Athens, from its rise through its golden age and down to its fall, has always been a formidable civilization dominating in science, philosophy, and much more. For years historians have wondered what made this group of people so successful in their endeavors in learning and conquering. This paper attempts to correlate their leisure time with their triumph of both mind and land because of leisure time they were able to put more importance on learning and intelligence so therefore were able to contemplate politics and superior strategies despite lesser armies and force. By analyzing how the Helots (Sayre111) and Perioikoi relieved the burden to work from the citizens and the civilizations own pressure to have them achieve arête (Sayre108) made the Athenians endeavor in such things as politics and strategies.
Slaves were a common thing in Ancient Greece and anyone else who was not a citizen also had to work. There was no middle class because of the lofty requirements to become a citizen so anyone else was a worker, craftsman or slave (Sayre111). Around the same time as the civilization was forming the idea of arête became well known because of Homer’s epics (Sayre107). This idea became the founding blocks of the civilization. Because of these two unique aspects of Athens is why it became so successful. The citizens strove to become the best in a world where they couldn’t work. This means they invested a lot of time and energy into learning as much as they could. This birthed strategies such as the famous Trojan Horse (Sayre107) and the agora where citizens could meet and debate among themselves in the polis; city-states (Sayre110-111). Politics led to a more stable economy and superior strategies led to victory where their numbers would normally be overrun. This combination is why Athens was so successful and able to make leaps and bounds in science, philosophy and how it was able to conquer the known world through Alexander the Great (Sayre156).
If it wasn’t for the Helots (Sayre111) and Perioikoi relieving the burden of work from the citizens then the idea of arête (Sayre108) never would have thought to have been applied to politics and strategies. This paper has attempted to do what many historians have pondered about and has shown one aspect of the debate on how the Athenian civilization became so powerful and successful in their endeavors. Athens through its Golden Age has always been a formidable force dominating in science, philosophy, and much more and the reason for this will probably always remain a mystery for present and future historians to ponder.
Citation
Sayre, Henry M.. The humanities: culture, continuity & change. 2nd ed. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2012.
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
125,011 Literary Works • 672,840 Reviews
Since this essay is a response, there are probably some things you assumed the reader would know when reading it. For example, I had to look up who the Helots and Periokoi were as well as what "arete" is. Annotations for explaining these three things would've helped immensely -- especially seeing as how the entire response is about "arete" but doesn't explain what it is.
Anyways, looking at this as just a response and not an essay, I'm not quite sure it works. It reads more like a normal essay or a summary of the paper itself rather than a response. For example, did you agree or disagree with Sayre? Were his points well-founded, or did he stretch himself thin in parts? Did his paper overlook vital information? For good examples of short responses, check out the book reviews in The Economist.
Looking at this right now, I can see a lot to disagree with Sayre on. For example:
Athens never conquered the known world; rather, Athens was conquered by Alexander the Great, who used military tactics developed in Macedonia to conquer the known world. What Alexander did do is he enabled the Hellenization of huge regions, spreading Athenian ideas to as far afield as the Indus river valley, but Athenian ideas themselves had nothing to do with conquering the world.
Hey Djinn!
Shady here with a review for you this fine evening. c:
I haven't studied the Athenians for several years now, but they fascinate me, so the title of your piece drew me in.
~ Uh...what? You're trying to use too big of words, and make your sentence seem nonsensical because of it.
Backing up to the sentence before it...
~ "For years, historians have wondered what made this group of people so successful in both learning and conquering, while leaving time for leisure. Quite simply, it is because they valued learning and intelligence above all else. Rather than waste their leisure time on frivolous amusements, they contemplated literature, politics, and strategies that would make their weak army stand against the much stronger ones of their day."~ Slight changes make a difference.
~ Grammar, dude.
~ I know that, in essays, you're supposed to have an introduction, where you state the purpose of your paper-- a body-- and a closing paragraph, where you summarize your essay, but...I don't think that you're legit supposed to be like "This paper..." Rather, you're simply supposed to write a summary. Actually, looking at your piece, I think you could nix this entire sentence-- then have your final paragraph a nice summary/closing.
~
Okay!
I hope this wasn't too harsh. I know I focused mostly on grammar, but, that's all I found to critique. Your material is historically accurate, and your tone is good. I'm rotten at citing material, so have no idea if your form is proper. xP It looks like it is.
I don't really know what this is for. I assumed it was for something that will get graded (which is the reason I bothered pointing out all of the grammatical mistakes I saw). But, overall, I think this is a good piece.
And I am going to end this review now, because I feel dangerously close to saying something stupid (I'm rotten at summarizing. xP). Hope this helped~
Keep writing!
~YWS' Supreme Grammar Nazi
Thank you! My professor required us to say 'this paper attempts/compares ect.' I do like how you changed it though and I think it makes it a better paper. I liked the information and premise so much that I wanted to share this with you guys. (Believe me, I wasn't just trying to get free grammar check - I'm already out of the class.) again, thank you for your input
No problem! c:
Very well written, I enjoyed how you focused on a rather grizzly point of slaves but made it seem acceptable for at the time it was. I enjoy history alot and am glad to see people writing summary's and essays instead of all poems.
I really cannot say much as I am a poet and stick to what I am good at. It must have been really hard back then unless you were one of the wealthy. I would have liked to read more about wartimes and strategies as it did play a major part of success in those early days.
All in all very well written and a nice summary of why they succeeded.