Why have Greeks started monogamy?

[MemeFan]

I think I was able to figure out why Greeks have started monogamy.

There are several factors and they are all happening at same time.

1. Political structure*

Greek had interesting political structure. Every citizen had right to vote and their assembly always carried sovereignty. Only assembly could vote laws. I will call this assembly general. Why? These is also special smaller assembly. It was task of special assembly to organize work of general. When it will meet, what are topic and similar. What is important to understand fighting for power between general and special assembly.

In democratic polis, there was push for larger voting franchise and more power for general assembly like deciding to accept potential legislation, add amendments or to initiate new legislation. In oligarchic polis there was push for smaller voting franchise and weaker general assembly. In Sparta, very oligarchic state, king had read new legislation and decide which group was screaming louder: one for or one against. Where was legislation written? In special assembly.

Therefore in any Greek polis there was constant political fight between group pushing for more democracy and group pushing for more oligarchy. Sometimes fight got so intense that no compromise was possible. Greeks has special word for situation: statis. Such polis usually finish as military victim.

2. Geography

Greece has a lot of fertile land, not in amount of arable land, but in number of such areas. Many small plots of arable land means lot of small cities. And with mountains all around, cities were well defended. This situation can only breed enemies all around. While mountains do block proper conquest, they don't block raids. And one good raid can turn peasant from poor guy into proper aristocrat with several wives. Best way to get rich in ancient times was successful military campaign.

Small hint: which group was for more war: aristocracy or general population? General population. Aristocrats weren't so keen to welcome newly rich.

3. Frontier

What was New World for conquistadors, Mediterranean Sea was for Greeks. Even the lowliest Greek could go for adventure and chance to become famous, achieve military glory and get rich. What hot-blooded could resist? And reward were great. Enough wealth and fame to easily pick best girls for harem.

Off course, native ruling class hated adventures. Just imagine. 10 years of scheming to centralize power in your clique hands, driving away problematic guys and then problematic guys return home with ship full of gold and mercenary army All adventures need is to be for democracy and they will get 50%+approval rate. And with polygyny open, adventures to get free hand in forming alliances. Maybe even members of ruling clique offer free daughters to form alliance.

4. Comparison with other societies

Polygyny was present in other societies. But ruling class rulership was more stabile. New challengers would be easier to coop-in making whole society more stabile. Greek society was way more volatile. And with most cities having only few hundred citizens, it would be hard to push them over even. Fighting inside, fighting outside, going on adventures.

I believe it was desire to reduce infighting to push monogamy. By cutting on number of potential alliance and ease of changing side, it does make cliques more stabile. This would stabilize society and made rulership of ruling class more firm. Challengers wouldn't anymore be able to use marriage to form broad-based coalition.

Analysis doesn't mention that polis was formed as coalition of several tribes. Welcome more fighting, this time tribal.

*For details more here:
First article in series:

Collections: How to Polis, 101, Part I: Component Parts

This is the first of a planned three part (I, IIa, IIb, IIc, III) look at the structure of the ancient Greek polis, the self-governing ‘city state,’ as part of a larger series on civic …

acoup.blog

 

[Keith Martin]

I believe the arguments presented above amounts to the propaganda designed to produce obedient cooperation with the new societal structures the Ancient Greeks intended to incrementally implement.

The primary purpose of forced monogamy-only (also to be implemented incrementally in order to ease acceptance) was to shift individual allegiance from (a) decentralized tribal families to (b) centralized governments.

Don't forget that the Greeks invented Statism -- as well as 'Democracy' as Camouflage for Elitist Rule.

 

[FollowingHim]

Remember also that the Greeks had widespread pederastry, it was endemic in their military culture. Senior men would take young male lovers, who would in turn end up homosexual and do the same. Some of their writers (and the Romans who copied their culture) talk about the love of men being more real and higher than the love of women. Women were in a way denigrated to be breeding machines - a man would have a wife to have children, but there was no expectation he would love her, men were ridiculed sometimes for loving their wives. The relationship with men became the focus of life - whether just friendship, military, professional, or sexual. Women were a necessary secondary consideration.

The leading men in society, who defined its direction, were military men. In a military life, you would be often separated from your wife for long periods, even years, particularly in the ancient world with slow transportation. But would be constantly with male companions. So why have many wives if you're not even going to be living with them? Better to have young boys you can take on campaign.

As a result the leading men in society would be less likely to have a goal of accumulating multiple women, and be more likely to have a goal of accumulating multiple young boys who would not only be his sexual outlet but also those he would train in more "important" matters such as war and politics and raise to be his professional successors.

 

[FollowingHim]

Taking that further - if your most respected men are frequently at war, and you respect those who stay at home less, that raises a serious problem. What woman would want to marry a soldier who she will almost never see and might die any day, when she could marry a farmer? If polygamy were permissible, the farmers & tradesmen would get the majority of the women while the soldiers were away, and the soldiers who just risked their lives for years on campaign may come home and find all the women are taken - and taken by men whom they consider inferior to themselves (e.g. cowards for not signing up to the army). That would be completely unacceptable to a military-dominated culture.

Monogamy forces women to marry the soldiers too.

Note that this would only be a problem once large professional armies appeared - when one man is both farmer and soldier, and campaigns are generally seasonal to fit between sowing and harvest, as in ancient Israel and most tribal cultures including pre-European New Zealand, the above is irrelevant. So when did that begin? Alexander clearly had one. I do not know the history well enough to know if the imposition of monogamy correlated with the introduction to Greece of multi-year military campaigns by professional forces. But it seems very logical that the two would be tied together. I do believe Rome was monogamous before the founding of the legions, which would seem to contradict all of this, except that Rome imported much of their culture from Greece. So the question is when Greece introduced monogamy and professional armies.

 

[Keith Martin]

So the question is when Greece introduced monogamy and professional armies.

Professional armies preceded creation of monogamy-only by about 1000 years, and then it took another 1000 for monogamy-only to be fully implemented.

What woman would want to marry a soldier who she will almost never see and might die any day, when she could marry a farmer?

Well, all the women who prefer alpha males to deltas and gammas, which is most women.

The actual historical strategy for women in warring communities where the men would be off fighting distant wars for extended clips is to marry the soldiers and cheat on them while they're away with the farmers.

 

[FollowingHim]

Professional armies preceded creation of monogamy-only

Which is the order you'd expect though. Start professional armies, find the problems, introduce monogamy to try and fix them. The problem won't become evident initially, it will become larger as professional armies become larger, and then it will take a long time for cultural changes to occur as a result of that.

Well, all the women who prefer alpha males to deltas and gammas, which is most women.

The actual historical strategy for women in warring communities where the men would be off fighting distant wars for extended clips is to marry the soldiers and cheat on them while they're away with the farmers.

Yes, you're right on both counts.

 

[MemeFan]

Professional armies can't be large. They are very expensive. We are talking max 2-3% of population. 10% is max mobilization of population for existential threaths and can't be sustained for years.

No way monogamy was invented for professional soldiers. Most professionals are mercenaries, why change your marriage laws for foreigners? Nope.

And here most campaigns aren't years long. They are seasonal with both Rome and Greece practicing conscripted. Being citizens included military service. So husbands would be at most several months away.

So farmer risked his life also. No benefits here. Plus good mercenary could become way richer. And soldiers did finds ways to have sex and children, so need for special laws for them.

Pike-and-shoot armies had soldiers wives with them (who did clothes washing when men didn't?). Silvers shields of Alexander Great after his death did have camp with their families there.

Saint Valentine, had you forgotten? Emperors couldn't stop soldiers from getting married.

We are seeking something which existed only in Greece and nowhere else. Why did Greece had monogamy and philosophers and not Phoenicia? What is difference?

I think is geography, economony and political system. Greeks had to be rich enough to have thinking class which didn't have to toil in fields. Geography means lots of small vulnerable cities easy to destabilize. Mountains means neighbours to be raided are few days away, but mountains all block conquest.

And Mediterrean Sea means access to outside wealth by going to adventurism and getting rich. So ruling class is in very unstable position.

So Phonenicia wasn't unstable as Greece lowering need for reform. I don't get why Phoenicia didn't have thinking class as Greece. They had same wealth.

 

[FollowingHim]

Philosophy is not unique to Greece - take Confucius for instance. I expect everyone had a thinking class to some degree. However, due to Alexander, and then the Roman Empire (the Romans were particularly taken by Greek culture), the writings of their philosophers were more widely spread and preserved than the thinkers in other cultures. It's not that they were the only thinkers.

Greece was not the only country to invent monogamy either, Egypt was also monogamous.

Professional armies can't be large. They are very expensive. We are talking max 2-3% of population. 10% is max mobilization of population for existential threaths and can't be sustained for years.

I know. But the ruling class in this culture came disproportionately from the army leadership. So the influence of the military on policy is disproportionately large.

I might be wrong that this drove monogamy of course, it was just a line of thinking my brain went down this evening. But I wouldn't dismiss it for that specific reason.

 

[Keith Martin]

Professional armies preceded creation of monogamy-only by about 1000 years, and then it took another 1000 for monogamy-only to be fully implemented.

Professional armies preceded creation of monogamy-only

Well, you left out the part about how 1000 years went by.

The main point, though, is that it wasn't until the Greek philosophers came up with the construct of the centralized city/state (which evolved with the Romans into the nation/state) that those same philosophers invented monogamy-only -- and they knew it wouldn't be swallowed wholesale immediately, so they purposefully designed a strategy of slow, incremental implementation, which was mostly in place 1000 years later but continues to this day. Brilliant but destructive of individuals and of families -- all by design to create fealty to central elites.

There really is very little correlation with standing armies -- and no demonstrable causation.

Greece was not the only country to invent monogamy either, Egypt was also monogamous.

The latter is predominantly modern Western-Civ mythology. Records related to such things from Ancient Egypt are very sparse, and what we do know is inconsistent. The most consistent information is that not only royalty but anyone possessed of wealth was permitted unlimited numbers of wives, and we have no evidence of monogamy-only edicts in Ancient Egypt for the masses. Then, as in remaining African cultures that allow polygyny, the vast majority are monogamous but those with wealth have up to dozens of wives.

Professional armies can't be large. They are very expensive. We are talking max 2-3% of population. 10% is max mobilization of population for existential threaths and can't be sustained for years.

I know. But the ruling class in this culture came disproportionately from the army leadership. So the influence of the military on policy is disproportionately large.

Again, no doubt military leadership was (and remains) influential, but that's because of a generalized ongoing overlap correlation between male leadership and male military participation. Correlation but no causation. You're just making a logical misstep. Most of the Greek philosophers in Ancient Greece were also military men. The problem is that they probably all ate fish as well (and maybe even had sex with boys), but there's no indication in the records that these things led them to create monogamy-only. Keep in mind that the incremental implementation meant that those who initiated the process were under no coercion to be limited themselves by any of those eventual rules.

 

[MemeFan]

Philosophy is not unique to Greece - take Confucius for instance. I expect everyone had a thinking class to some degree. However, due to Alexander, and then the Roman Empire (the Romans were particularly taken by Greek culture), the writings of their philosophers were more widely spread and preserved than the thinkers in other cultures. It's not that they were the only thinkers.

Correct. Got same thought hours after writing my text.

@Keith Martin, there is one problem with your incremental theory. Why would ruling elite persist all these years in pushing same solution? This solution can only persist if these is some trend favouring it. Otherwise, change of circumstance would favor another solutions.

Maybe it's something connected with religion. Ancestor worship was religion on which Greece was founded. Maybe, some impulse there pushed monogamy-only?

Everybody has only one mother, so this was reason?

 

[paterfamilias]

Why?
Dunno but there is not enough gyro or shitty retsina wine on the planet to make up for it.
Lame

 

[Keith Martin]

@Keith Martin, there is one problem with your incremental theory. Why would ruling elite persist all these years in pushing same solution? This solution can only persist if these is some trend favouring it. Otherwise, change of circumstance would favor another solutions.

First of all, the ruling elite doesn't bother promoting it anymore; it's easy enough to look around the world to recognize that the ruling class is disinterested in marriage other than to weaken its power in general -- and even as far as that goes they're no longer energetic about it.

Why not? (a) Because it's unnecessary, for two reasons: (1) it was placed in motion more than 2 millennia ago and already produced the intended lasting effects [primarily, embrace of central-government tyranny disguised as "looking out for the little guy;" and (2) the corporate Church introduced top-down antisexuality with Constantine and Augustine, and good little fundamentalist fascists now do all the enforcement on themselves and others. Neither Church nor State any longer has to lift a finger to keep generalized obedience in place -- the Sheep keep themselves sedated with self-fulfilling justifications for perpetuating nuclear-families-broken-homes-and-monogamy-only-is-only-godly-way narratives.

Don't forget that Ancient Greek culture became Greco-Roman culture with its Western-Civilization spin-off, and then somewhere in the neighborhood of 4th century AD Constantine pulled his hat trick of declaring himself Holy Roman Emperor by disingenuously fusing 1/3 of Christian teachings with 2/3 of his pagan religious background, which turned Greco-Roman culture into institutionalized bonding of Church and State. This has only been dismantled in minor ways around the edges within Christendom.

 

[MemeFan]

First of all, the ruling elite doesn't bother promoting it anymore; it's easy enough to look around the world to recognize that the ruling class is disinterested in marriage other than to weaken its power in general -- and even as far as that goes they're no longer energetic about it.

Why not? (a) Because it's unnecessary, for two reasons: (1) it was placed in motion more than 2 millennia ago and already produced the intended lasting effects [primarily, embrace of central-government tyranny disguised as "looking out for the little guy;" and (2) the corporate Church introduced top-down antisexuality with Constantine and Augustine, and good little fundamentalist fascists now do all the enforcement on themselves and others. Neither Church nor State any longer has to lift a finger to keep generalized obedience in place -- the Sheep keep themselves sedated with self-fulfilling justifications for perpetuating nuclear-families-broken-homes-and-monogamy-only-is-only-godly-way narratives.

Don't forget that Ancient Greek culture became Greco-Roman culture with its Western-Civilization spin-off, and then somewhere in the neighborhood of 4th century AD Constantine pulled his hat trick of declaring himself Holy Roman Emperor by disingenuously fusing 1/3 of Christian teachings with 2/3 of his pagan religious background, which turned Greco-Roman culture into institutionalized bonding of Church and State. This has only been dismantled in minor ways around the edges within Christendom.

I didn't mean in last 2000-2500 years. I mean from when they got idea till it was become societal custom.

Unless goal of destroying family was that old.

 

[frederick]

Unless goal of destroying family was that old.

The goal of destroying the family and everything good began in the Garden. That objective won't change until there is the new heaven and earth.

 

[steve]

The goal of destroying the family and everything good began in the Garden. That objective won't change until there is the new heaven and earth.

This is the focus that I have been waiting for. Greeks, Schmeeks, it was/is a spiritual issue first. They were just a tool of the enemy.
I’ve said it many times, the enemy of our souls both hates and fears polygyny.

 

[Keith Martin]

The goal of destroying the family and everything good began in the Garden. That objective won't change until there is the new heaven and earth.

This is the focus that I have been waiting for. Greeks, Schmeeks, it was/is a spiritual issue first. They were just a tool of the enemy.
I’ve said it many times, the enemy of our souls both hates and fears polygyny.

I didn't mean in last 2000-2500 years. I mean from when they got idea till it was become societal custom.

Unless goal of destroying family was that old.

As @frederick and @steve have pointed out, the Adversary has been waging war against his Creator at least since the Garden, and in the Adversary's dominion he's been doing so through family destruction. No doubt his machinations have borne fruit throughout human history, but, remember, the question was one of when did monogamy-only get invented. The Adversary did that through the Greeks -- unless you can provide me with scriptural evidence of something that pre-dated 6th-century BC documenting the specific targeting of polygyny.

Unless goal of destroying family was that old.

And, yes, the goal of destroying family in general was not just as old as the Greeks; it goes back to the Garden. But destroying polygyny first reared its official head with Ancient Greece. They invented both monogamy-only and the nuclear family as dovetailing purposeful strategies to advance the institution of central-authority statism with the intention of invalidating decentralized tribalism, under the camouflage of supposedly creating a populist alternative to totalitarian royalism. It's crucial for those wanting to effectively counter either the spiritual warfare or secular steamrolling to recognize that Western Civilization at its core is anti-family. Little-fiefdom nuclear family structuring is anti-family (I know, that seems counter-intuitive). Promoters of central authority have successfully hypnotized most of us to automatically allow them to take credit for every technological advance that comes down the pike, but in truth neither the absence of secular central-government nor religious 'church'-institutionalized authority would have prevented these advances. Acknowledging the Greek creation of monogamy-only and the nuclear family is essential to know just how pervasive the enmity is, because Western Civilization entirely flows from Ancient Greece. When we laud Western Civ, we applaud our own oppression and enslavement.

Yes, it's that old.

 

[MemeFan]

The goal of destroying the family and everything good began in the Garden. That objective won't change until there is the new heaven and earth.

That's Satan's goal. When did it become elites goal?

Over 1000 years of Medieval Christendom and family wasn't touched. So Satan can only work if he gets some people to do his crap which implies thst some people must see Satan's crap as their interest.

EDIT: Made error in previous paragraf. There wasn't attack on family as institution, but polygyny and concubinage were outlawed.

 

[Keith Martin]

That's Satan's goal. When did it become elites goal?

In all likelihood concurrent with the emergence of the first elite.

Over 1000 years of Medieval Christendom and family wasn't touched.

First of all, Medieval Christendom only set about putting on the finishing touches, a process that continues to this day. Family as the dominant institution was decimated when the Greeks and Romans successfully shifted individual allegiances from their tribal FAMILIES over to the government. Nuclear 'families' were invented to keep human beings atomized, separated for the most part from the power inherent in the type of tribalism YHWH taught Abraham. Little atomized units that waste vast resources unnecessarily duplicating means of production were already tremendously easier to control. The GrecoRomans then handed off the ball to Constantine, the Early Church Fathers and the Popes, who immediately proceeded to spend nearly a millennium shredding the fabric of what 'family' was left in their attempts to demonize sexuality, dictate when sexual intimacy was and was not 'sacred,' exacerbating their evil by declaring marriage a 'sacrament.' Don't forget that, before priests were banned from marriage, and because the effort to demonize polygyny hadn't yet become as successful as it now is, priests were more likely than the average lay person to be polygamous. The 'Church' made efforts to convince the laity that they were to reserve sex not only just to marriage but only during times of active fertility, demanding that those who 'strayed' were to confess their sins and provide compensation to the 'Church.' When this only resulted in people staying away from the churches in droves, the 'Church' reacted by tightening down on the priests and altering biblical translations for the purpose of totally freaking people out in order to drive them back into the pews (and their tithes back into 'Church' coffers).

Does any of that sound like the building up of family/families? The purpose was the same as the Greeks': further establishing that your families are powerless and you better bow down to those who are in control.

 

[MemeFan]

In all likelihood concurrent with the emergence of the first elite.

First of all, Medieval Christendom only set about putting on the finishing touches, a process that continues to this day. Family as the dominant institution was decimated when the Greeks and Romans successfully shifted individual allegiances from their tribal FAMILIES over to the government. Nuclear 'families' were invented to keep human beings atomized, separated for the most part from the power inherent in the type of tribalism YHWH taught Abraham. Little atomized units that waste vast resources unnecessarily duplicating means of production were already tremendously easier to control. The GrecoRomans then handed off the ball to Constantine, the Early Church Fathers and the Popes, who immediately proceeded to spend nearly a millennium shredding the fabric of what 'family' was left in their attempts to demonize sexuality, dictate when sexual intimacy was and was not 'sacred,' exacerbating their evil by declaring marriage a 'sacrament.' Don't forget that, before priests were banned from marriage, and because the effort to demonize polygyny hadn't yet become as successful as it now is, priests were more likely than the average lay person to be polygamous. The 'Church' made efforts to convince the laity that they were to reserve sex not only just to marriage but only during times of active fertility, demanding that those who 'strayed' were to confess their sins and provide compensation to the 'Church.' When this only resulted in people staying away from the churches in droves, the 'Church' reacted by tightening down on the priests and altering biblical translations for the purpose of totally freaking people out in order to drive them back into the pews (and their tithes back into 'Church' coffers).

Does any of that sound like the building up of family/families? The purpose was the same as the Greeks': further establishing that your families are powerless and you better bow down to those who are in control.

Except Medieval Christendom was practically another civilization built on different ideas. It was practically AnCap paradise. It was only civilization anarchist in origin.

Old Germanic law was effective shield against tyranny. And decision by king could be vetoed by single noble and no law could be imposed without consent of everyone affected. All rules had to be good and old.

Killing tyrants and "nobody is such lord that he can invent law" (paraphrase) are all medieval ideas. Only Lord Himself was sovereign, so no philosopher-kings and social engineers.

With laws, customs and nobility against centralization, no states were formed. It was tried, off course. First states were formed in early modern era when kings allied themselves with burgers.

So, why would people and nobility accept self-destructive ideas, ones against family? They wouldn't.

Nobility had goal of preserving estate. Solution is for 2nd and later marriage not to be full. Charlemagne didn't allow "full marriage" for his daughters. No full marriage, no competition for his sons.

It was far more likely religious fanatism and "sex is bad" idea why monogamy was accepted in later medieval times.

It is interesting that ban against conbubinage and priest marriage happens in 11th century. Same century when cities recover and get some independence.