Inaccurate. Persian society had as many slaves as the Greeks, if not more. Most importantly, every Persian and Persian subject was by definition a slave of the King, and referred to himself as such.
In monarchic Persia, however, women enjoyed a level of gender equality unmatched even to this day
I keep hearing this, but have not seen anythin resembling proof. The Persians actually invented the custom of keeping women in purdah (a Persian word), and Arabs and Muslims adopted it from them.
Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote.
This is, of course, much worse than Persia, where only the King had the right to vote.
The Spartans were Greek Jihadists who lived only to die. They were by all accounts ruthless savages who murdered Greek slaves known as "Helots" just for sport, cultivated a culture of thievery and rape, and practiced infanticide, as the movie '300' rightly points out in its opening scenes. Sparta was not even democratic. It was an oligarchy at best.
A not inaccurate description of the Spartans, although rather incomplete. As far as infanticide goes, all ancient peoples except the Jews practiced it. The difference in Sparta is that the State rather than the father decided which children would be raised and which killed.
Despite knowing all this, the West continues to hail the Spartans as the saviors of Western democracy.
The Spartans (and the other Greeks) did save Western democracy, although that was certainly not the Spartan intent. Had the Persians conquered Greece, we would live in a very different world, one in which Western civilization had been crushed as a seedling. It might be a better world, or worse, but it would certainly be different.
The Muslim Arabs should be glad, too. If Persia had been able to expand its empire into Europe, it would have been that much more to draw resources from for when Muhammed came along.
I wonder how his armies would have fared against a few legions of Spartans.
Thats a bunch of BS. The Spartans hated Democracy, in fact, they fought against the Athenians against the concept. They also did not believe in human rights nor did they have one God like the Persians.
Anicent Greece (particularly Sparta) had many shortcomings that are largely white-washed these days, but it also had strong points. Ancient Persia was also the same ....it had a good number of short-comings, but it also had a wealth of positives (although perception of Persia is the inverse of that of Sparta ...i.e. Persia was a debauchery of immorality and corruption, when in many ways that is more true of Greek civilization than Persian).
Anyways, a few points remain. Ancient civilizations all had their strong points and their dregs, and hence there was no 'perfect' ancient civilization and there was none that was useless. Rome may have totally vanquished Carthage, and had Carthage instead have vanquished Rome there is a great chance that the world would have been different. As you so correctly put it, the world might have been better or might have been worse, but it WOULD HAVE BEEN different. Same thing about Persia vs Greece ....a different winner may have led to a better/worse world, but one thing that is for certain is that Western culture would have either been different/assimilated/non-existent. And that which would have taken its place may have been a maelstrom of malevolence, or it could have been more or less an approximation of what Western civilization is (and stands for) today, or it might actually have been better (people automatically equate ancient Persia with current Iran ....as different as night and day).
Anyways, Greece won the battle, Persia lost the war, and the world is as it is now. Which, when you look at it, could have been a hell lot worse ....thus there is nothing to complain about. No need to dream of what mgiht have been, particularly when there is a good chance it might have been worse than what actually is (or better ...that is a debate better left to philosophers).
Although I do find it interesting how today Sparta is seen as a bastion of democracy and freedom. Actually Sparta was more akin to what the Soviet Union espoused itself as being ....democracy was more along the lines of what Athens was. Anyways, I guess the historically important fact is that Sparta (and Greece as a whole) stood up against a vastly superior force, and that it took a whole lot of bravery against the odds to do so, and by doing so they changed the entire history of the world from that inception point. furthermore, whatever political leanings Sparta may have had, they were still one of the bravest and most stringent military societies on Earth, and they were resilient and had fortitude in their outlook and timbre (the South African Zulu under Shaka were similar in orientation, but Assegai is no solution to British rifles). Again, that is praiseworthy. As for Persia, they had many developments (and Zoroastroanism is by far different from Islam, particularly the brand that people like Ahmadenijad use to fuel their demagogue-esque wiles). It was a rich society, but it fell.
Bottom line. Greece won. Persia lost. And we are the better for it (unless someone with a time-machine and a howitzer is willing to go back in time, raze down the Greeks with shell-fire, and then wait a couple thousand years to see how the world would have turned out if the Persians won. The fact that we can never tell means one thing ....we are better off that the Greeks won).