Persians conquer Greece
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13573
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 04:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Persians conquer Greece
Posted By: Irish Nation
Subject: Persians conquer Greece
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 07:22
|
If the Greeks had not defended against the Eastern Despots of Persia and they had got into Europe. Do you think it would have changed History Much. It may have but a stop to the Rise of Rome if they Reached Italy? Would there be any changes? Not in these days but in the ancient World ------------- Early this morning I signed my death warrant. Michael Collins, to friend John O'Kane after signing Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 |
Replies:
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 07:38
|
First of all and most important for me, is that you could kiss Democracy, goodbuy -------------  Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Irish Nation
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 07:46
|
Yes i thought of that as well. Many things in the ancient times could change things today. That being one of the most Important as you say friend. ------------- Early this morning I signed my death warrant. Michael Collins, to friend John O'Kane after signing Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 08:33
How? Democracy did not last much longer did it, after the whole Pelopennese business?
And "despots" of Persia? Pleae Sparta at its maximum had 250,000 slaves and 25,000 citizens. The Persians were a highly tolerant people.
And the best Greek ideas came not from mainland Greece, but from Ionia (and the Italian city states), the former were very mcuh Persian.
**Goes off muttering**
------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 09:47
|
Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolution towards the end of the Peloponisian war . It was modified somewhat after it was restored under Eucleides, the most detailed accounts are of this fourth-century modification rather than the Periclean system. It was suppressed by King Alexander. in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived. Philosophy and politics evolved in Athens, surely the other City-States contributed in many fields, but the ''jewel'' city of the ancient greek world was Athens. ------------- Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 16:46
|
Well, British parliamentary democracy has its roots not in Hellens but Anglo Saxon tradition and British Parliamentary democracy is the model for most modern democracies.
------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 16:51
|
I didn't know that Anglo-Saxons voted and get voted, that's interesting. How old is this tradition and what kind of tradition is it?
------------- Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 16:56
|
It's a gathering of chieftains, like parliament of MPs to dicuss political issues. The tradition is as old as the aAnglo Saxons I guess. ------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 17:26
|
But, that's common to many civilizations, the king with his consuls, the emperor with his lords etc, and it's not the true meaning of democracy.
The heart of democracy is the right to elect and to get elected. Did the chieftains get elected? Was is possible to be overthrone? I don't see many similarities.
------------- Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 06:44
|
Giannis please.......... this myth that "Greeks" invented what we today call democracy is the biggest myth to ever circulate.
Democracy, in the true sense of the word, as it is practiced today was also practiced by the Phoenicians many years before it was adopted by Athens. Not all ancient City States were democracies! Sparta was not a democracy. What exactly do we mean by "democracy" and how does it relate to the type of "democracy" practiced in Athens during its heydays? According to Webster, democracy is "majority rule; the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment, or the practice of this principle; the common people, esp. as the wielders of political power". Athens, on the other hand, was ruled by a very small minority of wealthy white men. These men were not only rulers, they were also slave owners. Slaves, who comprised about sixty-percent of the Athenian population, were neither Athenian citizens nor did they have any political rights. In fact these people were bought and sold in the market like commodities. Further, women, who made up about half of the ancient Athenian population, did not have any rights at all, not even to call themselves human. So if we compare Webster's definition of democracy to that practiced in ancient Athens we find that they don't compare at all! In reality the type of so-called democracy practiced by the ancient Athenians was worse than our 19th century Fascism and Nazism, the type of rule popular with white racist regimes. The ancients may have called it democracy but lets not confuse it with our modern democracy which is more like the original democracy practiced by the Phoenicians. http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov75.html - http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov75.html
The ordinary people had more rights in the Persian Empire which was the beacon of civillisation in the region untill places like Persepolis were razed by Alexander.
Giannis
But, that's common to many civilizations, the king with his consuls, the emperor with his lords etc, and it's not the true meaning of democracy.
The heart of democracy is the right to elect and to get elected. Did the chieftains get elected? Was is possible to be overthrone?
The first Democraces in the way its understood by us today was this system. It was much fairer, yes Chieftans were elected and could overthrow. The rulers interacted with the people and lived among them.
The English Democracy has its roots in the Saxon system as Zagros rightly pointed out.
The Magna Carta was the first step forward, later Cromwell putting the King of trial and organising a popular elected vote for a few years after is the real root of today's democracy.
If Persians had succeeded, everything as we know it would have changed. The Persians would have swept into the Mediterrannean and Europe and became one of the largest, most advanced (they already were one of the most advanced but even more advanced!) and remembered in Europe as the fouders of European civillisation.
The West would have developed faster as the Persians would have developed it. There may have been no Rome, no Alexander......
Everything would have been different today. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 08:06
Well, if you insist. But, why it's world known with it's greek name?
Never heard of Phoenician democracy, but I agree on Sparta. At ancient times Greece wasn't a state, it was a group of self-governed city-states, it's one of them choosed the political system that suited them better.
I agree, with almost everything here. Just a small correction, Athens was rulled by citizens of Athens, not a minority. Something, that pretty much is valid for nowdays. You could also purchase slaves in England too, untill 18th century, I think and as for women votes, I think that the first state that give them this right was Turkey in 1936.
Can you compare the communism that Marx dreamed, with the political system that USSR used to have? Democracy evolved and became, one of the finest political systems. But, it's roots was in Athens.
You can't compare Athenian democracy with present democracy, that's true. But, you can't also compare it with Fascism or Nazism or racial politics. The heart of democracy was from equal citizens to elect and to be elected. Pretty interesting your site, but, try these also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekcritics_01.shtml - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekcritics_01.shtml
http://www.answers.com/topic/athenian-democracy - http://www.answers.com/topic/athenian-democracy
http://www.siu.edu/~dfll/classics/Johnson/HTML/L10.html - http://www.siu.edu/~dfll/classics/Johnson/HTML/L10.html
I didn't know that chieftains were elected, and i think that they usually murdered or killed or retired than overthrown and in democracy rulers don't ''interact'' with people, they are the people.
Surely, Cromwell contibuted as many people did to change democracy to a better system, but none of them made something new, they change an old idea, so it can work better in their time.
Maybe so, who knows maybe it would be better with Persians. But, one thing is for sure we wouldn't have democracy, we would have a king. And I don't like kings, especially bad kings. ------------- Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 10:42
europeans has always accepted the history written by theirselves since past, that's why. ------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 12:53
|
That's so pessimistic! Why do you feel like this? Did west stole eastern history?
Please, give me the eastern history. ------------- Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 23:48
|
Okay, while we are at,
The Sumerian City Staes were democratic,
The Indian Sub Continent has many cities which were democratic, and this thousands of years before the Greeks showed up.
And the Greeks did not stay democratic for long, the Hellenic age was hardly a poster boy for democracy.
And, only the English speaking world call it democracy, other countries call it by other names, here for example its called , "Jumhooriet".
------------- |
Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 16:56
|
Agre withsparten, europeans call this system Democracy, becouse this is a european word. In persian we say "mardom salari" ------------- |
Posted By: Shapur II
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 22:57
|
yes, the west wants everyone to believe that it was the greeks who invented democracy. that is a plain lie. forms of democracy existed in other parts of the world too. also, democracy was also used by pirates. so to say that democracy would not exist today without greeks is a ludicrous. westerners are very biased when it comes to history that isnt their own. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 05:51
Why do people have this misconception about the Persians being "Despots"? Look no further that Cyrus the Greats' seal- the basis for human rights that applied to pretty much everyone in the empire.
I am sorry, but that is a hige mistake. The Sumerian city states were mainly Oligarcies or under religious rule. Granted, the leader did have a council who questioned his actions, but the rulers were pretty much dictators. The Sumerian city states' political culture is so far removed an alien from our own that the very concept of democracy could not have even been imagined- are you really claiming that Monarchs like Gudea of Lagash were elected by popular vote?
Actually it was Wyoming in 1869
------------- |
Posted By: Shapur II
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 11:56
|
list of nations who gave womens suffrage in order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 14:37
The Sumerian leaders were reponsible to someone. Thats a big difference between them and the others. Even today heads of government have a lot of power; executive powers, which are pretty much dictatorial, however they are responsible to others.
------------- |
Posted By: annechka
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 10:46
|
There is an excellent book that addresses this question.
Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West. by Tom Holland. It has some interesting ideas about the what ifs. Another aspect addressed is how history influences modern day.
Another book: The History of the Persian Empire by Olmstead focuses on the this history from the Persian perspective. Xerxes was a great Kin.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 12:32
|
Persian Fire was a piece of "Bullocks".
------------- |
Posted By: annechka
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 10:49
|
Hi Sparten. Why is Holland's book bullocks?
any specific examples?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 13:21
|
Theramopyale bit for example, he made it sound like a battle for democracy against tyranny, (which it was not), waged by out numbered supermen, which they were not either, sitting pretty on a pass like that.
Brave no doubt, supermen, certainly not.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 21:08
|
IMHO, more than "democracy" itself in the literal definition (majority rule, or mob rule), the greatest Greek contribution in stopping the Persian invation was the preservation of "Greek Freedom," ie. the indepedence of city states. Regardless what the webster dictionary definition of the word is, what we today think of "democracy" probably does not involve the privillege of voting among of millions of others, and if upon the final tally you are in the minority, you get a chance to be put up against the wall and shot by the NKVD . . . yes women under Stalin got to vote before the French did.
Personal freedom depends on the plethra of choices. If the only name on the ballot is Stalin or Xerxes, well, you are not going to be free even if your dog and cat can help you cast extra votes . . . and you life is not going to be a whole lot better or secure than the dog and cat. Ancient Greeks seemed to understand that the ultimate guarantor of personal freedom is the opportunity to relocate to a different political entity if the home state becomes tyrannical (whether tyranny by one individual, by a group of oligarchs or by the mob itself). That's why Greeks had an innate distaste for empires. Even the all-conquring Macedonian Alexander respected that wish. If Greeks had been conqured by the Persian Empire, there would be no cultural affinity that Alexander felt for the "real" Greeks; Persian emperors probably would have appointed satraps and viceroys to rule Greek city states instead leaving them alone like Alexander did. That probably would have had adverse consequences for the intellectual achievements Greeks later attained.
In terms of long term consequences for historical political institutions, eastern imperialism eventually did conqure west in the form of Roman Empire, to be shortly followed by an eastern mind control device similar to Persian Zoroastrianism called Christianity. I do wonder though, what motivated Diocletian to cut the empire in two halves instead of trying to hold onto the whole thing like a Persian Emperor would have done.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 00:42
|
Please most of the Greek "intellectual achievements" were from either Ionia, which was already Persian, or the Greek colonies in Italy or elsewhere. ------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 05:00
|
Ionia was greek, before the persian conquest. Although, the persian gave great privilleges to the Ionian greek cities, regarding some other areas of their empire. ------------- Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 05:30
|
The Persian interest in Grecee was nil. Please this was an already highly over extended empire. They had the same problems against the Egyptians and in Central Asia (which Old Alex also left well alone). The former was too rich to be ignored so if one Persian army was defeated, they would send three more, while pride was a factor in the latter, Cyrus got himself popped there.
If Grecee (an net food importing country) had had anything serious to offer the Persians, then Xerxes, would not have left in the middle of the whole thing, and the Persians would have tried again after Platrea.
And as for Ionia, well come on, the Persians (wih the exception of Miletus), tended to leave them well alone.
------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 08:14
|
The cause of the Greek-Persian war, was the help that was sended to the revollutionary Ionian states by Athens. A great empire like Persian, couldn't just forget that Athens helped the rembels, they had to annihiliate this threat. And it's not so easy at that period, to just send one army after an other. It wasn't also so easy to be a persian king, I believe that Xerxes abandoned his campaing for two reasons, first because of supplies, his fleet was destroyed in Salamina(battle) and in Chalkidiki(big storm) and second, because of his rivalries in his court, (his army was far enough and his campaing had small success). ------------- Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 08:51
|
Small success? He had taken Athens and burnt it to the ground. And even after Platrea the Persians decided to withraw, were not forced to. Xerxes went away to surpress a rebellion IIRC. Grecee had little to offer the Persians.
------------- |
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 08:58
|
Persians, just burned buildings, Napoleon also conquered a burned town, but he didn't gained anything. Greece as riches, didn't have to offer anything, as Lebanon to Israel, Persians wanted to crash the allies of the rebel cities and they failed in doing so. ------------- Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: alexISS
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 09:06
Do you actually believe that to be true?!? Aischylus ,Socrates, Plato, Solon, Sofokles, Pericles, Demosthenes, Thoukidides, Aristophanes, Aristeides, Euripides are just a few names that come to mind, which ones were not from mainland Greece? And in what way did the Persian ruling directly affect the forming of the "Ionian school" or it's intellectual achievements? Pythagoras was not a Persian, was he? ------------- "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music" Groucho |
Posted By: alexISS
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 09:11
Read "Perses", by Aischylus. You'll find it surprisingly unbiased and you'll get an idea of what a devastating defeat the Persians suffered in Greece, as well as what it's impact was in Persia. ------------- "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music" Groucho |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 12:15
|
I have read it, and no its hardly unbiased. The whole Greek affair was small change for the Persians.
As for the people from Ionia (and no I am not claiming that they were Persian, just that a Persian conquest would not have had an effect on Greek Civilization and achievements that is often claimed), well you have the whole Miletus school, Thales, Anaximander, Anaxmenes, then Pythagoras, who floroshed in Samos, and at Croton. ------------- |
Posted By: alexISS
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 17:49
This is really the first time I heard or read anything like this. Only considering that most of Persia's "active" male population was lost in the wars is enough to understand the impact of the defeat in Persia
The Ionians were in an autonomous state that allowed them to "flourish", but that would not be the case with the rest of Greece had Persia won the war
Compare this to a previous post of yours, do you still consider it valid?
------------- "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music" Groucho |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 00:18
|
Hey Its not my opinion, its Bertrad Russels as well. If you ever get down to reading a History of Wesetrn Philiosphy.
------------- |
Posted By: alexISS
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 02:35
Hey great argument, you really proved me wrong  Guess I'm done discussing this with you ------------- "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music" Groucho |