Therefore, Greek history itself clarifies to some extent that Tyranny was not thought of by Greeks as a bad title, not in the context of certain tyrants, though. Greek Writers like Herodotus of Halicarnassus and Thucydides make it clear that democrats thought that the power of tyrants was uncontrolled, so that they easily became violent and mean despots, surrounded by sycophants. Democracy, in this philosophy, was the exact opposite: people were free to speak and power was controlled and balanced. Within the long Greek timeline it shows that apart from Peisistratos, his predessesors; The "older" tyrants in mainland Greece of the seventh and sixth centuries were often dissatisfied aristocrats who managed to seize control of the state by cooperating
Pericles began his Funeral Oration with praise to the ancestors of Athens by briefly touching on the acquisition of the empire. Pericles criticizes the presence of the speech. He argues that “reputations of many brave men should not be imperiled in the mouth of a single individual.” Any speaker of an oration has nearly an impossible task of pleasing associates of the dead who want their accomplishments recognized. They also struggle to please spectators of the oration who might feel jealous or question exaggeration. Pericles skipped over the greater achievements of Athens’ past and indicated that it was a theme too well known by his listeners to dwell upon at that time of misfortune.
Its great fleet would secure the empire against revolts from within and attacks from without and take the offensive to raid the Peloponnesian coast. Meanwhile, The Periclean strategy also had weaknesses. He was too fearful of the effect that high casualties would have on public sentiment in a democracy, if he had conducted more aggressive offensive military actions. He had not seen the opportunities for combined land and naval actions to bring a higher intensity of war to Spartan territory with little risk in order to hasten the effect of the attrition on Sparta. The defect essentially was that the Athenian people's morale proved unequal to the strain, and, after his death, rushed into
Unlike Caesar, Brutus is able to separate completely his public life from his private life; by giving priority to matters of state, he epitomizes Roman virtue. Torn between his loyalty to Caesar and his allegiance to the state, Brutus becomes the tragic hero of the play. Julius Caesar - A great Roman general and senator recently returned to Rome in triumph after a successful military campaign. While his good friend Brutus worries that Caesar may aspire to dictatorship over the Roman republic, Caesar seems to show no such inclination, declining the crown several times. Yet while Caesar may not be unduly power-hungry, he does possess his share of flaws.
But all in all what most historians debate is not why Leonidas stayed but whether or not his decision to stay was the overall right choice. My perspective on the situation is that Leonidas’ decision to stay was not the right choice. I postulate this because the whole goal was to protect the pass so that the Persians could not reach Athens, but after the defeat of the Spartans the Persians pushed forward and burned Athens to the ground. So in essence the last stand of the Spartans was pointless because the Persians completed their goal of the ransacking of Athens. Themistocles was the true hero; he evacuated Athens before the Persians came and defeated the Persians in a naval battle at Salamis, which forced the Persians to flee back to Asia.
Although it can be argued that Alcibiades initiated the invasion, Athens’s would not have led a costly campaign to Sicily just because of one man. Furthermore, there was no need to spread Democracy to Sicily as Syracuse itself was using this ideology. Sparta led a campaign to Thrace in order to exploit the local mines and timber there, for their own benefit and as a way of weakening Athens. The Old Oligarch tells us that Athens’s trade vastly improved as their Empire increased; therefore acting as a cause of conflict as Athens would want to improve their economy which could only be done by engaging in conflict with other city states. The Old Oligarch is reasonably reliable as it is a piece of archaeological evidence which was supposedly written by Xenophon.
The reason for his refusal was not the girl herself but rather what she represents to him; Chryseis represents his dominance over a territory because she was the prize given to him after the conquest of Thebes. Hence, giving her back would mean stripping his title as the ruler of Thebes. Agamemnon says that [he is] coming to [Achilles’] hut and taking Briseis” (Lawall, p.111, line 194). This statement shows that Agamemnon thinks that political power is much more stronger than physical power. To appease Achilles’ anger, he offers him “seven unfired tripods, ten gold bars, […], seven populous cities […] [but Achilles must] submit to [him]” (Lawall, p.135, lines 127-164).
In the Renaissance, the humility of the Middle Ages was completely thrown out, only to be replaced with people wearing extravagant clothing and consuming themselves in their image. Machiavelli stresses this point in The Prince. He repeatedly describes how a prince does not necessarily have to be a compassionate or loving prince. As long as he can act the part, he will do well, and therefore succeed as a prince. In his book, Machiavelli writes that the politics of the royals were mostly showmanship, and not genuine concern for the title.
Finally, Hobson partially blames the ineffectiveness of Imperialism on the British ideal of Anglo superiority, and the British misunderstanding of other cultures (Winks 11). Therefore, as argued by Hobson, British Imperialism of India was neither socially, nor politically, nor economically beneficial for Britain. The British elevated social tensions in India because the British misunderstood Indian culture, were constantly forced to over-expand the British Government, and spent endless amounts in an attempt to maintain order. To begin with, Britain’s Imperialism of India was not socially beneficial. The British were unsuccessful in establishing a working relationship with the Indian people, and, as a result, British Imperialism never reached its maximum potential.
This all meant the league failed to stop Italy from invading the Greek island of Corfu even though Greece asked for help. The Corfu incident was seen as a serious failure for the league. It showed that powerful nations could still bully a less powerful neighbour (Greece was a small, weak country with no powerful friends on the council) G. Scott In 1973 wrote: “the settlement made a nasty smell. The Greeks were bitter; the assembly felt it had been degraded. Mussolini appeared to have triumphed in his assertion that where a nation was powerful enough, it was justified in using force to further its interests and the league had no right to interfere” this quote is relevant as it is true the fact that the league had no right to interfere what so