Athens War Research Paper
Along with their personal traits, Athens had freedom. This freedom involved the individual more than the city and this made their imperialism possible. This freedom will create en energy in the city but will lead to problems and decline for Athens. Athens will have troubles with factions and the internal conflicts that come with. Pericles will be able to prolong the problems for Athens. He was able to do this by appealing to the passion and love for glory and the need for ultimate devotion. These more individualistic people will be able to connect with something other than themselves with this passion. The connection is there because it tends to be egoistic and leads to a more intense devotion and increased willingness to sacrifice. When this
…show more content…
passion reaches its height it will begin to express itself through the increase of power and the need to expand imperially. This is at the core of their imperial expedition to try to overtake Sicily. Athenian imperialism was the weaving of their traits and their passions connected with their foundation in democracy. Athens loved their freedom found in their democracy, which they tried to spread by the use of imperialism. They would rule over others and this was the best form of freedom and their achievement of this also came with the need for protection from attack. The city would then need to expand in order to do this. This will produce a great and vital city with a lot of power, but it would fall apart over the next generations due to these traits and habits. The same causes for their greatness also lead them to their destruction. Their passion will lead to faction and the desire to gain more will be seen in the expansion towards Sicily. Their characteristics and boldness will begin to remove them from the tradition restraints that had helped them achieve their freedom. These will also take a toll on the internal unity of Athens.
The status of fear also will play an important role in the war with Sparta being compelled to act.
Athens had certain compulsions and priorities that affected them. Athens placed great value on fear, honor, and profit. Emotions can be used as an offensive or defensive weapon. These emotions can be used to heighten the importance of your priorities and can affect the way they go about collecting information. The information then gathered will directly impact the way we form our beliefs and the need to act. Thucydides believes that fear by the Spartans played an important part in causing the war. Sparta felt threaten by the change in the power balance from Athens due to their imperialistic expansion. Fear can change over to terror, which is a more personal form and can change the way people and states think. Effective leaders can combat the fear and terror found in war and conflict. There are five major ways they can do this. (Petersen 321) The leader can use rational discourse. They will focus on the threat but are not influenced by the emotions and to focus on concrete actions. The leader can use hope as a way to help combat the fear and terror. This is the opposite and is based on a positive future and outcomes. Hope and fear cannot exist, but hope is a distortion in a positive manner. The leader can use the threat of shame by taking a single action attached to the person’s identity. This is different from guilting the person due to it being more personal and guilt can be forgiven. The use of anger can also be used. They would need to believe that a bad action has been committed against them and the focusing on the need for punishment. A final way to counter the use of fear and terror is by the use of spite. This is different than anger because of the belief that the enemy is going to receive some good that they do not deserve. They will then fight to prevent and to stop the enemy from their undeserved good. In ancient Greece and seen in Thucydides writing fear
and terror play an important role. The most seen strategies used is hope along with the use of reason. The use of anger, spite, and shame can be seen but are not used correctly. The studying of the role of imperialism and emotion is important aspect to understand when looking at the true reason for the cause of the war.
When looking at the cause of a war there can be many ideas and thoughts on how or why the war started. One idea of the cause of the war is the division between the Dorians and the Ionians. Along with their differences between government with oligarchy and democracy. However, this is a hard idea to pursue due the changes that occur with the war and looking at the other states involved besides Sparta and Athens. The involvement of economic has also been pursued in many different ways and ideas. The best idea when dealing with economic is the rivalry between Athens and Corinth and their fight for trade. Corinth was involved in Corcyra, and would lead to involvement from Athens. Corinth had already a hatred for Athens before this and it had little to do with economics. Francis Cornford points “that there was a party of merchants from the Piraeus who hoped to make great economic gains by seizing control of the route… and forced Pericles to drive Athens to war is altogether fanciful,” (Kagan 343) Pericles will have more complex strategy than this and was directly in charge. G. B. Grundy will suggest the idea that a group on the Peloponnese were dependent on imported grains, and Athens was obstructing them. (59) There is no mention of the group dealing with widespread hunger and were able to make it through the Athenian blockade. Economics did play a role in the war but was not a main cause and was seen in Athenian policy towards Megara. It is possible that Athens interfered with the trading routes and also gave special preferences. They would have regulated the trading of raw materials and gain. It would also have been beneficial to be an ally with Athens and would have gained from the economic gains. This was intended to harm the Megarian economy by limiting their access to non-Athenian harbors but not to start a war. A more modern view is the division between the states of Athens and Sparta and the creation of a bipolar world. Athens had dominated their allies but Sparta had not dominated their allies and this is valuable to understand that Greece was not a bipolar world. All of these idea might play a small factor in the Peloponnesian War but they are not the causes of the war and Thucydides was correct on his causes by focusing on the politics and the power involved.
passion reaches its height it will begin to express itself through the increase of power and the need to expand imperially. This is at the core of their imperial expedition to try to overtake Sicily. Athenian imperialism was the weaving of their traits and their passions connected with their foundation in democracy. Athens loved their freedom found in their democracy, which they tried to spread by the use of imperialism. They would rule over others and this was the best form of freedom and their achievement of this also came with the need for protection from attack. The city would then need to expand in order to do this. This will produce a great and vital city with a lot of power, but it would fall apart over the next generations due to these traits and habits. The same causes for their greatness also lead them to their destruction. Their passion will lead to faction and the desire to gain more will be seen in the expansion towards Sicily. Their characteristics and boldness will begin to remove them from the tradition restraints that had helped them achieve their freedom. These will also take a toll on the internal unity of Athens.
The status of fear also will play an important role in the war with Sparta being compelled to act.
Athens had certain compulsions and priorities that affected them. Athens placed great value on fear, honor, and profit. Emotions can be used as an offensive or defensive weapon. These emotions can be used to heighten the importance of your priorities and can affect the way they go about collecting information. The information then gathered will directly impact the way we form our beliefs and the need to act. Thucydides believes that fear by the Spartans played an important part in causing the war. Sparta felt threaten by the change in the power balance from Athens due to their imperialistic expansion. Fear can change over to terror, which is a more personal form and can change the way people and states think. Effective leaders can combat the fear and terror found in war and conflict. There are five major ways they can do this. (Petersen 321) The leader can use rational discourse. They will focus on the threat but are not influenced by the emotions and to focus on concrete actions. The leader can use hope as a way to help combat the fear and terror. This is the opposite and is based on a positive future and outcomes. Hope and fear cannot exist, but hope is a distortion in a positive manner. The leader can use the threat of shame by taking a single action attached to the person’s identity. This is different from guilting the person due to it being more personal and guilt can be forgiven. The use of anger can also be used. They would need to believe that a bad action has been committed against them and the focusing on the need for punishment. A final way to counter the use of fear and terror is by the use of spite. This is different than anger because of the belief that the enemy is going to receive some good that they do not deserve. They will then fight to prevent and to stop the enemy from their undeserved good. In ancient Greece and seen in Thucydides writing fear
and terror play an important role. The most seen strategies used is hope along with the use of reason. The use of anger, spite, and shame can be seen but are not used correctly. The studying of the role of imperialism and emotion is important aspect to understand when looking at the true reason for the cause of the war.
When looking at the cause of a war there can be many ideas and thoughts on how or why the war started. One idea of the cause of the war is the division between the Dorians and the Ionians. Along with their differences between government with oligarchy and democracy. However, this is a hard idea to pursue due the changes that occur with the war and looking at the other states involved besides Sparta and Athens. The involvement of economic has also been pursued in many different ways and ideas. The best idea when dealing with economic is the rivalry between Athens and Corinth and their fight for trade. Corinth was involved in Corcyra, and would lead to involvement from Athens. Corinth had already a hatred for Athens before this and it had little to do with economics. Francis Cornford points “that there was a party of merchants from the Piraeus who hoped to make great economic gains by seizing control of the route… and forced Pericles to drive Athens to war is altogether fanciful,” (Kagan 343) Pericles will have more complex strategy than this and was directly in charge. G. B. Grundy will suggest the idea that a group on the Peloponnese were dependent on imported grains, and Athens was obstructing them. (59) There is no mention of the group dealing with widespread hunger and were able to make it through the Athenian blockade. Economics did play a role in the war but was not a main cause and was seen in Athenian policy towards Megara. It is possible that Athens interfered with the trading routes and also gave special preferences. They would have regulated the trading of raw materials and gain. It would also have been beneficial to be an ally with Athens and would have gained from the economic gains. This was intended to harm the Megarian economy by limiting their access to non-Athenian harbors but not to start a war. A more modern view is the division between the states of Athens and Sparta and the creation of a bipolar world. Athens had dominated their allies but Sparta had not dominated their allies and this is valuable to understand that Greece was not a bipolar world. All of these idea might play a small factor in the Peloponnesian War but they are not the causes of the war and Thucydides was correct on his causes by focusing on the politics and the power involved.