Posts: 67
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
0
Not read the book, it looks interesting though as it compiles the various theories on the degree of influence of warfare on the social ongoing affairs of the Greek states.
Personally I tend to view the issue along simple lines :
1. There is no need to discuss about the fact that the style of warfare has a direct impact on the social organization of a state. This was not just seen in Greece - this was just seen in all human cultures at all times, on the 5 continents.
2. The "rise of the polis" is more or less a modern description. The term "city-state" is a modern term no matter if ancient people often described some states by the name of the principal city. The reality is that throughout the Mycenaean Era and down to Geometric, early and late archaic times, the situation in terms of statehood was pretty much the same in terms of extense : Mycenaean states were by no means bigger than archaic-classical era states. So the fact that none refers to Mycenaean city-states is simply down to very much modern misconceptions born rather out of very modern affairs rather than a genuine analysis of the ancient world. In the realities of the ancient world, the Aegean was always divided in tiny regional states organised either around a city or a citadel owned by one or more aristocratic families out of which a few occasionally managed to gain pre-eminence and thus try to extend their rule over the others.
3. The process describes in 2 did not really change with the fall of the Mycenaean states and not even with the abolition of royalties in the late geometric early archaic years in many states ( - afterall that was a process that most probably than not had started already first of all in the Achaean colonies during the heyday of the Myceanean times). States become not really smaller than before and even the presence of aristocratic families largely ruling the affairs did not change. Dorian states like Macedonia and Sparta remained with royalties (considered as first among equal among the inner circle of aristocrats) while the likes of Athens remained with their ancient royal family, the Alkmeonids leading them into democracy (with the ample aid of the... Spartan army) : Alkmeonids made the laws, Alkmeonids started the democracy, Alkmeonids ruled it and Alkmeonids finished it over. If anything, even the tyrants grabbing power was nothing new - even in older myths we have tons of paradigms of throne-grabbing in little Mycenaean city-states - the only main difference is the terms employed for each case - wanax and tyrant.
3. Societies did not change out of the blue. The change of military tactics obviously affected greatly the social evolution but it is really questionable if that social evolution came as a by-product of changing military tactics or whether it was rather more the (re)rising commerce of the early archaic years giving gradually way to a rising middle class that was eventually called up to participate in the burdens of war to alleviate aristocrats that up to then manned the front-lines - afterall, Greek aristocrats had no better source for their armies when all of the Mediterranean and Middle East employed Greek soldiers as specialist troops ever since the mid-Bronze Age.
One might disagree here or there but what should be kept is my basic line of thought :
We should avoid at all costs interfering with modern terminology resulting from modern affairs - the prime example being the famous term "city-state". City-states in Aegean existed in Mycenaean times, in Hellenistic times and even well into the Roman Imperial times (e.g. Athens, Sparta, Rhodes and others went on for centuries as allied city-states afterall more affected by Roman financial gifts rather than by any Roman legislation or other state affairs ...). the point thus, is not getting lost there.
