How can we improve the main Pothos site?

[Semiramis]

Accursed,

Pothos does bank on the glamour attached with Alexnader's name. On the other hand, the forum puts up with the likes of you and I. I admit there are some disturbing posts dismissing or justifying the sufferings of Iranians, Indians and others. Some go as far as romanticizing the most brutal violence. But let's be fair - that is not the general trend on this forum. I never realized that posting here was a form of forced conscription into Alexander's army but you make a great point!

The Eurocentrism of much of Alexander scholarship is undeniable. In fact much of Classical studies has been Eurocentric since its inception at the height of European nationalism and colonialism. Befitting the zeitgeist, ancient Greeks were bestowed the honour/burden of being the predecessors of 'Western Civilization' since the first excavations. A fervent belief in Greek exceptionalism and isolation was cultivated.

While most people nowadays would scoff at open declarations of these attitudes, disguised vestiges still remain in the foundations of the field. You can see it in the scholars’ reluctance to treat non-Greek or non-Roman sources with any degree of respect. For example, the Zoroastrian accounts of Alexander’s reign are often glossed over (a point that is obviously not lost on you). An esteemed scholar like Robin Lane Fox can get away with simply gushing about the superiority of the Greek race compared to mere Orientals in the last pages of his Alexander biography.

The entire field needs an overhaul, not just the traditions of Alexander studies. To be honest, I don't have much hope for a sudden fundamental shift any time soon. Colonial rhetoric regarding the unique superiority of 'Western civilization' and its innate right to conquer/civilize/rule are back with a vengeance as of late. Notice the appropriation of Greek history into this narrative. Take the story of Thermopylae the way it is represented in the movie '300'. What would it be like to be Iranian and watch something like that? Particularly ironic as Thermopylae was a classic example of the underdog fighting the all powerful empire. One can't really expect a site dedicated to a conqueror (who is considered one of “us”) to swim against this tide. Personally, if I was to hero-worship anyone, it’d be a guy like Spartacus.

[athenas owl]

the Zoroastrian accounts of Alexander’s reign

Are you talking about the ones that were written some 7 or 8 hundred years later? The Book of Arda Wiraz? It is not because there is some conspiracy to hide some truth, but because they were written so many centuries later...and had a specific religious bias...of course it was Alexander's fault that 12,000 (wasn't that the number?) ancient scrolls written in gold ink were lost...that explains it!

But were the Achaemenids the strong Zoroastrians that the later Sassanids were? Was Zarathustra even mentioned in Achaemenid txts? Ahura Mazda was, but how much of that is related to the prophet? The rulers of the period in which the Book of Arda Wiraz was written. I won't go so far as to compare the later texts to a "creation myth", but as my kid says, there certainly could have been some "retconning" going on.

This, I think is the "problem" of using that and other late texts...it is through the filter of the Sassanids and their own quite very strong religious beliefs.

I agree that Eurocentric scholarship is a problem, but beware of bending over backwards into equally anti-Eurocentric views to "make up for it". It drags in nationalism from that side as well and anachronism and a lack of understanding for the period, instead imposing our own post WW2 views and post-colonial, as well. You see this from Greece to India...for valid reasons, but it can go to far in the other direction.

There's a LOT of archaeology going on in Iran these days, and I get teasers from sites that talk about yet another Achaemenid palace found or some other tantalising thing that we most likely won't see published for a long time. Perhaps in my lifetime, we'll have a better understanding of Persia..I certainly hope so. The Fortification Texts have been a god-send.

What's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Who can say right now, these places are not welcoming for research at this time. Though my hat's off to the folks, especially in Afghanistan, that continue to try to work and save their ancient heritage under what must at times terrifyling conditions.

As for RLF's book. To be truthful, I did not see any "superiority" being gushed. He is certainly an admirer of ATG, no doubt. But I never got that from his book. But then I wasn't searching out for any either. It's just a book, one that I think was a response to Badian and Green, at. al...No Tarn, certainly.

I have never seen any "romantic" views of the slaughter...though I think I might have been accused of such. I just recognise that Alexander wasn't the only one to do any slaughtering. Or invasion or empire building, for that matter. By pointing out his own "great" skills at it (and by great I mean impressive, significant, memorable, etc...especially in his own time) but NOT removing him from his period..is that romanticising?

As for Greek exceptionalism, without getting into that whole can of worms, I don't even see Alexander as "Greek" in the same way the West sees "Ancient Greece"...whatever the Macedonian ethnic heritage really was, the Macedonians were a half barbarian tribe from the north that lived by their own rules (with some influence from Persia and the northern tribes). That whole civilised veneer of Hellenisation does not lessen this at all.

Trying to shoe horn them into the "Greek" world, because they liked Attic and Ionian culture does make them the vanguard of 'Greek culture", at least intentionally.

[Semiramis]

the Zoroastrian accounts of Alexander’s reign

Are you talking about the ones that were written some 7 or 8 hundred years later? The Book of Arda Wiraz? It is not because there is some conspiracy to hide some truth, but because they were written so many centuries later...and had a specific religious bias...of course it was Alexander's fault that 12,000 (wasn't that the number?) ancient scrolls written in gold ink were lost...that explains it!

But were the Achaemenids the strong Zoroastrians that the later Sassanids were? Was Zarathustra even mentioned in Achaemenid txts? Ahura Mazda was, but how much of that is related to the prophet? The rulers of the period in which the Book of Arda Wiraz was written. I won't go so far as to compare the later texts to a "creation myth", but as my kid says, there certainly could have been some "retconning" going on.

This, I think is the "problem" of using that and other late texts...it is through the filter of the Sassanids and their own quite very strong religious beliefs.

I'm sure you're aware of this already but the Greek and Roman accounts are not contemporary either. The book of Arda Wiraz for example, is a commentary on an earlier book that can be dated to 140 BC or older. This does not compare too badly in the the timing stakes to the other sources. No one has suggested that the loss of all Zoroastrian texts can be blamed on Alexander. However, in an oral tradition, targeted killings of priests, judges etc. would have a huge impact on the transmission of knowledge.

As for religious bias, all the other authors had their own biases as well. A Greek philosopher hoping to make some moralistic points, a employee and admirer of the Roman empire or a writer hoping to take swipes at rulers of his own time will all function as filters. Even going back to his own time, someone like Alexander's official historian or a companion hoping to legitimize his reign from reflected glory would count as biased.

My point is that, with the history of that period, one would hope to consider all available information because none of it is ideal. Take the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries for example. There needs to be more emphasis on this source contemporary to the events when reconstructing the events such as Gaugamela.

I have suggested that there is a trend of bias concerning how the sources are treated. I have backed it up with examples. Labeling this as a conspiracy does not do it justice.

It's irrelevant whether the Achaemenid religious practices were identical to Sassanid ones. Ahura Mazda is mentioned often in Achaemenid texts. The name Spitama (Zarathusta's family name) is also attested. 4th century Greek scholars describe Persians as learning the teaching of Zoroaster specifically. However, the exact way Achaemenids worshiped Ahura Mazda is not of importance in this discussion. It's simple enough see that the Zoroastrian sources describe unmistakable religious persecution after Alexander's invasion. It is also clear that sometimes attempts are made to ignore, dismiss or discredit them when sweeping pronouncements about Alexander's respect for the cultures and religions of the conquered are made.

I agree that Eurocentric scholarship is a problem, but beware of bending over backwards into equally anti-Eurocentric views to "make up for it". It drags in nationalism from that side as well and anachronism and a lack of understanding for the period, instead imposing our own post WW2 views and post-colonial, as well. You see this from Greece to India...for valid reasons, but it can go to far in the other direction

If one agrees that Eurocentric scholarship is a problem, identifying these biases and tackling them can't be described as bending over backwards. We don't need to "make up for it", ideally we need to get rid of it. Eurocentrism drags nationalism and anachronism into history. It's important to strip Mediterranean history from colonial, nationalist and racial rhetoric as this is no less anachronistic than post WWII anti-racist and post-colonial theories.

What's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Who can say right now, these places are not welcoming for research at this time. Though my hat's off to the folks, especially in Afghanistan, that continue to try to work and save their ancient heritage under what must at times terrifyling conditions.

I think this is another excuse for me to promote that excellent link Paralus provided about the Indus Valley excavations in Pakistan. The researchers found that living in Pakistan and observing the cultural life there was immensely helpful in interpreting the data from the digs. It seems unfair to categorize Pakistan as unwelcoming for research. Afghanistan, as we all know, is currently a war zone. It is likely that priorities have shifted to other concerns there.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?f ... BC141B64C9

As for Greek exceptionalism, without getting into that whole can of worms, I don't even see Alexander as "Greek" in the same way the West sees "Ancient Greece"...whatever the Macedonian ethnic heritage really was, the Macedonians were a half barbarian tribe from the north that lived by their own rules (with some influence from Persia and the northern tribes). That whole civilised veneer of Hellenisation does not lessen this at all.

Trying to shoe horn them into the "Greek" world, because they liked Attic and Ionian culture does make them the vanguard of 'Greek culture", at least intentionally.

Beautifully put. Couldn't agree more.

[the_accursed]

Using the term pezhetairos isn't "eurocentric". The pezhetairoi in the forum are the moderators - the "bodyguards" of the forum, if you like. The other "levels" within the forum relate to activity - i.e. how many posts you've made. Therefore, if you've posted more than a certain number of times, you become a "general"; until then, you're a footsoldier.

Yes, I understand how the system works. The Eurocentric component I was referring to is the use of Greek military titles, such as “pezhetairos” for “foot soldier”.

Alexander, whatever one thought or thinks about him, was a Macedonian who spoke Greek, and used Greek words to designate military positions. I don't see that there is anything specifically "fan"-ish to use these designations on a site dedicated to Alexander. If I were involved in site dedicated to Mehmet the Conqueror, I would expect no less than to see Turkish designations; or a site about Nadir Shah, which should have Persian designations.

I think it's quite "fan-ish" myself, but as mentioned, and more importantly, it's also eurocentric. You're probably right that other sites about other conquerors are equally "fan-ish" and use equally ethnocentric military titles, but that doesn't really justify doing the same on this site.

Anyway, at the risk of being pedantic (I always say this, don't I?) it's probably going to be hard to take a site that's "dedicated" to a certain person and then claim that it isn't a fan site!

I don't think it's impossible. A site about "Alexander the Accursed", with images of Alexander III edited to look demonic, and where all the articles focus on his brutality and cruelty, would probably not be perceived as a fan site, even though it, too, would be about Alexander III.

If it's not possible to make this site completely neutral, then in my opinion, that's no reason to not at least strive in that direction.

[marcus]

Yes, I understand how the system works. The Eurocentric component I was referring to is the use of Greek military titles, such as “pezhetairos” for “foot soldier”.

So what military titles should we use? I'm probably dragging this on longer than necessary, but I really do fail to see why there should be any argument about using designations that Alexander would have used, on a site that's dedicated to Alexander. It seems to me to be the most natural thing to do, and doesn't mean that it's Eurocentric, ethnocentric, or even particularly fan-ish.

Oh well, we're obviously never going to agree, but similarly we're not going to introduce any new arguments to support our corners - we'll only carry on with the same old ones, expressed differently. We know that we can never have a site that suits absolutely everyone; as far as I can see, Pothos has always managed to accommodate everyone, whatever their views on Alexander, so we're obviously doing something right. Let's be thankful for that!

ATB

[the_accursed]

Semiramis:

I think we're pretty much in complete agreement on this issue. And while I'm far from an expert on the history of ancient Greece, the impression I've got so far is that there's no Badian or Bosworth for ancient Greece – or for the history of western “civilization” as a whole.

What I'd like to read is books that take a far more critical view of ancient Greece and of the west – and of western historians, and how they've written about western history. I'm not, for instance, convinced that it would have been a disaster if the Persians had won the Greco-Persian war. It seems to me that the Persians always tried to change as little as possible to keep the conquered from rebelling. I don't think it would have been any different, had they conquered Greece.

It also seems to me that one very important but rarely (though not in this forum) mentioned legacy of the ancient Greeks is the way they viewed themselves and “the other”, that is: the Greeks as the only truly “civilized” people, and everybody else as “barbarians”, who should be treated like rocks and plants. It may be that the ancient Greeks gave birth to democracy, but they also, in my opinion, gave birth to the racist ideas that have permeated the west ever since, and that have resulted in oppression and genocide practically everywhere where westerners have encountered non-western peoples.

And regarding the film “300”...what indeed was it like for Iranians to watch that film? I think most Iranians must have found it quite disturbing – and a good example of western hypocrisy. Myself, I perceived it as something of a cross between “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph des Willens”.

Marcus:

So what military titles should we use? I'm probably dragging this on longer than necessary, but I really do fail to see why there should be any argument about using designations that Alexander would have used, on a site that's dedicated to Alexander. It seems to me to be the most natural thing to do, and doesn't mean that it's Eurocentric, ethnocentric, or even particularly fan-ish.

This site may be dedicated to Alexander III, but not everybody who comes here actually like him. Some may even hate him, and think of him as Alexander the Accursed. Yet to post in this forum, they must accept that they'll then be given the decidedly not neutral title “Pezhetairos”. As I said, to me personally, this is not a big deal. But I do think it's both “fan-ish” and ethnocentric.

[athenas owl]

What I'd like to read is books that take a far more critical view of ancient Greece and of the west – and of western historians, and how they've written about western history. I'm not, for instance, convinced that it would have been a disaster if the Persians had won the Greco-Persian war. It seems to me that the Persians always tried to change as little as possible to keep the conquered from rebelling. I don't think it would have been any different, had they conquered Greece.

But the Persians did NOT win. That is not history. Whatever one thinks about them or any other ancient peopls, and I quite admire the ancient Persians myself..they lost the war.

To venture a guess as to how different it might have been is not history. If they had won, we may very well be on the Darius the Great forum. And your “Pezhetairos” title might be some ancient Iranian equivalent. As for the "west" being the only culture that sees "the other", that's downright ridiculous.

But I agree that the Western colonialist expansion was a very bad thing, and as a larger culture we must change, including our exploitation economically of parts of the world.. However, we just got there first. If another culture had done it, the same thing could have happened. But we will never know because it didn't. The concept of the "barbarian" was not unique to ancient Greece.

But to try to bend history, especially ancient history, to meet our own needs or guilt or disgust with modern (I say around 1500 give or take a century) and those of modern nationalist movements that also try to "rewrite" history...is a mistake.


There are many books critical of western civilisation, for goodness sake. And it is proper to have this kind of research. But there is also a strain that must in their own way try to rewrite ancient history and judge it from our own perspective with our own values, which they most possibly would not have recognised.

It's like the USPS photoshopping the cigarette out of Jackson Pollack's mouth for the stamp they did in his honour. In his own time, smoking a cig was acceptable, but now it isn't. So they decided to take an iconic picture of him and alter it, make a judgement about a behaviour once acceptable and in a way alter history, because our sensibilities have changed.

"300" is highly insulting to the Persians/Iranians. And i agree about western hypocrisy...but the west does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.

As for “Pezhetairos” being ethnocentric...good grief. This is a perfect example fo what I am talking about. It was what they were called, in the period that this site is dedicated to. If the title was "Superior to Barbarians and Non-Westerners" you would have a point, but otherwise..no. If you were to go to an Indian site. dedicated to Ashoka the Great, would it be ethnocentric if the memebrs there had titles that applied to the period? In the native language of the time? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it all.

And while we are at it....Ashoka is called the "great" as well, but his history is more complex than just his Edicts and Buddhism. Massive slaughter and conquest. But he is a remarkable person and should be studied. I would be just as irritated if his career was judged by our contemporary standards.

To do otherwise here so as to not risk being seen as "ethnocentric" would be like erasing that cigarette from Pollock's mouth.



Semiramis:

I agree that in many places in Pakistan there is research being carried out. But in the NW frontier regions, it is very difficult...it isn't just in Afghanistan that violence is occurring. It's more important for the people to actually be safe and healthy, but it is still very difficult in parts of Pakistan.

And yes, the sources for Alexander or later, by a few centuries, but certainly not 900 years...and these sources for Alexander, closer though they were, are still a source of debate. Not religious in nature and not so distant that someone nearly a millennia before can be blamed for the "loss" of books that may or may not have existed at all. Certainly not, and I believe this fully, 12,000 scrolls inked in gold. That's a mighty convenient place to lay blame.

To compare the Sassanids, who rose to power 500 years after the last Achaemenid fell, should be done carefully. Especially when it comes to religion. Certainly the two empires had very different approaches to Ahura Mazda and a state religion.

[the_accursed]

athenas owl:

In your post, you continually attribute things to me that I haven’t said, and then argue against them. This is a very dishonest way of arguing.

But the Persians did NOT win. That is not history. Whatever one thinks about them or any other ancient peopls, and I quite admire the ancient Persians myself..they lost the war.

To venture a guess as to how different it might have been is not history.

Above, you’re making it seem as if I said the Persians won the Greco-Persian war, and that I've made the claim that my opinion regarding how the Persians would have treated the Greeks is "history". Feel free to quote me. Where did I say this?

What I said was: “I'm not, for instance, convinced that it would have been a disaster if the Persians had won the Greco-Persian war”.

This is rather different from saying that they did win it, or that my opinion is "history". The reason I wrote it is because I’ve often seen historians claim that had the Persians won, then it would have been the end of western ”civilization” right then and there – the end of democracy, and rational thought replaced with superstition.

Again: quote me. Where did I write that the Persians won, and that my opinion is "history"?

If they had won, we may very well be on the Darius the Great forum. And your “Pezhetairos” title might be some ancient Iranian equivalent.[/

But, but…the Persians did NOT win. This is NOT the Darius the Great forum. That is not history! Et c...

Regarding the Iranian equivalent (had the Persians won): it would still not be neutral.

As for the "west" being the only culture that sees "the other", that's downright ridiculous.

Again…do quote me. Where did I make the claim that you are arguing against?

But I agree that the Western colonialist expansion was a very bad thing, and as a larger culture we must change, including our exploitation economically of parts of the world.. However, we just got there first. If another culture had done it, the same thing could have happened. But we will never know because it didn't. The concept of the "barbarian" was not unique to ancient Greece.

Nor have I claimed that it was. Or have I? Quote me.

But to try to bend history, especially ancient history, to meet our own needs or guilt or disgust with modern (I say around 1500 give or take a century) and those of modern nationalist movements that also try to "rewrite" history...is a mistake.

I have not tried to “bend” or “rewrite” history. What I wrote, regarding the birthplace of racism in the west, is in my opinion true.

Regarding your speculations about what I must feel, and particularly your attempt to link me to the historical revisionists who belong to nationalistic movements…let’s just say it’s a good thing I’m a gentleman (most of the time).

"300" is highly insulting to the Persians/Iranians. And i agree about western hypocrisy...but the west does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Nor have I claimed such a thing. Or have I? Again – quote me.

As for “Pezhetairos” being ethnocentric...good grief. This is a perfect example fo what I am talking about. It was what they were called, in the period that this site is dedicated to.

Which doesn’t mean that the only possible system that could be used on this site to rank/reward the posters according to how many posts they’ve written is one that uses Greek military titles.

If the title was "Superior to Barbarians and Non-Westerners" you would have a point, but otherwise..no. If you were to go to an Indian site. dedicated to Ashoka the Great, would it be ethnocentric if the memebrs there had titles that applied to the period? In the native language of the time? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it all.

But others might have a problem with it…even if you don’t. Such as, for instance, Iranians who dislike what Alexander and the Macedonians did to the Persians and the Persian empire.

[athenas owl]

The Accursed...I did not say that you said the Persians won...

I'm not, for instance, convinced that it would have been a disaster if the Persians had won the Greco-Persian war. It seems to me that the Persians always tried to change as little as possible to keep the conquered from rebelling. I don't think it would have been any different, had they conquered Greece.

This is what you said. And it matters not a whit, because they didn't get mainland Greece. So it isn't history, it isn't what happened...and all the thinking about it in the world will not change it.

By the way, you do know that there were rebellions in the Persian Empire right? One of which kinda led to the burning of Persepolis (well that was ATG's story and he was sticking to it... ). The Ionian Revolt, Athens' involvement, Sardis getting burned, Xerxes in turn burns Athens...that whole "revenge of the Greeks" meme. Then there's Egypt and Sidon off the top of my head...and the "Great Satrap's Revolt" amongst others. Off the top of my head.

This isn't an "ethnocentric" putdown of the Achaemenids..it's just history. As rich and fascinating as they were, don't make them the "perfect" empire either. Alexander was not a benevalent conqueror only interested in unting all men in some vast kumbaya sing along..but then neither were the Persians.

As for the rest of your post, like the above, you aren't reading what I am saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but when it is you that is going on about the ethnocentrism of a site dedicated to a military leader that is using titles from that era, and worried about offending someone because of what happened 2300 yers ago...because it is somehow "offensive" to someone somewhere. It is ancient history after all..in all ways.

I didn't accuse you of being in the hyper-nationalist camp...that is the second group that either want to somehow want to make history in their own image to the detriment of their actual history (Alexander died in India for example) {i]along[/i] with the minimalists who want only to see how really, really bad Alexander was (he could never have a simple reason for doing something, a logistical reason, it had to be some foiled scheme like waiting for the Persian nobles to come to Persepolis for the New Year..a fact not in evidence, yet it is a "known fact")...

I'm agnostic. Though i have been accused of being one of the romantics, because I do get tired of the "all bad, all the time" just as I would if everyone was all Tarnesque or seeing Alexander through Renault coloured glasses. Either way doesn't lead to finding whatever truth might be gleaned. Have you ever read Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army by Donald Engels? That is the stuff that interests me.

I do think that ATG's problems in Upper Iran were related to the heavily Zoroastrian population there. We get little hints..like his stopping exposure as a form of burial. It is in that region that he really met with heavy local resistance. I don't know that Zoroastrianism was completely foreign to him, as even from childhood he might have been exposed to it with the large Artabazus contingent in Macedon for several years...but it possible that he hadn't.

Perhaps this more eastern faith was, like the early Christians, unwilling to accept him as a god or some semi-divine critter and it ticked him off. Perhaps their priestly class pushed rebellion, like the Brahmins in India (once this class had been the same...in an earlier Indo-Aryan period). He was in the original heartland of Zoroaster. A much "purer" form than he had encountered previously and much less likely to accept a not even nominally Zoroastrian ruler. I can not see Alexander embracing a religion that was exclusionary of all the gods. he would never get to join that pantheon nor would it accept Amon or Dionysus or any of the other Gods seemingly so congenial to sharing the heavens with each other.

That Zoroastrianism was no longer the "state" religion for a bit seems to really bother some people in the modern world. Ii spent a few hours last night reading about modern responses. And the history and texts...I know why they call him "the accursed", but he was also a handy bad guy....blaming his burning of Persepolis for the lack of written traditions in the newly invigorated Sassanid regime..I am skeptical. It's mighty convenient.

Was Persepolis, at the time that important to the older Persian nobility. Wasn't Darius in some ways a usurper? Perhaps, the loss of Persepolis wasn't that important to the contemporary Persian elite..but later it became a symbol fpr ambitious empire builders. After all, it wasn't an ancient an venerable place..it was expressly built to glorify the Achaemenids. Who, still, spent most of their time in Susa, Ecbatana, etc. It wasn't even a place that Cyrus was involved in...Darius I built his own "city" in the heartland to put his stamp on the heartland. When it was destroyed it wasn't rebuilt, perhaps because it was that critical to the bigger Persian picture...at the time.

Anyway, just a musing. I think I'm getting topics mixed up.

If someone comes to a site dedicated to Alexander the Great, I don't think that “Pezhetairos” is going to wound them.

Don't call him Alexander the Great, even though that has been his identifier for some 2000 years. What do you call Charles I of France? I mean people can learn who he really was...no reason to call him by the name he is known to us for 1200 years. I am sure the ghosts of several thousand Saxons would approve. But it would be mighty hard for a student whose teacher tells them to write a report on Charlemagne to find him.

This is revisionism at it's worst. "Great" does not mean just something laudable, it means huge, significant, impressive...by refusing to call him ATG, it smacks to me of rewriting history because one does not approve of said history. Changing the epithat after 2000 years of usage...because our modern sensibilities are offended. It is exactly like Pollock's ciggie.

Would you go to a forum dedicated to Ashoka the Great and state that he should not be called this because he slaughtered untold numbers of people in his conquests or that the titles were ethnocentric? Or Akbar the Great...or any "Great"? Because there always going to be offended by something one of the "greats" did. Would you find any titles reflecting the period ethnocentirc? And say so...to the members of said forum? Would you accuse them of being a "fan site"?

If an Iranian based forum was set up dedicated to the Achaemenids, I wouldn't find it "ethnocentric" if they used ancient Persian titles and referred to ATG as "the Accursed".
But would that be ethnocentric as well? Perhaps in the Iranian world, it is the common epithat. Here, in the English speaking world..not so much.

I certainly wouldn't care one way or the other. As long as the search for actual facts was happening.

[the_accursed]

athenas owl:

Using Greek military titles may not “wound” anyone...but it's both unnecessarily “fan-ish” and ethnocentric. Nothing would be lost by using a neutral system.

Regarding the epithet “the Great”, it's what Alexander III is known as in the west, and even here, it's a controversial topic. I've not suggested that it should be eliminated from the site. What I've suggested is that he should be referred to as Alexander III of Macedonia or, when appropriate, just Alexander III. On the first page, it should also be mentioned that he is also known as “the great” and “the accursed”. I've also suggested that the heroic Alexander III image should be replaced with a more neutral one.

In short, I've argued for making this site more neutral. This because Marcus asked for suggestions on how to improve the main pothos site, and I believe my suggestions would improve it.

All of this I've already said a number of times now, and this is going to have to be the last, as I don't see much point in repeating it all again.

[Semiramis]

[double]

[Semiramis]

Hi Accursed,

Semiramis:

I think we're pretty much in complete agreement on this issue. And while I'm far from an expert on the history of ancient Greece, the impression I've got so far is that there's no Badian or Bosworth for ancient Greece – or for the history of western “civilization” as a whole.

Yes, that we are in agreement goes without saying. Challenges to dominant assumptions in Classical Studies usually come from people outside the field - Semitists and in one notable case a Vietnam scholar! Check out 'Black Athena' volume I by Martin Bernal detailing how Eurocentrism has coloured the understanding of Greek history. 'The East Face of Helicon' by ML West also dared to suggest that Greek culture did not develop in isolation.

What I'd like to read is books that take a far more critical view of ancient Greece and of the west – and of western historians, and how they've written about western history. I'm not, for instance, convinced that it would have been a disaster if the Persians had won the Greco-Persian war. It seems to me that the Persians always tried to change as little as possible to keep the conquered from rebelling. I don't think it would have been any different, had they conquered Greece.

It is indeed an oft-repeated assertion that had the Persians managed to include the Attic Greeks in one of their satrapies, it would have been a disaster. This view not only ignores the policies of the Achaemenids, but doesn't make sense in light of the fact that several Greek cities in Asia had been under Persian rule for extended periods of time. These cities did not stop producing learning or art. One might even suggest that they benefited in their work from their interactions with other Persian subjects. Yet that assumption that Persians were an irrational, barbaric people who would have destroyed Greek reason and civilization is thrown about without much challenge. I haven’t yet come across any apocalyptic regrets about Macedonian rule of Greece on these forums but I may be looking in the wrong place.

It also seems to me that one very important but rarely (though not in this forum) mentioned legacy of the ancient Greeks is the way they viewed themselves and “the other”, that is: the Greeks as the only truly “civilized” people, and everybody else as “barbarians”, who should be treated like rocks and plants. It may be that the ancient Greeks gave birth to democracy, but they also, in my opinion, gave birth to the racist ideas that have permeated the west ever since, and that have resulted in oppression and genocide practically everywhere where westerners have encountered non-western peoples.

I think you find this form on ethnocentrism in not just Greek writings but others as well. Egyptians royal proclamations or Indian Vedas came to mind first, but there are of course numerous others. I think the difference is that ancient Greek history is used to justify modern day Eurocentrism, while these others aren’t. We have the Enlightenment, Romantic Nationalism and colonialism to thank/blame for that, rather than the long-dead Greek men themselves. It’s not like they’re here to protest the (mis?)appropriation of their history.

Ancient Greeks were assigned the dubious title of ancestors of western and northern Europeans at the height of the nationalist and colonial era. So, their stories were appropriated for war and colonial propaganda. That doesn't mean that Hellenic civilization(s) should take the blame for atrocities that took/are taking place centuries later. Greek cities never came close to constructing empires the way Persians, Macedonians or Romans did.

The Greek "us" and "them" certainly existed. But it can't be neatly shoehorned into modern day ideas about "East" and "West" or "races" - ideas that originated no earlier than the 17th century. I can refer you to work by the classicist Frank Snowden 'Before Colour Prejudice: the Ancient View of Blacks', where he makes a very good case to show that the Greeks did not view skin colour the way later racist societies did.

Another good piece on this is the article 'Black Odysseus White Ceasar - When Did White People Become White?' by James H Dee. If that link doesn’t give you the full text, feel free to PM me. I can email the pdf to you. For a general overview of colonial perceptions, nothing beats Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’. All these are of course, minor points. Your overall take on this, IMHO is pretty solidly based.

And regarding the film “300”...what indeed was it like for Iranians to watch that film? I think most Iranians must have found it quite disturbing – and a good example of western hypocrisy. Myself, I perceived it as something of a cross between “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph des Willens”.

Where were you when I was lampooning this film using those exact same comparisons on these forums? I could’ve used some back up!

[the_accursed]

Hello Semiramis,

I think you find this form on ethnocentrism in not just Greek writings but others as well. Egyptians royal proclamations or Indian Vedas came to mind first, but there are of course numerous others. I think the difference is that ancient Greek history is used to justify modern day Eurocentrism, while these others aren’t. We have the Enlightenment, Romantic Nationalism and colonialism to thank/blame for that, rather than the long-dead Greek men themselves. It’s not like they’re here to protest the (mis?)appropriation of their history.

Ancient Greeks were assigned the dubious title of ancestors of western and northern Europeans at the height of the nationalist and colonial era. So, their stories were appropriated for war and colonial propaganda. That doesn't mean that Hellenic civilization(s) should take the blame for atrocities that took/are taking place centuries later. Greek cities never came close to constructing empires the way Persians, Macedonians or Romans did.

The Greek "us" and "them" certainly existed. But it can't be neatly shoehorned into modern day ideas about "East" and "West" or "races" - ideas that originated no earlier than the 17th century. I can refer you to work by the classicist Frank Snowden 'Before Colour Prejudice: the Ancient View of Blacks', where he makes a very good case to show that the Greeks did not view skin colour the way later racist societies did.

You are right that idea of the superior Greek and the inferior non-Greek “barbarian” is not identical to the idea of the superior white person and the inferior non-white person. But the same can be said about the idea of democracy. Did the ancient Athenians truly practice “democracy”? Is it truly a democracy when only a minority of the adult population is allowed to vote? The Athenian system would not be acknowledged as democracy if it was practised by a nation today, but we still acknowledge it as democracy because the core idea of what would later develop into what we today define as democracy was there.

In my opinion, it's the same with the idea of the superior Greeks and the inferior non-Greeks. The idea spread as Greek and Roman culture spread, and as times changed the idea changed into what we know today as the idea of “white superiority”. But this is also true for the idea of democracy. It too spread, and changed over time. But we still acknowledge that this idea has its roots in ancient Greece. That is: it's a “legacy”.

In my opinion, it would therefore be both illogical and dishonest to deny that the core idea that would later evolve into the idea of the superior white person and inferior non-white person also has its origin in ancient Greece. It too is a “legacy”.

This however doesn't mean that I think the ancient Greeks should be held responsible for the atrocities perpetrated by other people who were influenced by this idea. And had it not been the ancient Greeks, then it would undoubtedly (in my opinion) have been some other culture (but here too the same can be said about democracy).

Thanks for the book recommendations. I already own the one by Martin Bernal and have planned to buy the book by Said. The others I'll have to check out. I didn't see a link to the article “Black Odysseus...” in your text though, and didn't find it when I googled it, so if you could email it to me I'd appreciate it. I'll send you a PM with my email address.

[Semiramis]

Hi Accursed,

That link simply refused to come out in the post. I've emailed you the file. For the origins of Eurocentrism, for a period, ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians were also designated "white" and considered proof of European superiority. But with the rise of anti-semitism in Europe, these people fell out of fashion, speaking Semitic languages and all. The focus in scholarship changed to the Aryan/Semite divide. It's almost chance really that when historical justification is required for Eurocentrism, the Greeks are evoked. Constructing "us" and "them" is so common in records from so many different civilizations, it feels unfair to single the Greeks out. The way I see it, origins of racism lie in post-Enlightenment race-based slavery and colonialism, not in ancient Greece. But there are never simple answers for these questions.

Of course, Athenian democracy left out women, slaves, people with no land etc. But the beginnings of the idea was there, so credit where it's due.

[Paralus]

Of course, Athenian democracy left out women, slaves, people with no land etc. But the beginnings of the idea was there, so credit where it's due.

Actually, for its time, the Athenian democracy was a full democracy. There is no point in viewing ancient societies through modern mores. Athens was the first documented full democracy in history. And it was a "universal suffrage" within its time. Women, metics and slaves were non citizens. Of the citizen body the whole could participate - no property restrictions impinging on that right. Hence the classic "sailor rabble" description.

Just as, in its original form and time, the US was a universal democracy. Women were not enfrnachised citizenry until the 19th amendment in 1920.