Ap World History Dbq

1. Persia and Greece took different approaches to the political system, each yielding differing results. Persia’s system seemed to be more organized, as is evidenced by the lines, “Darius divided the empire into about twenty provinces, each under the supervision of a Persian satrap, or governor, who was often related or connected by marriage to the royal family” (page 111, paragraph 14). Greek’s style is shown in the lines, “Ultimately, the tyrants were unwitting catalysts in an evolving political process. Some were able to pass their positions on to their sons, but eventually the tyrant-family was ejected” (page 120, paragraph 25). Persia stuck with their government once Darius I came into power and he put his system into effect.

They expanded their empire and continued to grow. With little change to the system, Persia advanced, unlike Greece, which made forwards and backwards movements. Greece went through an era of tyranny before losing this source of power and alternating between oligarchy and democracy. Greece went through a number of changes before ending up there and it seems even then, they never were able to settle on any single political system as a whole. This is in contrast to Persia’s imperialistic power. Another example of a difference is in the forcefulness of the systems, this is evident in lines, “He referred to everyone, even the Persian nobility, as “my slaves,” and anyone who approached him had to bow down before him (page 112, paragraph 18). The Persian king was a strong and all-powerful one. The Greek king was quite the opposite, “…but at some point councils composed of the heads of the noble families superseded the kings” (page 120, paragraph 23). Royalty in Greece may have been much like it is in Great Britain, a ruler with little to no power. Eventually, foregoing the king, Greece chose a representative political system based on voting. Persian leadership was vastly different, with an authoritarian and almighty king and no one had any say in who was to be this ruler. The king may have been harsh and supreme with total power over everyone in the kingdom.

Greek kings may have been the farthest thing from that. The Greeks were weak in comparison, and couldn’t keep in power. They likely had the opportunity, just didn’t have the ability to do so. Even Greek tyrants had the same problem. The tyrants used force to come into power, of course, but they were unable to keep it. A possible factor or reason for the differences may be the circumstances surrounding how each system came to be. King Darius had struggles in his early years, the book says, “His success in crushing many early challenges to his rule testifies to his skill, energy, and ruthlessness” (page 111, paragraph 12). The Persian king dealt with problems and may have had to rule with an iron fist in order to keep his brutal reputation. Greek power may have been just a matter of chance. “Authority in the community developed along one of two lines...” (page 120, paragraph 25). This implies that the political system may have just happened and no particularly grueling work went into it, much unlike the conflicts Darius had to go through. By comparing and contrasting, one can see that Persia and Greece exemplify how two very successful societies can exist with two very different

political systems
1.

Athens and Sparta came into conflict through Athens’ position as an imperial power. The textbook says, “The emergence of Athens as an imperial power after the Persian invasion aroused the suspicions of other Greek states and led to open hostilities between former allies” (page 127, paragraph 22). Although Athens and Sparta had joined together to defeat Persia, Athens’ hunger for power caused a rift to form between the two city-states. Athens was corrupt and kept much of the wealth to themselves, and it seems Sparta was not pleased with that thus was the start of the Peloponnesian wars. A possible factor to explain the outcome is evidenced in lines, “Pericles knew that, as long as Athens controlled the sea lanes and was able to provision itself, the enemy hoplites must soon return to their farms and the city could not be starved into submission” (page 128, paragraph 22). Athens was much too cocky and confident in their navy, not believing anyone could come close to touching their power. This was obviously not the case, as the textbook says, “The Persian Empire had bankrolled the construction of ships by the Spartan alliance, so Sparta finally was able to take the conflict into Athens’ own element, the sea” (page 128, paragraph 23). Athens never accounted for Sparta to take get assistance from an outside source-let alone a former enemy- or even for Sparta to attack from the sea. Athens had faith in Sparta staying on land and because Athens was so arrogant, Sparta

beat them at their own game. Another factor that may have had to do with Sparta’s win is the cause these groups of people were fighting for. The Spartan’s cause is shown in, “The victorious Spartans, who had entered the war championing ‘the freedom of the Greeks’…” (page 128, paragraph 24). Sparta was fighting not only for their liberty, but for the freedom of all other city-states under Greek rule. Athens was fighting simply for power control. Sparta had more to lose; a loss for Sparta could have meant enslavement. A loss for Athens meant a loss of their imperial power, but they still would be able to exist as an individual entity. The rivalry and disassembly of Greek states led to Persia taking control, as the book says, “The Persian king became the guarantor of a status quo that kept the Greeks divided and weak” (page 129, paragraph 25). Persia took control of an unsuspecting Greece and became their authority, keeping them in a set position. Greece was, once again, under Persian rule. This shows cause and effect and how one event might lead to another, such as tension to war and war to dominance.
1. The relationship between power and artistic and literary culture is that more power often results in a more refined culture and vice versa. Power and artistic and literary culture tend to gravitate towards; it’s hard to have one without the other. Alexandria, the greatest city of the time, was a great artistic and literary center. Alexandria had one of the greatest libraries and museums, the textbook, “Alexandria gained further luster from its famous Library, with several hundred thousand volumes...” (page 133, paragraph 11). The library of Alexandria drew people in from all over the empire. These people came to study at the library and expanded not only their knowledge, but the knowledge of the empire, as well. Another example of cultures in Alexandria is, “from its Museums, or “House of the Muses”, a research institution supporting the work of the greatest poets, philosophers, doctors, and scientists of the day. These well-funded institutions made possible significant advances in sciences such as mathematics, medicine, and astronomy” (page 133, paragraph 11). The museum continued to further the advancements in Greek society. As more philosophers, scientists, and artists came to Alexandria, more power went to the city. The economy of Alexandria rose and with it did the city’s influence on the empire. With more people to govern, more power had to go to the city. Art and literature were furthered in different ways, the book says, “Public baths and shared arcades offered places to relax and socialize with friends. Ancient plays were revived in the theaters, and musical performances and demonstrations of oratory took place in the concert halls. Gymnasia, besides providing facilities for exercise, were where young men of the privileged classes were schooled in athletics, music, and literature” (page 133, paragraph 12). With so many people in this city, art and literature was bound to expand and grow. The educated and creative were drawn to the power and potential of Alexandria, creating a pool of knowledge and art. The power may have been the reason the art even got the support for all it had. The amount of power in Alexandria may have even freed up time and wealth that went to the creation and funding of these great institutions. There are many ways power and artistic and literary cultures are related, and one would be hard-pressed to find either companionless.