Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
Landmark Thucydides (some 500 pages, before the appendix)
I was interested to learn of the Greek life and habits particularly as they offer insight into Greek life of the New Testament. As a Creationist I long ago gave up the idea in theory that ancient peoples were “primitive” and not like us. In practice this is more difficult to understand but reading Thucydides gets me a little closer.
Democracy – Greece is described as the bastion of democracy. Had they not held firm against Persia who knows how history might have unfolded. I think it would be fairer to say that they contained the seeds of democracy. Sparta the great military power led the Greeks against Persia. Until their general made himself odious to the coalition and they appointed an Athenian general. Athens took the role and initially took contributions of men and arms but this changed to contributions of money. This became money which spared the contributing cities and islands from the hazards of war. A good deal – no? Over time this became not contributions but tribute. It impoverished the contributors and gave Athens the control of the armed forces. In effect Athens became the centre of an empire which brought it wealth. This empire building led Athens to use force of arms to keep the wealth flowing in. For Athens there was a democracy – for those they ruled subjection.
Sparta seems to have despised the rule of the People preferring their own form of ruling elite. This was not what we would call a constitutional monarchy. The Spartan power rested on the backs of their slave class – the Helots. These were latterly brought into the army but this was definitely a two class system (actually much more than two) with the Spartans never feeling entirely trusting of their slave class. During the war the bravest were asked to step forward – for freedom they thought but in reality for liquidation. Yes Sparta would put a spear in the hands of the Helots but would just as ruthlessly “cull” the Helots to ensure they did not grow too powerful.
The character of the Athenians does emerge as innovators and progressive people. In contrast the Spartans appear set in their ways. War seems to have been conducted under certain “rules” one of which that the loser in battle could ask permission to collect their dead from the victor. This seems to have accomplished two things – decent burial and establishing victor and vanquished.
The setting up of trophies is a major part of war and both sides seem to be able to claim particular skirmishes as victories. So where a left flank is defeated an enemy might set up a trophy but where a right flank was victorious they too would set up a trophy. These seem to have had propaganda value.
I was intrigued that the wealth of the temples was not regarded as sacrosanct but appears to have fulfilled the function of a bank in some regards – being a source of cash (or borrowing) during times of war.
Having played some computer strategy games one of the problems is taking and holding strategic points. I thought of this as strategic points were won by force of arms and then lost once the army moved on.
The fragmented nature of Greece also comes across with each tribe or group calling themselves by a different name. The constitution of different cities and regions was – well, different! In capturing cities some restraint is to be observed as slaughter seems to be restricted to men capable of bearing arms and enslaving the rest. There is also a close accounting of the cost of encircling a town to take it by circumvallation. This appears to have been done to lay the cost on the town when they capitulate!
In ensuring loyalty it is common to exile or execute the previous leadership before supplanting it. This seems to have involved a lot of intrigue. This is most apparent when a former enemy seeks to join a former foe and does cartwheels to explain why they are an honourable man.
I was surprised to find that both sides sought the aid of the King of Persia – their bitterest enemy one would have thought. He seems to have been quite happy to see Sparta and Athens exhaust men and money on each other. It is true that there were some Greeks who perceived this as anathema but most seem to have done what was expedient rather than consistent.
Athens went so far as removing its democracy and briefly moved towards the ruling elite called an oligarchy. This at the instigation of an intrigue that suggested Persia would be influence to intervene if they just got rid of the democracy. This led to the incredible situation that the army, at some distance from Athens to maintain it’s own democracy in defiance of “new orders” from the oligarchy.
In terms of the warfare I was intrigued by the importance of drying and caulking ships. If they were kept in the water long their efficiency dropped. There is an analogy to modern warfare where both tanks and helicopters need down-time for maintenance.
Athletics were important with different cities suspending hostilities for the duration.
There was a fleeting reference to the sacrificing of slaves at some points which I found tantalising. The whole aspect of religion is not prominent in Thucydides. Where it occurs it is usually a delay to military action due to a feast day or a negative allusion to the interpretation of bad omens.
The particular edition I read had useful maps and notes. It was not in colour however which I had for some reason come to expect. The appendices were interesting covering many aspects – but not religion.
I was interested to learn of the Greek life and habits particularly as they offer insight into Greek life of the New Testament. As a Creationist I long ago gave up the idea in theory that ancient peoples were “primitive” and not like us. In practice this is more difficult to understand but reading Thucydides gets me a little closer.
Democracy – Greece is described as the bastion of democracy. Had they not held firm against Persia who knows how history might have unfolded. I think it would be fairer to say that they contained the seeds of democracy. Sparta the great military power led the Greeks against Persia. Until their general made himself odious to the coalition and they appointed an Athenian general. Athens took the role and initially took contributions of men and arms but this changed to contributions of money. This became money which spared the contributing cities and islands from the hazards of war. A good deal – no? Over time this became not contributions but tribute. It impoverished the contributors and gave Athens the control of the armed forces. In effect Athens became the centre of an empire which brought it wealth. This empire building led Athens to use force of arms to keep the wealth flowing in. For Athens there was a democracy – for those they ruled subjection.
Sparta seems to have despised the rule of the People preferring their own form of ruling elite. This was not what we would call a constitutional monarchy. The Spartan power rested on the backs of their slave class – the Helots. These were latterly brought into the army but this was definitely a two class system (actually much more than two) with the Spartans never feeling entirely trusting of their slave class. During the war the bravest were asked to step forward – for freedom they thought but in reality for liquidation. Yes Sparta would put a spear in the hands of the Helots but would just as ruthlessly “cull” the Helots to ensure they did not grow too powerful.
The character of the Athenians does emerge as innovators and progressive people. In contrast the Spartans appear set in their ways. War seems to have been conducted under certain “rules” one of which that the loser in battle could ask permission to collect their dead from the victor. This seems to have accomplished two things – decent burial and establishing victor and vanquished.
The setting up of trophies is a major part of war and both sides seem to be able to claim particular skirmishes as victories. So where a left flank is defeated an enemy might set up a trophy but where a right flank was victorious they too would set up a trophy. These seem to have had propaganda value.
I was intrigued that the wealth of the temples was not regarded as sacrosanct but appears to have fulfilled the function of a bank in some regards – being a source of cash (or borrowing) during times of war.
Having played some computer strategy games one of the problems is taking and holding strategic points. I thought of this as strategic points were won by force of arms and then lost once the army moved on.
The fragmented nature of Greece also comes across with each tribe or group calling themselves by a different name. The constitution of different cities and regions was – well, different! In capturing cities some restraint is to be observed as slaughter seems to be restricted to men capable of bearing arms and enslaving the rest. There is also a close accounting of the cost of encircling a town to take it by circumvallation. This appears to have been done to lay the cost on the town when they capitulate!
In ensuring loyalty it is common to exile or execute the previous leadership before supplanting it. This seems to have involved a lot of intrigue. This is most apparent when a former enemy seeks to join a former foe and does cartwheels to explain why they are an honourable man.
I was surprised to find that both sides sought the aid of the King of Persia – their bitterest enemy one would have thought. He seems to have been quite happy to see Sparta and Athens exhaust men and money on each other. It is true that there were some Greeks who perceived this as anathema but most seem to have done what was expedient rather than consistent.
Athens went so far as removing its democracy and briefly moved towards the ruling elite called an oligarchy. This at the instigation of an intrigue that suggested Persia would be influence to intervene if they just got rid of the democracy. This led to the incredible situation that the army, at some distance from Athens to maintain it’s own democracy in defiance of “new orders” from the oligarchy.
In terms of the warfare I was intrigued by the importance of drying and caulking ships. If they were kept in the water long their efficiency dropped. There is an analogy to modern warfare where both tanks and helicopters need down-time for maintenance.
Athletics were important with different cities suspending hostilities for the duration.
There was a fleeting reference to the sacrificing of slaves at some points which I found tantalising. The whole aspect of religion is not prominent in Thucydides. Where it occurs it is usually a delay to military action due to a feast day or a negative allusion to the interpretation of bad omens.
The particular edition I read had useful maps and notes. It was not in colour however which I had for some reason come to expect. The appendices were interesting covering many aspects – but not religion.
Yet that experience also greatly aided my language skills, so I value it. You are right, however, that he (and others from that period) clearly demonstrate that the culture was anything but 'primitive' as that is commonly defined.
