Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below. Some took issue with the notion that the United States was the first democracy following ancient Greece. When I said 'the word democracy wouldn't be linked to another state for more than 2000 years,' that afaik is correct. Democratic practices did exist between ancient times and the American founding, and there were even local elections in America before the founding, as well as some democratic practices in England and smaller societies around Europe, but they almost entirely went by the name of republicanism. These other societies also practiced limited forms of democracy, and that was truer the bigger the society got. You could claim that some viking societies had meaningful (but still limited) democratic practices, for example, but they didn't have a state. That was also before modern nations. Nation-states at the time (with the very controversial exception of England after the 15th century) did not exist. So we're talking about societies that typically had fuzzy borders, a looser idea of who belonged within them and what their roles were as 'citizens,' no modern government state, and where the sovereign political authority is typically divine or an individual/family. Combine that with democratic practices being limited, and you have no state that was being called democratic until the U.S. founding. I chose my wording there carefully. Given all that, the main democratic breakthroughs the U.S. had were 1) Forming a nation (strict borders, concrete and firm law extending to all citizens within) with its own sovereign, secular government that is responsive to the people, 2) Those people were to hire and fire heads of state and top representatives, 3) Practicing this on a scale of a massive nation-state, with significant cultural and ethnic differences, where citizens across the nation have no way of knowing one another, but still had to trust one another with political power. So there was some contemporary precedent for what the U.S. did, but they also significantly experimented and innovated. Democracy and an impersonal secular state were thought to be impossible in a society on the scale of the U.S. It was thought that monarchies were best for large societies and that democracies/republics were controversially well-suited for small societies, and that even then those smaller political systems needed a mixed character in order to be stable (perhaps still a monarch or divine authority). 'Pure democracies' were thought to be entirely untenable, and tended to be associated with mob rule (a judgement that affected the Founders). To go into that last part further - the 'mixed character' model mainly came from Aristotle, through Polybius (Greek/Roman historian), and finally through Montesquieu's 'Spirit Of The Laws.' Aristotle said there were three forms of government: government by one, government by the few, government by the many (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) and that a mixed form of government was best - one that blended aspects of those three forms in its institutions. Montesquieu influentially wrote that those institutions should have limited power and have the ability to limit the powers of each other, now known as checks and balances. That influenced the Framers, who made the executive branch roughly correspond to the 'government by one,' the senate roughly 'government by few' and the house of reps roughly 'government by many.' That also inspired the checks and balances seen in the constitution. If you're wondering why I didn't cover mixed constitution theory in the video, I think it's interesting, but the interpretation in America is somewhat loose. It's a bit of a stretch to call the executive branch 'government by one,' I think even more of a stretch to call the house of reps 'government by many,' and it leaves out the judicial. More importantly, Madison's language of politics consisting of conflicting factions was seen as a more realistic update to the classical mixed constitution theory. Basically mixed constitution theory was seen as rigidly ideological, not realistic, and warring factions was seen as practical and realistic. Theory that could be usefully guide policy. I have to make decisions about what to include and what not to include for runtime purposes, and decided to relegate mixed constitution theory to the comments and just include Madison's factions in the video. - Ryan
It's also worth noting that what we know of Greece largely comes to us through Rome (as discussed by Prof Mary Beard). So what we know is limited to what Romans bothered to preserve and wanted to emphasise.
I feel like Ryan was the smart kid in class who didn't raise his hand to answer every question the teacher asked just to give the other students a chance.
If you're feeling pressured to produce more, know it's your own internal drive and not any expectation. It's always great to see a post from you, but each one is a gift. What you're putting into the world is great, and it's fine for it to happen on your time. None of us are going anywhere. Thank you for this one. :)
Thank you Ryan for this wonderful lesson on Democracy. The word Democracy is thrown around a lot today but I dare say that not many people understand it. This presentation certainly helped me understand more about how our version of democracy came to be.
lol it's bullshit., the USA has NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY. from the beginning,the founders put it on paper offically, that this federal government is a REPUBLIC. they never wanted a Democracy and DID NOT FOUND ONE.
NO. Cody is dead on. It is Ryan who failed in this video. Ok, yes, great historical info. Bit he dropped the ball in explaining how deliberate the Founders /Framers were in NOT making the US a democracy. Just look at how they invented the Senate. 2 votes for Rhode Island and Wyoming. Yet also 2 votes for California and Texas. They did it this way quite on purpose. To be ANTI-democratic. Why? As is famously said... "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner." As with the precise way they invented the Electoral College, it was done this way for the purpose of PROTECTING MINORITY INTEREST. The US govt is specifically structured as this blend of anti-democratic aspects along with democratic aspects. This is quite similar to the concept of Separation of Powers. It is a MISTAKE to give too much power to the People. The Constitution's greatest accomplishment was in how it balances power given to 'We the People' while simultaneously preventing 'Tyranny of the Majority.' If Ryan had done a better video, then you all would be able to understand that Cody nailed it.
Once again you made an incredible video. I never seen a better explanation of American democracy and democracy in general. I appreciate the fact that you take your time to make theses videos with care and avoid rushing them. Keep up the good work.
As a Greek, I would like to inform you that this stuff are mandatory in the Greek education system at 10 . 13. 16 and 18 years old. By the end of high school, you know this stuff by heart. Great video dude
although it makes sense that it would be pushed more in greece (we do similarly here in italy for the romans), but it baffles me that its not a thing in every 'democratic' state of the western world. But in reality, im not baffled at all. Democracy has a weakness: the competence of the masses. Distort the competence of the masses to be null, and confidence becomes the source of power instead. Which is exactly what one can observe every day everywhere the government is 'democratic'.
@@channelname1700 you are quite special. you pledge alligience to the flag with a speech every day at school. you know who else did that? hint: they had their right arm raised.
@@channelname1700 if my country wasn't patriotic for 1000 years now we would be called spain and speak spanish. You don't need a speech every morning to be patriotic and proud of your country. Cheers, from Portugal.
Hello Ryan. A historian of antiquity here. I always enjoy hearing your insight on politics and this video is no exception, but considering all of the efforts I spent on researching ancient political processes, I think I might have some remarks that could be of interests. - I think you have mistaken Thucydides the politician and the historian of the same name. This is a minor nit-pick but it also means that we should give more credibility to the claims on how Pericles governed over Athens - You have touched on this, but I think it does not come across clearly enough how widely criticized was the democratic system of Athens by its contemporaries and their immediate descendants. It is also disputable how competent the demos was at governing, and it certainly was not perceived as such by our sources, who often present Athens as some sort of cautionary tale, where the power was in the hands of the mob, commonly manipulated by unsavoury individuals (like Alcibiadies), making horrible decisions (like deciding on the Sicillian expedition). - It might be due to the time and topic constraints, but I got the sense the video is implying as if the Athenian democracy was an absolutely unique concept for the pre-modern era. This is not true. Democratic institutions on comparable scale to Athens existed way before the American Revolution. To name a few, Germanic tribes had a popular assembly for all freemen called Ting, the Slavs had Veche, and those were the primary govering bodies. The Swiss direct democracy can be traced to middle-ages. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had an assembly that decided on the matters of the state and technically any member could even veto the king (it was comprised of nobility, but having the title was incredibly common there - about 8% so not that far off the Athens). - One, in my opinion major, difference that you did not mention is how communitarian the Greek society was, compared to generally individualistic American one, which also reflected on the politics. This is especially vivid in the matters of religion - the enlightenment ideals of freedom in that regard for the Greeks would simply be criminal - punishable by death even, as it was the case with Socrates. Polis was not only the city and its surroundings, but primarily it was the political community - and within that community everyone was responsible for one another - which in turn meant it was possible to single non-conforming people or groups out, to avoid the wrath of the gods and secure the prosperity of the community. This is exactly what your founding fathers sought to prevent. Anyway, I do not think those critical remarks detract from your overall conclusions, which I feel is again interesting. All the best, and I await more videos.
Absolutely! I wrote up a pinned comment that included most the points you brought up here. I did try to hammer in at several points how widely criticized democracy as both in ancient times and at the time of the American founding. I also wrote about 60 pages of notes for this video (which translates to about 240 minutes of runtime), and have to decide what to include and what not to include. Of everything you said, the one thing I did want to talk about but just couldn't find a space for was comparing the individualistic nature of American democracy vs the communal nature of Athenian democracy. But how could I talk about that if I didn't talk about Aristotle's mixed constitution theory, or Montesquieu? You said I implied that there was nothing resembling democracy between Greece and America, but I really tried to imply the opposite. I just said that democratic states after Rome mostly went by the name of republics, and there wasn't a nation that called itself democratic until America. With the Thucydides mix-up yeah that regrettably just a mistake. Someone caught that a day after I uploaded this, and it almost made me take the video down and re-upload it to fix it, but I figured that it didn't detract from the main ideas of the piece. Edit: I figured out a way to just chop that line out of the piece. So, problem solved. Plutarch talked about two different people named Thucydides in his chapter on Pericles, and I didn't realize they were different people, which led to a factual mistake in the vid. - Ryan
@@realryanchapmanI am disappointed that you left out the many republicans sanghas or states of ancient India who later destroyed by monarchist Magadha kingdom which led to great Magadha empire, which ended with dissolution of Mouryan dynasty and Sunga dynasty of Magadha empire.
The only problem with a new Ryan Chapman video is that I hunger for more once it's done. Stellar work as usual. Both your topics and angles of approaching them never fail to be thorough and fascinating.
Thank you very much. As a European viewer, I really enjoy your videos as they seem well researched and calmly presented. In my opinion, they aid to understanding the US and its developement in a historical context for outsiders. Not only do I find your videos very interesting, I consider them therefore really helpful, as a compact yet thorough overview, so one does not have to spend a lot of time delving too deeply into the literary sources for one's self. I also very much enjoyed your presentations on other political and philosophical topics. Understand, that if a topic creates a lot of waves in US public (ref. to videos on free speech, 'wokeness' etc.), the ripples in the water can usually - with some delay - be felt in non-English speaking countries over here as well. It's not always easy to understand the roots of such developements from afar, so thank you for your work.
The US did not start with the uprisings of the first half of the 1770s as a Revolution of a new form of government. They had been running their own assemblies of propertied gentlemen for well over a century, with royal London appointed Governors as a check valve. The public became larger and larger as a poor man could aquire property in America by applying his trade or by clearing wilderness. Britain had centuries of royal v squire uprisings, provincial rebellions even civil wars. Once the war broke out in 1775, the new Congress that has formed only to treat with Parliament as a trade union might argue grievances with the bosses hit a full stalemate. Appeals were made to George III to mediate the conflict with Tory Parliament. Instead George III sent an invasion force of regulars to "put down the riots" and hammer the subjects as they had Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the recently conquered provinces of Canada, India and the West Indies. This is when that simple Congress started debating concepts of what would replace the Colonial Royal government, since the local legislatures were now in open war with Royal Governors, their Royal American regiments and the British Armies and mercenaries. From 1776 to 1786 they simply tried running the states as they had as colonies, but without the Royal governors. The Congress acted as a United-States equal member assembly of ambassadors...like a UN or EU does today. By 1787 it was clear that just renaming colonies to "states" and continuing with gentry colonial government without the Royalists was not going to work. So the US created a hybrid version of a popular assembly based on people, a member state assembly and an executive elected by that hybrid math using one purpose non politicians (the Electoral College....a congress of non government people elected just to decide on a president, then disperse) The popular body (House of Reps) would be wilder and more innovative with short 2 year terms. The member body would be more elder statesmen selected by the states, 2 each, to become somewhat like the Lords or Royals checking the old Colonial assemblies. An executive that would act like a PM and King, but not be selected by the Congress of politicians, and therefore not their servant like a PM often is.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 True, but this misses the point. I served in the U.S. Navy for 8 years, and one thing I found in my travels abroad was that when the U.S. moves, the world is swept in its wake. This is not a statement of "lol, america wrecks everyone, get rekt world" - it is a statement of fact that the U.S. public does not want to accept responsibility for. The public lives in a dream land where they can exist in isolate from global consequences for their votes in a contest of humble-flexing hedonists. I walked in the craters of our bombs that were the result of people making stupid decisions where the media hadn't flat-out psy-opped them. Now, one might argue that we could just humble ourselves or sabotage our own capacities - but this is no solution. The U.S. has the economic envy of the world - vast arable land reserves, pure and plentiful ores for all strategic metals and energy resources, river networks to interconnect it all, and unparallelled access to warm water coastline for ports. The U.S. has unquestionable command over the planet everywhere but Russia - which is its own heartland lacking the convenient river network and warm water shoreline, which basically means it can only be a pocket of the world able to tell us No and make us pay dearly for insisting otherwise. Whether we want to hold this position in global politics, or not, is irrelevant. It is our responsibility to govern the use of the most powerful geostrategic location in a just and reasonable manner. When we let insane people begin making our policies, we give them authority over the power this nation holds. Someone will always wield the power this nation holds. If insane european turbopoor ideas start taking hold and being advanced by frauds - we have to recognize that for the power grab it is - not just an effort to rule our lives - but, more probably, an effort to rule the lives of those abroad. A single Nimitz or Ford class carrier brings with it more aircraft and ordnance than most nations have in their entire air force and one of our pilots has more flight time than all of theirs combined. Americans do not understand how fundamentally incapable most nations are of resisting us. Just look at how many assume we can dictate the outcome of the Ukrainian conflict. The cold war was over 30 years ago and most people have grown so accustomed to the U.S. walking in and doing whatever it wants that the idea the largest rival military force on the planet could possibly win on their own doorstep is discounted as their propaganda. These people are in for a rude awakening - but the point I am making is that the cost of that awakening is an extremely costly war (for all sides).
@Aim54Delta you seem to contradict your own point towards the end there? So the US is very powerful, so much so that most cannot resist US will. But everyone is in for a rude awakening? As in if the US gets into war, it's not as strong and capable as it seems? Confusing. How are individual Americans supposed to "accept that responsibility"? I think a lot of this stuff is outside the influence of votes or similar. Doesn't mean people shouldn't still pay attention and engage, but it's not that simple. Ironically the US is in the position it is today because Europeans couldn't stop invading and killing each other. The US might have been bound for great power status eventually anyway but WW2 and its outcomes can be linked to the US position today. People seem to forget that Americans for a long time were not interested in foreign wars and entanglements. They assume that the attitude of NeoCons of the 2000s is like the historical attitude of Americans and its not. Idk how much I buy into the idea of the US having global responsibility and expecting the American people to ensure that the world is a nice little place for everyone or even the majority of people. I just don't think it's possible for the US to be as powerful and influential as it is and expect things to go too much differently than they have. Don't get me wrong, I think things can be improved around the edges by better leadership and a more informed public but alot of the same things I think still would have happened. At this point, the idea of the US just disengaging from the world stage is a non starter, it's too late for that. I would like for that to be possible. I suspect alot of the foreigners that claim to want the US to do that won't actually be that happy with the consequences of that, at least in the short term.
And to echo other comments: Don't feel pressured to have an upload schedule. I think that this kind of content, as it currently stands, isn't one that can be pushed out either in mass or quickly, without losing context and quality. Keep up the great work and just know we'll be here for the next one, regardless!
Subscribed for months but first time to leave a comment. Your videos are so full of concentrated knowledge that I feel guilty just watching it for free. So +1 Patreon supporter for you Ryan. Looking forward to learning more from you.
Enjoy your videos, as always, Ryan. You can see the amount of research you invest and the level of quality you strive for. It's also great to hear about politics and government without feeling like there's an angle or bias. Keep up the great work.
Yes. It is so refreshing to strip the machine down so we can understand what it is supposed to do instead of just using hot takes and sound bytes. Love it!
Whooo! An amazing video Ryan, and deeply informative. Thank you so much for taking the time to make these videos and further our understanding of the systems we live in, as well as those that have come before.
discovered you today, subscribed, and recommended your content to several of my friends. your thoroughness is matched by the markings of a great teacher who not only understands the material but is able to present it in a way that is digestible, not to mention the great production value (special mention to the choice of music and your voice as well as speaking style which is soothing, easy to listen to, and makes you want to listen).
I have yet to watch, but you’re one of the few UA-camrs that gets me excited when I see a video uploaded. I will definitely make a donation with the work you put into your content and the value I get from them. A more thoughtful comment later for the algo, cheers!
Hi Ryan! I wrote this response to your comment on Metatron's video. I'm a huge fan of you both, and I'm convinced there was just a misunderstanding. I have the greatest admiration for both of you as academic scholars, so my hope is to encourage a possible reconciliation. Like I wrote in that thread, it was I who recommended this video to my friend Metatron (his given name is Raffaello). He had nearly finished his video, and asked me a few questions on Classical Greek terms and how they are pronounced in Ancient Greek. Having seen your video come out recently, I mentioned to Metatron that he might want to take a look at your excellent work, as he wasn't aware of your channel. I thought this was an especially good idea for him to do, since his video was going to cover a lot of the same material. Due to the fact that he had researched similar resources, Metatron indeed had already made similar comparisons as yourself, but only because these comparisons are ultimately self-evident. I would argue that ancient vs. modern democracy is well-tread material that is repeated so often in academia that the major points have become famous memes (in the pre-Internet sense of the term); for example, that Pericles quote was in my college textbook, and also occurs in the Ancient Greek language textbook I teach my students with. In my judgement, knowing the the man, and with the evidence at hand, it's my estimation that there was no plagiarism involved. Moreover, the fact that Metatron wanted to credit you and your video in his (at 8 min 50 sec), quoting your excellently phrased sentence, and encouraged his audience to see your video and subscribe to your channel, with the link to your video in the description, demonstrates to me that everything here was done in good faith. I could be wrong - but you might want to reach out to Raffaello to hear his side. If you watch more videos by Metraton, you'll see that this video of his is one of countless similar comparisons. In fact, the video you commented on is episode 3 in a series about Ancient Greece that he had long planned. Actually, I find it remarkbale that both you and Metatron covered the same topic, a topic that has been done to death in the academic world for centuries (and rightly so due to its importance), yet your videos are so strikingly different, and you each reveal different important parts of the story. The similarities come from the fact that there are only so many facts and points of comparison. Being a scholar of Ancient Greece myself, I was very pleased to have learned new things, and different things, from each of you. So if you get the chance to read this, I would encourage you to write a private email directly to Metatron, as he is a rigorous academic with an open heart, so you can hash out what I perceive to be a simple misunderstanding. If my comment does not meet you well, then please forgive my butting in. I look forward to your future videos, as your essays have been extraordinarily informative to me, and I recommend them widely. Thanks again for such extraordinarily insightful research. My very best to you, sir. - Luke Ranieri
Thank you for the clarification! I did not see this reply over on his video. I wasn’t familiar with his content and from the first 5 minutes felt like I was watching my own video. It was similar enough that I assumed plagiarism was happening. I’ve since looked at more of his content and realized it was mostly just a coincidence. I tried to reach out to him privately to make amends but he doesn’t have an email address on here or Twitter dms open. If you’re in touch with him tell him sorry for the misunderstanding, and best of luck on his work. I deleted my comment on his vid.
Democracy as it was implemented in Athens, even for a few decades, despite so many adversities on the part of the oligarchs, is truly admirable because it had no role model. First time where knowledge left the monopoly of the priests and became the property of the whole people. First time that the people had gleiche freie Meinungsäußerung gleich der Präfektur This free expression that gave birth to philosophy, art, theater, comedy. For the first time in human affairs where the citizen elects the judicial, executive and legislative power. The citizen judges and he votes, but mainly Abolishes the laws that don't concern him. But also in the economy we have innovations that mark the world to this day. We have the first property management funds. The famous sophist Antisthenes and Pasion were such managers. We have the first financial contracts, the first option, which involved the construction and transport trade of ships. We have due to geography and the autonomy of the of states with their own currencies, the first official monetary exchange rates. We have a modern economic legislation where specialized legal offices offer their services, e.g. Lysias We care for the poor and the weak with a secular institutionalization. We have a first time and we are asking for the unifying responsibility of the municipal assembly from all the officials You set for the first time the citizens of the Municipal Assembly to judge Do not allow any civil punishment by any official without a court of law and without a lawyer In the courts, the accused were able to decide on their own the punishment they deserved Socrates could choose redemption or exile, but he did not prefer it
@@realryanchapman This video felt a lot like my grade 10 and 11 (2010-2011) high school history classes. I think the ideas and framing in this video are so widespread that there is extremely little room for originality in them, just differences in the amount of depth presenters/teachers go into on each topic.
It's strange, in school I was never interested in history, but you somehow make it interesting (despite a relatively dry presentation). The only other channel that does that for me is Kraut. Both upload very rarely, but when they do it's a treat!
I think alot of this is simply maturity. I was somewhat interested in history in school but looking back it's so easy to see how distracted I was talking or how I just couldn't or wouldn't give the lessons my undivided attention like they deserved. As I've gotten older I've become much more interested and obviously better able to focus. As they say, youth is wasted on the young.
It never occurred to me that the American Founding Fathers really didn't have a good understanding of ancient Greece (or Rome for that matter) as we do now.
Ryan could have done a much better job in explaining how wise the Founders /Framers were in being quite deliberate in avoiding the disadvantages of democracy. "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner." The architecture of the Senate, and also the Electoral College were invented specifically for the purpose of PROTECTING the MINORITY INTEREST. Great historical info in this video. But he dropped the ball in this singular most important aspect of what made America unique. It is a lesson that nearly everyone today fails to understand.
I remember learning about Democracy in 3rd grade, after the teacher explained it I asked if the class could take a vote to see if we could go to recess early she told me that we only learn about Democracy we don’t practice it.
Thank you for your insightful coverage regarding the history of democracy... an important topic in these days of political polarism. Your historical background of this politic of the people is very interesting and educational
I wish I had these videos were available in HS. I found my classes boring and inevitably difficult. These lectures actually make each time come life. I want to know more.
I don't know how much you Americans discuss on domestic Internet or television channels about this philosophy, but we Chinese discuss a lot. Thank you for your in-depth devotion.
Started the video, thinking I’d click away soon. Watched the whole thing through. Your level of understanding of historical and political subjects is something I aspire to attain. Thank you for this video.
Awesome work (as always) Mr. Chapman. Thank you for making the world a bit better by shining a light of clarity on topics often poorly understood by the masses
Aside from the contentions of ideas that arise from this video, I have to say that its brilliantly produced and you should be proud to have made this one.
Ryan - amazing work as usual. I think the British philosophers were also deeply inspired the Bible and the rule of ancient Israel that was composed of a king, prophets, judges and priests. The elders of the tribes also played a role. I wonder if you'll ever consider working on this. Yours from Jerusalem
Beautiful, logical, and riveting - as per your usual, Ryan! In your mission for starting this channel (the polarizing and concerning political climate), I have to say you've succeeded with me, at least. I'm a liberal arts student at a famously progressive university, and as such, I was leaning pretty Marxist for a while there. Your videos were a big part in bringing me back down to earth, and making me realize that maybe I don't want to burn down this system, actually. I'm now so curious to learn about political philosophy, and I'm in my first political science course this semester. I love your videos on comparative political systems. I lived in India for a while and I know they have a very interesting & complex society and a very new democracy. I would love to hear you talk about that, if that ever interests you. I wonder if some kind of "democracy with indian characteristics" was needed, since they are a completely different society with their own way of seeing the world. In that vein, I'm also very curious if America's founders made any enduring structural blunders with our government that other countries (perhaps India) tried to learn from and improve upon, like we tried to learn lessons from the Greeks.
Ryan, this is a fantastic comparative study. Thank you for sharing your sources, that is rare for content curators. I also found your connection between American political values and property especially insightful.
It is not true that for 2000 years republicanism and democracy were dead. The political and economical organization of Italian communes and maritime republics during the peak of the High Middle Ages (1150-1300) was effectively similar to that of Classical Greek city-states.
THIs Content, My Friend, should be played and taught "Word for Word" In EVERY Public Civics Class (Beginning in the First Grade) Thanks You for its Clarity and Simplicity.... THIS id What I was Taught as early as I I Remember and NEVER Forgot. TODAY They Learn NONE of This Most Important Subject of OUR HISTORY. Thanks, my friend. Keep up the Great Content
I learnned little about history at school! In my mind if your interested enough in ANY subject you will spend your life studying.I am self-taught, and consider this the best option for overall knowledge!I am 64, and am still self studying! School is just for the basics, not every person wants to be smart😂
Well I jumped to the conclusions immediately expecting some fiasco to correct, but this has been proved much better than expected. Its analysis stands, the conclusions are solid. It is very pleasant to see Robert Dahl quoted here. I *MUST* add a book to the bibliography because you are focusing on Athens, and that is "The Athenian Democracy in the times of Demosthenes" by Morgens H. Hansen. It highlights the phases of it and particularly the differences between the democracy Pericles lived in with the one Demosthenes lived in. Now I am going to check the part about Athens and see what happens...
Some problems I saw in the part describing Athens, particularly two heavy problems in which is, in general, still an excellent video as far as I can tell. In general: 1. Aristoteles and other philosophers were notably critics towards democracy and should not be used to describe what democrats thought. For Aristoteles, for example, the LEAST possible democracy (the "Democracy One" as he called it) was one of the two possible ideals, whilst the radical democracy he said they had in Athens ("Democracy Four") was undesirable and wrong. Ref. Books 4-6 of his "Politica". And the other one of his ideals (!) was the "type one" oligarchy, which he called aristocracy. Both were very similar forms of government, for him, the most "moderate" form of each. BTW Aristoteles was wrong, Athens did not have a "maximum, radical" democracy, nor did they intend to because they thought that the masses could be manipulated by demagoges so *some* controls were in place. 2. Notable that there is no word lost about the processes of admissison of, and check of the past performance of, any magistrate. Dokimasia and euthynai were they called. The last one could be deadly. 5:33 - Isonomia was used by the *critics* of democracy, never to support it, as it was considered absurd that all men are equal (Ref: Hansen, Chapter "Democracy as Ideology"). The concepts the democrats used was the isegoria mentioned later which in general meant to act politically. Equality of power and opportunities, so to say. And the Assembly would not have worked if everybody would had indeed spoken. 7:10: Interesting to mention the glory of the generals as impulse of democracy, being that they were of the few elected and repeatable positions, that is, of the less democratic. But spot on later on the importance of oarsmen, actually the biggest criticism of the philosophers was precisely that the rule of the people meant in practice the rule of the poor. And yes, it was. 10:40: Very good from him to show the development of democracy. The Council of the Aeropagus was f.e. far, far less powerful in the eve of the IV century as under Clistenes and Solon. 12:25 Ephialtes was the master of Pericles, not a "guy he worked with". He was older and Pericles was his follower for a while (Ref: Hansen). 12:54 No, not ten times a year if we are talking about the times after Pericles, ten times is the ekklesia kyria only, ekklesias were that one plus three more per "priania", that is, total 40 per year. 14:00 Yes, the Assembly could take a LOT of decisions alone, but not all. Some had to be ratified by the Council (elected not by "public" but by the people in a different organisation and time, same as the Tribunal of the People) or the Tribunals. 17:44 HEAVY MISTAKE here, the only one so far. Foreigners were an integral part of society, the Athenians were well aware that their own citizens became foreigners when they emigrated, and they did NOT assign them any kind of special "psychology". Probably not even to the slaves, as they knew that they could be enslaved and their ancestors had been slaves. The reason was totally different: they considered the *territory* as not really relevant, the nation was for them composed by the *people*, the initial demos which Pericles restricted to the ones born from two citizens. It was simply a feeling of "this is OUR polis", not classism or racism. And the metecos (foreigners) did have far more rights as the slaves, sorry, were not "practically the same". 18:21 Common misconception that the work made by slaves enabled the democracy. This cannot be proved and one must consider that many citizens had no slaves (even if most had one or more) and that they the huge majority still worked. That's why they had to be paid to participate in the Assembly (quorum: 6000!) and other institutions. And again: if we have to consider the liberating power of subordinated work, please consider that even if not all citizens had a slave, almost all of them had a wife. Female labor is more important there as slave labor. 18:50 It was not rare to liberate slaves, but also not common. An individual slave would have, say, maybe a 5% of a chance for that. 21:21 Ostracism was only used in the first half of Athenian democracy. Later other controls were in place, notably the chance to demand laws and decisions as illegal in front of the tribunals, punishing their proposers. No ostracism happened in the IV century as far as we know. ... and they had other way to harshly punish people for political reasons, including death penalty for nine poor generals who 22:10 SECOND SEVERE MISTAKE: Democracy was more expensive *after* the Empire was gone, the costs of democracy were not overwhelming nor decisive. Democracy stopped existing simply because Macedonians conquered the world, not because it was expensive or because of the fall of the Empire. Hansen makes calculations of the costs, but in general, why on Earth would they increase costs after loosing the Empire if this was really a problem. 23:04 Please take in account that the "demos" for the enemies of democracy was not "the people" but "the poor". Anyway, interesting quote which I did not know. And I doubt a bit, to be honest. Looks like propaganda. That's it!
@@EduardoSilvaLopez I think you have to take into account the limitations of essentially a 25 minute segment in a video about political theory that has to set up the absolute basics for the usual channel's audience, who probably are not ancient history buffs most of the time. Not every nuance can be explained. As for your comments - I would not say Aristotle was essentially 'wrong' - Athenians absolutely were, in Greek context, radicals. - I think the 'foreigners' mentioned in the video refers to barbarians specifically, to which it can be argued that Greek assigned different psychology, similar to slaves. Metoikoi in Athens, or other Hellenes do indeed escape that categorization, but Athenians absolutely believed other Greeks were 'capable' of democracy - so much so, that they enforced it in their subject states at times - but, yes, you are right why the metoikoi were excluded from the political process. - I do not agree with your comment on slaves being not as important. I think the video caught the essence of this problem very well, and yes, women and other non-citizens were also essential in contributing to Athenian prosperity, but this does not change the fact that such a system could only exist in a society that casts much of the heavy labour on to various dependents. - I also disagree on your criticisms on the costs of democracy. It was exorbitant public spending driven by trying to please the politically active masses that led Athenians to exploit their allies, making them into subjects, and quickly going from the heroes of Hellas who took the fight to the Persians, to insufferable tyrants. Because demos got used to functioning like that, even when Athenians got their second shot at rebuilding the League and should have been aware of the mistakes that brought upon their downfall before, they soon went back to extorting their less powerful allies, and consequently losing all of the regained goodwill.
@@hoggypare7629 I do take in account the limitations of a 25 minutes video, and I think all my criticisms could be avoided without spending more time. Nonetheless, I have said and I say again that it is an excellent video and I only saw two real problems / mistakes, which is very, very few. As for your answers: - Aristotle himself described the Democracy of Type IV and then said that Athens was that way. And Athens did not fit his own definition. For example, the generals were elected and could repeat terms, which should have been impossible in a Democracy of Type IV. The fact is that he actually spent few time classifying his own Type II and III and oversimplified. This is what I consider being wrong, on this point. - No, sorry. Mr. Chapman uses correctly "barbarians" every time he adresses non-Greeks, hear him from 16:45 so when he was "to them foreigners and slaves are essentially the same" would be talking about "aliens" (compared to citizens before) and not barbarians. Anyway - there is a mistake in the logic of rejecting the psychological abilities of barbarians and using this to reject metics. You think that the Greeks made this mistake, apparently. I think that it is Mr. Chapmans mistake, and that this was never an argument to reject political rights for the metics. As. Mr. Hansen explains in its book, it had nothing to do with psychological traits (and BTW many slaves were Greek, some highly empowered, so that would have been absurd also for the slaves) but with the sense of the demos as a community of people *having* a land, and not (as today) as the group of people *who live in* a land. For them, the nation was the bloodline, and it possessed lands. - I again refer to Mr. Hansen, whose book I recommend. The huge majority of Athenian citizens made heavy labor. Many citizens had no slave but their wife. The majority had no more than one. Many were simply poor. There is no proof that the system relied on slavery or even female labor. I am quoting Mr. Hansen, Thesis 141 of Chapter 14 for example. - And again I refer to Mr. Hansen, who calculated the cost of the democracy in "talents" (the biggest coin) and compared it to the budged state and the costs of the military machine and campaigns, over time, and before and after the Empire. I will not fetch for you the exact quotes, but I remember that the biggest expense was 15 talents per year, so the total cost was maybe about 30 talents (I had to fetch the exact numbers from the book and I don't have the time, sorry) whilst the minimum budget was about 150 talents and that in horrible periods, more usual being 300 talents or more - and that, *after* the Empire, in the IV century. So I insist: the democracy did not fall because it was not economically sustainable, to the point that the costs increased after the reforms in 403 when they should have shrunk if this was actually a problem. ... one point I can concede: if you are not talking about the direct costs of the system but "the cost to please the masses" - but this is uncountable. Nor you nor anybody can really measure, with numbers, which decisions were taken "to please the masses" and which not, nor the comparative costs of having a tyrant who may also incur in horrible costs "to please himself" (think about modern despots wasting money they don't have in a new capital city or other megalomaniac projects). This is uncountable, not measurable, the less with the sources we have. And so, nobody should build a thesis on that. But yes, maybe. Nobody knows. But I think Mr. Chapman is speaking about the measurable, direct costs of keeping the democratic system working, and they were NOT decisive. Have a nice day.
@@EduardoSilvaLopez I am not sure. See, the problem is you have a point of reference and have read things on that issue. Many viewers here have not. I think explaining all of the details you pointed out AND making it clear for people who sometimes did not even have basic idea of the topic would take more time. - as for Aristotle, in this specific context I can concede the point. What I meant is that, even if Aristotle is clearly biased and does not follow his definition it goes to show, how much he despised the Athenian system. And he likely was not alone in that regards - that is what I meant by saying that for many Greeks Athenians would be perceived as very radical. - I think you misunderstand my point. I mostly questioned this being a 'huge' mistake if the video meant foreigners-barbarians, because we have clear comparisons of eg. subjects of the Persian king having slavish mentality, and it could be inferred this was a reason why Persia was politically the way it was - It may not have relied much more than any other ancient society (although, I fail to see reasons why would one even want to stress that, unless they make a political argument, trying to somehow 'absolve' the democratic system from the unsavoury practice of slavery, which is BS and projecting modern values), but every ancient society did. I still think Athenian prosperity, which heavily relied on slave labour (no free, sane man is going to work in silver mines) contributed to the development of the system. - Yes, I meant indirect costs. Yes, we cannot quantify that, just as 99% things in ancient history - it is best to accept that. Over-relying on scattered, singular data points and fetishising numbers is, in my opinion, a huge problem in the field, and can lead to far worse mistakes than just making generalist and unquantifiable inferences. But you might be right this is not what video meant. You too
@@hoggypare7629 Hello! 1. Yep. Even if I think that we cannot discard the existence of polis which were smaller and more democratic than Athens(a), for most Greek Athens was quite probably a radical democracy, specially in the times of Pericles (b). 2. Ok... for me it remains a huge mistake to suggest, and I think the video says that foreigners (and that for me still reads 'metecs') and slaves were considered psychologically unable to exercise freedom (17:18 to 17:53). 3. I only stress what I consider mistakes, I am making no political argument at all and I could not care less about "absolving" Athens, don't sweat that one, I am only interested on the economic fact. Now you say "contributed" - made it easier. Yes! No doubt! My objection was to the video which say that "Athenians {all of them} wanted to do things which (...) not necessarily create value, but someone has to make the hard job and the answer {THE only answer} was slavery". And this is really a heavy mistake. Athenians worked, and worked hard. "The answer" was not slavery but a combination of citizens working, metecs working, slaves working and women working. The "intellectual debating elite" was always a minority, irrelevant compared to the masses of "oarsmen" who did work hard for a living. This picture given by the video here is plain wrong, sorry. Of course you are right that the existence of slavery helped. And also patriarchy. And xenophobia. Hooray :( (c) 4. On indirect costs, indeed - we cannot know. I can only suggest that, in general, on these indirect costs and benefits is exactly where democracy usually is better than oligarchy or tyranny. It is bound to populistic decisions, yes, but it is less bound to corruption, egomaniac decisions and self-destruction through intrigue, civil war, class war... if this applies to "our" democracies, why should it not apply to the ancient ones, with more control over the magistrates? Again, just my two pence, we cannot know for sure. Best regards and thanks for the speech, rethor ;) . Footnotes: (a) I consider here characteristics the Greeks themselves used to classify democracies: having magistrates chosen by lot and not by election; having no repeatable positions; having short terms; having no individual positions but committees; paying citizens and magistrates to participate. Athens was quite there, but not completely there. Maybe for a smaller polis, it was easier to be even more radical. (b) there was some back-and-forth and by the times of Aristoteles and Demostenes it was a bit less so. (c) It is relatively easy to imagine that in a less complex polis, the amount of required work per citizen to keep democratic institutions would also had been less. My point being: the direct costs in time or money were not a reason to avoid democracy. Actually even nobody in the time (AFAWK) *mentioned* this as a reason, no anti-democratic philosopher (AFAWK) says "look how much it costs!".
This is the best dissertation on the subject that I have ever seen. Too bad that it is something that requires more than a five minute attention span to get across.
Ryan, you are by far one of the best creators on this platform. Incredible work. Do you do everything by yourself or do you have a team of researchers?
Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below.
Some took issue with the notion that the United States was the first democracy following ancient Greece. When I said 'the word democracy wouldn't be linked to another state for more than 2000 years,' that afaik is correct. Democratic practices did exist between ancient times and the American founding, and there were even local elections in America before the founding, as well as some democratic practices in England and smaller societies around Europe, but they almost entirely went by the name of republicanism. These other societies also practiced limited forms of democracy, and that was truer the bigger the society got. You could claim that some viking societies had meaningful (but still limited) democratic practices, for example, but they didn't have a state. That was also before modern nations. Nation-states at the time (with the very controversial exception of England after the 15th century) did not exist. So we're talking about societies that typically had fuzzy borders, a looser idea of who belonged within them and what their roles were as 'citizens,' no modern government state, and where the sovereign political authority is typically divine or an individual/family. Combine that with democratic practices being limited, and you have no state that was being called democratic until the U.S. founding. I chose my wording there carefully.
Given all that, the main democratic breakthroughs the U.S. had were 1) Forming a nation (strict borders, concrete and firm law extending to all citizens within) with its own sovereign, secular government that is responsive to the people, 2) Those people were to hire and fire heads of state and top representatives, 3) Practicing this on a scale of a massive nation-state, with significant cultural and ethnic differences, where citizens across the nation have no way of knowing one another, but still had to trust one another with political power. So there was some contemporary precedent for what the U.S. did, but they also significantly experimented and innovated. Democracy and an impersonal secular state were thought to be impossible in a society on the scale of the U.S. It was thought that monarchies were best for large societies and that democracies/republics were controversially well-suited for small societies, and that even then those smaller political systems needed a mixed character in order to be stable (perhaps still a monarch or divine authority). 'Pure democracies' were thought to be entirely untenable, and tended to be associated with mob rule (a judgement that affected the Founders).
To go into that last part further - the 'mixed character' model mainly came from Aristotle, through Polybius (Greek/Roman historian), and finally through Montesquieu's 'Spirit Of The Laws.' Aristotle said there were three forms of government: government by one, government by the few, government by the many (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) and that a mixed form of government was best - one that blended aspects of those three forms in its institutions. Montesquieu influentially wrote that those institutions should have limited power and have the ability to limit the powers of each other, now known as checks and balances. That influenced the Framers, who made the executive branch roughly correspond to the 'government by one,' the senate roughly 'government by few' and the house of reps roughly 'government by many.' That also inspired the checks and balances seen in the constitution. If you're wondering why I didn't cover mixed constitution theory in the video, I think it's interesting, but the interpretation in America is somewhat loose. It's a bit of a stretch to call the executive branch 'government by one,' I think even more of a stretch to call the house of reps 'government by many,' and it leaves out the judicial. More importantly, Madison's language of politics consisting of conflicting factions was seen as a more realistic update to the classical mixed constitution theory. Basically mixed constitution theory was seen as rigidly ideological, not realistic, and warring factions was seen as practical and realistic. Theory that could be usefully guide policy. I have to make decisions about what to include and what not to include for runtime purposes, and decided to relegate mixed constitution theory to the comments and just include Madison's factions in the video.
- Ryan
You're forgetting the British Parliament and the Icelandic Alþingi before that pal.
So many people could benefit from your channel, I hope it continues to grow and reach others
@@joshuataylor3550 Britain wasn’t a democracy in 1789 pal
Stop being so handsome! 😊☺😆
It's also worth noting that what we know of Greece largely comes to us through Rome (as discussed by Prof Mary Beard). So what we know is limited to what Romans bothered to preserve and wanted to emphasise.
I feel like Ryan was the smart kid in class who didn't raise his hand to answer every question the teacher asked just to give the other students a chance.
Thank god someone was paying attention!
If he did raise his hand more, we’d be a lot smarter as a society
@@thr33shadows He's raising his hand right now!
@@CPD03 1) excellent username 2) someone get this man a bigger microphone
I feel like you are one of those many kids who make a lot of quick false assumptions about people they don't know.
If you're feeling pressured to produce more, know it's your own internal drive and not any expectation. It's always great to see a post from you, but each one is a gift. What you're putting into the world is great, and it's fine for it to happen on your time. None of us are going anywhere. Thank you for this one. :)
Hear hear, sister 👏🏽
+1
Spot on!
You just changed my life. ❤️
That is such great praise, advice and pure wisdom all in one comment. Well done 😊
Thank you Ryan for this wonderful lesson on Democracy. The word Democracy is thrown around a lot today but I dare say that not many people understand it. This presentation certainly helped me understand more about how our version of democracy came to be.
lol it's bullshit., the USA has NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY. from the beginning,the founders put it on paper offically, that this federal government is a REPUBLIC. they never wanted a Democracy and DID NOT FOUND ONE.
*republic
@@codydifronzo-hayes1076did you not watch the video?
@codydifronzo-hayes1076 which is a type of democracy.
NO. Cody is dead on.
It is Ryan who failed in this video. Ok, yes, great historical info. Bit he dropped the ball in explaining how deliberate the Founders /Framers were in NOT making the US a democracy.
Just look at how they invented the Senate. 2 votes for Rhode Island and Wyoming. Yet also 2 votes for California and Texas. They did it this way quite on purpose. To be ANTI-democratic. Why? As is famously said...
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
As with the precise way they invented the Electoral College, it was done this way for the purpose of PROTECTING MINORITY INTEREST.
The US govt is specifically structured as this blend of anti-democratic aspects along with democratic aspects.
This is quite similar to the concept of Separation of Powers. It is a MISTAKE to give too much power to the People.
The Constitution's greatest accomplishment was in how it balances power given to 'We the People' while simultaneously preventing 'Tyranny of the Majority.'
If Ryan had done a better video, then you all would be able to understand that Cody nailed it.
Once again you made an incredible video. I never seen a better explanation of American democracy and democracy in general. I appreciate the fact that you take your time to make theses videos with care and avoid rushing them. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for another great video. I learned a lot.
As a Greek, I would like to inform you that this stuff are mandatory in the Greek education system at 10 . 13. 16 and 18 years old. By the end of high school, you know this stuff by heart. Great video dude
although it makes sense that it would be pushed more in greece (we do similarly here in italy for the romans), but it baffles me that its not a thing in every 'democratic' state of the western world.
But in reality, im not baffled at all. Democracy has a weakness: the competence of the masses. Distort the competence of the masses to be null, and confidence becomes the source of power instead. Which is exactly what one can observe every day everywhere the government is 'democratic'.
@@channelname1700 aparently you are though. this level of detail is not common.
@@channelname1700 you are quite special. you pledge alligience to the flag with a speech every day at school. you know who else did that? hint: they had their right arm raised.
@@channelname1700 if my country wasn't patriotic for 1000 years now we would be called spain and speak spanish.
You don't need a speech every morning to be patriotic and proud of your country.
Cheers, from Portugal.
Our government on the US doesn't actually want us to know how this works. They prefer to keep us voting for corporate shills.
Hello Ryan. A historian of antiquity here. I always enjoy hearing your insight on politics and this video is no exception, but considering all of the efforts I spent on researching ancient political processes, I think I might have some remarks that could be of interests.
- I think you have mistaken Thucydides the politician and the historian of the same name. This is a minor nit-pick but it also means that we should give more credibility to the claims on how Pericles governed over Athens
- You have touched on this, but I think it does not come across clearly enough how widely criticized was the democratic system of Athens by its contemporaries and their immediate descendants. It is also disputable how competent the demos was at governing, and it certainly was not perceived as such by our sources, who often present Athens as some sort of cautionary tale, where the power was in the hands of the mob, commonly manipulated by unsavoury individuals (like Alcibiadies), making horrible decisions (like deciding on the Sicillian expedition).
- It might be due to the time and topic constraints, but I got the sense the video is implying as if the Athenian democracy was an absolutely unique concept for the pre-modern era. This is not true. Democratic institutions on comparable scale to Athens existed way before the American Revolution. To name a few, Germanic tribes had a popular assembly for all freemen called Ting, the Slavs had Veche, and those were the primary govering bodies. The Swiss direct democracy can be traced to middle-ages. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had an assembly that decided on the matters of the state and technically any member could even veto the king (it was comprised of nobility, but having the title was incredibly common there - about 8% so not that far off the Athens).
- One, in my opinion major, difference that you did not mention is how communitarian the Greek society was, compared to generally individualistic American one, which also reflected on the politics. This is especially vivid in the matters of religion - the enlightenment ideals of freedom in that regard for the Greeks would simply be criminal - punishable by death even, as it was the case with Socrates. Polis was not only the city and its surroundings, but primarily it was the political community - and within that community everyone was responsible for one another - which in turn meant it was possible to single non-conforming people or groups out, to avoid the wrath of the gods and secure the prosperity of the community. This is exactly what your founding fathers sought to prevent.
Anyway, I do not think those critical remarks detract from your overall conclusions, which I feel is again interesting. All the best, and I await more videos.
Absolutely! I wrote up a pinned comment that included most the points you brought up here. I did try to hammer in at several points how widely criticized democracy as both in ancient times and at the time of the American founding. I also wrote about 60 pages of notes for this video (which translates to about 240 minutes of runtime), and have to decide what to include and what not to include. Of everything you said, the one thing I did want to talk about but just couldn't find a space for was comparing the individualistic nature of American democracy vs the communal nature of Athenian democracy. But how could I talk about that if I didn't talk about Aristotle's mixed constitution theory, or Montesquieu?
You said I implied that there was nothing resembling democracy between Greece and America, but I really tried to imply the opposite. I just said that democratic states after Rome mostly went by the name of republics, and there wasn't a nation that called itself democratic until America.
With the Thucydides mix-up yeah that regrettably just a mistake. Someone caught that a day after I uploaded this, and it almost made me take the video down and re-upload it to fix it, but I figured that it didn't detract from the main ideas of the piece. Edit: I figured out a way to just chop that line out of the piece. So, problem solved. Plutarch talked about two different people named Thucydides in his chapter on Pericles, and I didn't realize they were different people, which led to a factual mistake in the vid.
- Ryan
@@realryanchapmanI am disappointed that you left out the many republicans sanghas or states of ancient India who later destroyed by monarchist Magadha kingdom which led to great Magadha empire, which ended with dissolution of Mouryan dynasty and Sunga dynasty of Magadha empire.
In Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth kings were elected. Technically any noblemen could have been elected.
The only problem with a new Ryan Chapman video is that I hunger for more once it's done. Stellar work as usual. Both your topics and angles of approaching them never fail to be thorough and fascinating.
Thank you very much. As a European viewer, I really enjoy your videos as they seem well researched and calmly presented. In my opinion, they aid to understanding the US and its developement in a historical context for outsiders. Not only do I find your videos very interesting, I consider them therefore really helpful, as a compact yet thorough overview, so one does not have to spend a lot of time delving too deeply into the literary sources for one's self. I also very much enjoyed your presentations on other political and philosophical topics.
Understand, that if a topic creates a lot of waves in US public (ref. to videos on free speech, 'wokeness' etc.), the ripples in the water can usually - with some delay - be felt in non-English speaking countries over here as well. It's not always easy to understand the roots of such developements from afar, so thank you for your work.
The US did not start with the uprisings of the first half of the 1770s as a Revolution of a new form of government. They had been running their own assemblies of propertied gentlemen for well over a century, with royal London appointed Governors as a check valve. The public became larger and larger as a poor man could aquire property in America by applying his trade or by clearing wilderness.
Britain had centuries of royal v squire uprisings, provincial rebellions even civil wars.
Once the war broke out in 1775, the new Congress that has formed only to treat with Parliament as a trade union might argue grievances with the bosses hit a full stalemate. Appeals were made to George III to mediate the conflict with Tory Parliament. Instead George III sent an invasion force of regulars to "put down the riots" and hammer the subjects as they had Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the recently conquered provinces of Canada, India and the West Indies.
This is when that simple Congress started debating concepts of what would replace the Colonial Royal government, since the local legislatures were now in open war with Royal Governors, their Royal American regiments and the British Armies and mercenaries.
From 1776 to 1786 they simply tried running the states as they had as colonies, but without the Royal governors. The Congress acted as a United-States equal member assembly of ambassadors...like a UN or EU does today.
By 1787 it was clear that just renaming colonies to "states" and continuing with gentry colonial government without the Royalists was not going to work.
So the US created a hybrid version of a popular assembly based on people, a member state assembly and an executive elected by that hybrid math using one purpose non politicians (the Electoral College....a congress of non government people elected just to decide on a president, then disperse)
The popular body (House of Reps) would be wilder and more innovative with short 2 year terms.
The member body would be more elder statesmen selected by the states, 2 each, to become somewhat like the Lords or Royals checking the old Colonial assemblies.
An executive that would act like a PM and King, but not be selected by the Congress of politicians, and therefore not their servant like a PM often is.
@@STho205 correct!
And "wokeness" or at least the scholarly work or ideology often assumed of being it's start or inspiration has links to Europe.
@@chickenfishhybrid44
True, but this misses the point.
I served in the U.S. Navy for 8 years, and one thing I found in my travels abroad was that when the U.S. moves, the world is swept in its wake. This is not a statement of "lol, america wrecks everyone, get rekt world" - it is a statement of fact that the U.S. public does not want to accept responsibility for. The public lives in a dream land where they can exist in isolate from global consequences for their votes in a contest of humble-flexing hedonists.
I walked in the craters of our bombs that were the result of people making stupid decisions where the media hadn't flat-out psy-opped them.
Now, one might argue that we could just humble ourselves or sabotage our own capacities - but this is no solution. The U.S. has the economic envy of the world - vast arable land reserves, pure and plentiful ores for all strategic metals and energy resources, river networks to interconnect it all, and unparallelled access to warm water coastline for ports. The U.S. has unquestionable command over the planet everywhere but Russia - which is its own heartland lacking the convenient river network and warm water shoreline, which basically means it can only be a pocket of the world able to tell us No and make us pay dearly for insisting otherwise.
Whether we want to hold this position in global politics, or not, is irrelevant. It is our responsibility to govern the use of the most powerful geostrategic location in a just and reasonable manner.
When we let insane people begin making our policies, we give them authority over the power this nation holds. Someone will always wield the power this nation holds.
If insane european turbopoor ideas start taking hold and being advanced by frauds - we have to recognize that for the power grab it is - not just an effort to rule our lives - but, more probably, an effort to rule the lives of those abroad. A single Nimitz or Ford class carrier brings with it more aircraft and ordnance than most nations have in their entire air force and one of our pilots has more flight time than all of theirs combined. Americans do not understand how fundamentally incapable most nations are of resisting us. Just look at how many assume we can dictate the outcome of the Ukrainian conflict. The cold war was over 30 years ago and most people have grown so accustomed to the U.S. walking in and doing whatever it wants that the idea the largest rival military force on the planet could possibly win on their own doorstep is discounted as their propaganda. These people are in for a rude awakening - but the point I am making is that the cost of that awakening is an extremely costly war (for all sides).
@Aim54Delta you seem to contradict your own point towards the end there? So the US is very powerful, so much so that most cannot resist US will. But everyone is in for a rude awakening? As in if the US gets into war, it's not as strong and capable as it seems? Confusing.
How are individual Americans supposed to "accept that responsibility"? I think a lot of this stuff is outside the influence of votes or similar. Doesn't mean people shouldn't still pay attention and engage, but it's not that simple.
Ironically the US is in the position it is today because Europeans couldn't stop invading and killing each other. The US might have been bound for great power status eventually anyway but WW2 and its outcomes can be linked to the US position today. People seem to forget that Americans for a long time were not interested in foreign wars and entanglements. They assume that the attitude of NeoCons of the 2000s is like the historical attitude of Americans and its not.
Idk how much I buy into the idea of the US having global responsibility and expecting the American people to ensure that the world is a nice little place for everyone or even the majority of people. I just don't think it's possible for the US to be as powerful and influential as it is and expect things to go too much differently than they have. Don't get me wrong, I think things can be improved around the edges by better leadership and a more informed public but alot of the same things I think still would have happened.
At this point, the idea of the US just disengaging from the world stage is a non starter, it's too late for that. I would like for that to be possible. I suspect alot of the foreigners that claim to want the US to do that won't actually be that happy with the consequences of that, at least in the short term.
I appreciate so much that you take the time to actually learn and teach all these important and relevant topics.
Another great video. Keep up the critical thinking and analysis!
And to echo other comments: Don't feel pressured to have an upload schedule. I think that this kind of content, as it currently stands, isn't one that can be pushed out either in mass or quickly, without losing context and quality. Keep up the great work and just know we'll be here for the next one, regardless!
Subscribed for months but first time to leave a comment. Your videos are so full of concentrated knowledge that I feel guilty just watching it for free. So +1 Patreon supporter for you Ryan. Looking forward to learning more from you.
yeah same here
I wish he had subcribe star. I don't want to support Patreon
Same here, and I'll keep subscribing if I can help Ryan produce most excellent work such as this.
Enjoy your videos, as always, Ryan. You can see the amount of research you invest and the level of quality you strive for. It's also great to hear about politics and government without feeling like there's an angle or bias.
Keep up the great work.
Yes. It is so refreshing to strip the machine down so we can understand what it is supposed to do instead of just using hot takes and sound bytes. Love it!
Your videos is remarkably thorough and well produced. Thank you, Mr. Chapman.
You are pure gold. Discovered you last night. I’m so happy to follow you
Chapman is the only guy on YT I have the notifications on for
Great video!
Thank you. I love growing my understanding of what words mean and where they come from. This is a prime example of that
Funny that I checked your channel about 2 days ago, to see if I had the notifications on. Can't wait to have some time to watch this one!
I cannot stress how deeply and profoundly I appreciate the quality of your work. This world needs more people like you.
Whooo! An amazing video Ryan, and deeply informative. Thank you so much for taking the time to make these videos and further our understanding of the systems we live in, as well as those that have come before.
This video should be a mandatory viewing for the youth of this nation. Outstanding video!!!
discovered you today, subscribed, and recommended your content to several of my friends. your thoroughness is matched by the markings of a great teacher who not only understands the material but is able to present it in a way that is digestible, not to mention the great production value (special mention to the choice of music and your voice as well as speaking style which is soothing, easy to listen to, and makes you want to listen).
I have yet to watch, but you’re one of the few UA-camrs that gets me excited when I see a video uploaded. I will definitely make a donation with the work you put into your content and the value I get from them. A more thoughtful comment later for the algo, cheers!
I haven't watched a single second of the video but I know it's gonna be an absolute banger
Absolute banger 10/10
Always a good day when Ryan uploads. Thanks bro
So great to see a new video from Ryan, today. Thank you!
This channel is a treasure.
This quickly became one of my favourite youtube channels, thank you!
Hi Ryan! I wrote this response to your comment on Metatron's video. I'm a huge fan of you both, and I'm convinced there was just a misunderstanding. I have the greatest admiration for both of you as academic scholars, so my hope is to encourage a possible reconciliation.
Like I wrote in that thread, it was I who recommended this video to my friend Metatron (his given name is Raffaello). He had nearly finished his video, and asked me a few questions on Classical Greek terms and how they are pronounced in Ancient Greek.
Having seen your video come out recently, I mentioned to Metatron that he might want to take a look at your excellent work, as he wasn't aware of your channel. I thought this was an especially good idea for him to do, since his video was going to cover a lot of the same material. Due to the fact that he had researched similar resources, Metatron indeed had already made similar comparisons as yourself, but only because these comparisons are ultimately self-evident.
I would argue that ancient vs. modern democracy is well-tread material that is repeated so often in academia that the major points have become famous memes (in the pre-Internet sense of the term); for example, that Pericles quote was in my college textbook, and also occurs in the Ancient Greek language textbook I teach my students with. In my judgement, knowing the the man, and with the evidence at hand, it's my estimation that there was no plagiarism involved. Moreover, the fact that Metatron wanted to credit you and your video in his (at 8 min 50 sec), quoting your excellently phrased sentence, and encouraged his audience to see your video and subscribe to your channel, with the link to your video in the description, demonstrates to me that everything here was done in good faith. I could be wrong - but you might want to reach out to Raffaello to hear his side.
If you watch more videos by Metraton, you'll see that this video of his is one of countless similar comparisons. In fact, the video you commented on is episode 3 in a series about Ancient Greece that he had long planned. Actually, I find it remarkbale that both you and Metatron covered the same topic, a topic that has been done to death in the academic world for centuries (and rightly so due to its importance), yet your videos are so strikingly different, and you each reveal different important parts of the story. The similarities come from the fact that there are only so many facts and points of comparison. Being a scholar of Ancient Greece myself, I was very pleased to have learned new things, and different things, from each of you.
So if you get the chance to read this, I would encourage you to write a private email directly to Metatron, as he is a rigorous academic with an open heart, so you can hash out what I perceive to be a simple misunderstanding.
If my comment does not meet you well, then please forgive my butting in. I look forward to your future videos, as your essays have been extraordinarily informative to me, and I recommend them widely. Thanks again for such extraordinarily insightful research. My very best to you, sir.
- Luke Ranieri
Thank you for the clarification! I did not see this reply over on his video. I wasn’t familiar with his content and from the first 5 minutes felt like I was watching my own video. It was similar enough that I assumed plagiarism was happening. I’ve since looked at more of his content and realized it was mostly just a coincidence. I tried to reach out to him privately to make amends but he doesn’t have an email address on here or Twitter dms open. If you’re in touch with him tell him sorry for the misunderstanding, and best of luck on his work. I deleted my comment on his vid.
Democracy as it was implemented in Athens, even for a few decades, despite so many adversities on the part of the oligarchs, is truly admirable because it had no role model. First time where knowledge left the monopoly of the priests and became the property of the whole people. First time that the people had gleiche freie Meinungsäußerung gleich der Präfektur This free expression that gave birth to philosophy, art, theater, comedy. For the first time in human affairs where the citizen elects the judicial, executive and legislative power. The citizen judges and he votes, but mainly Abolishes the laws that don't concern him. But also in the economy we have innovations that mark the world to this day. We have the first property management funds. The famous sophist Antisthenes and Pasion were such managers. We have the first financial contracts, the first option, which involved the construction and transport trade of ships. We have due to geography and the autonomy of the of states with their own currencies, the first official monetary exchange rates. We have a modern economic legislation where specialized legal offices offer their services, e.g. Lysias
We care for the poor and the weak with a secular institutionalization. We have a first time and we are asking for the unifying responsibility of the municipal assembly from all the officials
You set for the first time the citizens of the Municipal Assembly to judge
Do not allow any civil punishment by any official without a court of law and without a lawyer
In the courts, the accused were able to decide on their own the punishment they deserved
Socrates could choose redemption or exile, but he did not prefer it
@@realryanchapman This video felt a lot like my grade 10 and 11 (2010-2011) high school history classes. I think the ideas and framing in this video are so widespread that there is extremely little room for originality in them, just differences in the amount of depth presenters/teachers go into on each topic.
¡Gracias! Thank you for another beautiful video. Making others reflect and think, the way you do, is becoming increasingly uncommon...
It's strange, in school I was never interested in history, but you somehow make it interesting (despite a relatively dry presentation). The only other channel that does that for me is Kraut. Both upload very rarely, but when they do it's a treat!
I think alot of this is simply maturity. I was somewhat interested in history in school but looking back it's so easy to see how distracted I was talking or how I just couldn't or wouldn't give the lessons my undivided attention like they deserved. As I've gotten older I've become much more interested and obviously better able to focus. As they say, youth is wasted on the young.
Another spectacular video Ryan, your work is important👍
I'm binge watching your videos. I even recommended it to my colleagues. Keep up the good work.
I screenshot every book you show and add it to my reading list, best channel.
You have been checking me for about a year and a half now. You have made it more likely for older folks to listen. Thanks!
Another masterclass Ryan. Glad to be a patron and support such fascinating work. Thank you
It never occurred to me that the American Founding Fathers really didn't have a good understanding of ancient Greece (or Rome for that matter) as we do now.
Or, did they too well understand Greece +
Rome + their anti democratic aspects--'
self appointed. non elected side was,
combined + democratic side.
The average person is an idiot. They wrote it that way because crazy radicals exist and they wanted it to last even in times that we face today
They also didn't intend for the United States to become a multiracial society. Big mistake. Non-white countries don't replace their ancestors.
Ryan could have done a much better job in explaining how wise the Founders /Framers were in being quite deliberate in avoiding the disadvantages of democracy.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
The architecture of the Senate, and also the Electoral College were invented specifically for the purpose of PROTECTING the MINORITY INTEREST.
Great historical info in this video. But he dropped the ball in this singular most important aspect of what made America unique. It is a lesson that nearly everyone today fails to understand.
@@dahawk8574modern liberals fail to understand its importance
You're great! Please, keep releasing more videos. Theres no one delivering the kind of quality content that you do.
I found this channel by mistake. It’s one of the best on UA-cam. Well made and informative
Thank you Ryan for this. Keen the videos coming! They are all great!
I remember learning about Democracy in 3rd grade, after the teacher explained it I asked if the class could take a vote to see if we could go to recess early she told me that we only learn about Democracy we don’t practice it.
😂😂😂
Nice job! I loved the way you put your source for each point in the box in the corner of the screen.
Haven’t watched this yet, but super excited for your video, always so knowledgeable 😊❤❤🎉
Another quality Ryan Chapman vid
You never cease to amaze me with your great work. Big love ❤
This channel should be high school curriculum
@@thr33shadows
Agreed. High school and college. Wonderful content. Thank you,.
You make this platform better with your work Ryan. Thank you.
Thank you for your insightful coverage regarding the history of democracy... an important topic in these days of political polarism. Your historical background of this politic of the people is very interesting and educational
Ryan your videos are such bangers.
I wish I had these videos were available in HS. I found my classes boring and inevitably difficult. These lectures actually make each time come life. I want to know more.
I don't know how much you Americans discuss on domestic Internet or television channels about this philosophy, but we Chinese discuss a lot. Thank you for your in-depth devotion.
Very excited to watch this!
Another insightful video Ryan.
As always your videos are an education. This one stands out as one of your best and one that absolutely necessary. Keep up thd good work!
I learn more spending 45 minutes on your channel then I did in 4 years of highschool
For me it’s a high school refresher
Your hs was way better than mine
Thanks!
Awesome video. Your content is always top Notch, but the video format this Time Is really good to watch Also. Thank you for this analysis.
"A Republic if you can keep it"
I enjoy your videos a lot, very informative.
Speaking about democracy!!!!! it would be intriguing to see you do a video on norms and how it limits our freedom
Started the video, thinking I’d click away soon. Watched the whole thing through. Your level of understanding of historical and political subjects is something I aspire to attain.
Thank you for this video.
great channel, top notch 1% quality A-list level content
Time well spent. Thank you for illuminating this topic.
You certainly spend the time to research, create and deliver a well prepared lecture. I appreciate the absence of "you knows".
Awesome work (as always) Mr. Chapman. Thank you for making the world a bit better by shining a light of clarity on topics often poorly understood by the masses
What a great content! very well made and written video! Thank you! that was really good
Aside from the contentions of ideas that arise from this video, I have to say that its brilliantly produced and you should be proud to have made this one.
Ryan, you produce excellent, informative, well reasoned content that makes you think. Look forward to every video.
Thanks!
Ryan - amazing work as usual. I think the British philosophers were also deeply inspired the Bible and the rule of ancient Israel that was composed of a king, prophets, judges and priests. The elders of the tribes also played a role. I wonder if you'll ever consider working on this. Yours from Jerusalem
I like that the key takeaway is not a negative and to think for one's self.
MOM! New Ryan Chapman just came out
This was really well done! Thank you for taking the time to do this.
Beautiful, logical, and riveting - as per your usual, Ryan! In your mission for starting this channel (the polarizing and concerning political climate), I have to say you've succeeded with me, at least. I'm a liberal arts student at a famously progressive university, and as such, I was leaning pretty Marxist for a while there. Your videos were a big part in bringing me back down to earth, and making me realize that maybe I don't want to burn down this system, actually. I'm now so curious to learn about political philosophy, and I'm in my first political science course this semester.
I love your videos on comparative political systems. I lived in India for a while and I know they have a very interesting & complex society and a very new democracy. I would love to hear you talk about that, if that ever interests you. I wonder if some kind of "democracy with indian characteristics" was needed, since they are a completely different society with their own way of seeing the world. In that vein, I'm also very curious if America's founders made any enduring structural blunders with our government that other countries (perhaps India) tried to learn from and improve upon, like we tried to learn lessons from the Greeks.
Can you expand upon the differences you observed in how democracy is being practised in India compared to the United States?
Love that you used Will Durant as one of your sources, he is such a great historian!
I really enjoyed this video.
Been following for a while. Really appreciate the objective analysis and I’d like to commend your constantly increasing production value. Keep it up 🙏
Fantastic video as always.
Great video man, very well produced !!!!
Such a great channel
Takk!
What the hell is it gonna take to make this man main stream?
Ryan, this is a fantastic comparative study. Thank you for sharing your sources, that is rare for content curators. I also found your connection between American political values and property especially insightful.
Very good video. Well done. More of this kind of stuff
Very balanced video. Plato also had his doubts in democracy in plato's Republic
It is not true that for 2000 years republicanism and democracy were dead.
The political and economical organization of Italian communes and maritime republics during the peak of the High Middle Ages (1150-1300) was effectively similar to that of Classical Greek city-states.
Your content is truly refreshing.
Learned a lot thanks man!
Very happy to have you back!
You have helped me feel smarter, and rekindled my interest in learning. Please know of my gratitude to you. You have a friend in SLC. Utah.
Honey wake up. New Ryan Chapman video
I’ll take great date ideas for $600
THIs Content, My Friend, should be played and taught "Word for Word" In EVERY Public Civics Class (Beginning in the First Grade) Thanks You for its Clarity and Simplicity.... THIS id What I was Taught as early as I I Remember and NEVER Forgot. TODAY They Learn NONE of This Most Important Subject of OUR HISTORY. Thanks, my friend. Keep up the Great Content
I learnned little about history at school! In my mind if your interested enough in ANY subject you will spend your life studying.I am self-taught, and consider this the best option for overall knowledge!I am 64, and am still self studying! School is just for the basics, not every person wants to be smart😂
Well I jumped to the conclusions immediately expecting some fiasco to correct, but this has been proved much better than expected. Its analysis stands, the conclusions are solid. It is very pleasant to see Robert Dahl quoted here. I *MUST* add a book to the bibliography because you are focusing on Athens, and that is "The Athenian Democracy in the times of Demosthenes" by Morgens H. Hansen. It highlights the phases of it and particularly the differences between the democracy Pericles lived in with the one Demosthenes lived in. Now I am going to check the part about Athens and see what happens...
Some problems I saw in the part describing Athens, particularly two heavy problems in which is, in general, still an excellent video as far as I can tell.
In general:
1. Aristoteles and other philosophers were notably critics towards democracy and should not be used to describe what democrats thought. For Aristoteles, for example, the LEAST possible democracy (the "Democracy One" as he called it) was one of the two possible ideals, whilst the radical democracy he said they had in Athens ("Democracy Four") was undesirable and wrong. Ref. Books 4-6 of his "Politica". And the other one of his ideals (!) was the "type one" oligarchy, which he called aristocracy. Both were very similar forms of government, for him, the most "moderate" form of each. BTW Aristoteles was wrong, Athens did not have a "maximum, radical" democracy, nor did they intend to because they thought that the masses could be manipulated by demagoges so *some* controls were in place.
2. Notable that there is no word lost about the processes of admissison of, and check of the past performance of, any magistrate. Dokimasia and euthynai were they called. The last one could be deadly.
5:33 - Isonomia was used by the *critics* of democracy, never to support it, as it was considered absurd that all men are equal (Ref: Hansen, Chapter "Democracy as Ideology"). The concepts the democrats used was the isegoria mentioned later which in general meant to act politically. Equality of power and opportunities, so to say. And the Assembly would not have worked if everybody would had indeed spoken.
7:10: Interesting to mention the glory of the generals as impulse of democracy, being that they were of the few elected and repeatable positions, that is, of the less democratic. But spot on later on the importance of oarsmen, actually the biggest criticism of the philosophers was precisely that the rule of the people meant in practice the rule of the poor. And yes, it was.
10:40: Very good from him to show the development of democracy. The Council of the Aeropagus was f.e. far, far less powerful in the eve of the IV century as under Clistenes and Solon.
12:25 Ephialtes was the master of Pericles, not a "guy he worked with". He was older and Pericles was his follower for a while (Ref: Hansen).
12:54 No, not ten times a year if we are talking about the times after Pericles, ten times is the ekklesia kyria only, ekklesias were that one plus three more per "priania", that is, total 40 per year.
14:00 Yes, the Assembly could take a LOT of decisions alone, but not all. Some had to be ratified by the Council (elected not by "public" but by the people in a different organisation and time, same as the Tribunal of the People) or the Tribunals.
17:44 HEAVY MISTAKE here, the only one so far. Foreigners were an integral part of society, the Athenians were well aware that their own citizens became foreigners when they emigrated, and they did NOT assign them any kind of special "psychology". Probably not even to the slaves, as they knew that they could be enslaved and their ancestors had been slaves. The reason was totally different: they considered the *territory* as not really relevant, the nation was for them composed by the *people*, the initial demos which Pericles restricted to the ones born from two citizens. It was simply a feeling of "this is OUR polis", not classism or racism. And the metecos (foreigners) did have far more rights as the slaves, sorry, were not "practically the same".
18:21 Common misconception that the work made by slaves enabled the democracy. This cannot be proved and one must consider that many citizens had no slaves (even if most had one or more) and that they the huge majority still worked. That's why they had to be paid to participate in the Assembly (quorum: 6000!) and other institutions. And again: if we have to consider the liberating power of subordinated work, please consider that even if not all citizens had a slave, almost all of them had a wife. Female labor is more important there as slave labor.
18:50 It was not rare to liberate slaves, but also not common. An individual slave would have, say, maybe a 5% of a chance for that.
21:21 Ostracism was only used in the first half of Athenian democracy. Later other controls were in place, notably the chance to demand laws and decisions as illegal in front of the tribunals, punishing their proposers. No ostracism happened in the IV century as far as we know.
... and they had other way to harshly punish people for political reasons, including death penalty for nine poor generals who
22:10 SECOND SEVERE MISTAKE: Democracy was more expensive *after* the Empire was gone, the costs of democracy were not overwhelming nor decisive. Democracy stopped existing simply because Macedonians conquered the world, not because it was expensive or because of the fall of the Empire. Hansen makes calculations of the costs, but in general, why on Earth would they increase costs after loosing the Empire if this was really a problem.
23:04 Please take in account that the "demos" for the enemies of democracy was not "the people" but "the poor". Anyway, interesting quote which I did not know. And I doubt a bit, to be honest. Looks like propaganda.
That's it!
@@EduardoSilvaLopez I think you have to take into account the limitations of essentially a 25 minute segment in a video about political theory that has to set up the absolute basics for the usual channel's audience, who probably are not ancient history buffs most of the time. Not every nuance can be explained.
As for your comments
- I would not say Aristotle was essentially 'wrong' - Athenians absolutely were, in Greek context, radicals.
- I think the 'foreigners' mentioned in the video refers to barbarians specifically, to which it can be argued that Greek assigned different psychology, similar to slaves. Metoikoi in Athens, or other Hellenes do indeed escape that categorization, but Athenians absolutely believed other Greeks were 'capable' of democracy - so much so, that they enforced it in their subject states at times - but, yes, you are right why the metoikoi were excluded from the political process.
- I do not agree with your comment on slaves being not as important. I think the video caught the essence of this problem very well, and yes, women and other non-citizens were also essential in contributing to Athenian prosperity, but this does not change the fact that such a system could only exist in a society that casts much of the heavy labour on to various dependents.
- I also disagree on your criticisms on the costs of democracy. It was exorbitant public spending driven by trying to please the politically active masses that led Athenians to exploit their allies, making them into subjects, and quickly going from the heroes of Hellas who took the fight to the Persians, to insufferable tyrants. Because demos got used to functioning like that, even when Athenians got their second shot at rebuilding the League and should have been aware of the mistakes that brought upon their downfall before, they soon went back to extorting their less powerful allies, and consequently losing all of the regained goodwill.
@@hoggypare7629 I do take in account the limitations of a 25 minutes video, and I think all my criticisms could be avoided without spending more time. Nonetheless, I have said and I say again that it is an excellent video and I only saw two real problems / mistakes, which is very, very few.
As for your answers:
- Aristotle himself described the Democracy of Type IV and then said that Athens was that way. And Athens did not fit his own definition. For example, the generals were elected and could repeat terms, which should have been impossible in a Democracy of Type IV. The fact is that he actually spent few time classifying his own Type II and III and oversimplified. This is what I consider being wrong, on this point.
- No, sorry. Mr. Chapman uses correctly "barbarians" every time he adresses non-Greeks, hear him from 16:45 so when he was "to them foreigners and slaves are essentially the same" would be talking about "aliens" (compared to citizens before) and not barbarians. Anyway - there is a mistake in the logic of rejecting the psychological abilities of barbarians and using this to reject metics. You think that the Greeks made this mistake, apparently. I think that it is Mr. Chapmans mistake, and that this was never an argument to reject political rights for the metics. As. Mr. Hansen explains in its book, it had nothing to do with psychological traits (and BTW many slaves were Greek, some highly empowered, so that would have been absurd also for the slaves) but with the sense of the demos as a community of people *having* a land, and not (as today) as the group of people *who live in* a land. For them, the nation was the bloodline, and it possessed lands.
- I again refer to Mr. Hansen, whose book I recommend. The huge majority of Athenian citizens made heavy labor. Many citizens had no slave but their wife. The majority had no more than one. Many were simply poor. There is no proof that the system relied on slavery or even female labor. I am quoting Mr. Hansen, Thesis 141 of Chapter 14 for example.
- And again I refer to Mr. Hansen, who calculated the cost of the democracy in "talents" (the biggest coin) and compared it to the budged state and the costs of the military machine and campaigns, over time, and before and after the Empire. I will not fetch for you the exact quotes, but I remember that the biggest expense was 15 talents per year, so the total cost was maybe about 30 talents (I had to fetch the exact numbers from the book and I don't have the time, sorry) whilst the minimum budget was about 150 talents and that in horrible periods, more usual being 300 talents or more - and that, *after* the Empire, in the IV century. So I insist: the democracy did not fall because it was not economically sustainable, to the point that the costs increased after the reforms in 403 when they should have shrunk if this was actually a problem.
... one point I can concede: if you are not talking about the direct costs of the system but "the cost to please the masses" - but this is uncountable. Nor you nor anybody can really measure, with numbers, which decisions were taken "to please the masses" and which not, nor the comparative costs of having a tyrant who may also incur in horrible costs "to please himself" (think about modern despots wasting money they don't have in a new capital city or other megalomaniac projects). This is uncountable, not measurable, the less with the sources we have. And so, nobody should build a thesis on that. But yes, maybe. Nobody knows. But I think Mr. Chapman is speaking about the measurable, direct costs of keeping the democratic system working, and they were NOT decisive.
Have a nice day.
@@EduardoSilvaLopez I am not sure. See, the problem is you have a point of reference and have read things on that issue. Many viewers here have not. I think explaining all of the details you pointed out AND making it clear for people who sometimes did not even have basic idea of the topic would take more time.
- as for Aristotle, in this specific context I can concede the point. What I meant is that, even if Aristotle is clearly biased and does not follow his definition it goes to show, how much he despised the Athenian system. And he likely was not alone in that regards - that is what I meant by saying that for many Greeks Athenians would be perceived as very radical.
- I think you misunderstand my point. I mostly questioned this being a 'huge' mistake if the video meant foreigners-barbarians, because we have clear comparisons of eg. subjects of the Persian king having slavish mentality, and it could be inferred this was a reason why Persia was politically the way it was
- It may not have relied much more than any other ancient society (although, I fail to see reasons why would one even want to stress that, unless they make a political argument, trying to somehow 'absolve' the democratic system from the unsavoury practice of slavery, which is BS and projecting modern values), but every ancient society did. I still think Athenian prosperity, which heavily relied on slave labour (no free, sane man is going to work in silver mines) contributed to the development of the system.
- Yes, I meant indirect costs. Yes, we cannot quantify that, just as 99% things in ancient history - it is best to accept that. Over-relying on scattered, singular data points and fetishising numbers is, in my opinion, a huge problem in the field, and can lead to far worse mistakes than just making generalist and unquantifiable inferences. But you might be right this is not what video meant.
You too
@@hoggypare7629 Hello!
1. Yep. Even if I think that we cannot discard the existence of polis which were smaller and more democratic than Athens(a), for most Greek Athens was quite probably a radical democracy, specially in the times of Pericles (b).
2. Ok... for me it remains a huge mistake to suggest, and I think the video says that foreigners (and that for me still reads 'metecs') and slaves were considered psychologically unable to exercise freedom (17:18 to 17:53).
3. I only stress what I consider mistakes, I am making no political argument at all and I could not care less about "absolving" Athens, don't sweat that one, I am only interested on the economic fact. Now you say "contributed" - made it easier. Yes! No doubt! My objection was to the video which say that "Athenians {all of them} wanted to do things which (...) not necessarily create value, but someone has to make the hard job and the answer {THE only answer} was slavery". And this is really a heavy mistake. Athenians worked, and worked hard. "The answer" was not slavery but a combination of citizens working, metecs working, slaves working and women working. The "intellectual debating elite" was always a minority, irrelevant compared to the masses of "oarsmen" who did work hard for a living. This picture given by the video here is plain wrong, sorry. Of course you are right that the existence of slavery helped. And also patriarchy. And xenophobia. Hooray :( (c)
4. On indirect costs, indeed - we cannot know. I can only suggest that, in general, on these indirect costs and benefits is exactly where democracy usually is better than oligarchy or tyranny. It is bound to populistic decisions, yes, but it is less bound to corruption, egomaniac decisions and self-destruction through intrigue, civil war, class war... if this applies to "our" democracies, why should it not apply to the ancient ones, with more control over the magistrates? Again, just my two pence, we cannot know for sure.
Best regards and thanks for the speech, rethor ;) .
Footnotes:
(a) I consider here characteristics the Greeks themselves used to classify democracies: having magistrates chosen by lot and not by election; having no repeatable positions; having short terms; having no individual positions but committees; paying citizens and magistrates to participate. Athens was quite there, but not completely there. Maybe for a smaller polis, it was easier to be even more radical.
(b) there was some back-and-forth and by the times of Aristoteles and Demostenes it was a bit less so.
(c) It is relatively easy to imagine that in a less complex polis, the amount of required work per citizen to keep democratic institutions would also had been less. My point being: the direct costs in time or money were not a reason to avoid democracy. Actually even nobody in the time (AFAWK) *mentioned* this as a reason, no anti-democratic philosopher (AFAWK) says "look how much it costs!".
Incredible video!
Thanks a lot for the information, you clearly spent a lot of time working on this (as you do all your videos).
This is the best dissertation on the subject that I have ever seen. Too bad that it is something that requires more than a five minute attention span to get across.
Very interesting and informative. Excellent explanation, description, discussion and appropriate supporting quotes.
Love this.
Can’t thank u enough for this wealth of knowledge you give for free!!! I’d like to see a Greek democracy in today’s world.
Ryan, you are by far one of the best creators on this platform. Incredible work. Do you do everything by yourself or do you have a team of researchers?