Ironic on further examination how generally accepted assessments and judgments can turn 180°. And, yes, sobering echoes. Athenian political, economic, and militaristic hegemony, once again, as we continue to read the scrolls of two-thousand years ago, remarkably parallel the courses of governments and civilizations today. It’s like we’re remastering old films, and seeing new details in the cinematography telling the actual story. 😊 📚 🎞️👍
The war wasn’t the only reason Athenian democracy (or “democracy”, you can fight over that) had a bad name for well over two millennia - killing Socrates wasn’t too helpful.
Underlining how limited the democratic nature of Athens was only strengthens the case against democracy IMO. If you are in a discussion with Edmund Burke (say) or so and he points to Athens and you refer to the non-rich, women and slaves, that won’t convince Burke at all. After all, he believed that the number of people with a voice in the running of the state in Pericles’ Athens and revolutionary France was way too high. You’re unlikely to convince him that a wider rule would be better.
Well, good thing we are not concerned with convincing Burke, then!
I think we need to make a distinction between democracy as a type of government and who is granted voting rights. Arguably, a major advancement of modern democracies, inclusi the US, has been precisely the fact that they have steadily enlarged suffrage, first to people who were formerly enslaved, then to women.
I don’t see, however, why pointing out the historical fact that Athenian democracy was limited would strengthen the case against democracy. And yes, they killed Socrates, but that’s a good argument only against democracies that work by simple majority, direct voting, and lack constitutional safeguards. No modern democracy is of that kind.
Recently finished Re read of The Peloponnesian war..written, as is almost always the case, from a hardly unbiased perspective. My biggest takeaway was that “Greece” lost…and that the actual number of combatants was quite small, for such an outsized “importance to history”…quite shortly after these wars, both the winner Sparta and loser Athens were largely irrelevant, both militarily, and politically. The candor of the sources was refreshing, albeit brutally honest…literally.
Sparta and Athens were not irrelevant. Together they had defeated the mighty Persian moire. And the Peloponnesian War was a crucial turning point precisely because it weakened the Greek city states enough to make it possible for the Macedonians to achieve what the Persians had not.
In turn, the rise of Alexander meant the defeat of the Persian empire. And his premature death eventually paved the way for the expansion of Rome in the east.
My point was that after the Peloponnesian war they were largely irrelevant-militarily and politically; their defeat of Persia was before their protracted wars with each other , which weakened both; relatively soon thereafter they were conquered by Alexander, whose own empire broke up into parts controlled by his several generals, upon his death…Sparta has very little influence after its defeat of Athens, tho Athens influence was significant, but primarily thru Macedonia/Alexander/the “Hellenistic Age”, culturally/philosophically/artistically…but politically, and militarily, “Greece”, as to Sparta and Athens, were not relevant.
I don't think you'd feel that way if you read his books. At any rate get a copy of the collapse of antiquity and read it I'm sure with your interest and knowledge some of the references and the history will make more sense to you than they did to me. I know some about the history of Greece and Rome, the common big points that you get from Reading world history, but there's so much detail in this books that I had to constantly look things up and look at the maps in the book to understand where this place was and where that one was. Etc. Here's a two-part video of Hudson discussing the book. Part 1, https://youtu.be/CmazxjNHVs4. And as far as the USA and it's Constitution, how it is not egalitarian and where it came from, I think We The Elites, by Robert Ovets, is a significant book.https://youtu.be/UkyEzlarues
It is too bad that The American Congress has lost it’s way and has been stung by it’s own hubris and it is blind to the classics from Rome and Greece that offer a view of history and philosophy that could realign America on a stronger foundation than it has been treading on for the last 50 years.
“Alcibiades was the Elon Musk of ancient Athens, just as uber-rich, but more handsome.” Hahaha! You’re killin me! Thanks for this great read. I agree the realpolitik is oddly refreshing!
Interesting, and thoughts and ponders... I have listened to and read many debunking the Thucydides Trap. I read most of Allison's book when it was the new thing a few years back, and I probably agree with Michael Hudson, as I do on most things. Bunk.
Michael Hudson... Hudson points out in his newest book The Collapse of Antiquity (I highly recommend it) that, once upon a time, Tyranny was a good word, not a bad one, as he describes the ancient Roman Kings as a positive, and the Republic, a not so much. Because the Roman kings still cancelled Debt. as had the more ancient rulers, Hammurabi and those who followed him, (mentioned by Hudson in his history of debt #1 Forgive them their debts, and also history of debt #2, the Collapse of Antiquity.
Once Kings became a Roman evil, because the oligopoly fat-cats of that time made most of their money from debt (rents) and did not want debt cancellation, Roman society (and the Western civilization that followed) went to shit, setting the stage for the last two thousand years of pro fatcat enslavement of the people, by one means or another... A negative from Hudson's viewpoint, and also, my own.
J., I agree that The Thucydides Trap is at the very least an unwarranted generalization and, possibly, bunk.
I disagree in part with Hudson and his take on Roman monarchy vs Republic. Yes, the Republic did suffer from the dominance of a self-serving oligarchy. But the monarchy was susceptible to bad tyrants. Which came back with a vengeance once the monarchy was for all effective purposes re-established under the name of empire.
Hudson would say The empire has no relationship to the Kings in terms of debt relief. In fact, it was worse than the Republic. He believes that Western civilization lost its way with Rome after it established the repayment of debts as its highest monetary, social, principle. The whole misguided western history, the last two thousand years, the result of this wrong turn at Rome. This is a post with a couple of video links that are fantastic, from the beginning of the week, (not from my major substack, A Builder's Tale, the serialization of my 2nd novel) https://open.substack.com/pub/heininger/p/quotes-from-the-magnificent-michael?r=16lm0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The mismanagement of the Peloponnesian war by Athens, as described by Thucydides, was terrible and had one effect that Massimo hasn't mentioned: it gave democracy a bad name for millennia. For political thinkers from Plato and Aristotle to the the authors of the Federalist papers (most of whom knew the classics well) democracy meant mob rule - poor decisions, random cruelty - with reference to Athens of the 5th century BC. Notably, the founders of the US spoke of a republic in order to avoid any association with Athens.
Athens was definitely a democracy. But not one based on representation and a constitution, like most modern democracies. The US is a democracy, but not in the Athenian sense, closer to Republican Rome, if anything.
? No vote for women, slaves/“non-citizens”, ie, the majority of residents, is by definition not a democracy. The US is a republic…has never been a democracy…the Founders feared “ the Mob” ( see Federalist Papers…) and is presently teetering on becoming a failed “democratic experiment”, because of Trump and his GOP enablers. :(
Athens and Rome were democracies according to historians and political scientists, even if only some of the citizens had voting rights. Forms of government are almost never pure, often they are partial and mixed.
And the US most definitely is a democracy: it features a constitution, elections, balance of powers, and so forth. But yes, there certainly is a current attempt to undermine a significant portion of all that.
Ironic on further examination how generally accepted assessments and judgments can turn 180°. And, yes, sobering echoes. Athenian political, economic, and militaristic hegemony, once again, as we continue to read the scrolls of two-thousand years ago, remarkably parallel the courses of governments and civilizations today. It’s like we’re remastering old films, and seeing new details in the cinematography telling the actual story. 😊 📚 🎞️👍
That's why we can still learn from those people!
The war wasn’t the only reason Athenian democracy (or “democracy”, you can fight over that) had a bad name for well over two millennia - killing Socrates wasn’t too helpful.
Underlining how limited the democratic nature of Athens was only strengthens the case against democracy IMO. If you are in a discussion with Edmund Burke (say) or so and he points to Athens and you refer to the non-rich, women and slaves, that won’t convince Burke at all. After all, he believed that the number of people with a voice in the running of the state in Pericles’ Athens and revolutionary France was way too high. You’re unlikely to convince him that a wider rule would be better.
Well, good thing we are not concerned with convincing Burke, then!
I think we need to make a distinction between democracy as a type of government and who is granted voting rights. Arguably, a major advancement of modern democracies, inclusi the US, has been precisely the fact that they have steadily enlarged suffrage, first to people who were formerly enslaved, then to women.
I don’t see, however, why pointing out the historical fact that Athenian democracy was limited would strengthen the case against democracy. And yes, they killed Socrates, but that’s a good argument only against democracies that work by simple majority, direct voting, and lack constitutional safeguards. No modern democracy is of that kind.
Just signed up to DJ, on your Recommendation.👍
I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy it!
Read a couple of pieces-I do.👍
Yes, I agree.
Recently finished Re read of The Peloponnesian war..written, as is almost always the case, from a hardly unbiased perspective. My biggest takeaway was that “Greece” lost…and that the actual number of combatants was quite small, for such an outsized “importance to history”…quite shortly after these wars, both the winner Sparta and loser Athens were largely irrelevant, both militarily, and politically. The candor of the sources was refreshing, albeit brutally honest…literally.
Sparta and Athens were not irrelevant. Together they had defeated the mighty Persian moire. And the Peloponnesian War was a crucial turning point precisely because it weakened the Greek city states enough to make it possible for the Macedonians to achieve what the Persians had not.
In turn, the rise of Alexander meant the defeat of the Persian empire. And his premature death eventually paved the way for the expansion of Rome in the east.
My point was that after the Peloponnesian war they were largely irrelevant-militarily and politically; their defeat of Persia was before their protracted wars with each other , which weakened both; relatively soon thereafter they were conquered by Alexander, whose own empire broke up into parts controlled by his several generals, upon his death…Sparta has very little influence after its defeat of Athens, tho Athens influence was significant, but primarily thru Macedonia/Alexander/the “Hellenistic Age”, culturally/philosophically/artistically…but politically, and militarily, “Greece”, as to Sparta and Athens, were not relevant.
Yes, we agree. Sparta had little if any influence after the war, and Athens' influence was mostly cultural, not political.
My point was that that's what made the war itself highly consequential. It dramatically changed the geopolitics of the mediterranean area.
From Adam and Eve and Able and Cain, etc. But who knows the origin of human evil? Not I!
Did God err badly when he created humankind on the sixth day? Genesis 1. Yes.
😆
I don't think you'd feel that way if you read his books. At any rate get a copy of the collapse of antiquity and read it I'm sure with your interest and knowledge some of the references and the history will make more sense to you than they did to me. I know some about the history of Greece and Rome, the common big points that you get from Reading world history, but there's so much detail in this books that I had to constantly look things up and look at the maps in the book to understand where this place was and where that one was. Etc. Here's a two-part video of Hudson discussing the book. Part 1, https://youtu.be/CmazxjNHVs4. And as far as the USA and it's Constitution, how it is not egalitarian and where it came from, I think We The Elites, by Robert Ovets, is a significant book.https://youtu.be/UkyEzlarues
It is too bad that The American Congress has lost it’s way and has been stung by it’s own hubris and it is blind to the classics from Rome and Greece that offer a view of history and philosophy that could realign America on a stronger foundation than it has been treading on for the last 50 years.
“Alcibiades was the Elon Musk of ancient Athens, just as uber-rich, but more handsome.” Hahaha! You’re killin me! Thanks for this great read. I agree the realpolitik is oddly refreshing!
Interesting, and thoughts and ponders... I have listened to and read many debunking the Thucydides Trap. I read most of Allison's book when it was the new thing a few years back, and I probably agree with Michael Hudson, as I do on most things. Bunk.
Michael Hudson... Hudson points out in his newest book The Collapse of Antiquity (I highly recommend it) that, once upon a time, Tyranny was a good word, not a bad one, as he describes the ancient Roman Kings as a positive, and the Republic, a not so much. Because the Roman kings still cancelled Debt. as had the more ancient rulers, Hammurabi and those who followed him, (mentioned by Hudson in his history of debt #1 Forgive them their debts, and also history of debt #2, the Collapse of Antiquity.
Once Kings became a Roman evil, because the oligopoly fat-cats of that time made most of their money from debt (rents) and did not want debt cancellation, Roman society (and the Western civilization that followed) went to shit, setting the stage for the last two thousand years of pro fatcat enslavement of the people, by one means or another... A negative from Hudson's viewpoint, and also, my own.
J., I agree that The Thucydides Trap is at the very least an unwarranted generalization and, possibly, bunk.
I disagree in part with Hudson and his take on Roman monarchy vs Republic. Yes, the Republic did suffer from the dominance of a self-serving oligarchy. But the monarchy was susceptible to bad tyrants. Which came back with a vengeance once the monarchy was for all effective purposes re-established under the name of empire.
Hudson would say The empire has no relationship to the Kings in terms of debt relief. In fact, it was worse than the Republic. He believes that Western civilization lost its way with Rome after it established the repayment of debts as its highest monetary, social, principle. The whole misguided western history, the last two thousand years, the result of this wrong turn at Rome. This is a post with a couple of video links that are fantastic, from the beginning of the week, (not from my major substack, A Builder's Tale, the serialization of my 2nd novel) https://open.substack.com/pub/heininger/p/quotes-from-the-magnificent-michael?r=16lm0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out. At the moment that sort of take seems a bit simplistic, but an interesting perspective.
There are other links to this article from Sputnik by Pepe Escobar who explains Hudson's book in excellent detail.
https://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/us-empire-of-debt/
Nice piece!
The mismanagement of the Peloponnesian war by Athens, as described by Thucydides, was terrible and had one effect that Massimo hasn't mentioned: it gave democracy a bad name for millennia. For political thinkers from Plato and Aristotle to the the authors of the Federalist papers (most of whom knew the classics well) democracy meant mob rule - poor decisions, random cruelty - with reference to Athens of the 5th century BC. Notably, the founders of the US spoke of a republic in order to avoid any association with Athens.
Agree-tho neither Athenian nor post Revolutionary War American governments were democracies…
Athens was definitely a democracy. But not one based on representation and a constitution, like most modern democracies. The US is a democracy, but not in the Athenian sense, closer to Republican Rome, if anything.
? No vote for women, slaves/“non-citizens”, ie, the majority of residents, is by definition not a democracy. The US is a republic…has never been a democracy…the Founders feared “ the Mob” ( see Federalist Papers…) and is presently teetering on becoming a failed “democratic experiment”, because of Trump and his GOP enablers. :(
Athens and Rome were democracies according to historians and political scientists, even if only some of the citizens had voting rights. Forms of government are almost never pure, often they are partial and mixed.
And the US most definitely is a democracy: it features a constitution, elections, balance of powers, and so forth. But yes, there certainly is a current attempt to undermine a significant portion of all that.
Maurits, you are absolutely correct. That's why the American Founding Fathers' model was more akin to Cicero's Rome than Pericles' Athens.