Why was Ancient Greece so special?

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Ancient Greece was quite unique in the ancient world (and by this, I understand ancient China and India too), because

1) it developed a culture of independent, self-governing city states with a multitude of constitutions ranging from oligarchy to democracy; AFAIK, besides Greece, Rome and Carthage, no major ancient civilization developed strong republican structures: instead, Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Central Asia were ruled by monarchs, often backed by priestly caste

and

2) Greece never really united under one leading power. Egypt was united pretty fast, China had large kingdoms fighting each other before being conquered by Qin, Mesopotamia was subject to different empires, as was Persia. Greece however stayed a mass of poleis, hostile to each other, resisted against Macedonian domination and only came to rest after Rome formed the province of Achaia.

So we have to quite unique features of Greece: its political diversity and its fragmentation. How do we explain these features? Sure, the fragmentation certainly influenced the diversity, and the diversity strengthened the fragmentation. However, that doesn't explain why Greece stayed disunited while Italy was unified under Rome, even if both Italy and Greece consisted mainly of city states.

I'm interested in how you explain both phenomena.

 

[Tanc49]

Ancient Greece was quite unique in the ancient world (and by this, I understand ancient China and India too), because

1) it developed a culture of independent, self-governing city states with a multitude of constitutions ranging from oligarchy to democracy; AFAIK, besides Greece, Rome and Carthage, no major ancient civilization developed strong republican structures: instead, Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Central Asia were ruled by monarchs, often backed by priestly caste

and

2) Greece never really united under one leading power. Egypt was united pretty fast, China had large kingdoms fighting each other before being conquered by Qin, Mesopotamia was subject to different empires, as was Persia. Greece however stayed a mass of poleis, hostile to each other, resisted against Macedonian domination and only came to rest after Rome formed the province of Achaia.

So we have to quite unique features of Greece: its political diversity and its fragmentation. How do we explain these features? Sure, the fragmentation certainly influenced the diversity, and the diversity strengthened the fragmentation. However, that doesn't explain why Greece stayed disunited while Italy was unified under Rome, even if both Italy and Greece consisted mainly of city states.

I'm interested in how you explain both phenomena.

Republican features pop on and off in history. See the Irish for example.

It's a matter of balance I'd say, how much land is available.

I'd say all society start flat but pyramids form as resources become scarce or more labour intensive and thus less accessible without a common effort.

Of course if there's enough land, slaves to go around and no pressure from outside, the balance stays and resources don't get too concentrated

 

[James XI]

Big believer in geo-strategic determinants.

Very mountainous regions with relatively small pockets of fertile land often become politically disparate...city states in Greece or medieval Italy, clannish in Japan and Scotland, cantons in Switzerland, etc. Seperation breeds disunity, long winters with no external contact, which centres identity and makes external occupation very vulnerable, etc. And also significantly increases military defensive capability.

Italy could have stayed that way in classical times...say the Romans lose to the Samnites or Etruscans....but Italy's fertile pockets are significantly moreso than Greece's, so that if/when a couple fall under the power of a single political force, they can really start rolling. I mean, there are many other factors, but I've always found that you can somewhat predict many political/military etc. characteristics of a culture just by looking at a map.

 

[JJL]

Ancient Greece was quite unique in the ancient world (and by this, I understand ancient China and India too), because

2) Greece never really united under one leading power. Egypt was united pretty fast, China had large kingdoms fighting each other before being conquered by Qin, Mesopotamia was subject to different empires, as was Persia. Greece however stayed a mass of poleis, hostile to each other, resisted against Macedonian domination and only came to rest after Rome formed the province of Achaia.

I'm interested in how you explain both phenomena.

Part of the problem is that for a large part of archaic and Classical history of Greece no one city state rose to such an extent it was unassailable and could entirely impose it's will on the others.
Sure at different points in time various powers had the advantage and declared Hegemony over Greece, but the 3 main players, Sparta,Athens and Thebes were never secure in their power and a military defeat or shift in the political climate would shift everything on it's head.

The Macedonians/Phillip II were the first people really to gain enough power to subdue Greece under it's dominion, but even then the city states were just looking for a chance to revolt and regain their independence.

It mostly hinges on the varying animosity/rivalry between Sparta and Athens for almost the entire period.

Really you would need a clear victor in the Pelopennsian war(431- onwards BC) to annihilate the other, or a much more successful Delian league(so from 477BC onwards )under Athens to continue gaining momentum to declare unification and without Sparta forming a Peloponnesian league(which was less formal but existed for centuries) .

Even then it would still be fragmented as the natural competitiveness or the Polis's would reject becoming one identity unless facing an external threat(Such as the brief city cooperation during the Persian invasion,but even that had Greeks on both sides of the conflict at times) .

Greece in ancient times would be unlikely to just unify as one people to the same extent as Italy later would imo

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Big believer in geo-strategic determinants.

Very mountainous regions with relatively small pockets of fertile land often become politically disparate...city states in Greece or medieval Italy, clannish in Japan and Scotland, cantons in Switzerland, etc. Seperation breeds disunity, long winters with no external contact, which centres identity and makes external occupation very vulnerable, etc. And also significantly increases military defensive capability.

Italy could have stayed that way in classical times...say the Romans lose to the Samnites or Etruscans....but Italy's fertile pockets are significantly moreso than Greece's, so that if/when a couple fall under the power of a single political force, they can really start rolling. I mean, there are many other factors, but I've always found that you can somewhat predict many political/military etc. characteristics of a culture just by looking at a map.

Yes, and also, agriculture in the Nile/Mesopotamian/Chinese river valleys tended to rely on irrigation from the rivers, which generally requires more manpower to organise than the rain-dependent farming of Greece. So the advantages of big, centralised polities which can mobilise large amounts of manpower are more pronounced.

 

[DominusNovus]

I would say that a large part of the question is how you define 'special.' I'd say a large part of the discussion should account for the fact that the Greeks inspired the Romans, and the Romans inspired the rest of Europe, which then went on to conquer most of the world. Easier to be called special when your grandkids are the ones writing all the history books.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

However, that doesn't explain why Greece stayed disunited while Italy was unified under Rome, even if both Italy and Greece consisted mainly of city states.

Greece did unify under Philip and Alexander. It may have become disunified shortly afterward, but Macedon constituted a pretty large unified area, a majority of Greece in any case.

I'm interested in how you explain both phenomena.

In early Archaic period, Greece was rural, egalitarian, with weak state power and a recent tribal history. As populations increased, Greek society became stratified and urbanized by the mid-late Archaic. This required the establishment of lasting forms of state government. Foreign traders (Assyrians, Phoenicians, Lydians) as well as the different settlement histories of various parts of Greece (Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, Achaeans) led to a wide array of influences. So we see the creation of entirely different kinds of poleis, albeit with some common thread.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Much of ancient Mesopotamia was less despotic than OP would imagine; in Sumer at least, kings of the different city states usually required the consent of the council of elders and/or a general assembly to go to war, among other issues.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

Much of ancient Mesopotamia was less despotic than OP would imagine; in Sumer at least, kings of the different city states usually required the consent of the council of elders and/or a general assembly to go to war, among other issues.

The Assyrian empire was very much despotic, and they were the dominant power when what we call "Ancient Greece" began (with the Archaic period succeeding the Greek Dark Ages).

 

[dandan_noodles]

The Assyrian state itself was certainly despotic, but its relationship with much of its subject territory was tributary in nature, preserving the local forms of government; this fits into a long pattern of rule in the Ancient Near East, in which the Persians allowed the rebel Ionian states to keep their democracies when they were brought back into the fold, replacing the tyrants the Persians had originally appointed to rule them.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

The Assyrian state itself was certainly despotic, but its relationship with much of its subject territory was tributary in nature, preserving the local forms of government; this fits into a long pattern of rule in the Ancient Near East, in which the Persians allowed the rebel Ionian states to keep their democracies when they were brought back into the fold, replacing the tyrants the Persians had originally appointed to rule them.

Nominally that is true, but de facto the local government still answered to the Assyrian king as an absolute ruler. Even many regions treated as the Yoke of Ashur (rather than the Land of Ashur) had stables owned directly by the king, and plots of land owned directly by the king or his court. Assyrian spies and priests were present everywhere and the army could march anywhere in the territory.

Meanwhile the viceroys appointed directly by the king could rebel at any time, just like the governors and tributary kings.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

Personally, I believe it has to do with the mixed origins of many different city-states. Some were descended from Dorians, and others from Mycenaeans, Cretans, and Minoans. The geographical constraints such as the sea, mountains, hills, and valleys also provided natural borders for small polities. The will for a group of humans to unnaturally extend their conquests against the will of nature is usually not enough. The land, having a similar climate to the rest of the Med, was fertile. Fertile regions with small confines between each pocket are rare. Perhaps the next best example would be on the Italian peninsula... where we have just as many independent cities in medieval/renaissance times. Germany is different because HRE is "balkanized" due to the rules which govern it, a set of feudalistic rules completely unlke those in Greece.

The fact that any one city was either seperated from most of its neighbors by land or sea prevented easy conquest. If physical features were not a factor in conquest, Alexander the Great would've reached Greece from the other side. The political diversity is caused by the fact that you have several different ethnic groups/political groups merging/breaking to become new states in a confined area. As well, even after the ideal of "Hellas" was developed, there are still new peoples settling near the area and influencing it.

Edit: btw, love timelines where Trajan fixs the mistake of Hadrian. Keep up the good work Washington!

 

[dandan_noodles]

Nominally that is true, but de facto the local government still answered to the Assyrian king as an absolute ruler. Even many regions treated as the Yoke of Ashur (rather than the Land of Ashur) had stables owned directly by the king, and plots of land owned directly by the king or his court. Assyrian spies and priests were present everywhere and the army could march anywhere in the territory.

Meanwhile the viceroys appointed directly by the king could rebel at any time, just like the governors and tributary kings.

Sure, but that's not much different from what the dominant Greek city-states tried to do whenever they got the chance; one of the key tools of early Spartan expansion was overthrowing local tyrants and replacing them with new, pro-Spartan puppet regimes, and the establishment of unequal leagues was part and parcel of Greek diplomacy and warfare. I think it's fair to say that the differences between Mesopotamian and Greek internal and external politics were more of degree than kind.

 

[LSCatilina]

AFAIK, besides Greece, Rome and Carthage, no major ancient civilization developed strong republican structures

Out of my head, you could find several exemples in India, where it seems some of Mahājanapadas were ruled by an assembly institution (it's not clear if you had a distnction between crowned assemblies or the rest); in Celtic Europe with the institution of vergobrets; in Italy with Etrusceans, and in some African states before the islamization.
IIRC, you had exemples as well in Americas.

instead, Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Central Asia were ruled by monarchs, often backed by priestly caste

That's an incredibly outdated view, looking like a revamp of quasi-marxist "oriental despotism" to be honest.
Priestly elites did played an important role, but this role was more than often suppletive, if not opposed, to palatial authority (I'd strongly suggest you'd give a look at the palatial administration of Late Bronze Age in Near-East).
Mesopotamian city-states could be described as a mix of palatial states and crowned assemblies (not unlike Late Antiquity or Early medieval campi), depending on the era.

2) Greece however stayed a mass of poleis, hostile to each other, resisted against Macedonian domination and only came to rest after Rome formed the province of Achaia.

First, not all greeks states were poleis : rouhgly half of the Helladic peninsula was made of ethnic states such as in Thessaly or Macedonia.
The fragmentation between ethnic and civic states, tough, is hardly a Greek think : you can find it in Etruscean Italy or Celtic Gaul and Raetia. As for matter Carthage, a good chuck of her empire have more to do with a commonwealth made of various protectorates than an unified behemoth (as Roman Empire was more or less theoritically so).

I'm interested in how you explain both phenomena.

F
First, geography : I'm not at all in favour of geographic determinism, but we're compelled to notice that the fragmented poleis can be found in the part of Helladic peninsula most traversed by mountainous reliefs and narrows valleys and coasts; while the ethnic states are more easily located in the open northern regions.
Then, the peripherical nature of the Helladic peninsula for most of its formative period : chiefdoms (simple or complex)* tend to appear at the periphery of already established ensemble. For exemple, Barbarian kingdoms along the Danube, Slavic principalties along Carolingian and Ottonian marches, Nubian states south of Egypt, all trough a complex relationship involving tributes and subsides, trade and mercenariship, etc.
Greek polities appearing when big Near-East ensembles as Egypt, Hittites, etc. were already powers, they first appeared as distinct entities.

You'd ask me : how come they never really unified? Well, they did try, in several periods : all the Vth and IVth centuries can be described as a struggle for hegemony in the southern Helladic peninsula. But some factors such relief, reliance on maritime and coastal features, presence of strong imperial powers (as Persi, which settled the political situation in Greece for centuries) and cultural tropes (basically, the formative period of Greek states in the south ended up with a strong identification to the polis model) played fully.

@Fabius Maximus and @dandan_noodles provided other valuable elements too.

*to use the archeological/anthropological definition

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

That's an incredibly outdated view, looking like a revamp of quasi-marxist "oriental despotism" to be honest.

TIL that Marx was one of the proponents for oriental despotism theory. That is quite ironic.

 

[LSCatilina]

TIL that Marx was one of the proponents for oriental despotism theory. That is quite ironic.

I'm a marxist and even I find this part of his historical theories barely worth mention. I specified quasi-marxist because Marx had at least the pretention to pull a class analysis on this, not just go full cultural as a good part of contemporary or even current tenents of this theory.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Edit: btw, love timelines where Trajan fixs the mistake of Hadrian. Keep up the good work Washington!

I might soon come up with another TL on another Roman subject.

That's an incredibly outdated view, looking like a revamp of quasi-marxist "oriental despotism" to be honest.

Not saying that, but it's a matter of fact that an influential culture of democracy emerged in Athens whereas Persia and other oriental (since they are east of Greece) states nearly always prefered some form of monarchy, at least in classical times. That's a reality and my question you all helped me to answer was that why Greece lacked such a monarchy.

I'm a marxist and even I find this part of his historical theories barely worth mention. I specified quasi-marxist because Marx had at least the pretention to pull a class analysis on this, not just go full cultural as a good part of contemporary or even current tenents of this theory.

Marx didn't really bother to explain what happened in ancient times, and if he did, his explanations were flawed.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

Chalking up the geographical size of polities to the government type seems irrational to me. The constitutional monarchy of the British Empire owned more land than the "oriental despotic" Mongols. The theocratic Papal States were smaller than the First French Republic. Despotism does not affect the size of nations. People can be coerced to fight for the monarch, or for their own well-being. Often times its hard to say which one is more fearsome. While empires last longer by being benevolent towards their largest population areas, a harsh ruler could rule a vast space for his lifetime. The size and number of the Greek polities is due to the geography. Human factors make human results. Natural borders make political borders. If you go against the natural border, bad things happen. (See much of post-colonial Middle East and Africa for proof).

To expand upon the question, I believe Greece's preeminence in philosophy, science, art, and drama is because of where they are located. The trade between the east and west encourages the spread of ideas, and the plentiful coastline sites for harbors make trade plentiful particurlarly in Greece. These ideas spread then to Sicily, and from there up into Italy. Rome happens.... and the ideas are suddenly across thousands of miles.

And that is how trade in the 8th (?) century BCE and later caused the spread of Greco-Roman ideology and learning around most of the world.

 

[Faeelin]

Chalking up the geographical size of polities to the government type seems irrational to me. The constitutional monarchy of the British Empire owned more land than the "oriental despotic" Mongols.

Umm. I don't think constitutional monarchy is the accurate description of how the British Raj was ruled.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

@Faeelin true. However, most of the empire was ruled constitutionally. Parliament's authority held/holds the monarch to the constitution/their wishes even to day. Therefore, they are clearly not entirely despotic. English/British despotism had died by the first Prime Minister, Horace Walpole.