The interaction between City States and Hellenistic Kings is fascinating stuff. They didn't pay tax, but gave "voluntary gifts" of gold crowns regularly. They were free to run their own affairs, but had to ask permission to import grain. They freely chose without external pressure to build shrines to their overlords, but those that did just happened to receive substantial benefactions. It very much has a sense of _"you are free to do whatever you like, as long as you dont do anything we disapprove of."_ But whenever blatant direct rule was imposed, all hell broke loose (like Pyrrhus' last months in Sicily).
The most similar things to [con]federations in the Hellenistic world were the leagues, most famously the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues amongst others. Those were a bunch of city states that banded together by forming a super-state were they agreed to make some decisions (mostly of war and peace) together. Somewhere between NATO and the EU in terms of integration. It was based, to various degrees, on the equality of the member _poleis_ . The relations between cities and kings (later emperors) was different in that it was fundamentally asymmetric in power. There is no good modern analogy IMO. Perhaps the medieval relations between Free Imperial Cities and the Emperor of the HRE would be close, but the HRE is so complicated and with so many layers I'm not sure it's a useful comparison. I'm not sure it's similar to constitutional monarchies at all. In those, the monarch has _de jure_ power but _de facto_ none. The Hellenistic ones were the opposite (in relations to cities, not in general).
@@TheMysteryDriverthose were not city states but rather Italian peninsula was in a sense balkanized. Difference in this case is that 19th century nationalism promoted unity of Italian people under a common national identity instead of break up into smaller states with strong regional identity, lik3 what happened to Yugoslavia
And both considered the Egyptians tens of thousands of years more ancient still. Pliny thought Babylon went back even further and was a bonkers 770,000 years old. Bonus points to who knows were I got that last fact from :p
I am curious about the Roman tradition of removing a finger of the deceased before cremation and placing with the ashes. If you make a video about the details of their funerary practices, including the reason behind this would be of interest. Your work is appreciated very much!
Decline is somewhat relative, the Greeks did not produce much new art but Hellenic science continued. The greater part of the scientific and technological development of the Roman Empire were done by Greeks.
@@cliffpinchon2832 only if you look only at the philosophers, in my opinion a very dubious Greek legacy. But if you look at the works of Archemeaies, Euclid, Heron of Alexandria, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Galen, and many more, you’ll see brilliant scientific discoveries and minds. Their discoveries and methods are the seed bed from which modern science comes. For all the talk of art and philosophy they are trivial.
@@cliffpinchon2832 Partly true. Yes, the scientific method wasn't a thing, but they still were discovering some crazy stuff, like the mini steam engine of Heron. That's half a step from the Industrial Revolution
Would you consider doing an accuracy critique on the (2014) film Pompeii. I don't know that it deserves it, but might provide interesting educational opportunities or just fun. I'd love to see more of the Greek provinces under Rome. It tends to be rather obscure.
In a dark humorous way, the major intellectual influence of conquered Greece reminds me of the important role German scientists who were "captured" by American troops and "imported" into the USA at the end of WW2 in Europe, played in the rapidly expanding field of aeronautics, in which several German scientists were the recognised top world experts. Meanwhile, though, their Germany homeland was in a rebuilding phase and momentarily halted in its ability to function under the strict new conditions that were imposed upon losing the war in 1945.
The Persian wars and the following city-state rivalry in the classical period itself created a dynamism and greatness in the cities. Once life got easier under imperial rule people relaxed and focused more on maintaining status quo.
as far as I know, the only place from which scientific and philosophical development came was just Athens and maybe Corinth. Sparta was a very conservative society with dual ruling monarchy. only interested in its military and control over the rest of Peloponnesian peninsula. no innovations whatsoever. after the Persian invasions and the wars against Athens, Sparta became irrelevant even as a military power. funny how Alexander The Great didn't even bother to invade Sparta tho. or convince them to join his campaign of conquest over Persia. Sparta was completely out from the picture. a shell of its former glory.
Problem about Carthage is just how little is known. I've read a few books on them and, outside of their interactions with Greeks or Romans, there's just so little that can be said. Any attempt to go beyond a simple "Who did what where when" ends up being conjecture. A video on Tophets and child sacrifices would be cool, there's some textual and archaeological data to go on, but not yet a clear consensus. In a 10min video, Garrett could probably cover literally everything about it lol.
@@watchesandcoins.7738 - the cemeteries of the sacrificed children are still extant and multiple authorities have a consensus on their being the remains of babies offered to their deities
As you have been at Thasos, I am sure you have walked around the antique cities fortifications build from megalithic blocks. I am looking forward to hear your notes about this enormous building. Not to mention the museum of antiquities in Thasos!
So perception? So where is the actual decline? The rise of Christians? The advance of the Ottomans? The occupation of the Nazis? It is no easy task to objectively measure the quality and quantity of material and moral change, especially when the baseline itself is so subjective.
Polybius seemed to blame people's aversion to having children: "One remarks nowadays over all Greece such a low birth rate and in a general manner such depopulation that the towns are deserted and the fields lying fallow, although this country has not been ravaged by war or epidemic. The cause of this harm is evident. By avarice or by cowardice, the people, if they marry, will not bring up children that they ought to have. At most, they bring up one or two ... It is in this manner that the scourge, before it is noticed, has rapidly developed. The remedy is in ourselves, we have but to change our morals." (Polybius, Histories, vol. 37; as cited by Plutarch?)
@@Ramser03 we do what we do to get laid and for our children. thats the fundamental truth thats been lost over decades of neomalthusian brainwashing in the modern world as it was lost repeatedly in the past.
This makes me wonder if ecological or economic factors also contributed. Were the fields overworked and exhausted of fertility? Did large landowners with slaves out-compete small landowners, like in Imperial Roman Italy?
Realistically speaking, Greek farmers were probably being viciously impoverished by extortionate imperial tax collection, causing them to be unable to have children. But the rich - whose wealth causes the poverty and misery of the poor - always blame the poor for the consequences of their poverty. Nothing ever changes, does it.
@@nebojsag.5871 Except the poorest countries have the highest birth rates, in line with our own society where lower socioeconomic people have higher birth rates, so that can't be it.
I've been thinking about the parallels between the collpase of ancient civilizations and the collpase of modern ones. One of the most intertesting statements to me was Polybius had claimed that, "The population had collapsed after the parents had become too decedent to raise their own children." Could you provide the historical source for me?
Greek conquered Rome and then the world through its culture. Physical empires are all doomed to die, yet, the strongest will have its language, philosophy and life-style to live on.
What can we learn from this for modern Western civilization? Perhaps that we should always respect the cultural works of the past, but always innovate and develop new ideas and new cultural products. Perhaps that national autonomy and competition are essential ingredients to drive cultural productivity.
Although I generally and almost completely agree with you, a lot of self-identified innovators tend to be unconscious and vulgar imitators. True creativity, such as the Greeks did with the most basic concepts (about time, place, piety, reason, etc) and modes of living - very rarely come. Even technological and scientific developments are still very much derivative on deeper cultural strata - much of our science (despite the revolutions) is primordially Greek. True beginning is hard, though it's probably not impossible. Who knows, we might see something of the sort after the political and cultural chaos after the climate situation starts to unleash and abate.
@@erlinacobrado7947 i mean.. of course we haven't seen progress on those ideas. the reason is that they have been explored and there's no need to innovate on such concepts. it's like trying to invent the wheel again, no point in doing it. making a better wheel? of course. but you can't make something completely different from the fundamental idea. i actually think going overboard on trying to invent new culture while there's no need for it is actually pathological for society (like people debating what is a woman.. *sigh*). there will be a time and place for new culture soon, but forcing it is not good. i honestly think that moment will come when artificial intelligence will reach a certain level and humanity has to rethink its place and role in society.
Ofc they had declined. Traditional city states were in shambles. Only Hellenic kingdoms held power at that point and ofc they lost it mostly by infighting.
Hello Sir, thanks for a great video ! I can tell that since I earn my life making sounds and noises sometimes scattered in a musical form which the strong counterpart visual artistic side is carried by My wife, Art and Culture, even Fashion suffer the same luck as the Greek Classical period era, we see. Nowadays there are tendencies in music, painting, video and photography that are not eager for innovation or at least a hint of getting ahead. To the contrary they are carried by technology that embraces the pristine, sometimes so perfect/unreal sound or image. Hardly there is any real artistic evolution, to the contrary just to enhance experiences over cultural content. Repetition under technology capacity, rules the artistic world nowadays. Hopefully this will prove to change in our future. Have a most fantastic day.
My theory on the fall of Rome is that it was a breakdown of the water system. They had an extensive network of aqueducts and canals. But, as the population grew and demand increased, maintenance and new construction couldn't keep up. This was before computers and advanced mathematics. The maintenance depended solely on a few geniuses and a hierarchal network of foremen and skilled trades. Remove a few key ppl and the house of cards comes down. Water was to Rome what oil is to modern society. This is also a likely cause of the collapse of the Khmer empire. Having been there, I can tell you they spared no expense on canals and aqueducts. But, they didn't have the computing power to manage the system once it grew.
I really love your stuff, fantastic whippets of knowledge to dip in and out of, I have just bought your book. I am very eager to read it hurry up Amazon😂😂😂
The same in many regards can be said about today, but today we shun alot of the past rather than using it to produce a prosperous society. Much of the greek derived culture such as religon was being driven by rome and a weird combination of lots of different beliefs combined with a growing number of beliefs from elsewhere including north africa likely devided the societ. Which is also mirrored today in europe.
The biggiest factor of the decline was the decline of food production in Greece - importing cheeper wheat, cheeper olive oil and so on let the Greek cities grow but gettin dependent to the trade. If that trade got disturbed the city got weaken.
This dependence on trade started with the Classical period though, at the exact same time Greek culture exploded outwards. In fact, it's probably trade (especially with the Ionian states) that brought new ideas into mainland Greece and started the intellectual revolution.
All great cultural epochs are epochs of political decline: that which is great in the cultural sense has been unpolitical, even anti-political. Culture and the state - these are adversaries. The one lives off the other, the one flourishes at the expense of the other. Where culture is ascendant, there the state is in decline; where the state increases in power, there culture languishes.
Did British culture decline during their ascendancy after Napoleon? Di Roman culture thrive while it was getting dismantled? Did Spanish culture flourish while being violently occupied by the French?
Without a common enemy, Greeks reverted to doing what they did (and still do) best. Bicker amongst themselves. Fighting each other was like national sport to them. The military devolved to just using phalanx and without innovation all was ripe for Rome to sweep in, further divide the already divided Greeks and conquer.
The Roman Empire marked the Dark Ages for the Greek World, from which Greece escaped by "conquering" the eastern part of this empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, by soon transforming it to the very much Greek Byzantine Empire an entity which rapidly lost every prior influence from the Western part. And while the Western Roman Empire literally *sank* into the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire with no influence from the Western part simply flourished.
@@thevisitor1012 Yeah, but it was the west that during the 4th crusade managed to raid and loot Constantinople, weakening the empire more than the Arabs ever did (the empire fully recovered from the Arabs), marking its decline and eventually its fall, and regardless the fact that the Byzantines tried several times to protect the west. Eight hundred years after the 4th crusade came the apology by pope John Paul 2nd who expressed twice his Church's sorrow for how the events transpired.
Something interesting, but I got the feeling that many of the colonists in the Middle East during the Roman Empire were actually Greek. Is that a correct observation? The question is, why? Why were there so many Greeks in Caesarea despite it being a Roman city in Judea?
I think it's explainable in a completely 'realist', pragmatic way. The same thing happened to the Ancient Egyptians. Once they lost their independence, they continued to be dominated by stronger neighbors; there were intermittent periods of independence, but these became the exception. Eventually there was no longer any real remembrance or desire for true independence in terms of foreign policy. They became Roman. The 'Byzantines' spoke Greek for most of their history. All of that to say, I think we can say with some confidence that the Greek poleis declined because Macedon won the battle of Chaeronea. I also think it's worth noting that the polei system probably would have never led itself to large empire building. It was too eclectic and chauvinistic/jingoistic, and I think there was also a degree of respect and reverence between polei. Best case scenario they could devise some sort of big league, maybe reminiscent of the EU today... Obviously that didn't happen, and it's conjecture. I think the more surprising thing is that Rome actually pulled off the kind of domination that it did. I think the 'make or break' period for Rome was probably the period that we have the least history about; not the Punic Wars, of course those are important-- but how did Rome unite Italy? In a way, they had a government that was not altogether so different from say Thebes, but somehow they achieved something that neither Athens, Sparta nor Thebes could. I think part of it may have been how arrogant and self-important and 'near-peer' major polei were compared to, say, smaller Italic-city states/regions/petty-kingdoms or mid-level Magna Graecian states of Italy compared to Rome. To be clear, I kind of love the idea of the 'city-state'. For some reason, that nucleus of autonomy and culture has always really appealed to me. Especially when you consider that a lot of these polei were direct democracies(into the 5th century and beyond, anyway). That said, I think there probably are downsides. For the same reason that Italy was not a dominant power in the medieval period in its 'city-state' period, Greece probably was never going to be an actual leading power in the classical period.
Lots had to do with power and money. During the League of Delos Athens taxed her "allies" and she was the biggest trading center in the Aegean so she could afford lots of public and private spending. During later times it was Athens who paid taxes and the trade moved to Rhodes during the Hellenistic period and Constantinople during the Late Empire so the city was poorer and could afford massive buildings only with patronage of the very wealthy imperial elite like Herodes Atticus or of the emperors like Hadrian. The life of Herodes Atticus is a good example of how the local wealthy were pulled towards centers of powers and local communities eventually lost their benefactors who would rather host games in Rome than build something in their hometowns.
Strangely you didn't mention the lack of democracy after the Classical period. All the greatness from Ancient Greece came overwhelmingly from one single city-state, Athens, and that city-state had a very particular political system that was erased by the Macedonian conquest and later Hellenistic kingdoms, and was not really ever put back into practice in the world until 24 centuries later.
The relationship between the United States/the West and Japan is an interesting modern-day parallel. After the US/Allied forces subdued Japan, the culture of the latter spread to the West influencing everything from art and aesthetics to food and technology, and refined modern-day Westerners are expected to appreciate the finer aspects of Japanese culture, such as sushi, matcha, concepts like Zen, wabi-sabi and mono no aware, and the Japanese language (knowledge of which is of course not nearly as universal as knowledge of Greek was among the educated Romans, but the overall prestige that comes with knowing it is somewhat comparable I’d say - and before you say “but nerds and weeaboos!”, the Ancient Roman equivalent of modern nerds would’ve all been very much into all things Greek (swap manga for the myths and there you have it).
There are similarities, but I wouldn't go too far in linking the two situations. American empire is a fairly different beast from Roman imperium, even if there are a lot of rhymes.
Not really, Greek influence on Roman Italy was enormously greater than Japanese influence on the US. One should remember that Roman Emperors like Marcus Aurelius literally wrote his self-help diary in Greek. At the same time, Roman writers like Virgil literally tried to link Roman history with Greek mythology. Greek culture was dominant in the ancient world because the majority of cities in the Mediterranean basin were of Hellenic cultural heritage. While the population of Greece itself decreased (as reported by Polybius), the population of Greek speakers continued to increase until the Early Roman Empire. The Greek-speaking regions of the Roman Empire remained the Empire's economic and cultural center during the Pax Romana and later. When the Latin-speaking parts of the empire collapsed, the Greek-speaking parts continued as the Eastern Roman Empire, with its Greek-speaking capital in Constantinople, right up north of the Aegean, for a thousand years.
Big stretch. A big of pop culture, cuisine, and a few loan words do not make them equivalent. I also think people overstate how novel Japanese philosophies are compared to Western ones.
7:35 "In political terms, post classical Greece was more stable than ever before. Economically many cities flourished, but it's culture was embalmed." Perhaps I'm being too pedantic but i wouldn't call this a "decline".
Persian culture was probably better for Greece. Iranians had much more great regard for impractical poetry and philosophy as compared with the Romans. Despite their political strife, it was well known Greeks and Persians did get along well on a personal and cultural level and admired each other. The Roman admiration for Greek culture was more one sided, as ancient and classical Greeks seem to have been rather neutral or mildly disgusted towards Roman culture. Of course, western culture as we would know it probably would not exist today, but I reckon the originary innovative genius of Greece would be more preserved and would benefit from a cultural near-equal like Persia, rather than the obviously less civilised Romans at the inception of their relationship.
I’m going to guess before I watch the video in a “check all that apply” fashion: Weakened by infighting following the unification and subsequent collapse of Alexander’s single-generation empire. Weakened by centuries of warfare before Alexander was even hatched. A general trend towards individualism and xenophobia among city-states preventing them from uniting against more powerful enemies in defense of their common culture. Natural disasters/ Famine/ Disease Gerontocracy and political dysfunction leading to social and military paralysis. Poor colonial infrastructure leading to a “stretching” of forces, creating strategic weaknesses.
>"captive greece tamed rome" not the last time the region would have an effect like that. byzantium had an immense effect on islam, that uses the ancient flag of byzantium as its symbol to this day.
Ah! What a timely episode for us here in Australia. We are just days away from a referendum on whether or not to give people of one race two representatives in government, while people of all other races have to make do with just one representative. So much for equality. So much for democracy.
It's aggravating that most modern histories of Greece end with a bang at the death of Alexander, and we hear nothing about them until the Romans show up at Cynoscephalae 125 years later. But the Greeks seem to have had a Third Century Crisis of their own.
I think the main reason that the cores of southern European civilization, Italy and Greece, are viewed as 'fallen', declined, or otherwise decrepit has nothing really to do with the collapse of the Roman *state* but the collapse of the Roman economic legacy. Italy, even when fractious city states and petty kingdoms from 600 to 1700, was prohibitively wealthy. The economic well being of the South declined ever since the collapse of the Hohenstaufen dynasty but the north and central regions remained very well off by contemporary European standards for a long while. But eventually the wars of Napoleon, the collapse of Italy's central role in trade, and total disinterest in the Two Sicilies of any industrialization resulted in the pathetic rump kingdom and fascist dictatorship of the world wars that has faded into its current status. Likewise, Greece continues strongly even after 1453 spells the doom of the officially titled Roman state for good, however Greece still prospered immensely under the Ottoman Empire, and was more the center of Ottoman civilization than Anatolia's heartland was. However in a similar track to Italian history, the Ottomans economically bungle their existence by an export deficit decadence which sees their domestic industries wilt on the vine and fall behind the rest of Europe. Then when the Ottoman implosion occurs, the Balkans all mutually genocide themselves with ethnic cleansings by deportation which does nobody favors in matters of capital. Then by the modern era after WWII, Greece, Turkey, Albania, etc become their modern dilapidated selves. Thus when we look to find any Roman legacies in the popular mind, rather than the prosperous legacies of dead empires we see austerity ridden shriveling economies with banking scandals galore. Then we wring our hands over the 'falling' of these cultures, when in reality Rome fell inasmuch as your self five years ago is dead.
Why Did Ancient Greece Decline ? Why does any culture or civilization decline ? There are only a few reasons why they decline barring natural cataclysm or the odd circumstance. Take all the great civilizations throughout history and look closely and you will find a pattern emerge. Sometimes it's slow Sometimes it's fast Sometimes it's deliberate Sometimes not Other times by accident, But Beware of what you may end up knowing.
Well, in reality, the Greeks never declined until 1453. Because the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman just in name. And Greeks called themselves Rhomaioi just by name. Because by all means, it was a quintessential Greek state. Language, ethnic composition, culture, literature etc were almost or entirely Greek. Calling yourself something doesn't mean you are indeed. Greeks by default could never be actual Romans. They only called themselves as such, because politically they were the successors of the actual Roman Empire, and through the Edict of Caracalla could call themselves Romans. But only politically.
Does anyone know the name of the art piece at 7:46? It looks to me (not an expert) like an actor with different character masks, which I've heard had sort of built in "megaphones" with the open mouth part to help with voice projection. Super cool if that's what it is, and if not I'd love to find out what we do think it represents.
Please. Run your. Audio through. A filter which. Removes the air gap. Between words. It is very. Harsh to listen. To your audio when. There is a constant. Pause.
Migration, Creek as with Rome where the Richest and strongest civilization of there time ,and attracted,less wealthy people to them,thus diluting the local people along with there customs and traditions. The Creek and Rome empires did not collapse ,what was left of those empires collapsed.
"We have an announcement. Tonight's production of 'The Clouds' will not be seen. Instead, we're gonna kill this big water buffalo for you. Hope you all enjoy it." Ah, the Romans.
Excuse me but the Greek colonies in France were not established in the Hellenistic or Roman era, but in the Archaic Period.... Massilia around 600 BC....
Had never really thought of the amazing culture of classical Greece as being the result of a dynamic political situation that was never replicated because of conservative rule . Interesting!
You also see a decline in some cities around the black sea at this time. They were grain supplying colonies and, with the grain from Egypt coming in cheap, they declined over the Hellenistic period. An Egypt that gave more money to, or taxed its farmers less, they could've helped those colonies survive but in the Hellenistic era it was the nobles making decisions and who cares about a random couple of cities in Scythia? The aristocratic conservative rulership had a few knock on effects
The interaction between City States and Hellenistic Kings is fascinating stuff. They didn't pay tax, but gave "voluntary gifts" of gold crowns regularly. They were free to run their own affairs, but had to ask permission to import grain. They freely chose without external pressure to build shrines to their overlords, but those that did just happened to receive substantial benefactions. It very much has a sense of _"you are free to do whatever you like, as long as you dont do anything we disapprove of."_ But whenever blatant direct rule was imposed, all hell broke loose (like Pyrrhus' last months in Sicily).
Seems very similar to today's monarchial republics, like the UK, NL, etc. (superficially)
A confederation.
The most similar things to [con]federations in the Hellenistic world were the leagues, most famously the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues amongst others. Those were a bunch of city states that banded together by forming a super-state were they agreed to make some decisions (mostly of war and peace) together. Somewhere between NATO and the EU in terms of integration. It was based, to various degrees, on the equality of the member _poleis_ .
The relations between cities and kings (later emperors) was different in that it was fundamentally asymmetric in power. There is no good modern analogy IMO. Perhaps the medieval relations between Free Imperial Cities and the Emperor of the HRE would be close, but the HRE is so complicated and with so many layers I'm not sure it's a useful comparison.
I'm not sure it's similar to constitutional monarchies at all. In those, the monarch has _de jure_ power but _de facto_ none. The Hellenistic ones were the opposite (in relations to cities, not in general).
@@QuantumHistorian "IMO" should be hung on the forefront of every one of these sentences, as an opinion piece is all it is.
You write like Dr. Ryan. Or at least I read it in his voice. Spot on.
It is always interesting to realize how even the Romans saw the Greek city states as 'ancient'.
And then Italy ran like that until what, the 1850s or something?
Like America's relationship with Europe.
@@TheMysteryDriversays who?
@@TheMysteryDriverthose were not city states but rather Italian peninsula was in a sense balkanized. Difference in this case is that 19th century nationalism promoted unity of Italian people under a common national identity instead of break up into smaller states with strong regional identity, lik3 what happened to Yugoslavia
And both considered the Egyptians tens of thousands of years more ancient still. Pliny thought Babylon went back even further and was a bonkers 770,000 years old. Bonus points to who knows were I got that last fact from :p
I am curious about the Roman tradition of removing a finger of the deceased before cremation and placing with the ashes. If you make a video about the details of their funerary practices, including the reason behind this would be of interest. Your work is appreciated very much!
A video exploring Roman funerary customs and epitaphs is on my short list of future topics. Stay tuned!
@@toldinstone do one for greeks aswell
Decline is somewhat relative, the Greeks did not produce much new art but Hellenic science continued. The greater part of the scientific and technological development of the Roman Empire were done by Greeks.
It was mostly done in Alexandria, not Greece itself.
@@Creativethinker12 But Hellenic non the less. Greeks were the intellectuals of the empire.
What science are you talking about? Wasn't it mostly vague philosophical speculations on things they didn't know how to test?
@@cliffpinchon2832 only if you look only at the philosophers, in my opinion a very dubious Greek legacy. But if you look at the works of Archemeaies, Euclid, Heron of Alexandria, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Galen, and many more, you’ll see brilliant scientific discoveries and minds. Their discoveries and methods are the seed bed from which modern science comes. For all the talk of art and philosophy they are trivial.
@@cliffpinchon2832 Partly true. Yes, the scientific method wasn't a thing, but they still were discovering some crazy stuff, like the mini steam engine of Heron. That's half a step from the Industrial Revolution
Would you consider doing an accuracy critique on the (2014) film Pompeii. I don't know that it deserves it, but might provide interesting educational opportunities or just fun.
I'd love to see more of the Greek provinces under Rome. It tends to be rather obscure.
In a dark humorous way, the major intellectual influence of conquered Greece reminds me of the important role German scientists who were "captured" by American troops and "imported" into the USA at the end of WW2 in Europe, played in the rapidly expanding field of aeronautics, in which several German scientists were the recognised top world experts. Meanwhile, though, their Germany homeland was in a rebuilding phase and momentarily halted in its ability to function under the strict new conditions that were imposed upon losing the war in 1945.
Operation Paperclip
The Persian wars and the following city-state rivalry in the classical period itself created a dynamism and greatness in the cities. Once life got easier under imperial rule people relaxed and focused more on maintaining status quo.
as far as I know, the only place from which scientific and philosophical development came was just Athens and maybe Corinth.
Sparta was a very conservative society with dual ruling monarchy. only interested in its military and control over the rest of Peloponnesian peninsula.
no innovations whatsoever. after the Persian invasions and the wars against Athens, Sparta became irrelevant even as a military power.
funny how Alexander The Great didn't even bother to invade Sparta tho. or convince them to join his campaign of conquest over Persia.
Sparta was completely out from the picture. a shell of its former glory.
@@LevisH21 True, but the legend of Sparta lives on today as strong as ever. That counts for something.
Amazing video on not commonly touched subject. Would love to see something on Carthage.
Especially their child sacrifice. We even have that today
Problem about Carthage is just how little is known. I've read a few books on them and, outside of their interactions with Greeks or Romans, there's just so little that can be said. Any attempt to go beyond a simple "Who did what where when" ends up being conjecture. A video on Tophets and child sacrifices would be cool, there's some textual and archaeological data to go on, but not yet a clear consensus. In a 10min video, Garrett could probably cover literally everything about it lol.
Very good point. Sadly,
all the Carthaginian documents are lost. @@QuantumHistorian
Was more interested in Punic society after the fall of Carthage as towns like Utica were spared the destruction.
@@QuantumHistorian
@@watchesandcoins.7738 - the cemeteries of the sacrificed children are still extant and multiple authorities have a consensus on their being the remains of babies offered to their deities
As you have been at Thasos, I am sure you have walked around the antique cities fortifications build from megalithic blocks. I am looking forward to hear your notes about this enormous building. Not to mention the museum of antiquities in Thasos!
Daily thinking about Ancient Greece* again
I just want to say that I really appricaite your work! Thanks a lot :)
Might it also be that a general Greek worldview of decline from a perfect primordial past was at play?
So perception? So where is the actual decline? The rise of Christians? The advance of the Ottomans? The occupation of the Nazis? It is no easy task to objectively measure the quality and quantity of material and moral change, especially when the baseline itself is so subjective.
I spoke lightly. Greek culture outlasted Athens, but their moment was lost as power and patronage shifted.
Polybius seemed to blame people's aversion to having children: "One remarks nowadays over all Greece such a low birth rate and in a general manner such depopulation that the towns are deserted and the fields lying fallow, although this country has not been ravaged by war or epidemic. The cause of this harm is evident. By avarice or by cowardice, the people, if they marry, will not bring up children that they ought to have. At most, they bring up one or two ... It is in this manner that the scourge, before it is noticed, has rapidly developed. The remedy is in ourselves, we have but to change our morals." (Polybius, Histories, vol. 37; as cited by Plutarch?)
Definitely can see that going on in the modern world. Like it or not, a society that doesn’t procreate will take a steep dive.
@@Ramser03 we do what we do to get laid and for our children. thats the fundamental truth thats been lost over decades of neomalthusian brainwashing in the modern world as it was lost repeatedly in the past.
This makes me wonder if ecological or economic factors also contributed. Were the fields overworked and exhausted of fertility? Did large landowners with slaves out-compete small landowners, like in Imperial Roman Italy?
Realistically speaking, Greek farmers were probably being viciously impoverished by extortionate imperial tax collection, causing them to be unable to have children.
But the rich - whose wealth causes the poverty and misery of the poor - always blame the poor for the consequences of their poverty.
Nothing ever changes, does it.
@@nebojsag.5871 Except the poorest countries have the highest birth rates, in line with our own society where lower socioeconomic people have higher birth rates, so that can't be it.
I've been thinking about the parallels between the collpase of ancient civilizations and the collpase of modern ones. One of the most intertesting statements to me was Polybius had claimed that, "The population had collapsed after the parents had become too decedent to raise their own children." Could you provide the historical source for me?
Polybius 36.17
Read Oswald Spengler, he explained everything
@@pxh6129 Supposedly we've entered the Caesarism phase.
Greece did not so much “fall” as “stall”
Yessss! Love the Ancient Greece content
Well spoken good sir. Well done
Pausanias’ writings are probably my favourite “easy reading” classical text that I love to read while on a train.
When you're on top, you get complacent and don't adjust to the outside forces that seek to take what you have
Kind of like Europe falling to foreign migration, the altruistic nature of the west allowing their own cultural demise.
I think so as well
Greek conquered Rome and then the world through its culture. Physical empires are all doomed to die, yet, the strongest will have its language, philosophy and life-style to live on.
More than a billion people speak romance languages not greek derived languages, so Rome wins
@@cristhianramirez6939 yeah you got me in the language piece.
What can we learn from this for modern Western civilization? Perhaps that we should always respect the cultural works of the past, but always innovate and develop new ideas and new cultural products. Perhaps that national autonomy and competition are essential ingredients to drive cultural productivity.
Although I generally and almost completely agree with you, a lot of self-identified innovators tend to be unconscious and vulgar imitators. True creativity, such as the Greeks did with the most basic concepts (about time, place, piety, reason, etc) and modes of living - very rarely come. Even technological and scientific developments are still very much derivative on deeper cultural strata - much of our science (despite the revolutions) is primordially Greek. True beginning is hard, though it's probably not impossible. Who knows, we might see something of the sort after the political and cultural chaos after the climate situation starts to unleash and abate.
@@erlinacobrado7947 i mean.. of course we haven't seen progress on those ideas. the reason is that they have been explored and there's no need to innovate on such concepts. it's like trying to invent the wheel again, no point in doing it. making a better wheel? of course. but you can't make something completely different from the fundamental idea. i actually think going overboard on trying to invent new culture while there's no need for it is actually pathological for society (like people debating what is a woman.. *sigh*). there will be a time and place for new culture soon, but forcing it is not good. i honestly think that moment will come when artificial intelligence will reach a certain level and humanity has to rethink its place and role in society.
Hearing “THIS is the forum of Philippi” gave me a Doug Demuro Vietnam flashback.
Pyrrhus of Epirus has entered the chat.
Thank God there are people who dedicate their time to educating others with content like this.
Some wonderful insights. Excellent stuff. Well done Doc.
Would you maybe consider making a video about the differece between the system of the roman republic and greek democracy?
Does anyone else think about how much the ancients would have loved tomatoes.
Salted tomatoes, or tomatoes with cheese 😊
Mmmm salted with olive oil and good bread
I think of it every day.
It is a good thought to have on a cool autumn day perhaps even a cold winters eve.@@williamwilliam5066
Crazy how the spaniards spread the seeds to all over the world, tomatoes and avocados come from mexico
Told in stone is so good
I appreciate this. Thank you.
Even by Roman times, the Greeks hadn't really declined much. The Romans just became stronger.
Yeah but what's interesting is why the Romans became stronger to the point the Greeks couldn't submit them
Not at all. With the rise of Rome and Parthia, there was no independent Greek polity in the world anymore.
Ofc they had declined. Traditional city states were in shambles. Only Hellenic kingdoms held power at that point and ofc they lost it mostly by infighting.
I think decline means political independence, not only cultural and intellectual output
Lessss gooo hyped to learn some Greek history
Hello Sir, thanks for a great video ! I can tell that since I earn my life making sounds and noises sometimes scattered in a musical form which the strong counterpart visual artistic side is carried by My wife, Art and Culture, even Fashion suffer the same luck as the Greek Classical period era, we see. Nowadays there are tendencies in music, painting, video and photography that are not eager for innovation or at least a hint of getting ahead. To the contrary they are carried by technology that embraces the pristine, sometimes so perfect/unreal sound or image. Hardly there is any real artistic evolution, to the contrary just to enhance experiences over cultural content. Repetition under technology capacity, rules the artistic world nowadays. Hopefully this will prove to change in our future. Have a most fantastic day.
My theory on the fall of Rome is that it was a breakdown of the water system. They had an extensive network of aqueducts and canals. But, as the population grew and demand increased, maintenance and new construction couldn't keep up. This was before computers and advanced mathematics. The maintenance depended solely on a few geniuses and a hierarchal network of foremen and skilled trades. Remove a few key ppl and the house of cards comes down.
Water was to Rome what oil is to modern society. This is also a likely cause of the collapse of the Khmer empire. Having been there, I can tell you they spared no expense on canals and aqueducts. But, they didn't have the computing power to manage the system once it grew.
Surely it is always wokism and trannyism that destroys cultures?
I really love your stuff, fantastic whippets of knowledge to dip in and out of, I have just bought your book. I am very eager to read it hurry up Amazon😂😂😂
Neat!
The same in many regards can be said about today, but today we shun alot of the past rather than using it to produce a prosperous society.
Much of the greek derived culture such as religon was being driven by rome and a weird combination of lots of different beliefs combined with a growing number of beliefs from elsewhere including north africa likely devided the societ. Which is also mirrored today in europe.
But wait theres more!
And not a word about them destroying their forests
The biggiest factor of the decline was the decline of food production in Greece - importing cheeper wheat, cheeper olive oil and so on let the Greek cities grow but gettin dependent to the trade. If that trade got disturbed the city got weaken.
This dependence on trade started with the Classical period though, at the exact same time Greek culture exploded outwards. In fact, it's probably trade (especially with the Ionian states) that brought new ideas into mainland Greece and started the intellectual revolution.
One of your best videos
what a treat!!!
Like baklava
love your work
Did you visit the ruins you show in the videos or did you find those videos on the internet?
More videos about Greece please
Really weird question. Would Alexander the Great have become a vampire if possible?
Love this content
All great cultural epochs are epochs of political decline: that which is great in the cultural sense has been unpolitical, even anti-political. Culture and the state - these are adversaries. The one lives off the other, the one flourishes at the expense of the other. Where culture is ascendant, there the state is in decline; where the state increases in power, there culture languishes.
I just made a similar comment 2 hours after you did! Though you have it stated much more elegantly.
Chinese Tang dynasty: I beg your pardon
The Sun King would beg to differ.
@@自由石匠-b8k The Tang Dynasty should have begged for higher literacy rates
Did British culture decline during their ascendancy after Napoleon? Di Roman culture thrive while it was getting dismantled? Did Spanish culture flourish while being violently occupied by the French?
In Roman Times Athens was a museum and Sparta was a relic.Beautiful said....!
Without a common enemy, Greeks reverted to doing what they did (and still do) best. Bicker amongst themselves. Fighting each other was like national sport to them. The military devolved to just using phalanx and without innovation all was ripe for Rome to sweep in, further divide the already divided Greeks and conquer.
Minute 4:18 "which remains we see"?? Shouldn't it be "...whose remains we see"? Other than that, I love your work! LOL
The Roman Empire marked the Dark Ages for the Greek World, from which Greece escaped by "conquering" the eastern part of this empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, by soon transforming it to the very much Greek Byzantine Empire an entity which rapidly lost every prior influence from the Western part. And while the Western Roman Empire literally *sank* into the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire with no influence from the Western part simply flourished.
"but this all changed once the Arabs attacked"
@@thevisitor1012 Yeah, but it was the west that during the 4th crusade managed to raid and loot Constantinople, weakening the empire more than the Arabs ever did (the empire fully recovered from the Arabs), marking its decline and eventually its fall, and regardless the fact that the Byzantines tried several times to protect the west. Eight hundred years after the 4th crusade came the apology by pope John Paul 2nd who expressed twice his Church's sorrow for how the events transpired.
@@thevisitor1012well, I'd say it happened much later, Byzantium's true decline imo started in 1204
No civilization has ever made such as impact as Classical Greece!
Could the exhaustion of gold and silver mines be the cause of the decline of classical Greece?
Hell yeah dude
I recently came back from Greece and felt depressed… so much beautiful civilisation lost to war and decay…
The only constant is change.
They might have declined without either of them, there is no way to say decline isn't a part of the culture's life time
And yet they live far better now than any of those ancestors.
Let's gooioo
Please make your book avaiable on applebooks in czechia thanks ❤
"Greece has fallen. Millions must go to theatre"
Something interesting, but I got the feeling that many of the colonists in the Middle East during the Roman Empire were actually Greek. Is that a correct observation? The question is, why? Why were there so many Greeks in Caesarea despite it being a Roman city in Judea?
I think it's explainable in a completely 'realist', pragmatic way. The same thing happened to the Ancient Egyptians. Once they lost their independence, they continued to be dominated by stronger neighbors; there were intermittent periods of independence, but these became the exception. Eventually there was no longer any real remembrance or desire for true independence in terms of foreign policy. They became Roman. The 'Byzantines' spoke Greek for most of their history. All of that to say, I think we can say with some confidence that the Greek poleis declined because Macedon won the battle of Chaeronea. I also think it's worth noting that the polei system probably would have never led itself to large empire building. It was too eclectic and chauvinistic/jingoistic, and I think there was also a degree of respect and reverence between polei. Best case scenario they could devise some sort of big league, maybe reminiscent of the EU today... Obviously that didn't happen, and it's conjecture.
I think the more surprising thing is that Rome actually pulled off the kind of domination that it did. I think the 'make or break' period for Rome was probably the period that we have the least history about; not the Punic Wars, of course those are important-- but how did Rome unite Italy? In a way, they had a government that was not altogether so different from say Thebes, but somehow they achieved something that neither Athens, Sparta nor Thebes could. I think part of it may have been how arrogant and self-important and 'near-peer' major polei were compared to, say, smaller Italic-city states/regions/petty-kingdoms or mid-level Magna Graecian states of Italy compared to Rome.
To be clear, I kind of love the idea of the 'city-state'. For some reason, that nucleus of autonomy and culture has always really appealed to me. Especially when you consider that a lot of these polei were direct democracies(into the 5th century and beyond, anyway). That said, I think there probably are downsides. For the same reason that Italy was not a dominant power in the medieval period in its 'city-state' period, Greece probably was never going to be an actual leading power in the classical period.
Socrates. Pre-Socratic Athens valued engineering and craftsmanship. Post-Socratic Athens valued the ideal over the real.
Lots had to do with power and money. During the League of Delos Athens taxed her "allies" and she was the biggest trading center in the Aegean so she could afford lots of public and private spending. During later times it was Athens who paid taxes and the trade moved to Rhodes during the Hellenistic period and Constantinople during the Late Empire so the city was poorer and could afford massive buildings only with patronage of the very wealthy imperial elite like Herodes Atticus or of the emperors like Hadrian.
The life of Herodes Atticus is a good example of how the local wealthy were pulled towards centers of powers and local communities eventually lost their benefactors who would rather host games in Rome than build something in their hometowns.
Strangely you didn't mention the lack of democracy after the Classical period. All the greatness from Ancient Greece came overwhelmingly from one single city-state, Athens, and that city-state had a very particular political system that was erased by the Macedonian conquest and later Hellenistic kingdoms, and was not really ever put back into practice in the world until 24 centuries later.
Why did ancient Greece decline? Because they were too busy arguing about who had the best philosophers.
7:25 Sparta: "hahaha, Athenian losers, that would never happen here"
The relationship between the United States/the West and Japan is an interesting modern-day parallel.
After the US/Allied forces subdued Japan, the culture of the latter spread to the West influencing everything from art and aesthetics to food and technology, and refined modern-day Westerners are expected to appreciate the finer aspects of Japanese culture, such as sushi, matcha, concepts like Zen, wabi-sabi and mono no aware, and the Japanese language (knowledge of which is of course not nearly as universal as knowledge of Greek was among the educated Romans, but the overall prestige that comes with knowing it is somewhat comparable I’d say - and before you say “but nerds and weeaboos!”, the Ancient Roman equivalent of modern nerds would’ve all been very much into all things Greek (swap manga for the myths and there you have it).
There are similarities, but I wouldn't go too far in linking the two situations. American empire is a fairly different beast from Roman imperium, even if there are a lot of rhymes.
Not really, Greek influence on Roman Italy was enormously greater than Japanese influence on the US. One should remember that Roman Emperors like Marcus Aurelius literally wrote his self-help diary in Greek. At the same time, Roman writers like Virgil literally tried to link Roman history with Greek mythology.
Greek culture was dominant in the ancient world because the majority of cities in the Mediterranean basin were of Hellenic cultural heritage. While the population of Greece itself decreased (as reported by Polybius), the population of Greek speakers continued to increase until the Early Roman Empire.
The Greek-speaking regions of the Roman Empire remained the Empire's economic and cultural center during the Pax Romana and later. When the Latin-speaking parts of the empire collapsed, the Greek-speaking parts continued as the Eastern Roman Empire, with its Greek-speaking capital in Constantinople, right up north of the Aegean, for a thousand years.
Big stretch. A big of pop culture, cuisine, and a few loan words do not make them equivalent. I also think people overstate how novel Japanese philosophies are compared to Western ones.
That fluorescent pastel house tho.
7:35 "In political terms, post classical Greece was more stable than ever before. Economically many cities flourished, but it's culture was embalmed."
Perhaps I'm being too pedantic but i wouldn't call this a "decline".
"The population had collapsed after parents became too decadent to raise their own children". Uh oh.
Yeahhh you loaded up one
Only ancient Persians liked the decline
Then the Arab Mohamedeans put an end to Persia
Persian culture was probably better for Greece. Iranians had much more great regard for impractical poetry and philosophy as compared with the Romans. Despite their political strife, it was well known Greeks and Persians did get along well on a personal and cultural level and admired each other. The Roman admiration for Greek culture was more one sided, as ancient and classical Greeks seem to have been rather neutral or mildly disgusted towards Roman culture. Of course, western culture as we would know it probably would not exist today, but I reckon the originary innovative genius of Greece would be more preserved and would benefit from a cultural near-equal like Persia, rather than the obviously less civilised Romans at the inception of their relationship.
I’m going to guess before I watch the video in a “check all that apply” fashion:
Weakened by infighting following the unification and subsequent collapse of Alexander’s single-generation empire.
Weakened by centuries of warfare before Alexander was even hatched.
A general trend towards individualism and xenophobia among city-states preventing them from uniting against more powerful enemies in defense of their common culture.
Natural disasters/ Famine/ Disease
Gerontocracy and political dysfunction leading to social and military paralysis.
Poor colonial infrastructure leading to a “stretching” of forces, creating strategic weaknesses.
>"captive greece tamed rome"
not the last time the region would have an effect like that. byzantium had an immense effect on islam, that uses the ancient flag of byzantium as its symbol to this day.
Ah! What a timely episode for us here in Australia. We are just days away from a referendum on whether or not to give people of one race two representatives in government, while people of all other races have to make do with just one representative. So much for equality. So much for democracy.
It's aggravating that most modern histories of Greece end with a bang at the death of Alexander, and we hear nothing about them until the Romans show up at Cynoscephalae 125 years later. But the Greeks seem to have had a Third Century Crisis of their own.
I think the main reason that the cores of southern European civilization, Italy and Greece, are viewed as 'fallen', declined, or otherwise decrepit has nothing really to do with the collapse of the Roman *state* but the collapse of the Roman economic legacy. Italy, even when fractious city states and petty kingdoms from 600 to 1700, was prohibitively wealthy. The economic well being of the South declined ever since the collapse of the Hohenstaufen dynasty but the north and central regions remained very well off by contemporary European standards for a long while. But eventually the wars of Napoleon, the collapse of Italy's central role in trade, and total disinterest in the Two Sicilies of any industrialization resulted in the pathetic rump kingdom and fascist dictatorship of the world wars that has faded into its current status.
Likewise, Greece continues strongly even after 1453 spells the doom of the officially titled Roman state for good, however Greece still prospered immensely under the Ottoman Empire, and was more the center of Ottoman civilization than Anatolia's heartland was. However in a similar track to Italian history, the Ottomans economically bungle their existence by an export deficit decadence which sees their domestic industries wilt on the vine and fall behind the rest of Europe. Then when the Ottoman implosion occurs, the Balkans all mutually genocide themselves with ethnic cleansings by deportation which does nobody favors in matters of capital. Then by the modern era after WWII, Greece, Turkey, Albania, etc become their modern dilapidated selves.
Thus when we look to find any Roman legacies in the popular mind, rather than the prosperous legacies of dead empires we see austerity ridden shriveling economies with banking scandals galore. Then we wring our hands over the 'falling' of these cultures, when in reality Rome fell inasmuch as your self five years ago is dead.
Why Did Ancient Greece Decline ? Why does any culture or civilization decline ? There are only a few reasons why they decline barring natural cataclysm or the odd circumstance. Take all the great civilizations throughout history and look closely and you will find a pattern emerge. Sometimes it's slow Sometimes it's fast Sometimes it's deliberate Sometimes not Other times by accident, But Beware of what you may end up knowing.
Well, in reality, the Greeks never declined until 1453. Because the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman just in name. And Greeks called themselves Rhomaioi just by name. Because by all means, it was a quintessential Greek state. Language, ethnic composition, culture, literature etc were almost or entirely Greek. Calling yourself something doesn't mean you are indeed. Greeks by default could never be actual Romans. They only called themselves as such, because politically they were the successors of the actual Roman Empire, and through the Edict of Caracalla could call themselves Romans. But only politically.
Does anyone know the name of the art piece at 7:46? It looks to me (not an expert) like an actor with different character masks, which I've heard had sort of built in "megaphones" with the open mouth part to help with voice projection. Super cool if that's what it is, and if not I'd love to find out what we do think it represents.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspis_(Menander)
@@kennj321 yo really appreciate it I just went down a sick rabbit hole
@@maxcasteel2141 understand, ancient greece will do that to you.
I fuccin LOVE that intro riff! What a Riff.
Please. Run your. Audio through. A filter which. Removes the air gap. Between words. It is very. Harsh to listen. To your audio when. There is a constant. Pause.
Migration, Creek as with Rome where the Richest and strongest civilization of there time ,and attracted,less wealthy people to them,thus diluting the local people along with there customs and traditions. The Creek and Rome empires did not collapse ,what was left of those empires collapsed.
Explore Golgumbaz
But what was the proposal?
So the old people in the classical age could say “back in my day things were better” and were actually right.
"We have an announcement. Tonight's production of 'The Clouds' will not be seen. Instead, we're gonna kill this big water buffalo for you. Hope you all enjoy it." Ah, the Romans.
AND didn't Greece really choose Rome to be its successor and to win over Persia.
Greek culture was an ancient soft power to say the least.
i love the concept of Soft Power 😸
Very insighful video, especially if you are into the history of the later periods of the Empire (i.e. 3rd century crisis).
Excuse me but the Greek colonies in France were not established in the Hellenistic or Roman era, but in the Archaic Period.... Massilia around 600 BC....
Interesting.
How did the Greeks separate men from the boys? Crowbar
Civilizations have come & gone, but some lasted longer than others.
Had never really thought of the amazing culture of classical Greece as being the result of a dynamic political situation that was never replicated because of conservative rule . Interesting!
You also see a decline in some cities around the black sea at this time. They were grain supplying colonies and, with the grain from Egypt coming in cheap, they declined over the Hellenistic period. An Egypt that gave more money to, or taxed its farmers less, they could've helped those colonies survive but in the Hellenistic era it was the nobles making decisions and who cares about a random couple of cities in Scythia? The aristocratic conservative rulership had a few knock on effects
Lol you idiots blaming "conservatism". A go-to for the sub-IQ, it's just easier.
How interesting, thats how we think of France now. Paris is has literally turned into a museum city of the 19th century.
Legendaris
Yeah. Why didn’t the Greeks resist the Romans the way they resisted the Persians?
Because Greece was exhausted by continuous wars, mostly civil wars
It’s 2023 and the wheel of history continues to turn…
Every day has it's noon.
Discover the spiritual meaning of the greek mythology on our channel