Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Greek Civiliziations?

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Éomer of Rohan


    probably the best book I could recommend for an introduction to ALL of Ancient Greece would be Pamela Bradley's "Ancient Greece - Using evidence" which was required reading for A Level. It provides an introduction to the sources and a broad overview of the age of tyranny down to 323BC.

    And by god don't talk to me about the price of our books - through the frickin roof; but I still refuse to buy second hand - there is something special about a brand new ancient history book. Cheapest place to get them is generally online.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    I was doing a little research into the role of the Boule and the Ecclesia, and in Mogens Hansen's "The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology" he seems to make the same error as Éomer (i.e. making the claim that the Ecclesia cannot debate anything that hasn't passed through the Boule). He gives Aristotle's "Constitution of Athens" 45.4 as his reference. That relevant section says:
    "In these matters, then, the Boule does not have the final decision, but it holds a preliminary discussion on everything that is to come before the people, nor can the people vote on anything that has not been previously discussed by them and put on the agenda by the Prytanies. Anyone who violates this law is liable to a prosecution for an illegal proposal."
    The important part is the first three words: "In these matters,...". The matters being discussed in that section of the constitution are the Boules's power to prosecute/investigate the magistrates, and the right of appeal to the dikasterion. Aristotle is basically saying that a citizen cannot challange a magistrate before the dikasterion by by-passing the Boule. In part 43.6, while discussing the Boule and it's relationship with the Ecclesia, he says:
    "On occasions they [Ecclesia] also consider matters without a preliminary vote."

    In part 43.3 he also confirms that the Boule meet every day (except holidays), and that the Ecclesia normally only meets four times per Prytany (i.e. 40 times per year).

    Have you found any references to back up your belief that voting was mandatory in any of the institutions that were being discussed?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Éomer of Rohan


    I haven't been looking to tell you the truth but at least now I have some substantiation to the claims, like that which you turned up. It wasn't that I made a mistake!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    What I turned up was a quote that showed that the dikasterion couldn't try a magistrate until after the Boule had tried him. Both you and Hansen made a mistake by applying that rule to the Ecclesia which clearly didn't need the Boule to discuss everything first according to the same source.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭rcunning03


    i was wondering if you guys could clarify something for me a few months ago i was watching discovery channel about sex and ancient civilisations and according to greek legend a greek god created the world by *ahem* entertaining himself and when people got together they viewed it as pleasing their gods and had no inihibitions

    did i get this wrong or was i dreaming or something

    thanks

    (p.s. i make no claims about my knowledge of greek society so if this is complete rubbish go easy on me)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭josh40


    Democracy in present day Greece is still enforced. It is a responsibility as well as a right and anybody who doesn't vote is breaking the law.It is still democratic in name only in many respects, especially where the rights of foreigners are concerned.

    My kids go to Greek schools and learn all this in their history classes. The books are very vague on many issues, especially on voting ages.

    How much of this is really true ?Just because someone wrote something does not necessarily mean that is what he truly believed. The danger in studying history generally and especially Ancient history is that we accept too much and we look at things through our " present" day eyes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Éomer of Rohan


    My kids go to Greek schools and learn all this in their history classes. The books are very vague on many issues, especially on voting ages

    I already said this; if you are interested in debate on Ancient Greece, at least read the rest of the thread first.:
    Having checked through my own sources, it was actually 18 - males enrolled themselves in the Pinakon Ekklesiastikon - for which you should check; Dem. 44.35; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 42.1.
    How much of this is really true ?Just because someone wrote something does not necessarily mean that is what he truly believed. The danger in studying history generally and especially Ancient history is that we accept too much and we look at things through our " present" day eyes.

    No offence but that's bollocks. As ancient historians, we, especially nowadays, accept nothing; proof of this is the discrediting of Xenophon and Diodorus within the last century, whereas beforehand, they were regarded as gospel. Also, while you criticise looking through modern day eyes at Ancient history, you fail to realise two things - one) we don't unless we are drawing parallels and two) drawing parallels which require looking through modern eyes is very useful in understanding possible political motives; our society is a direct descendant of Greek and Roman politics, with religious bigotry and moralistic crap (thrown in) - but ultimately you ignore that the point of academic debate, which in many cases can get intense, is to ensure that neither of the faults you have listed occur.

    As for asking "how much of this actually happened" - don't be ridiculous - one source making things up, possibly two, even three but when twenty and thirty sources corroborate one another and archaeologic and epigraphical evidence also supports what we believe to be the case, then the likelihood of historians being mistaken is unlikely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭josh40


    Do you know what happens if you put ten historians into a room to discuss an historical topic, they come back with eleven different interpretations?

    There is no such thing as an unbiased interpretation of history. Granted there are certain tools available to a history student, to help him to evaluate sources but nothing is foolproof.

    There are no facts in history (no matter how many historians come up wit the same view), there are simply different interpretations.

    Your arrogance is astounding!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Éomer of Rohan


    Do you know what happens if you put ten historians into a room to discuss an historical topic, they come back with eleven different interpretations?

    No, they come back with eleven possible interpretations, one or two of which will be mooted as the most likely.
    There is no such thing as an unbiased interpretation of history. Granted there are certain tools available to a history student, to help him to evaluate sources but nothing is foolproof

    Quantum physics means our definition of reality is not fullproof but how many people do you hear walking around questioning the truth that something actually happened to them not five minutes ago? People are taught what the weight of the world is in Physics but no one has ever measured it have they? That something is not fullproof does not mean it is not fact.
    There are no facts in history (no matter how many historians come up wit the same view), there are simply different interpretations.
    The battle of hastings occurred in 1066. Fact. Get over it.
    Your arrogance is astounding
    So is your penchant for observing ridiculous ideas about history.


Advertisement