Umm, no. The huge break in any European democratic tradition and the decidedly un-Classical motivations of the initial movements away from absolutist monarchy in Europe give the lie to that notion. The Magna Carta barons were not following in the legacy of Rome (if anything, they were echoing a much more homegrown notionof democracy and what kingship meant), Oliver Cromwell was not recreating Athenian democracy, and the rabble who stormed the Bastille were not scholars of Plato, FFS.
Indeed The Dutch, like the Swiss before them, kind of stumbled upon it after declaring (and winning) independance.
Ok, so we got rid of the King of Spain as our sovereign.
Errm, now what?
The training and the long sarissa pikes helped in creating an infantry that would stand its ground and keep the enemy pinned.
More important was the agressive use of the cavalry, that would charge any gaps or weak spots in the enemy line of battle.
This was no longer hoplite warfare, where a dense line of heavy shields tries to bash its way through the enemy formation.
Absolutely agree that Alexander’s army was very different from a hoplite phalanx. Aside from the already-mentioned innovation of a standing army, it was the use of combined arms that made Alexander’s army so deadly. Particularly the combination of heavy shock infantry and the large cavalry contingent, but also, to a lesser degree, missile troops (even horse archers after the incursion into India), elite “special forces” troops, siege engineers, and various scouting and light forces.
This was one of the first major experiments in combined arms, and most opponents had not yet developed an appropriate response to the new tactics.
There were other Persian cities besides Persepolis and Persians in other parts of the wide empire. And actually the Persians made use of clay tables, and clay tables have sometimes survived to our times because the were burnt when the city was destroyed by fire. The few examples of Persian writing we have do not promise much:
(Cyrus Cylinder) and so on… Not exactly Pericles’ funeral speech is it.
Where did I say such a thing. In fact the pyramids were constructed by one of the nations the Persians decided to wage war on. Although of course already ancient by then. I expressively in my first post that the Persians did ok, and have tried to list some of the examples that could be reason for praise of Persian accomplishments that are more than mere speculations on would have and could have.
Germanic tribes also had a tradition of democracy in various forms, but neither the founding fathers of French nor US democracy choose to call their parliaments Tings. Obviously the intellectuals and leaders of the French and American Revolutions were inspired by Greek and Roman ideals. Which the various use of terminology, symbols and architecture is evident of. Classical inspiration can be understated, just as much as it can be overstated.
Exactly correct. The entire foundation of modern democracy and republicanism were derived explicitly from adapting Athenian and Roman forms of government to modern nations. Events such as the Magna Carta were only small steps which in retrospect point to a change in European monarchy*.
*And actually, any reputable historian would also point out that European monarchy was rarely despotic and rarely all that unitary, as was the the case in most Eastern despotism. Unitary, Imperial monarchies belong to relatively recent Europe, well after the Magna Carta, and were rather rare even then.
This isn’t a zombie, right? Only two days? Great.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s accurate to link American democracy more than very vaguely to Greek democracy. The Roman republic, well, at least the Americans used some of the same words and imitated some of the architecture. Still, American democracy wasn’t adapting the old forms of democracy to the new governments; it was adapting the old forms of government to democracy. Compare the American and British systems. You have a two-house legislative branch, where the lower is more democratic and the upper not meant to be representative (remember, the Senate was appointed by the states for a long time). The lower controls the purse, but the upper is still considered, well, the upper. On top of both these, you have a single executive, who executes the law and has some serious power, but can be removed by the legislature. He is head of the armed forces and in charge of a cabinet that constitutes the government. All that, and I could be describing either system at the time. The biggest difference was that the executive was (sort of) elected in the US, but not in the UK. The Athenians would not recognize that system as democracy at all; in Athens, the legislature consisted of all citizens, and there was no real independent executive. Individual roles were filled by lot. Glancing at the Wiki about the Roman republic, I’m not seeing that it was all that similar to the American system either.
Executive: American democracy is an adaptation of the British Parliamentary system under some new principles. Neither its structures nor its principles bear even a passing resemblance to Greek democracy or Roman republicanism; the extent of the direct contribution from Antiquities is some vocabulary.
straight man, your point is well taken, but I think you confuse British government today and British government then. In 1776, the British were effectively ruled by the monarch, with mostly top aristocrats as advisers. The system had some surface-level similarities, but functioned totally differently. most notably, it invested sovereignty not in a single person or office, but in the people as a whole - which definitely pointed towards the trend of expanding suffrage quickly over time. In fact, I might just as easily point out things went the other way: over time, British government became much more like American Democracy. Not should it come as any shock than prominent British writers heavily influenced America, including John Locke.
Yes, we can’t rule out non-British examples. Athens gave them a starting point for suffrage from which they grew. It also pointed out many of the pitfalls of running a government without a controlled executive. It was an ideal they looked up to, but also judged on its flaws. Rome was definitely considered as a model, both for its tradition of limited executive power and the unity-in-division it held at its best. They very much wanted to bring the best and brightest into the Senate, but turned the lower-class plebian tribunate into arguably the more powerful body in real authority. Furthermore, we can also take advantage of the example of the Iroquois government, which several Founding Fathers noted in their writing.
I think you’re overstating. It’s true that the monarchy had more power then than it does now, where it’s just a figurehead, and it’s true that the titled nobility had more of a role, but the British were effectively ruled by Parliament, and while the King did have to give royal assent to acts, there wasn’t much the King could do on his own, while Parliament, as Lord Coke had previously put it, could “do everything that is not naturally impossible”. Most notably, only Parliament could tax, and the sole taxing authority possessed by Parliament was one of the major causes of the Revolution.
What Captain Amazing said. Remember, Parliament had overthrown the king not once but twice in the last two centuries by that point. The version of 1700’s British government we learn about in secondary school (though I don’t mean to imply that is your source!) is more a parody than a truth. The systems really were intensely similar — but it should hardly be surprising that the founders of the US would understate the similarity and call upon other, mostly spurious inspirations.
Also, I’m glad you brought up Locke. As you mentioned, the theoretical basis of American democracy came out of the natural law philosophers, especially Locke. I’ve read a decent smattering of the big works from that school, and if anything, it’s striking how much natural law theorists abandon the Greeks. The big Greek philosophers absolutely dominate medieval political thought; the evolution of democracy loosely corresponds with that influence diminishing.
Also, yes, there was and still is a pretty big interplay between the American and British systems — the most striking example of which is, ironically, the *anti-*democratic judicial supremacy that first evolved in the US. In terms of democracy, the rise of democracy across the West arguably sped up the evolution of the British system toward inclusion. On the other hand, the fundamental bases of British democracy (Parliamentary supremacy —including the idea that Parliament spoke for the people —and responsible government) were already well in place by 1776. The trend within Britain toward greater accountability predates the American Revolution; it kept going before, during, and after.