Analysis Of Rolf Strootman, Courts And Elites In The Hellenistic Empires

Some empires sought to rule through local elites; other empires sought to rule with a more centralized power

This paperwork examines how the differences amongst the Hellenic along with the Hellenistic ages might appear in the artistic r cultural production of every era. The ideas presented in this article bases its focus on the Ancient period such as Ancient Greeks. Besides, the report also focuses on studying the impact that Hellenic had on other times like the medieval period, the Renaissance, together with modern times in appearing in the cultural production of each era. The presentation has the principal objective of examining the differences between the Hellenic or classical ages and the Hellenistic ages (Cicarma, 2014). This paperwork focuses on how the differences in these two generations influence daily lives of people in the society. Besides, the illustrations on this article examine how the differences between the ages reflected in the literature, art, art philosophy of the two periods. The paper shows how the shift from Hellenic together Hellenistic era represents the changes from the civilization dominated by ethnic Greeks. It, however, illustrates that scattered geographically to the culture are disseminated by natives and speakers of Greek of whatever ethnicity and from the dominance of political issues in the city-state to that of larger monarchies (Holladay, 2011). This presentation remains constrained in degree to Ancient culture between 510 BCE and 323 BCE, a period that alludes to as Classical Greece.

There were many dynasties, emperors, and kingdoms thousands of years ago. All of these thrived at one point but eventually came to an end. Many of these places were alike and varied in many different ways. Two perfect examples of these places were Han China and Imperial Rome. During the time of Han China (206 B.C.E.-220 C.E.) and Imperial Rome (31 B.C.E.-476 C.E.), there were many similarities and differences including requirements to participate in government, how to take the reign of the empire, and being connected to the Silk Road.

This investigation attempts to answer the question, what are the similarities and differences of Pericles and Xerxes’ leadership traits? This question is relevant and important because Pericles and Xerxes were influential leaders of their time and continue to learn from them even today. Pericles was a general during the golden age of Athens (480-404 BCE) and he led Athens during the early Peloponnesian war and Persian wars. Xerxes was a king of Persia and is known for conquering much of Greece during his reign (486-465 BCE). This investigation will address the following: the achievements of the leaders, how they affected the future and their means of doing what they did. This investigation will focus on the time period from 518 BCE to 429 BCE and the places investigated will include Persia and the reaches of the Greek empire. This will be completed through a thorough examination of several books and information on the internet.

The rulers also known as absolute monarchs had made a major change during this time. Since, people thought that they have gotten their power from god, they have lived their lives knowing that they have complete power of what they wanted to control, which were their nation and they always wanted more power than they already carry. The aims for absolute monarchy was to provide prosperity, order, and stability for their territories so monarchs that would take complete control would usually have the characteristics of having high taxes, building projects, justice, their own freedom, strong militaries, foreign policy and administration. This time of

Imagine being a king or queen in the medieval period being able to rule the kingdom with a iron fist. Imagine all the stresses that come with that. You have a unknown disease (later known as Black Death) mysteriously killing half of your kingdom. You have the stresses of other kingdoms coming to strike you at any moment. What would a king need in these stressful times?

Some features of the institution of law which we take for granted today, which were absent in ancient Athens, include traits of peace and equality. It is worth noting that Athenians based their daily lives and societal structure off of their values of honour and victory. The desire to achieve these brought out a more aggressive nature in Athenians, as the only way to achieve honour was to achieve victory, which consequently meant a constant inner turmoil for Athens, as David Cohen specifically states in regard to the nature of Athenian men in terms of their desire for victory, “the vice of these men is that their desire for victory or honour is excessive and leads them to commit injustice in pursuit of them.” This is proven to be true through

This essay will present the following: holistic view of the ancient emperors, using a (DWH) format. Including imperative details, in regards to the process of ancient Empires, the significant on this paper will be how the societies that supplemented the emperors, and their economics driving force. Additionally, how did these ancient emperors fell. Many of the example that will be discussed will be the cause of the emperors.

In the centuries of rule among the ancient Greek polis, we can see examples of monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. As no city-state is alike, there are differences in how these forms existed from polis to polis. Scholars may still argue over the appropriate label for some of the forms of rule.

After Alexander’s death, there was a political vacuum, this vacuum was temporarily filled due to the initial settlement in Babylon where they decided that the most important of the Friends and of the Bodyguard should take over the satrapies…” ( Diodorus 18.2.4) , but having so many strong willed and ambitious men at that close a chance at power meant that this was not to last. The main issue with this was the difference in ideals between those who power would be granted to, as there were those wanting to keep the empire as Alexander had left it and those who wanted to carve it up into their own kingdoms. On one side you have Perdiccas, who very quickly gained control of the Royal armies and as well as this, the empire due to his position as chiliarch. On the other we have the likes of Ptolemy, who saw this as his chance to rule Egypt. There was also a third group who did not quite want ‘ultimate power’ themselves, but still had their ideas and ambitions for the empire of their late king. The most memorable of this group is Eumenes of Cardia.

Power, a sharp mind, and an even sharper tongue; all of these things go into making a great leader. None of these things hold truer within this world’s history, than in the cases of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Both of these men lead enormous empires along the Mediterranean Sea, albeit in different time frames under different names. Yet even then, this is only the beginning of the thread of similarities between these two powerful individuals.

Amid the ancient and medieval age, we see that a leader or a group played the important role as the leader of a chain. When comparing and contrasting the way a king’s or group’s role is played in the ancient age and medieval age, we find differences, particularly when it comes to how they rule the kingdom. But we also find similarities in the way they treated their community and the power they hold. Thus, the king or group was considered the most important voice that brought about change in laws, social order, and government.

Herodotus’ Histories serves as a principle source about ancient Greece. However, within in it there is an added complexity of Herodotus’ own attitudes towards archaic tyrants versus what the actual attitudes of Archaic Greeks were. As for traditions, Archaic tyrants cannot be accurately confined to singular traits or patterns of operations. Lineages of tyrants, the Kypselids and Pisistratids, do not have an overarching flavor, the rulers vary. Additionally, singular rulers, such as Polycrates, have variations in their description.

The written sources for the organization of the state in Parthians are various and heterogeneous. The most important sources for this early period are represented by authors writing in Greek and Latin; then in Syriac, Armenian, Arabic and Chinese (Lukonin 2008, 681). The most important single source from the Arsacids period, which has come down to us, is Justin’s epitome of “Philippic History” written by Pompeius Trogus (Alfred Gutschmid 1888, 171). This work is a major source from the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus (Justinus 1997, 1), this book contains the information on historical events that occurred till the 9th century B.C. (Alfred Gutschmid 1888, 171). The Geography of Strabo (50 B.C. - 21 A.D.) is the other source about the

Politics can certainly be a tragedy. The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides tells the extraordinary rise of Athens and its pitiful downfall in its attempts at expansion. In his recount of the later stages of the war, historian Thucydides recaptures how the decisions of the Athenian generals Alcibiades and Nicias influenced the end result of Athens. While Thucydides did not live long enough to see the end of 27-year war, he could correctly assume how it would end. In this essay, I will discuss reputation of Alcibiades and Nicias and what influence their actions had on the fate of Athens. But before one can understand the fate of Athens, one must understand the powers that heavily influenced the outcome.