Polybius’ histories of Rome provide a detailed and mostly reliable account of Roman political and social history, from the years 264 BCE to 146 BCE. In sections 18.36-18.46, he focuses on the negotiations between the kingdom of Macedon and several Greek states, describing the difficulties of interstate politics and finding peace. He also emphasizes the importance of the Roman state in these negotiations, and he writes about how they attempted to keep the peace and bring joy to the Greek people. Describing Titus Quinctius Flamininus as chief negotiator, Polybius discusses the tactics he uses to persuade the Greeks and to keep Philip in check, and details the importance of his actions in Greece. Furthermore, through his detailed accounts, modern …show more content…
Flamininus changed the landscape of Greek society permanently, and in his article, Walsh discusses the impact his actions had, and how he was able to have such an influence. In his analysis of Polybius’ histories, Walsh focuses especially on the rhetorical and linguistic strategies Flamininus uses in the negotiations. His study of Flamininus’ tactics provides insight into the stylistic strategies used by Greek and Roman scholars, and he argues that Flamininus, while himself a Roman, learned his negotiation strategies from Greek society. He says “that Flamininus' understanding and implementation of liberation rhetoric was thoroughly Greek; that he acknowledged, at times to his frustration, the genuine obligations of a liberator” (Walsh 345). Flamininus’ cunning tactics and political eagerness mean that he is willing to learn from all sources, so even despite heavy ongoing negotiations, “his principal teacher, the inspiration for the language of the decree, was Philip” (Walsh …show more content…
Flamininus’ last act as negotiator in Greece was the Isthmian declaration, which declared that the Greek city-states would be forever free from Macedonian rule. Walsh describes how the declaration,“containing most of the chief elements of Eleutheria propaganda and declaring the Romans’ intention not to take Macedon’s place as overlord of Greece, was the culmination of Flamininus’ public relations campaign” (Walsh 358). Through the declaration, Flamininus was able to secure his position as the most powerful man in Greek politics, and he permanently embeds himself in the minds of the Greek people, allowing him to rely on them for support in future political endeavors. Walsh’s argument ends with the understanding that Flamininus’ deep understanding of Greek rhetoric and speech helped him negotiate successfully with various city states and Macedon, allowing him to grow his power and become a well-known figure throughout the Mediterranean. Polybius has long been regarded as one of Rome’s most reliable historians, and he writes these stories from a relatively unbiased perspective, without overblowing the greatness of
Demosthenes and Isocrates came to prominence in fourth century B.C.E. Athens as public speakers and as politicians. Isocrates was a teacher of rhetoric, or the art of public speaking, while Demosthenes was a professional litigator, writing speeches for clients arguing in the courts of law, and occasionally presenting arguments himself. Both men were highly respected citizens and opinion makers throughout the sphere of influence maintained by Athens, though they held opposing views regarding the proper course for Athenian government, warfare between the Greek city-states, and the prospect of invasion from the Persian Empire to the east. While the Greek city-states engaged in fratricidal warfare, Philip of Macedon began consolidation of his political power by essentially offering up his highly trained professional Macedonian army as mercenary soldiers to the various city-states requesting assistance or protection and demanding control as hegemon or monarch of the city-state in return for military aid. Following a declaration of truce, Philip would impose his rule upon the vanquished as well.
The French Revolution, the American Civil War, the constant civil conflicts in certain parts of Africa in recent history and even today; these are all historical clashes of countrymen. They all also contain stories of immense atrocities. The violence, bloodshed, and ruthlessness that were seen throughout these events were appalling. They were made perhaps even more so by the fact that theses horrors were inflicted upon one another by countrymen, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers. The civil war or stasis at Corcyra during the Peloponnesian War was no different. This paper will detail the events surrounding the conflict and attempt to give scope to it as a mirror into the rest of the conflict.
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.
The Political Decay of the Roman Republic The fall of the Western Roman Empire was the first example in history on the collapse of a constitutional system which was caused by the internal decay in political, military, economics, and sociological issues. The government was becoming corrupt with bribery. Commanders of the Roman army turned their own army inward towards their own Constitutional systems, fueled by their own ruthless ambition. This paper will talk about how the violence and internal turmoil in 133 B.C.-27 B.C. was what provoked the economic stagnation in the city of Rome and to the end of the Republic and the many corrupt politicians and generals who only thought of nothing more than personal gains and glory. The senate lost control of the Roman military and the reason they rose against the senate was because the senate were no longer able to help manage the social problems or the military and administrative problems of the empire.
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
3)Gwynn, David M. The Roman Republic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
Antony Kamm ~ The Romans: An Introduction Second Edition, Published in 2008, pages 47, 93
Thucydides’ version of Pericles’ “Funeral Oration” can be read as more of an ironic rendering of Pericles’ original speech since The History of the Peloponnesian War is not just considered to be a historical account but also a “highly imaginative piece of work” in which Thucydides made characters involved in the war say what he believed they actually meant instead of what they might have originally said (Thucydides Introduction pg. x). In the “Funeral Oration”, Pericles praises certain
The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.
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 causes of the Peloponnesian War proved to be too great between the tension-filled stubborn Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. As Thucydides says in Karl Walling’s article, “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed” (4). The three phases of the war, which again, are the Archidamian war, the Sicilian Expedition and the Decelean war, show the events that followed the causes of the war, while also showing the forthcoming detrimental effects that eventually consumed both Athens and eventually Sparta effectively reshaping Greece.
Burn, A. R.. Pericles and Athens. London: Hodder & Stoughton for the English Universities Press, 1948.
In this paper, I will first extract Thucydides views from the Melian Dialogue and then analyze whether or not these views are well founded. Thucydides believed that the Athenians had the stronger argument. Proof of this lies in the way Thucydides picked the arguments for each side. For the moment, we will disregard the actual content of the arguments, and look at argumentation forms and the flow of the debate. The Melians argued using consequences of an Athenian take over.
As perspectives and opinions in the realm of political science are fluid and bound to change, he receives a variety of replies, for the representatives body he sent happen to comprise a Realist, a Liberal and a Constructivist. The variances the philosophies and universal laws his representatives throw back at him intrigue General Cleomedes. He recognizes that within the power play of the world, and the role of Athens as a superpower within the world’s political arena, he must be thoroughly versed in every possible political perspective. Thus, he invites his representatives to share their own view of what transpired between the dialogue between the Melians and the Athenians.
The completion of high school is the beginning of adult life. Entitlement to public education ends, and young people and their families are faced with many options and decisions about the future. The most common choices for the future are pursuing vocational training or further academic education, getting a job, and living independently.