Education Of Cyrus Essay

Action from necessity is a constantly recurring theme in Thucydides’ The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. A sentiment used to explain the growth of the Athenian Empire which some Athenians espoused to an assembly at Sparta best quantifies necessity, “. . . we were necessarily compelled at first to advance the hegemony to where it is—especially by fear, and then by honor, and later by benefit.” (Selected Passages 1.75.3). This claim, referred to as the Athenian Thesis, is used to advance the two following implications: all states act with the motivations of fear, honor and interest and no one can condemn a state for doing so. The Athenian Thesis influences the way many of the Athenian elite structure their patterns of reasoning in both noticeable and subtle ways.

Cyrus II of Persia, also known as Cyrus the Great, was one of the most influential and powerful rulers in the Ancient World.¹ By overthrowing the Assyrian empire, he was able to start the Persian Empire. Through his superior diplomacy skills within his empire, to his genius war tactics, he built the foundation for a line of Persian Kings to rule one of the largest empires in world history.

In parallel to the argument between the Just and Unjust speeches, ‘new’ triumphs over ‘old’ once again in the fight between Strepsiades and Pheidippides. Pheidippides declares to his father, “I will make it clearly apparent, by Zeus, that I was beating you with justice (Clouds, 1332). Throughout their argument, Pheidippides was applying the same techniques to his speech that the Unjust speech utilized. Their apparently cynical disrespect for social mores emphasizes the fact that what is ‘old’ is losing its strength within society. What is right is in palpable contrast to what is currently occurring in the social order. Strepsiades broached the suggestion that as a father he has nurtured Pheidippides from infancy to his adulthood. Because of this, Strepsiades insists that he has earned his son’s respect. However, Pheidippides is convinced

Of course, Thucydides was certainly acquainted with pieces critical of Athenian democracy – the close intellectual relationship between certain of Thucydides’ core concerns, such as empire, and those of the somewhat previous Athenaion Politeia (Athenian Constitution) has long been the custom of such ancient writing. Among teachers of rhetoric were those who claimed openly to have developed a “political science” – what they called politike techne (Parry 1). But the rhetorical formation of politike techne was scarcely involved; it did not rest, as Thucydides supposed any appropriate appreciation of “political science” must, upon a methodical understanding of political structures and their active interaction within larger society. Therefore, Thucydides

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

Cyrus, typically known as Cyrus the Great, was the king of the Persians that lived from 576 to 530 B.C. He became the king of the Persians in 559 B.C. and reigned until 530 B.C. During this time, people were fighting for power and control of the Fertile Crescent and of Asia Minor. Cyrus was mainly known for his large respect and tolerance to other religions and his highly peaceful actions to people he conquered. He was also known for being one of the few people able to control and hold control one of the biggest empires, even after death.

If I could add an 8th person to the Seven Men book, I would add Cyrus the Great. Cyrus the Great was a capable general who was able to adeptly and decisively lead his armies on conquests with little loss on his own side. Cyrus was the founder of the persian empire and was before that the leader of the achaemenid empire. Cyrus the Great was also a good man for allowing different religions and being the ruler of existing governments. Cyrus is famous for a cylinder of writing called the cyrus cylinder that recorded his invasion of babylon and how he treated the jews that were there. These things are particularly impressive considering the time that he was living in. At that time most empires had absolute power and little to no religious freedom.

While his perspective of the government is positive, he does acknowledge the problems Pseudo-Xenophon has with democracy. One of the Pseudo-Xenophon’s main concern is the ignorance of the mass and their inability to serve in public office since “such practices do not produce the best city, but they are the best way of preserving democracy.” Pericles revitalizes the trust that Pseudo-Xenophon lacks in the masses of the common citizen. Pericles states the virtues of the democracy and the ideal that “no one is held back by poverty or because his reputation is not well-known, as long as he can do good service to the city.” While acknowledging the potential issues of having an ignorant representative, Pericles supports that trust in fellow citizens is a building block in democracy and everyone who has the potential to prove themselves a good public servant should be given the opportunity to show their ability and voice their ideas. He also addresses Pseudo-Xenophon’s issues with the common people’s rule of self-interest. Pseudo-Xenophon does not have an issue with the self-interest of the few overriding the self-interest of the many and even refers to it as ‘an excellent system [where] the common people would very soon lose all their political rights.” Pericles does not differentiate

In the Education of Cyrus, the historian Xenophon tells of the account of Cyrus’ rise to power and the education that helped him reach this goal. Cyrus’ dual upbringing in both the frugal Persian and extravagant Median cultures, gave him an understanding of the world unique to both. This education made him a strong leader with knowledge accumulated from the strengths of both societies, but what exactly did Cyrus do that made him so successful? The following essay will explore the deeds that allowed him to be successful, including ensuring the preparedness of his troops, giving the gods their dues, outwitting his enemies, and retaining the love and support of his allies.

“Aristotle's Golden Touch” This essay will be addressing different aspects of Ovid’s story of King Midas and Aristotle’s the Politics. Specifically comparing both based on how each author presents their ideas. The following will argue, why Ovid’s story of King Midas by comparison to Aristotle’s Politics lacks clarity within the message of the narrative. Ovid presents four interpretations, which makes it difficult for the audience to understand the purpose of the narrative.

Reading every philosopher’s work and writing is always an honor. Since every of them had great impacts on our lives due to their influential legacies. Their theories have been inspirational. However, it was not easy for them to work with every individual in the communities because many people had little access to education. Some people were also so infatuated with religion, and they would easily refuse philosophical theories if it would contradict their beliefs. Despite the reaction they faced by the common people, they continued to develop their theories on how governments and social life was to function. We can explicitly tell that their massive work not only convinced people during their era, but still influences our political and social life today. One of the greatest of human history’s philosopher is Aristotle, who was a Greek philosopher and was born in Circa on 384 B.C in Stagira, Greece. He begin his educational life at an early age at Plato’s Academy. Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great. Later in his life, he founded his own school, the Lyceum, in Athens, where he spent most of his life there studying, teaching, and writing. Aristotle’s legacies not only inspired those who were alive during

In this way, Sophocles presents the universal consequences of unresponsive and unaccountable government, whether led by Creon or Pericles. This analysis of both timeless issues and current political conditions would have helped Antigone to reach its audience.

During Sophocles’s time in Athens, a plethora of social and political issues were present in its society. These issues are modeled and demonstrated through a series of examples and circumstances in Oedipus the King. Sophocles uses the story of Oedipus’s downfall as an example to the Greeks and a reflection of the current affairs in his life. He goes into further interpretation when using the city of Thebes to re enact how life is in Athens to give a more relatable of easier understood outlook on the troubles his city faces. The problems Sophocles highlights are very prevalent in modern day America as well. The same social problems Sophocles writes on are the same ones we face today in our everyday lives. Our government faces many controversial problems and questioning of leadership skills just as Sophocles showed in Oedipus the King.

The ancient civilizations had very different ways of running their empires throughout their time. The Persians and Greeks held very true to this statement. They both had different sources that contributed to the power they held. The Persians had a very large empire and had a specific way of controlling it. First lets see how the Persians came to be. Cyrus, the son of the Assyrian king, was supposed to be killed as a baby. He was instead taken to a village that soon became called Persia. As Cyrus matured, the people could tell he had the characteristics of a king. He soon became just that. He didn’t want to be just a ruler though, he wanted to be different. His tactics were based on mercy, forgiveness, and compassion. Cyrus did go to war still

The first section of this piece will attempt to explore the conflicts that occurred between the aristocrats and the peasants in Solon’s Athens on the basis of land and slavery, and the solutions that Solon posed in the form of laws, as well as the effects that they had on the citizens of the time. There were city of Athens was divided into three parts; there was the Hill, the Plain, and the Shore (Plutarch: Solon, 54). Each division contained it’s own people with different political views. The Hill supported an extreme democracy, whereas the Plain supported an extreme oligarchy, and the Shore wanted a government that wasn’t quite an oligarchy, and wasn’t quite a democracy. The Shore wanted a government that was modeled after, and was a mix of both democracy and oligarchy (Plutarch: Solon 54). The presence of this third party made it very difficult for either extreme party to rise above the other (Plutarch: Solon 54). The land quality of the peasants was very poor and it was located in the barren part of the city, however the rich owned vast amounts of good quality land (Trumbach). It was very common to find peasants in debt to the aristocrats because of their bad quality land. Many times, commoners would cultivate on the land owned by the aristocrats, and pay them one-sixth of the produce that was harvested (Plutarch: Solon, 54). It was also apparent that peasants would use themselves as collateral, and were often seized as debt slaves by their