Just wondering what everyone thinks of this article

Maoistic

Banned
This is simply incorrect. Athens was unique among Hellenic city states, at the very least because it combined a power that, at its height, vastly surpassed any other Hellenic city (particularly in terms of reach and commercial economy)

It's almost as if Macedon didn't exist, the one Greek state that extended Greek influence the most out of any Greek city-state. Also, you forget the many Greek city-states independent of Athens in southern France, North Africa and southern Italy that were comparable in power and were the ones actually responsible for spreading Greek culture into Europe. If Athens was also so awesome and mighty, then why did Sparta defeat it in the Peloponnese war and why did Athens got absorbed by Macedon even if briefly, and later Rome?



and a major cultural significance. Philosophy existed elsewhere, but institutions for it emerged in Athens first.

Diogenes Laertius records an equal number of Italian and Miletian philosophers, who left several written works, alongside Athenian philosophers, so it seems that some kind of institutionalised philosophy should have existed outside of Athens. And when you have Pythagoreanism, any claim of Athens being unique in philosophy is refuted. We only think of Athens as this unique philosophical Mecca because the writings of Aristotle, Plato and Thucydides, and one can count Herodotus too who seems to have written his historical work in Athens, survived among pre-Socratic works, but their survival doesn't mean there wasn't a dearth of philosophical writings from other Greek city-states when we know the opposite is true. We can still mention significant fragments from Empedocles, Parmenides and Philolaus among the pre-Socratics.

Theatres existed elsewhere, but the Athenian system of theatres was developed to a scale that had no contemporary parallel in the Mediterranean world and set the model for the later period.

Don't see why this is so significant. The West didn't develop based on theatre.

The Athenian political system was, if not truly unique, certainly very peculiar and, more critically, the discussion about it was the only one that survived to us, shaping a lot of political thought (not just in the "West"). Would democracy have emerged without Athens? I daresay, very probably it would have; there's plenty of other examples to base it from, and socio-economic structures that are likely to produce it would appear, as they did there. But it would have looked different, in many hard-to predict ways.

The Roman senatorial republic and Germanic modes of government are the precedent for our current presidential and parliamentarian political systems, not Athens. The Roman Republic already existed in 509 and there doesn't seem to be such influence from Athenian democracy on it. Germanic governance developed independently of Greek modes of government.
 
Going by the butterfly effect, the further back that an event takes place, the more consequential it is in world history.

Therefore, the most critical battle in human history probably took place in 50,000 BCE, when one group of hunter-gatherers killed another group.

Consequence is a bizarre ranking system. The most consequential events in human history are probably every time that humanity has pushed itself to the brink of nuclear Armageddon and then not pulled the trigger. There can be nothing more consequential than a person or polity with the ability to annihilate the whole surface of the earth deciding not to do it. Personally though, what feels most consequential is the 20th century - the scale of things keeps expanding. History keeps getting bigger and bigger, or at least feeling that way.

I take that back. I think the most consequential moment is now. What's happening in the world now can actually impact us tangibly. Changing anything in the past pretty much annihilates most of us. None of us would live in a world where Byzantium still exists or China is the bastion of industrialization or Denmark-Norway settled the New World.

I might create a list of the most interesting battles in human history. And there, I think someone like Alexander the Great deserves to make the cut, if nothing else because of the legacy he inspired.
 
I'm no expert in Indian region, but throughout the the last 3 millennia of recorded battles, what were the most significant ones?
 
Every battle is as signifficant or non signifficant when i read all these Posts Everybody comes with valid arguments but i think there will not be some consensus sooner or later
 
There are so many different ways to categorize what makes a battle “significant” that making a list like this is pretty hard.

Going by butterfly effects, it’s literally just the first ten battles to ever happen in the world since everything else afterward would be changed by them going differently.

Going by battles that were major turning points you’d probably want very close battles or even ones where the other side was heavily favored to win.

Going by battles with societal effects you’ll want the most important battles of major devastators or empire-builders. Alexander and Genghis go here even if they didn’t fit the second list.

...and so on.
 
It's almost as if Macedon didn't exist, the one Greek state that extended Greek influence the most out of any Greek city-state. Also, you forget the many Greek city-states independent of Athens in southern France, North Africa and southern Italy that were comparable in power and were the ones actually responsible for spreading Greek culture into Europe. If Athens was also so awesome and mighty, then why did Sparta defeat it in the Peloponnese war and why did Athens got absorbed by Macedon even if briefly, and later Rome?





Diogenes Laertius records an equal number of Italian and Miletian philosophers, who left several written works, alongside Athenian philosophers, so it seems that some kind of institutionalised philosophy should have existed outside of Athens. And when you have Pythagoreanism, any claim of Athens being unique in philosophy is refuted. We only think of Athens as this unique philosophical Mecca because the writings of Aristotle, Plato and Thucydides, and one can count Herodotus too who seems to have written his historical work in Athens, survived among pre-Socratic works, but their survival doesn't mean there wasn't a dearth of philosophical writings from other Greek city-states when we know the opposite is true. We can still mention significant fragments from Empedocles, Parmenides and Philolaus among the pre-Socratics.



Don't see why this is so significant. The West didn't develop based on theatre.



The Roman senatorial republic and Germanic modes of government are the precedent for our current presidential and parliamentarian political systems, not Athens. The Roman Republic already existed in 509 and there doesn't seem to be such influence from Athenian democracy on it. Germanic governance developed independently of Greek modes of government.
It's almost as if Macedon didn't exist, the one Greek state that extended Greek influence the most out of any Greek city-state. Also, you forget the many Greek city-states independent of Athens in southern France, North Africa and southern Italy that were comparable in power and were the ones actually responsible for spreading Greek culture into Europe. If Athens was also so awesome and mighty, then why did Sparta defeat it in the Peloponnese war and why did Athens got absorbed by Macedon even if briefly, and later Rome?





Diogenes Laertius records an equal number of Italian and Miletian philosophers, who left several written works, alongside Athenian philosophers, so it seems that some kind of institutionalised philosophy should have existed outside of Athens. And when you have Pythagoreanism, any claim of Athens being unique in philosophy is refuted. We only think of Athens as this unique philosophical Mecca because the writings of Aristotle, Plato and Thucydides, and one can count Herodotus too who seems to have written his historical work in Athens, survived among pre-Socratic works, but their survival doesn't mean there wasn't a dearth of philosophical writings from other Greek city-states when we know the opposite is true. We can still mention significant fragments from Empedocles, Parmenides and Philolaus among the pre-Socratics.



Don't see why this is so significant. The West didn't develop based on theatre.



The Roman senatorial republic and Germanic modes of government are the precedent for our current presidential and parliamentarian political systems, not Athens. The Roman Republic already existed in 509 and there doesn't seem to be such influence from Athenian democracy on it. Germanic governance developed independently of Greek modes of government.

I am afraid that you are misconstruing my arguments.
I am saying that Athens was important (even if I think we DO agree its role is overplayed). You mention Macedon, but you argued, with some reason, in another thread that Alexander is also overrated and his legacy less important than usually thought (whith which I do not fully agree).
Of course Macedon existed, of course there was plenty of other powerful Hellenic poleis, of course there was philosophy outside Athens, and of course Hellenic philosphy did not emerge in Athens first. However, I still argue that Athens was, at its heigh, the focal point of the Classical Hellenic world. For a time, it set the trend, economically, politically (to a point) and culturally.
Macedon spread Hellenic culture much further, but in cultural terms, it was a Hellenic culture that look to a largely (though not exclusively) Athenian legacy. The Romans unified the Med, not the Athenians (who probably would have never conceived such an imperial project in the first place, but who knows in AH). But then, it was an Hellenic cultural legacy that was synthesized in Athens to a large extend (even if yes, it formed elsewhere first) that the Romans looked at as amodel in several respect (that's where theatre is relevant, for example).
Sparta defeated Athens militarily, but was not able to leave anywhere near the same lasting imprint. Macedon briefly conquered the "known world", and Alexandrian successor states lasted centuries with Macedonian dynasties at the top, but we barely know anything about the Macedonian language; they wrote in a variety of Greek based on Attic.
Of course, the signifcance of Athens and its legacy should not overshadow the composite nature of the Mediterranean world at the time of the Delian League. Athens was important and powerful, but so were Carthage and Syracuse, and of course, Persia was ultimately quite dominant even after Salamis, for a long time.
Look at archaeology; for a couple of centuries, the Athenian ways to make pottery were the dominant pan-Mediterranean standard (superseding an earlier Corynthian dominance in this field) and this lasted even after the Peloponnesian war.
 
It's almost as if Macedon didn't exist, the one Greek state that extended Greek influence the most out of any Greek city-state. Also, you forget the many Greek city-states independent of Athens in southern France, North Africa and southern Italy that were comparable in power and were the ones actually responsible for spreading Greek culture into Europe. If Athens was also so awesome and mighty, then why did Sparta defeat it in the Peloponnese war and why did Athens got absorbed by Macedon even if briefly, and later Rome?


First off, not one of these cities in southern France, Africa, etc. were comparable to Athens. They were like modern day's Helsinki to London, New York or even Tokyo. Important? Yes. But Athens was THE center of civilization back then, not on count of population, although it did have a lot of residents back then, but on the count of impact, countless historians described it as the most important trade center of the era in which numerous civilizations came in contact, ideas spread, languages, values, ethics etc. etc. Keep in mind we are talking about the classical period approximately.

Additionally, Athens didn't fall to Sparta because it was weak, but because of misappropriation of resources, idiotic strategies and instigating other wars while they were involved in the Peloponnesian war. In all truthfulness, had they actually committed to battling the Spartans from the opening of the war and didn’t do stupid stunts like the Sicilian Expedition, Sparta was doomed. In just this expedition that happened in 415–413 during the more important part of the Peloponnesian War, they lost at the very least 10-15 thousand people and 200 triremes. Keep in mind that Athens had some thirteen thousand hoplites without counting those on garrison duty, and sixteen thousand defending the walls during the Peloponnesian war. Had they used those sent in Sicily to raid the areas surrounding Sparta, history would be different.

Source: Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides' History 1-5.24 by Lisa Kallet-Marx


Diogenes Laertius records an equal number of Italian and Miletian philosophers, who left several written works, alongside Athenian philosophers, so it seems that some kind of institutionalised philosophy should have existed outside of Athens. And when you have Pythagoreanism, any claim of Athens being unique in philosophy is refuted. We only think of Athens as this unique philosophical Mecca because the writings of Aristotle, Plato and Thucydides, and one can count Herodotus too who seems to have written his historical work in Athens, survived among pre-Socratic works, but their survival doesn't mean there wasn't a dearth of philosophical writings from other Greek city-states when we know the opposite is true. We can still mention significant fragments from Empedocles, Parmenides and Philolaus among the pre-Socratics.


Pythagoras was from Samos, an Ionian city, created by Athens during its colonization era of the Asia Minor. Athens was practically the biggest by far school of philosophy in that era not due to anything else but the easiness by which one could participate in important discussions, such a thing wasn’t common or even possible in other cities due to two important reasons. First off, Athens lived of trade and income from vassals, meaning people there didn’t have to work on ships, farms (slaves) etc. and had more time on their hands to debate their ideas. Something that didn’t apply to most other Greek cities of the era. Secondly, I mentioned it before, but it was the center of the known world back then. Meaning that one could hear countless ideas, customs, beliefs and the like and take into account bit by bit creating a new philosophy, art, science in the progress. Same thing happens in the modern world every day. Internet has simply transformed such a progress making the travel to important city centers useless.

That doesn’t mean that there weren’t any philosophers from outside the area, but that they were not as prestigious, known, accurate and the like.


Don't see why this is so significant. The West didn't develop based on theatre.

"Bread and circuses" That single phrase is perhaps the most accurate by which one can describe human nature throughout its existence. Ten thousand years ago that rule stood true, today it stands true, tomorrow it will also remain as true as before.

Plus, you take our modern-day definition on theatre and apply it on that era’s. Needless to say, what a huge mistake that is. The theatres back then, were more of a school and information site rather than a recreational area. Theatres were the sites on which ideas were given form.


The Roman senatorial republic and Germanic modes of government are the precedent for our current presidential and parliamentarian political systems, not Athens. The Roman Republic already existed in 509 and there doesn't seem to be such influence from Athenian democracy on it. Germanic governance developed independently of Greek modes of government.

Want to try your hand on guessing on which system these two you mention are based upon? And the Roman senate in 509 BC was practically a place of advisors to the king who had some legislature authority and when a king died they chose another. But up to 509 BC it was a body of aristocrats. Following the creation of the Roman Republic, it wasn’t until 400 BC or so that plebeians gained the ability to enter the Senate. Up to then, they weren’t even allowed to procreate with the aristocrats. (My date may be wrong, I couldn’t find a year but I think it was around then.)

Moreover, a boule existed in virtually every constitutional city-state and is recorded from the end of the 6th century BC at Corinth, Argos, Athens (594 BC), Chios, and Cyrene.

More specifically, in Athens, each of its 10 tribes provided 50 councilors who of a specific age, 30 or 40 I think, and a certain amount of councilors was allotted to each deme (=rural district or village, municipality, burg, you get the point) of the tribe in rough proportion to its size.

The only major differences with most of today’s democracies, is that there is no strict limit on how many people can enter the polls from a district, and that we have a president or prime minister, something that kind of existed back then considering that there were parties in the boule, but not official so.

In Rome, the senators were appointed by the consuls, who in turn were elected by the Comitia centuriata, an assembly of the people in which the richest Romans were in the majority.
 
been reading this with a lot of bemusement. A lot of the battles that the article and people here have brought up are being dismissed as of 'purely local concern'.... which brings up the question of "At what point does a battle cease to become of 'purely local concern' and of actual world importance'?
 
been reading this with a lot of bemusement. A lot of the battles that the article and people here have brought up are being dismissed as of 'purely local concern'.... which brings up the question of "At what point does a battle cease to become of 'purely local concern' and of actual world importance'?

I haven’t the foggiest clue. The (attempted) conquest of a national capital? No, apparently not. A battle which results in the destruction or absorption of a country (I.e Hastings)? Again, no dice. An extraterrestrial invasion? We’ll see...

To return to my earlier point, Hastings dramatically altered the course of human history. Arguing from a purely methodological point of view, none of us would be here without it, let alone bickering over this totally inconsequential article.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t the foggiest clue. The conquest of a national capital? No, apparently not. A battle which results in the destruction or absorption of a country (I.e Hastings)? Again, no dice. An extraterrestrial invasion? We’ll see...

To return to my earlier point, Hastings dramatically altered the course of human history. Arguing from a purely methodological point of view, none of us would be here without it, let alone bickering over this totally inconsequential article.
I mean none of us would be here if anything happened in the 19th century through chaos theory, from a general societal perspective we wouldn't be here if Alexander failed at any point during his lifetime, I wouldn't say that each of his battles holds the same importance though.
 
I mean none of us would be here if anything happened in the 19th century through chaos theory, from a general societal perspective we wouldn't be here if Alexander failed at any point during his lifetime, I wouldn't say that each of his battles holds the same importance though.

Precisely. My opinion (as a layman) is that no historical event is any less important than the next. Every pebble, when cast into the pond, has an observable effect on the water's surface (I know, the analogy has been hackneyed to death at this point, I'm just a tad short on leisure time). Anyway, I don't wish to stir up any more discord down here, so if anybody needs me, I'll be in Maps & Graphics. :p
 
The key to Alexander's importance, as I alluded to in my list, was that after his death nobody was able to recreate the old Persian Empire. Alexander's victories aborted the resurgence of Persian power that had been underway with the reconquest of Egypt and led to fragmentation among his successors. In turn, this paved the way for the balance of power in western Eurasia to shift very hard towards the Mediterranean, specifically Rome.

teg
 
I can see why people would disagree with the things on that list, but I'm getting a little tired of seeing the word "chauvinist" being thrown around. It seems some people are incapable of disagreeing about something without slapping labels on the people they disagree with.
 
Top