Sparta was about fitness, survival, and war while Athens was about public speaking, debate, and music. As you may see, Sparta and Athens may seem like two whole different worlds, and it’s clear that they deemed each value of theirs’ important, but which city-state would go to great length to preserve that value? Sparta was more committed to their cultural value than Athens. Spartans valued military power. For instance, “Their whole lives were about military training even after 30 the Spartan boys were required to serve the military until they were 60” (Document 2).
The government in ancient Athens was governed by a radical democratic system from 508-322 B.C. and was very different in its size and how the system allowed all males to participate in the government. The Peloponnesian War effected their government when the oligarchy party overthrew the democracy and replaced it with the modern regime of the Five Thousand. Athenians spent almost 100 year fighting to restore democracy and defeat the Spartans and their allies the Persians. Their style of government goes back even before the Peloponnesian War around the time of 620 B.C. Before the Peloponnesian War, there was a man by the name of Draco. Draco gave the people of Athens a law code of which citizens had to listen to.
In 336 B.C.E. Greece became a part of the empire under King Alexander the Great of Macedon. Conclusion It was interesting to learn how the forms of government have progressed through the times in Ancient Greece.
In “The Greeks” the rise and fall of the Greek empire is detailed. In part one, the tyrant, Pisistratus, is introduced. It covers Athens economic progress and it’s improvement of social structure. After Pisistratus died in 527 BCE. his son, Hippias took over.
Stine Bekkos 14753469 Is the concept of ‘total war’ useful for understanding the history of the two world wars? ‘Total War’ for historians can seem to be an endless minefield where one is destined to step wrong sooner or later. With the extensive diverse research on the topic and the numerous definitions of ‘total war’, it can be challenging to use the concept of ‘total war’ for understanding the history of the two world wars, as it can and already has be interpreted in diverse ideas. ‘What, after all, is the term total war meant to describe: a specific period, particular wars or only certain aspects of such wars? Some precision would clearly be welcomed.’
In some cases, simply putting up resistance is enough to stop it entirely because the public project is on a strict timeline. The delay could also inspire the agency to offer higher compensation in order to keep to the original schedule. And in some cases, the government may not meet the requirements, eminent domain will not be permissible and the project will simply be
The doctrine is generally associated with the preventive war against Iraq, but it has more than one element. Bush’s doctrine led to the foreign policy stance of interventionism because he he states, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime,". This doctrine caused the effect of the USA Patriot Act, NSA Domestic Surveillance, and the Department of Homeland Security. Many people were angered because of this because they felt that their freedom was taken from them and that their 4th Amendment right was violated.
Others would argue and say no that it is unreasonable and that we need to keep our nose out of other people 's business. Then what if there wrong and we get attacked unexpected and thrusted into war just because we wouldn 't prevent any further conflict.
An example of this level can be seen in WWI and WWII. Having mentioned these three levels, it is essential to recognize that a war can be triggered by a combination of causes from the three different levels. I claim that the next big conflict would occur in the Middle East between two camps: a camp led by Saudi Arabia, and a camp led by Iran. This war would happen because of the different political, and religious views of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Views on the causes of this war range from the very early conflict between the Persians and the Arabs in the rise of Islam to the current national rivalry between the state of Saudi Arabia and the state of Iran.
Traditional alliance theory, based on aggregation of power to face an external threat, explains certain alliances well but falls short in describing many historical alliances. In particular, heterogeneous alliances, in which the allies have different goals and reasons for entering into the alliance, are often poorly explained by aggregation of power theory. As these alliances are not focused on a single external enemy, the power aggregation aspect of the alliance may give little or no benefit to one or both of the allies. Because the goals of the states in the alliance are not aligned, the nations may view each other as potential threats and the alliance can exist as a means of control over the ally as much as an aggregation of power against
The stability of the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy is similar because they both had internal problems based on low income, yet the systems are different because participation in Rome was related to wealth, while participation in Athens wasn’t. To start, the stability of the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy was similar because they both had internal fights and reforms due to wealth. Specifically, the Gracchi brothers were a large part of the populares political group in Rome because of their efforts to redistribute land, set limits to the amount of land one can own, and make the state pay for military equipment, instead of the soldiers themselves. This represents how the Roman Republic had several problems regarding an unbalance in wealth. These were recognized by the Gracchi brothers, which led to such reforms.
1. Introduction Classical Athens and Sparta were notably two of Classical Greece’s most impressive poleis. Classical Athens is appreciated for its devotion to philosophy, mathematics, science, and democracy. Whereas, Classical Sparta is recognized for its devotion to war junta. However, their different objectives ensue that the first is recalled for its libertarian ideals and the latter as a fascist city-state.
Pericles,who was a general and statesmen in Athens, successfully maximized the Delian League showcasing Athenian imperialism. He won battles that arranged Sparta and Athens into a peace treaty. During this time Pericles advanced democracy in Athens allowing for the first time officials to be paid. Also during this time, he became a supporter for the arts and architecture that Athens developed. During the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, Pericles was elected by the state to give a speech over the fallen soldiers.
Sparta and Athens were two stunning examples of ancient civilizations. Yet the question that many people have tried to determine is which Greek city-state developed a better model of civilization? Sparta was the best example of an ancient Greek civilization. Sparta’s long history of having a powerful army, and intimidating war tactics helped build it build a strong foundation to grow upon. Yet most people overlook Sparta’s other robust features that lead to it being superior to Athens.