ESSAY- Explain how the delian league transformed into the Athenian empire- Plan- intro growing Athenian power in the delian league campaigns to Persia revolts Oath of Challis- combined military and legal system building program no conclusion- Initially there was much goodwill and support towards Athens as she offered hope of liberation from Persia to the cities of Ionia and protection for the islands. However this goodwill declined. After the defeat of Persia at the battle of Eurymedon River, the fear of Persia receded. This made Athens increasingly domineering policies appear imperialistic in intent. The Athenian ownership of the Delos treasury, suppression of revolts as well as the challis decree marks the transformation of the delian league into the Athenian empire.
Themistocles played an essential role in the Persian wars and was a key factor to Greek victory in these wars. He made this impact through his pre-war efforts, his leadership skills and his intelligence in tactics which is shown during the battle of Salamis. During his pre-war years, Themistocles came to the realisation that if Athens was to suceed in it's war efforts against Persia then it would need to greatly focus on the improval of it's naval force. Unsurprisingly, however, most Athenians disagreed with this idea as it would result in a weakened land military force and less money to the citizens of Athens. In order to persuade his fellow Athenians to support his idea of a strengthened naval force, Themistocles resorted to trickery.
Due to British and French influence in the area, Britain and France assume dual control of Egypt’s finances. Although they manage to control debt levels, this is done at the expense of the Egyptian public and army. This interference led to an anti - European uprising in 1882 led by Arabi Pasha. On the 13th of September 1882 Sir Garnett Wolseley defeated the Egyptian army, however finding that the Egyptian government was in chaos the British armed forces occupied Egypt to restore stability. This gave Britain a lot of influence over this region which was important as the Suez Canal and therefore trade with India was now secure.
The government could not control all these invasions, so this was another component that helped the fall of the Roman Empire. Document 5 shows bias because it blames the fall of the civilization on internal decay. This is significant because if a very well organized government that had been able to keep order throughout such a large empire could no longer do it, then this meant nobody else could. All of these political
It can be agreed that the popularity of the rebellions and the slow reaction of the government made it possible for them to pose some challenge to the monarch and state. However, the lack of efficient leadership, causes and locations of the rebellions limited the amount of challenge posed. The protests in the sixteenth century could pose a dangerous challenge to the monarch and the state in the years 1536-69 because of their popularity. The rebellions, especially the Pilgrimage of Grace, involved a wide variety of people who shared similar grievances. Like Source W says: ‘the Pilgrimage of Grace mustered enough support to take
Given that the two cities had been allies in the Persian Wars (490–479 bce), many people objected to a course that caused a disruption of those relations. Pro-Spartan elements existed, albeit in the minority, but their presence was enough to cause tensions. Furthermore, not all Athenians agreed with the development of democracy, which allowed nonaristocratic elements to control policy. A work known as the Constitution of Athens, assigned to Xenophon (ca. 431–352 bce), suggested a contempt for commoners in charge, indicating the fiction of the unity presented by Pericles.
Client Kingdoms * He restored some friendly kings and princes to their former thrones and found kingdoms for others he favoured. * Gave his friend Herrod Agrippa the territories belonging to his uncles. * Generally anti-Semitic policies destabilised that region * Use of client kings did some damage in his removal of Pro-Roman king of Armenia Gaius’ Civil Administration * Gaius was not interested in administration, because it was not fitting for a God, and he was of the Hellenistic monarch view that everyone should support
Despite the increased responsibility and independence the senate became more subservient to him, “Though at first the senate showed real independence, it soon realised the risk of encroaching too far” (Scullard). This was due to the fact of the growing treason trials and Sejanus’ influence, senators afraid of their safety began to win favour by sycophancy. Whilst through his reserved temperament and ambiguous instructions led confusion to the senate steering towards deterioration, Tacitus notes he remarked them “men fit to be slaves”. This declining power of the senate under Tiberius became more obvious when he administered the empire from Capri failing to create the diarchic balance, Scullard writes “Tiberius had tried and failed and his failure was made irremediable by his retirement to Capri” illustrating the impact on Princeps becoming more dominating issuing imperial
King Leonidas Leonidas was the king of Sparta at one time. He is most famous for leading the three hundred Spartans against the Persian army. He lived in the Peloponnesus and the city state of Sparta. Leonidas had a major impact in his time; he led troops to eliminate Persians to defend Sparta. Doing this Sparta and Athens won the war against the Persians, but ended up losing to Rome.
The charges were essentially trumped up, but Socrates was a controversial figure in the city. Also, his behavior at the trial did not make the jury very happy. The jury first voted on his guilt or innocence, and that vote was pretty close, but the majority voted that he was guilty. Then, he was given an opportunity to suggest a punishment, and his speech at that point apparently angered many of the jurors. Many of those who had initially voted for his innocence now voted for capital punishment.His suggestions for punishment included: being awarded a pension from the government for performing a public service and paying a very small fine.