The Greek cities were originally monarchies, although many of them were very small and the term "King" (basileus) for their rulers is misleadingly grand. In a country always short of farmland, power rested with a small class of landowners, who formed a warrior aristocracy fighting frequent petty inter-city wars over land and rapidly ousting the monarchy. About this time the rise of a mercantile class (shown by the introduction of coinage in about 680 BC) introduced class conflict into the larger cities. From 650 BC onwards, the aristocracies had to fight not to be overthrown and replaced by populist leaders called tyrants (tyrranoi), a word which did not necessarily have the modern meaning of oppressive dictators.
2006-10-04 02:37:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
To my opinion, should the aim is to obtain knowledge, one should examine all facts and sides of a civilization's history. Conclusions without taking into consideration both ''good'' and ''bad'' moments will be incorrect.
Historically talking, a researcher looks to find out under which circumstances an action or an event (''good'' or ''bad'') was born. Additionally it is important to identify which were the results of these actions/events to the rest of the world, either positive or negative!
For what concerns the ancient greece civilization it is commonly accepted that its final contribution to the world's progress was positive. Despite the successive interchange between ''good'' and ''bad'' moments (not ''sides'') all aspects of human life were promoted (sciences, medicine, philosophy, art, politics, theater etc).
Therefore I 'm really wondering .......what is the purpose to look for ''the bad sides'' of ancient Greece' civilization excluding the ''good'' aspects?????
2006-10-05 04:53:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by elmamelenia 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Get into the stories of their enemies, like say... Thessaly....
2006-10-04 21:58:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by raxivar 5
·
0⤊
0⤋