Western Civilization.p

categorization of statements, and the nature of lan-
guage itself.
In the physical sciences, Aristotle’s influence dom-
inated thought until the scientific revolution of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He wrote exten-
sively on biology, physics, and human psychology
and was responsible for collecting and transmitting
much of what is known about the early Greek
philosophers. His method was to observe natural phe-
nomena and to understand them in terms of what he
called the “four causes.” These were not causes in the
modern sense, but aspects of a problem that had to be
considered in its solution. The four causes are the
matter out of which a thing is made (material cause),
its form or shape (formal cause), the purpose it is in-
tended to fulfill (final cause), and the force that brings
it into being (efficient cause).
These causes are discovered by logical inference
from empirical observations. Aristotle made no effort to
create predictive mathematical models based upon
these inferences and did not attempt to verify them by
experiment. His method was therefore unlike that of
modern science and produced different results. Scien-
tists no longer believe that the process by which a
physical change occurs can be fully explained by its fi-
nal cause or teleological purpose. Since the seventeenth
century they have asked different questions and have
rejected most of Aristotle’s conclusions about the be-
havior of matter. But even if the scientific theories of
this ancient philosopher are no longer accepted, his
work is still of great importance. Aristotle’s observations
and hypotheses set the agenda for more than a thou-
sand years of speculation, while his teleological bias
and preoccupation with qualitative descriptions (the
material and formal causes) was a compelling if not al-
ways productive influence on later thought. His insis-
tence on careful observation and logically constructed
argument remains a part of the scientific tradition to-
day. No other thinker has had such a powerful impact
on later generations.

The Macedonian Conquests

Aristotle lived in the twilight of classical Greek civiliza-
tion. Though he probably did little to inspire them, the
exploits of his pupil Alexander of Macedon changed the
political structure of the Greek world and spread Greek
values and ideas throughout the Middle East. Inevitably,
those values were changed and diluted in the process,
and the culture that emerged from the Macedonian con-

quests was at the same time more cosmopolitan and less

intense than that of the ancient polis.

The end of the Peloponnesian Wars had left the

Greek states under the political influence of Sparta.

The Spartans, like the Athenians before them, soon

made themselves hated by interfering with the internal

policies of their allies. Athens and Thebes combined

against them, and in 371 B.C.the Spartans were de-

feated at Leuctra by a Theban army under the com-

mand of Epaminondas (c. 410–362 B.C.). Sparta’s role

as a major power ended, and a new era of military inno-

vation began. Epaminondas had given careful thought

to a peculiarity of hoplite warfare (see illustration 3.3).

Hoplites carried their shields on the left. In combat

they shifted toward the right, away from the point of

impact. This threw the phalanx out of balance, but the

consequent strengthening of its right side meant that

the right frequently won the battle. Epaminondas took

advantage of this oddity and weighted his phalanx

48 Chapter 3

Illustration 3.3

The Theban Formation.The top drawing shows the tradi-

tional pattern of hoplite warfare with the shield side of each

formation slowly giving way as the battle develops. The bottom

drawing shows how Epaminondas weighted his formation at

Leuctra to crush the Spartans at their strongest point (the

“weapon side” or right).

Phalanx against phalanx

The Battle of Leuctra, 371 B.C.

Weapon

side

Shield

side

Weapon

side

Shield

side

Spartans

Thebans

(Epaminondas)

Cavalry

Cavalry