Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the formation and success of the polis in the 6th and 5th centuries. What has changed?
The Athenian radical democracy is a good example of the
inclusion of the 6th and 5th centuries because they incoporated the army into
the voting body (ACG 65b) and later changes by Kleisthenes (ACG 78)??? THIS
LAST PART IS NOT COMPLETE. In the 4th century, compromise and inclusion became
less common in the Greek world BECAUSE?. The use of mercenary armies resulted
in the citizens who had the right to vote no longer fighting. Because of this,
the privilege of being a citizen outweighed the responsibility of fighting for
your polis. Because of all these privileges, citizenship became more narrow and
more restricted. An example of this may be seen at
Instead of compromise and inclusion, the Greek World
of the 4th century was characterized by forced inclusion and a lack of compromise
BECAUSE?. This is shown in the Chalcidean Federation.
The political league bodies instituted during the 4th century were comprised of charismatic leaders in which once they died the league collapsed WHY DID COLLAPSE HAPPEN AFTER DEATH????? WHAT DOES THIS LEAD YOU TO CONCLUDE ABOUT THE POLICIES OF THE CHARASMATIC LEADERS???. Good examples of this are Jason of Pherae and the Delphic Amphictiony. The organization gained political power but collapsed when Jason was assassinated in 370. The same thing happens with regards to Epaminondas, when upon his death the various leagues and political bodies he helped to establish (like the Arcadian League) collapsed.
The compromise and inclusion prevalent in the 6th and 5th centuries were less common in the 4th century. AGAIN, YOU SHOULD STATE WHY YOU BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE.
THIS IS A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE OF AN ANSWER THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AN “A” BUT HAS LEFT OUT CAUSATION, WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART BECAUSE IT SHOWS TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE INFORMATION.
The frequent imbalance of power and equality in this period of the Greek world among various poleis resulted in a fear of unity (by the polis with the major power), an unwillingness to compromise and include, and the dominance of charismatic demagoguery, all of which undermined the stability of the entire region.
The instance of the Chalcidean Federation evidences
of a fear unity.
The death of Epaminondas evidences the dominance of a
charismatic demagogue over the institutions of the polis. With the recess of
Spartan power,
WELL DONE
Although compromise and inclusion were important factors in the formation of
the success of the polis in the 6th and 5th centuries, it has changed
drastically in the 4th century BECAUSE unlike the previous centuries, warfare
was a major part of life. WAREFARE WAS MORE CONSTANT BEGINNING IN THE 4TH
CENTURY. The polias were continuously
fighting against one another for freedom /AUTONOMY, and during these times
having freedom from invading polias took precedence over having an institution
in authority that focused on compromise and inclusion. For example the
intervention in the
OK, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ROLE OF CHARASMATIC DEMAGOGUES?
Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the formation and success of the polis in the 6th and 5th centuries. What has changed?
In the case of the
GOOD USE OF EXAMPLES, BUT YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHY COMPROMISE AND INCLUSION WERE NOT SEEN AS OFTEN AS IN THE 6TH AND 5TH CENTURIES.
Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the
formation and success of the polis in the 6th and 5th centuries. This is not
seen in the 4th century BECAUSE...
One example of a lack of compromise can be seen by the Spartians destroying the
Chalcidean Federation. The Chalcidean Federation themselves used force to make
one city-state in
A lack of inclusion can also be seen in the 4th
century. Aristotle states "It is said that under the earlier kings they
used to share their citizenship with others..." (ACG 267). Looking back to
Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the formation and success of the polis in the 5th and 6th centuries. What has changed?
INCLUSION WAS NOT SEEN IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BECAUSE The connection between those who fight and those who vote has diminished. This is because of the increasing reliance on mercenaries to fight instead of the demos. This affects inclusion. The citizens no longer have to fight because the mercenaries do the fighting for them, but they are still enjoying the luxeries of citizenship. This caused citizenship to become more valuable and, in turn, increasingly more exclusive. GOOD
The Persians wanted to prevent Greek unity, which
they accomplished by funding the Spartans. The Spartans represented the most
militarily powerful group in
The Chalcidean League attempted to force an unwilling state to join forces with it. This represents forced inclusion, with no compromise, because the state has not been allowed to exercise its autonomy and freedom. GOOD
Jason, a Thessalian, provides a good example of the
increase in charismatic leadership. When he was in power, he used warfare to
strengthen Thessaly's position in
WELL DONE. EXCELLENT.
The formation of the polis changed because rather
than using compromise and inclusion, as in the sixth and fifth centuries,
freedom and autonomy in the fourth centure were highly valued because of the
on-going warfare. HOW DO THE FOLLOWING
SENTENCES/EXAMPLES SUPPORT YOUR THESIS?
MAKE THE CONNECTION SO THE READER DOESN’T HAVE TO.
Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the formation and success of the polis in the 6th and 5th centuries. What has changed?
In 5th and 6th century
The role of
The third sign of a lack of compromise and inclusion
lay within the imperial ambitions of the states. GOOD. Because
WELL WRITTEN, THOUGHTFUL, ARTICULATE ANSWER.
Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the formation and success of the polis in the 6th and 5th centuries. What has changed?
In the 4th century, not much had changed in the way
of compromise and inclusion. DON’T THE
FOLLOWING EXAMPLES SHOW HOW COMPROMISE AND INCLUSION DID CHANGE FROM THE 5TH
AND 6TH CENTURIES BECAUSE THEY SHOW HOW COMP. AND INC. ARE NO LONGER
BEING USED??????? For example, the
Chalcidean Federation/League was trying to force all city-states into their
league to aid in their defense against
This example can be used to demonstrate that compromise and inclusion were not factors in the Chalcidean League example as they were not factors in the Delian League in the 5th century either. According to the text Ancient Greece, the Delian League wanted all Greek states to benefit from the existence of the League, but to benefit one had to provide the League with tribute, warriors, and supplies to support its fleet. Some states opted to not contribute warriors and supplies but to instead send "money", thus forfeiting their right to vote, because to be a voting member of the League one must fight. Therefore, because certain states refused to send warriors, they could not fight. This led to less inclusion and compromise.
INTERESTING TAKE ON THIS CLASSROOM EXERCISE, BUT YOU ARE MISSING THE LARGER PICTURE WHICH WAS THAT “Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the formation and success of the polis in the 6th and 5th centuries”
Compromise and inclusion are critical in the success of the polis in the 4th century because there was none.??? NONE WHAT? NO SUCCESS, NO POLIS, OR NO COMP/INCL????? As explained above, the League wanted to force city-states to join them, city-states wanted to pay Spartans to help keep them out of the league, and Spartans wanted no unification whatsoever. Very interesting. WATCH YOUR USE OF PRONOUNS.
IN THE 6TH AND 5TH CENTURIES, The institution of the polis developed from of the ideas of compromise and inclusion. In the formation of the polis, the citizens were those who fought. There was a balance between responsibility (fighting) and privledge. This balance led to the inclusion of many middle class citizens, who were the backbone of the army. This inclusion allowed for a stable state. As the polis developed, it moved away from this balance. The Cahlcidean League illustrates this change. In this incident, a state FORCED INTO in the League recruited outside power TO HELP THEM DISENGAGE FROM THE LEAGUE. Thus, the people fighting in the conflict were no longer those who were voting. HOW DOES THIS EXAMPLE SHOW THAT?
Compromise between city states disolved in the 4th century, causing the destabilization of the polis. There was not as much need to compromise and bring in new citizens to fight because mercenary forces had taken over the responsibility of fighting. GOOD. Even new Leagues such as the Chalcidean League were unwilling to compromise with the members of their own league, instead using force to try to bring them into compliance. GOOD.
Imperial ambitions also led to a lack of compromise.
City-states felt that their own interests could be better served by defeating
their enemy. In
Also, no long lasting institutions supporting
compromise and inclusion were able to be set in place in many Greek states
during the 4th century because the Leagues and states fell into disorder after
the deaths of their charismatic leaders. A perfect example of this is the
downfall of Epinondas' alliances after his death in the battle of
OVERALL YOU TOUCHED ON MOST OF THE IMPORTANT POINTS. WELL-DONE.
Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the formation and success of the polis in the 6th and 5th centuries. What has changed?
During the formation of the poleis DURING WHAT TIME
PERIOD?, the principles of compromise and inclusion were acted upon. Citizen
bases were expanded, leaders endorsed policies of moderation. In this later
period, WHAT LATER PERIOD? GIVE ME A CENTURY.
states practiced exclusion; the Spartan citizenship was fourteen percent
of its former numbers; no further enfranchisement of citizens occured. WHAT
DOES THIS LEAD YOU TO CONCLUDE???? Foreing garrison positions were preferred,
demonstrating the desire of citixens to not have to act out their civic
resposibilites at home, preferring the luxury of a foreign post. In
The states were concerned with autonomy and freedom;
however,
These factors demonstrate that the poleis had abandoned the principles of inclusion and compromise, the principles that had benefited the poleis earlier.
In the fourth century the workings of the polis began to change. The changes that occured began to represent the shifting priorities of the polis as a whole. The polis, in attempt of sustaining its power, began to avoid the all important factors of inclusion and compromise within their political strategy. Because of this withdrawl of inclusion and compromise, the states began to have short lived success, and more internal goals, as opposed to expansion, and the betterment of the whole region. ACKWARD AND CONFUSING SENTENCE. The Chalcidean league shows this, in their attempts to force others within their system, without real inclusion exsiting within their political system.
There was also a clear change within the political system in that the idea of "those who fight, vote" no longer exsists. The citizens of the polis no longer are the ones who do the fighting, but are given money by the King in order to buy the help of mercinaries who would do the fighting for them. This shows the change that no longer are people willing to fight by the fact that they are reduced to hiring foreign mercenaries.
OVERALL, PRETTY GOOD.
The evidence WHAT EVIDENCE? suggests two examples SPECIFICALLY… that the states had failed at compromise and inclusion by forece of the smaller state into the Chalcidean league. This again can be used as an example at the failure of compromise, due to the fact that the state called upon the Spartans for assistance instead of finding means to a peaceful solution. In turn the willingness of the Spartans to act, upon their self intreasts and involve themselves within the conflict to stop the formation of the league within their borders. THE LEAGUE WAS IN SPARTAN BORDERS?
As for the failures in the individual members within the society HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO COMP&INCL NOT BEING PRESENT IN THE 4TH CENTURY? YOU NEED TO MAKE THOSE CLARIFICATIONS SO THE READER DOESN’T HAVE TO. was the evidence of the few numbers of actual Spartan citizens at the battle of Leuktra, and the revolt of Kinadon, "to be second to none in Lakedaimon" which is found on page 497 in ACG. This breakdown of society, and revolt leads to the safe assumption that compromise, and inclusion had failed within the Polis. HOW???? WHY???? IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED.
Compromise and inclusion were critical factors in the formation of the polis in the 5th and 6th centuries but changed significantly in the 4th. Rather than acting in the interests of inclusion and compromise, states began to act in their own self-interest out of fear of loss of freedom. GOOD. They failed to recognize long term consequences in place of a focus on short-term political gratification led by charismatic demagogues. GOOD. Whereas earlier the rule-of-thumb of the demos was those who fight vote, now those who vote were no longer fighting. This results in a decline of responsibility to serve and defend the state. The privelege of citizenship became more attractive because of the benefits weighed against the responsilities to the state. Because of limited resources, citizens were compelled to exclude new members to preserve their privelege. GOOD. The function of defending the state was now being served by mercenary fighters hired by the Persians who acted in their interest to keep the Greek states disunited and thus a non-threatening entity.
The Chalcidian league provides an example how Greek
states were acting in a manner contrary to compromise and inclusion. The
Chalcidian league was formed on the basis of geographic proximity, however
states were compelled to join by force rather than willingly. When a small
state refuses to join, they seek outside help from
OVERALL, WELL DONE.
Evidence WHAT EVIDENCE? suggests within the 4th century, the lack of structure from the demos, coupled with weak legislation ran by charastmatic leaders such as Epaminondas and Jason of Thessally EXAMPLES??? ultimately led to the collapse of the compromise and inclusion model and rather LED TO the emergence of warfare under????? autonomy and freedom. For example, the three main points that dismantled the Chalcidian Federation were HOW DO THESE POINTS SUPPORT YOUR THESIS???? : the use of force by the League upon smaller states in order to include, Sparta's disallowment of unification of other city states, and the willingness of these smaller states to call upon the outside forces. This only skims the realm of 4th century transition into a new era of instability and warfare.
After the 5th and 6th centuries, warfare continued
because attempts of compromise and inclusion in
This is seen when the Chalcidian Leauge was being
formed. The Spartans did not want to allow unification by the city-states,
showing an avoidance of inclusion and compromise. Inclusion and compromise were
also ignored when the League tried to force the
Another change in Greek ideals that led to lack of compromise and inclusion was the use of mercinary armies. This took away the balance of privilege and responsibility. By having non-citizens fight, it changed the system of "whoever fights, votes"; compromise was ignored. Citizens had less of a tie to the state because it was no longer needed for them to put their lives on the line. The use of mercenaries fighting are seen by Jason of Pherae/Thessaly who formed an army of over 6,000 mercenaries.
When Jason was assassinated his reforms and ideas fell apart, showing Jason's dependece on his leadership to maintain his policies, not of the people. This shows the lack of inclusion on behalf of Jason when trying to form his policies.
Inclusion and compromise were no longer used when forming leauges, military armies, and policies, therefore prolonging warfare.
In the fourth century, the Spartan and Athenian city
states neglected to uphold the earlier virtues of compromise and inclusion and
opted instead to uphold the values of exclusion and unilateral self-interest.
The citizens were enjoying all the benefits of citizenship without the
responsibility to uphold it. In the intervention of Chalcidice, the Spartans,
who had always professed freedom of all
Epameinondas
(ACG 272) states, “Seeing all the others cowering before Agesilaos, he alone
had the spirit to speak out and deliver an address, not only on the behalf of
the Thebans but on that of
The subsequent leaders of these city states were
acting increasingly in their own interests and were not establishing sound
governmental systems that would survive after their death. The values of
compromise were replaced by the self interest of the ruling parties. The
example that can be used is that of Jason of Thessaly. After winning a battle
with mercenary (non-citizen) soldiers, he was perceived to become the next
great leader from