Idk if it's bc I started watching this channel while Thersites was working on his thesis, but the upload schedule these last months is so great it's making me feel spoiled hahaha. Keep up the great work man! Absolutely phenomenal channel, wish there could be more like this
8:30 this is a big part of why multicultural democracy is failing entirely. political parties are often more or less along ethnic or gender lines. 25:37 but it literally happened again with plato and then they tried to do it to aristotle too and he fled. weird statement 53:38 since when do democracies vote on who they fight... the reason democracies don't often wage war on other democracies is that democracy is chiefly a western affiliated or controlled institution connected to international banking and the USD, so if there is a relatively functioning democracy it's allied to or under the yoke of other democratic nations. non-democratic nations are villainized and often invaded by democratic ones because they are not under the control of the international banking scheme that runs western democratic powers. most modern democracies outside of europe and the anglosphere have been manipulated or forced into adopting the system to make their nation more easily controlled by the west.
I wonder if "letting the final say to the gods" can truly be considered democratic. If you hold a purely secular view on the lot, it makes sense, since everyone has equal chance. But if you attribute the choice to the gods, it isn't really democratic anymore, since the gods would presumably always pick their favored citizen, and therefore the chances wouldn't be truly equal between citizens
This circles back to the differences between ancient and modern notions of democracy. The Athenians did not see it as undemocratic for certain priesthoods to be inherited by aristocratic families or for their military commanders to all hail from the wealthiest segment of society.
I think it's incredibly disingenuous for modern societies to name their system after Demokratia. In practically each and every factor were not only different, but the polar opposite.
@@Cecilia-ky3uw we based our "democracy" on the roman republican system, which developed in contrast to demokratia, so you couldn't be more wrong and proved the OP's point.
@@Cecilia-ky3uw the Senate of Rome claimed the same mandate, while the boule of Athens did not, so I once again submit that you are proving the OP's point
Yeah, to be a slave in a mine in the ancient world is probably about the most horrific fate imaginable. Rura Penthe has nothing on a Roman or Greek mine.
The polemarch was one of the archons. The last time that the polemarch had a major role was at the Battle of Marathon. After that, the polemarch's position became almost purely honorary.
When did they have democracy? Where is evidence of the Sumerians elections? Their rulers were kings and the people were the king's subjects from the beginning.
@@johnk4433 you've probably never heard of doing simple searching on something called the internet. I'll let you argue with the whole world of history on the internet yourself and not me. And voting is not proof of democracy as the US proves. Good luck.
Do you have a source on Election in Athens? Because everything I was just reading said absolutely NO they never did that for anything, Athens are firmly opposed to Elections.
It is interesting to see that both Sparta and Athens suffered from too much accountability checks which could be related to contributing in their downfall. Perhaps an essay topic for history and poli-sci students?
I don't know about that. Sparta did not have sufficient accountability to maintain the prescribed number of citizens by enforcing its land laws. Athenian accountability laws on the other hand ensured that Athens had a good deal of internal political stability and were able to continue to both host great events and mount military expeditions even after the loss of its imperial holdings.
th-cam.com/video/ppGCbh8ggUs/w-d-xo.html Historiā Cīvilīs argued that the Spartan system was too conservative to allow say citizenship reform to take place when Sparta faced their demographic crisis
@@mdtrw That's largely correct, although the resistance seems to have been less ideological and more the beneficiaries putting their self-interest ahead of Sparta.
In a direct democracy to be locked out off politics like women (or non citizens or slaves) means you are always subject to the political decisons you can never participate in. Wives can influence their husbands or male family members but that is not the same as having any say yourself... But thsi shoudl be compared to other greek states at the time not our time.
"When the American revolutionaries were trying to establish their state - and that is the stable form of bourgeois state that has survived - they looked at historical models. And there were two models available for them, there was Rome and Athens. They had to choose between these, and it is actually no accident that they chose Rome, that the United States constitution is largely based on the Roman ideas of constitution - it’s a republic, it’s not a democracy. It was constructed as a state by slaveholders who saw what had been the most stable slaveholder state in the past: Rome. And they modeled their state on that. But there’s another model, and that’s the Athenian model of direct democracy, and the Greeks, over a period of hundreds of years, developed mechanisms to prevent aristocratic domination of the state. The first point was that there was no representative democracy. In Greece all laws were passed by the assembly. Secondly, the executive functions of the state were implemented by a randomly selected council, not by an elected body. The Greeks believed that only if you chose people at random - they actually used random number generators - could you guarantee that the council was unbiased and representative of the population as a whole - or representative of the citizens as a whole, because they’re not the same thing. If you think how a polling organisation tries to determine public opinion, if a polling organisation wants to know what the public opinion is, do they go to the Swedish parliament and ask the opinion of the Swedish parliament? No they don’t, they take a random sample of the population and ask that. If you had that kind of constitution now, the role of political parties would be radically different. They would no longer exist primarily as a body to mobilise support for a group of politicians. Their main job would be to mobilise public opinion towards specific ideological or social objectives, and the people who join the political parties would be joining just because they believe in it."- Paul Cockshott
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl but Roman was the more superior (long lasting) slavery based system, which was the point & why the founders preferred it. In the ancient world almost all societies had slaves but only one became the roman empire and it's because of the political system they had. I'd highly recommend reading Paul Cockshott's book "how the world works" for a better/more in-depth explanation if you're curious
Idk if it's bc I started watching this channel while Thersites was working on his thesis, but the upload schedule these last months is so great it's making me feel spoiled hahaha. Keep up the great work man! Absolutely phenomenal channel, wish there could be more like this
The most underrated youtube history channel ! Cheers from Morocco
Hello from Victoria BC Canada EH!
The Hellenic Democracy has not evolved since. Greece is still an oligarchy ruled by a few political families.
Yep. Perhaps choosing leaders by lot wasn't such a bad idea
@@HxH2011DRA bring it back!
Absolutely spectacular historical-material analysis of Classical Athens!
this is such good rich info that I never got with pop culture level history books or shows... thank you good sir!
8:30 this is a big part of why multicultural democracy is failing entirely. political parties are often more or less along ethnic or gender lines.
25:37 but it literally happened again with plato and then they tried to do it to aristotle too and he fled. weird statement
53:38 since when do democracies vote on who they fight... the reason democracies don't often wage war on other democracies is that democracy is chiefly a western affiliated or controlled institution connected to international banking and the USD, so if there is a relatively functioning democracy it's allied to or under the yoke of other democratic nations. non-democratic nations are villainized and often invaded by democratic ones because they are not under the control of the international banking scheme that runs western democratic powers. most modern democracies outside of europe and the anglosphere have been manipulated or forced into adopting the system to make their nation more easily controlled by the west.
I wonder if "letting the final say to the gods" can truly be considered democratic. If you hold a purely secular view on the lot, it makes sense, since everyone has equal chance. But if you attribute the choice to the gods, it isn't really democratic anymore, since the gods would presumably always pick their favored citizen, and therefore the chances wouldn't be truly equal between citizens
This circles back to the differences between ancient and modern notions of democracy. The Athenians did not see it as undemocratic for certain priesthoods to be inherited by aristocratic families or for their military commanders to all hail from the wealthiest segment of society.
It’s so good be back in Ancient Greece again. Thank you!
Very informed and informative. Thanks for making this video.
Outstanding video. Thank you for your work.
I loved this, thank you!
My life’s work is to get Netflix and Chill added to the US Constitution!
I think it's incredibly disingenuous for modern societies to name their system after Demokratia. In practically each and every factor were not only different, but the polar opposite.
Its not we based our stuff on modified versions of the original greek democracy so who cares
I agree with OP, obfuscation of organizational terms can only make an already complex system harder to understand.
@@Cecilia-ky3uw we based our "democracy" on the roman republican system, which developed in contrast to demokratia, so you couldn't be more wrong and proved the OP's point.
@@theLetterDoubleYou yes but its a rather mix of the will of the people and the senate
@@Cecilia-ky3uw the Senate of Rome claimed the same mandate, while the boule of Athens did not, so I once again submit that you are proving the OP's point
The Dawn of Democracy, the birth of cringe.
(Great vid btw).
For the Algorithm!
thanks for a great lecture, it was really informative.
Second to comment
Well done sir. Excellent entry level presentation of the workings of the athenian democracy.
Not much has changed . . . in. the world of slavery.
A+
Yeah, to be a slave in a mine in the ancient world is probably about the most horrific fate imaginable. Rura Penthe has nothing on a Roman or Greek mine.
So the Athenians did not have a polemarch among the 10 strategoi?
The polemarch was one of the archons. The last time that the polemarch had a major role was at the Battle of Marathon. After that, the polemarch's position became almost purely honorary.
Sumerians had city state level democratic institutions way before the Hellenics and probably more inclusive.
When did they have democracy? Where is evidence of the Sumerians elections? Their rulers were kings and the people were the king's subjects from the beginning.
@@johnk4433 you've probably never heard of doing simple searching on something called the internet. I'll let you argue with the whole world of history on the internet yourself and not me. And voting is not proof of democracy as the US proves. Good luck.
@@bluelithium9808 Where was the freedom of speech we take for granted in Sumeria? Many parts of the world like Iraq don't even have it today.
@@johnk4433 neither does the US.
Amazing lectures!
You are a wonderful teacher.
Amazing presentation
Correction, first Western Democracy, Kish has been one thousands of years earlier.
Do you have a source on Election in Athens? Because everything I was just reading said absolutely NO they never did that for anything, Athens are firmly opposed to Elections.
No, they didn't have democracy in Kish. The kings there exercised full tyrannical power over all their subjects.
@@johnk4433 The second "King" Kullassina-bel means "all of them were Lord".
Demodemodemo
It is interesting to see that both Sparta and Athens suffered from too much accountability checks which could be related to contributing in their downfall. Perhaps an essay topic for history and poli-sci students?
I don't know about that. Sparta did not have sufficient accountability to maintain the prescribed number of citizens by enforcing its land laws. Athenian accountability laws on the other hand ensured that Athens had a good deal of internal political stability and were able to continue to both host great events and mount military expeditions even after the loss of its imperial holdings.
th-cam.com/video/ppGCbh8ggUs/w-d-xo.html
Historiā Cīvilīs argued that the Spartan system was too conservative to allow say citizenship reform to take place when Sparta faced their demographic crisis
@@mdtrw That's largely correct, although the resistance seems to have been less ideological and more the beneficiaries putting their self-interest ahead of Sparta.
Well done !
Athenian mine slavery was the worst and deadliest slavery in the world.
Say no more.
and probably 66th viewer
In a direct democracy to be locked out off politics like women (or non citizens or slaves) means you are always subject to the political decisons you can never participate in.
Wives can influence their husbands or male family members but that is not the same as having any say yourself... But thsi shoudl be compared to other greek states at the time not our time.
The Spartan women were Greek and had all the privileges their men had. So, it wasn't the case in all the Greek city-states.
"When the American revolutionaries were trying to establish their state - and that is the stable form of bourgeois state that has survived - they looked at historical models. And there were two models available for them, there was Rome and Athens. They had to choose between these, and it is actually no accident that they chose Rome, that the United States constitution is largely based on the Roman ideas of constitution - it’s a republic, it’s not a democracy. It was constructed as a state by slaveholders who saw what had been the most stable slaveholder state in the past: Rome. And they modeled their state on that.
But there’s another model, and that’s the Athenian model of direct democracy, and the Greeks, over a period of hundreds of years, developed mechanisms to prevent aristocratic domination of the state. The first point was that there was no representative democracy. In Greece all laws were passed by the assembly.
Secondly, the executive functions of the state were implemented by a randomly selected council, not by an elected body. The Greeks believed that only if you chose people at random - they actually used random number generators - could you guarantee that the council was unbiased and representative of the population as a whole - or representative of the citizens as a whole, because they’re not the same thing. If you think how a polling organisation tries to determine public opinion, if a polling organisation wants to know what the public opinion is, do they go to the Swedish parliament and ask the opinion of the Swedish parliament? No they don’t, they take a random sample of the population and ask that. If you had that kind of constitution now, the role of political parties would be radically different. They would no longer exist primarily as a body to mobilise support for a group of politicians. Their main job would be to mobilise public opinion towards specific ideological or social objectives, and the people who join the political parties would be joining just because they believe in it."- Paul Cockshott
it’s a republic, it’s not a demokratia
Oh my God as if Athenians were not infamous slavers
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl but Roman was the more superior (long lasting) slavery based system, which was the point & why the founders preferred it. In the ancient world almost all societies had slaves but only one became the roman empire and it's because of the political system they had. I'd highly recommend reading Paul Cockshott's book "how the world works" for a better/more in-depth explanation if you're curious