The Greeks also get quick access to huge money makers that you can put trade-increasing temples in (Crete and, again, Rhodes.
The Greeks also can start producing quality good units fairly quickly (armoured hoplites trained in a city with temples to Nike). The Greeks get easy access to many wonders, and start with Rhodes (the Colossus is my favourite and arguably the best wonder).
Thrace, sitting near the Black Sea and Agean Trade routes and without too much in the way of aggressive neighbours, and Dacia, with massive room for expansion, also seem to do fairly well. This is why I find that the Egyptians are the strongest Campaign civ. Finally, the Coloussus, Temple of Artemis and Mausoleum are not too far away for an Egyptian player with a decent navy. Also, there’s plenty of rebel provinces nearby for quick expansion. The reason, I think, is that they have the best of both worlds they have excellent finances from owning the trade routes of the Eastern Mediterranean and the fertile Nile Valley, and a position where they’re near the edge of the map and surrounded by fairly weak enemies the Numidians are more engaged out west and it takes them years to mass armies in Libya, and the Seleucids have to watch out for the Parthians, Pontus, the Greek Cities and Armenia. However, the Egyptians always seem to end up owning the Middle East from the border with Byzacium to Media. Out on their Island, and with no naval powers around, they’re free to wage war across northern Europe. Other civs, like the Britons, have an excellent strategic position. The Carthaginians have a similar issue, and they, I find, usually end up confined to the Balearic Islands. In my experience, when the Greeks are played by the AI, Syracuse always falls and mainland Greece ends up being contested between Macedon and the Brutii. However, it seems that the opening moves of about half a five factions involve attacking the nearest Greek City, leaving not too much time to enjoy that wealth. Some civs, like the Greeks, have a lot of money initially.