Greek History 500-400 BC

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hey guys.

I'm looking for some information on Greek history from 500 to 400 BC, on several topics. One is society -women, slaves, farmers, and the middle class.

Also, on the wars fought during this period- the Persian wars and Peloponnesian, and on Athenian leaders during the time, specifically Pericles.

Thanks for any help!

CR

[Marshal Murat]

Both Persian Wars occured during this time.
The first was after the Ionian City States rebelled against Persia. Athens and a couple of her buddies sent help to the Ionian City States and Persia found out after she smashed the Ionian cities. Turning her anger against Athens, she sent a fleet and army across the Aegean and landed at Marathon. Greeks form up and fight, runner to Athens, victory.

[Kralizec]

Farms were the most important source of income for Greeks, and were usually tended by the owner or renters. Huge plantations were very rare at this point.
Non-agrarian labour such as tanning, pottery etc was relatively unimportant and a lot of it was done by women.
Slaves: slaves were probably not very abundant around 500, because farming was of a smaller scale and therefore there wasn't much need for slaves. Slaves wree a status symbol though, and besides were important for light industry (pottery and various crafts)This lead these occupations to getting a stigma of being a "slaves job". If you were really unlucky, your master sent you to work in the mines...
Women: women were pretty bad positioned in Ionian cities. Because they were seen as inferiour, but also to guard their decency, they were practicly always kept indoors. Women usually wed at an early age, to older males- around 14 years and 20 years respectively in Athens.
In Sparta, and other Doric communities, women had it better but weren't equal to men by a long shot.

Wars
After the Persian wars Sparta turn isolationist for fear of her own position on the Peloponnesse, the Helot revolts are a perfect example of that. Athens however became powerful as they managed to achieve hegemonia over the Agean sea.
The Dellian-Attic league, named so because the treasury was located on Dellos and Athens was the chief contributor, de facto became an imperium. The treasury was relocated to Athens around 450, supposedly for safety reasons.
The stages had been set for the Peloponnesian war.

When conflict started Perikles chose a defensive strategy, retreating behind walls. Most of Attika was abandoned and all food was delivered by sea. This strategy worked well enough but an epidemic in 430-429 behind the walls cost the lives of many, including Perikles.
After that Athens started making offensive moves, largely due to the politician Alkibiades. Many of them were disastrous, especially the Siciliy expedition: Alkibiades fell from grace and then betrayed Athens as he convinced the Spartans to intervene.
Alkibiades treachery wasn't limited to that, he fell out of favour of the Spartans and he defected to the Persians, to whom he proved a valuable advisor. The Persians supported the Spartans with money wich is why the Spartans won in the end, chiefly because it could afford them a huge navy.
Finally the Spartans, under leadership of Lysander crushingly defeated the Athenian navy at the Hellespont in 405, after wich Athens was unable to get their much needed grain from the Black Sea. The nex year Lysander took his fleet to Piraeus, the Athenian harbour, and Athens was forced to capitulate.

That was an incomplete summary. I now own "The Peloponnesian War" by Donald Kagan, but I haven't started on it yet.

[Pindar]

Hey guys.

I'm looking for some information on Greek history from 500 to 400 BC, on several topics. One is society -women, slaves, farmers, and the middle class.

Also, on the wars fought during this period- the Persian wars and Peloponnesian, and on Athenian leaders during the time, specifically Pericles.

Thanks for any help!

CR

Werner Jaeger's classic three volume work: Paideia is a good resource for the various questions you have.

Classicist Peter Green's The Greco-Persian Wars is a good single volume account of the conflict(s).

Classicist Victor David Hanson's A War like no Other is a good account of the Peloponesian War.

[Duncan_Hardy]

If you want a gripping narrative history of the Greco-Persian wars that isn't too taxing, I highly recommend Persian Fire by Tom Holland ([c]2006 Abacus).

[Stig]

If you want anything on Architecture or Art read The Archaeology of Greece by Biers

[KrooK]

Read Tukidydes and his Peloponesian War
It's probably best historical book ever :)

[Geoffrey S]

If you want a gripping narrative history of the Greco-Persian wars that isn't too taxing, I highly recommend Persian Fire by Tom Holland ([c]2006 Abacus).

I strongly disagree. I suppose 'isn't too taxing' says it all, it's very light reading with too much conjecture, poor writing and nothing new to say.

Like KrooK I must recommend Thucydides in addition to what Pindar recommended. It's an astonishingly clear piece of writing and even now is enlightening about the politics of the Peloponnesian war, especially in conjunction with a more recent analysis.

[Pindar]

I strongly disagree. I suppose 'isn't too taxing' says it all, it's very light reading with too much conjecture, poor writing and nothing new to say.

Like KrooK I must recommend Thucydides in addition to what Pindar recommended. It's an astonishingly clear piece of writing and even now is enlightening about the politics of the Peloponnesian war, especially in conjunction with a more recent analysis.

I agree, both in regard to the comments on Holland above and Thucydides. I took Thucydides as a given. I think is one of the better versions available: The Landmark Thucydides: a Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War

[Kralizec]

What would you say of Donald Kagan, Pindar?

[Duncan_Hardy]

I strongly disagree. I suppose 'isn't too taxing' says it all, it's very light reading with too much conjecture, poor writing and nothing new to say.

Like KrooK I must recommend Thucydides in addition to what Pindar recommended. It's an astonishingly clear piece of writing and even now is enlightening about the politics of the Peloponnesian war, especially in conjunction with a more recent analysis.

I think you're being unduly harsh on Holland. Sure, he's writes "demagogue-esque" history, writing history like a detective story and appealing to a broad audience (since audience = cash); however, not only is his work entertaining but, if you disregard the hyperbolic conjecture (which isn't hard to spot), you can get a solid basic overview of the period.

[Pindar]

What would you say of Donald Kagan, Pindar?

Kagan is considered a bigwig on the Peloponnesian War. His four volume work is considered a standard in the English Scholarly Tradition on the subject.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

If you need any info on the Peloponessian War, read History of the Peloponessian War its the best source of information on the war.

[King of Atlantis]

After that Athens started making offensive moves, largely due to the politician Alkibiades. Many of them were disastrous, especially the Siciliy expedition: Alkibiades fell from grace and then betrayed Athens as he convinced the Spartans to intervene.
Alkibiades treachery wasn't limited to that, he fell out of favour of the Spartans and he defected to the Persians, to whom he proved a valuable advisor. The Persians supported the Spartans with money wich is why the Spartans won in the end, chiefly because it could afford them a huge navy.

You are being rather unfair to Alcibaides. Foremost, it was not him who first adopted the more agressive policy. After the death of Pericles, Cleon and Nicias would come out as the top political leaders, with neither being influential enough to dominate the state as Pericles had been able. Cleon was the leader of the war group and their policies actually gave Athens some serious advantages. By the end of this period Athens was forming bases all around the Peloponessus, most notably Pylos, where the Athenians could raid and incite rebellions. The Spartans were fearing a massive Helot rebellion and the defection of their Democratic allies.

Many Athenians would become weary of war and Nicias grew an increasinly strong pressure to make peace. Finally with the death of Cleon the peace party won and Athens made a peace with Sparta. This peace was not reconized by Sparta's allies, and not followed very long between Sparta and Athens. This led to a time of relative peace, but led to the Sicilian campaign. Alcibaides did propose the campaign, but if he had his way he would have only had 60 ships, not nearly enough for disaster. Nicias, beaten on the policy, used an elegant speech to persuade his fellows the expedition would require a massive force, hoping to disuade his fellows. Instead he caused the fleet to raise to 100. The expedition would go badly(largley for Nicias blunders) and Nicias again tried his tact. He could retreat and loose honor or use cunning. He told the Athenians they must retreat or send reinforcents. Again his methods failed and the Athenians sent 70 more ships, making what originally was a small affair into a truly massive undertaking. This disaster was not Alcibaides, but much more due to Nicias.

As for Alcibaides trading sides, you must look at it in context. Before the Sicilian Expedition Alcibaides mocked some religous rite. This coinceded with the defacing of some religous statues(Alcibaides wasnt invlovled in that) and as a result the Athenians took it as treason. Instead of trying him with the army and his loyal supporters in town they waited till the expedition had left, then recalled Alcibaides to be tried in a town with no allies. He was going to be killed and so he decided instead of returning to Athens he would sail for Sparta. Who can be a patriot when their home wants them dead? Feeling betrayed Alcibaides made life in Sparta, but most were very distrusful of him. (It was alleged that an earthquake forced him out of King Agis's bedroom.). Alcibaides never really wanted to be a Spartan and with powerful enemies there is was simply not safe to do so anyways. So he went on an Ionian campaign and jumped to the Persians. We can safely assume he never planned on being Spartan for long, but simply prefered the Spartans to death as a traitor, for a crime that was hardly very treasonous.

Oh yea, and Sparta joined in the Sicilian Campaign long before Alcibaides arrived. He convinced them to help the Chois rebellion after Sicily, but they were bound to help one of the places trying to rebel, so its not like he led them to action where they would otherwise be inactive.

[Pontifex Rex]

Just finished Kagan's text on the Peloponnesian War, a much easier read that the classic by Thucydides. Kagan's modern interpretation has the benifit of not being tainted by Thucydides' bias and makes for a "balanced" approach to the topic (especially in cases like Alcibaides). If you've read Thucydides, read Kagan.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Just finished Kagan's text on the Peloponnesian War, a much easier read that the classic by Thucydides. Kagan's modern interpretation has the benifit of not being tainted by Thucydides' bias and makes for a "balanced" approach to the topic (especially in cases like Alcibaides). If you've read Thucydides, read Kagan.

Will do

[rotorgun]

I'd like to second Pontifex Rex concerning Donald Kagan's The Peloponnesian War. While I don't think that some of his conjecture about various historical events can be substantiated, his ideas are well thought out. It is an informative and entertaining narrative that compliments the historical sources. I am thouroughly enjoying reading it. His evaluation of the Sicilian expedition was particularly well done.

[Pontifex Rex]

...While I don't think that some of his conjecture about various historical events can be substantiated, his ideas are well thought out.....

Unfortunately, the writing styles of the classical "historians" does make any modern interpretations or attempts to dig deeper somewhat difficult. The lack of objectivity is a big handicap,...but then I do not believe they intended to be all that objective.