#State of Concept Athens

[qqueenofhades]

I suddenly thought of an interesting question. What is the purpose of democracy? Is it democracy for democracy's sake? democracy exists to protect human rights. Voting is one of the most typical expressions of democracy, but if, due to the tyranny of the majority—the so-called ‘will of the people’—the human rights of the country’s citizens are actually severely harmed (as in the case of this U.S. election), what then? Does democracy, at this stage, still have any meaning to uphold?I mean, suppose, at this moment, one party were to take power through undemocratic means, such as election manipulation, a coup, or assassination, but this party’s policies were, comparatively, more protective of human rights than the opposing party’s. From an objective standpoint of justice, should it be supported at this stage?🤔

I think this is indeed an interesting question and I'll try to answer it in two parts.

First, the idea that "democracy exists to protect human rights" is a considerably recent idea, and doesn't actually figure much into classical expressions/conceptions of democracy. As it was originally practiced in Athens, it had nothing to do with safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups (indeed, if anything, the opposite). It was just a system where groups of people, i.e. property-owning citizen men, were allowed to make decisions collectively, but it was still able to be adjourned at any time for a despot (in the classical sense) to resume autocratic authority. It just means a system in which the people (demos) have authority (kratia). That means, therefore, who constitutes as a "person" under the law is one of the longest-running questions (and struggles) in the entire history of the concept.

As it was then thought about in the Enlightenment and the 18th-century context in which the founding fathers wrote the US Constitution, "democracy" was very much the same idea of a small group of "worthy" but ordinary men making decisions in a quasi-elected framework, rather than as a single inherited monarchy. There was still no particular idea that "human rights" was a goal, and would have been foreign to most political theorists. There was an emerging idea of "natural rights" wherein man (and definitely man) was a specially rational creature who had a right to have a say in his government, but yet again, that depended on who was viewed as qualified to have that say. (The answer being, again, white property-owning Christian men.) There have been many constitutional law papers written on how much the founding fathers trusted the American electorate (not very) and how the American government was deliberately designed to work inefficiently in order to slow down the implementation of possibly-stupid decisions (but therefore also potentially-helpful ones). The Electoral College, aside from being an attempt to finesse the slavery question (did slaves count as people for purposes of allotting House representatives? James Madison famously decided they counted as three-fifths of a person), was a further system of indirect republicanism. Likewise, US Senators were not popularly elected on a secret ballot, the same as the president, until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

Of course at the same time in the 19th-early 20th century, the Civil War, Reconstruction and its end, Jim Crow, women's suffrage movements, were all ongoing, and represented further challenge and revision of what "democracy" meant in the American context, and who counted as a legally recognized person who was thus entitled to have their say in government. It was not until Black people and women began insisting that they did in fact count as people that there was any universal idea of "human rights" as expressed in popular democratic systems. This further developed in the 20th century in the world war context, and then in the decolonization waves in the 1950s and 1960s that dismantled European imperialism and gave rise to a flood of new nation-states. Etc. etc., the Civil Rights movement in America, the gay rights movement starting with Stonewall, and further expansion of who was seen as a person not just in the physical but the legal and actionable sense.

That's why we have political philosophy concepts of "electoral" and "liberal" democracies, and why they're not quite the same. In an electoral democracy, people have the right to vote on and elect their leaders, but there may be less protection of associated "liberal" rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and assembly, and other characteristics that we think of in terms of protected groups and individual rights. Liberal democracies make a further commitment to protect those rights in addition to the basic principle of voting on your leaders, but as noted, democracy does not inherently protect them and if you have a system where a simple majority vote of 49% can remove rights from the other 48%, you have a problem. Technically, it's still democracy -- the people have voted on it, and one side voted more than the other -- but it's not compatible with justice, which is a secondary question and a whole other debate.

In the modern world, autocrats have often been popularly elected, which is technically a democratic process, but the problem is that once they get there, they start dismantling all the civic processes and safeguards that make the country a democracy, and make it much harder for the opposition to win an election and for power to meaningfully change hands. See for example India (Narendra Modi/BJP), Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan/AKP), Poland (Jarosław Kaczyński/PiS), Hungary (Viktor Orbán/Fidesz), Russia (Vladimir Putin/United Russia) and America (Donald Trump/GOP). Some of these countries were more democratic than others to start with, but all of them have engaged in either significant democratic erosion or full authoritarian reversion. The US is not -- yet -- at the latter stage, as I have written about the features of the system that make it different from other countries on that list, but it's in the danger zone.

Lastly, the idea of "we're morally better and protect human rights but are willing to launch a coup/assassination/etc of the current government" has been claimed many, many times throughout history. It has never been the case. Not least since if a party in a democratic system, however flawed, is willing to throw aside the core feature of that system, they simply don't respect human rights in any meaningful sense. That's why we kept having "the people's revolutions," especially in the 20th century, that promised to uphold and liberate the working class and all ended up as repressive communist dictatorships functionally indistinguishable from the autocracies or even quasi-democracies they had replaced. In this day and age, does anyone want Online Leftists, who will cancel and viciously attack fellow leftists for tiny disagreements on the internet, deciding that they're going to overthrow the government and announce themselves the great protector of human rights? Aside from the fact that they couldn't do it even if they ever tried and stopped being insane keyboard warriors, I don't think anyone would believe them, and nor should they, because violent antidemocratic groups are bad. This is the sixth-grade level explanation, but it's true.

If you're so drastically committed to your ideology that you're willing to destroy everyone else for not agreeing (and even then, post-revolution, the revolutionaries always start eating each other), then you're not special or enlightened. You're the exact same kind of ideological zealot who has been responsible for most of the worst atrocities throughout history. When "I need to kill for my beliefs but I'll clearly only kill the right people" is your guiding philosophy, the "right people to be killed" quickly expand past any controls or laws. Why not, especially when you've just declared the law to be invalid? Pretty soon you're into death-squads and extrajudicial-assassinations territory, and no matter how soaringly noble your aims were to start with, you've become much worse than what you replaced.

This does not mean "we all have an obligation to obey oppressive governments because the alternative is worse," which has been likewise used by the oppressive governments who benefit from it. It just means that if a democracy is violently overthrown, what emerges from it -- no matter how nice their rhetoric might initially sound -- will invariably be much worse. Winston Churchill famously remarked that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the alternatives, and in this, I tend to agree with him. It sucks, but there's nothing that has yet been invented that can take its place or that has any interest in protecting human rights in the way that 21st-century liberal democracy has generally accepted it has an obligation to do, however partial, flawed, and regressive it can often be. Indeed right now, in this particular historical moment, the only feasible alternative is quite clearly far-right populist fascist theocratic authoritarianism, and that -- for you fortunate Americans who have never lived under anything like that -- is much, much worse. So yeah.

[mamaestapa]

maybe joe gushes about you in an interview or post game press conference, maybe even like a speech from winning something

My Girl|| Joe Burrow x reader

•pairing: Joe Burrow x reader

•summary: During a post game press conference, Joe gushes about getting to spend the bye week with you

•warnings: none, all fluff

“So Joe, first of all congrats on the win.”

Joe nodded as he spoke, “It’s always good to, to win against a team like them.”

The Bengals had just beaten the Chiefs 23-20. The entire game was close, each team going back and forth with scoring. With just seconds left, Evan McPherson scored the game winning field goal, giving the Bengals another win before their mid season bye week.

“What are your plans for the bye week?” another reporter asked, causing Joe to move his gaze to the female reporter. He nodded as she continued.

“Watch film? Practice? Work out? Relax?” the reporter finished with a chuckle. A small smile made its way onto to Joe’s face as he answered the question.

“Yeah I plan on relaxing a bit, take a little break from the heavy workouts. I’ll definitely some film though, gotta keep that win streak going when we get back.” he smirked. Joe loved winning. Especially against the Chiefs. The Bengals were never the favored team when they play the Chiefs. It always felt good to prove all of their doubters and haters wrong.

He cleared his throat, a blush creeping onto his cheeks as he spoke, “But uh, I’m actually going to spend most of it with Y/n, my girlfriend. She’s got some family in another state that we’re going to visit for a few days, take a mini vacation. I don’t get to spend a lot of time with her during the season, so I’m very excited.”

“Awe,” the reporter cooed, “I bet she’s excited too.”

Joe nodded, a smile pulling at his lips, “Yeah, she is. Like I said, she and I don’t get much time with just the two of us during the season. It’ll be good for us to take a little vacation together away from football.” He gushed as he talked about you.

“And you’ve been with her for how many years now?”

“Four. Met her my last year at LSU.” Joe said, a happy smile on his face.

You met Joe after the season opener in 2019. You were at your best friends house who happened to be dating someone on the football team at the time. The two of them were throwing a party and you and Joe both happened to be invited. He met you while you were pouring yourself a drink. The two of you hit off instantly, the night ending with him asking you out on a date. You went on a date in downtown Baton Rouge Friday after your classes and the rest was history.

“Do you guys take many vacations during the off-season?”

Joe shook his head, “Not really. We usually take one or two, but we like to stay in Cincinnati or Athens. But the off-seasons nice cause I get to spend all of it with my girl, so yeah.” Joe smiled. He didn’t talk about you often in interviews or press conferences because he liked to keep that part of his life pretty private. However, Joe didn’t mind gushing about you or your relationship every once in a while. The fans deserved to know how much he adores you.

A different reporter spoke up, “Will we be seeing an engagement in the future?”

Joe shrugged as a sly grin made its way onto his face, “Maybe.”

That’s all the confirmation the reporters and the football world needed. You were going to be Joe Burrow’s girl forever.

hey loves!!

first blurb of the night!🤩 this was a bit on the shorter side, but all blurbs will be different lengths depending on the concept and idea i get.

i’ll be posting some more in a bit :)

feel free to send me more ideas!! i won’t get to them tonight, but definitely in the next couple blurb nights!🤍

[semolinapudding]

I fall in love with souls, not faces.

A concept of a romantic story with Venti in which Venti falls in love with a human for the first time.

In this story, Venti is attracted to not only you as yourself, but your very soul, your essence, and both of your souls become tied together by being compatible. After the loss of the nameless bard which he could not get over so early in his archon years, his sorrow and loss is manifested into the attachment and love to you.

Oh, how beautiful love is. Only now he can understand it himself. Being human. If only he was... Because your fates are two different paths, he's an archon and you're a mortal, and you're not meant to be by nature.

Barbatos the god of freedom and death. Who frees the souls into the after life or into rebirth on earth. They say that everyone will meet Barbatos once in their lifetime, and is when their lives are fading. Barbatos appears then with his wings and hands open, welcoming your soul. That's what you see when you fade from life young. Barbatos and Venti, the same being, guiding you to dance in the space between life and death, prolonging this sweet and painful connection for some little more time.

And when he guides your soul to rebirth, it does not go back on earth untouched. He leaves trails of anemo infusion within you, meant to bring you back to him again, in your next life, back to the Anemo god that's dedicating his immortality to only one soul.

A faint birth mark of the color of anemo is on your hand. The unique mark which means is that you belong to Barbatos, but you don't know. You're reborn, and meeting him again is once again the first time for you, but for him it's not.

And every time you die, every time he relives the pain, each time he sends your soul to be reborn, each time falling in love with you over and over, waiting for you. He can't let go of your soul, it keeps reliving in Teyvat instead of flying to the heavens.

And each time you're reborn, you always only love one song he sings, the same favorite song. It becomes a deja Vu. The more you're reborn, the more you get deja vu's, until you begin to remember, you get so aware.

The Anemo infusion into your soul brings memories back to you, like the winds that hold whispers and secrets. Your mind and soul are no longer two separate essences but they get merged, and you, in your essence are now just a fully aware soul with a mind and body, remembering what you shouldn't. Nature doesn't follow its natural state because you know Barbatos has loved you till the beginning of time and has never let go.

Archons are such weak and fragile beings in their essence. Tormented in their own pain, unable to bear the concept of human life. Of death. They get attached to humans and things more than anyone ever does.

At what point does immortality not feel like strength, but rather like a painful curse and fragility?

"My blume, don't you know, archons are nothing without humans? Humans can live without archons, but archons would not survive without humanity. Immortality is a curse, painfully engraved into our fates."

Who wants this story written?

[arthenaa]

house of arthena — masterlist, introductory, and rules

INTRODUCTORY —

writer: athen/ayen | 20 | he/him | sapphic | INFP-T

occupation: freelance artist, college student, writer

birthday: 10/04/2003

nationality: 🇵🇭

kins (can be best compared to irl): mizu, caelus, ominis, ren amamiya, sun jing (physical wise), geto suguru

interests:

media — blue-eyed samurai, jujutsu kaisen, shingeki no kyojin, chainsaw man, detroit become human, red dead redemption, hogwarts legacy, persona 5 royal, valorant, honkai star rail, genshin impact

artists — nct (all units but prefers dream), riize, lesserafim, newjeans, bada lee, lee youngji, laufey, kiss of life, exo

will write for the following — mizu, gojo satoru, geto suguru, ieri shoko, nanami kento, fushiguro megumi, kugisaki nobara, zenin maki, okkotsu yuuta, eren jaeger, pieck finger, mikasa ackerman, armin arlert, annie leonhart, makima, quanxi, power, aki hayakawa, denji, connor (all rk series), john marston, arthur morgan, sebastian sallow, ominis gaunt, imelda reyes, ren amamiya, akechi goro, jett, cypher, sage, reyna, neon, fade, iso, gekko, chamber, yoru, sova, jingyuan, danheng, blade, kafka, seele, albedo, xiao, kaeya, raiden ei, yae miko, alhaitham, childe, knave, nct dream, bada lee, hong seunghan, park wonbin, lee sohee, huh yunjin, kim chaewon, byun baekhyun, do kyungsoo

read more to check rules and list of works!

rules (for requesting)

— writer has the right to refuse request

— writer is a full-time college student and a part-time freelance artist doing commissions, there is no set time that he will upload and post said requests

— only refer to the list above when requesting (if your character despite in the same media listed above is not included, you may dm the writer if he is willing to write the request or simply state it in the request ask linked on his bio)

— writer prefers writing in gender-neutral terms or she/her pronouns, he will use this unless stated otherwise so make sure to include it in your requests

— nsfw is okay but always keep in mind rule 1

— writer appreciates reactions such as comments or reposts with messages a lot! <3 it just makes writing fun and enjoyable to know that his readers are enjoying his works :)

— writer will only do oneshots or 2-3 chapter works, (oneshots with multiple parts under the same theme eg. modern!au mizu or nocturne(interlude)!mizu are counted as oneshots under the same theme. they can be read as solo or just under the same category) longer chapter series will be done through commissions.

— if reader wishes to commission, refer to pinned.

LIST OF WORKS —

Blue-Eyed Samurai

nocturne (interlude) (p1)

my love mine all mine (p2)

blurred lines (roommate!mizu)

mizu as your roommate (pre-blurred lines)

creative team lead!mizu x concept artist!reader

Jujutsu Kaisen

GOJO SATORU

can't think right, too tongue tied, it must be love

Hogwarts Legacy

Masterlist here

Honkai Star Rail

KAFKA

Feelings with Kafka 18+

DAN HENG

Perception

ART

mizu x oc! blurred lines

nier x sebastian hogwarts legacy

seb x mc commission

nier and nora (ocs hl)

stelle x asta

ominis x mc x seb

tbotb concept art hl series

If you have any concerns or questions you'd like to ask, click the question mark emoji on my blog bio! or if you want to support me as an artist hehe listed below is my kofi. tysm!

[gemsofgreece]

could you talk more about constantinople university?

Hey, I am sorry for the very late reply. This past week was very difficult. Anyway I assume you are asking about the main educational institution in Constantinople at the times of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire.

First of all, I should start this by saying a few basic things about the educational system in the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire had the best primary education in Europe and one of the best in the known world at the time. All peasant children were able to receive education, that is, both boys AND girls, which was unheard of in most other places. As a result peasant men and women attained a satisfactory level of education for the standards of the time.

Higher education was received mainly through private tutoring, which means that this was in fact a privilege of the rich and upper middle classes. Private tutors could also be hired by women who, even though they could not work in professions of a high academic profile (except they could become doctors for women), were still able to educate and improve on themselves just for the sake of it.

The University of Constantinople

When the Roman Empire was spilt in two in 395 AD, the Hellenized eastern part of the empire already had a few famed schools in some of its greatest cities (i.e Academy of Athens, the schools in Alexandria, Antioch, Beirut, Gaza). Those remained the hotspots for higher education for a few centuries, mostly until the Arab conquest in the 7th century.

In 425 AD Emperor Theodosius II founded the state funded Pandidakterion (Πανδιδακτήριον) in the Capitolium of Constantinople, what is supposed to be the original form of the University of Constantinople. According to some sources the concept of this school was actively supported by Theodosius's sister Pulcheria and his empress wife Aelia Eudocia the Athenian. The Pandidakterion was not exactly a university in the modern sense; it initially did not offer courses in various fields of sciences and arts from which students could choose their studies and career. The Pandidakterion's aim was to train specifically those who pursued a career as civil servants for the administration of the Empire and the secular matters concerning the Church. The courses taught were: Greek Grammar, Latin Grammar, Law, Philosophy (students were taught Aristotle and particularly Plato) and Rhetoric (with an emphasis in Greek rather than Latin rhetoric). That last one was considered the most challenging course. Pandidakterion did not teach Theology; this was the responsibility of the Patriarchal Academy. There are sources which list the Pandidakterion indeed as a university though and perhaps it is the closest thing to a university you could have gotten that early in time.

Meanwhile, in Constantinople and other large cities of the empire there were various academies of theology, arts and sciences but those were not universities. Also, as stated above, it was after the 7th century that Constantinople became the center of Byzantine higher education. In the 7th and the 8th century the Byzantine empire was attacked by Slavs, Arabs, Avars and Bulgars, loosening the focus to education. All this and the Iconoclasm seemed to have had adverse yet non permanent effects on the function of the university. The dynasty of the Isaurians (717 - 802) renamed "Πανδιδακτήριον" to "Οικουμενικόν Διδασκαλείον" (Ecumenical School).

The 9th century signifies a new prosperous era for higher education. There are some conflicting sources for that time - according to some the Pandidakterion was moved to the Palace of Magnaura and according to others this is an erroneous conflation of the Pandidakterion in the Capitolium with the new University of the Palace Hall of Magnaura (Εκπαιδευτήριον της Μαγναύρας). Whatever the case is, this renovated or entirely new school was founded by Vardas (842 - 867), uncle of Emperor Michael III. Mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music were added to the courses. The school then was managed by Leon the Mathematician (790 - 869) from Thessaly. Studying there was free.

In the 10th century, Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennitos promoted the Pandidakterion and supported it financially.

In 1046 Constantine IX Monomachos reformed the actual Pandidakterion of the Capitolium into two large faculties operating in it; the "Διδασκαλείον των Νόμων" (School of Law) and the "Γυμνάσιον" (Gymnasion). The School of Law retained its purpose to train the civil servants whereas the Gymnasion taught all the other sciences (i.e philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, music). At the time Pandidakterion had a clear resemblance to a typical university. The principal of the Law School was called "Νομοφύλαξ" (nomophýlax), Guard of Law. A notable nomophylax was Ioannis VIII Xiphilinos (1010 - 1075) who was an intellectual, jurist and later Patriarch of Constantinople. The principal of the Gymansion was called "Ύπατος των Φιλοσόφων" (Consul of the Philosophers). Notable Gymnasion principals were Michael Psellos (1018 - 1078), one of the most broadly educated people to have lived in the Byzantine empire or the middle ages even. Psellos was a Greek monk, savant, courtier, writer, philosopher, historian, music theorist, poet, astronomer, doctor and diplomat. He was notoriously horrible at Latin although given the extent of his studies it is unclear to modern historians whether his Latin knowledge was genuinely poor or he played it up as an act of disdain (he was totally the type to do that). Another notable principal was Ioannis Italos (John the Italian), a half-Italian half-Greek from Calabria, who was Psellos' student in classical Greek Philosophy.

The function of the Pandidakterion as well as all high education in the Byzantine Empire was ceased after the capture of Cosntantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. The Byzantine royalty did however survive through the small Empire of Nicaea and they supported financially the private tutors. After the liberation of Constantinople by the Byzantines in 1261, there were efforts to restore the higher education institutions. Michael VIII Palaeologos, the emperor who recovered the city, reopened the university and appointed as principals Georgios Akropolitis, a historian and statesman, for the Law School and Georgios Pachymeris, a historian, philosopher, theologist, mathematician and music theorist, for the Philosophy School (Gymnasion).

However, the University never returned to its previous status and smooth function. It slowly passed fully under the Church's management in order to survive, while the rest of the teaching was again done by private teachers. This was the case all the way to the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Only one day after the capture of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed II founded a madrasa as the primary educational institution of the city. Madrasa is an arabic name for an Islamic higher education religious institution. In 1846, this insitution was reformed into a university in the likes of the typical Western European universities. Until 1930 many old sources referred to this university confusingly as "University of Constantinople" because the city's name had not actually changed until that time. However, this institution was not the same to the Pandidakterion, the university of the Byzantine Age. In 1930, the city's name was officially changed from Constantinople to Istanbul and the university was renamed in 1933 to "Istanbul University" and it operates like this, being the first university of the Republic of Turkey.

What about the Pandidakterion though, the first University of Constantinople? Well, it ceased to exist, unlike the Patriarchal Academy which re-opened one year after the Fall of Constantinople, in 1454, refounded as the Phanar Greek Orthodox College, which operates to this day.

*Forgive any potential inaccuracies, some sources were really conflicting, especially about the possible Pandidakterion and the Magnaura School mix up.

[haggishlyhagging]

The rape of the Goddess in all of her aspects is an almost universal theme in patriarchal myth. Zeus, for example, was a habitual rapist. Graves points out that Zeus's rapes apparently refer to Hellenic conquests of the Goddess's ancient shrines. The early patriarchal rapes of the Goddess, in her various manifestations, symbolized the vanquishing of woman-identified society. In the early mythic rapes, the god often assumed a variety of animal forms; the sense of violence/ violation is almost tangible. In christianity, this theme is refined—disguised almost beyond recognition.

The rape of the rarefied remains of the Goddess in the christian myth is mind/spirit rape. In the charming story of "the Annunciation" the angel Gabriel appears to the terrified young girl, announcing that she has been chosen to become the mother of god. Her response to this sudden proposal from the godfather is totaled nonresistance: "Let it be done unto me according to thy word." Physical rape is not necessary when the mind/will/spirit has already been invaded. In refined religious rapism, the victim is impregnated with the Supreme Seminal Idea, who becomes "the Word made flesh."

Within the rapist christian myth of the Virgin Birth the role of Mary is utterly minimal; yet she is "there." She gives her unqualified "consent." She bears the Son who pre-existed her and then she adores him. According to catholic theology, she was even "saved" by him in advance of her own birth. This is the meaning of the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary— the dogma that Mary was herself conceived free of "original sin" through the grace of the "savior" who would be born of her. This grace received in advance, described by theologians as "grace of prevention or preservation," is something like a supernatural credit card issued to a very special patron (matron). Mary's credit line was crossed before she was even conceived. Double crossed by the divine Master Charge system, she was in a state of perpetual indebtedness. Still, as I have explained elsewhere, despite all the theological minimizing of Mary's "role," the mythic presence of the Goddess was perceivable in this faded and reversed mirror image.*

* In order to understand the Background of Mary, Hags should recall that she was known as "the new Eve." This leads us to look into the Background of Eve who, in hebrew myth, was a dulled-out replacement for Lilith, Adam's first wife. Patai writes of Lilith as portrayed in the Talmudic period: "When Adam wished to lie with her, Lilith demurred: 'Why should I lie beneath you,' she asked, 'when I am your equal since both of us were created from dust?'" (See Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, p. 210.) Any Crone-ographer, of course, can recognize this as a watered-down version of what Lilith really might have said, which would hardly have been an argument for mere "equal rights." As for Eve, constructed from Adam's rib—Peggy Holland has pointed out that this is an interesting mythic model: the first male-to-constructed-female transsexual. Patai affirms that it was Lilith who persuaded Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and he acknowledges that Lilith was a Hag (pp. 210-13). According to Cirlot, Lilith, in the Israelite tradition, corresponds to the Greek and Roman Lamia. (See J. E. Cirlot, A Dictionary of Symbols, trans. by Jack Sage [New York: Philosophical Library, 1962], p. 180.) Graves puts more of the pieces together, indicating that Lamia was the Libyan Neith, also named Anatha and Athene. (See Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, I, 61, 1. Graves adds that "she ended as a nursery bogey" (which is, of course, the fate of all Hags/ Crones/ Witches in patriarchal myth). Lilith is also identified with Hecate, the lunar goddess and "accursed huntress." After pointing this out, Cirlot remarks: "The overcoming of the threat which Lilith constitutes finds its symbolic expression in the trial of Hercules in which he triumphs over the Amazons" (Ibid., p. 180). Since Hecate was associated with hares, this suggests that rabbits are in the Virgin Mary's Background. Given the parthenogenetic propensities of rabbits and given the reversal mechanisms of patriarchal myth, this association makes sense. We are also led to think about the identity of the familiar "Easter Bunny" (and about the reversal involved in the image of "Playboy Bunnies"). Finally, when considering Lilith, Hags should note that this name is said to be derived from the Babylonian-Assyrian word lilitu, meaning a "female demon, or wind-spirit." (See Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964], p. 68.) This is interesting in view of the fact that the name of the "Holy Spirit," who is believed to have impregnated the Virgin Mary, is derived from the Latin spiritus. Is the holy spirit trying to copy Lilith? Also fascinating is the thought that since, as we have seen, Yahweh is a derivative and reversal of the Goddess, one of whose primary names is Lilith, he is exposed as an imposter, a female impersonator, and a transsexed caricature of that Great Hag herself.

-Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology

[dragon-communion]

Now that I've caved and made an entire St. Trina sideblog, it's time for me to truly become my final form: an unhinged anthropologist with the power to make headcanons to fill in the gaps of life and times in the Lands Between.

Fittingly for a story with intense Christian themes, the early stages of Marika's empire are intensely Roman. As such, I think it's safe to pull ideas from various sites around the Mediterranean. While there's little to no Egyptian influence, or indeed much from the northern edge of Africa period, Elden Ring manages to hit every other point from Spain (Lionel's armor, St. Trina's sword) all the way over to Iraq (Uhl= Ur).

So while figuring out what worship of St. Trina looked like on a wider scale, I've been tempted to utilize the concept of folk saints- saints not approved of or canonized by the Pope, typically having roots in an indigenous culture. While I don't think anything about her directly conflicted with Marika's goals, she's notably worshipped by factions that generally want nothing to do with the Erdtree (albinaurics, merchants).

At the same time though, Miquella and Mohg look like a BLATANT Hades and Persephone reference to me. Hades even wields a spear, and Mohg has set up shop in a distinctly Greek-looking temple. Miquella, flowers and youth and essentially springtime personified, getting kidnapped for marriage by a man who lives in a temple under the earth and has rarely seen the light of day? I can work with that. I can do some insane things with that.

Let's talk Greek mystery cults, and the most famous one of them all: the Eleusinian Mysteries.

As the name implies, historians really don't have a lot to go on when it comes to the content of mystery cults. What happens during initiation stays in initiation, and so on. We can draw a few conclusions based on scattered textual references of guys that broke the oath, but nothing as solid as a playbook of events. We can say this much: there was a very long pilgrimage on foot that included singing and fasting, there was alcohol when they finally got to the destination, and whatever happened beyond the doors of their destination was utterly soul shaking. Mystery cults seemed to rely on the achievement of altered states in order to induce and/or emulate a kind of death and rebirth, which in several cases seems to have outright removed the participant's fear of death after the experience.

Because I am neurodivergent and this hits all of my hyperfixation buttons, I know way too much about agrarian cults of death and rebirth as well as the inducement of altered states, and this would already be prime ground to build headcanons on. But let's talk Eleusis.

Eleusis was a town near Athens where the Eleusinian mysteries took place. These particular mysteries and their initiation were focused around the story of Demeter and Persephone- the horror of Persephone's metaphorical death, the horror of the world beginning to die as Demeter denied the world the fruit of crops in her grief, the relief of a daughter returned coinciding with the relief of famine breaking.

What's interesting about this in the context of Elden Ring is that we have the metaphorical winter, but we don't get any spring. Just the promise of one, eventually, when Miquella returns as a god. In his absence the Haligtree withers, and in his absence his followers languish like abandoned dogs staring at the door. But he never comes home. There is no relief.

Likewise, Trina's entire cult by the time we enter the game seems fixated on "journeying to the underworld"- they are looking for Trina endlessly like Demeter combing the earth for her child, but Trina (like Kore) is nowhere to be found. Not in the land of the living, at least. So we have the preparatory stages of the mysteries- the journey, the mind-altering substances- but without any payoff. Potentially just escalation of both behaviors.

Before Miquella's journey to the Lands of Shadow, I do think Trina was still in communication with her followers, and that she only stopped because she was physically incapable of contacting anyone. So before the Shattering, and particularly before the war in Aeonia, Trina's cult would have had a very much present deity in the same way that Miquella, Malenia, and Marika were all physically available to tend their cults. Not that Malenia wanted hers at all, but nevertheless she had it.

The key difference between Trina and the other Empyreans is that they are being of flesh, and she functions more as a spirit, able to quite literally speak to her followers directly without intercession from priests or bodyguards or the iron wall of classism. She would've been accessible in a way the other Empyreans weren't, which is something particularly of interest since Elden Ring's story kind of metaphorically hinges on the real world events of the rise of Christian monotheism and the subjugation of polytheistic paganism. Part of the reason Christianity became so popular was because anyone could approach God, not just his priests.

Notably, worship of the Erdtree seems more comparable to a kind of imperial cult than a religion fully accessible to the common layman. Your average farmer probably couldn't talk to Marika. Your average farmer probably could talk to a saint though, and Trina might even answer directly.

I am going to have so much fun coming up with weird little rituals for the Church of Cozy In Bed.

[ironspdr6700]

WHY IS CLYTEMNESTRA JUST AND GUILTY AT THE SAME TIME (ACCORDING TO AESCHYLUS)?

Medical school, unfortunately, has been taking up more of my reading time than I'd like. But since we're on 14-HOURS blackouts now, it gives me time to at least read my favorite Greek tragedies in more detail. And of the big 3… My favorite by far is Aeschylus.

I recently read some passages from Gilbert Murray's book "Aeschylus: Creator of Greek Tragedy" and I can't recommend it enough for anyone who is a fan of the Oresteia, because you read Murray first and then you re-read Aeschylus in a totally different way and all the parts that seemed incomprehensible at first make sense. I've read a lot of posts here on Tumblr that defend or demonize Agamemnon or Clytemnestra or Electra, defending one, condemning the other or claiming that they are all equally bad, but I think the problem is that we read the saga of the house of Atreus from our modern perspective. And I think that shows that we don't know how to read Greek tragedies. Tragedy… AUTHENTIC GREEK TRAGEDY AS AN ARTISTIC CREATION, according to Aristotle, should provoke TERROR and COMPASSION in the viewer at the same time. Tragic heroes are different from the rest of traditional heroes because they are not worthy of being imitated, but are trapped in a situation that none of us would want to be in. And we regret that because if we were in their place we wouldn't know how to make a better decision.

Precisely because we are a modern audience, we feel more comfortable with Euripides' theatre, his criticism of mythology and the lack of ethics of the gods (don't get me wrong, I love his Medea and the Trojan Women, which is, in my opinion, one of the greatest treasures of universal literature), but we find it difficult to get into the thought of Aeschylus.

Because Aeschylus belongs to the last link of Archaic Greece, which was transformed into the Classical and rationalist Greece of Euripides, Socrates and Thucydices. Aeschylus was a deeply religious man who lived through decades of transformation: the passage from tyranny in Athens to aristocracy and then to democracy, the battles of Marathon and Salamis between the small Greek city-states against the "excessive" Persian empire and the beginning of the golden age of Athens marked his vision of the world that Divine Justice had an active participation in the world to always balance the scales.

And this also involves a transformation in the conception of Law and Justice in that period of Greek thought. Like the archaic idea that justice is only a synonym for revenge, it becomes a state-mediated process to maintain social peace. According to the archaic conception EVERY MURDER OF ANY MEMBER OF THE FAMILY MUST BE AVENGEANCE, it is not an option, it is an OBLIGATION. From that point of view, Clytemnestra has every right in the world to take revenge on Agamemnon for the sacrifice of Iphigenia, not even the Furies have anything against her because she is not Agamemnon's blood relative, which, superficially, would seem to close the cycle. The only problem is that this is a cycle of violence, and the more violence you add, the more times the cycle keeps repeating itself and the more the wheel of Ananke, the Need to satisfy the spilled violence, keeps turning.

Clytemnestra calls for help from Zeus, "Zeus, through whom all things come to an end", so that she can succeed in her plan. If Clytemnestra kills Agamemnon, it is because ZEUS HAS ALLOWED HER TO DO SO. In Aeschylus, no event ever happens that was not the will of Zeus. Zeus is the guarantor of destiny, the protector of supplicants, the guardian of hospitality… And he is also Zeus the Avenger, in charge of making sure that everyone pays for their crimes in due time. And Agamemnon has a long list of crimes to carry out, not just Iphigenia; as leader of the expedition against Troy, he has allowed the army to destroy everything during the siege, including the altars of the gods… the refuge for the supplicants.

"The altars and temples of their gods have disappeared; the entire race of a people has been annihilated."

Zeus, as guardian of hospitality, sent Agamemnon and Menelaus against Troy for the abduction of Helen:

"Paris, who, having been welcomed into the home of the Atreids, dishonoured the table of hospitality by the abduction of a wife."

But Agamemnon allows his army to GO TO OVER THE TOP IN REVENGE

"Paris will never boast, nor the city that was his accomplice, that the deed outweighed the punishment… he lost the stolen garment, and ruined the house of his parents along with his own country. WITH DOUBLE PUNISHMENT the sons of Priam PAID FOR THEIR GUILT."

So now it is Zeus, Suppliant and Avenger, who must again balance the scales.

"Now those who conquered my country are in turn sentenced by the gods."

As a second point in favor, Clytemnestra, at least in the first work of the trilogy, is more than just a woman, she seems more like she is possessed by a divinity:

"…say not that I am the wife of Agamemnon. That ancient and fierce spirit of vengeance that garnished the cruel feast of Atreus, that is he who, taking the appearance of the wife of him who lies there, avenged on a man the sacrifice of two children."

This was part of archaic thought, the idea of ​​demons or minor divinities that influence the thought or behavior or actions of human beings and also that the crimes of parents must be paid for by their children if they are not avenged. One of the most interesting posts I read is one that commented that, in archaic literature, one never knows exactly where human freedom begins and where divine will ends. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT FREE WILL DOES NOT EXIST AND THEREFORE THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE EXEMPT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

And this is where Clytemnestra also becomes guilty. First, because she murders Cassandra, a Trojan princess, a priestess, a slave who has no say.

"I am forced to suffer the yoke of slavery"

She treats her as if she were Agamemnon's lover, which highlights 1) Clytemnestra's hypocrisy, because she had also taken Aegisthus as a lover, and 2) this is more important, THE LACK OF COMPASSION. Greek tragedy must generate terror and compassion because they are the two emotions that make us human. Only the person who is authentically compassionate, that is, literally feels the suffering of others as their own, as a shared experience and inheritance, can be called an authentic human being in the highest spiritual sense of the word. Clytemnestra HAS NO PITY, on the contrary, she delights in the very violence she commits:

"She, after singing her funeral dirges like a swan, fell too, and lies there beside her lover. Delicious contentment that satisfies the pleasures of my loves!"

Clytemnestra triumphs as Iphigenia's mother, but fails as a queen, just as Agamemnon triumphs as a king but fails as Iphigenia's father. Clytemnestra does not care about the opinion of the chorus of elders, she does not care that Aegisthus establishes a tyranny and that the respect for majesty that Agamemnon did have for his subjects is transformed into fear, into threats of hunger and deprivation for those who oppose her.

It is true that Clytemnestra is justified (Justice in the most archaic sense of the word) in her revenge in the first act, but that does not give her the right to laugh, or even to feel proud of what she has just done. "For my own part, I boast of my work. If it were lawful to pour libations on a corpse, they would be just, most just on this occasion." Not even Odysseus, who murdered 108 people in his own house despite having received the approval of Zeus and Athena, takes delight in the slaughter, because "it is not godly to rejoice over the death of these men."

In the end, Clytemnestra does not seem to die for killing Agamemnon (that is Aegisthus). She dies for having killed Cassandra, as she herself prophesies:

"… when a woman pays for my life with her life, and a man atones with his blood for the blood of the unhappy husband of a bad wife… I ask you that my hateful murderers receive from my avengers the payment for the easy death of a defenseless slave."

And that is what leads Orestes to be one step closer to absolution than Clytemnestra will ever be. Orestes obeys Apollo's orders, but against his will, forced by fate, he finds neither pleasure nor satisfaction in matricide. It is the first step that will later lead him to be absolved by Athena. While Clytemnestra, even in death, has no compassion, she cannot forgive even her own son when he sees himself subjected to an unwanted fate.

[saikolikes]

“Si vis pacem, te ipsum vince”: the meaning behind Erina’s banner

I’m sure most people have noticed it, as it was shown firstly in the trailer and then in the opening: “Si vis pacem, te ipsum vince” seems to be the official motto of Persona 5 Tactica, and is indeed present on Erina’s banner when she uses Flag of Freedom.

The slogan is in latin, it roughly translates as “If you want peace, you must conquer yourself,” and it’s an alteration tailored to the game from the most commonly known “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war).

What most don’t know (myself included before digging deeper to make this post), is that even the “original” phrase wasn’t exactly born as such and is itself an adaptation of a wider paragraph from a military treaty — Vegetius’ De Re Militari or “Epitome of military science” (the following quote comes from the beginning of Book 3):

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum; qui uictoriam cupit, milites inbuat diligenter; qui secundos optat euentus, dimicet arte, non casu.

From what I read, the author does a sort of introduction by citing war masters from the past, including Athens and Sparta, and declares his task in compiling all their teachings in one place. Then, he concludes by saying “Therefore, the one who desires peace shall be ready for war; the one who longs for victory shall diligently instruct his soldiers; the one who’s after success shall fight following the art of war, not chance.”

The concept here is clear: you can’t search for and uphold peace without being skilled in battle and ready to fight for that peace if need be… which is a pretty interesting message in the wider scheme of Tactica.

(Warning for story spoilers from here onwards)

I didn’t reflect on it much as I was playing, especially because the game never gives you any “official” translation of what’s written on Erina’s banner. But as I went back to thinking about it, I realised just how fitting this alteration is. The whole deal with Salmael is peace should be the ultimate goal for mankind, a state of existence where no conflict is necessary—on the contrary, conflict is viewed as a bad thing, because it causes hurt and is ultimately harmful. So it makes perfect sense that “Si vis pacem, para bellum” is something that goes against Salmael’s philosophy.

What bothers me, instead, is that it perfectly fits what Erina represents, as is and without any alteration: she battles Marie like rebels do tyrants because the peace in the Kingdom has been disrupted and she wants it back. Putting metaphors aside, Toshiro is the one that realises that only by opposing his father and his fiancé he can right the wrongs that his family committed, and eventually find peace within himself. “Si vis pacem, para bellum” is actually already tailored on what the game is about, so thinking back about the alteration they made, I can’t quite explain it.

It has to be said, though, that “Si vis pacem, te ipsum vince” is also fitting. Reconciling with one’s Shadow self, tame it and embrace it is what awakening a Persona is all about and what Toshiro does later on in the story, so to have “If you want peace, you must conquer yourself” written on Erina’s banner is also a really nice touch!

I guess my main point here is that both phrases go well with the story’s themes and plot, but I do have to say, removing “para bellum” kind of ends up reinforcing Salmael’s point, which is that war (=conflict) isn’t necessary. It ultimately serves P5’s whole narrative that puts individuals at the center of societal changes without questioning too much what role society at large plays: it is acknowledged society needs reform, but reforming passes through righteous people and removing bad apples rather than dismantling and rebuilding anew a system that is designed to be exploitative. More so that “te ipsum” is a bit like saying “you yourself” so I’d argue that a really great emphasis is put on the person/individual. Also worth noting that “te ipsum” is specifically male-gendered as “ipsum” is accusative cause (direct object) for both male (“ipse) and neutral (“ipsum”) pronouns, but “te” is accusative case for the pronoun “tu” which can only be used referring to a person; this means that if the phrase was to be female-gendered it would be “te ipsam vince”. So it really seems to be tailored to Toshiro.

I think what they did with Tactica’s motto is cool (if anything because it let me put my high school diploma at use again after 7 years lol) and definitely a nice addition that shows this game was made with a decent level of care for being a spinoff… at the same time, I can’t help but find a subtle contradiction in the alteration they made.

[ishparpuaqib]

all those circlejerks abt how culturally diverse europe is compared to america seem to vastly overexaggerate the extent to which linguistic diversity in europe signals cultural diversity... all southeast europeans are the same, for one. we really are! one wog nation under god [spanakopita emoji]. i am fully willing to buy the difference between athens, sofia and belgrade is approximately the same as the one between seattle, san franscisco and los angeles, to the extent such things can be measured (if we're talking, say, belgrade and thessaloniki, the difference might as well be that between san francisco and oakland—it helps thessaloniki turns into a serbian settler colony over the summer). i'm not sure if the european union—an actual political entity, unlike "europe"—is more diverse than the united states. i'm willing to bet it's not any less diverse, but the criteria commonly used to measure cultural diversity in the union seem obviously fraught to me. we've got concepts like "central europe" and "western europe" for a reason!

[jasminewalkerauthor]

Deep dives into folklore: Greek plays

Ancient Greek plays, primarily produced during the 5th century BCE, hold a significant place in the annals of world literature and theatre. These plays, often performed in grand amphitheaters like the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, served not only as entertainment but also as reflections of societal values, norms, and political ideologies. In this essay, we delve into the societal influence and impact of three iconic Greek plays: "Antigone" by Sophocles, "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles, and "The Oresteia" trilogy by Aeschylus. Through an analysis of their plots and themes, we uncover their profound implications on ancient Greek society.

"Antigone" by Sophocles:

"Antigone" tells the story of a young woman, Antigone, who defies the orders of King Creon by burying her brother Polynices, who died fighting against Thebes. Creon has declared Polynices a traitor and decreed that his body should remain unburied, but Antigone believes in the divine law and the duty to bury her brother. Despite warnings and pleas from her sister Ismene and Creon's son Haemon, Antigone persists, leading to tragic consequences for herself and those around her.

"Antigone" reflects the tension between individual conscience and the laws of the state. In ancient Greece, the concept of divine law, or the unwritten laws of the gods, often clashed with human-made laws. Sophocles uses Antigone's unwavering commitment to burying her brother to critique the tyrannical nature of absolute power and the importance of moral duty. The play serves as a cautionary tale against unchecked authority and the consequences of hubris, resonating with audiences then and now.

"Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles:

"Oedipus Rex" centers on King Oedipus of Thebes, who unknowingly fulfills a prophecy by killing his father, King Laius, and marrying his mother, Queen Jocasta. As Oedipus investigates the murder of Laius to rid Thebes of a plague, he gradually uncovers the horrifying truth of his own identity and actions. Despite his efforts to evade fate, Oedipus cannot escape his tragic destiny, leading to his downfall and exile from Thebes.

"Oedipus Rex" explores themes of fate, free will, and the consequences of ignorance. In ancient Greece, the belief in fate, or moira, was deeply ingrained in the cultural psyche. Sophocles uses Oedipus's tragic journey to illustrate the limitations of human knowledge and the inevitability of destiny. The play prompts audiences to contemplate the complexities of the human condition and the hubris of challenging divine will. "Oedipus Rex" thus serves as a timeless examination of the interplay between fate and agency, leaving a lasting impact on Greek society and beyond.

"The Oresteia" Trilogy by Aeschylus:

"The Oresteia" trilogy consists of three interconnected plays: "Agamemnon," "The Libation Bearers," and "The Eumenides." The trilogy follows the cursed House of Atreus, plagued by a cycle of violence, betrayal, and vengeance. "Agamemnon" portrays the return of King Agamemnon from the Trojan War and his subsequent murder by his wife Clytemnestra in revenge for sacrificing their daughter Iphigenia. "The Libation Bearers" depicts the avenging actions of Agamemnon's son Orestes, who kills Clytemnestra to avenge his father's death. Finally, "The Eumenides" explores the trial of Orestes by the Furies and his eventual acquittal by Athena, marking the transition from primal vengeance to a system of justice in Athens.

"The Oresteia" trilogy grapples with the themes of justice, retribution, and the evolution of legal systems. Aeschylus uses the tragic saga of the House of Atreus to examine the cyclical nature of violence and the necessity of breaking free from the cycle of vengeance. The trilogy reflects the changing societal values in ancient Greece, particularly the shift from personal vendettas to the establishment of democratic institutions. By advocating for the rule of law and civic order, "The Oresteia" resonated with Athenian audiences and contributed to the cultural and political discourse of the time.

Ancient Greek plays like "Antigone," "Oedipus Rex," and "The Oresteia" trilogy continue to captivate audiences with their timeless themes and profound insights into the human condition. Through their exploration of societal norms, moral dilemmas, and political ideologies, these plays left an indelible mark on ancient Greek society and continue to influence literature, theatre, and philosophy to this day. As enduring classics of world literature, they serve as reminders of the enduring power of storytelling to provoke thought, inspire change, and transcend the boundaries of time and culture.

[monsterkong]

From Conflict to Convergence: The Cultural Relationship Between Rome and Greece 🌟

The relationship between Rome and Greece is a tale of two civilizations that, while distinct, became inextricably linked through centuries of interaction. From early political structures to cultural exchanges, the evolution of this relationship is a fascinating journey through history. Let’s explore how Rome and Greece influenced each other and the lasting impact of their intertwined destinies.

The Birth of Political Parties and Governance 🗺️

When we talk about the origins of political parties, Greece is often recognized as one of the earliest civilizations to experiment with various forms of governance. The Golden Age of Greece, which thrived around the 400s BC, was a time of democratic innovation, particularly in Athens. This period saw the emergence of political factions that debated issues of governance, laying the foundation for modern political systems.

Rome, emerging as a republic in 509 BC, overlapped with the tail end of Greece’s Golden Age. By the time of Julius Caesar, Greece’s political landscape had undergone significant changes. The once-united city-states had splintered into smaller kingdoms following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. This fragmentation made Greece vulnerable, and Rome, ever the opportunist, began to absorb Greek culture and influence, albeit with some initial reluctance.

Cultural Differences and Initial Resistance ⚔️

In the early days of the Roman Republic, Greek culture was often viewed with suspicion and disdain. The Romans, known for their martial discipline and austerity, saw Greek customs as overly indulgent and effeminate. Greek men, with their long hair and beards, and their love for music, theater, and the arts, were a stark contrast to the Roman ideal of the stoic, battle-hardened warrior.

This cultural clash was evident in Roman society’s view of actors, who were placed at the bottom of the social ladder. Unlike in Greece, where actors enjoyed respect, in Rome, associating with actors was seen as a sign of weakness. This disdain for the arts reflected Rome’s early values, where strength and military prowess were paramount.

Yet, despite this initial resistance, Greek culture began to permeate Roman society. As Rome expanded its empire, it encountered Greek customs that, over time, proved too valuable to ignore. By the mid-Republic, the Roman elite had begun to adopt Greek practices, from fashion to language. Speaking Greek became a mark of sophistication, and even the once-ridiculed beards became a symbol of intellectualism among Rome’s upper classes.

The Influence of Greek Culture on Rome 🎨

The shift in Roman attitudes towards Greek culture was gradual but profound. The Romans, always practical, recognized the benefits of incorporating Greek ideas into their own society. This was particularly true in the realms of philosophy, art, and religion, where Greek influence became deeply embedded.

One of the most significant cultural imports from Greece was the concept of ruler worship, a practice the Greeks had adopted from Eastern civilizations like Babylon. Alexander the Great, the Macedonian conqueror, embraced this practice after encountering it in Babylon, where rulers were often deified. His adoption of proskynesis—a ritual in which subjects would prostrate themselves before him as a sign of reverence—was a stark departure from traditional Greek customs but eventually found its way to Rome.

By the time of Emperor Diocletian in 284 AD, proskynesis had become an established practice in the Roman Empire, highlighting the extent of Greek influence on Roman culture. This evolution in religious and cultural practices underscores the deep connection between these two civilizations, despite their initial differences.

The Enduring Legacy of Cultural Exchange 📖

The relationship between Rome and Greece was not a one-sided affair. While Rome absorbed many aspects of Greek culture, it also left a lasting impact on Greece. Roman advancements in architecture, engineering, and law profoundly influenced Greek cities and governance, shaping the course of Western civilization.

Today, the legacies of Rome and Greece are intertwined, with each civilization having left its mark on the other. Their relationship, marked by both conflict and convergence, serves as a powerful reminder of the transformative power of cultural exchange.

In our increasingly interconnected world, the story of Rome and Greece offers valuable insights into the importance of embracing and adapting to different cultures. As we navigate the complexities of global interactions, we can draw inspiration from these ancient civilizations, learning from their experiences as we shape our own future.

[royal-wren]

It's not really a Saturday if I'm not hit with thoughts going a thousand miles in a minute.

I'm thinking about Hermes' intricate and deep connection to life and death, the god that stands between both states and exists in both of them simultaneously. He's my personal god of death and god of the dead to fall more in line with the seats he used to occupy and were effectively given to another and yet he still maintained the most important role/domain in relation to it. The attempt to strip it away never really worked out in the end with him, he's still the one doing all the work at the end of the day.

The god who turns invisible, the one with the sickle (and scythe), growth and loss, the god of the earth -- the wealth and bareness of the land, god of silence beyond silence, and god of noise beyond your imagination or capacity to understand. God of gold, god with the golden and silver tongue, god decked out in gold, god with a heart of precious metals. God among the graves, of the graves, he who mourns and feels great pain for the living and dead that lost a life they greatly valued even though he cannot be hurt or be wounded. Guide in life and death, around all corners and seconds regardless of time or space. The god of caves and mountains, the lowest and highest parts of the world and natural earth we can reach. He of memory, who never forgets and cannot be touched or impacted by the river Lethe, reincarnation eternal. God of the conscious and unconscious, God of light, and the night, the god who bears torches in darkness. The god with eyes everywhere, ever watchful and all-seeing, a god I connect most to eyes and any visuals and concepts/aesthetics to eyes where Athene comes second and Hekate third.

When am I not thinking about him as the lord of the dead and death itself though? Well, it's just especially bad and more at the forefront of my mind right now and I need to write it somewhere. Honestly I never really felt a need to really have Hades or Thanatos come to mind or enter my thoughts in either way, and it was always a feeling and connection I had with him for years now. I felt it so deep in my bones and it always felt right, and reading about it in multiple places with him being the og Pelasgian or Minoan, or at least a very local pre-Hellenic (depending on preference or consensus for whether they are one and the same or not) deity for both, in a similar manner to Enodia being the og Thessilian goddess of paths and crossroads and so on was insanely validating. It was like completing a puzzle, the one last piece I needed to get the full picture.

I will die on this hill no matter what anyone else might try to say, call me crazy or a heretic. I don't care, I live by my own gnosis and sensibilities (or lack their of) and this is one of them.

Oh beloved son of Diwia Agêtôr, older than the soil One with and without guile God with the golden sickle Breather of life and bestower of death Ruler of the Dipsioi, those you join as Deilakrion You know their weight of memories and forgetfulness, of their hunger and thirst as they feast upon the earth Marineus, another name I also call you While you dance among the trees As you find joy lying on the grass Creating gifts without harm from sheep to man A reveler in animals and people alike Dear Araios, with horns divine God of rams and sheep Potnios Theron, relishing in his favorite company Among the infinite animals who flock to him

Trisheros, the hero that sees three ways The one connected to the respect and honoring of the dead Deity holding the many mysteries between truth and lies Akakêsios, without pain, will always take every hand God that sees and feels human emotion, Agônios He will dry every tear and give all calm and serenity

Kharidôtês, God of touch, the nerves, feeling, and pleasure The one all delight in and yearn for The one sung highly by the Kharites and Aphrodite alike Hearts cry merrily with you, never a bitter soul around you

Most ancient god with an appearance and heart of youth As this body struggles, as my knees go weak and my energy drains As love stirs again in me no matter the time of the absence of feeling Set me right while I rest in the palm of your hand With the utmost love, you cup my cheek With a kiss, with a ghosting stroke, I gain vitality

Tbh, writing that was a hell of a lot of fun to mostly just use a lot of his older epithets and names I connect to him that just go with the whole topic of this post.

[gemsofgreece]

What was women's position in the Byzantine Empire? I haven't searched that much, but it seems like her position wasn't any different from Ancient Greece, where they were expected to be modest, silent and it was generally preferable not to be heard (at least, women from aristocratic families).

Well you won’t find easily a medieval state which did not want women to be modest and quiet.

In spite of that, no that’s not true. The place of the woman in the society improved considerably in Byzantine times compared to the Classical era. As a sidenote, perhaps we should not generalize about Classical Greece either, especially when we apply the reality of Athens to all the Greek world without enough evidence that this is historically accurate, at a time when Athens was extremely obsessed with ¨male perfection¨.

Based on our view of things nowadays, it might seem counterintuitive, however Christianity played a huge role in this improvement. You see, the Bible through its scriptures and also the very example of Virgin Mary, whom the Byzantines (and later the Modern Greeks too) worshipped almost equally to Christ, as well as the church’s acknowledgement and veneration of women martyrs indiscriminately from men martyrs, made it clear that women were spiritually equally capable of achieving “théosis”, meaning resemble the image of God, in other words; sainthood. It was thus deemed important that women would be able to read and study the scriptures. As a result the Byzantine empire had the highest literacy rate of women in the Middle Ages.

Intercepting for those who might wonder: "But the Ancient Greek religion had gods and goddesses alike, so why wouldn't that improve the social status of women?". The answer is because in the Ancient Greek religion there was no concept of théosis, meaning any human's strive to achieve a moral perfection to resemble the image of God. The dynamics of gods and godesses were separate from those of the people, where women were left to be evaluated by and versus men alone.

Women were nowhere as confined as the women of classical Greece. Of course they should be good wives and mothers catering to their household first and foremost but they could participate in social events, festivals, go shopping, lather in the baths and have fun like men did. As wives, their status was also better, as according to Christianity all god-fearing men were supposed to be loyal to their wives and have no concubines. So, if a man really had no intention to be faithful at all, neither to his wife nor to the Christian teachings, he at least did it discreetly, and if he did not do even that, then he did not escape the judgement of the society. Divorce was hard for either spouse to ask, of course waaay more for women, but for example Justinian enforced an iconic law that if a couple wanted to take a divorce then BOTH spouses should go to monasteries and be celibate for life lol So you know, be cruel, but at least be indiscriminately cruel! 😂

Financially, dowries and inheritance remained a woman’s property after marriage unlike in classical times. If the husband died, it was the widow’s choice whether she would marry again or not and she was in charge of her children on her own whereas in classical times women had to marry their husband’s closest relative (to “protect” them and the property that had now passed on their own family). So, really no contest there. Women owned and ran businesses and signed contracts. They were employed in a wide range of professions.

As for the aristocrats, they had it much better than classical aristocrats. They did not work like lower class women, obviously, so they filled all that extra time by being pampered by their servants (female and male, sometimes eunuchs), who were usually exclusive to them. Depending on the lady’s interests, the servants would keep her entertained by playing music, reading to her, gossiping, grooming her etc Some women hired teachers to improve on their education on their own accord. Wives of important men were usually involved in political and diplomatic affairs and they were very interested in such matters. Educated women could be doctors (for women).

Nuns, who did not have the burden of taking care of the children and a husband, often became studious and pretty educated, with artistic concerns, like Kassiani. And to go back to the ask, there are accounts of Byzantine princesses being perceived in West Europe as “too talkative” and “too concerned with themselves”, so apparently Byzantium gave its aristocratic women a lot more liberty than, say, Classical Athens and also more than Western Europe did.

And then of course the Byzantine Empire was the only medieval state to have ever been reigned by four women on their own, and some of them were very consciously and ambitiously pursuing the throne. But even the empresses consorts, meaning the wives of the emperors, were also expected to be well acquainted with all the matters of the empire in case something happened to the emperor because they had to stand in his place temporarily or even serve as regents. From the 22 pages in Wikipedia about Byzantine regents, the 7 are about women, so one third, at least from the well known ones.

Women were also interested in their appearances and really took matters in their hands. Rich women would have special gardens cultivating flowers and spices to create their own perfumes. Michael Psellos writes about how Empress Zoe had essentially turned herself into a chemist, making the basements of the imperial palace a lab for perfumes and elixirs to maintain her youthful appearance.

And let’s end this with some quotes from Anna Komnene’s Alexiad (inspired by the Iliad she so loved), the chronicles of her father’s Emperor Alexius exploits in war.

12th-century manuscript of the Alexiad

The Alexiad is invaluable because it remains one of the richest sources of information historians possess about the military, social and imperial history of the Byzantine Empire.

Ah I had written before about that stuff and I meant to write something short this time but I just can’t do it when it’s about Byzantium my love adefefajdhhajhf

[hizmetver]

Democracy

Why did Plato and Aristotle dislike democracy?

Both Plato and Aristotle had reservations about democracy, although their specific criticisms and concerns differed.

Plato's Critique of Democracy: Plato, in his work "The Republic," expressed skepticism about democracy as a form of government. He believed that democracy could easily deteriorate into chaos and tyranny. Plato argued that democracy's emphasis on individual freedom and equality could lead to a lack of order and stability. He believed that democratic governments tend to be influenced by demagogues who manipulate the passions and ignorance of the masses, leading to poor decision-making and a disregard for expertise. Plato's ideal state was a meritocratic one, led by philosopher-kings who possessed wisdom and a deep understanding of justice.

Aristotle's Critique of Democracy: Aristotle, in his work "Politics," also expressed reservations about democracy, although he recognized it as a legitimate form of government. Aristotle believed that democracy could lead to the tyranny of the majority, where the interests of the majority overshadowed those of the minority. He cautioned against the dangers of populism and the potential for the majority to abuse its power. Aristotle believed that a well-functioning democracy required a strong middle class, a balance of power, and institutions that promoted the rule of law and protected individual rights.

It is important to note that both Plato and Aristotle were influential ancient Greek philosophers who lived in different times and had distinct views on democracy. Plato's criticisms were more fundamental, rooted in his skepticism about popular rule and his belief in the importance of a philosopher-king. On the other hand, Aristotle's criticisms were more nuanced, focusing on the potential pitfalls of majoritarian rule and the need for a well-structured democracy.

However, it is also worth noting that both Plato and Aristotle lived in societies where democracy was still an emerging concept, and the democratic systems of their time differed significantly from modern democratic models. Their critiques of democracy should be understood within the historical and cultural context in which they were formulated.

Socrates and Plato had complex views on democracy, and their perspectives evolved over time. Let's start with Socrates.

Socrates was a philosopher who lived in ancient Athens during the 5th century BCE. He is best known for his method of questioning, called the Socratic method, which aimed to stimulate critical thinking and examine one's beliefs. Socrates was critical of the Athenian democracy of his time, though his specific views on democracy are not extensively documented.

Socrates believed that true knowledge and wisdom could only be obtained through critical examination and self-reflection. He often engaged in discussions with Athenian citizens, challenging their beliefs and questioning their understanding of virtue and justice. This approach made him unpopular among some Athenians, as he was seen as undermining traditional values and corrupting the youth.

Socrates' relationship with democracy became particularly contentious during the trial that led to his execution. In 399 BCE, he was charged with impiety and corrupting the youth, crimes that were seen as threats to the stability of the democratic order. Socrates' defense during the trial, as recorded by his student Plato in the dialogue known as "Apology," reveals his skepticism towards the democratic system. He criticized the Athenian democracy for its tendency to prioritize the opinions of the majority without considering whether those opinions were based on knowledge or wisdom.

Moving on to Plato, who was a student of Socrates and one of the most influential philosophers in Western history. Plato's views on democracy are elaborated in his famous work "The Republic." In "The Republic," Plato presents a detailed critique of democracy and proposes an alternative form of government: a philosopher-king ruled "ideal state."

According to Plato, democracy suffers from inherent flaws that make it an imperfect system of governance. He believed that democracy tends to degenerate into chaos and tyranny due to the unchecked pursuit of individual desires and the lack of proper education and wisdom among the citizenry. Plato argued that in a democratic society, people are driven by their passions and appetites rather than reason, leading to a society in which the majority's desires dominate and potentially harm the common good.

Plato's ideal state, as described in "The Republic," is a hierarchical society led by philosopher-kings, who possess wisdom and knowledge. In this society, individuals are assigned roles based on their abilities, and the rulers make decisions guided by reason and the pursuit of justice.

It's important to note that while Socrates and Plato were critical of democracy, their views should be understood in the context of their time and the specific shortcomings they observed in Athenian democracy. Their ideas have sparked centuries of debate and have been interpreted and reinterpreted by scholars and philosophers throughout history. Today, democracy is viewed as a valuable form of government, but discussions about its limitations and challenges continue.

 Let's delve further into the perspectives of Socrates and Plato on democracy:

Socrates:

Socrates believed that democracy could be prone to the tyranny of the majority. He saw a danger in the unqualified opinions of the masses, as decisions could be made based on popular appeal rather than on knowledge, wisdom, or rationality.

He criticized the Athenian democratic system for its tendency to prioritize the desires and interests of the majority without proper consideration of justice and virtue.

Socrates believed that true knowledge and wisdom were crucial for making sound decisions and that these qualities were not necessarily possessed by the majority.

Plato:

Plato's critique of democracy was more extensive and systematic than Socrates'. He believed that democracy, as a form of government, had inherent weaknesses that made it susceptible to decline and corruption.

Plato argued that democracy tends to prioritize individual desires and appetites, leading to excessive freedom and lack of self-discipline. This, in turn, can lead to societal chaos and the emergence of demagogues who manipulate public opinion.

Plato emphasized the importance of education and the cultivation of wisdom. He believed that the majority of people lacked the knowledge and insight necessary for effective governance, and therefore, a ruling class of philosopher-kings was needed to lead society.

Plato's ideal state, as outlined in "The Republic," aimed to transcend the flaws of democracy by establishing a meritocratic society where individuals are assigned roles based on their abilities and governed by philosopher-kings who possess the wisdom and knowledge to make just decisions.

It's worth noting that while Socrates and Plato were critical of democracy, they did not offer a specific alternative system of government that could be practically implemented. Their views on governance were influenced by their philosophical quests for truth, justice, and the ideal state. Their ideas have sparked ongoing debates about the strengths and weaknesses of democracy, the role of education in politics, and the question of who should have authority in society.

shortcomings of demokrasi

While democracy is widely regarded as one of the most preferable forms of governance, it is not without its shortcomings. Here are some commonly discussed criticisms or challenges associated with democracy:

Tyranny of the Majority: One of the fundamental concerns is the potential for the majority to dominate and oppress minority groups. In a democratic system, decisions are often made based on the will of the majority, which can lead to the neglect or marginalization of minority rights and interests.

Populism and Demagoguery: Democracies are susceptible to the rise of populist leaders who exploit public sentiments and emotions rather than relying on rational discourse and evidence-based decision-making. This can lead to policies that prioritize short-term gains and popular appeal over long-term societal well-being.

Inequality and Elite Influence: Critics argue that despite the principles of equality and representation, democracies can still be influenced by powerful elites, such as wealthy individuals or special interest groups, who have more resources and access to shape political outcomes. This can result in policies that favor the privileged few over the broader population.

Political Polarization: Democracies can experience deep divisions and political polarization, particularly when there is a lack of constructive dialogue and compromise. This can hinder effective governance, as partisan interests may take precedence over the pursuit of common goals and societal progress.

Short-termism: Elected officials in democratic systems often face pressure to deliver immediate results to maintain popularity and secure re-election. This can lead to a focus on short-term goals and policies, potentially neglecting long-term challenges such as environmental sustainability or intergenerational equity.

Voter Ignorance and Manipulation: The effectiveness of democracy relies on an informed and engaged citizenry. However, voter apathy, lack of political knowledge, and susceptibility to misinformation can undermine the quality of decision-making and enable manipulation by external actors or vested interests.

Slow Decision-Making: Democratic processes, with their emphasis on inclusivity, can sometimes be slow and cumbersome. Lengthy deliberations, negotiations, and consensus-building can impede prompt action, especially in times of crisis when quick decisions may be necessary.

It's important to note that these criticisms do not necessarily invalidate the concept of democracy, but rather highlight areas where democratic systems may face challenges and require continual improvement. Many proponents argue that addressing these shortcomings can lead to better-functioning and more inclusive democracies.

solution for shortcomings of democracy

Addressing the shortcomings of democracy is an ongoing and complex task. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, here are some potential approaches that have been proposed to mitigate or overcome these challenges:

Strong Institutions and Rule of Law: Strengthening democratic institutions, such as independent judiciaries, robust checks and balances, and mechanisms to ensure accountability, can help prevent abuses of power and ensure that decisions are made in accordance with the rule of law.

Civic Education and Media Literacy: Promoting civic education and media literacy programs can empower citizens to become more informed, critical thinkers, capable of engaging in meaningful and well-informed political discourse. This can help counter misinformation, reduce voter ignorance, and foster a more engaged and responsible citizenry.

Protecting Minority Rights: Safeguarding the rights of minority groups is crucial to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Constitutional provisions, anti-discrimination laws, and inclusive policies can help ensure that minority voices are heard, represented, and protected within the democratic system.

Campaign Finance Reform: Implementing regulations and transparency measures to limit the influence of money in politics can help reduce the disproportionate power of wealthy individuals and special interest groups. This can promote a more level playing field and enhance the representation of diverse interests.

Strengthening Deliberative Processes: Encouraging deliberative democracy approaches, such as citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting, and structured public consultations, can foster inclusive decision-making and enable diverse perspectives to be considered. This can help address political polarization and promote consensus-building.

Promoting Ethical Leadership and Accountability: Encouraging ethical behavior and integrity among political leaders is crucial. Strong ethical standards, anti-corruption measures, and mechanisms for holding elected officials accountable can help reduce the risk of abuse of power and promote trust in democratic processes.

Encouraging International Cooperation: Many challenges facing modern societies, such as climate change, require global collaboration. Strengthening international institutions and fostering cooperation between democratic nations can help address transnational issues and promote shared solutions.

It is important to note that these approaches may vary depending on the specific context and challenges faced by each democracy. Additionally, public engagement, open dialogue, and ongoing evaluation of democratic processes are essential for identifying and implementing suitable solutions to the shortcomings of democracy.

suitable solutions to the shortcomings of democracy respect to countries

The suitable solutions to address the shortcomings of democracy can vary depending on the specific context and challenges faced by each country. Here are some potential solutions that can be considered with respect to different aspects:

Institutional Reforms:

Strengthening the independence and effectiveness of judiciary systems to ensure the rule of law and prevent abuses of power.

Implementing robust checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government to prevent concentration of power.

Enhancing the transparency and accountability of government institutions through mechanisms such as freedom of information laws and anti-corruption measures.

Citizen Engagement and Participation:

Promoting civic education and media literacy programs to empower citizens with knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary for active participation in democratic processes.

Encouraging public participation through mechanisms such as citizen assemblies, town hall meetings, and public consultations to ensure diverse voices are heard in decision-making.

Supporting civil society organizations and grassroots movements that advocate for marginalized groups and hold governments accountable.

Electoral Reforms:

Implementing campaign finance regulations to reduce the influence of money in politics and create a level playing field for candidates.

Strengthening election monitoring and oversight mechanisms to ensure free and fair elections.

Promoting inclusive electoral systems, such as proportional representation or mixed-member systems, to enhance representation of diverse interests.

Protecting Minority Rights:

Establishing legal protections and anti-discrimination measures to safeguard the rights of minority groups.

Encouraging inclusive policies that promote social cohesion, respect diversity, and ensure equal opportunities for all citizens.

Fostering dialogue and understanding among different communities to bridge divides and promote social harmony.

Media and Information:

Promoting media freedom and pluralism to ensure a diverse range of voices and perspectives are represented in the public discourse.

Encouraging fact-checking initiatives and media literacy programs to combat misinformation and disinformation.

Supporting independent journalism and investigative reporting to hold those in power accountable.

International Cooperation:

Engaging in international forums and collaborations to address global challenges that require collective action, such as climate change, migration, and economic inequality.

Sharing best practices and learning from the experiences of other countries to improve democratic governance.

Supporting international organizations that promote democratic values, human rights, and good governance.

It is important for countries to adapt and tailor these solutions to their specific needs, considering their historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts. Sustainable democratic progress often requires a multi-faceted and long-term approach that involves the active participation and collaboration of citizens, civil society, and government institutions.

Certainly! Here are some additional perspectives and considerations regarding solutions to the shortcomings of democracy:

Decentralization and Local Governance: Devolving power to local levels can enhance citizen participation and decision-making. Empowering local governments and communities to address their specific needs and concerns can lead to more responsive and effective governance.

Social and Economic Justice: Addressing socioeconomic inequalities is crucial for a healthy democracy. Implementing inclusive economic policies, providing access to quality education and healthcare, and reducing poverty can help ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities to participate in the democratic process.

Technology and Digital Democracy: Embracing digital technologies can enhance democratic processes. Online platforms and tools can facilitate citizen engagement, enable remote participation, and improve transparency and accountability. However, it is important to address issues like digital divide, privacy concerns, and the spread of misinformation in the digital sphere.

Constitutional Reforms: Updating and revising constitutional frameworks can help adapt democratic systems to evolving social, economic, and political contexts. This may involve reviewing electoral processes, strengthening human rights protections, and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of different branches of government.

Political Culture and Civic Values: Nurturing a culture of democratic values and civic engagement is essential. Promoting respect for diversity, encouraging dialogue, fostering a sense of collective responsibility, and instilling ethical leadership qualities can contribute to a healthy democratic culture.

International Support and Cooperation: Countries can benefit from international support and cooperation in strengthening their democratic institutions. Assistance from international organizations, donor countries, and peer-to-peer collaborations can provide resources, expertise, and knowledge-sharing opportunities.

Continuous Evaluation and Adaptation: Democracy is an ongoing process that requires continuous evaluation and adaptation. Regular assessments of democratic systems, including gathering feedback from citizens, can help identify areas for improvement and inform policy reforms.

It is important to recognize that every country's democratic journey is unique, and solutions must be context-specific. Democracy is a dynamic and evolving system, and addressing its shortcomings requires a commitment to ongoing reflection, dialogue, and collective action to build more inclusive, responsive, and accountable democratic societies.

HOW DİD THE ENLİGHTENMENT PERİOD İNFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRATİC THOUGHT?

The Enlightenment period, also known as the Age of Enlightenment, had a profound influence on the development of democratic thought. It was an intellectual and cultural movement that took place in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment thinkers challenged traditional authority, embraced reason and rationality, and advocated for individual freedoms and rights. Here's how the Enlightenment period influenced the development of democratic thought:

Social Contract Theory: Enlightenment thinkers, such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, developed the concept of the social contract. According to this theory, individuals voluntarily enter into a social contract, surrendering some of their natural rights to a governing authority in exchange for protection and the preservation of their remaining rights. This idea laid the foundation for the notion of government by consent, a key principle in democratic thought.

Natural Rights and Individual Liberty: Enlightenment philosophers emphasized the inherent rights of individuals, including life, liberty, and property. They argued that these rights were not granted by the state or monarch, but were fundamental to human nature. Thinkers like John Locke asserted that governments existed to protect these natural rights, and if they failed in their duty, individuals had the right to rebel or establish a new government. These ideas became central to democratic theories that prioritize the protection of individual freedoms.

Separation of Powers: Enlightenment thinkers, notably Montesquieu, advocated for the separation of powers within government. They argued that dividing political authority among different branches, such as the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, would prevent the concentration of power and safeguard against tyranny. This concept greatly influenced the design of modern democratic systems, including the checks and balances found in many constitutions.

Popular Sovereignty: Another key concept that emerged during the Enlightenment was the idea of popular sovereignty. Thinkers like Rousseau argued that political power ultimately resided in the people, and governments should derive their authority from the consent of the governed. This concept challenged the divine right of kings and laid the groundwork for democratic principles that prioritize the will of the people as the basis of political legitimacy.

Emphasis on Reason and Science: Enlightenment thinkers championed reason, scientific inquiry, and empirical evidence as the basis for understanding the world and making decisions. They critiqued traditional authority and advocated for the use of rationality in governance. This emphasis on reason and evidence-based decision-making contributed to the development of democratic thought, which values informed and rational decision-making processes.

Freedom of Speech and Press: Enlightenment philosophers strongly advocated for freedom of speech and freedom of the press as essential for the functioning of a democratic society. They believed that open dialogue, unrestricted exchange of ideas, and the availability of information were crucial for challenging oppressive regimes, promoting accountability, and fostering intellectual progress.

The Enlightenment period significantly shaped the intellectual and philosophical foundations of democratic thought. Its ideas and principles continue to influence democratic governance, individual rights, the separation of powers, and the importance of reason and public discourse in democratic societies around the world.

Certainly! Here are some additional aspects of the Enlightenment period and its influence on the development of democratic thought:

Enlightenment Thinkers and Democracy: Enlightenment philosophers contributed diverse perspectives to the development of democratic thought. For example, Voltaire championed freedom of speech and religious tolerance, advocating for a society where individuals could express their opinions without fear of persecution. Denis Diderot and the Encyclopédistes sought to disseminate knowledge and promote critical thinking. These thinkers, among others, challenged traditional authority and advocated for social and political reforms that laid the groundwork for democratic principles.

Critique of Absolutism: The Enlightenment period witnessed a strong critique of absolutist monarchies and the divine right of kings. Philosophers such as Baron de Montesquieu and Voltaire criticized the concentration of power in the hands of a single ruler, advocating instead for limited government and separation of powers. Their ideas influenced the establishment of constitutional monarchies and democratic republics, where power is divided among different branches of government.

Influence on the American and French Revolutions: The ideas of the Enlightenment played a significant role in the American and French Revolutions, which were pivotal moments in the advancement of democratic thought. The American Declaration of Independence, with its emphasis on natural rights and the consent of the governed, drew inspiration from Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke. The French Revolution was fueled by the ideals of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty, echoing the ideas of Rousseau and other Enlightenment philosophers.

Influence on Democratic Documents and Institutions: The Enlightenment period influenced the drafting of key democratic documents, such as the United States Constitution and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. These documents incorporated Enlightenment principles, including the protection of individual rights, the separation of powers, and the idea of government by consent. The Enlightenment also influenced the establishment of democratic institutions, such as representative assemblies and the development of a free press.

Spread of Enlightenment Ideas: The Enlightenment period saw the rise of intellectual salons, coffeehouses, and literary societies where intellectuals, writers, and thinkers gathered to exchange ideas. The spread of Enlightenment ideas was facilitated by the printing press, which made books and pamphlets more widely accessible. These intellectual networks and the dissemination of Enlightenment literature helped to popularize democratic ideals and fostered a broader understanding of democratic thought across Europe and beyond.

Legacy and Ongoing Influence: The Enlightenment period's influence on democratic thought reverberates to this day. Its emphasis on reason, individual rights, and the role of informed citizens in governance continues to shape democratic societies. The principles of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty, championed by Enlightenment thinkers, remain central to democratic ideals and struggles for human rights and social justice worldwide.

It's important to note that the Enlightenment was not without its own limitations and contradictions, such as the exclusion of certain groups from its ideals, including women and enslaved individuals. However, the Enlightenment's contributions to democratic thought and its enduring legacy cannot be understated, as it provided a philosophical and intellectual foundation for the development of democratic systems that continue to evolve and adapt in the modern world.

Can you provide examples of Enlightenment thinkers who had a significant impact on democratic thought?

Certainly! Here are some prominent Enlightenment thinkers who had a significant impact on democratic thought:

John Locke (1632-1704): Locke's ideas greatly influenced democratic thought, particularly his theories on natural rights and the social contract. In his influential work "Two Treatises of Government," Locke argued that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property. He asserted that the primary purpose of government is to protect these rights and that if a government fails in its duty, individuals have the right to rebel and establish a new government. These ideas laid the groundwork for the concept of government by consent, individual freedoms, and the right to revolution.

Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755): Montesquieu's work, especially his book "The Spirit of the Laws," had a profound impact on democratic thought. He advocated for the separation of powers within government as a means to prevent tyranny and safeguard individual liberties. Montesquieu argued that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be separate and independent, with each acting as a check on the others. His ideas heavily influenced the design of modern democratic systems with checks and balances.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): Rousseau's ideas on popular sovereignty and the general will were highly influential in democratic thought. In his work "The Social Contract," Rousseau argued that political authority should be derived from the general will of the people, and that governments should represent the common interests of the community. He emphasized the importance of direct citizen participation in decision-making and advocated for a more egalitarian society. Rousseau's ideas shaped democratic principles such as popular sovereignty and the idea that governments should act in the best interests of the people.

Voltaire (1694-1778): Voltaire was a prominent advocate for freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and the rule of law. He used his writings and satirical works to criticize abuses of power, religious intolerance, and injustice. Voltaire believed that a free and open society, where individuals could express their opinions without fear of persecution, was crucial for the development of democracy. His ideas on freedom of expression and religious tolerance greatly influenced democratic thought and the importance placed on civil liberties.

Denis Diderot (1713-1784): Diderot was one of the key figures behind the Encyclopédie, a comprehensive encyclopedia that aimed to disseminate knowledge and promote critical thinking. The Encyclopédie challenged traditional authorities and sought to spread Enlightenment ideas, including democratic values such as freedom of thought and the importance of education. Diderot's work contributed to the democratization of knowledge and the spread of enlightening ideas throughout Europe.

These are just a few examples of Enlightenment thinkers who had a profound impact on democratic thought. Their ideas and writings continue to shape our understanding of democracy, individual rights, the role of government, and the principles that underpin democratic societies.

Certainly! Here are a few more Enlightenment thinkers who made significant contributions to democratic thought:

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797): Wollstonecraft was a pioneering advocate for women's rights and a proponent of gender equality. In her seminal work "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman," she argued that women should have access to education, economic independence, and political rights. Wollstonecraft's ideas challenged the prevailing social norms and laid the groundwork for feminist movements and the inclusion of women in democratic processes.

Thomas Paine (1737-1809): Paine was an influential political thinker and writer who played a crucial role in the American and French Revolutions. In his pamphlet "Common Sense," Paine argued for independence from British rule and the establishment of a democratic republic in the United States. He emphasized the principles of popular sovereignty, the right to self-governance, and the importance of a written constitution to protect individual freedoms. Paine's writings helped galvanize support for democratic ideals and inspired revolutionary movements.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): Kant was a German philosopher whose writings contributed to democratic thought and ethical principles. He emphasized the importance of moral autonomy and individual freedom, arguing that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves, rather than mere means to an end. Kant's ideas on individual dignity and the ethical foundations of democracy influenced later thinkers and provided a philosophical basis for democratic principles.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): Bentham was a philosopher and legal theorist who advocated for utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory that promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham's ideas on utilitarianism and the importance of maximizing social welfare had an impact on democratic thought and policy-making, influencing discussions on the role of government in promoting the well-being of society as a whole.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832): Say was an economist known for his contributions to classical liberalism and his defense of free markets. He emphasized the role of entrepreneurship, free trade, and property rights in promoting economic growth and individual liberty. Say's ideas on economic freedom and the benefits of market competition influenced democratic thought and policies that promote economic liberalism.

These thinkers, among others, contributed diverse perspectives to the development of democratic thought during the Enlightenment period. Their ideas on individual rights, gender equality, popular sovereignty, ethical principles, and economic liberalism continue to shape our understanding of democracy and inform contemporary debates on democratic governance and social progress.

How did Enlightenment thinkers view the role of government in protecting individual rights?

Enlightenment thinkers held varying views on the role of government in protecting individual rights, but there were some common themes and perspectives. Here are the general views held by many Enlightenment thinkers regarding the role of government in safeguarding individual rights:

Protection of Natural Rights: Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke, believed that individuals possessed natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property, which were not granted by the state but were inherent to human beings. They argued that the primary purpose of government was to protect these natural rights. Government was seen as a social contract entered into by individuals to secure their rights and ensure the safety and well-being of society.

Limited Government: Many Enlightenment thinkers advocated for limited government, placing restrictions on the powers and authority of rulers. They believed that unchecked governmental power could lead to tyranny and the violation of individual rights. These thinkers, including Baron de Montesquieu, proposed the concept of the separation of powers, where the legislative, executive, and judicial powers were divided among different branches of government. This system of checks and balances aimed to prevent the abuse of power and protect individual liberties.

Consent of the Governed: Enlightenment thinkers, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, emphasized the idea that legitimate political authority should be derived from the consent of the governed. They argued that governments should represent the will of the people and act in their best interests. This concept of popular sovereignty held that individuals had the right to participate in decision-making processes and hold their rulers accountable.

Rule of Law: Enlightenment thinkers emphasized the importance of the rule of law as a means to protect individual rights. They believed that laws should be clear, predictable, and applied equally to all citizens. The rule of law served as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and provided a framework for individuals to seek justice and protect their rights.

Freedom of Speech and Press: Many Enlightenment thinkers, like Voltaire, emphasized the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of the press as essential for protecting individual liberties. They argued that an open and free exchange of ideas was crucial for challenging abuses of power, promoting accountability, and fostering intellectual progress. These freedoms were seen as integral to a well-functioning democratic society.

Overall, Enlightenment thinkers viewed the role of government as a protector and guarantor of individual rights rather than a source of authority to be unquestioningly obeyed. They believed that governments should be limited, based on the consent of the governed, and guided by the rule of law. These principles have had a lasting impact on democratic thought and continue to shape our understanding of the relationship between government and individual rights in modern democratic societies.

What are some other countries that have a clear separation of powers

Alongside the United States, several other countries have implemented a clear separation of powers in their governmental systems. Here are a few examples:

France: France has a semi-presidential system that incorporates a separation of powers. The executive branch consists of a President, who is directly elected, and a Prime Minister appointed by the President. The President holds significant powers, such as appointing the Prime Minister and overseeing foreign policy, while the Prime Minister is responsible for domestic policy. The legislature, known as the Parliament, is divided into two chambers—the National Assembly and the Senate—which exercise legislative powers independently.

Germany: Germany follows a parliamentary system that features a separation of powers. The executive power is vested in the Federal President, who serves as the ceremonial head of state, and the Federal Chancellor, who is the head of government. The legislative branch is represented by the Federal Assembly, which consists of the Federal Council (Bundesrat) and the Bundestag. The Bundesrat represents the interests of the states, while the Bundestag is the directly elected lower house responsible for passing laws.

India: India operates under a parliamentary system with a separation of powers. The President serves as the ceremonial head of state, while the Prime Minister holds the executive power as the head of government. The Parliament consists of two houses—the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Rajya Sabha represents the states and has limited legislative powers, while the Lok Sabha is the directly elected lower house responsible for lawmaking.

South Africa: South Africa follows a constitutional parliamentary system that incorporates a separation of powers. The President serves as the head of state and head of government, exercising executive powers. The Parliament consists of two houses—the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. The National Assembly is the lower house and holds legislative powers, while the National Council of Provinces represents the provinces and has limited legislative functions.

Brazil: Brazil has a presidential system with a clear separation of powers. The President is the head of state and head of government, responsible for executive functions. The legislative branch is represented by the National Congress, which consists of two houses—the Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. The Federal Senate represents the states and exercises legislative powers, while the Chamber of Deputies is the directly elected lower house.

These are just a few examples of countries that have implemented a clear separation of powers within their governmental systems. It's important to note that the specific mechanisms and powers allotted to each branch of government may vary among these countries, reflecting their unique constitutional frameworks and political contexts.

Here are examples of how the separation of powers is implemented in different countries:

United States:

The executive branch is headed by the President, who is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws. The President is elected separately from the legislative branch.

The legislative branch is divided into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. They are responsible for making laws, and their members are elected by the people.

The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. The courts interpret and apply the laws, ensuring their constitutionality. Judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

France:

The executive power is divided between the President and the Prime Minister. The President is elected separately and represents the head of state, while the Prime Minister is appointed by the President and leads the government.

The legislature comprises two houses: the National Assembly and the Senate. The National Assembly is directly elected and has the primary responsibility for legislating, while the Senate represents regional interests and serves as a revising chamber.

Germany:

The executive power is held by the Federal President, who is elected by the Federal Assembly. The Federal Chancellor, appointed by the President, heads the government and exercises executive functions.

The legislative branch consists of the Bundestag (lower house) and the Bundesrat (upper house). The Bundestag is directly elected and has the primary role in legislation, while the Bundesrat represents the interests of the states and participates in the legislative process.

India:

The executive power is headed by the President, who is elected by an electoral college. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who leads the government.

The Parliament consists of two houses: the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Rajya Sabha represents the states and participates in the legislative process, while the Lok Sabha is directly elected and has the primary role in lawmaking.

South Africa:

The executive power is held by the President, who is elected by the National Assembly. The President appoints the Cabinet, which is responsible for implementing policies and administering the government.

The Parliament comprises two houses: the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. The National Assembly is directly elected and has the primary responsibility for lawmaking, while the National Council of Provinces represents the interests of the provinces and participates in the legislative process.

These examples demonstrate the diverse ways in which countries implement the separation of powers. While the specific details may vary, the general principle remains the same: dividing powers among different branches of government to prevent concentration of power and ensure a system of checks and balances.

ARE SOCRATES AND PLATO FASHİST?

No, Socrates and Plato were not fascists. In fact, both Socrates and Plato were ancient Greek philosophers who lived well before the concept of fascism emerged. Fascism as a political ideology originated in the early 20th century, while Socrates lived in the 5th century BCE and Plato in the 4th century BCE.

Socrates and Plato were known for their contributions to philosophy, ethics, and political theory. They explored various ideas about the nature of justice, the ideal forms of government, and the pursuit of knowledge. Plato, as Socrates' student, developed his own philosophical ideas in dialogues such as "The Republic," where he presented his vision of an ideal state governed by philosopher-kings.

While some aspects of Plato's political philosophy have been criticized for their potential authoritarianism, it is important to note that the concept of fascism did not exist during their time. Fascism as a political ideology emerged much later in history, and it is characterized by authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, dictatorial power, and suppression of dissent.

It is essential to consider historical context and recognize that the political and philosophical theories of Socrates and Plato cannot be directly equated or characterized as fascist. They lived in a different era with different social and political structures, and their ideas were shaped by the intellectual climate of ancient Greece.

[subjects-of-the-king]

The Concept of Government Legitimacy in Greek Antiquity and the Modern World

An original essay of Lucas Del Rio

Note: This piece of mine references both the modern and ancient worlds. Dates in antiquity will always have BC attached. If there is no BC attached, then the date can be presumed to be AD. All references to events in the modern world are solely for the purpose of historical analysis and are not intended to support any political agenda.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a series of international conflicts, both with and without bloodshed, have arisen over the issue of the right of governments to rule their people. After the Second World War, a push occurred against colonialism, which at least in theory was because states were increasingly expected to have a right to constitutional sovereignty. Similar to Latin America in the nineteenth century, local peoples in Africa and Asia began to grow more nationalistic and demanded the right to have governments that answered to their own subjects rather than being the subjects themselves of imperial powers. This dream would be shattered, however, by the conflicting interests of the United States and the Soviet Union, who both had their own ideas of what a legitimate government meant. Now government legitimacy was no longer derived primarily from popular sovereignty, but rather from the two opposing systems of government and economic structure demanded by the rival superpowers. Consent from the people, as well as the right of a nation to rule itself, grew irrelevant as the former colonies became battlegrounds of political ideology through proxy war and coup d’etat regardless of what their citizens actually wanted. Even with the dissolution of the Soviet Union more than thirty years ago, the major powers of the world have far from ceased operating in this manner. Some countries, such as Somaliland in northern Somalia, have fully functioning governments without any international recognition of sovereignty. Others, such as the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China, both claim the title of legitimacy over the other and both enjoy the recognition of certain other governments. Further still, some nations may try to undermine the status of another internationally, such as how the United States uses sanctions on Belarus, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.

One might assume that this recent history is only characteristic of the timeframe in which it occurred. With nationalism and the notion of universal human rights both being relatively new concepts, older history was indeed frequently dominated by empires, absolutism, and slavery. The idea that there was historically no consideration of government legitimacy could not be further from the truth, however. This topic has the potential to be studied in a myriad of times and places, but consider ancient Greece. Countless city-states were strewn across the country prior to the eventual finalization of the Roman conquest after the Battle of Corinth in 146 BC, and there was a lengthy political history in each of them before this annexation. Cities had different systems of governance, conquering cities installed puppet regimes in one another, and most importantly, there were standards for political legitimacy. In order to study the beginnings of the Greek political systems that would come to dominate her cities in the Classical (490 - 323 BC) and Hellenistic (323 - 30 BC) eras, the focus of research shall be on Athens in the Archaic Era (750 - 490 BC) and earlier.

The earliest surviving Hellenic writings that tell their history in an objective manner are the “Histories” of Herodotus. After spending as long as multiple decades traveling and writing about what was the known world to the Greeks in the fifth century BC, his finished text is arguably the best extant source on Archaic Greece, although little of it extends further back than the late seventh century BC. A crucial source for events before this is the “Chronicle” of Eusebius, a fourth century Christian scholar under Emperor Justinian the Great of the Byzantine Empire. In addition to more accepted facts, some of the contents of his “Chronicle” are clearly derived from legend, although folk tales can often help to decipher the history of a people. For this reason, the “Library” of Apollodorus the Grammarian, an Athenian scholar from the second century BC, is also useful. While the work had the explicit purpose of being a handbook to the ancient Greek beliefs about their deities, demigods, and other mythical figures, there is a great deal of purported information on the rulers of cities in the so-called heroic era, which when used with caution can allow it to serve as a sort of guide to Greece before it was chronicled by Herodotus and his successors. These three texts will therefore act as the main sources on the origins of Greek political structures.

The three better studied eras of ancient Greek history are preceded by the Aegean Bronze Age, a time period stretching from the first cities being founded on the archipelagos that surround the Greek mainland to the disappearance of the Mycenaean civilization, and the Greek Dark Ages, which last until official dates for Greek history are objectively established by the Olympic Games. As a side note, while historians generally simplify the dating by calling 750 BC the dawn of the Archaic Era, the first Olympiad was in 776 BC. In the Aegean Bronze Age, truly large cities emerged first on the island of Crete before being followed by those of the Mycenaeans on the mainland. Many historians have postulated that some later Greek legends were distant recollections of events in the Mycenaean era. This theory, one which deserves much greater study than it has received, is for the most part only applied to the Trojan War, although it has the potential to be used as a starting point for the study of the dawn of Greek politics. Greek legend, like those of many other cultures, had a flood myth in which Zeus attempted to wipe out the human race over anger about child sacrifice. Since the story of the Minotaur also involves child sacrifice of a sort, it seems very likely that the Greeks at one time may have had such a ritual practice. After all, the Greek hero Theseus, son of King Aegeus, overcame great odds against King Minos of Crete, interestingly the location where civilization had arisen first, when he slew his monster that had been living on the flesh of Athenian boys and girls.

If the Greeks truly did practice child sacrifice early on, then both of these stories appear to be a moral condemnation of it. In the case of the flood, it was Lycaon, King of Arcadia in the Peloponnese according to the Latin poet Ovid, who had sacrificed a boy to Zeus. Disgusted, the King of the gods of the Greeks was said to have executed the offending monarch with lightning before receiving the assistance of Poseidon and Triton to flood the world with the heaviest rains ever seen. No one would have a more legitimate claim to kingship than the one who ruled from Olympus, and he had the right to depose a much lesser leader for an obsolete, barbaric practice. To fulfill his goal, he requested help from other members of his family with their own realms. This would be followed by the suffering of many others. While Zeus and probably also Lycaon belong solely to myth, the story could represent child sacrifice surviving as a practice in the peripheral regions of Greece until the leaders of these areas were wiped out by their stronger foes. There is also the possibility that the child sacrifice is allegorical for a different practice of one or more kings, but it still demonstrates the mindset of the Greeks at the time. Given that King Minos also sacrificed children, however, it may be more than a mere allegory. 

Contemporary international relations also involve countries that are more powerful and more favorably viewed looking at weak and isolated countries as both primitive and backwards, then using this mindset to justify military or other action. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Middle East, where the United States views Islamic countries, albeit selectively, as foes who refuse to adapt to the modern world. An especially long-running example is Iran, where the Islamic Revolution of 1979 left the country as an adversary of the United States. Iran is condemned by the United States for its theocratic system of governance, a system that the United States sees as illegitimate. More recently, they have accused the Iranians of developing nuclear weapons, which the United States views with suspicion. Of course, most people in the world would agree that theocracy is obsolete in the twenty-first century and that continued nuclear proliferation, regardless of the country obtaining the weapons, is dangerous for people everywhere, just as they would be horrified by child sacrifice. At the same time, many would disagree with the practice of heavy economic sanctions and repeated military threats, which they might view as illegitimate means of diplomacy in the twenty-first century.

The story of Theseus and the Minotaur, as previously asserted, is also essentially about child sacrifice. Unlike King Lycaon, however, it is King Minos who is the powerful ruler subjecting Athens to his will, demanding human sacrificial tribute in a manner similar to the Aztecs. Theseus in this case is playing the role of revolutionary against an old custom. As this tale involves Crete as the location of the greatest power, it is probably that it represents earlier events, when child sacrifice was the norm and still practiced by the most important kings. Here Minos, therefore, is the illegitimate ruler because of his oppressive actions which unjustly interfere in the affairs of another sovereign state. In a twist, Theseus was said by the Athenians to have initiated upon his return the most important political development in Greek history, and arguably, if there is any truth to it, the world. Plutarch, in his work “Parallel Lives” about the greatest of the Greeks and Romans, writes “he promised government without a king” where “he should only be commander in war and guardian of the laws, while in all else everyone should be on an equal footing.” This, according to Plutarch, was “a democracy.”

There is one last notable development to this story, however, and it is that at least some of the Greeks telling it did not view this decision by Theseus favorably, including Plutarch. “He saw that a large part of the people were corrupted” writes Plutarch, who also adds that they “wished to be cajoled into service instead of doing silently what they were told to do.” For many Greeks, the democracy that had been won by the Athenian hero after he freed the city from Cretan subjugation was not the most legitimate system of government, as much of the international community would agree today, but rather the least. Even in the twenty-first century, this story has great relevance. Some highly autocratic leaders, especially in Africa, still try to discredit the concept of democracy by pointing to the failures of democracies that are otherwise similar to their own states by pointing out the failure of these governments to bring down corruption, crime, disorder, poverty, and reliance on foreign powers. The Latin American strongmen, juntas, and one-party states in countries such as Chile, Argentina, and Mexico used similar arguments in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and some would argue that the region has grown significantly more authoritarian in the last decade or so. Furthermore, like Theseus, leaders in modernity who attempt to initiate change by fighting imperial powers and establishing radical new systems of government are rarely successful. Communism is the most well-known example, although a similar issue can be seen in the African anticolonial revolutionaries of the 1960s, where newly democracy almost immediately collapsed in nearly every newly independent state and is yet to return to many. Unfortunately, both the terms “communist state” and “African state” have become heavily associated with tyranny, whether the generalization is fair or not.

Plutarch may provide a lengthy biography of Theseus, although Apollodorus discusses several other legendary Athenian kings, and Eusebius gives a simple yet thorough chronology. Apollodorus maintains that the different gods built cities that would be their respective site of worship, and the one built by Athena was Athens. Ogygus, according to Eusebius, was their first king, then “the Greeks relate that their great ancient flood happened in his reign” and “Attica remained without a king for 190 years.” There is no evidence, of course, that such a flood genuinely occurred, although the unknown event that mysteriously led to the crumbling of the Mycenaean civilization at the dawn of the Greek Dark Ages likely left governance in some parts of Greece in a state of limbo. It is therefore not unthinkable that central control in Athens could have broken down for almost two centuries, possibly with a multitude of warring factions all claiming the title of legitimate ruler while decrying the others as tyrants. “Tyrant” was a frequently used word in ancient Greece for a usurper of the government of a polis, especially one previously controlled by a “rightful” royal family and particularly in the Archaic Era. Its roots originate with the Lydian people of Asia Minor, whom Herodotus says were ruled by a dynasty descended from the Greek hero Heracles, better known today by his Latinized name Hercules, until they were overthrown by Gyges of the Mermnad dynasty. Using lengths of reign and other chronological dates provided by the celebrated Ionian historian, modern scholars have calculated the date of this seizure of power to have been 716 BC, or early in the Archaic Era of the neighboring land of the Greeks.

When the legitimacy of a regime is questioned in the modern world, the result can be the collapse of the central government. Oftentimes a military government ends up replacing a civilian one, or worse yet, central authority completely collapses into an ungovernable warlord state. Two Arab countries in North Africa are recent examples of the two situations. In 2011, the longtime dictators Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in power since 1981, and Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya, in power since 1969, were both expelled from power after mass demonstrations erupted into widespread street violence. Both leaders suddenly received condemnation from the international community, with Mubarak choosing to step down while Qaddafi was killed after risking a civil war that he lost. Egypt was celebrated for holding her first free and fair elections, but there was once again anger from both world leaders and the local population with the newly elected Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. A coup d’etat followed in 2013 with a minimum of international condemnation, Morsi would die under suspicious circumstances in 2019, and the country is now led by Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the military officer who deposed him. A far more dire situation has occurred in Libya, which quickly descended into a civil war with various opposing factions backed by several different foreign countries, including some of her African neighbors as well as the great powers of the world.

Tyranny was exceptionally common in the Greek Archaic Era before a transition towards more democracies and aristocracies as the Classical Era dawned. Herodotus writes heavily about the different tyrants, as his successor Thucydides does to a lesser extent. The author of the “History of the Peloponnesian War,” which chronicled the catastrophic violence between Athens and Sparta in the late fifth century BC, Thucydides is generally considered to have been the greatest historian of the Classical Era after Herodotus. Some modern scholars even prefer Thucydides as a writer because they feel his approach is less biased and that he more carefully vetted his sources. He writes that “the old form of government was hereditary monarchy with established rights and limitations” until “tyrannies were established in nearly all the cities.” Clearly Thucydides considers monarchy to be a more legitimate form of government. Today, military seizures of power are at the very least internationally condemned and often met with economic sanctions such as embargoes and asset freezes, showing that unconstitutional rule by juntas is now no longer seen as legitimate as it was during the Cold War and earlier. On the other hand, while the official international consensus is supposed to be that absolute monarchy is obsolete, powerful countries such as the United States continue to work closely with hereditary regimes such as Saudi Arabia. One reason given for the illegitimacy of military government is the squandering of economic resources, a sentiment shared by Thucydides when he says “for a long long the state of affairs everywhere in Hellas was such that nothing very remarkable could be done” and “cities were lacking in enterprise.”

According to Eusebius, following the reestablishment of monarchy in Athens by King Cecrops, who is also mentioned in the myths told by Apollodorus, the city was ruled by a series of seventeen kings. These kings, he says, belonged to the Erechtheid dynasty, who reigned for 450 years. As Athens transitioned from monarchy, the heads of government were the archons. The reason for this abandonment of monarchy by the Athenians is unclear, but there must have been forces in the city causing a different political system to be considered a more legitimate form of rule. Initially, the archons held power for life, and then his dates show that after 763 BC they began to be appointed for ten year terms. After 684 BC, these terms changed to one year. Just like in Athens, countries in the modern world grapple with the legitimacy of individual leaders based on the duration in which they are permitted to remain in power. Especially in the more peripheral states of the world, changes are frequently made to national constitutions regarding term limits and the length of individual terms. Herodotus mentions a series of tyrannies and attempted tyrannies in Athens that occurred prior to the democratic reforms that historians believe occurred in 508 BC. 

A pivotal moment occurred in Greece, which foreshadowed a major aspect of modern geopolitics, as the Archaic Era was coming to a close. This was the first and second Persian invasion of Greece, which caused something to occur in the world that had never happened before. In these wars, the greatest imperial power of the world chose to use its massive army against a people who, more than had happened up until this point in history, were starting to develop a national identity. The Greeks did not wish to be subjects of the Persians. To the Greeks, despite their many scattered governments, only Greek rule over Greece was legitimate, and they therefore showed unity and strength to defend their sovereignty. During the eighteenth century, such a notion of nationalism spread across the globe. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it became commonplace for nationalist partisans to resist instances of foreign occupation. Since the Second World War, direct occupation of a different nation-state has grown increasingly difficult, as evidenced by the local responses in Afghanistan in 1979, Iraq in 2003, and Ukraine in 2022. Like the Greeks of the fifth century BC, the people of the modern world are increasingly valuing both democracy and their own sovereignty, and like the Classical Greeks, they have the potential for some of the greatest deeds in human history.