The conflict between the Spartans and her allies and Athenian Empire was caused by several factors. Individuals indeed played a key role in the cause of conflict. However, they alone could not initiate conflict. Political ideology acted as a springboard from which they could exploit. Although, trade and financial advantages were often the most prominent, yet hidden cause of conflict in the Greek World.
All allowing Egypt to ultimately transcend into a belligerent, apodictic Empire. All ultimately “laid the foundations and to a great extent determined the character of New Kingdom” - Breasted 2. Body According to Redford, “To deny the impact of the Hyksos upon Egypt in their time would be an act of ignorance” 1.) Motivation for Imperialism - The Hyksos domination provided the Egyptians with the incentive and the means towards world expansion - Breasted Hemmed in by Hyksos to the North + Nubians south(Alliance between the two) - Bradley quote Trapped by Hyksos to go north of Cusae (Use source, archaeological, find in booklet) Destroyed + Damaged temples - Manetho = “they burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the Gods and treated all the natives with cruel hostility” Talk about embarrassment/humiliation - Thus, “the proud superiority of Egypt over all her previous opponents was very rudely dashed to the ground, with important consequences to the Egyptian spirit” Thus the Hyksos domination of Egypt provided the Egyptians with the incentive and the means towards world expansion and so
The subsequent economic crisis and changing attitudes in colonial countries were the two main issues that caused decolonisation. Some individuals were instrumental in politicising and creating a sweeping sense of nationalism in their respective countries e.g. Nkrumah in Ghana. However, they were merely a product of WWII and the resulting consequences that came about. The occupation of Egypt was carried out for economic and strategic reasons; however individuals were important in the timing of annexation.
Both Lysander and King Pausanias actions demonstrated their incapability to lead Sparta which consequently resulted in the ineffective leadership of Sparta as hegemon of Greece. Lysander was the dominant figure in Spartan politics presiding the fall of the Athenian Empire in 404 BC, and his and Sparta’s aim was a far as possible to secure Greek hegemony allowing for Spartan Imperial expansion. The ‘anomaly’ of Lysander’s dominance within Sparta’s military and political enterprises, traditionally governed by the Kingships, saw him exploit his foreign policy across the populas of the Aegean much to their discontent “The Spartans reckoned that they themselves, having defeated the Athenians, would now securely dominate the whole of Greece” (Thucydides 8.2.4). Lysander installed a brutal pro-Spartan oligarchy (known as ‘The Thirty Tyrants’) on Athens, reciprocating this system of government in other Greek states in order to suppress prevailing democracies. Installed to govern were pro-Spartan Harmosts, all supported by a garrison of troops who served under the orders of Lysander.
Thucydides’ work, however, was not simply a book written about Athens as the protagonist which was defeated by its foolish over-ambition, he wrote about the Athenians and Spartans with similar objectivity, acknowledging both their weaknesses and virtues. Thucydides regularly demonstrated a “determination to establish what happened and why”. He believed one of the primary reasons for the decline of Athens was because of the political problems with democracy and selfish imperialism. Whilst he used facts to support this belief, he expressed it most directly when quoting speeches. I will examine the purpose of Thucydides’ work by assessing his omissions, the events he chooses to focus on more closely, and his own analysis of his work.
Hellenic Athens and Sparta The barbaric stereotypes people think of when referring to the Spartan society makes the Athenian civilization seem to correspond to our modern society. However, the savage imagery we conceive of the Spartans prevents the exploration of their civility. Even though they did have an extremely militaristic state of mind, they also had an incredibly well organized government system. Politically, socially, and culturally, the two Hellenic city-states of Greece had many differences, but simultaneously were very similar. In the eighth century B.C.E., Hellenic Athens was an oligarchic government.
However, Antigone breaks the civil law in order to uphold moral law, divine law, and the law to which the polis is held accountable. Though the drama reflects how an individual relates to the state, it does not as much support the idea of an individual’s independence and rationality as it does the individual’s right to defend the ultimate authority – the will of the gods. The issue within the play evolves when Antigone invokes the power higher than Creon’s decree by arguing that divine law supports her actions. Political decisions in ancient Greece were often based on the will of the gods. Progress in any matter was practically impossible without divine endorsement, or rather, the people’s belief that they were in the gods’ good graces.
He only uses authoritative language towards the end, shifting the focus towards politics through citing statistics - “fallen by $4000… $716 billion cut”. Though the speech attempts to argue a single perspective, there is conflict, as he needs to contend that he is both a family man susceptible to sentiment and a leader that can rise above personal concerns. His overtly personal approach, peppered with political details is an inherent contradiction in the political speech form. The audience response texts are left open to generate conflicting perspectives from various contexts. JC is an allegory for the politics in Shakespeare’s context and the lack of a clearly
A Spartan citizen was not even aloud to be anything but a soldier, so they were economically challenged. The similarities between the two cultures are few, but are important. Even though the Spartan’s whole society was based upon the military, the Athenians could be just as brave and tenacious.
His ideas were, however, idealized and not entirely accurate, since he did not appear to understand the exact roles of the various participants in the British constitutional set up. Modern day Critics of the doctrine, such as Sir Ivor Jennings and Geoffrey Marshall, have doubted whether the three functions of the UK constitution could be allocated separately among the branches of government. Barendt, on the other hand, points out that the primary purpose of the doctrine as to avoid tyranny arising from the over-concentration of power. Adam Tompkins has an alternative view that the separation of powers is bipolar. The crown and parliament.