Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Government in ancient Greece
Government in ancient Greece
Politicle life of athens
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Peloponnesian War and the Decline of Leadership in Athens
Thucydides set out to narrate the events of what he believed would be a great war—one requiring great power amassed on both sides and great states to carry out. Greatness, for Thucydides, was measured most fundamentally in capital and military strength, but his history delves into almost every aspect of the war, including, quite prominently, its leaders. In Athens especially, leadership was vital to the war effort because the city’s leaders were chosen by its people and thus, both shaped Athens and reflected its character during their lifetimes. The leaders themselves, however, are vastly different in their abilities and their effects on the city. Thucydides featured both Pericles and Alcibiades prominently in his history, and each had a distinct place in the evolution of Athenian empire and the war it sparked between Athens and Sparta. Pericles ascended to power at the empire’s height and was, according to Thucydides, the city’s most capable politician, a man who understood fully the nature of his city and its political institutions and used his understanding to further its interests in tandem with his own. After Pericles, however, Thucydides notes a drastic decline in the quality of Athenian leaders, culminating in Alcibiades, the last major general to be described in The Peloponnesian War. While he is explicit in this conclusion, he is much more reticent regarding its cause. What changed in Athens to produce the decline in the quality of its leadership?
The development of an empire is a change strongly emphasized in the Archeology as a radical departure from the Hellenic tradition, and consequently a major source of conflict among the Greeks. Prior to the adven...
... middle of paper ...
...edicted it would, and without a leader like him willing to direct them away from this mindset rather than pander to it to get votes, the political constitution of the city was doomed to dissolve. Speaking of the revolution in Corcyra, which occurred after the Athenian decision to spare Mytilene but before its destruction of Melos, Thucydides wrote, “In peace and prosperity states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants and so proves a rough master that brings most men’s characters to a level with their fortunes” (III.82.2). This was precisely the change Athens underwent, and the cause of its eventual demise.
Works Cited
Thucydides. The Landmark Thucydides. Ed. Robert Strassler. Trans. Richard Crawley.
Touchstone: New York. 1996.
When reading the two excerpts from Thucydides it is clear that his book, The History of the Peloponnesian War, was written to memorialize Athenian history. Although it is considered to be the first textbook it was still written by an Athenian so analysis of the excerpts are still required. But while analyzing the two excerpts will provide information about the reliability of the document, it will also provide insight to answer the question “What is the author trying to say about his native city of Athens?”
We have now examined Thucydides' strongest arguments for Athenian rule. It is clear that Athens had a stronger claim to rule than the Melians had to remain sovereign. We also know that Athens' claims hold up when we examine them for validity. Thucydides beliefs in Athens' claims were therefore well founded.
Athens government and military is considerably different from their neighbors. According to Pericles, Athens government is not a copy of our neighbors...
Quebec has been shaped by many political disputes throughout its history. Many of these were fought for independence.
There exists an ever-looming threat of Quebec secession, as the province pushes for greater autonomy, recognition as a distinct nation within Canada, and greater representation on the federal level. The federal government’s relationship with Quebec is one that exhibits the “paradox of federalism” as described by Lawrence Anderson in ‘Both Too Much and Too Little: Sources of Federal Instability in Canada’, the simple truth that in federations “federal institutions can prevent secession by satisfying some of the institutional demands of those who might desire more significant decentralization but they also provide institutions to those that might be in conflict with the center that can be used to mobilize for alteration…” He argues that the government of Quebec, due to it’s focus on autonomy and protection of identity, would be the province best equipped to secede with “minimal disruption”. In this, a shortcoming of strong regional autonomies in federations is made apparent: in attempts to accommodate diversity the nationalist regions are granted the institutional framework for secession. A push in the reverse, towards less regional autonomy may have similar results, however. As the federal government moves towards centralization to avoid this paradox, they are perceived as invalidating the terms of the federation, and nationalistic pushes for autonomy still
The premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard has been attempting to separate from Canada for quite sometime. If he had it his way this topic would be old news by now. His main problem is the Federalist, English speaking citizens of his province. They have been very vocal on their stance to stay apart of Canada. They have sent around several resolutions stating this. It all started in Allumette Island East, which has a population of 458. It has since spread to municipalities along the borders with Ontario and the United States, and in the Montreal area. Unfortunately this means very little considering the fact that these municipalities only represent approximately 6% of the province’s population. When the Parti Quebecois government called for the first referendum on secession in 1980, only 40% were in favor of separatism. When the party took over control again in 1995 the approval rose just about 49%. The fear of the PQ is that if several of the floating voters out there feel that a sovereign Quebec must mean a partitioned, patchwork Quebec, the separatists might well fall back to 40% if that.
There has been a disjuncture between English and French speaking people in Canada since before the country was even established. It has been most notably seen within the federal and provincial relationship in Quebec. The interest Quebec has had to get out of their link to the rest of Canada has been most noted in modern day through the first referendum in 1980. It brought the question of political sovereignty to the forefront of national conversation – “it would decide Quebec’s, [and Canada’s] ¬– future.” The question for the people of Quebec was as follows:
In the years following the Persian Wars in 479 B.C., Athens had come out on top being the most dominantly powerful of any Greek city with a navy that had superior strength that increased day by day. The Athenians “ruled with heavy-handed, even brutal force as well as with reason” (Kagan 2). This was due largely to the fact that Athens had a stable and effective government, which only increased their advantage in proving themselv...
Quebec nationalism has played an important role in strengthening centrifugal forces of Canadian federalism. “Quebec’s example has encouraged other provinces to challenge federal authority, using some of the same arguments and tactics developed by Quebec” (Stevenson, “Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations” 91). Federal initiatives, such as the promotion of francophones into public office, created an anti-federal and anti-Quebec backlash. This backlash has been advantageous to the campaign of other provincial politicians who favour a decentralized government. Contemporary federal governments “have tried to appease Quebec nationalism by transferring federal powers and responsibilities not just to Quebec, but to all of the provinces” (Stevenson, “Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations” 91).
Since the very beginning of the colonization of Canada in the late 15th century, there has been a dispute and anger between the British and the French. This arguing is also present in the ongoing conflict between the French-speaking region of Quebec and the rest of Canada. The conflict has been discussed in the Canadian parliament and this is also the origin of the idea that Quebec should be an independent nation. The first part of the essay will cover the general history behind the dispute between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Then the essay will go on to discuss the positive and negative sides of a possible separation. The final part of the essay will compare the situation in Canada with the separation of Pakistan and East Pakistan in the 1970’s. Then go on to conclude whether or not a secession is possible for Quebec. Therefore, my research question is; is there a possibility that the province of Quebec could separate from the rest of Canada?
...d the economic, ethical, and practical aspects of international regulation. Different views of ecology, culture, and legitimacy as they pertain to a valued resource and its exploitation for human purposes. While it is safe to say one must preserve the historical and cultural value of whaling nations and nations around the world, it can also be said of animals. While many nations continue to cling to their cultural ancestry background of whaling and the right for scientific research, it is proven that such human endeavors must be carefully and faithfully regulated. Commercial whaling has essentially seized to exist in the clear claims of such, but Japan and other nations are ever so slightly getting closer to that boundary. “We should remember in our dealings with animals that they are a sacred trust to us…[They] cannot speak for themselves” (Harriet Beecher Stowe).
The religion of the Ghost Dance started with a man named Wovoka. On January 1, 1889, he had a ‘vision’ during a solar eclipse in Nevada (Peterson 27). It brought a message of hope to the oppressed Indians of only the Indians living. The Indians called Wovoka the ‘Messiah’ (“The Ghost Dance” par. 1) and it was believed that he would bring a “day of deliverance” (Phillips 16) to the Indians. The messiah was said to return to the earth so that all the white men would vanish and the buffalo and their ancestors would return (Peterson 27). Wovoka’s vision was that:
Before democracy, Athens was a city-state no different than any other. A few powerful, aristocratic families controlled all governing power. Most of the population held little or no role in the political life of the city. Athenians changed this, and created a system where participation was encouraged and opinions were valued. While some other Greek cities were also setting up democracies, none were as stable or well documented as that of Athens. The reason for why the Athenians moved toward a democratic society instead of an oligarchy or monarchy is still debated by historians. However, one common belief is that it rose due to a rapid population growth in their lower class, which may have caused them to have more power in the government compared to other Greek poleis during the Lyric Age. This time period took place between 800 and 500 B.C.; it represents a very vibrant, evolutionary stage in Greek history. The rise of the lower class in Athens probably did help spark ideas of democracy, yet the significant contributions of the political leadership of Solon, Cleisthenes, and Pericles can undisputedly be credited for the primary development of Athenian democracy. In 594 B.C., the first major political and economic reformer Solon came into power. The next reformer was Cleisthenes; he lived from 570 to 508 B.C. The final, and most revolutionary of the three was Pericles. Pericles is responsible for the last and most glorious stage of Athens. By expanding its power and building patriotic pride, he forever changed the system of democracy.
As can be expected from pioneer governmental institutions, Athenian democracy was not perfect. In fact it was far from it. It resulted in the establishment of poor policies by aggressive populists who sought "...private ambition and private profit...which were bad both for the Athenians themselves and their allies." (Thucydides). These self interested populist leaders with personal gain in mind established extensive internal political instability "...by quarrelling among themselves [and] began to bring confusion into the policy of the state." (Thucydides). Repeated opportunities to accept terms of peace after the battles of Pylos (425), Arginusae (406) and Aegospotami (405) were ignored by the inefficient Athenian demos eventually resulting in the devastation of the once dominant city-state. Internal political strife can also be attribu...
The Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) was a conflict between the Athenian Empire and the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta that resulted in the end of the Golden Age of Athens. The events of the war were catalogued by the ancient historian Thucydides in The History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides’ writings showed the ancient Greek belief that there is a parallel between the city-state and the character of its citizens; in order for the city-state to be successful, its citizens must be virtuous. Thucydides did not believe that the true cause of the Peloponnesian War were the immediate policies of the Athenian Empire against the city-states in the Peloponnesian League but rather the fundamental differences in the character of the two city-states