Dumbing Down

President Camacho · Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:12 pm

Although the Persians under the Achaemenid Empire were more powerful and wealthier than the Ancient Greeks, the Greeks thought of Persians as a slave race. Why?

I asked myself the questions:

If a person is wealthier than a free man, is the wealthier person living a better life?
What is a free man?
Does freedom have costs associated with it?
Why is freedom more attractive than being subjected to rule if you are ruled wisely and prosper from it?
What are the long term effects of being ruled vs. participating in rule on people and, to a far lesser degree of emphasis, society?

I was hoping to get some opinions as I've developed my answers. I'll keep my thoughts to myself so that they don't influence you're own decision making and I suggest that you don't read anyone's answer until you've formed your own opinion and submitted it.

Robert Tulip · Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:08 am


	President Camacho wrote: Although the Persians under the Achaemenid Empire were more powerful and wealthier than the Ancient Greeks, the Greeks thought of Persians as a slave race. Why?

Wikipedia has a good page on the Achaemenid Empire at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire. I suspect that Greek views were formed by the wars of Marathon and Thermopylae, with quite a dose of propaganda. Alexander was a warrior king, and such conquerors do tend to regard the conquered with contempt. Freedom to kill people looks more fun from the war angle than stable peace.


	Quote: I asked myself the questions: If a person is wealthier than a free man, is the wealthier person living a better life? What is a free man?

By and large wealth is a good measure of freedom. The Greeks were regimented by their military. For them to claim they were more free than the Persians is mainly a statement that they had power to conquer.


	Quote: Does freedom have costs associated with it?

Of course. The Greek freedom to kill and conquer brought the costs of pathology and psychological damage. Hegel said freedom is the recognition of necessity. Such a binding to fate is unattractive to those who see liberty as personal freedom from constraint. We are free to do good and evil. Doing good brings benefits but doing evil brings costs.


	Quote: Why is freedom more attractive than being subjected to rule if you are ruled wisely and prosper from it? What are the long term effects of being ruled vs. participating in rule on people and, to a far lesser degree of emphasis, society?

Not being subject to rule is a definition of anarchy. It does not work. Freedom is about accepting good rules. Soldiers who participate in an oppressive regime are hardly free. They carry the risk of revenge because they can never acquire trust and loyalty to be able to walk freely in a conquered land without watching their back.


	Quote: I was hoping to get some opinions as I've developed my answers. I'll keep my thoughts to myself so that they don't influence you're own decision making and I suggest that you don't read anyone's answer until you've formed your own opinion and submitted it.

Thanks Camacho, interesting.

Vallhall · Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:33 am


	President Camacho wrote: Although the Persians under the Achaemenid Empire were more powerful and wealthier than the Ancient Greeks, the Greeks thought of Persians as a slave race. Why?

Euripides comments on Persians in Helen that they "are all slaves, except one" — the Great King. When such a vast and mighty empire like the Persian, was under rule of one man worshiped as a divinity, the difference in social structure between the Greeks and Persians naturally influence their perception of each other. In relation the Greeks defined people outside Greek society in general as barbarians, although present understanding of the concept barbarian have added attributes beyond just being "not Greek".

Aristotle develops the concept of "natural slavery" in his work Politics, where amongst his claims we can find this ;"for he that can foresee with his mind is naturally ruler and naturally master". Aristotle argues also that "natural slavery" depends on ruler or owner of slaves being someone representing the superior.

With a frame of mind along the lines mentioned, the Greeks who perceived themselves as superior in general, would regard its counterpart ruled by one man as a submissive people.

In other words, the Greek attitude was related to matters other than reflections about the might and wealth of the Persian empire. It came from comparing the social systemic differences in the two societies.

President Camacho · Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:33 am

There are some very obvious problems with my initial post that I wish I had not included. My intro, for one, as well as leading questions, spelling errors, etc. I appreciate the responses and I'm happy the errors didn't detract toooo much from your opinions regarding some issues that I intended to solicit. I'll have to work on being more specific.

To clarify a little. When I referred to the Achaemenid Empire and Ancient Greece I had roughly the 5th century in mind. The events of Marathon and Thermopylae would have been applicable here but Alexander III's conquests would not. This shouldn't affect RT's argument very much as the Persian defeats at Marathon, Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale all happened within this time frame. You can include Thermopylae in there, if you like, as it deserves to be because of the casualties inflicted on the Persian forces by a considerably smaller hoplite army of allied Greek warriors lead by the Spartans.

RT suggests that a portion of the Greek view of Free Man vs. Slave was formed by the Greeks through victories of war. That's what I get from:


	Quote: I suspect that Greek views were formed by the wars of Marathon and Thermopylae, with quite a dose of propaganda. Alexander was a warrior king, and such conquerors do tend to regard the conquered with contempt. Freedom to kill people looks more fun from the war angle than stable peace.

I have to somewhat support that claim as I feel the Greeks thought that victory was good and that whoever won was therefore more virtuous. They were very much might makes right... to a degree. Hubris was a favorite theme of Ancient Greek plays and Xerxes was definitely the definition, in Greek eyes, of this type of tragedy personified. To tie back in with RT's comment, and in keeping with Socratic thought, to be a slave is bad and to be free good. Therefore, if the Greeks were more virtuous they deserved to be free, while the Persians deserved to be slaves. ...this is a bit of a stretch...

To say that the Persian defeats would cause the Greeks to look at them as a race of slaves is unreasonable, though. The thought of Persians as slaves stemmed more from their chosen government than from their defeats in battle. Prostrating yourself in front of a ruling king is something you don't find in Greece. When two Spartans went to give their lives in retribution for the killing of the Great King's heralds they were appalled when they were asked to do so... they were there to die, not to dishonor themselves. That Persians did this was inconceivable and one of the reasons that, I feel, the Greeks thought of them as natural slaves. I also feel this was a major point of contention in the Macedonian forces under Alexander when he began to want the same treatment.

See where I'm going with my post? Does certain behavior, once engrained in a society, produce a different creature. Does it produce a creature of servitude?


	Quote: For them to claim they were more free than the Persians is mainly a statement that they had power to conquer.

Again, I have to partially agree. That is was 'mainly' the claim on freedom is to overlook a self-sustaining Greek polis which shares rule through democratic principles and avoids being conquered.

To needle... to conquer doesn't mean anything if you are in turn conquered. Greeks would conquer and enslave other Greeks but they did not consider them natural slaves as they considered the Persians.

I have to go but I'll write more later. I feel like my initial post was horrible and this post has got way off topic.

You talk of anarchy and say that wealth is a good measure of freedom. Does this mean that the wealthier you are, the more anarchy you can afford? Does having wealth allow a person to escape the law or operate more freely inside of the law or both?

President Camacho · Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:58 am

When I speak of freedom in my first post, although I've failed to clarify, I mean of relative freedom within a social contract/within society. I'm talking in reference to societies and not as in a State of Nature or total anarchy.

"Freedom is about accepting good rules." I totally agree with this. What are good rules? Do rules we agree to have an effect on us as far as our aggressiveness, physical build, mental ability... etc.?


	Quote: With a frame of mind along the lines mentioned, the Greeks who perceived themselves as superior in general, would regard its counterpart ruled by one man as a submissive people. In other words, the Greek attitude was related to matters other than reflections about the might and wealth of the Persian empire. It came from comparing the social systemic differences in the two societies.

This is the direction I'm heading in.

How about another question... just forget about all the rest. This is my new question. I feel the answer to it will largely reflect what I'd really like to know regarding governments and freedom.

What long term effects will be shown in people who work for Wal-Mart vs. people who are forced to run their own businesses?

President Camacho · Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:31 am

I just want to throw this out there for those that think the Greeks were in anyway more powerful than the combined forces of the Persians.

The burning of Athens, what Xerxes set out to do, was done - twice. The resubjection of Greek Ionia after the revolution, was done. If Greece was a source of wealth, you better believe that Xerxes would have stayed there and world history may have been very different. Greece was poor and backward to the Great King and he had no real advantage to risk a costly war against a formidable and extremely well armed and trained foe.

It's the same with the Persian attempt to conquer the Scythians in my opinion - stupid. Why did Alexander get so far? He was conquering wealthy nations that were prime for conquest. They all had more wealth than poor little Macedonia had (Macedonia was a freaking ghetto compared to Anatolia). That he didn't continue far east - if he lived - would have been proven by the increasingly negative returns he would have encountered. There would be no more Babylonia, no more Sardis, no more Susa. He would have met increasingly poor, increasingly more warlike, and uncivilized scattered forces. He would have run out of money and so would have lost his army. Conquering nations which provided wealth is smart. This is why Ionia/Anatolia was conquered time and time again all throughout history. From Persia to Rome and on and on Anatolia was conquered and the conquering nation prospered for a brief period. Conquering nations and people which don't provide wealth is bad business. Even warring against constantly invading peoples can be so costly as to cause the downfall of a society.

When we talk of Greece, we talk of little individual city-states that the Persians played against one another. How did the Spartans win? Persian money plain and simple. The Persian strategy was sound. They just didn't count on Macedonia... no one really did. By the time Macedonia came up - everyone else was so depleted from warring and spending that it left conquest a LOT easier.

gotta go

Forum rules

Dumbing Down Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!