system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Are ancient Rome and ancient Greece over-rated and over-adveritised in terms of their legacies, glory and merit

I know that this sounds like a weird question but I posted this question a few weeks ago and was told that it is better suited for sociologists to answer so I decided to give it a try

I want to say that I am not actually implying that ancient Greece and ancient Rome are not what one would define as "great" or "glorious" because there are some things that would definetely attract any person to what these ancient civilisations were regardless of how they are interpreted as in history books or fictional works. There is a certain "magic" or awe towards these civilisations and I too have my own appreciation and sometimes even romanticism and gratitude to these civilisations and how their achievements and legacies were kept intact and eventually been passed on through generations or even adapted to even more refined technologies and methodologies like astronomy, mathematics, art, philosophy and so on.



But I sometimes feel like these two civilisations are often way over-glorified, or at least the popular conception of ancient Greece and ancient Rome are over-saturated which gives the impression that other civilisations were petty or miniscule in comparison or that these civilisations did not have their own flaws and even horrors. 


One thing that stood out to me in particular when I found out that the Persian Empire was not as horrificly imperialistic and authoritarian as I was told it was, especially when I saw the film 300. Therefore, after I learned about this, I decided to look into the Persian empire, from its history, system of government, mythology and so on, and was amazed and filled with awe. Something that impressed me was how the Persian Empire had its own version of road construction even before the Roman Empire and its system of government and bureacracy was very structured and had its own benefits such as religious tolerance and women's rights (or at least we view them with a positive view from the perspective of the 21st Century) and this was mostly found during the reign of Cyrus whom I remember that I was taught that he was a ruthless leader. What suprises me the most was when I learned that Alexander wanted to implement the Persian's governmental structure in his empire when he managed to conquer the entire Persian empire even though the Hellenistic empire was short lived.


On the other hand, when I learned more about the Greeks and its own customs and social structures, while I still have my own sense of awe and do feel the presence of the ancient Greek "magic" when I read about them, I am surprised on how the ancient customs of ancient Greece are often neglected or not that well-known. For example Athens is seen as the birthplace of democracy but Athenian version of democracy was more limited and did not include women, slaves or even blacks as racism also existed during that time (even though the Hellenisitc empire of Alexander eventually integrated with other civilisations with other ethnicities like ancient Egypt which had inhabitants with darker skin colour) and the pseudo-science of scientific racism was also used to justify or rationalise that mentality. Even Athens had its own form of "imperialism" especially during the Peloponnesian War against the city-state of Sparta which is ironic and I also learned how the glorification of Sparta is also over-exaggarated as it was a eugenic city-state and the Spartans were a leisure-class and Sparta's social structure was a strict monarchy with plenty of slaves doing the hard work while Spartans focused more on military work or leisure. I also learned that the Spartans were not that unique or exemplary when it came to military structure or strategy and mostly got its glory and fame after the Battle of Thermopylae.


Even the Roman Empire has its own versions of not-so-well-known drawbacks even though I still admire the Roman Empire to this day. Apart that the conflict between the corrupt Roman Republic and the more ambitious and possbly tyrannical Caesar is still one of the most well-known debates as to there is no clear answer on how was the hero or the villian of the story, many people throughout history often glorified the Roman Empire and wanted to mimic it or copy it with meticulous precision, whether it is its symbology like the Aquila and the American Eagle, the fasces and its influence on fascism and the fasces symbol is also found in the US Capitol, the ideology and structure of Republicanism, the attempt to make the Roman Empire a thing again after its collapse (at least, the Western side of the Roman Empire as the Eastern side was still intact for another 1000 years) such the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire where the Emperor's title was the Kaiser (a German interpretation of Caesar) and the Russian Empire with the king/emperor's title was known as the Tzar (the Russian version of the word "Caesar").



Many times I was told on how effective the Romans were in their military strategy and while that was indeed true, most of its military glory was found during the late-Roman Republic and early-to-mid Roman Empire era and most of its structure was more complicated to handle as when the Roman Republic became an empire, there were conflicts on who had the authority to be emperor (like even Nero's mother killed her own husband so that Nero would be emperor even though she still wanted to have a say on his choices or when the successive emperors of Rome durign the period of the four Emperors were supposedly killed); there was a difficult time during Roman History called the Crisis of the Third Century where the Roman Empire had to battle against conflict enemies and sometimes had gone through internal struggles where the Emperors were killed by their own legionnaires (but the same time, the Roman Empire managed to persevere a bit longer with the formation of the Roman Tetrarchy even though still had problems)

I could think of many more but I also even realise how these two civilisations were not that grandiose in terms of glory and achievement and even other civilisations had their own "glorious achievements" or structures that make them revered and worth reading about such as ancient Egypt, ancient China (despite that ancient China had also its own recurring pattern of constant reformations and overthrowing its own kingdoms and empires), the Celtic people, the Slavics, the Jews, the Muslims, the Byzantine Empire, the Mali Empire and so on.
gpt
Remember that much of what we call modern academic history has its roots in nineteenth-century Western nation building.  This was a process informed not only by US/European politics but by the early conquests in the Americas and Asia, the late-nineteenth century scramble for empire, the scientific and industrial revolution, scientific racism and eugenics, and etc.

Central to this time is the idea that Progress and that history has a direction.  The early historical profession looked to Greece and Rome as Europe's antecedents, understanding their supremacy as prelude to, and legitimization for, modern episodes of conquest.

If you read *The Journal of World History* and other publications that seek to correct this bias, you'll notice that professional historians in the West are still at the earliest stages.  See especially Julia Adney Thomas's recent article "Why Do Only Some Places Have History? Japan, the West, and the Geography of the Past," which documents the institutional bias of the profession towards the West (*Jrnl of Wrld Hist* 28:2 [June 2017]).

To answer address the OP's question directly, I'd offer that the Greece and Rome are not overrated as much as the rest of the world is dismissed and cloaked in our own ignorance.  Mesoamerica, West Africa, India, and China, and other places, all have impressive imperial pasts.

But, more to the point, empire, while favored by historians because of their production of documents, is not the only or necessarily best form of human organization.  Foraging and pastoral societies existed in large parts of the world, really until the era of nineteenth century imperialism.  They are not pre-imperial, but rather have figured prominently in the trade and politics of imperial societies since the "advent of history" with the first river valley civilizations.

Greece and Rome are very important.  So are indigenous societies that often marked the extent of empire, the pastorialists who carried goods and ideas and provoded mercenaries and pirates, small island communities that peopled vast oceans, and etc., etc., etc.  

Considering that humans have lived on this planet for probably well over 300,000 years and that historians focus almost exclusively on 5000 years of empires, it's safe to say that blindspots dominate our field of visions.  Don't dismiss what we see of Greece and Rome because of it, work to broaden your focus.