What's the difference between starting with the Greeks and

Greeks were a bigger and more direct influence on roman and european writers.
As far as I know, only the jews were really influenced by the sumerians.

Oh no reason at all. I fact, i hear the latest cuneiform translations are excellent.

>>9916941
The Sumerian myths and creation story influenced Greeks and Jews which then influenced the entire West until now

But its not necessary

i appreciate these recommendations, but have never seen this image before - is this oc?

>
the greeks are just generally more relevant...
broadly speaking, later writings tend to be either criticisms or extensions of their projects.
from what i understand, the majority of the writings from the ane are mythical/theological (theodical?), legal, or somewhere in between. while the cradle of civilization has a certain inherent appeal, i really only see its utility insofar as it serves to contextualize the various religious and intellectual traditions that came afterward...
that said, it would be really cool to familiarize oneself with the various writing systems from around that time, but again mainly because they set the table for basically everyone except ching chong land.

>>9917045
It's a recent chart.

>>9916941
Greece is where the western culture was defined. This is where philosophy, theater, logic and early science were created, where the epic poem was defined. The Mesopotamian culture was still just "primordial soup" compared to Greece. And Egyptian culture didn't spread much at all (except for their sculpture influencing early Greek). So, if you want to understand western culture, the Greeks are a requirement, while Mesopotamia and Egypt are worthwhile but mostly unrelated fields.

>Why should I even bother deciding either and not just read what I want instead?
You certainly can read whatever you want. We are free beings, after all.

>>9916947
neolithic greeks were heavily influenced by summerian tradition and culture as was the rest of the region, but because of the lack of written tradition, reciting sources wasn't a thing yet.

>>9916941
Well I don't regret starting with the Sumerians. The topic is interesting, because it was the starting point of culture. Most important insight I got from the Sumerains was that the old testament is just a hebrew copy of ancient near east mythology, how important religion/certain philosophies are for the social structures and the reasons why the ancient far east started changing their religious views from polytheism into monotheism.

>>9918513
This is a very good point. ANE writing and philosophy had a huge impact on Europe via Israelite writings that became the Old Testament. Also, going that far back gives one a great insight into the beginnings of civilization. You start to appreciate how the same problems appear in every era, just read some ancient egyptian wisdom literature to see some proto-existentialism.

>>9916941
Ancient Mesopotamia is interesting, but not necessary at all. The Greeks are the standard starting point for a reason.

Though if you're going the Sumerians route, you can do that then move onto the Bible next to get a better understanding of Judaism and Christianity which obviously had a massive impact on Europe.

I actually started with the Egyptians (after I read a world history book) instead of Greeks. I decided to skip the sumerians and other Neolithic civs because they don't interest me very much.

I'm doing this more for my interest in history tho, not really for philosophy or literature otherwise I'd have started with Greeks straight away and maybe read a general book on Neolithic history beforehand.

>>9919456
>proto-existentialism.

>>9918128
then how do you know that?