hahahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahhahaha troll

Don't feed the troll. A 10 year old with interwebs could answer this question in a minute flat.

As with all trolling, it goes wherever you take it. And it grows as much as you feed it! IT'S ALIVE. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES.

Baratheon, may I mail you some history texts? I feel bad that kids today are embarrassingly ignorant.

I already explained on what grounds I labeled it trolling:
"A 10 year old with interwebs could answer this question in a minute flat."

And now you're similarly claiming to be so ignorant you want to "discuss" a topic you've literally not spent 1 single minute learning anything about.

I will admit, there's a thin line between trolling and just stupid.

I find most things classical fascinating, but the idea of _any_ sort of "discussion" in this context is just silly.

Let's consider a few things...

Massive number of slaves. No equality here.

Non-citizens. Nope, no equality.

But, to their credit, women were... nope. Just kidding.

And after establishing that he meant "egalitarian" only among the minority of human beings there who could participate in the political system, we'd confront the fact that, no, leaders did not receive the same wages as soldiers and quartermasters and... whatever.

There's a bit to be said for the "egalitarian" nature of their political system in regard to access [edit: [for citizens]], but not at all in the "wealth distribution" context used here.

There's plenty to talk about in Ancient Greece. First, wanna specify a city-state? Era? Thanks. But this thread just opens up with a whole lot of apathy that suggests the poster was probably [researching this topic] or something when he posted it. There's absolutely no chance anyone would post such spam if they had _any_ desire to know _any_thing about the topic. Compared to today, he asks? That's just silly. Really, really, ridiculously silly.

Your a slave to the system Kemp!

Now that's trolling!

Oh you bought me on a typo huh?

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

*stabs Kemp with a rusty pitchfork a dozen times*

Actually it is 'way past E's bedtime' of an error... sleepy so sleepy.

Damn boss is gonna yell at me in morning. *shrug*

No.  All city states drew a line between their people and foriegners.  Some had aristocracy too, but even the Spartans who were pretty egalitarian among themselves were slaveraiding racist bastards to their helots.

Kemp it would be 'brain fatigue' and yes... I was very tired.

Well, this essay says Ancient Greece around 300 AD was quite egalitarian, comparable to many modern states:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/ober/051001.pdf

""The late-classical
Athenian citizen-family level of total-wealth inequality is roughly comparable to that of
the total population of the USA in 1953-54 (0.71). It is less equal than Canada in 1998
(0.69), but a more equal than Florence in 1427 (0.788) or the USA in 1998 (0.794). It is
much more equal than the USA or England in the early 20th century (0.93 and 0.95
respectively).27"

As of 2005, according to the Gini coefficient, Greece's level of inequality was 33.

Looks as if the US in 1953-54 was at a 37

Looks as if some conversion could be applied on this basis to say that Ancient Greece around 300 AD would have had a Gini coefficient factor of 37 then.

Thus, you could consider, if the above essay's findings are correct that Greece's gini coefficient is probably more or less the same as what it was in 300 BC