That line really irritated me because it seems to carry a racist "clash of civilizations" connotation to it. Like the way European right-wingers talk about the battle of Vienna between the Christian kingdoms and the Ottomans. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
And it's not true anyway. As someone else on this thread noted, Greece was conquered by the despotic Macedonians not long after this, and was later ruled despotically by the Romans and Byzantines for many centuries. But we don't have the same narrative about that, because the Romans and Byzantines were other Europeans. Hence the racist "clash of civilizations" connotation.
In practical terms I don't see how a Persian conquest of Greece would have been any more destructive to the survival of democracy than the Roman conquest of Greece was. The Roman and Byzantine emperors were no more democratic than the Persian kings. Even when Rome was a republic, it ruled despotically over Greece; the republic was for the city of Rome itself, and later to some extent the rest of the Italian mainland (only after the Social War forced Rome to concede citizenship to Italians), but not for its conquered territories. Greek democracy was crushed under Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman rule (only the last of which is viewed as tragic; guess why), and later Greek monarchical and fascist rule, for 2,000 years. But apparently Persia was the big threat to Western democracy. Ok.
Moreover, Sparta was a brutal slave state, where an oppressive military caste ruled over a downtrodden mass of slaves. I laughed when the Spartan guy at the beginning said to Xerxes "you are the master of slavery, you know nothing of freedom". Yeah ok, I think the helots might have had a few things to say to him about that (and then he would have killed them for daring to speak up to their masters).
reply
share