Brief History Of Ancient Greece

I've had teachers using both the Pomeroy Ancient Greece: A Political Social and Cultural History and the new version Brief History of Ancient Greece in classes. In the first class, the teacher made no comments about the book, in the second, which just finished this past month, the teacher spent a lot of the class tearing the book apart (the new version that came out this year. Librarything seems to consider it to be the same as the one tagged).

To a certain extent I could see the teacher's viewpoint.

What is the general opinion of this book? Personally I found it readable though frustrating for lack of precise dates.

If you want dates and such, go for something thicker The ancient Greeks : a critical history by John V. A. Fine.

I just used the first one you mention in a class and didn't think it was too bad. I mean it *is* a textbook so it's not going to be too amazing, but it flows pretty well and most of the info was right at least :D Only thing I'd say is that they sort of interrupt the flow sometimes with cultural things that could be their own chapter, like when they interrupt the Peloponnesian War chapter to talk about Greek Comedy.

I can't comment on the second one however; didn't know there was a newer version.

I have just read The ancient Greeks : a critical history by John V. A. Fine.

I liked it very much and am looking for other titles that treat the subject in depth, especially the rise and fall of the Golden Age / Delian Confederacy.

Are there sources or courses on the web that people have taken and recommend?

Thanks,
Urquhart

If you have not already done so, read Herodotus and/or (at the very least) Thucydides before you read any more analysis. I read a standard version of Thucydides but if I was to do it over I would no doubt read The Landmark Thucydides because of the maps and annotations which will make it easier to process. Thucydides stands up to time no no other ancient source and is much easier to read than for example, Plutarch, who has been translated by the worst translators IMHO and therefore is both tedious and difficult to follow, in parts.

I launched my study of ancient Greece by reading The Iliad & The Odyssey & Herodotus & Thucydides in that order. Now that I have learned more about the period I may re-read some or all of these But you can't beat the basics!

The only thing that bummed me about Thucydides was that it cuts off before the Peloponnesian war is even done! Not his fault, of course, since he...you know... died first :-D

I remember the first time I read it during high school (not IN high school, mind you... that would have meant aktuell b00k lernin' which they seem to have stopped in CT decades ago :-D ) I couldn't believe it when it was revealed that he was in charge at Thasos, and was exiled as a result, which enabled him to write his history in the first place! ha!

Yeah, the irony has been made much of by other historians. Immediately after I completed Thucydides, I went on to Xeonophon to finishy the story, though he is not nearly as good a writer. Still, any student of ancient Greece should read The Anabasis just for the adventure ...

Hehe I found Xenophon read more like a fantasy novel or something. Every once in a while I kind of expected Xenophon to mention how him and his buddies were on their way to Mordor :-D

I actually had that same thought, though he didn't have "Samwise" staring starry-eyed at him ...lol

Still, it was a good read. If I had read this first I probably would have been more impressed. Again, it is remarkable that something 2500 years old is so accessible.

Yes Garp83,

I have
- seen The Landmark Thucydides and the maps and annotations look great. Any understanding of Greek history would appear to require a thorough knowledge of the geography/

-have also read a few years back another Thucydides trans. by I forgot whom and have read the Odyssey a couple of times in the last 5 years.

-and have read Herodotus but frankly found it quite difficult.

My particular focus is on the Greek empire that grew out of the Delian Confederacy and how and why it declined.

I very much appreciate everyone's feed back on my question for books and realize I have very much to learn.

Urquhart

Just my own $0.02, I think calling it a "confederacy" is being a little generous ;-)

@Garp: I'd think again about the absence of hobbit homo-eroticism in Anabasis; remember, they were still ancient Greeks! :-D

Urquhart: Herodotus can be tedious.

I found Thucydides to be a great writer and quite accessible. I read the “Barnes & Noble” translation by Crawley, revised by Lateiner. If I had to do it over I would say The Landmark Thucydides would be my choice. Either way, find yourself a nice color map of Classical Greece circa the Peloponnesian War and print it out to reference while reading.

Unfortunately, Thucydides doesn't give you a very elaborate background into how the Athenians came to form the Delian League following the Persian Wars ostensibly to protect the Greek states from Persia, and how that league rapidly devolved into Athenian imperialism and the Athenian Empire, which was the source of much of the monumental building of the Classical Period in Athens and perhaps a direct cause of the Peloponnesian War. Other ancient historians discuss this, but none are as accessible as Thucydides. So primary sources will not be enough.

There are lots of books on the Peloponnesian War; the top historian is Donald Kagan, who wrote a classic multi-volume history of the war as well as a single volume that distills it into a briefer format. I read the latter. I will warn you though that Kagan is kind of a right-winger and therefore his views on contemporary geo-political realities tend to intrude far too often in his writing. What that means is that he is often an apologist for Athenian bad behavior. While the Athenian democracy was perhaps the "higher civilization" over that of her enemies Corinth, Thebes & Sparta, Athens used her power unwisely for her own gain with little regard for the members of her so-called league. Many debate as to whether Athens could have won the war had certain things gone differently (i.e. siege of Syracuse), but I believe that she was destined to lose eventually because ultimately the vast majority of those in her "league" hated her with pronounced vehemence. IMHO

Yes I have read the Donald Kagan single volumn book and that is what got me going on this....

Your comments are most useful and appreciated.

I am especially interested in learning all the causes behind the fact that:

"ultimately the vast majority of those in her "league" hated her with pronounced vehemence. "

I think somewhere in Thucydides one of the members of the "league" wanting to rip out the eye balls of the Athenians and eat them raw. I haven't come across that before but it does seem to put the situation on a very clear footing.

((totally parenthetically and totally off topic-----i saw on your profile Christmas book gifts the Ron Chernow bk. on Alexander Hamilton. If you have not already read it, you have a wonder full read ahead of you. His book on Rockefeller is wonder full as well....i would place him up with robert caro with his lbj books. enjoy. :)...))

I have my opinions. Like Kagan -- but perhaps on the other side of the political spectrum -- I look to history to learn how best to approach the present. I tend to think that when you call something a league of independent states and then behave towards those states a tyranny, the hatred from those you subdue could potentially be greater than if they are simply enslaved outright; at least in the latter the situation is clear from the outset. This metaphor is brought to life no better anywhere else in my opinion than in William Styron's magnificent historical novel, Confessions of Nat Turner where Nat -- the well-treated, educated house slave -- is driven to greater violence and hatred than field slaves that endured much harsher lives simply because he could "see" the unfair barbarity in the condition of "slave" better than any other. IMHO

I got the Chernow book from my LibraryThing SantaThing and it was a great choice because I have long hoped to read it. Of course, I have many books on my short and long lists and I have around six going right now so who knows when I'll get to it, but I do look forward to the day.

I wish you luck with your pursuit of ancient Greece -- I started in '06 and haven't stopped yet. I do think it is critical that you understand the Persian Wars and the relationship of the Greeks with the Persians in order to put the Delian League & the Peloponnesian War in perspective. For that, I strongly recommend Persian Fire by Tom Holland --outstanding read!

I second the Persian Fire recommendation. Also, Urquhart, to the point about the members of the Delian League not liking Athens--this is something which will be debated until the end of time. Some historians think that the members loved Athens, and it was only a few bad apples who didn't. Others contend that Athens was an outright imperialist foe who imposed her will on the other cities. As usual, I believe the reality is somewhere in the middle.

One thing we can't overlook, however, is the possibility of the common folk seeing things a mite differently than the people in power, especially in the member states which had oligarchic governments. Events such as the revolt of Mytilene shed some light on this, which I find fascinating.

I love this discussion even though most of it is gong way over my head. I got a copy of The Landmark Herodotus from BookMooch a few months back; looks like I need to move it up closer to the top of my TBR pile.

Hehe sorry Fleela :-D It is a very interesting time period! I like Herodotus and Thucydides both, but I'd recommend reading Thucydides first because it's 1) more "accessible" I think, and 2) Thucydides talks about things that have clear parallels to the modern day.

Garp83 and Feicht

Many thanks for your comments and advice. It sounds as if I have a lot of study to do.

I totally agree when you say

"I have my opinions. Like Kagan -- but perhaps on the other side of the political spectrum -- I look to history to learn how best to approach the present."

What do you think the United States should learn from Greece of the fifth century? I think this is the reason why I am studying their history. For me the two things that stand out that the U.S. needs to learn are:

1-Political rancor and lack of a sense of civic duty are tremendously corrosive to a democracy.

2-The Peloponnesian Wars seemed to me to progessively drain the Athenian coffers and to increase ever growing political division. I think of those wars as America continues on with its status of being constantly at war. In my time there have been: WWII, The Cold War with Russia, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan. It is as if America needs to focus its people on an external threat so as to not allow them space to look around within their own borders.

An historical quote:
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946), 2nd in command of the Third Reich

On a totally different issue, would it be fair to say that the Athenian empire of Pericles time could not have existed without slavery? And that they had no real problem with slavery as an issue?

And finally can we really say that the Athens of Pericles rule was really democratic since during his rule he exerted so very much executive privelege?

Fleeta
Congratulations on getting The Landmark Herodotus. The Landmark Thucdides looks awesome...$45..???

My previous entry has lots of opinions and I thought it proper by way of introduction to point out that none of my views are sacrosanct and to share with you a quote from the intro to the the John V A Fine book The Ancient Greeks:

Quote:

"My aim has been not to produce a smoothly flowing narrative which can lull a reader into unthinking acceptance of the views presented, but to try to make him think. One should never forget that we, as our predecessors were, are constantly being misled because we accept too readily the views that have become sacrosanct through tradition. A history which does not contstantly cause one to reflect on what he is reading and to be cognizant of the nature and ambiguities of the evidence is hardly performing the function that a historical work should. "

It sums up far more eloquently than I could the way I seek to approach my studies of history.

Also some sources that I have not read but others may be interested in:

Simon Hornblower’s The Greek World 479-323 B.C.

A much more detailed excellent treatment of ancient Greek history can be found in the twenty volume Cambridge Ancient History.

A website to explore......
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0009&amp...

Thanks to you all again.

Urquhart -- I'm gonna have to take a breath before I can respond to all that. Lots of food for thought ... we'll chat ...

Hehe... I too will have to formulate a better response when I have more time, but for now, Urquhart, I'd have to say one of the bigger lessons to be learned from the Delian League experience is that people have to democratize themselves; you can't do it for them. Athens expanded her empire to a certain degree because they could continually claim that they were "giving people democracy" who had previously lived under oligarchic governments. The obvious dilemma here is when you look at their record, there were always a ton of oligarchies within the Delian League, and it really seems from my perspective that all Athens really wanted was hegemony for herself; it mattered not whether they actually "freed" anyone.

The flipside to this is the overwhelming amount (for the time period) of freedoms enjoyed at Athens proper. Of course they still had slavery, but this was just a fact of life in the ancient world. But one of our best pieces of evidence for the civil life at the time is by an unknown writer popularly known as the "Old Oligarch" who rails against Athens' policies of liberalism, and some of his points are downright comical; for instance, he claims that an aristocrat can't even whack pedestrians in the streets of Athens because their slaves "have it so good" that you can't tell by looking at their clothing whether someone is a slave, metic, or citizen.

The so called "Golden Age" at Athens was to a large degree made possible by her empire; many of the monuments that still survive (like the temples on the Acropolis, for instance) date from this period. The money that allowed such construction came pedominantly from Athens' fleecing of her "allies" in the Delian League; every member had to pay "phoros"** in either money or ships/troops, and so this money was used to make Athens great. The irony should not be lost on us in the modern world that the "freedoms" and relative luxury Athens made available to her citizens and residents would not have been possible without imposing her will on other city-states, through the pretense of "spreading democracy." If you've watched the news any time in the last 8 years, this should sound a little bit familiar.

There are a plethora of lessons to be derived from the ensuing Peloponnesian War, but I'll have to leave these for later.

**("phoros" in Greek can be translated variously as "dues" or "tribute"... when used in reference to the Delian League, it usually depends on the writer's viewpoint whether the former or latter is used. I'd use the latter, personally.)

Feicht said:

"the pretense of "spreading democracy." If you've watched the news any time in the last 8 years, this should sound a little bit familiar."

I agree totally. And what with the combination of the military power and the economic power and using the force of both, it is really bone chilling to observe.

The POTUS is all for spreading 'freedom' to everyone, as we have heard for the last 8 yrs.

Exactly. I love the thought of the whole world being a democracy too.....BUT........ if you have to conquer a country to "give them" democracy, something's wrong. America had external help to be sure, but they nonetheless pursued and won their own democracy. What do you think would have happened if the French descended upon the eastern seaboard in 1771 to "free" us? We probably would have rallied around the king, and beat off the foreign invaders.

You'll see similar things over and over again the more you study 5th century Athens. While reading, it's easy to point to examples of what the Athenians were doing and say "wth are they doing, that's sheer hypocrisy!" It's a lot harder to view ourselves in the same light.

From the beginning of my studies of the classical period, I found it difficult not to see a reflection of ancient Athens in the post World War II United States. (Of course, our nation was born in the Enlightenment, which took its inspiration from the classical period, so there can't help but be a thread of that in our history, for good and ill.)

The US has often behaved like Imperial Athens in the last 60 some odd years, towards its allies as well as its enemies, seeking to change the world for the better while imposing our will upon others, frequently without their consent. Of course, the US has never behaved with greater arrogance, ignorance and malevolence on the world stage than it has in the last eight years, and throughout this period I worried far more about our allies than our enemies, wondering if these allies would one day walk away from us rather than endure our sometimes crushing embrace. It remains my conviction that after all, Athens destroyed herself by her treatment of her allies; in the end, most were willing to surrender their freedom to Persia rather than live the fiction of independence in the Athenian sway.

If there is no lesson in this for us today, then we have forgotten how to learn and history is of no more use to us the decor of leather bindings on dusty shelves.

so say i.

Well said, Garp. This somewhat addresses one thing that bothers me the most every election cycle in this country, and is largely relegated to right-wing radio the rest of the time (though it's always prevalent at some level in all walks of life in this country): The deep seeded belief that everyone in this country HAS to believe that we are, without a doubt, the greatest country that ever has been or ever will be, and as such we HAVE to keep our overwhelming dominance over the world. Every time I hear a politician utter words about "American strength" or "maintaining our position as leader of the world stage" I cringe a little bit. It's as if we are hard-wired to NOT want to seek any kind of balance with the rest of the world. I think this is a direct parallel to the situation at Athens in the fifth century.

Don't get me wrong, we ARE lucky (in some ways, anyway) to have been born into this country. But this country is far from perfect, and the assertions that 1) its greatness is unquestionable and 2) America must be a superpower just bother the hell out of me.

Let's hope today's inauguration truly is the launch of a new era for our troubled nation. I am encouraged by how sincerely Obama seemed to look to history to set the tone for his own days and years ahead in this critical office.

Bush talked a lot about reading books and even having contests with Karl Rove as to who could read more, but I never got the sense from anything I ever heard him say that that there was any real comprehension.

Of course, being intelligent and well-read is no guarantee to a successful Presidency -- see Wilson, Hoover & Carter for more info -- but I am thus far encouraged by "how" barack reads into history and how he puts it into perspective for our future.

I am hopeful.

Well yeah when W spoke of "reading" I always just assumed he was talking about coloring books.

But yeah, great point on intelligence being no guarantee to success; I think even Clinton could be lumped in that category, personally. He did a lot of great things for this country, but some bad as well; the Republicans aren't completely full of shit when they speak of some of the bad things of today starting during his presidency (of course, it could be further pointed out how much of this was done to appease House Republicans--*ahem* deregulation of the economy *ahem*). This is what kind of scares me a bout Obama, to tell you the truth; sometimes I get the vibe that he's more interested in "compromise" in order to "bring people together" than he is in actually passing anything he's promised. I find it hard to believe he could get any republicans to sign off on some of his "leftist" ideas. Of course to tip my hand even further, I'd suggest that he isn't nearly "lefty" enough, but for America, I suppose that's a moot point; he's already an African-American...if he were more liberal I guess he would've had a lot more trouble securing votes in this country.

ANYWAY.... I seem to be wandering a bit... but yeah. Hopefully Barack got a copy of Thucydides for xmas and will be doing some heavy bedtime reading :-)

For the history of the Delian League, the standard work is Russell Meiggs' The Athenian Empire. Some alternative views on various issues are to be found in Harold Mattingly's The Athenian Empire Restored.

Thanks for that, dressel. I'll add that to my TBR. $160 in paperback, so it is a bit pricey, huh?

Have you read it? What's your feel?

The Meiggs book? I guess inflation shows its effects - I think it was around $30 in paperback when I bought it long ago. I read it long ago also, but it seemed quite good to me at the time. There's plenty that can be argued with, because he was discussing a time period that has very little source material (mainly just Thucydides and Diodorus, who was partially recycling Thucydides, plus inscriptions, mostly Athenian) and the evidence has been worked over by generations of historians to the point where almost every statement one could make involves some point of controversy. He was generally pretty good about explaining what the problems were, although sometimes a little more positive in his conclusions than was justified. It's not written for casual readers, but you don't need to be able to read ancient Greek to follow it (being tolerably comfortable with the alphabet is probably helpful, though). The appendices are very useful.

Interesting discussion, guys. Regarding the question why "ultimately the vast majority of those in her "league" hated her (i.e. Athens) with pronounced vehemence " (see #13), this is what the Athenians have to say about this in their speech before the Spartans:

"...our subjects are so habituated to associate with us as equals, that any defeat whatever that clashes with their notions of justice, wether it proceeds from a legal judgement or from the power which our empire gives us, makes them forget to be grateful for being allowed to retain most of their possesions, and more vexed at a part being taken, than if we had from the first cast law aside and openly gratified our covetnouss. If we had done so, they would not have disputed that the weaker must give way to the stronger. Men's indignation, it seems, is more excited by legal wrongs than by violent wrong; the first looks like being cheated by an equal, the second like like being compelled by a superior."

Quite a brilliant but very cynical piece of realpolitik.

While The Ancient Greeks by John Fine is a great book, it does lack good maps. And it seems to me that maps are essential to understanding what is happening in ancient Greece.

You folks probably have excellent urls for maps but one source is

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekmaps/Greek_Maps_Maps_of_Ancient_Greece.h...

That's a good source indeed, but I recommend you print this map in color

http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/GreeceMap.jpg

This was the best one I found on the web & it is clear and legible and you can read the place names. I recommend hanging one on your bulletin board and fold one in half and use it as your bookmark reading Thucydides. It helps a lot!

Wow and thanks so much! It looks great......and necessary to have.

urquhart

Speaking of Thucydides ... If Bush/Cheney and the rest of that nattering Neocon crowd had read The Peloponnesian War, they might never have burst into Iraq with such arrogant disregard for history. The parallels between the two conflicts are stark ... every foreign country hates what the USA has become, and our troops are enmeshed in a conflict with no end in sight. Meanwhile, the whole of the NATO Alliance is mired in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Those who don't read history are doomed .......!

I'm interested in the remarks about Thucydides' "accessibility". I would say that he certainly sticks to his point and has nothing like Herodotus's massive digressions; he makes sure the reader knows the import of what he is narrating. Insofar as that can be called accessibility, I agree that Thucydides fits. I would benefit from some expansion on the idea that he is accessible. What makes that description of his work especially intriguing is that his Greek style is "proverbially opaque" (I don't remember where I read that many years ago, but it has stuck in my mind, probably in part for its aptness.) He is one of the most difficult of all Greek authors.

Re Criels & Thucydides: Well, I didn't read it in Greek, but in English it read very much like a standard history in our time with perhaps some stilted language here and there and awkward sentence structure, as if perhaps it was written in the 1920's-1940's, but far more exciting. I could not make it thru the tedium and prose of Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of George Washington, for example, but I had no trouble with Thucydides. Some of that must have to do with the translation (for example, is Plutarch really that awful or are the translations awful?), but I tend to think that it is because Thucydides was simply a fine intellectual who knew how to craft a readable, thematic narrative history. That I could read something of this merit written 2500 years with little difficulty is what I mean by accessible.

Those maps maps are very helpful, though I think I prefer a good old-fashioned historical atlas printed on paper.

Re: Obama and familiarity with history: Surely it requires more than reading the history, but also the humility to recognize that our times are probably not the exception to history's lessons. Witness the situation in Afghanistan, site where so many foreign armies have come to ruin. (See The Great Game as one small example).

US military leaders and policy advisers know the history, even if GW Bush was less than sketchy on it. And yet the hope of accomplishing a goal appears little mitigated by the stark difficulties.

I am torn between moderating my hopes for the new president with the understanding that he, like the others, is in fact a politician, and feeling excited and renewed by the man's apparent sincerity, sharp intelligence, and evident skill. And likability.

Stellar -- I am also tempering my ebullience with cautious optimism, if for no other reason than the reality that no mortal could live up to the hype and expectations that have been laid at Obama's feet, nor has there been a time since FDR's FIRST presidential term that the outlook has looked so grim, nor a time since FDR's SECOND & THIRD term that this was compounded by an international fragility that can only breed instability and wider war.

I was born when Eisenhower was president, and every administration since then had great strengths and weaknesses; only in the last eight years did I firmly believe the Chief Executive lacked any capability to serve and that what he passed off as service was nothing less than a disservice to our nation on virtually every level, ideological and pragmatic. I cannot help but find encouragement in a man stepping into the office now who seems to possess courage, intellect, humility, political savvy, decisiveness and -- wonder of wonders -- a real sense of history!

Who can predict what will follow. But for now, we can at least have hope. IMHO

It certainly is refreshing for a change to have a guy at the helm who doesn't make me embarrassed to live in this country whenever he opens his mouth. But yeah, cautious optimism is a good term for how I feel. Things can only really get "better" from this point on. The one thing I'm worried about (I think I mentioned it earlier) is him being so caught up in pleasing the Repubs that he gets nothing done, and then only gets one term when the religious fundies/hillbillies in this nation overwhelmingly support someone who promises to ban abortion and teh geigh-ness. Hopefully this doesn't happen.

But yeah, it is certainly refreshing to have a guy in there that, if nothing else, knows the proper way to hold a book (i.e. right side up).

I think he is playing the "inclusion" game to get buy-in on both sides of the aisle. The Repubs are urging "bi-partisanship" -- something they never practiced during their years in the rock-solid majority, but whether they are sincere or not (NOT!) they have little choice but pick their battles.

If you read Robert Caro's Master of the Senate it is critical for the President to pass legislation in the Senate; once he loses the first big battle, it is downhill from there. Caro gives us examples from the days of T.R & Wilson, but the most recent example I can recall is the Clinton healthcare package that tanked.

It is essential that Obama build bridges across the aisle and form alliances that will protect him from within and without the party, especially because the Democratic Party is often a fractured alliance of competing interests and certainly lacks the sometimes single-minded discipline of the Republican Party of late.

Unlike my progressive friends, I am not concerned that Obama will be too accommodating to the right or be too "centrist" or too "moderate." I think he is a more brilliant politician than he is often given credit for (see resounding victories over Hilary & McCain) on the order of FDR perhaps. And I suspect he was using Lincoln’s quiet behind-the–scenes tactics to gain advantage long before Team of Rivals was written.

Don't get me wrong; I sincerely hope in 100 years someone writes a book (e-book? hologram? whatever) empirically proving how Obama was the best president in the history of the country. But I'm afraid I'm in the same league with your "progressive friends"; Obama was actually like my 4th choice out of the available Dems to be president, because for me, he's uncomfortably close to the center, and the longer he plays this accommodation game, the closer to the center/right he'll get :-(

I still have hope though :-D

err anyway... back on topic

T H U C Y D I D E S ftw!!!

;-)

I tend to agree with you, Garp. I just don't want to say so, as I am still busy convincing myself that I am moderating expectations.

But the guy is skillful enough to have won me over. At least I can say I am heavily rooting for his success.

{How's that for going out on a limb? --Hard to disagree with if you are a reasonable person! And I hope your caution proves unnecessary Feicht, though I well understand it.}

I too believe he has thought things out considerably. This means offering olive branches to the opposition, especially in places where it won't cost much politically, but may generate good will. Recent examples: his hosting a party for John McCain; his offering the inaugural prayer to Rick Warren. Personally, and I know I am in the minority, I thought Warren's words were offensive in that they made no attempt to speak to non-Christians. It would not have been hard to speak of god and not lay on the Jesus-talk so thickly. Nonetheless, it cost Obama nothing, and may have gained him quite a bit.

(No doubt the Founding Fathers themselves could never get elected now, in the absence of the declarations of belief required for holding office today.)

Don't get me started on the superprevalence of "belief" in this country. Whether politicians "believe" or not, all they have to do is say they do, and show up to a few churches, and they get the Jesus-swing vote. It is frankly disgusting to me that religious affiliation is a de-facto prerequisite for office in the country that invented separation of church and state.

I'd venture it is worse than that. It's not just that lip-service to belief is required or is adequate; it's that a whole set of religiously-based social policies are foisted upon candidates and the public because of narrowly-focused religious voters.

That may be true; I was simply thinking of the bare-bones scenario. Most politicians are such scumbags that it seems silly to me that many of them would seriously ponder matters of their "faith." Of course the fact that their god would have been a socialist never enters into their minds either.

Garp 83: It is the furthest thing from my intention to suggest that Thucydides is an inferior author, or that his syntax and diction are clumsy through any carelessness or incompetence on his part. Thucydides is both one of the greatest Greek authors and also one of my personal favorites. I've pulled out a lot of my hair grappling to understand his text, and I thought it worth every second and all the effort. I also wish that everyone would read him: like you, I know that his History is truly "a possession forever", and his thought is as vital now as it was in the 5th century BCE, "as long as human nature remains the same." (If that isn't obvious to us, then we are not very perceptive.) It is indisputable that he is one of the greatest geniuses of all literature.

It is still a simple fact, acknowledged by everyone who has read him, that his Greek is exquisitely difficult, and he absolutely designed it to be as it is. His diction is very abstract, and the structure of his sentences deliberately and unconventionally complicated. (You are right in saying that these qualities can't be conveyed by a translation; any attempt to represent these features of his style in English could not help but make the translation quite incomprehensible for a Greekless reader.) It is my personal impression that he is crafting a new, highly abstract means of expression to reflect a new, unprecedented, subtle understanding of history: one that appreciates the complexity and twisted and contorted nature of events. I love his language. Good Greek readers often get the feeling that they aren't twisting all the meaning they should from a lot of his text. But that means the text is pregnant with meaning, not that it's poorly written. In some sense, it must be admitted his work is less accessible than most, because it is extraordinarily difficult of access--in the sense of full understanding--even to experts. Thus, the appearance of accessibility in a translation prevents the reader from seeing that much about Thucydides, as he expresses himself through layers of meaning in his diction and deliberately difficult sentence structures, is not very accessible. And those complexities are of the essence of Thucydides. Any translator can do only precious little to convey the richness, profundity, and pregnant complexity of this great author: and that is because he is an enormously great author.

Criels -- interesting perspective. This is why I still hope to learn Greek one day so i can read him in the original.

Stellar & Feicht: May I heartly recommend Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby to you. EXCELLENT BOOK!

PS Thucydides would be proud of Jacoby, I think ...

>32 BartGr.: Thank you BartGr. Perceptive, thoughtful quote.

"Criels -- interesting perspective. This is why I still hope to learn Greek one day so i can read him in the original."

Garp, I hope you get the chance to do it. In an ordinary university course sequence, you would finish learning the grammar in a year (2 semesters) or sometimes even a little less. At that point, you'd read some real literature (in the original text, not simplified for beginners).

Ah, but finding such an available course near my home -- that's the challenge! I was planning on taking Greek last semester but the only option was an intensive course that met 5 days a week around noon -- not possible for me to fit into my schedule

I'd say you could try it online, but I couldn't recommend it in confidence. I tried to take Ancient Greek online thru my school last year, and for my style of learning it was almost impossible to accomplish.

My school finally decided to allow a brick and mortar class for Ancient Greek this semester, and it is soooooo much easier. There's definitely something to be said for interaction in a classroom environment.

But if you are really really motivated, can devote the time to it, and are good at independent learning, I guess I'd say look around and see if any universities around you offer it online. I'd imagine Yale would, but that could get expensive (I'm sure they'd charge you for "going to Yale" even though you'd never step foot in the place.) UCONN might be a good possibility. I know they teach Greek, I just don't know if they do it online or not.

Good luck though... it's a lot of fun once you know what you're looking at. It's kind of the rush you get when you first learned to read as a kid; I can look at the pages of Josephus, and I don't know what many of the words MEAN...but I know what they say! Woo!

:-D

I don't think I could do it online. Accounting and classic languages are poor candidates for online learning IMHO

On another front (and I may post a thread for this question) I am looking for an accredited university that offers a masters in history or classics online and I have been unable to find one. Any suggestions from any of you professorial types (lol) out there? I would be grateful

So Garp, you have tried to learn accounting online?

I agree that Greek would be very hard to learn online. And those intensive courses are a pretty popular way of offering it. Too bad those aren't possible for you. On the other hand, I doubt that I could have succeeded with that breakneck approach myself: I've always studied slowly and deliberately as a way of ensuring that I've mastered the basics.

There is the Teach Yourself Books series (and perhaps other books like it, although I don't know of any) which has a volume on many subjects, including Ancient Greek. Again, I think this would be a hard way to go. One reason for the difficulty is that only one translation for each sentence or passage is given in the answer key, whereas the translation you write before consulting the answer key might--and often will--be in a slightly different form: even if your translation is as correct as the one in the answer key (that problem is in inherent in the nature of turning one language--to the extent it can be done--into another language). When your translation is correct, but the wording of the sentence or passage in the answer key differs from it, you have no way of learning whether your translation is, on the one hand, incorrect or, on the other hand, correct and just acceptably different from the version in the answer key. Personally, this would frustrate me to no end: I need to be sure that I have things right, monitoring the correctness of one's translations is the sort of reason why people need teachers to help them learn Greek.

I hope that some suitable opportunity arises for you. Good luck.

Garp, I don't know why I only now thought of this, but an excellent solution, if there is anyone near you who is competent in classical Greek, is to hire a tutor. There is no better way to learn than with a teacher's individual attention. You should not hire anyone without an advanced credential, i.e., either a graduate degree from a Classics department that emphasized Greek or current and ongoing study in such a graduate program. I can think of three ready sources where you might find such a tutor, in descending order according to probability:

1) Many graduate students at universities tutor for extra money: they usually need it. Of course, I don't know just how far away you are from a Classics graduate program.

2) Some of the most distinguished private high schools (called academies, etc.) are in western Mass. These have very active Classics programs, usually with several faculty members, and usually offering Greek. Even if they will not tutor you themselves, they might be able to direct you to someone who can.

3) In a state (yes, I know, commonwealth) as educated as Mass. (I assume that is largely the case in western Mass., too) there may well be someone in the general community who is good at ancient Greek. As a last resort, this would be checking on.

@Garp: Criels has a great point about getting someone to "tutor" you in Ancient Greek.

As far as accredited online universities go, I would imagine these days if the uni is big enough, you could get almost any degree online. Hell, I think it's even theoretically possible at my crappy university to get your classics degree online; one of the annoying things for me is actually that some classes are ONLY offered online, and as I mentioned before, I REALLY don't like online classes, myself.

#55 -- Stellar -- I had an admin once who thought she would be clever and take her college courses online rather than attend class. Accounting was her downfall, as I'm sure it would be mine.

Criels & Feicht -- thanks for all the input. Although I have a B.A. in History from Fairfield University that was very rewarding while earning it, I have learned most of what i know in life through books rather than taking courses -- including 35mm. photography, backpacking/wilderness skills, and how to build a computer (I actually used a $3 magazine for the PC building the first time around). Lately, I have added Teaching Company courses to augment books and these are wonderful; naturally, we have online to further enhance our experience.

But I know my limitations. I bought a couple of texts on learning Greek and I can't get too much farther on my own than learning to read and write the alphabet. I need classroom or tutor (thanx for that suggestion) support.

I have had no luck finding an accredited masters program in history from any university available online, but i continue to search!

Ah yes, I must have missed the "masters" part earlier. Seems that would be much, much harder to do online, not the least of which being that masters programs seem that much harder to get into than regular BA programs.

EDIT: I would still highly recommend trying the Greek-tutor route though, that's a dynamite idea. Best part is, you'd get one on one attention from someone for an infinitesimal fraction of what it would cost for an online uni class in Greek. For instance, my friend who recently graduated with his masters in Mathematics was tutoring people this summer before he scored a job doing "actual" i.e. classroom teaching. He was making like 10 dollars an hour (tax free, mind you) which --take it from me-- is like a fortune when you don't have a job! And for the "student", it's a total bargain; consider that your average 3-4 credit uni course in..well...anything... is going to run you at least 1300 dollars... If you managed to be tutored in Greek for say, 4 days a week for four months, that would be less than half of what it would cost at a uni, given our hypothetical figure of 1300 bucks. It's really win/win :-)

And, keep in mind too that if you're worried about a grad student or whatever not being as organized as a paid professor, remember that you can always just ask them to follow along in a Greek book with you. Hell, that's essentially what my brick and mortar Greek class is. (Btw, we use this book A New Introduction to Greek if that helps you :-)

You may also get some ideas by going to Google and entering: learning ancient Greek

An awful lot comes up.

U.

People with time and interest may wish to download and explore this Ancient Greek History class by Donald Kagan

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history

I do not agree with his politics but he is highly esteemed for his scholarship.

U

Sweet jesus... for some reason, I never imagined Kagan to be THAT old :-D

#62 -- Urguhart -- thanks for the Yale link to the Kagan class -- I had no idea that was even available! I will check it out in detail. I too am at variance with his political views, but he is an esteemed scholar of ancient Greece so I'm sure there has to be some gems in there.

#63 -- Feicht -- Kagan knows so much about ancient Greece because he grew up during the Peloponnesian War (lol)

By the way, this teaching company course by Jeremy McInerney is outstanding:

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=323

I will consider the Greek tutor idea -- anybody know any starving Greek scholars in Western Massachusetts who will work for little$ or barter their pedagogical skills for computer services in return?

>64 Garp83:
If you have iTunes, take a look at their podcasts and their iTunes U sections. If nothing else, they're free.

>64 Garp83:
Garp, I've done so many of those Teaching Company courses too-- they are great for the car! Used to by cheaper older used ones, until I moved to an area with an excellent interlibrary loan arrangement -- now large numbers are at my disposal!

I love Teaching Company!! And if you buy them on sale they are really inexpensive when you consider what you get for your money!

@Garp: Hehe on the Kagan BEING ancient history bit :-D

On a related note, for last semester's faculty evaluations at my school, one of my profs was going on and on about how he likes it when people leave quirky messages, and he saves them and stuff.... things like "he reminds me of my grandpa, except still alive for now".... So I left him one to the effect of "I think it shows great foresight by the university to hire lecturers who actually have firsthand experience in 19th century America!"

We got our grades 3 weeks later and I got an A, so I guess it didn't piss him off :-D

EDIT: He'd also always make fun of his own age, too. One time he was "lamenting" on how you KNOW you're old when a book you wrote as a grad student could be used as a "primary source document" about Washington's crossing of the Delaware... haha :-D

When Helene Hanff was a broke autodidact she put an ad in the paper asking for someone who was willing to tutor her in Greek (or was it Latin?) for free. She found an Ivy League graduate who was willing to teach her once a week. I think the story's in Q's Legacy.

Has anyone read this by any chance?

The Greeks and Greek Civilization by Jacob Burckhardt, Oswyn Murray, and Sheila Stern (Paperback - Oct 21, 1999)

I haven't. He is of the 19th Century.

I'm reading History of Ancient Greece by Jean Hatzfeld. My edition is copyright 1966. I'd be interested in knowing what others who are more familiar with current scholarship think about it. I like the scope of Hatzfeld's analysis, which I would describe as a combination of geography, economics, social history and politics.

In general for history I avoid reading anything written before 1980 and skip 19th century stuff entirely except for comparison or timeline facts or literary value. Like astronomy, newer books are indeed better! (The exception would be historiography, which is of course something altogether different)

There are several issues: one is the striking chauvinism of historians of other ages, who often saw everything as a linear march forward from the primitive to the advanced culture of white Christian western Civilization. Just yesterday I pulled a book off my shelf by Kenneth Starr from 1965 -- A History of the Ancient World -- to look something up, as well as "Ancient History" by Charles Alexander Robinson, which dates to the 1950's. Both of these volumes by eminent historians seem to look back from the “great success” of modern, Western (“white man’s burden”) Civilization and see everything that came before as a steppingstone to this great achievement. The corollary of course is that many cultures are entirely conspicuous in their absence. There also exists the kind of censorship of unpleasant realities that was common in “polite society.” Traditional history never gives slavery or sexuality its due.

Moreover, if we put aside the jolt of blatant racism and chauvinism -- which is in itself not easy to do -- we are struck at once by the stated effort of these historians to weave history into a moral fable. I recall as a teenager reading three volumes of Will & Ariel Durant's multi-volume opus “The History of Civilization” in which the thesis is that all civilizations “rise on Stoicism and fall on Epicureanism.” This is of course, nonsense. Civilizations for the most part –as we have learned from Diamond and others – most often fall because of ecological catastrophe. There are also issues like plague, natural disasters, a collapse in food production and invading “barbarians.” Enough said.

Finally, whatever their motives, historians of the bygone era lacked the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary sciences that can fill out the tale far more satisfactorily than artifacts and king lists. One of the great pleasures of reading 1491 by Mann & Maps of Time” by Christian & the Diamond books is that we can benefit from a massive amount of data that has been gathered by archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, paleo-botanists, geologists, chemists, astronomers, paleo-meteorologists and a host of others that will tell a tale that has a much wider lens than written records and excavated tombs.

Garp, I'm afraid if I took your advice I'd have to get rid of 95% of my library. Actually, I notice you gave me a big loophole for getting around your sweeping dismissal of anything written before 1980 by making an exception for comparison, timeline facts and literary value. I'm not sure what other reasons there are for reading secondary sources on ancient history.

I suspect that when you say that traditional history never gives slavery or sexuality its due, you're defining "traditional history" as history that does not, in your eyes, give slavery or sexuality its due. I guess I'd have to agree with you. Still, recall that Kenneth Dover's Greek Homosexuality was published in 1978...and the implication that slavery is inconspicuous or censored in the history of classical scholarship is simply wrong.

As for weaving a moral tale into history (I assume we're only talking about moral tales you don't like), does that really make the whole of the offending work nonsense? After all, Thucydides does the very same thing (cf the Corcyran revolution, the Athenian plague)--and judging by your earlier posts, you seem to still enjoy his work very much....and in any event, aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I mean, I'm no great believer in the Prussian state or German nationalism, but I can still find much to profit from in reading (and re-reading) Hegel and Nietzsche on the ancients.

Anyway, to get back to the point: are your proscriptions based on the specific qualities of Hatzfeld's work? History of Ancient Greece does not seem particularly deplorable to me, but if I'm missing something I'd be grateful to know about it.

Thucydides is a secondary source? Anyway, Axelp, you sure sound like you have "an ax to grind." LOL Since you only have 28 books, perhaps you already got rid of 95% of the them? Are you a real member or are you one of those fictional ID's that are created for the purpose of posting confrontational posts anonymously? OK, relax, I'm just razzing you ...

You asked about Hatzfeld and I admit I don't know anything about the book, but it appears to be a general survey book written 55 years ago by a French journalist. Before posting, I checked your profile and saw that you were a brand new member with very few books and little in ancient Greek history. I assumed -- perhaps wrongly -- that you were new to the field. My advice was directed towards someone who knew nothing about ancient Greece. Thus, an obscure book written a long time ago by a non-historian would probably not be the place to start.

I've read lots of things written before 1980 and have violated my own advice many times. Once you get comfortable in the knowledge base you can and should read whatever comes your way, inserting the appropriate grains of salt as you go. At the same time, being a mortal with restricted time for pursuit of reading and studying, I am trying to take advantage of the new scholarship wrapped around the latest science and the latest discoveries so I tend to try to read the newest books by the most eminent in the field.

Anyway, axelp I wish you well with whatever you decide to read -- this is America and here we can read whatever we like so enjoy.

I love history books written before 1980 or even before WWI... as long as I also have an up-to-date book on the same events/places. It's interesting to see how the understanding of what had happened had changed in a few decades. And sometimes in these old books, there are bits and pieces that help you understand something that just makes little sense (read with a grain of salt and so on of course)

Everyone knows Thucydides made it all up.

Only the speeches. The rest was reliable hearsay.

I thought it was Herodotus who made up the speeches.

Robert

Herodotus made it all up ...LOL ... that's why they called him the first liar. But I secretly love Herodotus. Thucydides is great (or was great!) but I think it is interesting that his history seems to have been taken at face value by many over the years and only recently has the bias been fully explored. There is a fairly new book (I can't recall the title) devoted entirely to the tendentious nature of his writing and his motives. By the way, I purchased the Landmark editions of both Herodotus and Thucydides with the intention to re-read them both now that I know quite a bit more about the subject matter than I did when I first read them.

M. I. Finley's Ancient History: Evidence and Models is good on Thucydides as a (un)reliable source and the drawbacks inherent in a "history as warfare narrative."

Hey Garp that wouldn't happen to be Kagan's Thucydides: The Reinvention of History would it? :-D

Not sure if I really trust Kagan on the idea though...

colukben -- I own the Finley book (a gift from a friend!) but have not read it yet; makifat's review is very impressive so I will move it up on my TBR

Feicht -- that is indeed the one and I always suspect Kagan because he's such an unapologetic right-winger who injects his worldview into everything ... on the other hand I still read him because he is a recognized scholar on the period, but instead of grains of salt I use the whole shaker ...

On a sidenote, I downloaded all the free Kagan Yale lectures of his Introduction to Greek History but I had a hard time watching them. I found him -- despite his academic credentials -- an uninspired lecturer and a terribler speaker who cleared his throat constantly as if it was a nervois habit. I couldn't help thinking how put off I might have been if I was a Yale undergrad who had so anticipated this class with the "master."

I listened to the first of those Kagan Yale lectures, and for similar reasons did not elect to go on to the second. As a lecturer, he can transform his vast historical knowledge into the utterly soporific. Better to read him, I'd say.

Garp: nah, I don't have an ax to grind, despite my name....it's just that I wasn't asking for moral guidance or broad pronouncements. What I'm looking for is a reasoned opinion about this particular book. If you've never read it, well....

Anyway, since you mention it....I know my "library" is pretty pathetic...truly I do have many more books in my real library. I first joined LT a couple years ago but just never found the time to load my books...and then became a member again this year with a new profile because I couldn't remember my original profile info...and still don't have time to load my books. I know, this is stupid.

And since you also mention this....I have a PhD in political theory with a concentration on ancient greek political philosophy, I've read Thucydides in Greek, etc etc but actually I can't say I know more than a little about ancient Greece. It's an awfully large subject. Hence my question to the group--after all, I never read Hatzfeld in graduate school.

Finally, erm...as for his being a mere "journalist," you are mistaken. In fact, Jean Hatzfeld was a prominent French Hellenist, an archaeologist and member of the French School in Athens, and professor at the Sorbonne as well as at l'Ecole pratique des hautes etudes until he died in 1947. The person with the same name to whom you refer was born in 1949....

Stellar . . . I like the phrase "utterly soporific." Yes, better to read him, with appropriate grains of salt of course.