In the Greek view of things, as we've seen, the Persians get a bad rap (are viewed very negatively). However, while reading the Chapters on Persia, we saw a number of features that actually made Persia seem not only powerful, but also considerate of the needs of other groups in the Persian Empire. In other words, life in the Persian Empire didn't seem so bad. Is the Greek view of the Persians just another form of demonizing "The Other" that one finds consistently throughout history, especially in the books of Western cultures as they view Eastern cultures?
Similarly, the book and other sources seem to look at Sparta in a somewhat critical light. Indeed, we didn't exactly all react warmly and then look at bringing back some of the features of Spartan culture. Nonetheless, there were real reasons in a sometimes harsh, fragile, and threatening Ancient World for both the Persians and Spartans to create and nurture the cultures they did. They thought their way of approaching the world was both needed and justified.
Books and history often glorify Athens, but in a Blogpost of AT LEAST TEN THOUGHTFUL AND WELL-REASONED SENTENCES make the case for why one should actually embrace Persian OR Spartan culture. Choose ONE of the cultures to defend. Go back to the book and notes on Persia to defend life in the Empire with some details. Rely on our recent notes and the book for your defense of Sparta. Make sure you use specific historical examples AND, here goes, write from the perspective of an ancient historian evaluating the differences of Athens vs. Sparta/Persia.
I think we should embrace Sparta because Sparta made the saying "all for one, one for all. United we stand, united we fall." True. Everybody was part of the state of Sparta and protected Sparta with their life and by doing so protected each other with their lives. Sparta made sure that the people of the polis were strong and able. They made sure that the people that needed to be relied on were able to support themselves and others. Sparta also took the phalanx and made it an amazing and modern way of battle. The phalanx worked in such a way that you had to trust every single person in the phalanx with you or it would never work By using the phalanx Sparta made it so that Spartans trusted each other with their life and so much more. In our society now trust is incredibly rare. People don't to take the time to get to know people and truly trust them anymore. Sparta may have had flaws but they made sure that people trusted each other and therefore made sure that the people knew each other. Trust is a hard thing to gain and it's very easy to break and Sparta by using the phalanx and having everybody belong to the state the Spartans supported each other's trusted each other more than, maybe, any other civilization ever has.
ReplyDeletePart of what made Persia such an incredible empire was its tolerance. While conquering many of other areas it still maintained respect, which is an amazing thing. Especially considering this “degradation of ‘The Other’” that is so common – so many empires, countries, cultures, and people may think themselves the best and as a consequence learn to ‘push down’ other ‘groups.’ Persia was fabulous at maintaining the cultures of the people that they conquered instead of trying to crush them. I believe that this is a very crucial quality that not only empires but individual people need to have. And Persia did not suffer from being tolerant as much as other empires that suffered from not being so. Had Cyrus not been so tolerant, I believe many revolts would have started before Cambyses’s rule. In order to have conquered so many people, Persia also had to have had good military strategy (I believe that Cyrus’s concept of tolerance may have been part of this military strategy). Most of the successful empires did have good militaries. And having good military strategy would have led to more areas being conquered, and more cultural diffusion. Persia’s tolerance would have also been another reason for why different cultures would have spread.
ReplyDeleteI think we should embrace Spartan culture (or their idea or form of culture, considering they invested more time in their military.) because they were a tight-knit community. Everybody knew each other. They cared for, defended, and fought for the lives of their people and comrades. In this way, they resembled that of a polis(Because that's what they were, anyway.). They trusted each other through claiming each newborn as property of Sparta and training each gender in a rigorous way. They also increased the quality of their men and women by weeding out the infants that were not expected to grow to be an asset to the state. And one of the biggest things they did do was revolutionize (Sort of.) war involving physical contact with each other through the excessive (If I may call it that.) use of the phalanx, which they obtained from the Argonauts. They became even more powerful as a military nation/ polis through the use of the phalanx, which they used various times to beat other lands and people. And through the use of the phalanx, the Spartans' trust of their comrades was increased EVEN MORE. And trust is already something that takes a lot of effort to gain in the first place...
ReplyDeleteSpartan culture wasn't bad, because it was a strong civilization that put a high-value on work, training, and patriotism. The work and training made their military top-notch, and able to defend their city-state against anyone. From a young age, boys began training to defend their country, and this is one of the ways their military was so much more advanced than others. This also, however, brought the boys closer together with the other boys they would eventually be fighting with as men, because they had trained with each other forever (kind of like LeBron and three other starters on his high-school team, because they had been playing together since they were very young). Their win or die mentality made them fight to protect and improve the well-being of their city-state even harder. The fact that wives often told their husbands "come back with your shield or on your shield" is another example of the encouragement for win-or-die mentality on the battlefield. Their army was also made strong by the fact that ALL healthy boys went into the training, which made the size of their military larger than other places'. So not only were they well-trained, they were a large, well-trained military. As for their patriotism, they wore their uniforms all the time and viewed themselves collectively. This patriotism engrained in the society is another motivation on the battlefield for soldiers.
ReplyDelete- J��rdan Valdés #3
I feel like we should embrace Persian culture. One of the main reasons Persia was so powerful was because of how considerate they were of the people they conquered. People would be allowed to keep their religion and their culture. Instead of giving people a way to hate the Persian empire, the Persians gave them a reason to like the empire. For example, when Cyrus first conquered he did this, and he was well loved and was a good king. When his son took over, and did not show the same compassion, he was overthrown. It is quite easy to tell which of the methods was better. Not only that, this method could easily inspire more patriotism, allowing for them to raise massive armies, like the one Xerxes created to attack Athens. They supported individualism as well, which allowed for a boom in culture making people happier and richer. This played a big part in making Persia so powerful.
ReplyDelete~Pen Robinson
Persia built their empire on tolerance and acceptance for other cultures. Cyrus honored the local traditions and religions of the people he conquered, and would even kneel and pray in their local temples. Cyrus also prevented his army from destroying cities they captured. He even allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. This kindness, as well as a system of roads and standardized coins, united the Persian empire. People of the Persian empire were happy because they were allowed to keep their individuality and culture. Although Athens had been developing a democracy, they made sure surrounding areas were also democratic. This imposition of political ideology turned Athens into an imperial democracy because they were forcing their political structure on other people. Even though Athens was democratic, Persia was more accepting of cultures than them.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that the way Persians ruled is any better that the way that the Spartans did.Though i am more accepting of the Persian rule. I do not like how oppressive the Spartans are, and how military based they are. Although not all of the Persian rulers were magnificent i love how Cyrus accepted and honored other cultures and ideas, how he did not try to crush and destroy the peoples of which he conquered. Unlike the Spartans who made them slaves who they ridiculed, and took advantage of. I like the idea of a society that is based more on individualism more than thinking of everyone as the same person, just a group. Although Sparta may of been better in battle they were not as rich in culture. I love the idea that Sparta was a tight knit community where everyone depended on each other and fought and died for each other, though to me Persia was more advanced in its ideas on respect for other cultures and peoples who are different than them, and that is what i respect most about their culture.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Spartans are better and should be more glorified than Athens because the Spartans are a unified society where every person helps the greater good. The Spartans recently held off the dreaded barbarians’ force of over 200,000 while they allowed the other cowardly city states to run off. The three hundred of them held off the onslaught of the Persians army valiantly, even though they knew death was certain. The Athenians may have won the overall battle against the Persians and taken credit for it, but without the Spartans unselfishness and willing to aid the common good, the Athenians would be slaves of the Persians at this time. Also they don’t let petty differences stop every member of society having influence and aiding the common good. The women of Sparta, rather than being frowned upon and advised to stay home and “watch the kids,” played a greater role in society. Since women were considered equal enough to manage property and family finances, ALL the army could go out and contribute to whatever needed to be done. It may seem harsh that at 7 all children were forced to live in horrible barracks, but this taught them to think about their platoon and community before themselves and their family. The Spartans should have taken the spot as the most celebrated state in Greece rather than Athens. –Nathananus 05AD
ReplyDeleteThere are many differences between Athens and Sparta and both would have been good places to live. Athens would, of course been much more pleasurable to live in, but that does not make it better. Sparta had many merits. They had what was probably a much more stable society because societies are generally more stable when there is only one choice. In Sparta people only had one choice in any given matter. This is probably an overstatement, but it is true relative to Athens. Athens was unstable. There was just so much discussion by people who didn’t know what they were talking about. You don’t need the input of the common people (who don’t really know what is good for them or anything else). Sparta had it right. They let the people who knew what was what decide what happened. Yes, the normal people had some say, but the people’s say was no nearly important as it was in Athens. This made them very powerful and successful. Another thing that made Sparta so successful was its ability to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few. This is not something that is generally accepted as a good way to run a government these days, but it really is. They destroyed the weak and they probably destroyed the rebellious (if there were any). The fact that there probably were not any rebellious people brings me to my next point. Sparta was a great success because it was able to brainwash its people, at a young age, so that they would always maintain a Spartan way of thinking. Sparta may have been less fun to live in than Athens was, but Athens was destined for ruin (even without the work of outside forces). Sparta on the other hand would have lasted forever if it weren’t for peoples from elsewhere making a mess of things.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Persian civilization was better than the Spartan civilization. The Spartans--including many other civilizations I assume-- promoted working together in groups and demolishing the idea of culture. They focused on just one idea, either it be military or navy. The Persians did the exact opposite: they promoted individuality and culture. The Persian civilians also knew each other.Every neighbor knew the next. As we learn from the Persian empire, creating and elevating the idea of culture and individuality benefits the society.
ReplyDeleteSpartan civilization, I believe, was much better than Persian civilization. The Spartans were always protected by the fiercest and loyalist fighters. Their civilization was the strongest civilization we've studied so far, the world in which the Spartans grew up in was not one for the weak, only one for the strong. Sending deformed babies out to the top of a mountain to die wasn't a necessity, but it was brave, the idea of everyone being fierce and unbreakable was set in stone within Spartan society. Persian society was too culture based for my likings, it showed in the wars that the Persians fought that the majority of their warriors were trained very little, resulting in very high death tolls for the Persian armies. 300 Spartans held off more than 10,000 Persians for 2 days. The Spartans were so hard on the outside from years of training from 7 years old that none of them were afraid to die, they lived as a unit and they died as a unit. All Spartans died for their city-state, the saying "come back with your shield, or on it" was not meant as a joke at all, and the Spartans city and unity all came before family and death. Persia was just too culture based, and not enough militarily based to compete with the greatness of Sparta. Sparta had the strongest society, Polis, and military of them all.
ReplyDeleteI believe we should embrace the Persian culture. Persia had the ability to be more understanding, accepting, and respect the areas they conquered. When Sparta captured the people they conquered and made them be slaves. Persia also had kind rulers who embraced individualism. However, Sparta rulers were rough and tough who focused on the military and everyone working for the military. Also growing up in Sparta was very harsh since they always had to worry about slaves who might rebel. Boys were trained beginning at the age seven to prepare for battle. Spartans brought these harsh conditions of living upon themselves by capturing more slaves they could contain I believe. Persians lead with a kind heart so they had the capability to focus more on culture since they didn’t have to watch there back all the time. I rather embrace the Persian culture that honors other people’s culture and strives to build their own then Sparta’s way of life.
ReplyDeleteI think the Spartan civilization was better than the Persian civilization. Their civilization was the strongest civilization we've studied so far. The Spartans could work well in groups. They focused on just one idea, either military or navy. The Persians did the opposite: they used individuality and culture. The Spartans were always protected by the fiercest and loyalist fighters. The civilians would protect Sparta with their lives. 300 Spartans held off more than 10,000 Persians for 2 days. The Spartans were a tight knit community and they were very friendly with one another, but they sent a completely different message on the battlefield. Spartans were a tough civilization that were twelve times better than the Persians.
ReplyDelete