For those playing along at home, because Greece in the Archaic and Classical period (when coinage was introduced to there from Anatolia) was split into a lot of little states, each state minted its own coins (on more-or-less similar weight standards) with their state emblem.
Athens had its owl (for Athena), Aegina a turtle, Thebes a Boeotian shield, Thera had dolphins. Little Silinus on Sicily had wheat (it was good farm country) and so on.
A lot of coins also draw on mythological events associated with the cities. Symphalos' coins had Heracles on one side and the famous Stmphalian bird on the other. Syracuse had Arethusa - a nymph (a type of minor goddess) famous to the city - on their coins.
The variety is really spectacular and also a great and fun way to illustrate visually how fragmented Greece was.
That variety begins to decline a fair bit into the Hellenistic period, as the mass-mintings of the great kingdoms (with boring 'Here is our king' obverses)...
...overwhelm the little polis mintings.
That's not to say Hellenistic coins aren't also cool (they are cool), but that the geographic variety goes way down (replaced by more chronological variety as the coins become an important tool of royal propaganda...
...with the king's head on the obverse and reverses showing images he wants to be connected with, like symbolic representations of conquest, power, peace, etc.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think it both presents an interesting argument and a solid summation of scholarly perspectives on the question, but I don't quite buy the argument. 1/21
Hall's main point: that 'state'-ness is necessarily a fuzzy set is valid and well made. Was Rome a 'state' in 477 when the Fabii fell against Veii? Probably not.
The state is defined as an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force... 2/21
...for the Fabii to fight this way suggests that the Roman Republic itself didn't yet have that monopoly.
And of course even in the modern period we have developed terms to express some of the fuzziness of the 'state' set. We thus talk about 'failed states' for... 3/21
Oh yeah, also shout out to Micah 4:4 getting into the inauguration, being quoted by Amanda Gorman (via George Washington (maybe also via the musical Hamilton, but it was famous before)) in her amazing poem (and what delivery!)
The full verse goes:
"Everyone will sit under their own vine
and under their own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the Lord Almighty has spoken" (NIV)
In its context, the verse contemplates a future world at peace under God's rule.
But Washington, most famously in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, took the verse as an ideal for the American republic, where people of every stripe "shall sit...
Just to give a sense of how lacking in rigor this thing is, I submitted an article for peer review of about 80% the length a bit back. Where this 'report' seeks to answer vast questions about American principles over 200+ years of history... 1/5
Looking over the so-called 1776 commission, the thing I find most disappointing are the missed opportunities created by just how clownishly incompetent a document this is, from stem to stern. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
1/6
History is about evidence (which makes one question why this document lacks a bibliography or notes), but it is also about selection & interpretation. Two historians, working in good faith, may look at the same body of evidence &, because they look from a different angle... 2/6
...or at a different part, come up with different, but equally valid conclusions.
Consequently, I think there is good and valuable history to be written by people whose views and values differ greatly from mine. I want to welcome those people into the discipline. 3/6
Do note that Turchin appears himself in that thread and somewhat moderates the 'tone' of how the press frequently presents him (but then one wonders why that tone appears unaltered in the recent Guardian story theguardian.com/us-news/2021/j…)
Also note Dr. Fafinski @Calthalas response to the current Turchin/Cliodynamics discourse here:
First off, our sources for the life of Philip II are really poor. Unlike the multiple biographies we have of his son Alexander III ('the Great'), we have no sustained biography of Philip II. Consequently, we're left to piece together his reign from disparate sources. 2/25
There's a strong tradition that Philip II just left the Spartans alone. That tradition comes from Plutarch, who preserves that classic Laconic reply where Philip threatens that if he enters Spartan territory he would destroy them and they respond 'If' (Plut. De Garr. 17). 3/25