The Importance Of Philip II To The Destruction Of Greece

Throughout the eighteenth to early nineteenth century, Greece was fighting for its independence from the Ottoman Turks, who had ruled the Balkan Peninsula since the fifteenth century. The Greek’s rebellion against the Ottomans attracted Western Europe who sympathized with their cause, and only with the help of British, French, and Russian forces was Greece able to reclaim their formal independence in 1830. Through writers, government figures, and other individual positions where the points of views comparable over the views of independence, for instance most of the writers wrote poems and letters in favor of Greek independence, government figures included insights from both the Turk side and Greek side, and finally a compilation of different

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.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority” (Acton Institute 1). Alexander the Great was and absolute ruler that had both influence and authority; he abused both which is why many of his subjects followed him out of fear and not loyalty. Rulers are defined by how they use their power, the decisions’ they make; and how those decisions will affect the people. In my essay, I will analyze two viewpoints’ made by two professors and their viewpoints about Alexander III and whether or not he was deserving of the title “The Great”.

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,

This documentary goes on in further detail about the many leaders that took the Greek throne, some of who made tactical alliances with the Persian government. Moreover, of the three Greek leaders, Pericles made his mark in Greece through architecture and history.

Philip II of Spain (1527-1598) and Peter the Great of Russia (1672-1725) are both historic leaders that had a tremendous influence over the fate of each of their nations. Although from two different time periods, the impact of their decision making, and temperaments directly dictated and impacted the historical events of their individual countries. Being that both led during a time where the desire for power and absolutism in one’s country and throughout Europe was at a high, each ruler used his own methods to increase their strength. Due to the exorbitant amount of power put upon all leaders, it is clear that a nation’s fate is determined by its ruler, and how that ruler chooses to utilize

King Philip’s War caused major social and economic repercussions to both the colonists and Native Americans of the New England region. The male population of the colonists in New England drastically fell. The war also created a fear of the frontier among the colonists, which slowed down territorial expansion. The Native Americans also suffered major loss of life and lost their land, which was their main source of food and money. The economic impact that the war led to were that colonists had to pay crushing taxes for the colonies, causing a decrease in per-capita income. The natives’ entire way of life was destroyed as they lost trade goods from England. The English victory in King Philip's war came at a great cost to both the English

When his brother died, he left his infant son, Amyntas as the heir to the throne. Philip was, therefore, made regent, and had control of Macedon. He succeeded to the throne in 359 BC in the traditional Macedonian custom -- a round of family assassinations. Macedon, at the time of Philip's ascension to the throne, was not a very highly regarded northern state whose power depended upon a warrior aristocracy. The kingship rested more on personal ascendancy then institutions. Philip disposed of the young heir and immediately began implementing his plans to unite Macedon, and control the Greek world.

The Greece and the Roman empires are considered to be amongst the most powerful empires in history as their impact is still felt some 2000 years after they were conquered. The Greece Empire is said to have lasted for approximately 350 years while the Roman Empire is said to have lasted for between 500 and 1500 years based on how one interprets the rule of the Romans (Ahbel-Rappe 530). Over time, there has been a debate on which of the two empires was strong than the other based on the impacts to the ancient world. From the debates, it has been noted that some individuals hold on to the fact that the Romans managed to develop a world that the Greeks only dreamed about while others have maintained that the Greeks had built a better world than the Romans (Roisman 410). Based on my knowledge of the two empires, I think the Romans were better than the Greeks thus making the Greeks to dream of building a world similar to that of Romans. As such, this paper will give points for and against my claim.

To fully answer this question it is necessary to truly evaluate each of his policies with dealing his enemies and compatriots both foreign and domestic throughout his reign. This essay will attempt to take each main area of conflict in his life and provide clear indications as to the degree of success that Philip achieved.

Compare and contrast Thucydides’ and Socrates’ analyses of the fate of Athenian democracy in war, of why the Athenians went to war, and of how and why they failed.

Through the manuscripts of Herodotus, an ancient historian who hailed from the mountainous lands of Greece, modern day historians have been granted the ability to piece together the multitude of events that supposedly transpired during the years 480 and 479 BC between the Persian empire and the city-states of the classical Greece (Herodotus). The second Persian invasion of Greece, which took place in the previously mentioned years, was a part of the many series of battles and encounters that made up the Greco-Persian Wars. This invasion in particular, however, probably saw one of the most distinguished battles in ancient European warfare befall. As a whole, the second Persian invasion of Greece consisted of several battles that transpired within a close proximity of one another chronologically. The war itself was fairly short-lived, even for its time, lasting only the course of approximately one year. The battles themselves took place in Thermopylae, Artemisium, Salamis, Platae, and Mycale (Setzer). The Persian invasion forces were led by King Xerxes I of Persia, the son of Darius I of Persia. Prior to the reign of Xerxes I, King Darius I had wanted to take control of ancient Greece. As such, he ordered two campaigns which made up the first Persian invasion of Greece. Much to his hindrance, however, Darius I breathed his last breath before he was presented with the opportunity to carry out a second invasion.

Written by the Greek historian Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War is one that tells the story of the war (431-404 BC) which divided the Greek world between Athens and its allies and Lacedaemon. The Melian Dialogue presents two sides and two perspectives that of the Melians neutrality and that of the Athenians’ might. By Thucydides juxtaposing the Athenian’s position to that of the Melians, there is a clear conclusion of which side actions are tactically and morally acceptable. One would argue that the Athenians are immoral for violently plundering the Melian territory because they had the power to do so. However, given the circumstance of trying to defend their empire due to the imbalance of forces, the Athenian actions are not

Very few civilizations have had as profound an influence on the world as those of ancient Greece. The Greeks laid the foundations for fields varying from philosophy to political theory to war tactics. However, this influence was not just due to their intelligence or success, but their widespread presence in the Mediterranean. Greek culture was spread throughout their known world in two distinct manners, the foundation of apoikia in the Archaic Age (8th century to 500 B.C. ) and imperialists by poleis, primarily Athens of the Classical Age (490 - 323 B.C ). Though the culture of a mother city (mētropolis) may have spread through two very different manners of “colonization.” The word is not used in the literal sense, but rather hereafter used to mean “spreading of culture”, as the former can hardly be described using the contemporary definition of colonization and the latter was through Athenian empire-building. These developments had a significant impact on ancient Greece and our modern perception thereof. Like most of the ancient world, we can best analyze these methods of colonialism through extant artifacts. I will analyze an inscription of the foundation oath of Cyrene, which recounts the decision and manner in which the island of Thera sent its citizens to the form a new polis, and the fragments of the Lapis Primus, a marble monolith that documented tributes to Athens when the city was at the peak of its imperial age, evidencing the magnitude of their power and influence in the Greek region.

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