This is not true. The term “Ancient Greece” or “Hellas” was used to describe a geographical region, not a single state. It consisted of city-states (poleis), mostly located in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula. The Greeks also spread across almost the entire Mediterranean coast, establishing many colonies. The remains of their cities can be found in modern-day Italy, Spain, Turkey, North Africa, and even Crimea. At different times, there were up to 1,035 poleis.
Over several hundred years (11th–4th centuries BCE), these separate cities never became one unified state. This only happened under external influence when the Macedonian king Philip II united the Greek city-states under the League of Corinth in 338–337 BCE.
Ancient Greece Was the Most Advanced State of Its Time
Surgical tools, 5th century BC, Greece. Reconstruction based on descriptions within the Hippocratic corpus. Image: Thessaloniki Technology Museum
For its time, Hellas was a power with a rich culture and developed science. For instance, Pythagoras had already suggested that the Earth was round. The Greeks used complex mechanisms for astronomical calculations. They made numerous discoveries in classical mechanics and were pioneers in inventing the water mill. Greek cities had water supply systems (aqueducts), warriors used flamethrowers, and medics operated with scalpels, forceps, and even vaginal speculums.
However, more ancient Eastern civilizations had much to say in response. The peoples of Ancient India, China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia built monumental structures, such as the pyramids in Giza, dammed great rivers like the Indus, Ganges, Yellow River, Yangtze, Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates, and created their own writing systems. And all of this happened before the civilizations of Ancient Greece even existed.
Eastern astronomers were just as knowledgeable about the cycles of day and night, the length of the year and the month, as the Greeks. For example, Indians in the 6th century BCE knew that the Earth rotates on its axis, and the Moon reflects sunlight. They used surgical instruments and could perform Caesarean sections. At this time, ancient Greek science was only beginning to emerge.
Both Eastern and ancient Greek researchers were prone to conjectures and superstitions. For instance, Aristotle wrote that some animals spontaneously emerged from water, dust, and dirt.
Ancient Greeks Lived in An Equal Democratic Society
Pericles Gives the Funeral Speech (Perikles hält die Leichenrede), by painter Philipp von Foltz (1852)
Athenian democracy, which existed for about 200 years (approximately 500–321 BCE), is considered the first democratic regime in the world. However, there are many nuances.
First, not all Greek city-states were democratic. In fact, democracy only existed in Athens. In Sparta, an oligarchy (gerontocracy) was mixed with royal power, while in Thessaly, a lifelong elected leader, the tagus, ruled. Power could also be seized by a tyrant.
Second, ancient democracy was not universal. Greek city-states thrived on slave labor. People deprived of personal freedom had no rights.
Women were entirely excluded from the public and political life of “democratic” Athens, as were children, who were considered the property of the head of the family. Lastly, even free individuals from other city-states who moved to Athens had no civic rights and were required to pay special taxes. Native Athenians contemptuously referred to such residents as metics.
Third, Athenian citizens participated directly in the political life of the city-state: they voted on decisions, could make proposals and objections in the Assembly. Modern representative democracy, where we entrust politicians with defending our interests, has its roots in the 18th century.
Spartans Were Invincible Warriors and a Militaristic Society
In popular culture, Spartans are portrayed as brave and invincible soldiers. However, this is just a myth. In reality, before the Battle of Thermopylae, which was lost, by the way, Spartan warriors were not particularly distinguished from soldiers of other city-states. Even after that, the legendary Spartans suffered defeats, such as in the battles of Sphacteria and Leuctra.
Moreover, political structures and educational systems similar to those in Sparta existed in other city-states. The primary occupation of Spartans was managing land and helot slaves, so it cannot be said that Sparta lived solely for and by war.
Athletes in the Ancient Olympic Games Competed Fairly
In modern sports, scandals and manipulations are not uncommon. But the competitions of ancient athletes were supposedly honest and fair!
Unfortunately, not everything was as poetic: cheating, bribery, and dirty tricks accompanied the Olympic Games from the very beginning. There was a strong incentive for this: besides fame and honor, victory in the Olympia often promised significant monetary rewards, lifelong free meals, and the opportunity to compete for money and valuable prizes in smaller competitions.
For a prize-winning position, an ancient athlete received from their city-state 100 to 500 silver coins—drachmas. In that era, 500 drachmas could buy two slaves and a flock of 100 sheep with some money left over.
Despite the fact that those caught cheating faced fines, many still resorted to trickery for the reward. They used herbal infusions, visited sorcerers, and bribed judges. For example, Pausanias, in “Description of Greece,” noted that the Thessalian Eupolos paid other wrestlers, whom he was supposed to compete against, to lose. Eupolos was exposed and had to pay a fine. The money from dishonest athletes was used to build statues of Zeus, which were placed along the path to the Olympic stadium.
These cases were not rare: Pausanias mentioned the names of other dishonest athletes as well.
Amazons – A Myth
In ancient Greek mythology, stories about Amazons were very widespread. The Greeks believed that this was a warlike tribe composed entirely of women. Amazons were said to cut off one breast to make it easier to shoot a bow, meet with men only for conceiving children, and later dispose of the boys. In Greek writings and works of art, Amazons appear alongside centaurs and heroes, and their place of residence is located in various remote regions of the world known to the Greeks. Because of this, historians considered the Amazons to be a fabrication.
However, archaeological excavations of Scythian burial mounds show that there were indeed warrior women among the nomads. They were buried with bows and arrows.
Scythian women were forced to know how to defend themselves, as men often went off to roam, leaving them alone. Of course, they were not a separate people, they did not kill boys, nor did they cut off their breasts. All of this is the product of Greek imagination, for whom the idea of a woman riding a horse and shooting a bow was bizarre.
All Ancient Artworks Were White
Cities and temples of white marble, sculptures perfect in their purity and simplicity—that’s how we know ancient architecture and art. However, in reality, the creators of Ancient Greece were not strangers to bright colors. They enthusiastically added color to their statues and buildings. They used natural pigments such as ochre, cinnabar, and copper blue, which degrade and flake off under the influence of bacteria and sunlight. Additionally, many statues had bronze inlays and black stone pupils.
The issue of natural pigments affects artworks from various eras. For example, they can be seen in the paintings and drawings of Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael, as well as in the frescoes of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. To preserve everything in its original form, museum staff create special conditions for lighting and temperature.
Troy Never Existed
The Burning of Troy (1759–1762), oil painting by Johann Georg Trautmann
The Trojan War is the subject of two of the most famous works of ancient literature: Homer’s “Iliad” and “Odyssey.” His account contains much that is fictional: sirens and sea monsters, gods interfering in human affairs, and beautiful women over whom wars begin. According to legend, Troy was under siege for 10 years, after which the Greeks, with the help of the Trojan Horse, infiltrated the city, killed its defenders, and destroyed it.
For a long time, historians believed that Troy was a myth and that the stories about it were merely legends. For thousands of years, no one knew where it was located, until in the late 19th century, a group of archaeologists led by the eccentric Heinrich Schliemann found Troy in Anatolia (Turkey), at the entrance to the Dardanelles.
However, Schliemann was heavily criticized for not paying attention to the stratigraphy of the site. He dug down to the layer “Troy II,” destroying many historical remains in the process. Moreover, Schliemann became infamously known for his fake discoveries supposedly from Troy.
Today, we know that Troy was destroyed and rebuilt in the same location nine times, and in Homer’s works, the most likely reference is to the layer numbered VI.
Modern Greeks Are Not Descendants of the Hellenes
It is generally accepted in science that Hellenic civilization emerged based on the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations of the island of Crete. They survived invasions by two Greek tribes: the Achaeans and the Dorians. As a result, the Minoans and Mycenaeans were fully assimilated.
However, despite the subsequent Roman and Turkish conquests, which lasted for centuries, the Greeks managed to preserve their national identity. A 2017 DNA study confirmed that, with minor external contributions, the blood of ancient Mycenaeans still flows in the veins of modern Greeks.
Perhaps the most famous battle in ancient Greek history is the Battle of Thermopylae, which took place in 480 BCE. During this battle, Spartan King Leonidas and his 300 warriors heroically resisted the attacks of a vast Persian army led by Xerxes, thereby saving Greece from destruction and enslavement. “300 Spartans” and “Thermopylae” have symbolized heroic resistance against overwhelming enemy forces for several centuries. This narrative was most recently dramatized in the blockbuster film “300” by Zack Snyder (2007).
However, both Herodotus and another ancient Greek historian, Ephorus of Cyme, whose accounts form the primary sources of information about this battle (Ephorus’s version was preserved in a retelling by Diodorus Siculus), described the event somewhat differently. Firstly, the battle was lost—the Greeks only managed to delay Xerxes briefly. In 480 BCE, the Persian king and his allies conquered most of Hellas, and only a month later, in September 480 BCE, the Greeks defeated them at the Battle of Salamis (at sea) and a year later at the Battle of Plataea (on land).
Secondly, the defenders were not only Spartans—various Greek city-states, including Mantinea, Arcadia, Corinth, Thespiae, and Phocis, also sent troops to the pass, resulting in an initial force of 5,000 to 7,000 warriors who resisted the enemy’s first assault. Even after Ephialtes, a citizen of the Thessalian city of Trachis, showed the Persians a way to encircle the Greeks, and Leonidas dismissed most of the warriors to spare them from inevitable death, the remaining force still numbered around a thousand.
Hoplites from the Boeotian city-states of Thebes and Thespiae chose to stay, as the Persian army was bound to pass through Boeotia (the Peloponnesians—Mantineans, Arcadians, and others—hoped that Xerxes would not reach their peninsula). However, it is possible that the Boeotians acted not out of rational considerations but chose to die a heroic death, just like Leonidas’s warriors.
So why has the legend only remembered the 300 Spartans, even though ancient historians documented all the members of the Greek army? Perhaps it is because people tend to focus on the main characters and forget the secondary ones. However, modern Greeks have decided to rectify this: in 1997, near the monument to the Spartans (a bronze statue of Leonidas), they erected a monument in honor of the 700 Thespians.
The Library of Alexandria Was Burned by Barbarians
The Library of Alexandria was one of the largest libraries in human history, housing between 50,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was founded by the rulers of Egypt during the Hellenistic period in the 3rd century BCE. It is often believed that the library—a symbol of ancient scholarship—was completely destroyed by barbarians who hated classical culture. This idea is depicted, for example, in the 2009 film “Agora,” directed by Alejandro Amenábar and dedicated to the fate of the Alexandrian scholar Hypatia.
In reality, barbarians were not responsible for the library’s demise, nor did it vanish due to a fire. Some sources (such as Plutarch in “Life of Caesar”) do mention that books were damaged by fire during Caesar’s siege of the city in 48 BCE—but modern historians tend to believe that it was not books but papyrus scrolls near the port (containing accounting records of goods) that were burned.
The library may have also been damaged during Emperor Aurelian’s conflict with Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra, who seized Egypt from 269 to 274 CE. However, there is no direct evidence of any grand fire that completely destroyed the library.
Most likely, the Library of Alexandria disappeared due to budget cuts that continued over several centuries. Initially, the Ptolemaic dynasty (which ruled Egypt during the Hellenistic period) ensured significant privileges for the library’s staff and provided the necessary funds for acquiring and copying tens of thousands of scrolls. These privileges were maintained even after the Roman conquest.
However, in the “crisis” of the 3rd century CE, Emperor Caracalla abolished stipends for scholars and forbade foreigners from working in the library—turning many of the books into a dead weight, unreadable, and uninteresting to anyone. Gradually, the library simply ceased to exist—its books were either destroyed or deteriorated naturally.
Modern Democracy Was Invented in Athens
The system of governance that existed in Athens from around 500 to 321 BCE is considered the world’s first democratic system and is seen as a precursor to the modern political structures of Western countries. However, Athenian democracy had little in common with modern democracy. It was not representative (where citizens’ political decision-making is carried out through elected representatives) but direct: all citizens were required to regularly participate in the work of the Assembly—the highest governing body.
Additionally, Athens was far from the ideal of full political participation by the entire “people.” Slaves, metics (foreigners and freed slaves), and women, who made up the majority of the population, had no citizen rights and could not participate in state governance. By some estimates, there were three times as many slaves as free citizens in democratic-era Athens.
In practice, even poor citizens were often excluded from the political process; they could not afford to spend an entire day at Assembly meetings (though there were periods when Athenian citizens were paid for their attendance).
The word “democracy” (like many other concepts) acquired a new meaning in the late 18th century when the idea of representative democracy emerged in France (the people exercise their power through elected representatives). At the same time, there was a struggle to expand voting rights, and today, most restrictions on voting rights are considered anti-democratic.
Amazon Women Did Not Exist
Amazon with barbarian and Greek, Roman copy of Greek original, detail, c. 160 AD, marble; Galleria Borghese. Image: Public Domain
Among the Greeks, there were widespread legends about the Amazons—a warrior people consisting solely of women who wielded bows and even cut off one breast to handle the bow more easily. The Amazons met with men from neighboring tribes only for the purpose of conceiving children; boys were either returned or killed.
Historically, scholars considered the Amazons to be fictional beings—especially since Greek authors placed them in various distant regions of the inhabited world (Scythia, Anatolia, or Libya). This categorization put them on par with the monsters and exotic creatures of distant lands that, for various reasons, differed from “normal” society.
However, while excavating Scythian burial mounds in the steppes of the Black Sea region, archaeologists discovered the graves of female warriors, buried with bows and arrows. Most likely, women who shot bows and rode horses alongside men didn’t fit into the Greek worldview, prompting them to categorize these women as separate people.
Scythian women indeed could defend themselves—it was necessary when men migrated over long distances—and they may have initiated battles by shooting at opponents from a safe distance. However, they were unlikely to kill their sons, avoid men, or cut off their breasts—military historians are confident that this is entirely unnecessary for accurate archery.
Ancient Art is White Stone
We imagine the Parthenon and ancient statues as white. This is how they have been preserved to this day because they were made of white marble.
However, the actual statues and public buildings were originally colored; the paint simply peeled off over time. The pigments used in these paints were mineral-based (vermilion, red ochre, copper azure, copper green, yellow ochre, etc.), while the binder that “glued” the paint to the surface was organic. Organic materials decompose over time due to bacteria, causing the paint to flake off easily.
The original appearance of ancient statues could be seen at the traveling exhibition “Gods In Color: Painted Sculpture in Classical Antiquity,” organized by American and German scholars in 2007. In addition to revealing that the statues were colorful, it was also found that many of them had bronze inserts and their eyes featured convex pupils made of black stone.
Spartans Threw Children into a Chasm
Young Spartans Exercising, also known as Young Spartans. Painting by Edgar Degas, circa 1860. Image: Wikimedia
One of the most famous tales about Sparta states that when a boy was born into a Spartan family, he would be taken to the edge of the Apothetai chasm (on the slopes of Mount Taygetus). There, the elders would carefully examine him, and if the boy was sickly or weak, he would be thrown into the chasm. We know this story from Plutarch’s “Life of Lycurgus,” and it remains vivid and popular today, as evidenced in the 2008 parody film “Meet the Spartans.”
Recently, Greek archaeologists have proven this story to be a myth. They analyzed the bones extracted from the Apothetai gorge and found that the remains belonged only to adults—specifically, forty-six men aged 18 to 55 years. This finding aligns with other ancient sources, which state that the Spartans threw traitors, prisoners, and criminals into the chasm, not children.
Pandora’s Box
The myth of Pandora’s box is known to us from Hesiod’s retelling in his poem “Works and Days.” In Greek mythology, Pandora is the first woman on Earth, molded from clay by Hephaestus to bring misfortune to mankind. He did this at Zeus’ request—Zeus wanted to punish humanity through Pandora’s actions for Prometheus stealing fire from the gods for them.
Pandora became the wife of Prometheus’ younger brother. One day, she discovered something in their house that was forbidden to open. Driven by curiosity, Pandora opened it, releasing numerous misfortunes and calamities into the world. In horror, she tried to close the dangerous container, but it was too late—the evils had already spread across the world; only hope remained at the bottom, thus depriving people of it.
In Russian, the term “Pandora’s box” has become a common expression referring to someone who has done something irreparable with massive negative consequences: “He opened Pandora’s box.”
However, in Hesiod’s account, it is not a box or casket but a pithos—a large storage jar that could be as tall as a person. Unlike the “clay” Pandora, the container of evils was made of sturdy metal—Hesiod describes it as indestructible.
Where, then, did the “box” come from? It is likely due to the humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam, who translated Hesiod into Latin in the 16th century. He mistook “pithos” for “pyxis” (Greek for “box”), perhaps recalling at the wrong time the myth of Psyche, who brought back a box of incense from the underworld. This mistranslation was later solidified by famous 18th–19th century artists (such as Dante Gabriel Rossetti), who depicted Pandora with a box.
Why Were the Ancient Greeks So Educated and Enlightened?
Like any society, ancient Greek culture was diverse, encompassing more than just the distinctions between citizens, slaves, and foreigners living in Greek cities. The majority of citizens were not highly educated, and their interest in enlightenment was not particularly broad. Truly educated individuals belonged to a narrow circle of thinkers and wealthy citizens, primarily aristocrats. However, there were also plenty of ordinary laborers, crude soldiers, artisans, and citizens focused solely on their personal affairs.
What distinguished the Greeks was their near-universal literacy. It was impossible to exist in Greek society without knowing how to read and write, so all citizens either hired private tutors to teach their children literacy or taught them at home. Additionally, children became familiar with various poetic works. A deeper education required money and time.
Why, then, do we tend to think that all Greeks, or at least all Greek men, were universally educated thinkers? This misconception arises from the foundation of European education since the Roman Empire. It has been based on the texts of Greek and Roman authors, who often featured famous philosophers, scholars, or public figures as their heroes. This could create the impression that Greeks were constantly engaging in deep conversations. However, such discussions were only available to a narrow circle of intellectuals, while the topics of conversation among ordinary residents of Greek cities at a banquet or during a walk were not as elevated.
Did They Look Like Their Statues?
The Old Woman and the Wine-jar, A Roman copy after a Greek original of the 2nd century BCE. Image: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0
It depends on which statues we are talking about; Greek statues are very diverse. Some depicted gods or perfect athletes of the classical era; others showed orators and philosophers of the Hellenistic period; and still others were characteristic representations of ordinary people, such as an old fisherman or a drunken old woman. Faces in Greek art were conventionally portrayed symmetrically, and bodies were depicted as anatomically perfect, considering only the specifics of age (though there were exceptions).
Diversity was achieved through the unique features of the faces (symmetry was maintained, and unattractive details were not depicted) and the canons of depiction used by different sculptors. For example, the Argos sculptor Polykleitos in the 5th century BCE depicted young men with barely suggested anatomical details, while his contemporary Myron showed them more developed, as in older men.
To answer the question of which statues the ancient Greeks resembled, we need to know if modern Greeks resemble their ancestors. Physical anthropology suggests that the differences between ancient and modern Greeks are not very significant. However, while the faces may have been only slightly idealized, the bodies of ancient models certainly were not as perfect or physically developed. Statues aimed to depict the ideal human form, but reality was often quite different. Of course, occasionally, one might encounter an athlete with the physique of Apollo or a beauty with the body of Aphrodite, but such cases were rare. On the other hand, drunken old women and elderly fishermen were common, especially in the poorer neighborhoods of ancient Greek cities.
By the Way, Why Are All the Statues Naked? Were the Greeks Not Ashamed of Anything?
This is a misconception. First, not all Greek statues are naked, though many are. Second, this does not mean that the Greeks did not experience feelings of shame. They were as modest as modern people.
The question of why the Greeks favored depicting the naked body is quite complex. In ancient times, men worked naked in the fields—this custom was recorded by the poet Hesiod in the 8th century BCE. In the same century, runners began competing naked, and other athletes followed suit. According to legend, during the Olympic Games in 720 BCE, a loincloth fell off the runner Orsippos, and he finished naked. Another version of the legend states that the Spartan Akanthos started the race naked from the outset.
In any case, only men could be naked, and only under specific circumstances within their own circles: during sports, some religious rituals, etc. One hypothesis explains this shared nudity as a reflection of democratic thinking, which suggested that equal citizens should hide nothing from each other, including the intimate parts of their bodies. Statues emphasized the social role of the citizen, which is why their authors began depicting Greeks naked.
However, respectable women, including goddesses, were not allowed to be depicted naked. A female citizen of a polis could not appear in public without clothes. In artworks, only courtesans, dancers, flutists, and other women whose profession involved entertaining men during banquets were depicted as nude. In the 4th century BCE, the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles made a statue of a naked Aphrodite, which initially was not well received by the Greeks. It was said that he used his lover, the courtesan Phryne, as a model. However, over time, statues of a naked Aphrodite became popular.
Did They Have Free Love, and Were All Men Homosexuals?
The Greek Youthening: Assessing the Iconographic Changes within Courtship during the Late Archaic Period. Image: Louvre
No, and no. Rather, sexual relations among the Greeks were organized somewhat differently than in our society. In modern terms, Greek men could be described as bisexual, albeit with certain restrictions. For a married Greek man, it was unacceptable to engage in relationships with a free female citizen of the polis (although relations with a courtesan were possible). According to Athenian law, a lover caught in the act could be killed by the husband, and such precedents did occur. This does not sound much like free love.
However, outside the family, a man was not restricted in his sexual relations with women. Relationships with slave women were generally not taken seriously, and sexual relations with free non-citizens (metics) were not considered shameful. Courtesans, hired by men for entertainment during banquets or intimate encounters, often came from these non-citizen groups.
Homosexuality is more complex. For Greek men, it was normal to form sexual relationships with beardless youths up to the ages of 15–16, and such relationships were even encouraged as a form of mentorship. However, relationships between adult men were considered shameful and were often subjects of ridicule.
Nonetheless, this behavior was viewed more tolerantly than in many traditional societies.
When it comes to women, female citizens of Greek cities were restricted in their sexual relationships: they could only sleep with their husbands, and other relationships were strictly forbidden. At the same time, women sometimes imitated homosexual relationships with men: adult women formed relationships with young girls. The famous poet Sappho, who lived on the island of Lesbos, was known for such relationships—hence why homosexual relationships between women are called lesbian. However, Sappho’s writings are more about platonic rather than sexual love between women.
Did Ancient Greeks Wear Underwear?
No, the Greeks didn’t wear anything like underwear. Instead, loincloths were sometimes used as undergarments; slaves, craftsmen, and peasants wore them during work. However, loincloths were not always worn under clothes—they were used to keep warm or to protect the groin. True underwear, resembling modern bikinis or thongs with side ties, appeared in Roman times but was likely used only by women serving at feasts and perhaps during sports activities.
Did They Really Dilute Wine with Water?
Wine boy at a symposium. Image: Public Domain
Yes, indeed, and sometimes quite heavily. A common practice was to dilute one part wine with two parts water, but it could go up to ten parts water. Considering that Greeks did not fortify their wine—that is, add alcohol to it—and it rarely contained more than 15% alcohol, diluted wine often became weaker than modern beer.
There are different explanations for the origin of this tradition: Greek authors merely state that diluting wine distinguished Greeks from barbarians. One might assume that diluting wine prevented participants at feasts from getting too drunk, but Greek vases often depict very drunk people, even vomiting. There is a theory that water from wells and cisterns could be of poor quality, and wine was used to disinfect it. However, further dilution reduced the alcohol content, lowering the antiseptic properties of the wine.
Most likely, Greek wine was significantly different from modern wine in its production technology. To increase the sugar content, grapes were slightly dried, resulting in a very sweet and thick drink. Additionally, they added seawater, crushed stone, and other ingredients to the wine; these helped prevent spoilage but made it cloudy. A strainer through which the drink was filtered was an essential attribute of a Greek feast.
However, in some circumstances, wine was not diluted, such as during cold weather when it was drunk as a medicine, at the beginning of a feast, or simply because someone liked its taste. Barbarians, on the other hand, drank undiluted wine to get drunk as quickly as possible, which Greeks considered inappropriate behavior.
What Did They Eat Besides Olives? Buckwheat?
Processed olives or olive oil were certainly not the only dishes on the Greek table. However, their cuisine was much less diverse compared to our modern diet. The most important staples in Greek nutrition were grains—wheat and barley. Wheat was used to make bread, and it was also used, like other grains such as millet or emmer, to make porridge. Unfortunately, the Greeks did not know about buckwheat; otherwise, they would have surely used it.
Another important food base was legumes. Large beans were unknown in Ancient Greece (they were brought from America much later), but they grew peas, lentils, and various types of vetch, which is now considered livestock feed. Legumes were used raw and as a base for thick stews. They also ate onions, peppers, cucumbers (which were very bitter at the time), and other vegetables.
Meat, as in other ancient cultures, did not appear on the Greek table every day, and its main sources were sheep and goats, which were raised in abundance. They were often used as sacrificial animals, and after the sacrifice, they were eaten at specially organized feasts. Beef was rarely eaten; only the wealthy could afford it. Pork was not very popular. Among poultry, chicken was often prepared, and of course, they ate chicken eggs. They hunted boars and deer, as well as various birds, including small birds. However, near cities, large animals were not found, so games rarely appeared on the table. Cheeses made from sheep, goat, and cow milk were also common products.
If in ancient times the aristocracy disdained eating fish—as mentioned in Homer’s poems—in archaic and classical Greece, all sea products were consumed. Tuna and sturgeon, caught in the mouths of major rivers of the Black Sea, were especially valued. Fish was salted and dried; crabs, lobsters, octopuses, cuttlefish, and so on were also eaten.
Mollusks, primarily oysters and mussels, were consumed in large quantities.
The Greeks ate fruits like apples, pears, figs, and grapes. For dessert, they had dried figs, raisins, and honey, which was also added to salads and bread.
They drank water, milk (often goat milk), and wine. Beer was known but not particularly popular.
Did They Really Believe That Thunder and Lightning Were Zeus’s Anger, and That a Three-Headed Dog Awaited Them Underground?
Some did, and some didn’t. Since ancient times, myths have explained the world’s structure, and most Greeks certainly did not question them: they saw the gods’ will behind natural phenomena, with Zeus throwing lightning bolts and Poseidon controlling the waves. However, with the development of philosophy and science, by the 6th century BCE, educated Greeks began to doubt such a worldview. On one hand, the world of gods seemed insufficiently structured and logical; on the other, the concept of Hades, where everyone became bodiless, memoryless shadows, seemed hopeless.
In some new philosophical ideas, powerful elements took on the primary role, while in others, the gods were absent altogether. Nevertheless, intellectual musings about the world’s structure were typical of a narrow educated stratum, while more ordinary people continued to believe in omnipotent gods, mighty heroes, and fearsome monsters. They accepted these stories as a given but worshiped the gods more out of tradition than genuine faith.
How Much Larger Was the Poor Population Compared to the Rich, and What Were the Relations Between Them?
We do not know the exact ratio of wealthy to poor populations in Ancient Greece, as it varied greatly from city to city and era to era. Even in cities like Athens and Sparta, these figures are very approximate. In Athens in the 5th century BCE, there were about 300,000 people. Among them were around 40,000 free men, which is about 10–15%. Adding their family members brings the number to roughly 150,000 people. Around 100,000 were slaves, and the rest were free non-citizens, known as metics. Slaves were not just poor; they had no property at all.
The Solonian reforms of the 6th century BCE divided the free citizens of Athens into four property classes. The wealthiest, whose annual income exceeded 26,000 liters of grain, wine, or oil, were called pentacosiomedimnoi (500-medimnoi). Such a Greek could own large lands and gardens and possibly even his own ships. In the case of war, they were required to equip a warship at their own expense. Those whose income ranged from 300 to 500 medimnoi were called hippeis, or horsemen, meaning they could afford to maintain a horse.
In Greece, where fertile land was scarce, this required either a piece of uncultivated land or purchased feed, which was quite expensive. These citizens owned substantial land and spacious, wealthy homes. During wartime, they naturally served in the cavalry.
Citizens with an income between 200 and 300 medimnoi were called zeugitai. These were sturdy landowners who could maintain a normal household and had enough land to do so. These citizens formed the backbone of Greek city-states and initially constituted the majority. During wars, they served as heavy infantry—hoplites, since their income allowed them to buy armor and weapons. Finally, those with even lower income were called thetes. These were people who were barely making ends meet; they were exempted from any duties in the city, as it could undermine their already modest budget.
Essentially, thetes were poor farmers and the working poor. During wartime, they served as lightly armed infantrymen, whose role in battle was minimal, and as rowers in the fleet. Greeks did not use slaves on their galleys; the rowers were poor but free men. Initially, there were relatively few thetes, but gradually the number of poor in large cities increased. From these examples, we see that the wealthiest people were at least two and a half times richer than the poor and about twice as wealthy as the middle class—zeugitai. The gap between the rich and poor in Ancient Greece was smaller than in modern society.
Naturally, poor citizens and free non-citizens did not particularly like the rich, but since any issue could be resolved in court (and for citizens, also in the assembly or other governmental bodies), open conflicts were rare. In some cases, citizens were paid for participating in the assembly, serving in court, or were even given funds to attend the theater during festivals. One could also turn to the authorities for social support. Such measures prevented social explosions.
The situation of slaves varied in Greek states, and there were occasional small uprisings. The hardest work in Athens was in the Laurium silver mines, from where slaves would escape at the first opportunity. Moreover, the positions of private slaves and state slaves differed; the latter could serve as policemen, clerks, jailers, heralds, and so on. In fact, they were state employees and were in a better position than other slaves. In Athens, where slaves were treated fairly decently (which sometimes caused discontent among citizens who considered them too bold), there were no uprisings.
Were the Greeks as Warlike as the Vikings? Did They Often Engage in Warfare?
The Greeks were very good warriors and often fought, but their martial nature was somewhat different from that of the Vikings. Essentially, the Vikings were professional pirates and mercenaries who roamed the world for plunder and profit. They posed a threat even to their own compatriots. Sometimes the Vikings managed to conquer significant territories and even establish kingdoms, but these entities often survived only due to the strength of small military bands that did not exert significant cultural influence on the subjugated people.
The Greeks were good warriors because they knew what they were fighting for and were well-prepared for battle. Ideally, every citizen of a Greek city-state would arm himself at his own expense and, if necessary, join the militia. Usually, such a “militia,” a force of armed citizens, had a good fighting spirit but could not compete on the battlefield with professional soldiers. However, constant physical exercises and competitions made the Greeks strong, accurate, and ready for combat. Moreover, the Greeks possessed brilliant battle tactics.
They formed in long lines shoulder to shoulder, shielded, approached the enemy at arm’s length, and fought hand-to-hand with short spears and swords. This style of fighting required composure and provided a sense of support from comrades standing closely on either side and behind. To learn to move in a phalanx—this formation was called—a Greek soldier would undergo military training. The best were the Spartans, who almost daily practiced military skills.
Constant military conflicts that arose between Greek states and their neighbors were also important for training. These wars were swift and did not lead to heavy losses. If one phalanx overturned another, the losers would flee, abandoning their shields. Victors could not leave their heavy shields on the ground, as it was considered unworthy of a warrior, and running with them in hand was inconvenient. Therefore, the defeated did not suffer losses during the retreat. Usually, a truce was declared immediately after the battle to bury the dead.
Greek farmers did not like to fight unnecessarily, as it distracted them from farming, but they were always ready for war and well-prepared. This played a huge role in the defeat of such dangerous and experienced warriors as the Persians, who conquered vast territories but were defeated by the small Greek cities.
Did They Invent the Olympic Games?
Greek vase depicting runners at the Panathenaic Games c. 530 BC. Image: Wikimedia, CC BY 2.5
Yes, there is no doubt about it. The Greeks had a tradition of holding competitions in honor of the gods, as it was believed that the gods took pleasure in the process of choosing a winner (naturally, only their chosen one could win). The most important competitions were held under the auspices of major sanctuaries at regular intervals. For example, in Athens, there were the Panathenaic Games in honor of Athena, in Corinth, the Isthmian Games in honor of Poseidon, and in Delphi, the Pythian Games in honor of Apollo. However, the most prestigious and significant were the Olympic Games, held at the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia, on the Peloponnesian Peninsula.
According to Aristotle, the first games took place in 776 BC, although this might be a legend. The Olympic Games were held every four years. To ensure that athletes could travel to Olympia and return home without fear for their lives and freedom, a pan-Hellenic truce was declared during the games. Initially, the only event was a running race, but gradually, other sports were added. Victory in these competitions was highly honorable and glorified not only the athlete, known as an Olympian, but also their city. The games continued until the end of the 4th century AD when they were banned along with other pagan festivals.
In modern times, some European competitions were traditionally called the Olympic Games, and since 1896, the games were revived and, like before, began to be held every four years.
Why Is Everything Ancient Still Considered the Most Beautiful by Many?
To answer this question, one needs to understand what people generally consider beautiful. Scientists suggest that the sense of beauty is partly explained by biological reasons. For example, people like the division of an object along its length in a ratio of 68 to 32%, which is called the golden ratio. On the other hand, something is considered beautiful if it is associated with the cultural tradition of a particular people.
Ancient Greek sculptors, artists, and architects were known for their high artistic sensibility and often intuitively found proportions pleasing to the human eye. They placed great importance on accurately copying human anatomy while maintaining strict symmetry in the depiction of the face and body, which corresponds to beauty standards accepted in various cultures.
However, the most significant reason is that Greek art, slightly modified by the Romans, became the foundation for the art of several European peoples. In the Middle Ages, much changed, but during the Renaissance, artists returned to Antiquity, actively using ancient images, and sometimes copying works of art. From this period, classical education, which included the study of Ancient Greek and Latin, as well as acquaintance with ancient art, began to develop. From the 18th century, this became standard, and Ancient Greek art was considered the ideal and foundation of European art. Despite the significant changes in art today, the ancient foundations of European culture are well-known, continue to influence modern culture, and, because of this, ancient art seems beautiful to many.
Why Did Greece, With All Its Advantages, Not Become a Great Empire Like Rome?
The Greeks were prevented from establishing a large empire by the very structure of their society. The ancient Greeks lived in independent city-states—poleis, which usually controlled nearby, easily visible lands. Colonies founded in distant lands usually immediately became independent states, maintaining friendly relations with their metropolises but remaining independent from them. To address various issues, such as waging war against a common enemy, the poleis formed alliances: some lasted for centuries, while others existed briefly.
If one city gained strength, a coalition of opponents would immediately form against it, attempting to weaken the neighbor. Some states, particularly Athens and Sparta, managed to control fairly large territories by Greek standards, but they extended their influence mainly through allied relations. The Roman state, however, was essentially the rule of one city that managed to subjugate vast territories.
The Greeks managed to establish a large state only under the Macedonians—a people possibly related to them but considered barbarians. Under the unified rule of King Philip II, the Macedonians conquered and effectively united Greece, and then, thanks to the exceptional military talent of his son, Alexander III, known as the Great, they defeated the Persian Empire and conquered some of its neighboring territories.
Despite the leading role of the Macedonians, the Greeks played a huge role in this conquest, and their language and culture became unifying forces for the conquered territories. However, this state barely outlived its founder, but on its ruins emerged large Greek states: the Ptolemaic Egypt, the Seleucid Empire, and the Kingdom of Pergamon. Gradually, the Romans subjugated most of these states.
How Did Such a Vast Civilization Disappear?
The Greek civilization did not disappear like the states of the American Maya or the mythical Atlantis. The Romans, who conquered Greek territories, treated Greek culture with respect, recognizing the taste and education of the Greeks, and they preserved local self-government in the cities, allowing the ancient traditions to be maintained and developed. Thus, Greek culture did not disappear but continued to develop within the Roman state. After the Roman Empire split into the Western and Eastern Empires, the Byzantine Empire gradually formed in the latter’s territory, with the Greek population at its core, speaking Middle Greek—a later form of Ancient Greek.
From the end of the 7th century AD, it became the official language of the empire. Of course, Orthodoxy became the main religion of Byzantium, but its culture was inherited from the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Greeks did not lose their cultural uniqueness even under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, preserving it until the early 19th century, when Greek statehood was revived. Therefore, modern Greece is a rightful cultural successor of the ancient Greek states, with which it is connected by an unbroken line of historical development. Ancient Greece did not perish but transformed into modern Greece.
Proclus Diadochus (Ancient Greek: Πρόκλος ὁ Διάδοχος, Latin: Proclus; February 8, 412, New Rome – April 17, 485, Athens) was an ancient philosopher-neoplatonist, the head of the Platonic Academy, during which neoplatonism reached its culmination.
An Overview of His Life
Proclus’ lifetime is reconstructed from sources as approximately 410–485 AD. His biographer, Marin, provides his horoscope, and based on astronomical data, Proclus’s birthdate is determined as February 8, 412 AD.
Proclus was born in the capital of the Roman Empire, Constantinople, into a wealthy family with a lawyer father from Xanthos. Intending to follow in his father’s footsteps, as a teenager, he traveled to Alexandria, where he initially studied rhetoric and later became interested in philosophy, becoming a disciple of the Alexandrian neoplatonist Olympiodorus the Elder. Under Olympiodorus, Proclus began studying Aristotle’s logical treatises, achieving success at that time, as reported by Marin.
At the age of 20, Proclus moved to Athens, where Plutarch of Athens was leading the Platonic Academy. Plutarch, despite his advanced age, personally engaged with Proclus, studying Aristotle’s “On the Soul” and Plato’s “Phaedo” with him. After two years, Plutarch passed away, handing over the leadership of the school to his student Syrianus, under whom Proclus continued his education.
Marin reports that by the age of 28, Proclus had written one of his major works, a commentary on Plato’s “Timaeus.” Around 450 AD, after Syrianus’s death, Proclus became the scholarch of the Platonic Academy.
Proclus lived during the decline of ancient Greek civilization. Pagan cults were waning due to the rise of Christianity. During this time, the famous statue of Athena by Phidias was removed from the Parthenon, an act perceived as sacrilege by Proclus. In a polemic with Christians, Proclus actively participated, reportedly writing “Arguments Against Christians” in 18 books (the work did not survive). At some point, the conflict between Christians and academics became so intense that Proclus was forced to leave Athens for Lydia for a year.
During his journey through Asia, Proclus encountered some Eastern teachings, which he synthesized into his own system. Religious practices, sun prayers, rituals, and orphic and Chaldean purifications became integral to the educational process at the Academy. Marin notes that Proclus spent “days and nights” in prayer, orphic and Chaldean purifications, and the performance of “various other religious rites.”
In his personal life, Proclus adhered to ascetic principles: he remained unmarried, abstained from meat, and observed fasting according to the guidance of gods revealed in his dreams. According to Marin, excessive asceticism contributed to his relatively early death: “His flourishing body withered from coarse and unbearable food, frequent ablutions, and similar discomforts.” Proclus was not a stranger to public activities; he participated in city assemblies.
He passed away in Athens at the age of 73, leaving Marin as his successor. He was buried in Athens in the same tomb as his teacher, Syrianus.
Works
Proclus’ major philosophical works focus on the consideration of the highest principles of existence and the affirmation of neoplatonism as a theological doctrine. In the treatise “Elements of Theology” (Στοιχείωσις θεολογική), Proclus presents the doctrine of suprasensible principles. The treatise consists of 211 paragraphs, each formulating and then asserting a certain proof.
“Platonic Theology” (Περὶ τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα θεολογίας) is a comprehensive work in which Proclus develops the doctrine of the highest principles and gods, citing numerous quotations from Plato to confirm that such a system already existed in Plato’s own teachings and that all of Plato’s works represent a unified sacred text.
Among the numerous commentaries by Proclus on Plato’s dialogues, only five have survived: “Timaeus” (Marin notes that Proclus valued this commentary above all others), “Parmenides,” “The Republic,” “Alcibiades I,” and partially “Cratylus.” Commentaries on “Philebus,” “Theaetetus,” “Sophist,” and “Phaedo” are entirely lost. A part of Proclus’ commentary on Plotinus’ “Enneads” has also survived. All commentaries on Aristotle are lost, but it is known that Proclus interpreted “Categories,” “On Interpretation,” and the First and Second Analytics.
Three small philosophical treatises by Proclus — “On Ten Doubts Concerning Providence,” “On Providence, Fate, and That Which Is Within Us,” and “On the Substances of Evil” — have survived only in the Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (13th century).
In the brief treatise “Elements of Physics” (Στοιχείωσις φυσική), a series of definitions and theorems present Aristotle’s physical system.
His astronomical works include a short treatise of elementary content called “Sphere” (Σφαῖρα), a concise “Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses” (Ὑποτύπωσις ἀστρονομικῶν ὑποθέσεων), a “Retelling of Ptolemy’s ‘Tetrabiblos’” and the book “On Eclipses,” preserved only in Latin translation.
Among Proclus’ mathematical works, the “Commentary on Book I of Euclid’s ‘Elements’” has been entirely preserved. Additionally, Proclus wrote a separate work on parallel lines, which has not survived.
From his religious and magical writings, “Eclogues from Chaldean Philosophy” (Ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς Χαλδαϊκῆς φιλοσοφίας) and the book “On the Hieratic Art of the Greeks” (Περὶ τῆς καθ’ Ἕλληνας ἱερατικῆς τέχνης) have come down to us. Seven hymns to the gods have also survived: to Helios, Aphrodite, the Muses, all the gods, the Lycian Aphrodite, Hecate and Janus, and the wise Athena. These hymns, written in Homeric hexameter, draw attention to orphic content, calling on the gods to “help us avoid the black evil of births.” Such is the hymn addressed to the Muses.
We praise the light, uplifting the sorrow of mortals, singing The nine daughters of the great Zeus with beautiful voices! The souls of people, having filled their lives, plunge into the depths, They can deliver from sorrows inherent to the earthly realm, By the power of pure mystery, awakening the mind with a magical book, They teach us how to swiftly traverse through the deep Lethe, Finding the path leading to a star of the same name — for once, They deviated from it and fell onto the shore of births In a mad thirst to experience the fate of material life. Now, goddesses, I implore you — calm my anxious impulse! Intoxicate me with meaningful tales of the wise! May the godless human race not derail me from the path, From the wondrous, sacred path, radiant and full of fruits! Muses, I pray — from the multitude of the sinful human race, Eternally draw the wandering soul towards the sacred light! Let the honey of your words weigh upon her, strengthening reason, The soul whose glory lies in the enchanting virtue of the mind.
Proclus’ known works that have not survived include:
“Arguments Against Christians” (Ἐπιχειρήματα κατὰ χριστιανῶν) in 18 books,
“On Chrestomathy” (Περὶ χρηστομαθείας) in 2 books,
“On Education” (Περὶ ἀγωγῆς) in 2 books,
“On the Gods in Homer” (Περὶ τῶν παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ θεῶν),
“On the Theology of Orpheus” (Εἰς τὴν Ὀρφέως θεολογίαν),
“Harmony of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato with the Oracles” (Συμφωνία Ὀρφέως, Πυθαγόρου, Πλάτωνος περὶ τὰ λόγια) in 10 books,
“On the Great Mother” (Μητρῳακόν),
“Commentaries on the Whole of Homer,”
“Commentaries on Hesiod’s ‘Works and Days.’”
Teaching on Being
To overview Proclus’ philosophy, it is expedient to turn to his “Elements of Theology” since this treatise succinctly presents the system of neoplatonism in general.
The hierarchy of the Universe, according to Proclus, is constructed based on the scheme of Plato’s “Parmenides”: the supra-being One (also known as the Good and God); next are the henads – supra-being units or gods to whom existing gods, or intellects, are related, representing the intellectual Being that synthetically unites the principles of limit and the limitless.
Being and the intelligible gods are opposed to Mind (Nous) and thinking gods, linked to intellective gods through intellective-thinking gods. The supra-cosmic gods and thinking souls are connected to the intellective gods. The next level is the Cosmic Soul, distinguishing within it: intra-cosmic gods, universal souls, demonic “simple souls”: angels, demons in their own sense, and heroes.
Further down are “partial souls” that animate bodies, including the human soul. At the lowest level, there are inanimate bodies.
In this hierarchical structure, Proclus naturally includes traditional Olympic gods, organizing them into triads and classifying them as transcendent and cosmic. “Nature” mediates between bodies and souls, being bodiless but inseparable from the unconscious forces of bodies, identical to the force of fate. The lowest ontological level, though derived from the highest, is matter.
The treatise establishes the following “canonical” sequence:
The One and the Many (in their statics, their transition, their organic fusion, resulting in actual infinity).
Numbers or gods (provides the definition of numbers and the classification of gods, meaning Proclus’ teaching on supra-mental numbers is simultaneously a teaching on gods; each number Proclus calls a god).
Mind (provides the definition of Mind and its limitation “from above and below”; establishes the self-identity difference of Mind and explores the hierarchy of Mind in relation to its universality).
Soul (provides the definition of the soul, its properties, and types; describes the rotation and hierarchy of souls; determines the carrier of the soul).
Cosmos (provides the definition of the Cosmos as the material realization of the three basic hypostases of neoplatonism).
The One is considered by Proclus as 1) being self-existent, without any multiplicity and before [any] multiplicity; then as 2) the One in which multiplicity has already originated, but in itself, it remains a simple and indivisible meaning of this multiplicity; and finally, as 3) the actual unity of the One and the Many, in which there is not only meaning but also the enumerability of all its components.
A possible key to understanding the One according to Proclus, as well as understanding Proclus’ philosophy in general, is the “Law of Triad”:
The Law of Triad, according to which every being is a limit, the limitless, and a mixture in different proportions of both, is valid not only for the highest hypostases but also for the soul, physical and mathematical objects—in short, for everything without exception… According to Proclus, all levels of reality, from the bodiless to the corporeal, are composed of two essential components: 1) the limit, peras, and the limitless, apeiron, or the infinite, which relates to both form and matter. Every being, as a consequence, is a “mixture,” a synthesis of the two components (this thesis, evidently, is borrowed by Proclus from Plato’s “Philebus” and his unwritten doctrines).
Following the One, Numbers, “supra-being units,” are examined. They are superior to being since they are the principle of being itself and its differentiation. They are also superior to thought because they are the principle of every division and union, without which thought cannot be realized. Number, thus, occupying the first place after the One, is a dissecting and uniting “creative force.”
Proclus’ development of the realm of Numbers, intermediate between the One and Mind, should be particularly emphasized. The clear delineation of the realm of Numbers is unique to Proclus.
Every abstract number, being incorporeal, surpasses every object and thing, in this respect entirely analogous to the One. It is also, being the principle of every differentiation and formation, entirely analogous to Mind. Thus, Numbers are intermediary entities between the incorporeal One and the qualitative Mind.
The realm of Mind begins with being as the first qualitative fulfillment of numbers. Then follows the domain of the energetic fulfillment of being itself, which Proclus calls life. Life, comparing itself with itself, gives us proper thought and knowledge. Thus, the realm of Mind is constituted by three stages—being, life, and knowledge.
Cosmic Soul (the third hypostasis of neoplatonism) is nothing else but the principle of the eternal becoming of the Cosmos. Just as for Proclus, the intellect is the unity of being and thinking, and the soul is the unity of intellect and corporeality.
The soul is invoked to explain the movement in the world, similar to how the intellect is invoked to explain the regularity of the soul’s actions. Accordingly, the intra-cosmic souls are the principles of the formation of individual bodies. Proclus speaks of different types of souls: divine souls, souls of the intellect, and souls of changeable entities. In general, for Proclus, the soul denotes the intermediate realm between the indivisible intellect and divisible bodies. He attributes to the soul properties such as incorporeality, immortality, reflection of all forms of intellect within itself, its connection with that eternal body for which it is the animating principle, and so on.
Proclus asserts the “rotation” of souls and their hierarchy. Here, too, there is the following paradox: the soul itself is incorporeal, and yet there must always exist its own body, the principle of animation of which it is. And since the soul is eternal, this body must also be eternal. Thus, according to Proclus, not only physical, perishable bodies exist but also soulful, intellectual, and divine bodies.
Finally, the Cosmos is nothing else but the material realization of the three fundamental hypostases of neoplatonism. Proclus paints a grand picture of the universal [circular] movement of the Universe. Since there is always a “return to itself” in this movement, an evolution, the Cosmos is “ageless,” eternal. The central position in it is held by the Sun – Helios, maintaining the cosmic equilibrium. Proclus’ mythological triad: Helios – Apollo, intelligent illuminating demiurgy; Athena, intelligent illuminating knowledge; Aphrodite, intelligent illuminating beauty.
From the point of view of logic proper, Proclus’ most remarkable development is the dialectic of Being. Proclus depicts in detail how Being transitions “from its supra-being and indivisible self-enclosure… into divisibly comprehensible otherness and then returns to itself in an enriched form.”
The main principle of concept development in Proclus is clear triadism. He also considers each member of the basic triad also triadically. This triad of categories, initiated by Plotinus, elaborated by Porphyry, and developed and completed by Proclus, is applicable to any process. Essentially, it has a universal methodological significance: 1) self-contained existence, indivisible unity (provoking emanation due to its completeness, emerging beyond this unity); emanation from itself (proper emanation, transition into multiplicity); return to itself (return to the initial wholeness, not canceling the meaning of the process of emanation; “state of the indivisible eidolon”).
An important category for Proclus is the concept of “participation.” It indicates the higher to which the lower adheres and by which it is understood; thus, this category signifies the reverse transition from the many to the One. Proclus distinguishes between that which does not admit participation, that which allows it, and that which properly participates.
Proclus’ theory of knowledge is linked to his ontology of a multilayered being. The clearest knowledge is ensured by theoretical contemplation, corresponding to intelligible entities, where existing objects are perceived directly and entirely. Scientific knowledge is lower in the hierarchy of cognitive methods because it combines reasoning with sensory perception.
Reasoning (διάνοια) uses concepts to determine things and verify the reports of sensory perception. Scientific knowledge is the result of the reasoning activity of the soul, which aligns concepts with opinions derived from sensory data. This is done according to positive criteria of truth, such as syllogistic proof and correspondence to being.
Ethics
At the center of Proclus’ ethics is the concept of “virtue”—as that which reunites us with the gods, bringing us closer to the One. In Proclus’ school, virtues were distinguished as natural, moral, social, and higher, including: purificatory, contemplative, and theistic virtues (the latter were considered superior to human destiny). Marin enumerated among natural virtues: the harmlessness of all external senses, bodily strength, beauty, and health; according to his testimony, Proclus possessed all these virtues in full, ascending to the theistic ones.
As for the problem of Evil, Proclus identifies its cause in canonical accordance with the understanding of evil established by Plotinus—evil arises from human aversion to the higher, intellect-perceived world, from attachment to the sensory and material. Hence, the task of humans is to turn away from the lower world and know the higher power of their soul. Proclus places this power above even the intellect, as, according to him, only it is capable of perceiving the first principle. Therefore, Proclus calls this power the “color of our essence” and “that one thing in the soul which is better even than intellect.” This power can be identified with mystical enthusiasm and sacred madness, leading us to merge with the Divine.
Physics
Proclus’ physics marks a radical departure from Aristotle’s position on two points: the elements of the physical world and the concept of place as space.
Proclus rejects the ether, Aristotle’s fifth element, as redundant. Celestial bodies consist of the same (four) elements as earthly ones. For example, without the element of fire, stars and the sun could not emit light, and without the element of earth, they could not be opaque (as during eclipses). Proclus distinguishes the celestial state from the terrestrial: in the former, the elements are in their highest degrees (for example, fire only illuminates, earth is purely material and impermeable); in the latter, they are “coarse” (for example, fire burns, earth is heavy).
Moreover, Proclus develops a new perspective regarding the primary properties of elements, deriving them from the size, shape, and ability of their particles to move.
According to Aristotle, the place occupied by a body is not its boundary. Proclus, on the other hand, posits that place is a kind of body, but without mass, which causes physical bodies to resist the presence of others. This is space. In a broad sense, there is cosmic space in which all bodies of the Universe are immersed. Space, separate from the bodies residing in it, resembles a body of light.
Philosophy of Mathematics
Proclus follows the traditional Platonic doctrine, according to which mathematical objects occupy a middle position between the world of ideas and the world of sensibly perceptible things. When proving a theorem, a geometer points to a drawn parallelogram, but in their mind, they conceive of a “parallelogram in general,” without specific proportions and dimensions. The theorem about the parallelogram deserves its name only when it is valid for all types of parallelograms.
Where do this type and all other mathematical types originate? In answering this question, Proclus engages in a debate with Aristotle, who believed that mathematical objects arise through the abstraction of the general from sensibly perceived objects and the assembly of this general into a unified definition. According to Aristotle, we first see and draw various sensibly perceived parallelograms and then give a general definition of a parallelogram—a quadrilateral with opposite sides equal and parallel. According to Plato, however, we can see in an imperfect figure like a parallelogram only because our soul already possesses knowledge of the parallelogram, and this knowledge is the ideal unity of definition-logos and image-eidos. Thus:
“It remains for the soul to generate mathematical types both from itself and from the intellect, and for it to be the completeness of types, although based on intelligent patterns, but self-generated by the lot that has befallen them. Therefore, the soul is not like a writing tablet free from inscriptions; it has been inscribed from eternity, writes itself, and is written by the intellect. For the soul is both intellect because it unfolds according to intellect and is the image of intellect and its external impression” (“Commentaries on Euclid,” 16.4—16.13).
According to Proclus, mathematical activity represents a peculiar kind of movement within the world of incorporeal logos. This movement occurs in two directions: on the one hand, it begins with external recollection and ends with the understanding of the principles of mathematical knowledge; on the other hand, it unfolds from these principles to the diversity of results. In mathematical cognition, one transitions from the known to the sought, and at other times, from the sought to the known. Proclus states:
“The cognitive abilities of this science, in general, turned out to be twofold, and one of them directs us towards unity and consolidates the multitude, while the others divide the simple into diverse, the more general into the more specific, and the initial logos into secondary and many steps removed from the initial. And so, starting from the top, mathematics reaches the sensibly perceptible, touches nature, and proves many things in conjunction with the teaching of nature. Similarly, starting from the bottom, it approaches intellectual knowledge and touches the contemplation of the first principles” (“Commentaries on Euclid,” 19.13—19.19).
A particularly interesting aspect is Proclus’ systematically developed doctrine of geometric matter. The subject of geometry is not sensible matter—it is impossible to find a line without width, a point without parts, a surface without thickness, or a circle with equal radii. But it cannot exist outside matter, in pure logos: geometric figures are multiple, divisible into parts, and they can be compared with each other as larger or smaller. So where does it exist?
Addressing this issue, Proclus follows Aristotle’s assertion that, in addition to sensible matter, there is also matter in imagination. It is precisely in this matter of imagination that the geometric forms with which the geometer deals are located.
“Imagination, being the center of knowledge, though stirred by itself and producing what is known, nevertheless, not being outside the body, transforms the known from indivisible life into divisible, extended, and shaped, and thus everything it conceives is an imprint and form of thought” (“Commentaries on Euclid,” 52.20—52.26).
The mental circle is one, for it exists only in definition, and the definition does not distinguish one circle from another, as all of them are circles. Imaginary circles can be many; we can imagine that such circles are concentric, touch each other, or are arranged in relation to each other in some other way. The mental circle is, in a sense, simple, non-extended, and without outlines, whereas extension, outlines, and divisibility characterize the circle with which we deal in imagination.
Astronomy
Proclus was well acquainted with both theoretical and observational astronomy. In his work “Outline of Astronomical Hypotheses,” he describes, among other things, the construction of the armillary sphere. He personally made some of the last reliable astronomical observations in antiquity (475 AD).
Proclus rejects Ptolemy’s interpretation of the precession of the equinoxes as the movement of all fixed stars. For Proclus, such stars cannot precess because it is inherent in their nature to be immovable. Proclus also denies that planets move on nested celestial spheres; the arguments for such a position are of a hypothetical nature and lack clear evidence, while celestial bodies are capable of moving in free space by their nature.
Evaluation
Proclus presents a qualitatively developed dialectic of being and myth, theology and theosophy, theurgy, as well as a unique aesthetics and ethics. Proclus’s ethical perspective is simultaneously cosmological; according to Proclus, one should consider humans exactly as “the entire cosmos because a human represents a small cosmos. Namely, they possess mind, logos, a divine and mortal body, similar to the Universe.”
Proclus is distinguished not so much by originality as by systematicity and detailed analytical thinking. Proclus’s philosophy is considered a “culmination” of ancient Neoplatonism, bringing it to its final “logical maturity.” A.F. Losev called Proclus the “genius of reason”; with reasoning brought “to music, to pathos, to ecstasy.” Losev even placed Proclus above the founder of the Platonic school, Plotinus, “in terms of the enormous analytical power of his mind, the great diversity of his interests in terms of the mastery of microscopic studies of the most abstract logical subject, and in terms of the subtlest philosophical-philological insight into Plato’s text.”
In this regard, the comparison of Plotinus and Proclus conducted by Yu. A. Shichalin is interesting: “What Plotinus saw in an ecstatic rush, Proclus reveals at the tip of the pen. Plotinus first discovered all the splendor of the universe and fully beheld the entire hierarchy of the One, Mind, Soul, and Cosmos. Proclus never saw the intelligible, but accurately described them, indicating their location between the level of the One and the Mind, as well as describing many intermediate steps between the other levels of the hierarchical structure.”
Arguably, the most remarkable assessment of Proclus is that this last great thinker of the ancient world, living in the era of its decline and demise, is seen by Marinus as the happiest of men. It is about “some kind of most perfect and complete happiness,” which consists not only of the happiness of the wise but also of life’s well-being.
“He was exceptionally attractive in appearance, not only due to his good constitution but also because his soul flourished in the body, like some vital light, emitting a marvelous radiance, difficult to depict in words… He was free from base concerns and any pettiness, disturbed only by the greatest and most common questions about the divine and human… He attached no importance to human life or death, as others do; everything that seemed terrifying to others did not inspire fear in him… He was entirely devoid of any aloofness, seclusion, or bias.”
With the name of Proclus, Professor A.F. Losev associates not only the mature completion of Neoplatonism but also the end of the tradition of the entire ancient philosophy.
Proclus’s philosophy enjoyed tremendous influence in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. His direct followers can be considered Maximus the Confessor, Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, John Petreius, and others.
The term “nymphaeum,” or nymphæum in ancient Greek (νυμφαῖον), refers to an architectural structure. In antiquity, it was a small sanctuary dedicated to water nymphs, typically constructed near a water source or reservoir, known as krene (κρηνη in ancient Greek). Among the Romans, it was called “luterium” (Latin: luteris), which denoted a basin for ablutions or a bathing pool.
Ancient Nymphaea
In Ancient Greece, natural sanctuaries for nymphs, deities of natural forces, were considered to be caves, groves, and forests. However, since ancient Greek nymphs patronized not only natural phenomena but also human creative endeavors, temples dedicated to nymphs often shared symbolic significance with magical springs. For instance, the Hippocrene (Ἵππου κρήνη), a sacred spring of poetic inspiration atop Mount Helicon in Boeotia, was believed to have emerged from the hoof strike of the winged horse Pegasus. A similar role was attributed to the Castalian Spring on Mount Parnassus.
Franc Kavčič – Landscape with the motif of the nymphaeum Domitian’s Villa.
P. P. Muratov eloquently described the natural sanctuary of the nymph Egeria in the Roman Campagna:
“Droplets falling from the ceiling in the grotto of Egeria are still audible, like the murmurs of nymphs, once understood by Numa Pompilius… The entire place with the stagnant waters of Almon, reeds, green hills, and mighty oaks of the sacred grove, with the cool shade of the nymphaeum, seems legendary and marvelous. Bosco Sacro comprises several very old evergreen oaks, growing in a perfect circle… Inside, there is a ready space for an altar, but even without one, the spirit of ancient religion dwells here.”
In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, small structures above water sources, such as aediculae, steles, marble fountains, and basins, began to be dedicated to woodland and lake nymphs. Occasionally, a wall or pilaster was adorned with a niche containing a statue of a nymph, a fountain, and a basin. “In the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, separate spaces with fountains, also called nymphaea, were constructed in the homes of Roman patricians and on Pompeian villas.
The fountain provided coolness, and a small altar served as offerings to the household gods: Lares and Penates.”Nymphaeum design. 17th century.
Nymphaea were also built in the form of square or round buildings with columns, sometimes multi-story, or in a tholos-type structure, later stylized as a natural cave: grotto. For example, in Pozzuoli near Naples, the ruins of the Nymphaeum of Diana have been preserved, of which the circular foundation and part of the elevation remain.
In the Hellenistic and Ancient Roman periods, the term “nymphaeum” began to be used for structures adorning water sources, as well as city buildings with reservoirs for domestic needs but consecrated with images of nymphs or allegorical statues. A series of authentic ancient nymphaea remnants have been preserved and discovered during archaeological excavations, particularly in the Middle East, which was previously under the influence of Hellenistic and Roman culture.
A prominent monument of ancient architecture was the Septizonium (Latin: Septizonium, from Latin septem, seven, and Latin zona, belt, framing), a monumental structure in Rome at the foot of the Palatine Hill, constructed in 203 CE by Emperor Septimius Severus. The building had seven tiers with niches and rows of columns, adorned with marble and statues. The nymphaeum was completely demolished by the order of Pope Sixtus V in 1588–1589; the remaining construction material was used for new buildings, including the Sistine Chapel and the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. Only some remnants of the foundation and Renaissance-era sketches of the Nymphaeum ruins have survived.
In Asia Minor, huge nymphaeas with colonnades, porticos, and statues were constructed. One of the most vivid reconstructions reproduces the appearance of the monumental nymphaeum in Miletus, which adorned the market square of the ancient city (1st–3rd centuries CE). Only the ruins of the structure have survived.
In the early Christian era, nymphaea served as baptisteries.
In the Middle Ages, ancient krene were transformed into “Holy Wells” (Latin: Sacrum Puteus)—”puteals,” reservoirs, sometimes with a fountain in the center and a canopy—ciborium, located in the middle of the monastery’s atrium or courtyard. Such a water reservoir was symbolically reinterpreted as a source of eternal life bestowed by faith in Christ. A comparable medieval monument, though with a different function and composition, is the “Well of the Ancestors” or “Moses’ Well,” a work by the Flemish sculptor Claus Sluter created for the Carthusian monastery in Champmol near Dijon, France.
Fountains and Architectural Structures of the Modern Era, Tracing Back to Ancient Nymphaea
Renaissance and Baroque urban fountains, particularly those in Rome, also draw inspiration from ancient nymphaea. For example, the Fountain of Acqua Felice (Italian: Fontana dell’Acqua Felice), also known as the Fountain of Moses, is a monumental Baroque fountain located on the Quirinal Hill in Rome, Italy. It adorns the endpoint of the ancient aqueduct of the same name, renewed under the direction of Pope Sixtus V. Designed and constructed by Domenico Fontana between 1585 and 1588, the fountain incorporates elements from ancient sources, similar to the renowned Trevi Fountain in Rome.
One of the most famous monuments of the French Renaissance period is the masterpiece by architect Pierre Lescot and sculptor Jean Goujon, the “Fountain of the Innocents” in Paris (1547–1549), which harks back to the traditions of ancient nymphaea.
During the Neoclassical era and the fascination with ancient art, pavilions and nymphaea began to appear in European estates and parks, usually representing architectural fantasies inspired by ancient themes. Such nymphaea can be found in many countries and cities in Western Europe. The “Nymphenbad” (Bath of the Nymphs) is present in the Zwinger, a unique architectural-sculptural ensemble in the German Baroque style in the heart of Dresden, Saxony, created by architect M. D. Pöppelmann and sculptor B. Permoser (1709–1719).
General
Generally, such places were naturally occurring caves from which springs emerged, considered baths and meeting places of the Nymphs. The entire ancient Greek landscape was dotted with such Nymphaea, where Greek civilization flourished. Homer refers to the Nymphaeum of Ithaca, where Odysseus sought refuge and prayed upon his return to his homeland, similar to the cave of Calypso, which was also a Nymphaeum.
Greek Nymphaea
The ancients also referred to artificial structures housing the springs and fountains of cities as Nymphaea, often dedicated to the Nymphs. Examples include the spring of Theagenes in Megara, the springs of Prine and Glauce in Corinth, and the Kallirrhoe spring in Athens. Notable Nymphaea mentioned by historians include:
Nymphaeum of Parnassus (mentioned by Strabo and Pausanias).
Nymphaeum of Sipylos, or the Cave of Sipylos (Iliad).
Nymphaeum of Cithaeron, dedicated to the Sphragitides Nymphs, near Phyle, mentioned by Pausanias, Plutarch, and Aristotle.
Nymphaeum of Helicon, dedicated to the Libathrides Nymphs, mentioned by Strabo.
Nymphaeum of Vari, where numerous votive offerings were found, including a depiction of Pan playing the syrinx while four Nymphs around an altar receive the pious offering of Archander.
Nymphaeum of Penteli, located slightly higher than the Daveli Cave, rich in stalagmites and stalactites, with a paved floor and numerous marble votive reliefs from the 4th century BCE.
Nymphaeum of Delphi, the cave-like Castalian Spring where three carved conches held equally carved statues of Nymphs.
Many times, around the Nymphaea, a distinctive small temple dedicated to the Nymphs was erected, itself called Nymphaeum. Numerous such structures existed in Elis, as testified by Strabo. Thus, the construction of such buildings began to generalize, even within cities, essentially housing public springs also dedicated to the Nymphs. Notable artificial Nymphaea, particularly remarkable for their rich ornamentation, included:
The Spring of Theagenes in Megara.
The Springs of Prine and Glauce in Corinth.
The Spring near the source of Kallirrhoe in Athens.
According to evidence provided by findings (cisterns and aqueduct around the Nymphaeum hill), it is speculated that there was a Nymphaeum on that hill.
Over time, especially in the Hellenistic period, these constructions began to become more imposing and luxurious with columns, reservoirs, colonnades, etc. A significant example of such a construction was the Nymphaeum of Mieza in Macedonia, where Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. This structure, now known as Palaioisotiros at the “Verriotiki spring” near Naousa, was essentially a cave with stalactites, featuring stone benches at its entrance where Aristotle used to teach.
A similar construction was erected in Corinth, with a large colonnade preceding it. In ancient Olympia, the monument known as the platform of Herodes Atticus was, in essence, a Nymphaeum, featuring a large arch (as an architectural entrance to a cave), a semi-circular roof, and marble cladding on the walls, bearing two statues. The Nymphaeum in Ephesus followed precisely this architectural design, which was later adopted by Roman engineers and architects of the time.
Roman Nymphaea
Roman Nymphaea, known as Nymphaeum in Latin, began to be reconstructed around the 4th century BCE. These artificial structures served as sanctuaries, reservoirs, or reception halls. Most were components of imperial residences or thermae, such as the Nymphaeum of the Gardens of Gaius in Rome, Domitian’s Nymphaeum on the Palatine Hill, and others on the Quirinal Hill in Rome. A well-known Nymphaeum in the Hellenistic region was the Nymphaeum of ancient Olympia, also known as the aqueduct of Herodes Atticus, built in 160 CE.
With the parallel development of mosaics, Hellenistic Nymphaea began to be adorned with rich mosaic representations, as seen in Antioch and Constantinople. Gradually, their imposing nature and opulent decorations shifted their purpose to become places for wedding ceremonies.
Megaris (ancient Greek: Μέγαρίς) is a historical region in ancient Greece, situated to the northeast of the Isthmus of Corinth. Megaris bordered the lands of Corinth (to the south), Boeotia (to the north), and Attica (to the east). Megaris was a small region in Central Greece, directly adjacent to the Isthmus of Corinth on the southwest. It extended between the Saronic Gulf to the south and the Alcyonian Bay of the Corinthian Gulf to the northwest. The northern boundary of Megaris with Boeotia was formed by the main ridge of Cithaeron, while the northeastern boundary with Attica was marked by one of its spurs ending near the shore of the Saronic Gulf with two peaks known as the Cerata.
Geography
Map showing Megaris in relation to other regions. (W. Commons. cc by sa 3.0)
Almost the entire country was dominated by a massive mountain range, the main part of which, covering the western portion of Megaris and reaching a height of up to 4430 feet, was anciently called Geraneia (Greek: ή Γεράνεια or Geraneia, “Crane Mountains”), now known as Makri Plai. To the west of Geraneia, Onoe-Dry separated itself, forming a peninsula that extended far into the Corinthian Gulf and was called Pieria (or Piraeus, Greek: ή Πειραία). Only in the eastern part of Megaris, between Geraneia and the Cerata Mountains, was a small plain, where the main city of Megara (capital) was situated on two hills.
History
Pediment of the Treasury of Megara. 520 B.C. Archaeological Museum of Olympia.
In the early history of the region, the borders of Megaris were not fixed. During the time of its greatest territorial expansion, it included Megara, Nisea, Peraea, Crommyon, Tripodiscus, Pagae, and Egosthena, possibly Eleusis. In the 8th century BCE, Peraea and Crommyon came under Corinthian control, and in the 7th century BCE, Eleusis was finally annexed to Athens, becoming part of Attica.
According to myths, the first inhabitants of Megaris were the Carian tribes, later followed by the Leleges, who were in turn displaced (and partially assimilated) by the Ionian Greeks. In the 11th to 10th centuries BCE, Megaris was conquered by the Dorians, but the Ionian population remained in place, gradually blending with the newcomers. The region continued to be considered Dorian, but with a strong Ionian influence in culture and language.
In the 9th century BCE, Megaris came under the rule of Megara, and the tribal leadership of smaller settlements was incorporated into the Megarian aristocracy. It served as a crucial link between Central Greece and the Peloponnese and suffered significantly during the Peloponnesian Wars between the Athenians and Phocians. Despite numerous wars and occupations, the unity of Megaris persisted until 192 BCE, when the Romans declared some of its settlements independent participants in the Achaean League. However, in 146 BCE, the entire region was transformed into Roman territory. In the Middle Ages, Megaris typically joined administrative and state unions with Athens, and it gradually began to be considered the western part of Attica.
Economy
Gravestone of Pollis (c. 480 BCE, Megaris, Megara). A funerary stele or gravestone of a hoplite (foot soldier), which was initially painted. (W. Commons, cc by sa 2.0)
Economically, besides Megara with its convenient harbor Nisea, the cities of Pagi (Pagae or Παγαί) and Egosthena on the western coast were known for their harbors. Even the Athenians, who often clashed with the Megarians and considered them rough, uneducated, cunning, and treacherous, acknowledged the industriousness of the people of Megaris and their achievements in navigation.
At the same time, Megaris lacked convenient internal communication routes. Three roads, one along the rocky and mostly inaccessible western coast, another winding through the mountainous middle of the region, and the third along the eastern coast, were equally challenging and could easily be blocked during storms and military conflicts.
The last of the three roads held the most significance, leading through Megara and its plain from one side to Attica and from the other to the most convenient pass over Cithaeron and from there to Phocis. However, in its western part, the road ran along almost perpendicular cliffs of the mountain range, turning into a narrow path. Megarian Polemarch Skiron slightly widened it, but even in the classical era, the path was considered very perilous and traversed on foot. Only during the time of Hadrian was the road reconstructed to make it accessible to contemporary transportation.
Who Were Megarians?
The Megarians were the inhabitants of ancient Megara, an ancient Greek city-state located between Attica and Corinthia. Megara covered the land between the Corinthian Gulf and the Saronic Gulf, giving it the advantage of access to two different seas. The sea was the only outlet for the Megarians as they were surrounded by powerful neighbors, the Athenians to the east and the Corinthians to the west. This geographical constraint led them to establish numerous and distant colonies, mainly in eastern Thrace, the Propontis, the Black Sea, and Sicily.
Their History
The Megarians were of Dorian origin and spoke the Doric dialect. They settled in the Megaris region during the Dorian invasion, displacing earlier Ionian and Boeotian populations that were already established in the area.
During the Archaic and Classical periods, their dominance included five settlements or villages: Megara in the center of the region, Nisaea on the shores of the Saronic Gulf, Pegae on the shores of the Corinthian Gulf, Tripodiscus in the Geraneia Mountains, and Aegosthena at the foot of Mount Cithaeron.
In subsequent years, the Megarians came into conflict with their neighbors, initially with the Corinthians in the 8th century BCE and later with the Athenians in the 6th century BCE. The source of their dispute with the Athenians was the island of Salamis, which the Megarians held from around 640 to 570 BCE. After a twenty-year war between the Athenians and the Megarians, Salamis returned to Athenian control. During the second Greek colonization, the Megarians founded numerous colonies, especially in the Propontis and the Black Sea, including Byzantium, Chalcedon, and Nicomedia.
During the Persian Wars, the Megarians allied with the rest of the Greeks against the Persians. They participated in the naval battle of Salamis with 20 ships and in the Battle of Plataea with 3,000 hoplites. In the following years, the Megarians faced intense competition from Athens in the trade of the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. This competition peaked with the “Megarian Decree” issued by Athens, becoming one of the main causes of the Peloponnesian War. During the Peloponnesian War, Megara allied with Sparta. In the years following the end of the Peloponnesian War, Megara lost much of its power, was limited to a local role, and observed events in the Hellenic world without substantial involvement.
The Cities of Megara
Apart from Megara, the other significant cities in Megaris were Nisaea, Pegae, Aegosthena, and Tripodiscus. For a period, they also controlled Heraion, contested by the Argives and Corinthians but eventually falling under Corinthian control. Nisaea was situated on the shores of the Saronic Gulf, close to the city of Megara, essentially serving as Megara’s coastal region on the Saronic.
In contrast, Pegae was located on the shores of the Corinthian Gulf, constituting Megara’s northern coastal region. Nisaea was near present-day Pachi, and Pegae was built in the area now known as Alepochori. Further east, at the foot of Mount Cithaeron, in the location of present-day Porto Germeno, was Aegosthena. This city was close to Boeotian Thespiae and Athenian Oenoe. To the west, on the border with the Corinthians, was Tripodiscus, a mountainous city built on the eastern slopes of Geraneia, possibly near the present-day location of Hani.
Due to limited space and pressure from powerful neighbors, the Megarians resorted to founding numerous colonies. During the second Greek colonization period, the Megarians established many colonies in Eastern Thrace, the Propontis, the Black Sea, and Sicily. In Sicily, they founded the first colony, Megara Hyblaea, followed by Selinus and Heraclea Minoa. In Eastern Thrace, the most significant Megarian colonies were Selymbria, Mesembria, and Nauplchoi on the shores of the Black Sea, as well as Byzantium, which evolved into the capital of the Byzantine Empire at the Bosporus Strait.
Opposite Byzantium, the Megarians founded Chalcedon, and on the southern shores of the Black Sea, they established the notable colony of Heraclea Pontica.
On the shores of the Propontis, they founded Astacus, which developed into a strong city overtime under the name Nicomedia. The Megarians also colonized the distant Crimea Peninsula, establishing the cities of Chersonesus Taurica and Callatis in present-day Romania.
Significant Megarians
Many significant personalities of ancient Greece originated from Megara, including the eminent engineer Eupalinos, whose notable work was the Eupalinian aqueduct in Samos. The philosopher Euclid the Megarian and the renowned elegiac poet Theognis the Megarian also hailed from Megara. Additionally, the great Latin epic poet Virgil passed away in Megara.
Archidamus II (Ancient Greek: Ἀρχίδᾱμος, Ionian-Attic: Ἀρχίδημος; the name consists of two parts — (1) “άρχή,” “άρχω” — “to rule,” “to lead,” “to govern,” and (2) “δήμος” — “country,” “territory,” “people,” literally meaning “ruler of the country” or “leader of the people”) — was a Spartan king (476 or 469–427 BCE) and military commander of the 5th century BCE from the Eurypontid dynasty. He was the son of Zeuxidamus and the grandson of King Leotychidas II.
The beginning of Archidamus II’s reign was marked by a devastating earthquake, which the Spartan helots exploited by initiating a rebellion.
In this critical situation, Archidamus made decisions that ultimately saved the state.
Archidamus II gained significant renown as the commander-in-chief of the allied Spartan forces in the Peloponnesian League against Athens. Initially, the king opposed the war, considering Sparta unprepared for armed conflict with the Athenian naval alliance. However, he led the Spartans in several campaigns into Attica from 431 to 428 BCE.
Modern historians have varying assessments of his actions. Some deem them erroneous, while others see a calculated strategy. Archidamus proved to be a military leader capable of adapting strategies based on circumstances. Initially, he sought to force the Athenians into peaceful negotiations by exerting increasing pressure.
Failing to achieve success, Archidamus invaded Attica, hoping to compel the Athenians into a decisive battle that would end the war. Only Pericles‘ unconventional tactics, deviating from tradition, saved the Athenians from disaster. Nevertheless, Archidamus did everything possible to sow discontent among the Athenians with Pericles’ actions—the political and military rival of the Spartan king.
He aimed to weaken the enemy’s army and their resolve to continue the war. During the final campaigns, he sought to demonstrate the incompetence of Athens in protecting its allies and fostered anti-Athenian uprisings. The first stage of the Peloponnesian War is named the Archidamian War after the Spartan king.
Archidamus II’s Origin and Rise to Power
Archidamus hailed from the royal Eurypontid lineage. His father, Zeuxidamus, was the son of King Leotychidas II. After Zeuxidamus’ death, Leotychidas married for the second time. In this union, a daughter named Lampito was born, whom the king betrothed to his grandson Archidamus. Close-kin marriages were a common phenomenon in the families of Spartan kings, possibly aimed at preserving accumulated wealth within the royal house.
According to another version, in Sparta, upon the death of an heir before ascending the throne, their children were excluded from the line of succession. The next eldest son or the husband of the sole daughter, became the heir. To secure the reign of his grandson, Leotychidas married him to his only daughter, Lampito. Through Leotychidas, Archidamus played host to the xenos Pericles. The hospitality-brotherhood alliance, proxenia, was forged between Leotychidas and Pericles’ father Xanthippus during the joint Greek fleet campaign to aid the Ionian Greeks at Mycale in 479 BCE.
In 476 BCE, Leotychidas was caught accepting a bribe, leading him to flee Sparta. Whether he was deposed from the throne after his semi-voluntary exile is unknown. Pausanias claimed that, after Leotychidas’ flight, Archidamus assumed royal authority. Diodorus Siculus wrote that Archidamus took power after Leotychidas’ death in 469 BCE. It is likely that Leotychidas continued to be officially recognized as king until his death. However, the question of the date of Archidamus’ ascension remains unresolved in contemporary historiography.
Family
In his first marriage to his half-aunt Lampito, whom Plutarch described as a “remarkable and worthy woman,” Archidamus had a son named Agis. He succeeded to the throne after Archidamus’ death around 427 BCE. Lampito herself passed away before Archidamus. After her death, the king remarried.
Archidamus’ second wife was a representative of the aristocratic Eupolia family. The marriage took place around 445 BCE. According to Theophrastus, the ephors were dissatisfied with the king’s choice due to the bride’s short stature, imposing a fine on Archidamus II. Historian S. Hodkinson considered Archidamus’ marriage to a representative of a wealthy family a classic example of a dynastic union. From Eupolia, Archidamus had a son named Agesilaus, who became king after Agis, and a daughter named Cynisca. It is possible that Cynisca was Archidamus’ daughter from Lampito.
Earthquake in Sparta, the Helot Uprising, and the Third Messenian War
In 465 BCE, a devastating earthquake struck Sparta. Diodorus Siculus mentioned 20 thousand casualties. In this critical situation, the young king made the only correct decision: he donned his armor, sounded the alarm as if the city were under attack, gathered armed Spartiates around him, and led them outside the city.
Helots, situated in an intermediate position between serfs and slaves, sought to capitalize on the situation. According to ancient sources, they even considered launching an attack on the capital. However, upon discovering that the surviving Spartiates were organized by Archidamus into a formidable army, they refrained from the assault. Instead, the helots seized several fortresses and fortified locations in Laconia and Messenia, marking the onset of the Third Messenian War.
The war endured until 458 or 455 BCE, and historians have no doubt about Archidamus actively participating in it. His absence from the Spartans’ campaign to Doris and the subsequent Battle of Tanagra in 457 BCE is attributed to the need for a more experienced commander from the royal house. Perhaps Archidamus advocated for peace with Athens, leading to the appointment of another military leader for the expedition.
Between the Third Messenian War and the Archidamian War
Ancient sources scarcely mention Archidamus in the context of events occurring between the conclusion of the Spartan war with the helots and the commencement of the war with Athens in 432-431 BCE. He might have contributed to restoring order in Corinth during the internal strife between the aristocratic and democratic factions.
After the devastating earthquake and the war with the Helots, Archidamus reformed the Spartan army due to a significant reduction in the number of Spartiates. He incorporated perioeci as hoplites, altering the army’s structure and organization. Instead of the previous mora-based formation, the Spartan military adopted the obes.
Plutarch recounts several stories related to Archidamus’s life. Particularly, he retells a conversation between the Spartan king and the disgraced Athenian politician Thucydides, son of Melesias: “Once, Spartan king Archidamus asked him [Thucydides] who was more skilled in wrestling, he or Pericles. ‘When I throw him in wrestling,’ replied Thucydides, ‘he says that he did not fall, and by this, he turns out to be the victor and convinces those who saw it.’”
Plutarch also attributes several sayings to Archidamus, the authenticity of which historians question. According to one version, Archidamus was one of the most influential opponents of the return of another Spartan king, Pleistoanax, from exile. Pleistoanax could only return to Sparta after Archidamus’s death.
Archidamian War
Before the War
The war between Sparta and Athens had been looming for an extended period. The delicate balance could have persisted if not for the persistent demands of Corinth and Megara, dissatisfied with Athens’ actions and external policies, to commence hostilities. In 432 BCE, Spartans invited both Athenians and their allies to a meeting. After both sides expressed their views, Spartan representatives withdrew for a consultation, where Archidamus addressed the assembly. The Spartan king adopted a cautious and rational stance on declaring war.
Archidamus emphasized the protracted nature of the potential conflict: “I fear lest this war should be to our children what it has been to ourselves.” Although Archidamus believed that the strengths of both sides were roughly equal, Athens possessed several advantages. Dealing with a distant land (with experienced sailors well-equipped for war) where the people were wealthy, the treasury full, and possessing more ships, cavalry, weapons, and manpower than anywhere else in Greece, not to mention numerous allies, made it unwise to hastily initiate a war.
Archidamus questioned, “What can we rely on? Not on our navy? But here we are inferior to the Athenians, and if we begin to build ships and prepare crews, it will take time. Or perhaps on financial resources? But we already lack money, our treasury is empty, and gathering private funds will not be easy.” Simultaneously, Archidamus was not enticed by the possibility of avoiding war. He believed in delaying its onset through various means: “I do not propose shutting our eyes to the harm done to our allies by the Athenians and refraining from exposing the evil designs of our enemies. I advise only not to take up arms yet, but first to send embassies with complaints, not openly threatening war, but also not showing readiness to make concessions. Meanwhile, we ourselves should prepare for war.”
According to the king, embassies could secure some concessions, thereby strengthening Sparta’s position before the war’s commencement. The king also proposed a strategy for the impending war. He believed that the undefended land of Attica, vulnerable to the strong Spartan army, could become the leverage for Athens to accept Sparta’s terms. Perhaps Thucydides, in Archidamus’s speech, conveys a collective representation of all Spartans seeking to postpone the war, recognizing its consequences. Archidamus’s speech in Thucydides’ “History” creates a thematic parallel to Pericles’ words. Both statesmen, from opposing perspectives, evaluate the situation. In the speeches of Archidamus and Sthenelaidas, contradictions between the “peace” and “war” factions, kings, and ephors in Sparta can be discerned.
Despite Archidamus’s arguments, the bellicose position of the ephor Sthenelaidas prevailed. This stance was largely influenced by Corinth’s ultimatum, stating that if war did not commence, Corinth would withdraw from the Peloponnesian League. The majority of the council voted in favor of initiating hostilities. Over the course of a year, both sides prepared for war. Among other measures, the Spartans sent envoys to the Delphic Oracle, seeking the god’s advice on whether to start the war or not. The Pythia responded: “If they wage war with all their might, they will prevail, and he [Apollo]—whether invoked or uninvoked—will be on their side.”
Campaign of 431 BCE
In 431 BCE, a significant force of Spartans and allies under Archidamus’s command gathered at the Isthmus of Corinth. Before the campaign’s onset, Archidamus sent the envoy Melesippus to Athens. Athenians, influenced largely by Pericles’ position, dismissed the Spartan without even hearing him, ordering him to leave Attica within a day. Archidamus’s army initially marched towards Plataea, an Athenian-allied city in Boeotia.
After plundering the area, it turned towards Attica. The invasion began in the region of the border fortress of Enoe.
Here, the Peloponnesians camped and prepared for a siege. In describing the events, Thucydides uses almost every synonym for denoting tardiness. Against this backdrop, discontent began to brew in the Spartan army. Archidamus was reproached for “waging war sluggishly,” failing to exploit the opportunity for a swift advance, and showing favor towards the enemy. Meanwhile, Athenians transported their most valuable possessions within the city walls. Modern historians see strategic calculation in such actions. Archidamus did not want to drive the enemy to desperation through the devastation of fields. On the contrary, he sought to diminish their desire to resist, fostering peaceful initiatives among the Athenian populace.
After the unsuccessful siege of Enoe, Archidamus’s army began ravaging Attica. Initially heading towards Eleusis and the Thriasio Plain, it then camped near Acharnae. The Spartans devastated Attica, causing predictable discontent among the Athenians. Archidamus aimed to force the enemy into battle. The prolonged presence of the Spartan army in Attica had a psychological impact. Acharnae was in close proximity to Athens, and the city’s residents, including evacuated Acharnians, could witness Archidamus destroying their fields and homes from the city walls.
They blamed Pericles for everything. It was challenging for him to prevent the people from acting recklessly. Even before the invasion, according to Plutarch, the Athenian politician promised that if Archidamus deliberately preserved his properties from devastation, they would become state property. Polybius wrote that Pericles handed over his suburban properties to the state before the invasion, preventing Archidamus from compromising him. The Athenian strategist was forced to delay the convening of the People’s Assembly, where Athenians might decide on a battle.
According to modern historians, Archidamus’s actions were well thought out. Plundering the fields could compel the Athenians to leave behind their impregnable walls and engage in a battle they would likely lose, prompting them to consider peace. It also diminished the authority and influence of Pericles. Historian E. Bledov suggests that Pericles not only understood the plans of the Spartan king but, through actions detrimental to his own popularity, managed to save the city from inevitable defeat.
Soon, Archidamus was forced to leave Attica. According to one version, this was connected to a naval expedition undertaken by the Athenians with 100 ships, 1000 hoplites, and 400 archers on board, which sailed to the shores of the Peloponnese. Another version suggests that the Spartans ran out of provisions.
Campaign of 430 BCE
The following year, the Spartan army, led by Archidamus, once again embarked on a campaign into Attica. According to Thucydides, they plundered the coastal regions of the area for 40 days. Simultaneously, Athens mobilized a powerful fleet and sent it to the shores of the Peloponnese. Archidamus’s campaign coincided with the onset of the plague epidemic. The crowded conditions forced the population to seek refuge behind city walls, resulting in a high number of casualties. The people were resentful of Pericles, whom they blamed for “herding the rural population into the city walls, neglecting such a multitude of people and watching as people, confined like cattle, infect each other, without giving them the opportunity to change their situation and breathe fresh air.”
Terrified by reports of the plague-induced disasters, the Spartans decided to leave Attica and return home.
Campaigns of 429 and 428 BCE
In 429 BCE, the Spartan army headed not to Attica but to Plataea. Historians explain this decision by the plague in Athens. Several reasons could have led the Spartans to choose this direction: the city’s strategic importance, its long-standing alliance with Athens, and possible diplomatic pressure from Thebes, which sought to subjugate all of Boeotia. This campaign reveals a shift in Spartan war tactics. Instead of once again devastating Attica, they attacked an allied city to Athens.
In 428 BCE, the Spartan army under Archidamus’s command again campaigned in Attica. Soldiers ravaged the fields until they ran out of provisions. It’s worth noting that the Spartans had previously devastated Attica twice, and this campaign had more of a psychological than an economic impact. The weakening of Athens due to Spartan actions and the plague led to the Mytilenean Revolt in Lesbos.
In the subsequent years, in 427 BCE, the Spartan army was led by Cleomenes, and in 426 BCE, by Archidamus’s son, Agis II. Considering that ancient sources no longer mention Archidamus, modern historians infer that the Spartan king likely died around 427 BCE.
Evaluations
When discussing Archidamus, the ancient Greek historian Thucydides highlighted his reputation as a prudent and thoughtful individual. The king’s caution is affirmed by criticisms of his deliberateness. Historian Donald Kagan noted Archidamus’s wisdom during his speech before deciding to initiate the Peloponnesian War.
The Spartan king astutely assessed the balance of power and all the dangers of the impending conflict. In this context, he can be regarded as a politician “equal to Pericles.” Historian Westlake observed discrepancies in the speeches attributed to Archidamus by Thucydides before and during the war. Based on this, he considered the king an “ordinary Spartan.”
Among historians, there is no consensus on evaluating Archidamus’s actions during the war with Athens. Some consider them erroneous, while others see a subtle calculation. He aimed to prompt the Athenians to initiate peace negotiations, using the tactic of increasing pressure. Failing to achieve success, he was forced to commence the invasion and plunder of Attica. Archidamus hoped to compel the Athenians into a battle that would conclude the war. Only Pericles’s unconventional tactics saved the Athenians from disaster.
Nevertheless, Archidamus did everything possible to sow dissatisfaction among the Athenians with the actions of his political and military rival, maximizing the weakening not only of the army but also of the enemy’s determination to continue hostilities. The actions of the Spartan king, although not achieving all the set goals, sparked a political crisis in Athens, primarily impacting Pericles.
Historian Bledov acknowledges Archidamus’s ability to adapt the strategy of military operations depending on circumstances. In the initial stage, he sought to encourage the Athenians toward peace. Subsequently, Archidamus did everything possible to force them into battle and trigger an internal political crisis in Athens. During the final campaigns, he aimed to demonstrate the incompetence of Athens in protecting its allies and fostered anti-Athenian uprisings.
Contemporary sources do not dispute Archidamus’s reputation as an excellent military commander.
Pausanias (Ancient Greek: Παυσανίας; b. 447 BC–d. 385-84 BC, Tegea, Arcadia, Greece) was a Spartan king from the Agiad dynasty (Royal Spartan dynasty), the son of Pleistoanax. He ruled during his father’s exile from 445 to 426 BCE (under the guardianship of his uncle, Cleomenes) and after his father’s death from 409 or 408–07 to 395 BCE (this time independently). Pausanias commanded the Spartan army during the campaign in Attica in 405 BCE, in the final stage of the Peloponnesian War.
Later, he led the opposition against the overly powerful admiral Lysander, took command of a new campaign in Attica, and succeeded in restoring the democratic regime in Athens (403 BCE). During the Corinthian War, he moved to Boeotia to assist Lysander but did not participate in the Battle of Haliartus, where Lysander was defeated and killed (395 BCE). Because of this, Pausanias was sentenced to death in absentia; he fled to Tegea, where he later died.
In exile, Pausanias wrote a speech about the laws of Lycurgus, in which, according to one version, he proposed abolishing or limiting the powers of the Spartan institution of the ephorate. His sons were the Spartan kings Agesipolis I and Cleombrotus I. In historiography, Pausanias is associated with the restoration of the democratic system in Athens and Sparta’s abandonment of an expansionist foreign policy throughout Greece, a policy advocated by Lysander. Scholars’ opinions on whether Pausanias was a principled opponent of tyranny or simply fought against Lysander for influence differ.
Pausanias’ Origin and Early Years
Pausanias belonged to the Agiad dynasty, one of the two royal houses of Sparta, tracing their lineage back to the mythological hero Heracles. He was the son of King Pleistoanax and the grandson of Pausanias, the regent during the reign of King Pleistarchus, who defeated the Persians at Plataea (an ancient Greek city-state) in 479 BCE.
Pausanias’s birth date is unknown. The German researcher H. Schaefer suggested that the future king might have been born shortly before 447 BCE. In 445 BCE, Pleistoanax was suspected of taking bribes from Athens, Sparta’s wartime adversary at the time, and was sentenced to a massive fine. He went into exile, and the royal authority passed to his son.
Due to Pausanias’s youth, he was placed under the guardianship of his uncle, Pleistoanax’s brother Cleomenes, who led campaigns and served as the high priest. In 426 BCE, Pausanias’s father returned to Sparta and was reinstated. After his father’s death in 409 or 408–07 BCE, Pausanias once again became king.
His First Campaign in Attica
March of the Spartan army across the mountains. Image: Public Domain.
When Pausanias finally came to power, Sparta and its leading Peloponnesian League were once again at war with Athens. In 405 BCE, the Spartan admiral Lysander destroyed the Athenian fleet at Aegospotami. This marked the first surviving accounts of Pausanias: the king led an army, including Spartans and other Peloponnesians (except the Argives), besieging Athens jointly with Lysander and his co-ruler Agis II from the Eurypontid dynasty.
The assault did not succeed, and the kings withdrew to winter quarters. Only the fleet remained to block Piraeus, cutting off supply routes. The next year (404 BCE), the Athenians agreed to peace: they dissolved their maritime alliance, demolished the Long Walls, recognized Spartan hegemony, and saw a pro-Spartan oligarchic government established in their city, later known as the “Thirty Tyrants.”
In the final years of the war, Lysander became the most influential politician in Sparta. By supporting tyrannical regimes in various Greek cities, he effectively established his executive authority system, posing a threat to the Spartan political structure. Opposition to this figure emerged, led by Pausanias. According to Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus, the king envied Lysander, but scholars are willing to consider that Pausanias had principled considerations—such as the desire to save his homeland from turmoil and improve its reputation among other Hellenes.
He openly opposed Lysander in 403 BCE, during the civil war unfolding in Attica. By then, the “Thirty Tyrants” had sought refuge in Eleusis (the city in Athens), democracy supporters were entrenched in Piraeus, and another oligarchic government—the Board of Ten—emerged in Athens. Both oligarchic regimes sought help from Sparta, and Lysander went to Attica with the authority of the harmost, initiating the formation of a mercenary army. In the case of success, he could have become the independent ruler of Athens, which his opponents could not tolerate.
Pausanias proposed sending a Spartan expedition to Attica, which was to be led by one of the kings. Thanks to the support of Agis and three out of five ephors, this proposal was accepted, and Pausanias received the command and authority to rectify Athenian affairs. Plutarch writes that, to achieve his goal, the king declared his intention to continue Lysander’s policy of “assisting tyrants against the people.” Subsequent events revealed that this was a clear deception: Pausanias, merely for appearances, attacked the Piraeus Democrats, after which he organized negotiations between them and the Board of Ten regime. The parties reconciled, burying recent disputes and the crimes associated with them.
Overall, Pausanias’s policy in Attica was decidedly anti-tyrannical. This was linked to the king’s sympathy for the Piraeus democrats and their leader Thrasybulus, his reluctance to “strengthen the tyrannical power of impious people, covering Sparta with indelible disgrace” (words of geographer Pausanias), and the desire to weaken Lysander’s position. The latter was forced to yield to the king, who held a higher position in the military hierarchy and enjoyed the support of the ephors.
The navarch was excluded from the negotiation process, Pausanias compelled the members of the Board of Ten to leave Athens, and in 401 BCE, Attica was reintegrated under the rule of a democratic government. This signaled Sparta’s demonstrative abandonment of an expansionist policy and could be interpreted as a conciliatory gesture toward allies.
Trial and the Corinthian War
Lysander could not easily accept defeat. According to one version, it was at his initiative that, upon his return to Sparta, Pausanias was brought to trial on charges of treason. The pretext for the lawsuit was the death in battle against the Piraeus democrats of several high-ranking Spartiates, including two polemarchs. Presumably, the trial took place in the winter of 403–402 BCE.
Half of the sitting gerontes (14 out of 28, “gerousia”) and King Agis supported the accusation (possibly due to Pausanias’s violation of agreements made by the kings before the Attic campaign), but the votes of all ephors and the second half of the gerontes ensured an acquittal. Historians see in this almost equal division of votes confirmation of Lysander’s immense influence and the split of the Spartan elite into several roughly equal power blocs. To better understand Pausanias’s trial, the ephors usually supported weak kings.
Nothing is known about the king’s involvement in events over the following years. In particular, surviving sources do not report whether Pausanias commanded campaigns in Elis undertaken by the Spartans in 402-400 BCE (H. Schaefer considers this command quite probable). In 399 BCE, when Agis II died, Pausanias intervened in the dispute over the royal title, claimed by the deceased’s son and brother, Leotychidas and Agesilaus, respectively.
Leotychidas was considered the son of Queen Timaea by Alcibiades, but Agis, before his death, acknowledged him as his blood son; nevertheless, Agesilaus asserted his right to power as the uncontested Eurypontid. Since he was a friend of Lysander, Pausanias supported Leotychidas but suffered defeat; Agesilaus became king.
In 395 BCE, the Corinthian War began, during which Athens, Argos, Thebes, and Corinth joined forces against Sparta, receiving support from Persia. In Sparta, it was decided to send two armies into Boeotia, commanded by Lysander and Pausanias. They were supposed to unite near the city of Haliartus either according to a pre-arranged plan or based on a letter sent by Lysander to Pausanias during the campaign but ended up in the hands of the enemy. In any case, the meeting did not take place. Pausanias, according to one version of ancient tradition, delayed on the way to Arcadian Tegea, awaiting reinforcements from allies.
Lysander, at Haliartus, attempted to take the city by storm without waiting for the king or immediately clashed with the Theban army; in the battle, the Spartans were routed, and their commander perished. Pausanias, appearing at Haliartus a day later, chose not to engage in battle. When the Athenians came to aid the Thebans, the king negotiated a truce with the enemy, receiving the bodies of the fallen Spartan warriors in exchange for a commitment to leave Boeotia. According to Xenophon, during the retreat, “the Spartans were disheartened, while the Thebans treated them extremely arrogantly, forcing anyone who deviated even a step from the road onto someone’s land to return to the road under blows.”
In Sparta, Pausanias faced trial once again. He was charged with the delay at Haliartus, concluding a truce instead of attempting to retrieve the bodies from the enemy, and excessive leniency towards the Piraeus Democrats, displayed eight years prior. The king did not appear at the trial. He was sentenced to death, but before the decision was finalized, Pausanias fled to Tegea. Presumably, the trial and the harsh sentence were concessions by the Spartan elite to numerous supporters of Lysander. However, apparently, no one wanted to execute the king, so he managed to escape. The royal power passed to Pausanias’s elder son, Agesipolis, with his closest relative, Aristodemus, becoming his guardian.
Later, rumors circulated in Greece that Pausanias intentionally delayed Haliartus to harm Lysander.
Pausanias in Exile
Pausanias spent the following years in the city of Tegea in Arcadia, not far from the borders of Laconia. According to Plutarch, he lived “as a suppliant for protection on sacred land belonging to Athena.” Apparently, no one attempted to bring the former king back to his homeland and enforce the sentence. Pausanias must have retained many influential supporters, and his execution could have destabilized the situation in Sparta.
Xenophon mentions Pausanias in connection with the events of 385–384 BCE when Agesipolis undertook a campaign against the neighboring city of Mantinea, near Tegea. After the surrender of the city, 60 of its citizens, “supporters of the Argives and leaders of democracy,” faced the death penalty, but Pausanias persuaded his son to settle for exile. Xenophon notes that the former king “was on very friendly terms with the leaders of the Mantinean democracy,” and historians highlight Pausanias’s sympathies towards Democrats in various situations.
During this period of his life, the former king turned to literature. Strabo cites information on this subject from the Ephor of Cyme: “Pausanias, after being exiled due to the hatred of the Eurypontids—the other royal house—composed a speech on the laws of Lycurgus (who belonged to the house that expelled Pausanias); in this speech, he talks about the oracles given to Lycurgus regarding the majority of laws.” The text has survived in corrupted form, and the words “due to hatred” are an editorial insertion made for clarity. In the late 19th century, another version of Strabo’s text was discovered, indicating that Pausanias composed a speech “against the laws of Lycurgus.”
Researchers’ opinions on the correctness of this formulation and the political orientation of the exile’s composition differ. Karl Julius Beloch was confident that Pausanias could not criticize the laws of Lycurgus, revered by contemporary Sparta, as his goal in writing the speech was to obtain permission to return home. Eduard Meyer believed that these laws corresponded to the character of the king, and he did not criticize but defended them: “From the state that sent him into exile and trampled the old order, he appealed to the legislator to whom this state owed its power.”
Supporters of the hypothesis of criticism of the laws refer to Aristotle’s account in “Politics.” “Sometimes a coup aims to make only partial changes in the state structure, for example, to establish or abolish some position. Thus, according to some, in Lacedaemon, Lysander tried to abolish the royal power, and King Pausanias—the ephorate.” These words may imply that Pausanias had a critical view of the Spartan political system and proposed either to eliminate the authority of the ephors as tyrannical or to subordinate this institution to the kings. However, many researchers are convinced that Aristotle is not talking about King Pausanias but his grandfather. The former king died in Tegea from an illness, apparently shortly after 385–384 BCE.
Pausanias’ Family
Pausanias had two sons, Agesipolis I and Cleombrotus I, who reigned in Sparta from 396 to 380 and 380 to 371 BCE, respectively. The name of their mother is unknown. H. Schaefer dates the birth of Agesipolis to around 410 BCE, and Pausanias’s marriage, accordingly, a short time before that.
Sayings attributed to Pausanias, as recorded by Plutarch:
When Pausanias, son of Pleistoanax, was asked why the Spartans do not allow changes to ancient laws, he replied, ‘Because laws should dominate over people, not people over laws.’
Banished from Sparta and residing in Tegea, Pausanias still praised the Lacedaemonians. Someone asked him, ‘Why did you not stay in Sparta and flee from there?’ ‘Because,’ replied Pausanias, ‘physicians are usually found not near the healthy but near the sick.’
Evaluations of Personality and Activities
Researchers note that in 403 BCE, Pausanias saved Athenian democracy. There is no consensus on his motives. E. Meyer sees Pausanias as a principled opponent of tyranny, stating, “Sparta’s behavior towards Athens is the most glorious page in its history. For this, Athens, just like the whole world, must thank the most worthy king from the Agiad house.” Sometimes, this judgment is characterized as somewhat idealized. L. Pechatnova poses a rhetorical question:
“How can we know whose side the king would have taken if Lysander had supported the Piraeus democrats instead of the tyrants of Eleusis?” This same researcher sees Pausanias as the representative of the interests of “the moderate, if not conservative, part of Spartan citizenship, which opposed the creation of the Spartan state as conceived and organized by Lysander.” This “faction” was likely advocating for the withdrawal of Spartan garrisons with harmosts from other poleis, a return to traditional foreign policy, and a limitation on the influx of money into Sparta from other regions, which threatened a future split within the community.
As a hypothetical author of a reform program, Pausanias could be placed alongside his opponent Lysander. Both proposed changes to the political structure of Sparta, but the navarch was too radical and the king was too conservative. Neither could garner the support of the majority of citizens. With the death of Lysander and the condemnation of Pausanias, another stage in the internal political struggle in Sparta came to an end. The victor was Agesilaus, who combined strengthening the authority of the royal power with expansionism in the spirit of Lysander.
Panoply was the name of the set of armor worn specifically by Hoplites and other heavy soldiers in ancient Greece. The word is “panoplia” in Ancient Greek and it literally means “complete armor,” from pan “all” and hoplon “weapon.” It actually meant the complete arsenal of gear used by the Hoplites, the citizen-soldiers of Ancient Greece who fought in phalanx formation.
The panoply of armor and weapons used by the Hoplites.
The Hoplite’s full arsenal of Panoply included both offensive and defensive pieces of equipment. These were typically a short sword, a long spear, a large helmet, a mid-sized shield, and a modest breastplate. The weight of the whole panoply of armor and weapon wore by the Hoplites was around 48 to 77 pounds (22–35 kg).
From a Greek workshop in South Italy, 500–490 BC.” class=”wp-image-43725″/>Greaves, Corinthian helmet, and spear tip from the tomb of Denda. The name of the warrior (Denda) is engraved on the left greave. From a Greek workshop in South Italy, 500–490 BC.
In ancient Rome, after a victory, the captured weapons were decoratively placed under the armor of the defeated commander. The word panoply was later used to describe the decorative trophies and themes seen in the friezes of numerous Roman structures. In the centuries that followed, these designs became popular wall decorations.
During the early modern period (c. 1500–1800), the military officers called back on this ancient Greek term and put it into reuse to refer to a full suit of plate armor covering the whole body of a soldier.
Modern Times
However, it didn’t end there; later in modern times, the term “panoply” has evolved to mean any comprehensive or extensive collection of things because of its original meaning of a “complete series of various components” in ancient Greek. Examples today include anything such as “panoply of flags” or “panoply of ideas“.
In Renaissance and Baroque art, panoply was a decorative composition of elements of ancient armor, shields, weapons, and flags (reminiscent of the ancient Roman tradition mentioned above).
The Panoply carved in stone, was used as an element of decoration on facades and interiors. It often appeared in coats of arms and military decorations.
Chares of Lindos (before 305 BC–c. 280 BC) was a Greek sculptor who was trained by the famous Lysippos. He was born on the island of Rhodes. In 282 BC, he commemorated Rhodes’ triumph against the Macedonian invasion in 305 BC by erecting the Colossus of Rhodes, a massive bronze monument to the sun god Helios and the city’s patron deity. The statue, which had been considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, was destroyed by an earthquake in 226 BC.
There are several theories about what happened to Chares, including that he committed suicide because of a defect in his work and that he became bankrupt. Perhaps another sculptor by the name of Laches finished his work.
The Greek sculptor Chares of Lindos worked around the turn of the fourth and third centuries BC. Lindos was a fishing village and former municipality of ancient Greece located on the island of Rhodes.
Several of Lysippos’ students eventually made their way to Rhodes, where they established a sculptural school that rivaled even that of Alexandria (Egypt) and Pergamon (Turkey).
One of them, Chares, in the early third century BC, sculpted the Colossus of Rhodes, a massive monument of Helios (the sun god, patron deity of the Rhodes Island), which stood at the entrance to the port of Rhodes until it was destroyed by an earthquake 56 years later. Its ruins were still visible in the Roman author Pliny the Elder’s day (c. 23 AD–79 AD). The statue was 105 feet in height (32 m).
Pliny wrote this about the Colossus of Rhodes and Chares of Lindos:
But that which is by far the most worthy of our admiration, is the colossal statue of the Sun, which stood formerly at Rhodes, and was the work of Chares the Lindian, a pupil of the above-named Lysippus; no less than 70 cubits in height. This statue 56 years after it was erected, was thrown down by an earthquake; but even as it lies, it excites our wonder and admiration. Few men can clasp the thumb in their arms, and its fingers are larger than most statues. Where the limbs are broken asunder, vast caverns are seen yawning in the interior. Within it, too, are to be seen large masses of rock, by the weight of which the artist steadied it while erecting it. It is said that it was 12 years before this statue was completed, and that 300 talents were expended upon it; a sum raised from the engines of warfare which had been abandoned by King Demetrius, when tired of the long-protracted siege of Rhodes.
According to Pliny, the Roman consul P. Lentulus donated a monumental head by Chares of Lindos to the Capitol in 57 BC. Lentulus actually dedicated two heads to the Capitol; the other was created by another sculptor called Decius who may have lived in the first century BC.
Pliny states that while Decius’ work was acclaimed, it was outdone by a statue carved by Chares, the sculptor of the Colossus of Rhodes, and brought to Rome by the consul Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther in 57 BC.
The Story of the Colossus of Rhodes
Colossus of Rhodes.
Around 290 BC (according to some sources, it was made between 294 and 282 BC), the people of Rhodes commissioned the bronze statue of the god Helios to commemorate their successful defense against an attack by the Macedonian ruler Demetrius I in 304 BC with the assistance of the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy I Soter. Demetrius I was the son of Antigonus who was a general of Alexander the Great.
With great pride, Chares of Lindos inscribed his creation:
“The colossus you are looking at is seventy cubits tall and was created by Chares, a native of Lindos.”
Chares’ creation was considered one of the ancient world’s greatest marvels. The statue was destroyed more than half a decade later in 226 BC. According to legend, an oracle forbade the Rhodians from restoring the Colossus to its former glory.
What Happened to the Ruins?
The monument lay in ruins for 984 years when the Saracens, who ruled the island at the time, sold the ruins to a Jewish trader from Edessa in 672 AD. He used 900 camels to carry the ruins.
Several myths claim that Chares died before his work was finished. In one story, he commits himself after discovering what he believed to be a fault in the statue. In another telling, Chares becomes bankrupt and kills himself when he underestimates the amount of material required to construct a bigger monument.
The narrative that Chares committed suicide before finishing the statue of the god Helios because the cost of the monument surpassed the monies acquired is told by Sextus Empiricus (in his book “Pros logikous,” 1.107, “Against the Logicians”), but it is very improbable. He claims that Laches of Lindos put the finishing touches on the monument instead of Chares of Lindos.
