From the Darkness of Ages: War and Peace in Homeric Greece

99
From the Darkness of Ages: War and Peace in Homeric Greece

In Ancient Greece, fleeing the battlefield was considered a shame. The warrior, saving his life, threw everything, and first of all his heavy shield. If he died in battle, his comrades carried his body home on a shield. No wonder Spartan mothers admonished their sons: “Come back with a shield or on a shield.” The word "ripsasp" (ῥιψάσπις), derived from "ρίπτω" (ripto - throw) and "ἀσπίς" (aspis - shield), literally meant "throwing a shield" and was synonymous with cowardice.

Paradoxical as it may seem, for twenty-three centuries the country that gave the world the art of war, commanders of the level of Themistocles and Epaminondas, invincible hoplites and a formidable phalanx, has not participated in any significant military conflicts (except for the resistance to the Nazis and their allies during Second World War). Moreover, the cradle of Western civilization has not played a leading role in world politics for twenty-three centuries.



The era of Macedonian rule, the time of Philip II and Alexander the Great, became a turning point in stories Greece. A thousand years of turbulent, if not always well-documented history - from the Trojan War to the wars with Persia - gave way to more than two thousand years of oblivion. Greece, subordinate to powerful empires, eked out a miserable existence, content with only illusory autonomy. It shared the fate of many peoples for whom obscurity has become a familiar state.

It can be said that Greece was at the peak of its power until it became a single nation. Before that, it was a patchwork of warring city-states, constantly competing with each other. These policies, despite their fragmentation, successfully resisted external enemies for centuries. Plato once remarked that “peace” is just a word, and that every state is in a state of permanent war with other states. This apt observation accurately reflects the realities of the time. No wonder even the gods of the ancient Greeks were dressed in hoplite armor.

Even the greatest minds of Hellas, the fathers of Western civilization, did not question the dominant role of war in the life of society. Heraclitus argued that war is the father and king of all things. Military victories were valued by the Greeks much more than elegant statues or majestic temples. Aeschylus bequeathed to mention on his grave not about his immortal tragedies, but about his participation in the Battle of Marathon. Pericles said that death in battle atones for any sins, and lists of fallen soldiers became genuine monuments in Greek cities.

However, unlike Egypt and Mesopotamia, a unified empire never emerged during Greece's heyday. The largest policies were able to create only regional unions, which turned out to be short-lived. The hegemonic cities could not offer their allies enough benefits to make them tolerate their leadership.

How many times in the first centuries of its history was Rome on the verge of destruction due to the threat of collapse? If Hannibal, after spending seventeen years in Italy, had managed to win over the Italian tribes to his side, Rome would have been doomed. And if the Eternal City could not replenish its army from its allies after inevitable defeats, it would never have been able to create its gigantic empire.

Greek city-states relied on the militia of their citizens and, as a last resort, on mercenaries, whom they could only afford to hire for short periods. Moreover, their desire to control and exploit their allies made the alliances they created fragile and unreliable. Their cruelty towards defeated rivals also contributed to the short-lived nature of their dominance, giving rise to a thirst for revenge and new bloody conflicts. All this depleted Greece's resources, making it easy prey for external enemies.

We know less about Greece in the pre-classical period than about Italy before the arrival of the Romans. Like many other Eurasian territories, the Balkan Peninsula in the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BC. e. became the scene of migrations of Indo-European peoples, while the Minoan civilization of Crete flourished in the south.

However, it is believed that the true ancestors of the Greeks were the conquerors who began to penetrate the region around 1950 BC. e. Traditionally they are divided into several main groups associated with different dialects: first the Aeolians and Ionians, who settled in the Peloponnese, Thessaly, Boeotia, Attica and the island of Euboea, then the Dorians, who probably arrived in the XNUMXth century BC. e. and occupied the southern regions of the peninsula.

But confusion is caused by the Achaean tribe, which Hesiod mentions separately from the other three, but Homer refers to all Greeks. For the Hittites, this was the most important tribe living in Greece. Modern researchers are inclined to believe that the Achaeans were either Aeolians or Dorians, who were forced by the invasion to retreat to the northern Peloponnese - to Achaea and Arcadia.


Map of the settlement of Greek tribes in the "Dark Ages"

Interaction with the more advanced Minoan civilization led to the emergence of a new Mycenaean civilization in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. e., during the period called Late Helladic. We see traces of it in the majestic fortresses and monumental tombs of Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Argos and Thebes, built by Vanax, the patriarchal king of these communities. The Mycenaean culture was the first continental Greek culture to leave written evidence - Linear B, which, unlike Cretan Linear A, has been deciphered.

It was an aggressive civilization that gradually absorbed the decaying Crete and spread its influence to the Aegean Sea and the coast of Asia Minor. The Trojan War, as described by Homer, was probably one of the important episodes of the Mycenaean conquests, led by a basileus - a ruler who was a military leader with specific responsibilities rather than a patriarch - or within temporary coalitions of late Mycenaean kings under the leadership of one of them.

Trojan War


For the ancient Greeks, this conflict was the culmination of the heroic age and, as Herodotus argued, the first major clash between East and West. Homer himself narrates individual episodes of the war, perceiving its key moments as something generally known, ingrained in the collective memory, and not considering it necessary to go into detail.

But how do we know whether a poet is describing the style of warfare of the late Mycenaean period or his own, archaic era? Or is it a mixture of both styles and all the centuries in between?

The singer of the Trojan War presents it as a series of duels between heroes - individual warriors who arrived on the battlefield in their chariots, disembarked from them and searched in the midst of enemies for an enemy equal in glory. But Homer is a poet, and he focuses on individual characters, so his description is not so much a way to talk about the war, but to emphasize the epic nature of what is happening. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that there were large-scale clashes between large forces, and not just local heroic battles.


Trojan War

Something terrible must have happened immediately after this conflict, which would have ended the Mycenaean civilization and caused the Greeks of subsequent eras to lose much of their historical memory.

All we can say with some certainty is that Troy, inhabited by a people related to the Greeks, was the main city near the Hellespont and probably achieved a high level of prosperity in the 13th century BC. e., being rebuilt for the seventh time after the earthquake. Its position allowed it to control trade routes between Asia and Europe, connecting Greece, the southern Aegean Sea and the Hittite Empire. But soon its own geographical position put it in conflict with the Greeks, who, in their advance into Asia Minor, occupied the southern part of the Troas.

It can be assumed that the reason for the war was the unworthy behavior of the guest - the son of the Trojan king Priam, who took the wife of King Menelaus from Sparta.

By the way, the Athenian Alcibiades, many centuries later, repaid the hospitality of the Spartan king Agis by seducing his wife. However, the act of Prince Paris gave the Greeks a reason for war against the main obstacle on the way to the Black Sea. A large coalition of Greek kingdoms emerged under the overall command of the Mycenaean king Agamemnon.

Fleet The invasion force assembled at the port city of Aulis – perhaps in 1213 BC, according to Strabo and Thucydides – in Boeotia, and consisted of 1 ships, each capable of carrying between 200 and 50 men. This would give an army of up to 120 men, which Thucydides considers quite plausible.

The list of ships from the second book of the Iliad is not just a list of participants in the Greek coalition. This is the real key to understanding Mycenaean geopolitics, giving us a glimpse into the world of the major Greek powers before the Archaic period and the Dorian invasion.

Take a look at Agamemnon's domain: northern Argolis and the lands between Arcadia and the Gulf of Corinth. Tiryns and the rest of Argolis were probably ruled by Diomedes - perhaps as a vassal of Agamemnon. If we consider that Sparta belonged to Menelaus, the brother of Agamemnon, then it turns out that most of the Peloponnese was under the control of the Pelopid family. It is likely that Nestor, king of Pylos in Messenia, was associated with this powerful family.

In the north, the more independent Arcadia and Elis reigned, although they received ships from Agamemnon. Odysseus ruled the western islands: Ithaca, Cephalonia and Zakynthos. But the once powerful Aetolians, divided into five cities of equal importance, were in decline. Thebes is not mentioned at all in the list.

A similar situation was observed in central Greece. The fragmentation was felt most clearly in Boeotia, where thirty cities under the leadership of five leaders joined the campaign. About the peoples of central Greece - the Phocians, Locrians and the inhabitants of Euboea - we know only names, which suggests that the political culture there was less developed compared to the Peloponnese.

In the north, the kingdoms seem more united. Phthiotis was under the rule of Achilles, and the rest of Thessaly was divided into eight political entities, including twenty-five centers.

The only Attica city mentioned was Athens, which provided about fifty ships. This suggests that the process of unification of the peninsula was completed in the Mycenaean era. The only exception was the island of Salamis, which remained independent under the rule of Ajax and sent twelve ships.

The rulers of the Aegean Islands also took part in the expedition. Among them was Idomeneo from Crete, the grandson of Minos, who brought eighty ships. This demonstrates the island's close ties to the continent, despite its decline. Rhodes, under the rule of Tlepolemus (son of Hercules), sent nine ships. Samos and other southern Sporades also joined the campaign. But the northern Sporades and Cyclades are not on the list.

Seeing such an impressive army, the Trojans chose not to tempt fate in open battle and took refuge behind the impregnable walls of their city. The Greeks were forced to begin a siege, which in those days, without developed siege art, amounted to a blockade and waiting until hunger forced the enemy to surrender.

However, feeding a huge army was not easy. When the resources in the surrounding lands, subject to systematic plunder, dried up, part of the army was sent to cultivate the fertile valleys of nearby Chersonesus of Thracia. But constant raids by local residents forced the Greeks to abandon this idea.

The forces remaining under the walls of Troy were not enough to prevent the forays of the besieged for food. The Trojans skillfully took advantage of this, prolonging the siege, which, according to legend, lasted a whole decade. The Greek troops acted separately, each under the command of their own leader. Only occasionally was Agamemnon able to organize coordinated actions.

For example, Achilles, king of Phthiotis, became famous for his numerous raids on neighboring cities - allies of Troy - from the Propontis to Caria and Lycia, as well as on the islands. These raids, although they brought the Greeks resources and local victories, scattered their forces and distracted them from the main goal.

The fall of Troy is associated with the cunning of the Greeks.

However, some sources talk about betrayal, which was not uncommon during sieges in ancient times. Be that as it may, the city was razed to the ground, and the surviving inhabitants fled.

The most plausible version seems to be that the Trojan kingdom continued to exist in a new place, thanks to Aeneas and his sons. However, for many Greek kings, returning home turned into a tragedy. In an era when the presence of the leader was necessary to maintain power, the long absence of participants in the campaign led to civil wars, regime changes and coups d'etat.

Perhaps this is what weakened Greece and made it easy prey for new invasions from the north.

Decline of Mycenae and the birth of a new Greece


Around 1200 BC e. on the ruins of the Mycenaean civilization, a new chapter in the history of Greece unfolds. A wave of conquerors, whom the Greeks called “Dorians,” poured into the Balkan Peninsula. This event, which became part of a large-scale migration of peoples that shook the entire Middle East, buried the Hittite Empire and threatened the very existence of Egypt.

The Dorians, skilled archers and javelin throwers, did not rely on heavy weapons and chariots like the Mycenaeans. Their tactics of rapid infantry attacks forced the Greeks to reconsider their military traditions.

The new settlers, the last of the Indo-Europeans, spread throughout the Peloponnese, Epirus, Phocis, Aetolia and Crete, laying the foundations for the future division of the Greek language into dialects. Archaeological finds and the difficulties faced by Homeric heroes trying to return to their homeland indicate the brutal displacement of the indigenous population.

The next five centuries are shrouded in a veil of uncertainty and are called the “Dark Ages of Hellas.” This is an era of decline, similar to the dark ages of the early Middle Ages after the collapse of Rome. The scant evidence of Aristotle and Thucydides paints a rather deplorable picture: the absence of centralized power, the decline of agriculture, population decline, rampant banditry, a decrease in the pace and scale of trade, isolated communities where local leaders, like feudal lords, waged internecine wars, commanding detachments of lightly armed warriors.

However, as in the case of the Middle Ages, sunset gives way to dawn. At the end of the Dark Ages, the Greeks adopted the alphabetic writing from the Phoenicians, forming their own mythology, religion and culture, which would become the basis of Western civilization. Trade connections expanded, and the political fragmentation caused by the mountainous terrain helped to give rise to the democracy that the Greeks would later jealously defend.

Initially, this democracy was oligarchic in nature. Military leaders, seeking to consolidate their power, generously rewarded their followers with land, which led to the emergence of a new class of wealthy peasants. Having become rich, they began to acquire weapon and demand greater influence, which led to the formation of poleis and the emergence of the phalanx - a new type of army based on unity and discipline.

The main losers in this era of change were the kings. Their attempts to rely on the people to contain the growing influence of the aristocracy failed. The military elite, which seized power during the era of wars, established oligarchic regimes that by the 8th century BC. e. became common in Greece itself, its colonies on the islands of the Aegean Sea and in Asia Minor. The monarchy survived only in some Asian colonies and partially in the Peloponnese, where it took the unique form of the Spartan “diarchy” - dual power. Thus, out of the chaos of the “Dark Ages” a new Greece was born, ready to flourish in the archaic and classical eras.

Colonization played an important role in the formation of the new Greece. The expansion of trade relations, beyond the limits of modest exchange within the Greek lands, contributed to the emergence of a new class of rich people. These enterprising people, who made their fortunes through trade, could compare in wealth with the old aristocracy. And if the aristocrats had already taken power from the kings, then the new rich also wanted to participate in governance. So gradually more and more new social strata began to play a role in politics.

Growing prosperity led to an increase in the number of citizens able to purchase full combat equipment. Cities required large armies, and the aristocracy had to share the military burden with other sections of society. Large armies could no longer rely on the exploits of individual heroes, so the era of single duels gave way to large-scale battles. War chariots, which served as a shooting platform, transport and support for infantry in the Mycenaean era, lost their importance. The horse, used by aristocrats to travel to the battlefield, also lost its importance. Now, in order to fight in the ranks, it was enough to have armor, a spear, a helmet, greaves and a sword.

Another important innovation of the Dark Ages was the emergence of the polis. This new type of settlement grew out of the earlier chaotic collection of the acropolis (the main part of the city on a hill), the royal palace and the surrounding villages that sought protection within its walls. The new city surrounded itself with walls, housing magistrates' buildings, temples, houses of townspeople who had moved from the villages, and a central square - the agora, where the people gathered to express their, still nominal, power.

Not all Mycenaean centers were able to survive the period of decline and transformation. If earlier the main criterion when choosing a place to settle was inaccessibility, then in archaic and classical Greece economic prosperity and ease of communication both with the interior and with the sea became more important. Sometimes several villages chose to accept the primacy of the most important city in the region, a process called "syneclysm". A striking example is Athens, which, according to legend, was united by Theseus, gathering twelve communities of Attica.

Natural boundaries played an important role in the formation of Greek civilization. Although the mountainous terrain made the peninsula difficult to wage war on, it also made attempts to control its various areas very difficult. More than 40% of Greece's territory lies at an altitude of more than 500 meters, and the rugged coastline and many islands that make up about 20% of its area have contributed to political fragmentation and the formation of a unique Greek identity.

The Greek city-states, which could have united into an empire, were separated by natural barriers. From the north, Macedonia was separated from the rest of Greece by Mount Olympus, and from the east by Epirus by the Pindus Range. The eastern branch of Pindus, the Othrys ridge, isolated the fertile Thessalian plain all the way to the Euboean Strait, capturing part of the island of the same name opposite Attica. Mount Parnassus, the southeastern branch of Pindus, stretching from the Gulf of Patras to the Gulf of Corinth, divided Aetolia in the west and Boeotia in the east.

The wide Boeotian Plain was the scene of almost half of the major battles of ancient Greece. From the north it was limited, together with Phocis, by the Oti ridge, where Thermopylae was located, and it was separated from Attica by Mount Kytheron.

The southern part of Greece, the Peloponnese, separated from the rest of the territory by the Isthmus of Corinth, was also fragmented into several rocky peninsulas by mountain ranges and gulfs protruding deep into the land: Nafplio, Laconian and Messenian. Argolis in the east was separated from Laconia by the Gulf of Nafplio and the Parnon ridge, and Laconia from Messenia by the Gulf of Laconia and the Taygetos ridge. Parnon also separated Laconia and Arcadia, which in turn was separated from Achaea in the north by Mount Erymanthos. The arid climate and erosion of limestone rocks meant that most rivers in the region had intermittent flows.

With the rise of Athens, Attica became crowded for new cities, and a stream of Ionian colonists poured into Asia Minor. They sailed from the port of Phaler, which was replaced by Piraeus in the classical era. The ancients compared Athens to a wheel, the spokes of which diverged from the center - the acropolis with its sacred buildings dedicated to Athena. The fall of the monarchy led, as in other policies, to the rise of the oligarchy. Power was concentrated in the hands of magistrates from noble families, who controlled the social system, which consisted of four phyla - large tribal associations that descended from the ancient military squads of the “Dark Ages” and over time turned into religious and social groups united by kinship or numbers.

In neighboring Boeotia, Thebes played a dominant role, while Orkhomenos, located at the confluence of the Kephisus River and Lake Copaida, and later, due to swamping of the area, moved to Mount Akonton, also retained significant influence. In Argolid, centers that played an important role in the Mycenaean era, such as Nafplion, Tiryns and Mycenae itself, disappeared. But Corinth flourished, founding the colonies of Syracuse and Corcyra, and Argos became stronger, which under King Phidon in the middle of the 7th century BC. e. spread his influence over the entire region and Arcadia.

Sparta in Laconia became another polis that not only retained, but also increased its power throughout ancient history, becoming the last independent Greek state. Founded by the Dorians around the 10th century BC. e. in an area dominated in the previous millennium by the Mycenaean center Lacedaemon, whose name is preserved in the official documents of Sparta, it was formed after the merger of four scattered villages.

Sparta was aggressive from the very beginning, expanding its influence in the Peloponnese and coming into conflict with Argos. The polity of Sparta, unique in the ancient world, was a military regime capable of creating and maintaining a society of warriors ready to withstand the constant threat from their neighbors and keep conquered peoples in obedience.

To be continued ...
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    26 June 2024 05: 09
    I looked at today's Greeks. Stupid and lazy brutes. Incapable of creative work. But they are magnificent storytellers. They have created such a story for themselves tongue
    1. +8
      26 June 2024 07: 29
      Quote: Alexey Alekseev_5
      I looked at today's Greeks. Stupid and lazy brutes. Incapable of creative work

      Modern Greeks have the same relationship to the ancient Greeks as we collectively have to the aborigines of Australia...
      1. +2
        26 June 2024 14: 17
        But they consider themselves heirs of “that Greece”
  2. +12
    26 June 2024 05: 13
    Easily and quickly The author went over the key points of ancient history. There is no “Bronze Age catastrophe”, no Sea Peoples, and the Hittites are not mentioned at all. Somewhat reminiscent of a history brochure that easily fits into the pocket of a summer shirt, which Americans love so much and which describes the entire world history
    Quote: AlexanderSvistunov
    To be continued ...
    Better not
    1. +6
      26 June 2024 06: 08
      The resource administration recommends that authors keep their content within 8-10 thousand characters. More is possible, but not advisable. I already shamelessly violate this restriction. Now imagine what will happen if the “catastrophe of the Bronze Age”, the Hittites, the Sea Peoples and everything you listed are shoved into 10... and even 15 thousand characters. It will be something like this: “The Hittites were - the Hittites died, the sea peoples arrived - the sea peoples were plundered - the seas assimilated with the locals. Well, they were partially killed.”

      Well, or another option is to make a separate article for each subtopic. But so we are in a cycle about wars Ancient greece We will reach Greece itself, God willing, to the sixth or seventh article. These are just brief introductions that are needed to enter the topic of the Greek wars, where campaigns and battles will be discussed in more detail. The theme of the cycle is the wars of Ancient Greece, and not the entire Ancient World.
      1. +4
        26 June 2024 07: 37
        I already shamelessly violate this restriction.
        Honestly, the number of printed characters in your comments to the previous (yesterday’s) material is almost more than in the article itself. Maybe it makes sense to somehow categorize your work and, instead of one “sightseeing tour,” go deeper into details, writing 3-4... (ad infitum) works?
        1. +3
          26 June 2024 08: 27
          Well, the point is that restrictions do not apply to comments)) I’ll think about it, of course, but then the duration of the cycle will also increase. From 10 to, for example, 20 articles. Will anyone in 2024 read a series of 20 articles? Don't know.
          1. +7
            26 June 2024 08: 39
            Will anyone in 2024 read a series of 20 articles?
            If these are high-quality materials, then clickbait is guaranteed. Several years ago, a series of articles (about ten) was published here about such a highly specialized thing as Japanese sword tsubas. And it invariably collected about a hundred comments. I think that one of the main rules of Internet journalism is: it doesn't matter what to write about, it matters how you write.
            1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +5
            26 June 2024 11: 12
            Quote: Alexander Svistunov
            Will anyone in 2024 read a series of 20 articles?

            In the past, I had a series of 10 articles or even 11-12 on the Trojan War. Regarding Mauser rifles - “About Mausers with love” there were exactly 25 of them. So don’t be alarmed by the number. The main thing is to write interestingly!
          3. +1
            2 July 2024 17: 46
            Quote: Alexander Svistunov
            Will anyone in 2024 read a series of 20 articles?

            Open Wikipedia "History of Greece" and read
        2. +2
          26 June 2024 08: 54
          . Maybe it makes sense to somehow categorize your work and instead of one "overview excursion" go into detail, writing 3-4... (ad infitum) works?

          Ay, what a good topic!
          Come on, Anton, don't pick on details.
          Let's better fill such concepts as citizen and patriot with meaning. After all, that's where they come from.
          Because it makes sense! Fill it up! No need to cling to context. If I have time today, I will speak out.
          Good morning everybody! )))
          1. +2
            26 June 2024 09: 01
            Come on, Anton, don't pick on details.
            Don’t you know how I find fault with details, Lyudmila Yakovlevna?!
            Good morning!
            1. 0
              26 June 2024 09: 13
              . You know how I picky about details.

              Well then! wassat )))
              Greetings again!
              So, slowly, unobtrusively, not in continuous text, simply meaning as a hidden meaning - a citizen and a patriot. As if among other things.
              It's important for me.
              For me, the initial signs are important.
  3. +8
    26 June 2024 05: 41
    It can be said that Greece was at the peak of its power until it became a single nation.

    It depends on what to compare and with what.
    For example, the Greeks of Ancient Hellas, no matter how they considered the Macedonians their compatriots, but the peak of the spread of Hellenistic civilization occurred in the era of the “barbarian” Alexander the Great. The Greeks also had a difficult time with the Romans, but since the fourth century AD, the Roman Empire, although it considered itself “Romans,” spoke Greek.
    However, compare the ancients and... modern inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula are probably not correct, given several migration waves. Including Slavic.
    1. +2
      26 June 2024 05: 58
      For example, the Greeks of Ancient Hellas, no matter how they considered the Macedonians their compatriots
      Macedonians, it seems, are a Greek subethnic group. Well, something like distant and poor relatives living in the mountains, herding sheep and whom civilization has somewhat bypassed. Herodotus, for example, derived them from the Dorians, just like the Greeks. Greetings
      1. +7
        26 June 2024 06: 20
        In fact, it is still a debatable issue. Macedonia (as we know) is the north of the Balkan Peninsula. Next lived non-Greek peoples - Illyrians, Thracians, etc. Therefore, Macedonia absorbed cultural elements both from Hellas and from the north, from these non-Greek lands.

        The Macedonian language was also a product of cultural diffusion. It, of course, was related to classical Greek, but absorbed many foreign elements. To simplify, the Greeks perceived Macedonian as a kind of rural surzhik, which is both understandable and at the same time sounds somewhat wild.

        Well, Macedonia was simply poorer than Greece. Hence, in fact, the military reforms of Philip II - out of a desire to do it “cheaply and cheerfully.”

        In general, for the Greeks, the Macedonians were... I don’t want to take examples from the modern agenda, but I think the analogy is clear. Distant relatives of the Selyuks, speaking a distorted Surzhik.
  4. +9
    26 June 2024 06: 09
    Paradoxical as it may seem, for twenty-three centuries the country that gave the world the art of war, commanders of the level of Themistocles and Epaminondas, invincible hoplites and a formidable phalanx, has not participated in any significant military conflicts (except for the resistance to the Nazis and their allies during Second World War).

    Obviously, the author has never heard of the two Balkan Wars and the First World War, in which Greece participated, or does not consider them “significant military conflicts.”
    1. +4
      26 June 2024 06: 48
      Quote from Frettaskyrandi
      Obviously, the author has never heard of the two Balkan Wars and the First World War, in which Greece participated, or does not consider them “significant military conflicts.”

      The Turks were beaten by the Russians, while the Greeks participated much like the French did in the victory over Nazi Germany.
      1. +9
        26 June 2024 07: 00
        First Balkan War of 1912 - Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro against the Ottoman Empire.
        The Second Balkan War of 1913 was between Bulgaria, on the one hand, and Serbia, Greece, Romania, Montenegro and Turkey, on the other.
        What does the Russians have to do with it?
        1. -2
          26 June 2024 07: 02
          I meant the war of 1877–1878.
          1. +5
            26 June 2024 08: 45
            Quote: Nagan
            war of 1877–1878.

            Greece did not participate in this conflict at all
      2. +2
        2 July 2024 17: 52
        Quote: Nagan
        The Turks were beaten by the Russians, while the Greeks participated much like the French did in the victory over Nazi Germany.

        There was also a war with Turkey for 22 years, when the Greeks tried to reconquer Asia Minor
    2. +4
      26 June 2024 07: 45
      Decembrist, no? Lion by claws...
  5. +4
    26 June 2024 06: 44
    The cradle of Western civilization has not played a leading role in world politics for twenty-three centuries.
    Well, actually Byzantium, although it was called the Eastern Roman Empire, was essentially a Greek state. It existed until 1453, and was a notable player in Europe and Western Asia at least until the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204.
    1. +3
      26 June 2024 07: 16
      Yes, but the Byzantines themselves considered themselves not Greeks, but Romans, although they spoke and wrote in Greek. The title of the emperor sounded like Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ῥωμαίων (Basileus tōn Rhōmaiōn) - “Sovereign of the Romans.”
      1. +6
        26 June 2024 12: 22
        I looked up a site on the history of Rome here in Italy and they write that the term "Byzantine Empire" was never used during the empire of 395-1453 because the Byzantines considered themselves "ROMEI" or Romans in Greek and called the empire by the name " Basilea." Romeon." The term "Byzantine Empire" was coined by a German historian named Hieronymus Wolf in 1557. Before the term "Byzantine Empire" was coined, Westerners called it the Imperium Graecorum, or Greek Empire.
        1. +4
          26 June 2024 12: 39
          Moreover, it was under Emperor Heraclius I, starting in 610, that he changed and distorted the structure of the empire, moving from the Latin term "Emperor Caesar Augustus" to the Greek term "Basileus".
    2. +4
      26 June 2024 07: 25
      Quote: Nagan
      Well, finally Byzantium, although it was called the Eastern Roman Empire, was essentially a Greek state

      It’s like citizens of the USSR were once called Soviet people, and citizens of the USA were called Americans. They were Romans politically, as heirs that Rome, but in fact - the Greeks...
  6. +5
    26 June 2024 07: 39
    literally meant "shield thrower" and was synonymous with cowardice.

    The Saiyan now proudly wears my flawless shield:
    Willy-nilly I had to throw it to me in the bushes.
    I myself, however, avoided death. And let it disappear
    My shield. I can get no worse than a new one.


    Archilochus. wink
  7. +3
    26 June 2024 07: 43
    “No wonder Spartan mothers admonished their sons: “Come back with a shield or on a shield.”

    As far as I remember the story, they said in short - “With him or on him.” Lakonica, huh...

    "You could say that Greece was at the height of its power until it became a unified nation."

    She lost her power much earlier. Rome conquered the never-unified country. In general, all nations without exception that achieve greatness and become hegemons or “superpowers” ​​sooner or later lose it. It’s good if they don’t disappear completely.
    1. +7
      26 June 2024 07: 47
      Quote: S.Z.
      It’s good if they don’t disappear completely

      Usually they disappear completely. Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians, Sumerians. Some Chinese keep mazu...
      1. +3
        26 June 2024 09: 59
        Quote: Luminman
        Quote: S.Z.
        It’s good if they don’t disappear completely

        Usually they disappear completely. Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians, Sumerians. Some Chinese keep mazu...


        Not only. The Spaniards and Greeks remained - the Greeks are actually the descendants of those who retained the name and territories, not in the genetic sense. The French no longer claim dominance in Europe, nor do the British (here I am uniting all the peoples on the island of the once “mistress of the seas”). The Portuguese had a bull for possession of half the world...
  8. +1
    26 June 2024 07: 51
    a wave of conquerors poured in, whom the Greeks called “Dorians”

    Considering that all the Dorians who took part in the so-called return of the Heraclides were no more than several thousand - it is unlikely that this was just a wave...
  9. +2
    26 June 2024 08: 19
    The Achaeans were either Aeolians or Dorians who were forced by the invasion to retreat into the northern Peloponnese - Achaia and Arcadia

    As far as I understand, the Achaean dialect of ancient Greek is not at all similar to Aeolian, much less Dorian...
  10. +5
    26 June 2024 08: 23
    1 ships, each of which could carry from 200 to 50 people. This would have given an army of up to 120 men, which Thucydides considers quite plausible

    It is doubtful that an Achaean ship could lift so much on a long voyage. 20-30 dugs - I’ll still believe it.. As for a hundred thousand - who would explain how such a horde fed on a piece of land near Troy?
    1. +6
      26 June 2024 08: 48
      About a hundred thousand - who would explain
      Usually historians advise the figure given by chroniclers to be divided by ten wink
      1. +4
        26 June 2024 08: 55
        I doubt that even 10 thousand were recruited there... Just look at Troy VII, associated by historians with Homer’s Troy. This fortified village has thousands in sight...
        1. +6
          26 June 2024 09: 01
          I doubt there were even 10 thousand there
          Maybe. I remember the formation of all five courses at the school (and this is more than a thousand people) on the parade ground and the thought immediately comes to mind: they need to be fed three times a day! How much food is needed for all this! wink
          1. +1
            15 July 2024 12: 49
            For a thousand - a ton of food and two tons of water. Not so much. The smallest ship can easily bring a week's supply. Besides, when the troops are in the field, in the city consumption decreases by the same amount, or even more.
  11. +3
    26 June 2024 08: 39
    Liked . Although this is more of an introductory overview. But the Trojan War is hardly worth describing in such detail. After all, Homer most likely compiled scraps of information already mythologized by folk art. With the usual confusion of names and combinations of people in Greek myths, separated by large time intervals (judging by other myths). So, I think there were wars with Troas, and there were many times, but for such a thing, a ten-year siege, an army of hundreds of thousands.... It’s unlikely.
  12. +4
    26 June 2024 08: 50
    On the one hand, of course, we are galloping across Europe, on the other, there seem to be no glaring blunders.
    Well, the author is of course right. If it's very detailed, the volume will be prohibitive.
    so good article. Thank you.
  13. +3
    26 June 2024 08: 59
    It can be assumed that the reason for the war was the unworthy behavior of the guest - the son of the Trojan king Priam, who took the wife of King Menelaus from Sparta.


    Most likely fiction. Sparta as a state arose after the Trojan War. Well, there is such an opinion.
    The fact that some modern historians believe that the Achaeans and Dorians are something new to me. I always thought that the Dorians were barbarians who invaded the peninsula after the Achaean civilization had fallen into disarray (part of a larger crisis known as the Bronze Age disaster). For the most part, the Dorians mixed with the more advanced Achaeans. But some refused to mix with the natives who had fallen into decline, reasoning that such mixing would not lead to good. These are some, preserving their original traditions and rituals (adding to them the authority of the semi-mythical Lycurgus)
    and founded Sparta.

    Well, the showdown between the Greeks - the Achaeans and the Trojans was because of goodies related to foreign trade.
    There was no multi-year siege of Troy; it was simply impossible. What, roughly speaking, did both the besieged and the besiegers eat for such a long time? It’s just that at first the Achaeans suffered setbacks and returned to their native lands without a sip. But after the fall of the Hittite power, which had previously supported the Trojans, the Greeks quickly captured Troy, which was a small village by today's standards. Greek “sources” combined several sieges into one, and this is how the epic saga of the Trojan War turned out.
  14. +3
    26 June 2024 09: 06
    Quote: Alexey Alekseev_5
    I looked at today's Greeks. Stupid and lazy brutes. Incapable of creative work. But they are magnificent storytellers.


    At the ethno-genetic level, modern Greeks have nothing in common with the former Hellenes, just as modern Italians living in Rome do not correlate with the former Romans.
    The population of both Greece and Italy was almost completely renewed several times. Today's Italians are closest to the Syrians and Lebanese. Greeks... it is believed that during the Gothic invasion of Greece, up to 90% of the population was destroyed or driven into slavery. Most likely an exaggeration, but who hasn’t mixed their blood in Greek veins!
    The Byzantine Empire was a largely cosmopolitan empire, a real "melting crucible" of the early Middle Ages.
    1. +6
      26 June 2024 13: 04
      Today's Italians have different ethnic groups, many of which are original, such as Etruscans, Camunians, Umbrians, Venetians, Piceni, Latins, Greeks, Gauls, then there were probably genetic mixtures over the centuries and during barbarian invasions. In today's Rome, it is true that few people descend from Latin and Roman ancestors, but to say that Italians descend from the Lebanese or Syrians is incorrect, this applies to the citizens of Southern Italy. Consider that the Lombards were Scandinavians, and then the Normans lived in Sicily and Apulia, and you see them blond, with the appearance of citizens of Nordic countries. I'm telling you as an Italian.
      1. +4
        26 June 2024 16: 40
        Quote from: Semovente7534
        Italians are descended from Lebanese or Syrians incorrectly, this applies to citizens of Southern Italy

        Italians joke - everything south of Rome is already Morocco...
        1. +5
          26 June 2024 18: 49
          True, we laugh at them, but a resident of the Central North differs in many ways from many residents of the Central South, not only in skin color, but, above all, in behavior. In general, some northerners are kinder and calmer, and southerners will be happy to welcome you if you go on vacation to their territory, but many of those who emigrate to the North behave aggressively and rudely.
          1. +6
            26 June 2024 18: 56
            but many of those who emigrated to the North behave aggressively and rudely.
            You won’t believe it, colleague, in Russia everything is the same!
    2. +1
      26 June 2024 16: 51
      Quote: Illanatol
      Today's Italians are closest to the Syrians and Lebanese.

      Pardon me, to the Arabs or the pre-Arab population of these countries?
      1. +2
        27 June 2024 11: 54
        As far as I know, the Italian Peninsula, despite its small size, had a large number of different populations, such as Romans, Latins, Samnites, Piceni, Etruscans, and these populations are light-skinned. With the arrival of the Carthaginians, who colonized parts of Sicily and Sardinia, a population of Middle Eastern and North African origin arrived. Likewise, I think that the Roman occupation of North Africa brought light-skinned people to North Africa, and then with the barbarian invasions other light-skinned people moved there, in what numbers, I don't know.
    3. +2
      27 June 2024 20: 46
      Today's Italians are closest to the Syrians and Lebanese.

      It seems that genetic studies do not confirm this. The main substratum of the population of the Apennine Peninsula dates back to the Bronze Age.
  15. +2
    26 June 2024 09: 09
    Quote: paul3390
    It is doubtful that an Achaean ship could lift so much on a long voyage. 20-30 dugs - I’ll still believe it.. As for a hundred thousand - who would explain how such a horde fed on a piece of land near Troy?


    No way, especially for so long. The number of Greek warriors must be divided by 10, possibly by 15.
    Troy was defended by no more than 2 thousand soldiers. Well, except for the “limited contingent” of the local hegemon - the Hittite power, who several times inserted the cap into the Greek gopniks.
  16. +3
    26 June 2024 09: 11
    Quote: Luminman
    Usually they disappear completely. Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians, Sumerians. Some Chinese keep mazu...


    Not alone. Persians-Iranians, Indians-Aryans...
  17. +3
    26 June 2024 09: 24
    Quote: S.Z.
    She lost her power much earlier. Rome conquered the never-unified country.


    It is unlikely that mainland Greece can be considered one country at all. The Hellenes were too different. Both ethnically and politically.
    Greece fell into decline after the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians and their allies fell into decline from defeat in it, and the victorious Spartans became victims of their own victory.
    Sparta had a very specific state and political system. Both military defeats and excessive military success were equally contraindicated for Sparta. And the victory over Athens led to the latter. Sparta, a state of voluntary-forced poverty and conscious equalization, seized rich spoils - the treasury of the Athenian (Delian) Union. Athens will never be as rich as before and will not be as strong. The Spartans became rich sharply and this wealth corrupted Spartan society, eroding its moral foundations and causing property stratification. Which made Sparta more vulnerable and led to its military defeat by Thebes and collapse.
    The helots left, the perieki left too... hunger and degradation.

    The weakened policies recognized the hegemony of Persia for a short time, and then the Macedonian Philip came...
    1. +1
      26 June 2024 16: 43
      Quote: Illanatol
      and then the Macedonian Philip came...

      Which ethnic group the Macedonians belonged to is still a controversial issue, but the ruling elite in Macedonia was Greek...
  18. +8
    26 June 2024 10: 03
    Here Alexey, our friend and brother on the forum, in the very first comment talks about how insignificant the current Greeks are.
    Right!
    Now imagine, Alexey, that you are a scientist. But by old age, you will live in captivity of the scientific ideas you created; you will no longer be able to generate new meanings. And if you are not just a scientist, but a genius, then you refuse to be able to generate such meanings that humanity will reflect on throughout subsequent history...
    But the people do not consist entirely of scientists and geniuses. They reach for the meanings created, fight for them, fight on the battlefields, lose a critical part of the passionaries and finally get tired, forgetting the semantic peaks to which one must reach, having done everything possible.
    The Greeks have long been tired.
    It's like a relay race of civilizations. Having reached the Romans and completely exhausted, the Greeks handed over their baton to them. The Romans, having accepted it, ran on. But then they too fizzled out, passing the baton to Europe...
    So let us be grateful to the Greek people for the gift of the opportunity to quote their great philosophers, for architecture, for sculptures, for Olympus and myths as an inexhaustible source of film scripts! Have a peaceful holiday, Greece!
    1. +6
      26 June 2024 10: 09
      So let us be grateful to the Greek people for the gift of the opportunity to quote their great philosophers, for architecture, for sculptures, for Olympus and myths as an inexhaustible source of film scripts!
      "Please, slow down! I'm recording..." (C) drinks
    2. +4
      26 June 2024 12: 38
      Right!

      In order to make such conclusions about any ethnic group, one must live among this ethnic group, work, and communicate with the natives in their habitat.
      And if a resident of some Khatsapetovka, who has never traveled further than the nearest district center of Musokhranska, or who suddenly, as a tourist, plunged into a local reservoir, tries to make some kind of cosmic-scale conclusions, this is nothing more than Sharikovshchina.
      1. +2
        26 June 2024 13: 21
        . And if a resident of some Khatsapetovka, who has never traveled further than the nearest district center of Musokhranska,... tries to make some kind of cosmic-scale conclusions, this is nothing more than Sharikovshchina.

        Ek you me, Viktor Nikolaevich! wassat good )))
        1. +2
          26 June 2024 13: 34
          It’s not me, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, it’s me, the ball ones. You are just very gullible. Tend to trust people.
          But Moller warned: “Nowadays you can’t trust anyone, not even yourself. I can.”. And he understood this a lot.
          1. +3
            26 June 2024 14: 30
            . Tend to trust people

            Viktor Nikolaevich, I believed Alexey! I believed that he thought exactly like that. And now I have doubts...
            Well, okay!
            For me, the main merit of the Greeks is that they formed the concept of “citizen” - a person who owns property (formally - within the city), production, etc. A person responsible for this property and ready to fight to the death for it. The main thing is to have the right to do it!
            But alone in the field is not a warrior. Citizens united their efforts, and it turned out that one for all and all for one. Such an association became a source of patriotism as a desire to protect not only one’s property, but also the property of the city and locality. The concept of the fatherland arose as the hereditary territory of residence of fellow citizens inherited from fathers. Indeed, the word comes from the Greek πατριός - “fatherly”.
            In other words, a citizen and a patriot are, as it were, inseparable concepts. A patriotic citizen is endowed with a full set of rights to exercise responsibility not only for personal property, but also for the common fatherland.
            The Roman Empire created a powerful bureaucracy, which arrogated to itself some of the rights of citizens, increasing efforts in this direction, patriotism began to fade, the empire fell. But a similar thing, apparently, was observed in Greece. The taking away of any one right, or at least a situation where rights suddenly become insufficient, rights are gradually appropriated by the bureaucracy - and patriotism fades away. And if an enemy comes, technically better equipped or more numerous, then the sluggish state of patriotism will not allow us to adequately resist him.
            This aspect is important to me.
            1. +1
              10 July 2024 11: 04
              Quote: depressant

              For me, the main merit of the Greeks is that they formed the concept of “citizen” - a person who owns property (formally - within the city), production, etc.
              The concept of the fatherland arose as the hereditary territory of residence of fellow citizens inherited from fathers. Indeed, the word comes from the Greek πατριός - “fatherly”.
              A patriotic citizen is endowed with a full set of rights to exercise responsibility not only for personal property, but also for the common fatherland.

              It seems to me that the concept of a citizen and a patriot could not merge into a single one, because they have a different source of the right to property.
              For a citizen, the guarantee of the right to property depends on the political conditions of the city (polis), and for a patriot, this guarantee is based on the right of inheritance - fatherland, patrimony. Of course, this is a purely semantic view that does not consider specific historical conditions, although it is possible to dig up examples when infringement of the rights to the “patrimony” led to a decline in the patriotism of the “patrimonial people.”
          2. +1
            2 July 2024 17: 58
            Quote from Frettaskyrandi
            But Moller warned: “In our time you can’t trust anyone, not even yourself. I can.”

            Mueller?
            I remember another saying: “You can’t trust anyone, not even your own wife. I can” Ostap Bender?
  19. +1
    26 June 2024 10: 54
    I wonder why ancient Greece did not unite after the war with Persia. There was a great upsurge of national spirit and a sense of unity.
    1. 0
      26 June 2024 15: 57
      I wonder why ancient Greece did not unite after the war with Persia
      Because the Greeks considered the Persians to be barbarians
  20. +3
    26 June 2024 11: 33
    Sometimes several villages chose to accept the primacy of the most important city in the region - a process called "syneclysm"

    As I understand it, what is meant is “sinoicism” (ancient Greek συνοικισμóς), and “sine-enemas” have absolutely nothing to do with it... laughing
  21. +4
    26 June 2024 12: 48
    Quote: Kmon
    I wonder why ancient Greece did not unite after the war with Persia. There was a great upsurge of national spirit and a sense of unity.


    On what basis could the aristocratic republic of Corinth, the Athenian democrats and the then National Socialist Spartans unite? With such different ideas about how the state and public life should be organized.
    There was no trace of any sense of unity.
    It is also worth recalling that not all Greeks decided to resist the “hordes of Xerxes,” which even Herodotus mentions. Some, like the Thessalians, preferred to immediately make a “Hende Hoch”. And in the army of Xerxes himself there were many Greeks (from the previously subordinate cities of Asia Minor).
    Alas, the Greco-Persian wars, as they are presented, are to a large extent mythologized.
  22. +1
    26 June 2024 12: 54
    Quote: Illanatol
    It is unlikely that mainland Greece can be considered one country at all. The Hellenes were too different. Both ethnically and politically.


    I can't say ethnically, but politically, with some stretch of the imagination, it's possible - not in the modern sense, of course. This entire conglomerate of cities fought for hegemony among themselves, and periodically this hegemon changed - Sparta, Thebes, then Philip, although not a Hellene. A common army - a militia, similar cultures, although there were city-state customs and laws, but there probably weren't any common ones.

    A sort of loose confederation, but still a country. Not quite a continental one, though.

    Probably more a question of terminology.
  23. +2
    26 June 2024 12: 55
    Quote: depressant
    Have a peaceful holiday, Greece!


    You deserve it :)
  24. +1
    26 June 2024 13: 30
    Quote from: Semovente7534
    Today's Italians have different ethnic groups, many of which are original, such as Etruscans, Camunians, Umbrians, Venetians, Piceni, Latins, Greeks, Gauls, then there were probably genetic mixtures over the centuries and during barbarian invasions. In today's Rome, it is true that few people descend from Latin and Roman ancestors, but to say that Italians descend from the Lebanese or Syrians is incorrect, this applies to the citizens of Southern Italy. Consider that the Lombards were Scandinavians, and then the Normans lived in Sicily and Apulia, and you see them blond, with the appearance of citizens of Nordic countries. I'm telling you as an Italian.


    The question is how the current Etruscans compare with those ancient and present, except for the name. The name is glorious, why not borrow it from those who replaced it?
    The barbarian invasions were not particularly massive, often the number of barbarians was estimated at several thousand, well, tens of thousands, given that in the era of the late Roman Empire the population was approaching 3 million.
    Well, how many of these Goths and Lombards were there? The Goths left Italy altogether, the Byzantines drove them out.
    So this is just an addition to the main dish, nothing more.

    Southern Italy is also Italy. I don’t argue that there are blondes of Aryan appearance, and there are quite a few of them, especially in the north of Italy, but this is rather the result of Austrian rule.
    However, there will be more hot brunettes who look like “glamorized Caucasians” (in the words of M. Zadornov) in Italy.
    As for the inhabitants of the Middle East, they moved en masse to Italy during the late Empire due to the demographic crisis, which led to the depopulation of the country. Nature abhors a vacuum, as we know.

    History may repeat itself, the question is how the modern “Etruscans” will survive the current migration crisis. wink
    1. +4
      26 June 2024 18: 33
      I am not an expert in genetics, but I can assure you that tests carried out on the inhabitants of modern Tuscany and surrounding areas show that they are direct descendants of the Etruscans. Then you are right: with the current migration policy both in Italy and abroad, it is possible that in the future a large part of the DNA will be mixed with theirs.
  25. +1
    26 June 2024 13: 45
    Quote: S.Z.
    I can’t say ethnically, but politically, with some stretch, it’s possible - not in the modern sense, of course. This entire conglomerate of cities fought for hegemony among themselves, periodically this hegemon changed - Sparta, Thebes, then Philip, although not Hellenic. A common army - a militia, similar cultures, although there were city customs and laws, but there were probably no common ones.

    A kind of loose confederation, but still a country. Not quite, however, mainland.


    As a rule, there were several hegemons. Athens and Sparta, for example, divided Greece almost in half. And before, it was even more difficult; there was simply no obvious hegemon, there was real “multipolarity.”
    The cultures were similar, but still had their own uniqueness. Even if I wanted to, it’s hard for me to imagine the Parthenon in Sparta.

    Yes, not quite a mainland and not quite a country. The country still represents some kind of unity, at least in an extremely critical situation. Like, we need to save the common culture and civilization from the “Asian orcs”. Alas, unity did not work out during the invasion of Xerxes. And on the mainland they did not unite, but the Sicilian Greeks, after a call for help, sent their fellow tribesmen in a polite manner to a well-known address.
    Greece, in practice, turned out to be less united than the modern European Union (it cannot be called a single country), which is still completely united in opposition to the current “Russian Xerxes.”

    From which I conclude that Greece as a country did not exist. So, only at the level of abstractions...
  26. -1
    26 June 2024 13: 59
    Quote: Alexey Alekseev_5
    I looked at today's Greeks. Stupid and lazy brutes. Incapable of creative work. But they are magnificent storytellers. They have created such a story for themselves tongue

    Why should they work if the Russian Federation supplies grain, gas and oil for free?
  27. +2
    26 June 2024 14: 00
    Quote: Illanatol
    At the ethno-genetic level, modern Greeks have nothing in common with the former Hellenes, just as modern Italians living in Rome do not correlate with the former Romans.

    There is no need to bear blizzards. There are studies by anthropologists - today's Greeks are direct descendants of the ancient population of Hellas.
  28. +3
    26 June 2024 14: 02
    Quote: Illanatol
    At the ethno-genetic level, modern Greeks have nothing in common with the former Hellenes, just as modern Italians living in Rome do not correlate with the former Romans.

    In fact, the research on haplogroups conducted by the Max Planck Institute has proven that three-quarters of modern Greeks are similar to the Mycenaeans and Minoans, who are descended from the Ethiopians. Compare modern Greeks and their images on amphorae. But where do the other quarter come from? According to all descriptions, Alexander the Great was fair-skinned and blue-eyed, like the mythical heroes Odysseus and Achilles. Perhaps the power in the Hellenic tribes was with the newcomers from the north. This is how the Brahmin haplogroup coincides with the Northern European R1a1, and R1a1a is also the dominant haplogroup among the Ashkenazi Levites (52%). The Brahmins are very different from the Dravidians, and the Levites from the typical Semites.
    1. +2
      26 June 2024 20: 09
      Ethiopians in a racial sense do not exist; there is an East African racial type, which is most often associated with Hamitic languages. And yes, the Minoans on the frescoes look like the inhabitants of East Africa and Yemen - they are quite dark-skinned, have a slender physique and delicate facial features. Such types are still not uncommon on the Greek islands, and even in Cyprus.
      1. 0
        26 June 2024 20: 14
        Ethiopians do not exist in a racial sense - there is an East African racial type

        And it’s easier for Ethiopians, we’re not at a lecture at an ethnographic institute drinks
  29. +2
    26 June 2024 14: 06
    Quote: Nagan
    Well, finally Byzantium, although it was called the Eastern Roman Empire, was essentially a Greek state. It existed until 1453, and was a prominent player in Europe and Western Asia at least until the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204.

    Byzantium was not a Greek state; just look at the nationality of the emperors.
    1. +2
      27 June 2024 20: 55
      If you look at the nationality of Russian, British and partly Chinese emperors/kings - then Russia. Britain and China were not Russian, English and Chinese states.
  30. +3
    26 June 2024 14: 31
    Quote from: Semovente7534
    In today's Rome, it is true that few people descend from Latin and Roman ancestors

    What other Latin and Roman ancestors? The Italian tribes did not come to an empty land like the Gauls themselves in the future France. There are no ethnic groups - there are cultural, linguistic, economic, geographical communities.
    The racial-anthropological appearance in southern and central Italy, little affected by the later Germanic invasions, is the type of the ancient round-headed population of the Italian Peninsula with an admixture of Indo-European substrate. This substrate eventually dissolved in the conquered population. A similar situation is and was happening in India, France, Eastern Europe and some other regions.
    Regarding the lack of light pigmentation in the population of Southern Italy and Sicily, there were only 40 Normans.
    1. +3
      26 June 2024 17: 06
      Quote: Dozorny severa
      The racial and anthropological appearance in southern and central Italy, little affected by the late Germanic invasions, is the type of the ancient round-headed population of the Italian Peninsula

      If you mean carriers of the haplogroup G, then in Italy it is found very rarely - only in isolated mountainous areas (the Tyrolean Ice Man is proof of this) and in Sardinia. All the earlier Italian ethnic groups - the Etruscans, Tyrrhenians and other masters of Latium - were blond dolichocephals with fair skin and the same light eyes...
    2. +4
      26 June 2024 18: 39
      If we talk about light pigmentation, then in Sicily it is present, here you can find blondes, redheads with freckles and brunettes, reminiscent of Mediterranean skin color. Then I see people from central Italy living in the Apennines as light-skinned people and I think that these people are indigenous and have lived there for thousands of years.
      1. +2
        26 June 2024 19: 29
        here you can meet blondes, redheads with freckles and brunettes

        One of my friends taught at the University of Bologna in the early 2000s and said that Italian women are mostly brunettes with blue and gray eyes. He still tells this with a breathy voice and his eyes rolled up... wink wink
        1. +2
          26 June 2024 19: 50
          He still tells this with a breathy voice and his eyes rolled up...
          “The main thing in a woman is her eyes” (c)
  31. +4
    26 June 2024 14: 59
    Quote from Frettaskyrandi
    Obviously, the author has never heard of the two Balkan Wars and the First World War, in which Greece participated, or does not consider them “significant military conflicts.”

    So the Greeks fought back the Italians in WWII, the Germans had to intervene and accordingly postpone the date of the attack on the Soviet Union
  32. +3
    26 June 2024 16: 11
    Quote: Illanatol
    As a rule, there were several hegemons. Athens and Sparta, for example, divided Greece almost in half.


    In the end, Sparta won.

    “The country still represents some kind of unity, at least in an extremely critical situation.”

    Here, I repeat, is a question of terminology.
    Ancient pre-Horde Rus' was in the same state as Ancient Greece, even, perhaps, more fragmented, but now it is fashionable to call this formation a country.
  33. -4
    26 June 2024 17: 54
    We don’t know shit, but we made up history based on myths and fiction.
  34. +1
    26 June 2024 19: 56
    Quote: Luminman
    All the earlier Italian ethnic groups - the Etruscans, Tyrrhenians and other masters of Latium - were blond dolichocephals with fair skin and the same light eyes...

    Looking at the bust of Vespasian, for example, you can’t tell. In general, the type of Roman legionary from the skeletal remains found in different parts of the empire indicates a stocky, short, round-headed type - which dominates the burials. Most likely this is the legacy of the ancient race of hunters and gatherers who represented are apparently descendants of the Cro-Magnons, with a Neanderthal admixture.
    Over time, this racial type becomes predominant, absorbing and replacing the racial type of the Indo-European conquerors. This process apparently stopped for some time due to the later emigration of the Gauls and Germans.
  35. +2
    26 June 2024 20: 00
    Quote from: Semovente7534
    meet blondes, redheads with freckles and brunettes reminiscent of Mediterranean skin color

    I think that this is the result of the later emigration of Gauls and Germans, who significantly influenced the racial type of modern Italians.
  36. +3
    26 June 2024 20: 02
    Quote: Luminman
    that Italian women for the most part are brunettes with blue and gray eyes.

    Bologna is the center of settlement of the populous Gallic tribe of Boii, so there is nothing surprising about this.
  37. 0
    27 June 2024 22: 13
    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
    If you look at the nationality of Russian, British and partly Chinese emperors/kings - then Russia. Britain and China were not Russian, English and Chinese states.

    There is no need to engage in demagoguery. It was full of English kings, Chinese emperors and Russian tsars.
    There was not a single Greek emperor. The basis of the ruling class of Byzantium was the Asia Minor aristocracy - the Isaurian, Macedonian, Paphlagonian dynasty, the dynasty of the Komnenos, Bardes, Phocas, Palaiologos, Lascaris - all not Greeks.
  38. +1
    1 July 2024 08: 19
    Quote: Dozorny severa
    There is no need to bear blizzards. There are studies by anthropologists - today's Greeks are direct descendants of the ancient population of Hellas.


    For a good grant, “anthropologists” will quickly prove that modern Greeks are direct descendants of Apollo and Athena. Any whim... alas.
    What racial frequency can we talk about, given the historical past? Who hasn’t visited Greece, and the imperial past of Byzantium should not be forgotten. Imperial peoples a priori cannot boast of genetic homogeneity.
    And the ancient population of Hellas was not distinguished by genetic homogeneity. Pelasgians, Achaeans, Dorians...
  39. 0
    1 July 2024 08: 27
    Quote: S.Z.
    In the end, Sparta won.

    “The country still represents some kind of unity, at least in an extremely critical situation.”

    Here, I repeat, is a question of terminology.
    Ancient pre-Horde Rus' was in the same state as Ancient Greece, even, perhaps, more fragmented, but now it is fashionable to call this formation a country.


    Sparta lost, like all of Greece. Sparta's triumph over Athens was extremely short-lived.
    Then - an epic defeat from the Theban Epaminondas, the loss of almost the entire “sphere of influence”, mass famine, which reduced the number of citizens of Sparta several times.
    Then - the hegemony of the Persians, then the hegemony of the Macedonians.

    Rus' was fragmented for completely objective, geographical reasons. Large territory, sparse population and lack of roads as such.
    But at the same time there is an amazing homogeneity of language, culture and social organization.
    And at least part of its history, this same Rus' was a relatively unified state - the so-called. Kievan Rus.
    Fragmentation is, to a greater extent, the period of the so-called. Vladimir Rus', the shift of the center of power to the northeast.
    Greece was never united, except perhaps under the rule of conquerors - the Macedonians and Romans.
  40. +1
    1 July 2024 08: 45
    [
    Quote: Konnick
    Just research on haplogroups conducted by the Max Planck Institute proved that three-quarters of modern Greeks are similar to the Mycenaeans and Minoans, and those have origins from Ethiopians.
    Compare today's Greeks and their images on amphorae... But where is the other quarter from? According to all descriptions, Alexander the Great was fair-skinned and blue-eyed, like the mythical heroes Odysseus and Achilles. Perhaps the power in the Hellenic tribes was held by newcomers from the north. This is how the Brahmin haplogroup coincides with the North European R1a1, and R1a1a is also the dominant haplogroup among the Ashkenazi Levites (52%). Brahmins are very different from Dravidians, and Levites from typical Semites.


    The similarity of haplogroups is not direct, invariant evidence of the absence of mixing. Since mixing could also occur with an ethnic group that has a similar spectrum of haplogroups. Why not have them similar, given the geographical proximity?
    Haplogroup R1A1 is also widespread among Russians, but it is hardly possible to conclude from this that the Indian Aryan-Brahmin-Kshatriyas (like the Ashkenazis) descend from the Russians.
    And in general, if you believe “anthropologists,” we are all descendants of the same “mitochondrial Eve.” Probably, the Vatican was generous with a fat grant, so fellow scientists figured out the Foremother for us using the latest methods.
    I have great doubts about such studies, because I believe that their results are only probabilistic.
    1. 0
      1 July 2024 08: 53
      Haplogroup R1A1 is also widespread among Russians, but it is hardly possible to conclude from this that the Indian Aryan-Brahmin-Kshatriyas (like the Ashkenazis) descend from the Russians.


      I have already mentioned in VO about the Kurgan hypothesis of Maria Gimbutas, according to which the ancestral homeland of the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language is the territories between the Middle Volga and the Southern Urals. This hypothesis is receiving more and more evidence and supporters from the scientific world.

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Курганная_гипотеза
  41. 0
    1 July 2024 08: 53
    Quote: Dozorny severa
    Byzantium was not a Greek state; just look at the nationality of the emperors.


    It was not a Greek state, but it still had a relationship with Greece in terms of culture and, above all, language.
    Judging by the nationality of the monarch, modern Great Britain is Germany 2.0. Since the time of William of Orange (a native of Hanover), the Germans have ruled there.
  42. 0
    1 July 2024 08: 57
    Quote: Konnick
    I have already mentioned in VO about the Kurgan hypothesis of Maria Gimbutas, according to which the ancestral homeland of the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language is the territories between the Middle Volga and the Southern Urals. This hypothesis is receiving more and more evidence and supporters from the scientific world.


    Well, everything is possible, why not?
    However, to what extent do the similarities of linguistics and the similarities of genetics and anthropological types correlate?
    There's still digging and digging...
  43. 0
    1 July 2024 09: 05
    Quote: Dozorny severa
    Looking at the bust of Vespasian, for example, you can’t tell. In general, the type of Roman legionary from the skeletal remains found in different parts of the empire indicates a stocky, short, round-headed type that dominates the burials.


    In imperial times, not only born Romans or Italians served in the legions. An empire is an empire because it is multinational.
    As for short stature... as you know, the Roman mile is a thousand steps of a legionnaire (one step is a step with the left and right foot). Judging by the length of a mile and, accordingly, a step, initially the Roman legionnaires were quite tall men. It would be difficult for “The Hobbit” to walk so widely.
    And they could become stunted, both from mixing and replacement by other peoples, and from the use of utensils made of lead and tin. Heavy metals are known to inhibit growth.
    1. 0
      15 July 2024 23: 36
      Does tin inhibit growth? Hm.
  44. 0
    1 July 2024 09: 13
    Quote: Luminman
    Which ethnic group the Macedonians belonged to is still a controversial issue, but the ruling elite in Macedonia was Greek...


    And therefore, the first thing I decided to do was to bend Greece, and in the most severe way.
    I remember a scene from a famous Hollywood blockbuster in which Philip dances over the corpses of defeated Greek warriors after a battle.

    Well, if you like, you can consider the Greco-Macedonian wars a kind of civil war, I’m not against it at all. In cultural and civilizational terms it makes some sense.