Is Ancient Greece overrated?

[Byzantine fanatic]

The Ancient Greeks are often presented as if they are the most significant thing that has ever happened in the history of civilisation. Supposedly, western civilisation is built on the Classical Greek foundations and their achievements are unmatched in all of history.

The Classical Greeks are so important that entire sections of bookstores are dedicated to them, while coverage on other (arguably more important) civilizations such as Persia, India, the Arab Caliphates, the Turks, etc. is minimal and perfunctory at best. Not to mention Chinese and Japanese history, which is virtually non-existent.

Is this reputation really deserved? Or are the Ancient Greeks, for all their achievements, simply rather over-inflated by a self-serving western culture that wants a convenient foundation myth?

It seems to me this hero-worshipping of Ancient Greece ignores the fact that there is no direct link between Ancient Greece and western European civilizations, which largely arose from various Germanic or Latin-based cultures that had their own very separate development and history. This is also a problem in modern Greece, which owes far more to the Byzantine period than it does to Classical Greece, yet people are indoctrinated with worship of the Classic period.

It also ignores the contributions of Indians, Arabs, Persians, Jews and many others who contributed major achievements in the pre-modern era which took civilization forward beyond the achievements of the Ancient Greeks. By exaggerating the legacy of Ancient Greece, and ignoring the advances made by others, we distort history.

Is ancient Greece overrated?

 

[mad orc]

All media seems to show the Greeks as being more civilized and good guy than the Persian empire.
The reality was opposite.

 

[inawarminister]

All media seems to show the Greeks as being more civilized and good guy than the Persian empire.
The reality was opposite.

Indeed. The savagery shown by both Athenians and their Spartans enemies are too pale compared to anything Persians have done, in my mind.

 

[LSCatilina]

That realisations and achievement of ancient Indians and Persians are obviously underrepresented in popular culture doesn't mean that Greeks are overrated but overrepresented. Western culture is built on Hellenistic culture and its influence over Romans and the rest by proxy : the western idea of a balanced state, stress on assembly regime, relative secularisation of tought, communal rights, or even a certain military tought certainly comes from there.

More importantly, you mention the Arab Caliphate but a good part of its influence and own achievements came from an Hellenistic ground they grew on as well, an undirect link that ties ancient Greece to half of Eurasia : sure there's not direct link between modern western world and Athens.
But neither between Magna Carta's England and USA, and still a good part of its political culture come from there : the focus on "direct inheritence" is IMO a wild goose chase.
It really looks as a contrarian take on nationalist mythos about fiding an ancient or medieval theory : it just deny it's the case while still abiding by this "direct origin" hogwash to proudly proclaim that nothing is tied to anything; when we're really talking about far-by-far relationship on a same network.

While other cultures should be more closely studied, and while Greek influence should be pointed to have been influential outside western cvililizations, it's absurd to proclaim that Ancient Greek culture wasn't the forefather and prime exemple of a distinct "West" both in material and immaterial sense..
Everything we hold as core principles of our civilization can be tied to their own after a long history.

Rome was, if you will, more of an influential transmitter than anything else, the same goes for medieval meta-civilization. There's a greater kinship between us and Ancient Greeks than us and, say, Ancient Indians or Ancient Celts.

 

[Augenis]

I mean, it depends, it highly depends on the context of the question.

If you're talking from the point of view of a Chinese, Indian, African, Arab person, then of course the proliferation of interest in Ancient Greece and its civilization would appear undeserved.

But if we talk about (Western) European civilization specifically, then honestly, though there are some things in which Hellenophilia appears undeserved, and other European and non-European civilizations appear to have their thunder stolen by them, but rejecting the massive direct and indirect influence ancient Greece had is honestly just as undeserved.

 

[LSCatilina]

All media seems to show the Greeks as being more civilized and good guy than the Persian empire.

If it's the case it's wrong : but to be honest, a good part of vulgarizing medias does seems to paint Persians in good light where I come from. Of course, garbage like 300 leaves its mark, but I wouldn't say all media representation are like this.
Perseopolis comes in mind as a comic providing a different view (even if only as a partial background). Even decades-old representation doesn't seem to protray them as monsters (of course it comes from adapting a Greek play, which only highlight that Greek themselves weren't that on a persophobic view, Herodotus being a prime exemple).

The reality was opposite.

And there is where we get overboard : while rehabiliting other cultures than ones we're used to is perfectly doable, understable and dynamic; it always comes down to just reversing the roles and not questioning the model of "more civilized/good guys" and "less civilized/bad guys".

At some point the whole idea behind this is flawed : we have more or less influential cultures and civilizations, more or less bright advancies or stagnations, but "more/less civilized"? Heh.
History shouldn't be about distributing good points to the past (if was ludicrous enough before, it's still the case today) but making out facts out of a mess of interpreted sources and datas.

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

I would say so, yes.

If you look up the definition of "mitología" (Mythology) in Spanish, the first definition says "Set of the myths of a people, especially the Greeks and Romans". The second definition outright defines it as "Antiquity studies" (usually understood as classical studies). In fact, once I bought a book titled "Ancient Mythology" and I first I was suprised and dissapointed it only included Grecorroman culture - until it actually used that definition in the book.

"Philosophy started with the Greeks" I have not met yet a philosopher (in person) who has not said that phrase. The thoughts, ideas and writings of non-greek, non-roman contemporary philosophers are unknown or ignored. Ancient Greece is held as special, as having some je-ne-se-qoi that managed to produce great minds beyond of what was available at the time. Which is... inaccurate to say the least, and it has an air of "Western Civilization is inherently superior" every time I hear it.

Now, I won't say that Greece did not contribute to civilization; in fact, they produced the first ideals of Western Civilization. What I'm saying is that the achievements of other civilizations are ignored in favor of them. It has been the case for thousands of years, from the time they invented the concept of barbaroi and considered themeselves the center of civilization. While for them it might have made sense, it doesn't make sense for us to still consider them the only civilized people in a island of barbarism.

Also, Greek Mythology is kinda boring.

(I would say something about Byzantophilia in Paradox Games but this isn't the thread for it )

 

[LSCatilina]

"Philosophy started with the Greeks" I have not met yet a philosopher (in person) who has not said that phrase. The thoughts, ideas and writings of non-greek, non-roman contemporary philosophers are unknown or ignored.

Ancient Greece remains, with Ancient China, one of the few places where philosophy was emancipated from religion and pursued a more or less secular/lay search for truth and rationalisation. It doesn't mean that Mesopotamian, Celtic or Indian philosophy aren't worthy of their own name and study, but what happened in Greece was really a brand new step into the History of Ideas, with scholars openly rejecting religious explicans (without rejecting belief or religion, of course) in order to explain the world.

And this had a long-lasting influence outside Greece, much more so than Chinese philosophy that tended to be essentially localted ""only"" in Far East Asia, as not only giving birth to Western tought, but also on Arabo-Islamic philosophy.

 

[Tanc49]

The big break might have been colonisation. While before European dominance, you could argue of the presence of Chinese/Indian philosophy as a constituent, most of those states were rebuilt along European principles (democracy/communism/capitalism...)

This might be a bit of a simplification, and it does ignore some of the underlying trends and inspirations, but Western culture kinda bulldozed the world in the XIXth/XXth century. Western Culture is a product of Greek culture (in big parts, although Germanic/Celtic culture is influential in some areas), ergo, Greek culture indirectly became the biggest one worldwide.

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

Ancient Greece remains, with Ancient China, one of the few places where philosophy was emancipated from religion and pursued a more or less secular/lay search for truth and rationalisation. It doesn't mean that Mesopotamian, Celtic or Indian philosophy aren't worthy of their own name and study, but what happened in Greece was really a brand new step into the History of Ideas, with scholars openly rejecting religious explicans (without rejecting belief or religion, of course) in order to explain the world.

And this had a long-lasting influence outside Greece, much more so than Chinese philosophy that tended to be essentially localted ""only"" in Far East Asia, as not only giving birth to Western tought, but also on Arabo-Islamic philosophy.

Yes, you are right on that. It is, in fact, one of the most unique things about Greek civilization: the fact that they didn't have a strict set of religious beliefs (or rather, they weren't enforced by a priesthood) allowed secular thought to appear in Greece. Though I'm sure it happened in other places (I know for a fact it happened in India), yes, that was an important thing.

But the thing is, for example, the Chinese (like most civilizations) also had the concept of barbarians. But if I said unironically that the Chinese were the center of civilization and all surrounding peoples were unthinking barbarians, I would be laughed at. Meanwhile, when the Greeks called themselves the center of civilization and all surrounding people unthinking barbarians, they were took at face value for a long time, and in some cases (like the philosophers I've met ), even today. Of course they are our "mother culture" so to speak. But there is a worship of Greek culture that goes beyond that, IMO, to the detriment of the history of other peoples. It's not the worst thing ever, but it's undeniable there.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

Ancient Greece is overrated, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t important.

It’s overrated and misrepresented in that it’s often conceived of as a “Western” civilization in the modern sense of the word, especially as a uniquely Western civilization to be opposed with the Islamic world, or that Greek institutions are often considered the direct ancestors of modern ones when, at best, you can speak of indirect influence (modern notions of democracy are far more based on medieval political norms than actual Athenian democracy, clearly).

It is clearly true that the general public credits too much to the Greeks and too little to medieval Europe in the foundation of the modern West.

But some people go far too much in the other direction and argue that the Greeks were less consequential than, IDK, the Achaemenids — even though not even the Sasanians remembered the Achaemenids! Much to the contrary, Greek influence was fundamental on the entire Abrahamic world, not just the Christian world but on Islam as well. Even in Mughal India, for example, Ancient Greece was far more relevant in every imaginable way than Ancient China.

It’s not Western bias to acknowledge the importance of Greek Antiquity. If anything, it’s Western bias to assume that the Greeks weren’t actually important are only considered so because of the West, since it implies that the West is the only inheritor of the Greek legacy.

Au contraire, the Ancient Greeks would still have a vast legacy if all of Europe sank into the sea in 1000 AD.

 

[Admiral Brown]

I think there are two aspects involved in the question wether Ancient Greece is overrrated. One is the relation between Ancient Greece and the modern world, and how Ancient Greece ideas shaped what came to be known as "western" culture. The other aspect is how important/inovative/unique the notions developped by Ancient Greece were by themselves, irrespective of their ulterior influence.

I am personaly more interested in the second aspect. At highschool teachers refered to the "Greek miracle", to mean that the ideas that where developped in that period and area of the globe where something completely different from those of the cultures that surrounded Greece. According to this view, for example, while back then other countries had empires, kindoms and city states ruled by aristocrats, in Greece you have city states ruled by assemblies. While others thought in terms of myths, Greeks used reason and abstract thought... Greeks developped theatre, sport contests and other non religious spectacles where all citizens could take part in. And so on...

I would like to know wether the notion of Greece uniqueness has some degree of truth or is completely mythical. The speech made by Pericles against Sparta is something you do not find in contemporary literature in Egypt or the Middle East, but that may be due to the fact we do not have that much literature from those civilizations. Their whole litterature sounds very modern to me, if you compare it, for example, whith contemporary Hebrew texts. But that does not probe much, I know.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

But if I said unironically that the Chinese were the center of civilization and all surrounding peoples were unthinking barbarians, I would be laughed at.

Not in China for over a thousand years, and where this concept still influences cultural thinking even today

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are overrated but I will say that Ancient Egypt is under rated.

They lasted 3000 years almost culturally unchanged! Next to that, the Ancient Greeks were a drop in the ocean.

 

[Falecius]

Ancient Greece remains, with Ancient China, one of the few places where philosophy was emancipated from religion and pursued a more or less secular/lay search for truth and rationalisation. It doesn't mean that Mesopotamian, Celtic or Indian philosophy aren't worthy of their own name and study, but what happened in Greece was really a brand new step into the History of Ideas, with scholars openly rejecting religious explicans (without rejecting belief or religion, of course) in order to explain the world.

And this had a long-lasting influence outside Greece, much more so than Chinese philosophy that tended to be essentially localted ""only"" in Far East Asia, as not only giving birth to Western tought, but also on Arabo-Islamic philosophy.

The same can be said of (some schools of) Indian thought at the very least. Classical India had a very diverse intellectual landscape and "philosophers" there, while usually not rejecting religious belief (though some did) tended to deploy rational speculation in all fields (included scriptural exegesis). However, in this they were akin to Western Scholastic philosophers, who certainly are regarded as such by most of everyone.
It is worth noting, however, that some level of limited contact between Hellenic and Indian thought seemingly existed; Classical Antiquity was aware of Indian "philosophers" and Indian sources conversely show some vague awareness of Greek thought.
Also, this sort of rational research seems to have been the case in at least some instances of what little we know of Postclassic Mesoamerica thinking.
That said, Greek philosophy is obviously very important, both for its intrinsic intellectual value and its enormous historical influence over the entirety of Western Eurasia and derived societies (not only Islamic thought, albeit it is arguably the most imposing case).

 

[Falecius]

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are overrated but I will say that Ancient Egypt is under rated.

They lasted 3000 years almost culturally unchanged! Next to that, the Ancient Greeks were a drop in the ocean.

Ancient Egyptian culture changed quite a lot in the course of its three millennia, in all respects.
The writing system and the underlying language did, the funerary customs did (greatly). The material culture and religious beliefs of the Old Kingdom were quite different from those of the Saitic period. There was also continuity of course, but this holds for most societies.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

Ancient Egyptian culture changed quite a lot in the course of its three millennia, in all respects.
The writing system and the underlying language did, the funerary customs did (greatly). The material culture and religious beliefs of the Old Kingdom were quite different from those of the Saitic period. There was also continuity of course, but this holds for most societies.

They changed of course, hence I said 'almost', but the central elements of Ancient Egyptian culture and society were incredibly similar from the First Dynasty through to the Ptolemies. So much so that every foreign invader (bar the Assyrians) who conquered Egypt adopted Egypt's systems and cultures. The detail and day to day dealings of ancient Egypt changed dramatically but there was a significant continuity in it.

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

I think there are two aspects involved in the question wether Ancient Greece is overrrated. One is the relation between Ancient Greece and the modern world, and how Ancient Greece ideas shaped what came to be known as "western" culture. The other aspect is how important/inovative/unique the notions developped by Ancient Greece were by themselves, irrespective of their ulterior influence.

I am personaly more interested in the second aspect. At highschool teachers refered to the "Greek miracle", to mean that the ideas that where developped in that period and area of the globe where something completely different from those of the cultures that surrounded Greece. According to this view, for example, while back then other countries had empires, kindoms and city states ruled by aristocrats, in Greece you have city states ruled by assemblies. While others thought in terms of myths, Greeks used reason and abstract thought... Greeks developped theatre, sport contests and other non religious spectacles where all citizens could take part in. And so on...

I would like to know wether the notion of Greece uniqueness has some degree of truth or is completely mythical. The speech made by Pericles against Sparta is something you do not find in contemporary literature in Egypt or the Middle East, but that may be due to the fact we do not have that much literature from those civilizations. Their whole litterature sounds very modern to me, if you compare it, for example, whith contemporary Hebrew texts. But that does not probe much, I know.

I think that is because our own literature is deeply influenced by them, and so is our writing. It's interesting you mention hebrew texts, because the Bible, beyond its religious significance, has also influenced the literature and overall culture of the Western world so deeply that many references and concepts come directly from it, to an extent where I could say that the Bible is perhaps the mother narrative of Western civilzation.

The Greeks had many unique things, but yes, I also think mostly the same of you. Many of the stuff they talked wasn't unique for them. Aristotle talked about the constitutions of greek poleis, but mentioned Carthage and other cities. Codes of law (the first 'constitutions') appeared in the Middle East, and democratic assemblies are found everywhere where they were city states. Art, fiction and mythology is common to all mankind, as is sport.

One of the great advantages that the Greeks had is that they wrote down their stuff, and it survived over the centuries. That is why we know more about them.

Not in China for over a thousand years, and where this concept still influences cultural thinking even today

Yes, that's the point. If China had dominated the world, we would take the opinion of their ancient thinkers at face value, and dismiss the Europeans who considered the Greeks as a unique, special center of civilization.

 

[LSCatilina]

The same can be said of (some schools of) Indian thought at the very least.

@Thanksforallthefish mentioned these schools too, but the point is not that they were being inexistant, but that they didn't really made it as the norm of Indian philosophy, which remained dominated by religious or, rather, semi-religious concerns. It doesn't mean they weren't practical of course, just that it never went to the same way than Greece or China.

But if I said unironically that the Chinese were the center of civilization and all surrounding peoples were unthinking barbarians, I would be laughed at.

Not from a Chinese point of view, which is probably your point.

Meanwhile, when the Greeks called themselves the center of civilization and all surrounding people unthinking barbarians, they were took at face value for a long time, and in some cases (like the philosophers I've met ), even today.

This comes more from a Roman point of view than Greek, tough : while you had a lot of prejudice into Greek conception of a Barbarian, it was not systematically so (Herodotus is basically snarking at anyone's entretaining this notion) and more gradual than essential (with the idea, tough, that this gradation was geographical too, most weird Barbarians being at the edges of the known world)

A Celt could be a Barbarian but still phillehelic, Romans were Barbarians that didn't act like what you'd expect from a Barbarians, Egyptians were technically Barbarians but they were cool, etc.
On the other hand, another Greek would be Barbarian, either due to his accent, his behaviour or just that you didn't like it.

Greeks themselves were aware of the ambiguity of the word, but never really giving it up because it was more a matter of self-identity, as the people defined by the logos (not just language, but rational tought), something that could be lost (see Plato about Socrates) or gained ("These Barbarians aren't really Barbaric").
We're talking, again, of a LOT of prejudice there which was translated too into their conception of slavery and dominance. But it wasnt as fixed as it was made later.

Romans on the other hand...They were them, and there were the other. Peoples not as much definied by their language, but their incapacity to raise aove themselves and either to let to themselves and their eternal errance (Barbarians, by definitions, didn't have an history) or kindly enslaved/conquered to allow them contact with civilization.

 

[Falecius]

At highschool teachers refered to the "Greek miracle", to mean that the ideas that where developped in that period and area of the globe where something completely different from those of the cultures that surrounded Greece. According to this view, for example, while back then other countries had empires, kindoms and city states ruled by aristocrats, in Greece you have city states ruled by assemblies. While others thought in terms of myths, Greeks used reason and abstract thought... Greeks developped theatre, sport contests and other non religious spectacles where all citizens could take part in. And so on...

I would like to know wether the notion of Greece uniqueness has some degree of truth or is completely mythical. The speech made by Pericles against Sparta is something you do not find in contemporary literature in Egypt or the Middle East, but that may be due to the fact we do not have that much literature from those civilizations. Their whole litterature sounds very modern to me, if you compare it, for example, whith contemporary Hebrew texts. But that does not probe much, I know.

In my view, there is no such a thing as a "Greek miracle", for all the deserved importance and uniqueness of the Ancient Greek culture.
We actually know a fair lot of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and other Ancient Near Eastern literatures. To my knowledge, there is nothing like the speech of Perikles there, indeed. However, this means nothing; the Greek world did not produce anything like the Babylonian "sapiential" literature either, as far as I know. That Greek things sound more "modern" to us is the obvious result of these things having been foundational texts in the Western Modern and pre-Modern curricula, thus exerting an indirect influence in shaping "modernity" itself. Of course, the Bible was foundational as well (perhaps even more so).
Greek thought also had cross-fertilization and contact with other nearby cultures, especially "Oriental" ones, that went somewhat minimized in common Western representations emphasisings Greek uniqueness, which certainly exists, but exists within a context.