Thank you for watching! If you want to support us, consider becoming a Channel Member by clicking the Join button next to the channel name. Or visit our Patreon... Thank you! -WG
Excellent video, these bronzes are perhaps my favorite, they are so beautifully strong that they scared me a little when I first saw them, absolutely in a good way! I think of them as the Marathon men that are referenced by later Greeks. Skoal.
However right your argument may be in most things, your use of the Melian dialogue to support it is wrong. The very fact that the Athenians had to _clarify_ to the Melians at all that they would not respect any moral conventions above the level of pure "might makes right", and more on the level of a casus belli justified "because of the wrong that you have done us", is enough to establish that the Greek world had morals which were not simply "might makes right", and that the mighty Athenians were breaking them. That the Athenians had to explain themselves at all to their soon-to-be victims, that there was any confusion on the Melians' part of this supposedly well-known convention of Greek morality, should tell you something. Athenian conduct in this matter is in line with that of mighty nations in all eras down to the present day, and the fact that they (like all mighty nations after them) had to insist that they were above the rules that those nations lived by is the very proof of those rules' incompatibility with their actions, which would not be the case in a simple "might makes right" morality.
In fact, 'Plato', is a nickname for 'the broad one'. Because he was a celebrated wrestler in his youth, with broad shoulders and sternum. Yet another occasion in which an intellectual was celebrated for his valor in combat. That been said, it is important to take into account the context. If Greece hadn't been trained in violence sufficiently, we would probably not talk about it today - it would have fallen to the first attempted invasion. By the same token, one could make the argument that 'Ancient Greece was a lot more sexist or less democratic or... than you think'. By today's standards, all these characterisations would be true. But ignoring the context of the times, they would also be misleading.
Sexist or less democratic? Is this all u care about, no one ever believed or believes in the garbage values the west adopt today since dawn of human all empires acted the same, men and violence matter the most.
All of human history has been violent. It's strange that we would look back on ancient people's and call them violent when we modern people have 2 world wars and the holocaust just about in living memory...
@@MattyRlufc The video is nonsense. Many tombstones from 'canonical' writers, as Aeschylus and Thucydides, were later memory sites for their names, similar to tombstone to legendary heroes. Even it was a legit tomb, of course Aeschylus would mention the war which he fought and wrote about in his dramas, that was a humble and citizen way of evoking his poetry without actually mentioning it. And Thucydides wrote the Melian Dialogue, which is a unique peace in his work, to criticize the brutality of the Athenians against them. He was denouncing that Athenian policy was about power.
@@rumplstiltztinkersteinin a sense it does though because it reflects the modern world’s value of sexuality above other virtue in a similar way to the Greek value on war. Just like the playwright is only remembered for his war achievements the scout is only remembered for his sexual achievements ignoring the achievements in war or other areas of life
To equate the warrior status with only violence and war seems modernist deconstruction. To ancient people, including Greeks, a warrior had a spiritual, ethical and moral side just as much as skill at arms, completely omitted in your video. The inscription on Aeschylus tombstone is a description of his character through recognizing his status as warrior, in the minds of his contemporaries, if he were to be described as a great playwright, it would mean little to describing his character. You see violence only or focus on violence only because your lens is myopic.
A good point. The Spartans who were the most militaristic were thought to be tough but had strict codes of behaviour. There is an anecdote of the Spartans being the only ones who would give up their seats for elders at athletic events
moralizing conquest.... that's an interesting concept. spirituality, ethics and morality within the context of killing others to take their stuff seems like praising how well hung the paintings were on the Titanic. while true, does it improve the design of the ship such that it didnt sink? we get what we put out into the world and the Greeks were crushed by the Macedonians in the end....their ethics, etc didnt prevent that end.
@@john-ic5pz I don't know if you could pick a more inaccurate metaphor or move the goalpost more. I understand you are ignorant about such a thing as metaphysics of war, but maybe you could be convinced that there is a difference between a murderer and a warrior killing someone on the field of battle. If you can't be convinced, there's nothing to discuss since you are stuck on the modernist deconstruction mindset.
@@d0ubtingThom4s You are one of those guys who think being pointed at a lapse of knowledge in a particular subject is a personal attack... Good luck with life.
WG, have you heard the quote that goes something like: “of the three great tragedians, Aeschylus was in the battle of marathon, Sophocles was old enough to watch the parade, and Euripides was born that day.”
Aeschylus was a hero at the battle of Salamis, Sophocles was old enough to witness it and feel the patriotism as a result of the victory, while Euripides was born on the day of the battle. from a google search
I'm not sure the example of Aeschylus' epitaph is that revealing; if his soldiering was in some brief clash over farmland with another Greek state, would it have been remembered so prominently on his grave? Might it not be very important that it was Marathon, where "Greece was saved" from foreign invasion by a mighty empire, and not any other battle?
For modern context consider The Persian/ Greek war as WW2 . The battle of Thermopylae would be the equivalent of storming the beaches at Normandy . That achievement would most likely supersede any other achievements one may or may not had accomplished there after. Especially within the context of a war like society like the Greeks (or Murica)
The Battle of Marathon symbolized the defence of European civilization against the invading forces of Asia. So, yah, even today, his participation in the Battle of Marathon was more important. Moreover, his plays were significant because it documents things that happened during that war. Additionally, that Battle was physically very taxing on the soldiers. We call it's a "Marathon" today for a run, because he would have fought one battle, and then ran a marathon to fight another one. Compared to writing some plays, I'd say that's more significant. Just my opinion.
Exactly, his position was not seen as just a soldier in a regular war. He participated in an event that we continue to create stories of. Of course it was worth putting on his grave stone, pro war or not.
When we say the ancient Greeks, we're often refering to Athens. There were hundreds of different Greek city States but this seems to get overlooked. Nobody says the "ancient Latins" or the ancient Italians; they say Rome.
No, not really. When people say Ancient Greece, they really mean Greece and Greek colonies, not just Athens. The Ancient Greeks shared similar values and culture, and even though Athens was the intellectual center one could name a hundred thinkers and intellectuals who weren't born there. To name just mathematicians, Euclid was from Alexandria, Archimedes from Syracusa and Pythagoras was from Samos.
He rejected it, but nevertheless the representative of the ideology in Gorgias (Callicles) is the only one in any of his writings to not only fully challenge Socrates; but even remain unrefuted. Socrates has to use the most semantic, "far out" logic at his disposal to even provide a rebuttal against Callicles, who himself isn't even a philosopher; he's an up-and-coming Athenian politician who recognizes the reality of the world. An ambitious Type A personality; the exact opposite of Socrates and his peers.
Aristotle, a philosopher for his legendary theory on virtue ethics was a mentor to Alexander the Great. Virtue in the Roman sense (Virtus) was tied to the Roman vir, meaning man. Practicing Virtue was practicing Manliness, Courage, Strength, Greatness in spirit. Pursuing wealth, pleasure, fame without regard for virtue made you small-souled.
Alexander was the next philosopher in my opinion and his actions ensured the modern world would have the teachings of all the Classic stoics/ philosophers. Without Alexander, Greece is a backwater kingdom, not even greater than the pre Bronze age collapse Myceneans who built arguably better cities than the post Collapse Greeks.
Hello, great video! Just a comment on Plato's view of war: Plato's final book, The Laws, might show a shift from the Republic in his attitude to war. From the outset the 'Athenian Stranger' dialogues with a Spartan and a Cretan about how the state should be organised. Plato argues, contrary to the other two men, that the state should not be organised with the 'view to war' but rather to developing loyalty and affection between the citizens. In fact Plato claims that Lycurgus and Minos did not build their states with the view to war but to public virtue. It's interesting that this critique of the war-centric mindset is the first point discussed in the book and Plato also indicates that the virtues that can be displayed in war are limited and depend on the nature of the war and who is fighting it.
There is one phrase in Perikles ' Funeral Oration, as documented by Thucydides, that depicts this notion precisely : φιλοκαλοῦμέν τε γὰρ μετ' εὐτελείας καὶ φιλοσοφοῦμεν ἄνευ μαλακίας our love for what is beautiful, does not lead to extravagance, our love of philosophy does not make us soft.
Excellent video. As a Spanish I have always been impressed by the cult of violence and audacity in the ancient mediterranean, from east to west. Tauromaquia (bull fighting) for example is just a remmant of old mediterranean traditions.
If you keep stealing from the same shopkeeper, or if basically everyone steals, then eventually the shop is going to close. Or they’ll hire security to increase the chance that you’re caught. That’s what is happening in America right now; stores are just pulling out of cities with high crime rates, and the ones that are staying are putting more merchandise behind glass and hiring more security.
The whole world was a violent place. You had to be violent, to survive. Go a little further than that, and it was downright deadly. It's nothing short of a miracle that we've made it this far as a species.
The modern world is much more violent, it's just that people in First world countries live comfortably and are ignorant (sometimes willfully) of the strife and suffering that goes on in Africa, Mexico, Central Asia, etc. We have nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons, napalm, ICBM, etc. and we have forgotten that more than 50 million people died in WW2 and that most of Europe was in ruins. So I don't see how we are less violent than people in antiquity or the Middle ages, we are simply ignorant.
Some men are simply devils. And they've driven history. So when it comes to human nature you're correct. But when it comes to the world we live in? The devils have normally won, whichever side wins.
@@lukecash3500 It is natural. Nature is barbarous, there is no good and evil, no “virtue”, “morals”, or “ethics” in nature. You don’t have to “like it”, it is a fact whether you choose to like it or not. It is not an ideal state of affairs but that is reality and we must choose to orient ourselves around this fact or perish.
@@monkeymoment6478 Agree with the barbarism? Partake of it? Look I'm somewhat of a Nihilist and Absurdist. So I thoroughly appreciate what you guys are saying. But resigning to Callicles' ethics is no great truth. Ethics is concerned with how things should be, not how they are. Humans are ignorant, violent, capricious savages. This does not mean it is good for them or society to accept this.
I listen to 14 minutes of buildups painting the Greeks as very violent society. Even notice words as uncivilised be used about the status of Greek society. That last bit is completely wrong! Definitely not how the Greeks looked at themselves. The fact that violence was much more up in the face of politicians back in ancient Athens than now should be no surprise. That piracy and uncivilised societies was surrounding the Greeks was a big part of what Homer (and Herodotus) wrote about. Because of this fear for violence and barbarians the Greeks spent very much time on discussion what was good manners, ethics and how to avoid violence and war. Platon as you try to paint here as a supporter of violence, was very clear about how power struggle makes war or internal conflicts. He spent much of his philosophy describing what leads to these things. Fx if a city expands its borders. Can you please ask yourself. Why do people want to rewrite the Greek philosophy? 🤷🏻♂️ Maybe because the issues the Greeks discussed is a constant conflict in society? 🤷🏻♂️ The Greeks found a way to describe the difference between barbarians and civilised. You can’t do that as a uncivilised society.
@@kenneth9874 They did not look at themselves as uncivilised. They did not seek war. The first text in the Greek written language was Homer’s songs. All about how to behave as a man (and later as a woman) to avoid conflicts and how to stay honorable if a war was to be. (Even pointing out how stupid reasons was made for going into a war.) A first look into how oral tradition used stories to educate the people and make a strong civilised culture. Fx pointing out that total irrational anger like Achilles had in war was not how “gentlemen” fight. Even if you was the best, most famous and a god figure. But sure it was a lot of power struggle in Ancient Greece. (Btw not hiding the facts like the ongoing Ukrainian war now, was probably more civilised than us today.)
@@kenneth9874 yes, or the first text we know of. That in fact likely can be the first essential at least, because it was so important! (So that some scholars actually believe the alphabet was made for writing down those stories.) Anyway we can only speculate in what was actually first, but it is a reason some text survive and others don’t. Some interpret Homer as a celebration for war. But if you read it, you soon enough noticed his focus wasn’t war, but behaviour, craftsmanship, socialising, interaction between humans (and non humans. And pleasing for those wanting to read/hear about blood too.) #intellectual mind blowing explanations. It could be that is half of the genius brilliance with those stories. Is that how you interpret them is telling of who you are. What time you’re in. It can therefore also be acceptable for different worldview, different times, different cultures and different interpretations. I think people back then noticed how their community reacted and what the different people saw in the story when it was only oral tradition. What it did with the awareness in social groups. Because it probably was making changes in the form of how discussions was going on. I believe this was a "big hit" even before being written down. A reminder of what power struggle, ego and the (Trojan) war did to society. That in a war you can lose everything, even the gods did. And it was relevant because humanity at this time had been struggling with periods of war for thousands of years already. But also been in long periods with peace.
As a Greek i am really proud about the history of our people and i love reading and learning about it, i just wish that more would do the same, and that we maybe could manage to live up to our ancestors name at some point again
I’m not a Greek, but I totally agree with you on that. If I could have all the time in the world, all I would probably do is read and reread Ancient Greek authors. That’s something only a few nowadays do. Glad I’m not the only one!
*Good video, but in the spirit of the topic I think it was misleading to refer to the democratic age of Hellenic Greek as "a golden age". Especially when all the great contemporary Hellenic thinkers of that time all spoke about how democracy was a terrible system and how this was a serious sign of decline, and how they expected to see Greece would fall if there wasn't a serious reform of the culture back to what it was when the city states were first founded. Which was what we today would call a military dictatorship. And then about a century later Athens did actually fall to a much more militaristic Greek power, Macedon. Famously Socrates was a huge critic of democracy and it was by a democratic vote that he was sentenced to death so in the end his death actually proved his argument*
The "golden age" of Athens is a historical period widely used and accepted, it's not his own choice. And an age where people complained about having democracy is surely more golden than an age where they didn't have democracy at all.
@@georgekosko5124 The Golden Age of Athens was when Athens created their empire, by subjugating the other Greeks city states via the Delian League. The democratic elements which did or did not exist in Athens at the time aren't really relevant for this title, but American academia has muddied the waters by trying to retroactively associate democracy with Ancient Greece And no, democracy sucks. The Greek City states, and Rome for that matter, achieved their greatness when they were explicitly and intentionally anti-democractic. The Middle Ages also were only able to pull themselves out of the Dark Ages by being anti-democractic. Democracy has also taken Renaissance Europe from one of humanity's greatest cultures, and degraded it to an unsightly failure of modernity. Democracy is the worst system possible, at any time in history
Have you ever met someone who found Nietzsche and went from a friendly, good natured person to total a-hole and then messed up their life and died young as a result. I have.
@@yunsemree can't give you definite reason. but there are many. The Nazis used to use Nietzsche's philosophy as pretext for their actions. And then there are these Hollywood movies/books/articles misrepresent what his books said. Another reason is that his books are written in a vague, open for many interpretations. And oh that popular phrase "god is dead".
The morality didn't change at all. Just the world got bigger. The size of the sandbox got bigger and thus a lot of people are not exposed to the heat. Nevertheless, in this world, a few flourishes in the expense of many many many others. Without all these child labor, money laundering, lack of labor protection in the 3rd world, all the expensive consumerist life of the 1st world will simply fail to exist. To this day - "The Strong Do What They Can And The Weak Suffer What They Must." Doesn't matter if the myopic 1st world duellers just unware of it just as they are unware of the violence of the then Greek society.
Imagine yourself in the prime of your youth fighting for your land against an impossibly powerful empire that is set to conquer you and not only you win but you somehow absolutely destroy them in battle. Of course it's gonna be the most important moment of your life. Like winning the world cup and multiply the feeling x 100.
A man’s character assimilates to the conditions and likewise the conditions around him influence his nature to the level of his fortunes. The choices and actions of human beings throughout history always display a conflict arising out of fear and ambition - a longing for power, a crude type of power. Human nature is governed by greed and ambition, violence and fear, and the lust or love for power. Furthermore, this human nature is generally the same in all people and through all events. The unpleasant changes of circumstances of fortune do not alter that human nature, they merely determine how much of it is revealed, and what degree of force it exerts upon human action. Moral conventions that compel people to moderation and passivity are artificial, conditional measures. History shows that all moral conventions of law and justice are artificial and contingent. The standards and conventions of civil society are cast aside when times are difficult. So long as conditions are generally dangerous and insecure, violence is common. Moral conventions have no independent validity and existence, and are instead contingent on security and prosperity. In the absence of security that allows for morality, fear and self-interest determine everything. Morality is removed by the strain of real events. In times of peace men can afford the luxury of moral/virtuous sentiments, but war brings most men’s character down to the level of their misfortunes. In times of war, sharp moral distinctions cannot be so easily drawn between two adversaries, positions cannot be so easily assessed in such black and white terms, there exist many gray areas when it comes to deciding what is just and unjust, there are no clear distinctions on good and bad because moral opposites cannot be so easily distinguished in times of war. It is not about right or wrong of the moral opinions that combatants bring into a war; it is about what war does to morality and the human condition. War reveals that all moral values are constructs of human beings and that morals are conditional to the safety and security of the people that make them. Conventions that bind the city together in orderly operation in regular circumstances are torn apart, since their force and validity had always been contingent on the relative security and prosperity of the people who followed them. With these moderating factors removed, the artificiality and fragility of the laws become apparent, and they are quickly overturned. Morality is provincial and applies only to a certain period of time; morality is simply geography misconstrued. This is because moral systems have always been relative to the culture, the historic period, and the social class that produced them. Different cultures express different moral codes of conduct at different times. Obedience to certain laws and certain times is called ‘justice’, irrespective of the type of government. The institution of justice is simply a cynical cover for superior force. Rulers think only of how to exploit their subjects, in the same way that a shepherd thinks only of the benefit that his flock will bring. Any care that either shepherd or ruler might provide is intended solely as a means to increase their power or profit. Rulers use this word ‘justice’ only to hide their pursuit of their own advantage.
And you wonder why women think men are stupid. Give us children so you can raise them to be killed or killers. Resource management is complicated but it doesn't have to be done through force, natural disasters, disease, famine notwithstanding.
Yes. The Greeks considered politically organized violence a necessity in some situations. No. They did not belong to a society that only worshiped violence. This is so true that cities at war declared the cessation of hostilities in order to participate in the Olympic Games.
You're not correct about the Melian dialogue. Later in the dialogue the Athenians make clear that Melian neutrality is a threat to them because their neutrality would be a signal to other colonies of Athens' weakness. So Athens conquers Melos not merely because they can, but because they fear losing their empire to rebellions.
As Orson Welles's character, Harry Lime, says in the 1949 movie "The Third Man": "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.” Still, I'd rather have democracy and peace.
My thoughts entirely. But of course Harry Lime was a piece of work. A villain who betrayed all his friends and sacrificed everyone who stood in the way of his personal gain. Welles, who apparently improvised Lime's brilliantly memorable and wholly amoral sermon, was also acting in character and presumably not endorsing this opinion.
The deeper question here is 'what proof is there that violence produces great art?' Was Sparta not violent? Yet, it did not flower as Athens did. This whole argument is facile and the product of lazy thinking. Perhaps the difference in artistic production between Italy and Switzerland was the result of systems of patronage, rather than the stimulating effect on the arts of violence?
@@dutchhistoricalactingcolle5883 I agree with you. Ancient Rome was violent, under both the empire and the republic, but their art was mostly copies of Greek originals. Germany under Hitler was violent, and the art produced during that time is laughably bombastic.
I am not surprised by any of this. Just looking at their pantheon tells you that war was a vital aspect of their society with their deity, Ares, being so important. Also, Athena being both the Goddess of War and Wisdom also speaks to the importance of war being as high as wisdom.
Aeschylus tombstone had this written on it for sure, but that battle was a turning point in the history of athens, the result allowed her to take dominance of a large part of the hellenic world, would the tombstone still write about his participation in a battle over his profession if the battle he was of was smaller scale and took place in an unknown farmland as another commenter posted? Maybe but im not sure. I agree that the greeks were tough and battle oriented but did so for means of survival, they valued peace above all as they aimed for it and you can arrive to this conclusion from their dislike of ares the god of war, whom the warlike thracians and spartans celebrated more(if this is true). They viewed war as a means to retain their freedom and geopolitical safety. Even the greeks that did not have the military education of sparta stood toe to toe against them which proves that for the most part they were fierce in battle and trained from a young age. They often quoted homer whom they considered their undisputed grandfather, and if you read the heliad, its filled with scenes of duels, slaughter and violence, spears separating spines, rocks smashing heads etc. So for sure they never turned their gaze from war and battle and were raised to it, but I would only call them warlike out of necessity. The most valued sport was pancration (in some cities they destroyed a part of the wall to receive the new champion, which meant that they would no longer need a wall with such a strong man) and each sport in the olympiad had its practical purposes in battle (except the disk throwing maybe?). So if you think of a warlike culture like the vikings, when they died they believed they went to valhala to fight again, the greeks went to the elysium fields where it was peaceful, Summing up I think the greeks realized the cold yet beautiful reality of this world and managed to sustain a balance between the carnal and the spiritual. Through their homeric tradition they raised great warriors and were always prepared to kill and enslave, but did so not for pleasure but for the sake of glory and freedom that resulted from victory, so they could leisurely focus on the matters of the mind and soul, but above philosophers or artists or poets or sculptors I think they valued warriors the most for sure, I mean look at their heroes.
Well, Sparta ended up conquering Athens. And then sold the Athenians out to the Persians. The Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great (and both Xerxes and Darius decendents) was not actually such a violent place. Maybe that's why they consistently lost to the Greeks, and ultimately to Alexander.
I kinda disagree with violence being central. Just because violence was a necessity for thriving, doesn’t mean it was a value or something more important than the true the good or the beautiful. Also there’s more to physical fitness and perfection than merely for offensive sake
please please please do not overgeneralize a incredibly complex topic such as ancient Greece. You are deliberatly picking violent aspects of greek society (sometimes disconnected from each other) and painting a picture coherent to your narrative. Sparta was indeed a very violent society. It enslaved it´s neighbors and had a select group of citizens, forming a marshal elite, exploiting everyone else. However there were a multitude of other City States. All of them being violent to diffrent degrees. In Athens itself there were many diffrent factions, some being warhawkish, others being pro peace. Of course at times the warhawk faction (like in the peleponesian war cleon´s Faction took power), but there were also instances, where leniancy prevailed (like when the Lesbians revolted against Athens, it was decided not to raise the city to the ground). I could give a million diffrent examples about how ancient greek civilization was indeed multifaceted and very complex and not just violent only perse. Any other civilization in History, heck even modern civilization goes to war frequently and comits horrible acts against humanity (look at Ukraine). In every time in History cities were raised and many times no ritious justification was given by the purpetrators. Did the Mongols have a good reason to raise Bagdad and to kill all it´s Inhabitants? Did the British have a good reason to take over India? Was there a moraly sound reason to start the opium wars? Did the French King feel ritous about supporting the enemies of his own faith in the 30 years war....? (I could go on endlessly) Might is right menatlity, overall violence has been part of any human civilization, even in today. History as well as the present however is not violent and dictated by creed and lust for power only. The world is a complex dynamic place. When trying to understand it we shall be as specific as possible and not let our own narratives blind us!
What if we made children observe a bunch of abstractions that also "build" other abstractions, like building community, community buidling, building community building, building building, community community, empathy bonds building action, community action, action building....
Oh, rubbish! ….Marathon was THE battle to Greeks-facing an overwhelming force, its fate balancing on the head of a needle-ANY man who participated WAS a “hero” in Greek eyes….WHY would Aeschylus, therefore, prefer being known as what was considered an “entertainer,” instead of one of the saviors of his country & countrymen?….
A click bait title. Who said ancient Greece was or wasn't violent? makes no sense. you invent some controversial issue and then create a video to "debunk" it. again, who told you "most people" associate Greece with togas and philosophy? that's a straw man argument. we know ancient Greece, and their constant state of war.
You missed the point here. It is not about showing how really violence Greek society was (we know it was as you say) but how it accomodated a high culture at the same time, which seems today incompatible as we see the progress of civilization linked with cultural progress
@@nicolasbeaud8685 "which seems today incompatible" Varies which ideological circles one frequents. On left it's contradictory, on the right is absolutely natural.
Totally disagree with point about violence and Christianity. The Christian era, if anything was marked by more violence than the ancient world. Contra Neitzche, a post Christian era need not return (rather continue use of violence to resolve human conflict). The growth of cosmopolitanism, global citizenship, and rule of law, dating from the Stoics, is another narrative worth exploring. Neitzche might not be the prophet of the future; instead, he may be the hammer the broke the old mold.
21:38 Funny Hitchens mentions this. One passage in the bible where Jesus says "The meek shall ingerit the earth" is actually harkening back to the post-classical Greek era. In the original Greek translation of the bible, the word for meek is Praus which is a Greek word to describe a violent horse that has been calmed/tamed. It basically meant "those with strength and self control" I see this as Jesus and Christianity further emphasizing that synthesis of the violent past with a more moderate and peaceful present.
Ive always felt meek must be a mistranslation. The meek usually get screwed over everywhere in life, and anyway, being meek hardly seems like a virtue to aspire to.
“- in Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." - Graham Greene, The Third Man
Peace does indeed breed stagnation, as an Italian, I can tell you that the Renaissance was kicked off by the fall of Constantinople and the Christian refugees, a looming threat and pressure does wonders, something they cannot replicate with Put in, because they made the people disillusioned to protect their Countries, now that they’re reduced to economic zones
I'm not certain if the argument is entirely sound. How much credence do our own times really give to art? If extraterrestrial archeologists studied the twenty first centuary thousonds of years from now, they would probably conclude that we too thought very little of drama and when a poet dies, all anyone cared for is how much money he made.
Well, that seems like a pretty accurate description of our society - we measure someone's worth by their ability to accrue wealth far more than their production of thoughtful or beautiful art
I feel like this video is a big stretch. Marathon was extremely important event in the myth of "evil empire tries to take free poleis" (which was very quickly invented by Greeks of the time, not by modern people) - putting it on a grave also makes sense for pragmatic reasons. Soldiers were admired mostly for their courage and loyalty to the state (which for a citizen of a city state means something entirely different than for us). Socrates (and Plato) is not in any way a good representation of a typical ancient Greek, much less an Athenian, mindset wise, and his sympathy for Sparta was in no small way a product of his political ties (which also sheds light on true reasons why he was sentenced to death and why people were fine with it) and must be understood through political situation of Athens at the time. Sparta itself, as it appears in common consciousness - a ruthless, comically militaristic state, is a mythological invention. Thucydides was a historian first and is considered a first "geopolitical" writer by many, and as such similar views could be easily found in many modern books on politics and geopolitics
Excellent video. I'm not a scholar of ancient Greece but have read most of the popular fiction in English that has been coming out lately by Conn Igulden and others. Really enjoyed this and looking forward to more of your work.
Violence is not a necessary part of human flourishing. Human nature and the world are changing and evolving. In Ancient Greek times violence was harder to avoid, but the world has evolved and improved since then.
@@WeltgeistYT Your content is really great. I recently bought Walter Kaufmann's "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist" and am currently reading "Nietzsche: A Very Short Introduction" based on your recommendation. Thank you for making philosophy more easily understandable!
The Melian dialogue could have just as easily been spoken to the Greeks by the Persians. Like the Melians, some Greeks resisted Persia and perished, but the story we are familiar with is their successful resistance. The response to the Melian dialogue, both in the case if Melos and in the analogue of Greece vis a vis Persia is "up yours with your might-is-right, we will resist even if we are weak." Athens ended up suffering the same fate and making the same choices anyway by the end of the Peloponnesian wars. Relative weakness is still strength!
This is one of the best videos i've watched on youtube!! Really love all the literary sources used, really enhances the points you're making, and of course the way you connect it to Nietzsche. Also love your videos on Nietzsche, I've read some of his books multiple times and you don't present Nietzsche's philosophy as something that it isn't (Soft, made for the masses). Instead you always clearly highlight that Nietzsche is very HIERARCHICAL and seeks to want to affirm the natural order of men. This video does that, the pre christian, greek 'morality" was just that, the affirmation of the natural order, the strong conquer the weak because they are strong and the weak must endure because they aren't strong enough to be strong, is a rough paraphrase from genealogy der moral.
Strength is a matter of winning. I imagine poison and disease would do wonders in slaughtering people. There's a reason we don't like doing that, these days. But it's quite odd we see so much in the way of strong men winning wars, battles, but rarely their destruction at the hands of the physically weak, but mentally conniving. Such men are considered villains at worst, tricksters at best, and when such men are venerated, even they typically whitewash their own history.
It is only true that war, violence, strife, contention and conflict is the essence of existence. Heraclitus said that "War is the father of all and the king of all" He also said that everything is in flux and that the only thing that is constant is change. What we can understand from this is that all things are in a state of 'moving towards conflict' or after conflict has resolved, it moves towards a state of harmony until it moves again towards conflict. Think of a 'Newton's cradle'. As one sphere is being elevated and kinetic energy is built up in it, when it swings down and it hits the second sphere. The moment it is hit, it is in conflict. The energy will transfer through the spheres back and forth until the energy is spent and the cradle enters a state of harmony. A tree is in conflict with the earth as it grows its roots through the soil. It happens slowly but it is conflict nonetheless. Making love physically is a form of contention. It is so misguided to think that harmony is the ideal state of being. The ultimate physical state of harmony is 0 degrees Kelvin. Where everything is static, rigid and dead. The ultimate state of harmony is non existence or Nirvana. Life and all things, good or bad, happens through conflict and contention.
While you and BAP embrace a pro-Spartan and Delphic (Dionysian) weltenshaung, there are several points glossed over by you both: 1) Socrates served as a hoplite three times, Potidaea, Delium, and Amphipolis. One was military campaign was purely defensive, one was unprovoked and raw conquest, and one was a defense of a strategic ally city-state that had a treaty with Athens. In other words: Socrates, with his body, participated in all three possible types of military exercise. The other is that while the Greeks celebrated and perfected the body of the flower of youth and productive physical years, they also created a system for old men and their roles. Violence was put down, and continued social discourse amongst peers in symposium were your civic duty as a private citizen benefiting for the public order. Poetry, dialogues and plays and historical records were written by old men. It took Thycidides 20 years to write his history of the Peleponesian war, and he only could have done so with peer assent that that was the proper thing for an old man of his station to do. What am I saying to YOU? And BAP? Unless you are 60, you are a soy boy for making RU-vid videos. Go make a family of sons and conquer something. I’ll wait.
And what are you going to do if I don't? Press me into service? I think people should be able to do abstract algebra and functional programming before they are allowed to touch philosophy, does that make you angry?
@@TheRealLordRama No angrier than it makes yourself for being a p*ssy, and recognizing that fact every time you look in the mirror. Your ancestors wasted their seed upon unworthy loins to produce you.
Dear Weltgeist, I greatly admire your works and way of narrating the philosophical and historical stories with a great summary and an understandable and easy to follow argumentations. However; The extreme dramatisation and romantisation in the ways you are telling using music as a force to make your point stronger is for me stripping the intellectual value away and turns the quotes into an almost irrational and extremely emotional movie trailer. What you do should have less artistic or rhetoric effect on the viewers but rather have have a more intellectual and questioning quality. Especially the ending disturbed me to a point of me muting the sound and only reading the quote. I wish your further success and the continuation of your works. I would be very happy if you take my suggestion seriously, Thank you :)
I guess this video kind of explains why the West, the intellectual and cultural progeny of the Hellenes, has been what it was -- and STILL IS -- since three hundred years ago. With all due respect, I completely disagree with the thesis that high culture must go hand in hand with barbarity and bloodlust. India and (premodern) China were able to produce plenty of high culture without also spilling rivers of blood. Prof David Kang from the University of Southern California pointed out that from the 9th or 10th century AD onward the East Asian region enjoyed nearly a whole millennium of stability; the Thucydides trap quite simply didn't apply there at all. As for Nietzsche, I have my doubts just how seriously we can take him. He apparently never lived up to his own philosophy. It was said that he served briefly as a medical orderly in the army during the Franco-Prussian War, but the sight of blood made him so ill he had to be sent home.
@@christopherskipp1525 And if it's because of his philosophy, I think we'd have even less reason to adopt it. Who wants to live by a philosophy that will make him go bonkers?
You need to double check on the notion that the East Asian enjoyed a whole millennium of stability. Because during so many wars, invasions, dynasties changed occurred in China and India.
@@TaiNguyen-in6xy You can check out what Prof David Kang has had to say on the matter with respect to the East Asian region. There are several videos of his lectures here on RU-vid.
@@gwang3103 I'm an East Asian. And I can tell you from history that there is no peace in any whole millennium in East Asia lol. Do you know many dynasties ruled China during that millennium? It's either external invasion, or internal strife. Maybe you should change millennium to decades.
Ancient Greeks didn't have the kind of military technology that exists today. A warrior culture such as that of the Spartans or even the Athenians would today lead to universal ruin. But I suppose the earth can continue without the human species just as it has continued without the dinosaurs, the saber tooth tiger and the wooly mammoth. We must decide whether our own extinction is what we want.
Is the melian dialogue really representative of Greek morality? It seems like Thucydides is criticizing that attitude a lot of the time. He's always giving those views to people he hates like Cleon.
See also Roman histories which write speeches for Rome's enemies, like Tacitus who has the Celtic chieften Calgacus condemn the Romans for greed and says "they make a desert and call it peace".
Ancient Greece was a place of diverse ideas, we have the melian dialogs but more impactful have been the dialogs of Plato that argue justice is essential to the good life. The greeks eventually decided to follow the morality of Plato, not the morality of Athens at Melos.
The Romans wore toga', not the Hellenes. Service to the state was the highest ideal to Greeks in general and especially the Athenians. As for the play write not talking himself up regarding his personal talent, this was for others to do and would have been thought the height of Narcissism if one said this of himself. Of course violence is frowned upon today, it is not only unnecessary but would undermine the fabric of our society. These people lived at a time where every able bodied man had to be prepared to engage in hand to hand combat to ensure the survival and freedom of his family friends and community. Christianity has nothing to do with it. Greek warfare was ritualistic and focused on breaking the enemies will to fight. Atomic bombs, napalm, NAZI's, British and American imperialism and the running of war economies are far more violent and disgusting to boot.
Tom Holland makes it very clear just how different society was in the ancient days in Rome and Greece. They had very different morals. Its pretty hard to imagine how brutal it was and so different to what were used to. A tv-series like Rome or a movie like Gladiaror that was historical accurate would probable cause a real uproar among people due to the brutality sexual behaviors.
I agree but a show to truly depict the reality would be a fun and interesting watch. Though like you said people's sensibilities today would no doubt cause the show to end in failure
In all fairness, Greece and Asia Minor were situated in a geographical bottleneck that naturally leads a lot of violence and cultural exchange. This probably creates both the spread of ideas, but also a lot of warfare to avoid being conquered by your neighbors
"and what this focus on violence lays bare, what it reveals about how they viewed the world can shock the modern mind..." What shocks this modern mind is how anyone with a basic knowledge of the 20th century of two world wars, a holocaust, and two atomic bombs is shocked by the violence of ancient Greece. What an inane argument! "The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history." Eric Hobsbaum, February 22, 2002, The Guardian.
the fact that aeschylus' tombstone writes about his participation in the battle of marathon is because in those days to be a citizen with full rights you had to be able to join the city militia as a hoplite, to defend your home town. to me the fact that it only mentions him as a member of the phalanx, not even a higher officer, is the epitomy of what made those atheneans great. you can have whatever career you want , but at the very heart of everything is your ability to defend your home country when the barbarians knock at the door. note that we are not talking about the glorification of conquest or military achievement, but the very foundation of any free city-state: the ability of each individual citizen to take up the shield and spear and defend the city in times of danger. note that the generation that defended the greek mainland around 490-480 would be around 20-40 years old. this very generation would usher in the greek golden age and lead many greek cities to their best years around 480-440. only when that generation was gone and their offspring got to power you start to see the major clashes and eventual downfall of the greek city states, with neverending civil wars, plotting, corruption and persian influence. i fear that in the west the last 100 years are very similar to that time, which leads me to the question of are we the generation to bring the downfall of our society or are we about to see a renaissance after the fog of the present is lifted?
There is no immenent collapse of western civilization or culture. Short of a cataclysmic event, like an unseen asteroid striking or a super volcano erupting were fine. Now, future generations face issues of collapse due to global warming, more severe weather events, and running out of oil. Our modern society only functions because of oil, but it's also causing the destruction of our planet and is currently causing a massive extinction event where we are losing species daily.
It's so sad/funny to see people cite ancient people talking about the collapse of society and compare it to people saying the same today in order to mock them. As if every society in history besides the ones existing right now didn't collapse, often with disastrous outcomes. The people writing about how bad the young of today are aren't clueless and ignorant of history they're the only ones who noticed that when the youth start to lose values and morals society starts to collapse. It's happened literally thousands of times in history
@@nomorenames5568 It hasn't happened "thousands of times," it's happened EVERY time. Do you think it's possible that this pattern be prevented from ultimately happening inthis society? Do you think YOU will perpetually be able to take in and then burn the same calories and therefore live forever?
No, the ones that brought the downfall were at the beginning of the 20th century. It has taken over 100 years to play out. The generation that allowed themselves to be bullied into ww1 were the beginning, at least in the USA. Everything we suffer now stems from that time period. If talking about the west in general, it started when Napoleon lost at Waterloo. That was when the Rothschilds got control of the Bank of England, and it has been a road to ruin ever since. That was the seed, what you see now is the flower, and I think it more to bloom yet.
I love a bunch of grecophiles from the renaisance somehow managed to completely warp peoples view on ancient greece into this utopia of philosophy and science, really shows how easy history can be manipulated
Christianity, especially when judging by the way it implemented itself wherever it went, has proven to be not in contrast to this synthesis, but its greatest implementation.
Depends on the situation. Sometimes Violence is required for defence and protection. Good and evil exist so it's a fact. That's why Mercy and violence are required. It's the balance of nature. We can learn from the Way animals protect their families and also give tenderness and care to them. It's not a shame to learn from other creatures and follow the behaviors that suit us as humans . As long as it Will add to us And lead us to the direction that we missed. Morals brothers and sisters. Morals aren't the way we speak or pretend. Morals come out of Concepts that you made to yourselves. To shape a happy and satisfying atmosphere.
Guy being a hero for protecting his country from Persian invaders, is "violent"? Guy who wants kids educated so they are able to defend their land from future Persians, is not what is expected from "intelligent" people?
Everyone, take notice on those statues of the ideal greek soldier images. Those are the looks of the people that dedicate their lives to battle. They don't look like those gym people that look like balloons. If you see those balloon people pretending to be hard workers, you can be almost completely certain that they "cheated" their way towards that body.
@@PassionateSpirit88 And they did it all without having to step foot in a planet fitness. Roman legionaries marched in full battle dress for miles each day.
Best episode yet. You've managed to put ideas into my head I've never really considered before. The lovely irony of the civilization who considered themselves the most enlightened, turned out to be so barbaric. Is it any different today?
@Tracchofyre well said. I bet in 1,000 years from now, time travelers would look at us with the same contempt, while mobilizing the Death Star as some altruistic delusion. Rousseau argued that we've become corrupted the moment we were civilized. Thus, civilization can never become enlightened, until we move beyond humanity as Nietzsche deeply desired. We must confront our Jungian shadows and keep the beast caged. Will those mental bars hold? For how long?
It is in one major, frightening sense-compartmentalisation. The worst of todays world, and the good or even the merely average, rarely meet these days...which means the former can get away with more for far longer.
As others have pointed out, your use of Science is anachronistic. Those greeks did not have the experimental method, nor a peer review system, nor algebra (hence no formulas). So there was no Science, they had engineering. Engineering predates Science.. in other words they did not need to know the Law of Gravity to build temples. It just bothers me that we paint a false picture of that time
I am personally a very devout Christian but you'd be surprised with how much I agree with so much of what you say not because it goes against my beliefs but because it is in line with what my religion stands for, at least the parts I agree with do, I don´t see most of what you speak as an antithesis of Christianity but rather as an obvious part of it although I assume this may sound very odd for you to hear, I bring forwards the following example of many: ¨the world belongs to the meek¨ is a bit of a mistranslation from greek word ¨πραεῖς¨ or ¨praus¨ to English which is more akin to ¨tempered¨, ¨humble¨, ¨well minded¨ and that is more in line with someone who has a choice rather than someone who has no choice like the English word ¨meek¨ implies, English can be a limited language at times for certain concepts I'm sure you agree. People who are fully weak and incapable cannot be good because they really have no choice least they do an ultimate sacrifice...people who are strong and choose to be good are the ones who are truly good.
The continous goals of freedom, equality & justice are only allowed to exist within our society thanks to our ability to utilize harsh violence against those who wish us harm. This is true for any society.
I am always amazed by the fact that there is so much difference in Pre-Socratic Greece and Post-Socratic Greece. I can't disagree with Nietzsche on his writings about the ancient Greek 'Philosophers' who inverted Greek culture and Morals (Plato etc.) and the bad effects it had for the future of ancient Greece. Love your videos!
Год назад
What? No. Their ideas were absolutely essential. It wasn't them who brought down the civilization. Nor would Nietzsche agree with that.
@skeletorlikespotatoes7846you should spend a few minutes researching before you type so confidently
Год назад
@urbanlumberjack I mean I know ancient Greek and have studied extensively the works of pres Socratics and post Socratics 😊 so yeah I know what I'm talking about
Even though I am not a Christian, I strongly, vehemently, disagree with the idea that the pagan view of morality is in *any* way an improvement over the Axial Age morality that we possess today (of which Christianity was only a part; the later Hebrew prophets, the Gnostics, the Buddhists, the Daoists, the Jains, the Buddhists, and the Islamic founders were also key figures, and ironically enough, the Iranian prophet Zoroaster that Nietzsche named his book after was also of this tradition and probably would have identified Nietzsche as a servant of Angra Mainyu and the dark forces). Early civilizations were the worst places for human beings to live in all of history, hellholes of slavery, plague, war, carnage, and suffering that were worse than both the wild peoples who came before them and the Axialized peoples who came after them. Figures like Zoroaster, Siddhartha Gautama, Isaiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and Muhammad arose precisely because the morality of the ancients was unsustainable and intolerable and had to be destroyed. And thinkers of the modern era like the indigenous sages of North America who inspired the American Founding Fathers, the early left thinkers like Fourier, Marx, Kropotkin, and Luxemburg, and the modern anarchists and progressives are our only hope to stem humanity's darker tendencies further and prevent our species from destroying itself with its own technological powers. As beautiful as some of their creations were, the ancient Greeks were terrible, evil people whom we should strive to be as little like as possible.
The Athenian actions on Melos shocked the Greek world, and the Athenians very quickly regretted them, and even punished the people who had persuaded them to butcher the Melians.
How is that even a question? Of course violence has, throughout human history, been intrinsically tied to human success. A world devoid of violence has nothing to flee from...nothing to change for. At least nothing immediate. The relationship between our deep need for self preservation and the fear of sudden violence/scarcity is what drives humanity to improve and insulate. So I'd say that these statues don't so much beg the question as they do confirm the suggestion.
