01-21-2009, 10:35 AM
The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization: Victor Davis Hanson
Hi!
I have started to read this book (I don't know if anyone has made a review). It has several great ideas, but some flaws too. The author's experience in the agriculture helps him to understand elements that traditional scholars fail to see, since they don't understand the subject (the advantages of diversification of crops, the ability of a small farmer to improve an apparent no-good terrain in a more productive land than some fertile terrain belonging to great landowners). Since he isn't Marxist, he doesn't see the Greek society as a a constant struggle between rich and poor and doesn't "torture" the texts to prove it.
The flaws: he is very repetitive. Some conclusions seem to be logical, but he don't offer any proof, he just use his common sense (and that may be dangerous some time). He uses too much literature evidences, and few archaeological proofs. And you can see he have agenda, and that may be a bit annoying (well, at least he doesn't hide it).
About the book itself: he defend that at the start of the archaic period, there was a internal colonization of Greece, with persons starting to plough lands who didn't have owners, and with hard work or several generations, a new class of middle farmers appeared whose moral and values would be what defined the polis (and western culture): independence, love of freedom, the creation of politics.
I haven' finished the book yet, but basically it's this (I'm curious to know the justification for the defeat of Athens and the polis at the macedonian hands)
Hi!
I have started to read this book (I don't know if anyone has made a review). It has several great ideas, but some flaws too. The author's experience in the agriculture helps him to understand elements that traditional scholars fail to see, since they don't understand the subject (the advantages of diversification of crops, the ability of a small farmer to improve an apparent no-good terrain in a more productive land than some fertile terrain belonging to great landowners). Since he isn't Marxist, he doesn't see the Greek society as a a constant struggle between rich and poor and doesn't "torture" the texts to prove it.
The flaws: he is very repetitive. Some conclusions seem to be logical, but he don't offer any proof, he just use his common sense (and that may be dangerous some time). He uses too much literature evidences, and few archaeological proofs. And you can see he have agenda, and that may be a bit annoying (well, at least he doesn't hide it).
About the book itself: he defend that at the start of the archaic period, there was a internal colonization of Greece, with persons starting to plough lands who didn't have owners, and with hard work or several generations, a new class of middle farmers appeared whose moral and values would be what defined the polis (and western culture): independence, love of freedom, the creation of politics.
I haven' finished the book yet, but basically it's this (I'm curious to know the justification for the defeat of Athens and the polis at the macedonian hands)
