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.