500 B.c.

[Atilius]

The period (roughly) from 600BC-400BC is often referred to as the Axial Age. New strains of thought during this time frame include:

China
Lao-tze (I Ching)
Kung Fu-tze (Analects)
Latter part of the "Hundred Schools of Thought" period.


Greek World
Greek Philosophy - Anaximander, Anaximenes, Thales,
Parmenides, Democritus, Socrates
History - Herodotus and Thucydides


India
Gautama Siddartha (Buddhism)
Mahavira (Reform of Jainism)
Upanishads (Commentaries on the Vedas)


Persia
Zoroaster


In this period, we see the foundation of two of the world's great religions(Taoism and Buddhism) and the re-interpretation of another (Hinduism); we have the founding of Zoroastrianism and the refounding of Jainism. In addition, we have the birth proto-scientific thought (e.g. Thales and Democritus), moral philosophy (Socrates and Kung Fu-tze), and history (Herodotus and Thucycides).

For such a short period of time, this is extraordinary.

I think that this is most likely due to an expansion of trade and aided by the spread of literacy.

The great ferment in human thought at this time must have been stimulated
by exposure to different ideas and people from abroad. We know that at the beginning of this period the greeks were founding colonies all around the Mediterranean. The Phocians, for example, founded both Massilia and Ampurias (in modern France and Spain, respectively) in about 600 BC. The Persian Empire was expanding throughout the period and by about 520 BC controlled the Eastern Mediterranean from Asia Minor to Egypt and extended east beyond the Indus. Persia thus provides a link between the Mediterranean trade network and India. I regret I'm unaware of a significant link between India and China at this time.

Trade spreads ideas as well as goods. If those ideas can be written down they travel better and with greater accuracy and precision. Of course for ideas to be written down requires an author and a literate readership. Fortunately, trade itself is a stimulus to literacy since it improves both record keeping and communication between markets.

I'll leave aside the question of why trade expanded to avoid infinite regress, but when conditions for extensive travel became favorable, trade seems to have been the first beneficiary. Political unification seems to have followed. It's interesting to note that shortly after the Axial Age ended, we see the very first unification of the entire eastern Mediterranean (Alexander ~320 BC), of India (Maurya ~325 BC), and of China (Qin ~220 BC).

[Franconicus]

Thanks for these infos. Maybe you are right. Trade opened the horizont.

Regarding the great inventions: do not forget Math, the money (root of all evils!). You may even say that Plato was also one source for Christianity.

If we assume that trade opened this great age, what ended it. The big empire were never as productive. Even todays we are not as innovative.

[Watchman]

Speaking of money, when were the first coins minted ? Wasn't that sometime around 600s or 500s BC ? I seem to recall reading something along those lines. That'd certainly have had its own impact on trade.

[Vladimir]

I'd like to reiterate Watchman's point of the weather being a factor. I think more research on that topic would prove to be beneficial. For the last ~10,000 years since the last ice age the weather has finally been stable enough to allow advanced civilizations to develop. The Medieval warming period also prompted great growth and it appears we are now in a new warming period. There are some people who would argue that we are still in an ice age because glaciers are still retreating from over 10,000 years ago!

[Kraxis]

It can't be trade...

Prior to this age both Halicarnassus and Gordion were major tradinghubs. You know Kroisus and Midas, well they were just the last in a long line of rulers of those areas (though Midas' father Gordias started his line, there were others before him).

We don't hear much of them because what we have preserved is what the Greeks wrote of them. And the Greeks not being as properous as them were perhaps a bit envious.

Not to disregard the Phoenecians. Carthage was already big, strong and hugely wealthy on trade. Tyre had even seen it's zenith before and was slowly declining in importance.

To say it was the trade that did it would mean we would think Greek trade was more important because it was Greek. That can't be right.

Iron didn't impact thinking of course. Iron had been around for centuries. But the resources it freed let man become more aware of his own self and his surroundings.
But this of course also demanded some sort of personal freedom an in Greece at least, that was exactly what was happening. The Aristocracies were surplanted by Tyranies (what doesn't mean they were bad) and Oligarchies. In Athens this had a positive effect as seemingly the normal person could do something, even become ruler. And with generous Tyrants this fostered the feelign of freedom that eventually culminated in democracy (which later turned into mob-rule).
The first Greek philosophers came about during the various tyranies. Of course they were still relatively simple, but they were there and laid the groundwork for Socrates.

[Watchman]

Prior to this age both Halicarnassus and Gordion were major tradinghubs. You know Kroisus and Midas, well they were just the last in a long line of rulers of those areas (though Midas' father Gordias started his line, there were others before him).

...weren't these the kings who intriduced minted currency, or at least their close successors ? From some of the dates I recall seeing the idea wasn't too old - only a century or so, max - around the time of the two rulers you named. And I'm under the impression the introduction of minted coinage as opposed to just precious metals was a major step, although probably not as great as the invention of banking in the late Middle Ages.

I think it could be very possible coinage changed the impact of trade sufficiently to have had an effect.

[Kraxis]

Yeah, seemingly the first coins we know of came from Lydia around 600BC.
But both Halicanassus and Gordion (as an area) were important prior to that. As was Tyre and Carthage.
And whil coins were important inside the social structure of the local realm, they had no impact outside it. There coins were just another lump of precious metal (it took some time still for bronze and copper coins to be introduced), and was used just like the nuggets of precious metals used for trading previously.

[Watchman]

Well, of course. Long-distance trade was well established already in the Stone Age. I was just talking about the means of transactions, which are often quite important.

Coinage is kinda funny because those royal profiles and suchlike actually improve its value beyond its base metal content. Isn't the idea the minting acts as a sort of "proof of quality" of the coins, a quarantee they're of at least minimum content of gold or whatever and not too badly debased with other metals ? Paper money moves to the field of pure symbolical value already, but let's not go into that.

[Atilius]

It can't be trade...

Prior to this age both Halicarnassus and Gordion were major tradinghubs...We don't hear much of them because what we have preserved is what the Greeks wrote of them.

I'm arguing that trade was especially favorable for the transmission of ideas during this period because for the first time there was a significant overlap in trade among the Mediterranean, Persian, Nile, and Indus civilizations.

To say it was the trade that did it would mean we would think Greek trade was more important because it was Greek. That can't be right.

I'm not saying this. Anyone involved in trade at this time would have had a opportunity to benefit: Greeks, Persians, Indians, and others.

I don't mean to say that trade must result in the development of new modes of thought. I simply think that involvement in trade was the most important factor. It's also the only factor which could explain the simultaneous advances in the Mediterranean, Persian, Indian, and (perhaps) Chinese worlds. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but I doubt it.

But this of course also demanded some sort of personal freedom an in Greece at least, that was exactly what was happening... The first Greek philosophers came about during the various tyranies.

You're getting at cultural conditions required for developing new ideas. I agree that this is vital, but was not prepared (and won't ever be) to compare cultural conditions fostering the advances I listed in my post in the Greek, Persian, Indian, and Chinese worlds.

Unique cultural characteristics probably explain why the Greeks were doing something different than the Persians, Indians, and Chinese during the Axial Age. Their speculations were not religious in nature, and they showed a much greater interest in the structure and behavior of the physical world.

[Byzantine Prince]

If we are talking about individuals each culture had then it is surely a coincidence, because we all know that such people made themselves more than anything. If we are talking about culture in general the year 500 is misleading because Greece had a great amount of culture afterwards and before, and so did China and India.

Incredible men like Socrates and Confucius existed everywhere in the world, because they made themselves who they were and in turn changed the world with their ideas. It is sad that only a few of these incredible men are known to us. I wish history was written better and there were less wars to destroy the important works of art in this world. Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.

[Watchman]

Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.

At least according to philosophers.

[Papewaio]

Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.

Philosophy being the nadir of science of course.

[Franconicus]

Incredible men like Socrates and Confucius existed everywhere in the world, because they made themselves who they were and in turn changed the world with their ideas. It is sad that only a few of these incredible men are known to us. I wish history was written better and there were less wars to destroy the important works of art in this world. Philosophy being the zenith of art of course.

B.P.,
Can you tell me the names of people who were able to compete with the Greek philosophers. I do not mean in business or technology, but in thinking and changing the picture of the world. Let's say from 20th century. I know that there a some, but compared to the number of people that is very limited, and most of them are physisists .

[conon394]

I was referring to the comment about iron being used to increase agricultural output spurring this growth of civilization. In order for this to happen the increase would need to be significant. In order for it to happen in the first place the need would be necessary as well. If an iron shod plow wasn't much better vs. existing technology then there wouldn’t be much of an increase. Tree and fruit crops aren't nearly as productive as cereal crops.

I was commenting on your suggestion that there was some kind of resistance to the heavy plough. I don’t see any resistance, the Greeks simply did not need a heavy plough, and the Romans adopted and developed one as soon as they started operating in Northern Europe. Did the Romans produce de-novo a fully operational medieval plough circa AD 1200, obviously not; but they did adopt heavy ploughs in places where they were needed and refined them substantially by the 4th century AD.

You might also consider that while iron as applied to plows might not lead to greater crop productivity, iron tools might well have reduced the amount of labor needed for other farming tasks (tree felling etc).

Slave driven economies discouraged the use of animal, wind, steam, or water power because they used slaves. A slave economy retards innovation because you don't need to improve technology to increase production; you just need, more slaves. It also causes people to consider manual labor a task for "lesser" people (look at the US South or colonial Spain as examples). The full potential of the heavy plow was realized after the Roman era once animal's hoofs were properly protected and after the development of the horse collar.

I don’t think you can demonstrate that in that proposition in the classical world. Water power (mills) and water lifting (screws, pumps, etc) appear in the Hellenistic Greek World in the 3rd century BC. All of theses technologies subsequently diffused widely throughout the Roman Empire. Water mills and water powered ore crushers are a typical feature of the very large Imperial era mines that also use large scale slave labor.
Horse shoes and collars are a somewhat irrelevant, since the Romans used oxen to pull their heavy plows in Northern Europe, not horses. The horse collar is certainly a very useful invention if you want to use horses for ploughs, but it is not the only harness that can be used. The Romans world showed a rather steady development of harness types and certainly had harnesses that were as effective as the breast-strap. Overall I say Hellenistic and Roman world showed quite a bit of technical advancement glass-blowing, the crane, chain gearing, ratcheted gears, differential gearing, significant development in things like sail types, harbor construction, etc.

Looking down on manual laborers, crafts, and tradesmen (by Aristocrats and the landed gentry) hardly stopped with the end of classical slavery. The great bulk of much of the ancient literary evidence was written by and for the ‘Good and the Beautiful’ as the Greeks would say, not the Hoi-polloi. The evidence from votive offering, and tombstones hardly suggest the working classes of the ancient world though of themselves has doing deeming work, just because slaves also often did the same work.