Sparta’s military is made up of highly trained men, who’ve been training since the age of seven to thirty. Spartans are very safe because of their military. They don’t go into battle often, only on rare occasions. Other city-states are too scared to fight them and know they will lose because Sparta’s military is so strong. Sparta obviously has a more, fit military than Athens; thus, Sparta is a better civilization than Athens.
An oligarchy is a form of government in which the ruling power is in the hands of a few leaders. Oligarchy comes from the root words oligos (few) and arkhein (rule). In Sparta the ruling power was in the hands of a few wealthy people. In Sparta, boys started training to become a soldier at the age of seven while in Athens boys were not forced to join the army. Athens focused on education and the arts, but Sparta concentrated on military strength.
The major difference being that Athens council of five hundred men were chosen by lottery. Regardless of Athenians reputation of being highly educated, they very well could have been a few Athenians who were not quite suited for the job because of their lack of education. Sparta’s council was composed of the two kings, and 28 citizens over the age of 60. They did not debate, unlike Athens, but with having less people on their council and assembly, they had a more uncomplicated and less confusing way of running their government. Sparta certainly did not give its citizens as much freedom as Athenian government but the fact that they had less people in not only their city, but on their council and assembly, made it an easier and more effective way to run their government in a smaller amount of time.
Alcibiades was a great orator whereas Nikias was not, Alcibiades would have been more up for fighting against the Spartans when Nikias was more cautious and would have seemed to prefer a more cautious role and preferred democracy first and was worried how much expeditions would have costs the Athenian empire. This paper will examine Alcibiades and Nikias and the role they played in the Sicilian expedition. In conclusion it will explain if it would have been better if Alcibiades had died during the Sicilian expedition rather than Nikias. The Sicily expedition was recommended because Syracuse was a city of southeast Sicily, Italy, on the Ionian Sea. It was a Corinthian dominion in the eight century.
With the Balance of Power destabilising, which, according to Thucydides, is the only means to achieve peace, the growth of power in Athens caused the Spartans to feel more and more insecure and thus they started to prepare to defend themselves. This very much reflects the realist point of view, as it argues that without a Balance of Power there can be no peace and it also shows how easily the balance can be dis-rupted so that it causes a war. Thucydides that war may be justified on grounds of pursuit of the national interest and in order to achieve peace at last. However, there are differences as to what is a ‘legitimate’ national interest. Where for political realism everything that is in the interest of the state and can be achieved by
Women were thought to have a poor mind, but a strong spirit. They could not own land and a guardian, such as a father or husband, controlled every single aspect of her life. This meant she could marry another citizen, but could not vote. After wealthy men or kings ruled Ancient Rome, it turned into a republic form of government like ancient Greece, but with Emperors. They had emperors because they wanted a ruler, but they made sure the emperor didn’t have unlimited power.
If this were to have occurred then the Greeks alliance with the Spartans could have potentially been lost, as the Spartans may have withdrawn from the war. This would have had a significant impact on the strength of the Greek army as the Spartans intimidated the Persians after the battle of Thermopylae and they also had a skilled military tactics. Also by having Greeks navy roaming the shores of Athens it complicated the Persians tactics, as they were not
Also it would easily become outdated and fail to respond to the constantly changing political environment. If the UK’s constitution became codified then there would be a risk of judicial tyranny. Judges are not the best people to enforce the constitution as they are unelected and socially unrepresentative. If it became codified then it would be reflective of the values and preferences of senior judges not of the general public who the rules mainly affect. The UK’s current democratic rule has been successful for a long period of time and changes in the constitution come about because of democratic pressure from the public.
Although I believe there was a genuine threat of revolution I do not believe that this on its own can be regarded as a major risk to the stability of the country and thus forced reform to be passed. Pre 1832 the political system was unequal for representation to population as large cities such as Manchester and Birmingham were less represented than small wealthy boroughs. The electoral system was also very corrupt with bribery. The government in pre 1832 consisted of very few men who were pro reform as this would have effected there places of power, the lack of mps who were pro reform made it very difficult for the lower classes to gain the vote which they believed they deserved. This is shown in document 3 of the wjec pack.
When America was going to war with Britain no one thought America would win. In Common Sense written by Thomas Paine America was being judged by its size. They did not think America could win because America is much smaller than Britain. America might have been small, but with the determination of freedom they shocked many people who did not believe in them. Way back then, people could not measure the possibility of colonies taking on the world’s largest empire.