Greek Independence Dbq Essay

The greeks, between the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, fought for independence from the Ottoman impire. In 1821, when the Greeks revolted against Ottoman turk rule, the Concert of Europe was hardly invoked at all. The cries for freedom from that home of ancient democracy excited liberals throughout Europe, and early demonstration of the power of nationalist movements that would be repeated throughout the century. By 1827, British and French fleets intervened to support the Greek's outburst for freedom, with help from many of Europe's countries, greece finally gained independence in 1829. During their struggle for independence, there was a variety of views coming from people throughout Europe. Many European countries

In this paper, I intend to show that ancient Athenian democracy influenced western political thought, specifically, western democracies. By influencing such modern day democracies, ancient Greek culture remains a presence in contemporary life.

Written by the American School of Classical studies, this source is reliable as it gives detailed information about the artefacts that have been discovered in Athens including foundations of the New Bouleuterion and tools Ancient Athenians used in order to write laws and records the source included pictures of these historical artefacts. In addition, the source is provided by the American school of classical studies, the school access to research facilities and archaeological sites this then means that this source has access to primary source and reliable secondary sources therefore the reliability is enhanced. The source was useful in giving me understanding in the geographical location and structures used in the practices carried out by the democratic government in Ancient Athens. Whilst the information did give me insight into the structures involved in the democratic system, it was not used in my essay as it did not provide any information that can prove my thesis, therefore meaning the

The Greek Declaration of Independence was written in 1822. They were under the Ottoman power for centuries, as it says on the declaration of independence it was a power which does not listen to reason, so the Greeks didn’t want to suffer anymore. They were fighting to reconquer the rights that the Ottomans deprived them from, the rights that their neighbors, the civilized people of Europe enjoy everyday.

To begin with, Speaker 3 employs logos and pathos in his quest to argue in favor of sparing the Mytilenians. He begins by reminding the people of Athens that they are a merciful people and that every empire that has ever ruled with brute force has fallen. This is a perfect use of logos because it goes without saying that no empire, especially one with such a profound presence and reputation such as Athens, wants to play a leading hand in their own demise. So, it is implied that if they want to continue being a reputable empire, they must rule with grace, dignity, and most importantly, mercy. In addition to logos, Speaker 3 also explores pathos. Besides the feelings of the rebels who face the possibility of death, the Speaker argues in consideration of the soldiers who must commit the horrendous act. “They [the soldiers of Athens] will be emotionally scarred”. From this point of view, the audience is forced to consider mercy for the soldiers as well. What happens their mental psyche once they are forced to commit this act? Will they be able to go into battle with other enemies without having to deal with the guilt weighing heavy on their hearts of the people who were practically their brethren’s? Speaker 3 does an excellent job of getting the audience to consider mercy for the Mytilenians and the soldiers of Athens. A criticism that I have to offer to Speaker 3 is instead of just mentioning that there are alternate solutions to killing the rebels, actually giving the audience a few of those alternatives. This would have proven to be

By drawing from cultural traditions that were already popularly accepted, both Metaxas’ and Chavez’s historical narratives were successful at legitimizing their respective regimes. In Greece, the Megali Idea, which described the dream that Greece would encompass the entire former Byzantine Empire, had recently ended with the Graeco-Turkish War. Upon taking power, Metaxas revived a version of it that focused not on territorial, but rather ideological and cultural, expansion. “In focusing on the spiritual dimension of the nation,” Hamilakis writes, “Metaxas’ regime incorporated and expressed ideological and cultural attitudes that were widely circulating throughout the 1930s in Greece”. Rather than introduce unfamiliar ideas, he popularized

The Delian League was formed in 478 BC due to the Ionians asking for the Athenians to take control of the Hellenic League, as a result of Spartan commander Pausanias’ harsh treatment. According to Thucydides ‘at first the Athenians were the leaders of autonomous allies who met together to make their policy in common’ , justified by the need for protection against Barbarians such as the Persians. Most ancient sources and modern scholars believe that the hegemony soon became an Athenian empire, yet the extent to which it became a deliberately harsh and exploitative regime is debatable. Our main Ancient source for the period of the Delian League is Thucydides’ History of Peloponnesian War; the lack of many other sources causing issues when trying to provide an unbiased debate.

The supporting evidence the authors reference in this particular discussion of the unbalance security of the ancient Greeks is Professor Joseph Roisman’s The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. They use what he discusses in this book, which is how conspiracies have effected ancient Athens, and incorporate it into their own article. Referencing to his work shows the reader that the idea of conspiracy theories influencing that epoch has come from other reliable, academic sources. When writing research articles or essays, historians always make their various points, but make sure to back up those points with historical facts and evidence in order to prove that what they are discussing correlates to historical events. Graaf, et. al, follow through with this technique all throughout their article: they paraphrase certain ideas from other sources and then expand on them in their own words. Backing up their points with other works as evidence is extremely compelling and makes the article stronger because it provides their points with credibility, and when they expand on the works, it shows the reader that they understood the text well

Philip II ascended to the throne as the king of Macedon in what can be recognised as one of its most difficult times, as his country was virtually on the brink of collapse. Despite these immediate overwhelming odds, the future of the twenty-one year olds life as king would see him not only revive his depleted state, but overcome constant battles with rival oppressive forces both within and outside Macedon’s borders. It was these crucial further actions executed by Philip that would see him etch his name into history forever, and spark a complicated debate that is; is it fair to describe Philip II as a foreign despot who wrought the destruction of Greek liberty? This paper will argue that Philip was in fact a foreign despot, however did not seek the destruction of Greece herself, but rather sought its unity while in a state of dismay. While technically Philip matches the description of a foreign despot, that is a ruler of absolute power from another nation, it is apparent that he had no intentions to destroy Greece, but rather unify it both through military and political standpoints, both of which will be discussed and argued in this text.

For his part, Mazower explores the intimate relationship between the political, ideological, economic, and social structures that transformed the fabric of Greek society during, and after the occupation. Taking in this more enhanced viewpoint, Inside Hitler’s Greece: The Experience of Occupation, 1941-44, becomes a comprehensive and grueling tale of how starvation, inflation, black marketeering, the killing of civilian hostages, and brutal reprisals, became the day to day struggles many Greeks had to endure, all in the hopes of one day being liberated from their fascist subjugators. Victor S. Papacosma, writing for The American Historical Review in 1995, suggested that the best part of Mazower’s work, is in how Mazower utilizes a broad range of newspapers, diaries, and other official sources, to paint a portrait of what it was truly like to live day to day in Greece. Certainly there is a great measure of agreeability to Papacosma’s suggestions on my part. Yet, Mazower’s reconstruction of the dubious inconsistencies of the Third Reich, and their chaotically run bureaucracy, highlights how the Germans, as well as their Italian allies, had little to no regards for the needs of the Greek populace. After all, the winter of 1941-1942 in Greece produced such a pervasive famine throughout the countryside, that nowhere, other than

The heroic struggle of Greece during the war constitutes one of the most glorious pages of Greek history. It is also of broader historical importance, because it affected significantly the course of the war and contributed to it’s successful conclusion. The rejection of the Italian ultimatum in

Greece’s revolution, called the War of Greek Independence, was a victorious rebellion against the Ottoman Empire between February 22, 1821 to September 12, 1829. Since the mid-1400s, Greece had been under the control of the Ottoman Turks. Even though they were allowed to retain their language and faith, they desired more independence. Inspired by the earlier French Revolution and Enlightenment ideas, the Greeks decided to revolt.

identify the group with the concerns of the Greek masses and to capitalize on public

In Greece’s case, a great sense of nationalism and romanticism helped the country rise from a long awaited liberty from the control of the Turks. Under the dominance of the Ottoman Turks for centuries, Greece had a huge sense of nationalism. Aside from being under the control of the Turks, their shared language and shared religion of the

The Greeks during this period lived under oppression by the Ottoman Empire (Turks).The Ottoman Empire had occupied Greece for four centuries. The Turks made themselves superior by minimizing the Greeks freedoms. The cruel and unjust treatment of the Greek by the empire eventually led to the Greek War of Independence from 1821-1832 (Kitroeff).This war over independence is significant because it reveals that even the most corrupt, and powerful governments will not last forever. The repressive government system would not operate well in Greece because the Greek people would take a stand for their inalienable rights against the tyrant Turks.