipping his soldiers. Or the Eretrian slaves. Instead you go off and find some quotes that met your prejudged notions and proclaim them conclusive. They're not. You should note that Wikipedia shouldn't be relied on over issues like this since it can be easily manipulated by partisans. Reading Herodotus would do you the world of good.

No question that Melos wasn't Athens' finest hour. We've covered the debate previous on OLO. Again just taking a small quote and your standard 30 second 'research' doesn't give the full flavour of the issue. Without suggesting that what Athens did was justifiable, appreciating the full situation makes it understandable. What they did was at the extreme end of punishment for fallen foe. But it wasn't unprecedented. Athens at the time was in a life and death struggle with Sparta and they were of the view that treating the Melians in this fashion would quell other rebellions. Again, not justified but understandable.

This was a very different world. You don't seem to get that.
You should also note that while Melos and other 'crimes' were happening, Socrates was running lecturers, the plays of Euripides and Aristophanes were being staged, statue art was being perfected, the notion of written history was being invented, the Acropolis was being completed and so much more. But you wouldn't have come across that in your 'extensive' research.

I'd urge you to read Thukydides to understand the fuller story here. Its one of the great works of European history. But it does take rather longer than 30 minutes.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote; “So desperate to get one up on me after being humiliated so many times.”

Lol.

Whenever you lead with statements like this I know you are struggling mate. It's okay, take a deep breath and try and come back with some decent arguments instead.

And saying you aren't going to give any references because “I can't be bothered looking for something that you'll ignore anyway when it shows you to be wrong.” it usually a pretty strong indication the cupboard is bare.

You saying;

“You should note that Wikipedia shouldn't be relied on over issues like this since it can be easily manipulated by partisans. Reading Herodotus would do you the world of good.”

Translates to 'rather than reading something that could be potentially bias go read something that clearly is'. And why wouldn't it be, written as it were from a victor's perspective.

You then opinine;

“You should also note that while Melos and other 'crimes' were happening, Socrates was running lecturers, the plays of Euripides and Aristophanes were being staged, statue art was being perfected, the notion of written history was being invented, the Acropolis was being completed and so much more. But you wouldn't have come across that in your 'extensive' research.”

That has been exactly my point. The elbow room for such highminded fare came from the idleness of an elite whose rarified existence came from the exploitation of a vast numbers of slaves.

The Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution came from the pens of a slave owning class. Granted fine sentiments, noble causes espoused, some of which have become features of Western thought, but it was off the scarred backs of a brutally subjugated and enslaved people.

Look I'm not arguing about the worth of the fruits, only about your woeful mis-charaterisation of “The victory of the Hellenes was about a victory of one freedom loving society over another freedom crushing society.”

It might be central to your narrative but it sure as hell isn't supported by history. Try again.

Dear Steele and mhaze,

It's been ages since I've really thought about Ancient
Greece. I studied the history of the theatre and the works
of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes.

When I think of Ancient Greece images of the Golden Age
and the way Greek culture has influenced Western
Civilisation come to mind.

Without Ancient Greece - without certain concepts such
as democracy, theatre, architecture, the grand stories
of the mythological heroes, we would surely be the poorer.
Most of us are generally fascinated by all that Ancient
Greece accomplished.

The presence of slavery was a daily fact in Ancient
Greece. Perhaps it was because of the fundamental
role of slavery that Ancient Greeks came to value
individual freedom so much.

It appears that Ancient Greek society did not seem to
share our concern against human exploitation.
Slavery was accepted as a normal institution - as
Aristotle explained.

There was a large slave population in all the
Ancient Greek city states - they were a useful part
of the economy of Greece at the time. To argue the
topic of slavery in Ancient Greece - I would have
to delve deeper into those times.

Which is something that at present I don't really have
the time to do - with Easter around the corner.

However, this is a fascinating topic and I shall be
reading your posts with interest. Such a pleasant
change from the usual political in-fighting.

cont'd ...

Just a thought - if we look at the relatively
recent history of certain powers in Europe -
slavery further expanded with colonisation.

Just saying.

Dear Foxy,

Do you mean that slavery expanded with imperialism ? Not necessarily - the Imperialist Age proper is supposed to have followed the Treaty of Berlin in 1884, after which the imperialist powers carved up much of Africa and Asia.

But slavery had been officially abolished in British territories, at least, well before then. Of course, there were still slave markets across north Africa, and there are still slaves in countries like Mauretania, especially girls (see tonight's TV program on SBS which touches on this). Even serfdom had been abolished in Russia around 1860.

So, as Marx would point out, slavery may have accompanied early capitalism but is not essential to the development of modern capitalism. Of course, even though Governor Philip declared that there never would be slavery in Australia, Pacific Islanders were treated as little better than slaves between the 1850s and 1901.

But to reiterate, slavery was common pretty much everywhere - the Incas, the Aztecs, everywhere in the ancient world, in the Muslim world of course, central Asia, India, China - until very recently. Debt slavery is still common in India.

But let's talk about nothing but nasty slavery only in Europe if that helps :) Nasty ancient Greeks ! Nasty Romans ! Boo !

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

1884 you say?

Well a year after this started;

“In the period from 1885 to 1908, many well-documented atrocities were perpetrated in the Congo Free State(today the Democratic Republic of the Congo) which, at the time, was a colony under the personal rule of King Leopold II of the Belgians. These atrocities were particularly associated with the labour policies used to collect natural rubber for export. Together with epidemic disease, famine, and a falling birth rate caused by these disruptions, the atrocities contributed to a sharp decline in the Congolese population. The magnitude of the population fall over the period is disputed, but it is thought to be between one and fifteen million.”

And this was the price the children paid for not producing enough rubber;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State#/media/File:MutilatedChildrenFromCongo.jpg

And slavery was practiced far more widely in the countries that were the 'cradle of Western civilisation' than within the Persian empire at the time.

In fact the slave ratios in Sparta appear to have eclipsed most other countries/civilisations until the imperial period.

If you want to make the case there were worse instances than places like the Belgian Congo in more modern times then be my guest, but until then how about parking the victimhood, it is rather unbecoming.

Dear Joe,

I was referring to the establishment of European colonies in the
New World during the 1500's which brought an expansion of
slavery.

Today, few nations legally allow slavery. But slavery does
continue in areas of Africa, Asia, and South America.
No one knows exactly how many people still live in slavery. Most of these
slaves are blacks and Indians who were captured in local conflicts
or were sold to satisfy debts. Slavery remains a strongly accepted
custom among the people who practice it. Therefore, some
governments may not want to stop slavery, and other governments may be unable to end it even if they wished to do so.

"That has been exactly my point. The elbow room for such highminded fare came from the idleness of an elite whose rarified existence came from the exploitation of a vast numbers of slaves"

That's just laughably wrong. Where did you do your research? Watching reruns of Spartacus? While its true that there were some such people at the height of Rome's wealth. No such practice occurred in Athens.

Slaves in Athens were in relatively small numbers per household and were treated like members of the family. No one kept sufficient numbers to live the layabout life. Even wealthy businessmen like Cleon were teased about having clothing and hands affected by the tanning process which was their trade.

Slaves were used as tutors and the like. Some were used by the state in a sort of police role. Some were used as enforcers in the agora. Most worked in the fields with their master.

Herodotus mention the story of 300 slaves (confirmed by Plutarch in Miltiades ?) Who were given their freedom after fighting at Marathon. All went back to work at their erstwhile owners farm.

The notion of the great thinkers of Athens living in luxury at the expense of slaves is so ahistoric as to be laughable. Aeschylus worked on a vineyard until old age and fame allowed him to travel as a writer for hire. He also fought at all 3 major battles in the Persian Wars famously loosing a brother a Marathon.

Socrates was honoured as a war hero for his efforts at Delium where he saved many lives including that of Alkibiades and earned a living in later life as an educator. Aristophanes did at least two campaigns as a rower in the navy. And so on

You can't understand this by flicking through Wikipedia. If you're truly interested in the truth,rather than trying to score childish points, read Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon at a minimum and then some of Plutarch's lives for the period

"When I think of Ancient Greece images of the Golden Age
and the way Greek culture has influenced Western
Civilisation come to mind."

Yes Foxy

And that's the point here. Even if what SR says about slavery were true (its not but that's just SR being SR) the fact remains the what happened in 5th century Athens created the western world. All the things you mention in your post and so much more that became cherished by and indicative of The West started here.

And it could have all been aborted at birth had those Hellenes not decided that their freedom and independence were worth fighting and dying for. And that's worth studying. Hence the links above

Dear mhaze,

What is interesting about this discussion is
I suppose as in any discussion - our own
take on things.

We might have objections to the
practice of slavery, Ancient Greek society did
not seem to share our concern against human
exploitation. Slavery was not only accepted as a
normal institution, but there were also a number
of justifications for it. As Aristotle wrote
some people were simply born to be slaves, while
others were born to rule slaves.

Slavery was so central to a society where individual
freedom was so highly valued. Perhaps that's
difficult to understand. This is one of the many
paradoxes of Ancient Greece. Or maybe it is a
reflection of the fact that we can only value things
based on a contrast. Perhaps it was because of the
fundamental role of slavery that Ancient Greeks came to
value individual freedom so much.

We cannot deny that the presence of slavery was a daily
fact. Slaves did most of the work in the great
empires of Greece and Rome. Many laboured in
handicraft industries, in mines, or on plantations.
Others worked as household servants. During the
400's B.C. slaves may have made up a third of the
population of Athens.

Most people of the ancient world regarded slavery as
a natural condition of life that could befall anyone at
any time. The treatment of slaves varied greatly. In
ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, slaves who worked
in large gangs in mines or on plantations, served long
hours and suffered harsh punishment. However, many who
worked as house-hold servants were treated as well as
any member of the owner's family.

A slave's chief hope was "manumission" (formal release
from slavery by the owner) Most ancient societies
allowed manumission and many owners guaranteed it -
in their will as a reward for loyal service.

This information was taken from the "World
Book Encyclopedia."

Thank You for giving us this discussion. I certainly
learned a great deal from it. It was fun going back
in time.

cont'd ...

I noticed that you refer to Herodotus. According to
Langer's ""Western Civilisation: Paleolithic Man to
the Emergence of European Powers," Herodotus is the
most attractive ancient historian.

Brought up on the epic story of the struggle between
East and West, he determined to study its origins, and
traveled widely in Anatolia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Scythia,
and Greece, everywhere observing, measuring, interviewing,
until finally he settled in Athens among the Periclean
intellectuals and set about, as he himself says,
" the publications of his researches, that neither men's
deeds may fade with time, nor the great and marvelous
works shown forth by both the Greeks and the barbarians
remain unsung.both other matters and what they fought
each other for."

This manifesto, we're told strikes an entirely new note in
historiography.

Herodotus regards his work as research. He is fair to both
sides, and he consciously looks for causation.

Focusing on the Persian Empire, he grouped systemmetrically
around it the history of Asia, Egypt, and Europe, the
Greek known world. What is attractive about him we're told
is his respect for other people's ways, his interest in their
cultures, and his delight in a good story.

He's been called the father of history. We're told that
modern research confirms his accuracy more every year.

Dear mhaze,

Enough with your opinion.

Mate you just can't keep doing this. I provided you quotes and references for the points I made but all you do is flounce on in here and throw out personal assertions without ever backing it up. You really need to stop having a go at Wikipedia. The quotes I have given you from it are all referenced unlike a single assertion you have delivered.

You said; “Slaves in Athens were in relatively small numbers per household and were treated like members of the family.”

No they were not. 80,000 slaves in a city of 250,000 is not relatively small anything and except for a few they most certainly not treated like members of the family. You could say that about the African slave in the deep south where some were nursemaids to their owners children. But like Athens most of the slave labour was in producing crops. Another large chunk was in the mines;

“Slave labour was prevalent in mines and quarries, which had large slave populations, often leased out by rich private citizens. The strategos Nicias leased a thousand slaves to the silver mines of Laurium in Attica; Hipponicos, 600; and Philomidès, 300. Xenophon[43]indicates that they received one obolus per slave per day, amounting to 60 drachmas per year. This was one of the most prized investments for Athenians. The number of slaves working in the Laurium mines or in the mills processing ore has been estimated at 30,000.[44] Xenophon suggested that the city buy a large number of slaves, up to three state slaves per citizen, so that their leasing would assure the upkeep of all the citizens.”
Wikipedia

The Persians on the other hand were far less inclined to indulge in widespread slavery like the Athenians. They also had extensive laws regarding their treatment.

Cont..

Cont..

Quote

“Sassanid Laws of Slavery
Some of the laws governing the ownership and treatment of slaves can be found in the collection of laws of the Sassanid period called Matikan-e-Hazar Datastan.[13] Principles that can be inferred from the laws include:
1) The slaves were captured foreigners who were non-Zoroastrians.
2) The ownership of the slave belonged to the man.
3) The owner had to treat the slave humanely; violence toward the slave was forbidden. In particular beating a slave woman was a crime.
4) If a non-Zoroastrian slave, such as a Christian slave, converted to Zoroastrianism, he or she could pay his or her price and attain freedom.
5) If a slave together with his or her foreign master embraced Zoroastrianism, he or she could pay his slave price and become free.
To free a slave (irrespective of his or her faith) was considered a good deed.[14] Slaves had some rights including keeping gifts to them and at least three days of rest in the month.[15]The law also protected slaves, including: No one may inflict upon slaves a fatal punishment for a single crime... Not even the king himself may slay anyone on the account of one crime.[16]
End quote.
Wikipedia

On the face of it far more humane than the Greeks.

As it happens I have been reading dear old Herodotus . He is actually a bit of a riot. Certainly not someone I would be associating absolute historical fact with, but entertaining for sure.

Anyway I didn't see anything to support this claim by you;

“Prior to the first invasion, the peoples of Athens and Eretria were told, by the Persians, of their fate. The men would be executed. The women sold in the markets in Asia. The prettiest of the young girls would be placed in the various harems of the nobles in Susa. The prettiest young boys would be castrated and sold as eunuchs.”

However I could be wrong. How about you supply a page number for us.

Dear Foxy,

I do find it interesting to think that it was only a reluctance of the Persians to engage in widespread slavery and their freedom of religion that allowed the Jews in exile in Babylon to return to their holy land. Without that we may well have not seen the birth of Jesus nor the advent of Christianity.

From my initial appraisal I pretty confident if the Athenians had invaded Babylon first then it would have been a pretty dismal outcome for the Jewish people.

mhaze- Thanks for the history very informative.

Dear Steele,

Speculation abounds as to the
reasoning for Cyrus the Great release of the
Jews from Babylon.

One argument is that Cyrus was a follower of
Zoroaster - the monotheistic prophet.

Zoroastrianism played a dominant religious role
in Persia throughout its history - until the
Islamic conquest.

As such Cyrus would have felt a kindred spirit with
the monotheistic Jews. Another possibility is the
magnanimous respect he is ascribed to have for
the diverse beliefs and customs of the people within
his extended kingdom.

Jewish tradition as described in EZRA 1: 1-8 indicates
the Lord inspired King Cyrus of Persia to issue his
proclamation - this Babylonian document has been
interpreted as referring to the return to their homelands
of several displaced cultural groups - one of which
could have been the Jews.

According to many historical sources - Cyrus respected
local customs and religions in his empire. For whatever
reason he freed the Jews from captivity in Babylonia
and permitted them to rebuild their temple at Jerusalem
in Palestine.

Dear Steele,

The Times of Israel, 8 March 2018, had an interesting
article:

Trump The Great!

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lavished praise on
US President Donald J. Trump for amongst other things -
declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital and in doing so
linked Trump to Cyrus the Great.

What gives with Cyrus?

As Netanyahu explained:

"I want to tell you that the Jewish people have a long
memory, so we remember the proclamation of the great
king Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, 2,500 years ago.
He proclaimed that the Jewish exiles in Babylon could
come back and rebuild our temple in Jerusalem ...
and we remember how a few weeks ago President Donald
J. Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Mr President, this will be remembered by our people
through the ages."

There were coins printed in Tel Aviv February 28, 2018,
bearing images of US President Trump and King Cyrus to
honour Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's
capital.

And the Times of Israel wrote that Prime Minister
Netanyahu does not need to reconcile a president's
personal behaviour with his policies. Netanyahu just
needs a president who delivers the goods. Comparing
Trump to Cyrus is another way of saying he's just wild
about Donald.

mhaze,
Thanks for posting this and credit to anyone who uses this as a launchpad to further their knowledge of the great civilizations of antiquity – including the Persians. Unfortunately, it seems to be a scourge of pop media – I’m looking especially at the cinematic renditions of ‘300’ – to posit the Persians as analogous to modern Iran and some nebulously defined barbarous East. It’s too unknown these days that the Iranic peoples are a genetic relative to Europeans via the Indo-European umbrella, and more specifically that relations between the Greeks and Persians were not black and white.

But in saying that, yes, Greece and indeed Rome are now sorely undervalued components of the Western psyche. I believe the clown world we now live in coincides with the forgetting the great peoples who built civilization. And some people want it that way.

Here's wishing all of you a very enjoyable
Easter break with your families.
Enjoy and don't eat too much chocolate.

Take care.