Ancient History A2

for a question like that i would most likely split it between things they do agree on and depending on what it is split that section up more and things they don't. During the paragraphs i would discuss why they might disagree or agree with each other.

So if a question is to what extent the sources agree that Athens controlled the Delian League, what would you say? Because it's quite obvious that they did but Thucydides is our main source and he largely downplays the extent of their dominance so we have to use epigraphical evidence and other sources to fill in the gaps - would you say that or not? I would probably write something along the lines of:

Taking into consideration the reliability of the main sources and using other evidence to develop and explain the situation, we can tell that the Athenians did have a lot of control over many aspects of the governing of their allies, especially at the beginning of the war when they had the financial, military and political power to do so. Thucydides is the source which most disagrees with this viewpoint as he neglects to mention the legal control the Athenians held and the benefits they gained personally from the exploitation of their allies, making their political and financial control less apparent. However, we must take into consideration the fact that he himself was Athenian and was writing for a predominantly Athenian audience, as well as for future readers, and so it is unsurprising that he either deliberately or subconsciously downplays the extent of Athenian control over their allies. The other evidence is much more reliable, including that of Plutarch and official documents, and this evidence reveals that the Athenians controlled their allies politically, by imposing democracies on them, financially, by collecting tribute and using it for their own gain, and militarily by repressing rebellions and stationing men in the city-states to prevent further rebellions. Therefore, despite Thucydides' attempts to deny this, the evidence points towards Athenian control of their allies.

I haven't properly addressed all the issues in the paragraph (eg weakening control as the war went on) but do you think it would be okay as a conclusion sources-wise? Would I need to use the sources more or less?

I tried to ask my teacher about this and he basically did not answer me at all

Thanks!

ok here's a rough plan i would do.

1- controlled them politically (so decrees and imposition of democracy). For that i would use the Melian dialogue (although could be put in next paragraph), weights and measures decree and other inscriptions (Samian independence at end of war) also Pericles' funeral oration.

2- military control over allies/ intimidation of allies. Samos after their revolt and Potidaea and Amphipolis.

3- Lack of control politically over allies. Brasidas persuading states to revolt in Thrace, Alcibiades defecting to Sparta (he was a member of Delian League being Athenian)

4- Lack of military control/intimidation- Samos expedition and also losses in Arginusae (although not strictly to do with allies gave allies courage and belief their revolt would work and strengthened the Spartans hopes as allies joined Sparta)

That essay plan would allow for the use of Plutarch, Xenophon and Thucydides as non inscription sources and evaluation as Thucydides is often positive of Brasidas (possibly to show his exile was due to the excellence of him and to aid his recall to to Athens). My teachers tell us to use the sources when appropriate for quotes but paraphrasing and short summaries also show source knowledge and would i'd imagine get AO1 marks so quote when there's a good quote if not know the jist of the source and state that. Politically there's not much to write or quote from really so that's where to paraphrase. My conclusion to a similar essay (“The Athenians controlled their allies, but the Spartans were controlledby theirs”. To what extent do the sources portray this view?) said this "Inconclusion the Spartans were dominated to a certain extent by their allieshowever the Athenians had almost total control over theirs and they put downrevolts in their empire. Thucydides is the best source to illustrate this as heclearly slants his account in favor of the Athenian propaganda line. TheSpartans however left no sources of their own so therefore the judgement onSparta is clouded by the fact all our sources on the Spartans are written byAthenians.". Hope that helps

That does help, thank you

I think it's just getting to that time of year when I worry about and over-think everything

no problem do you want me to post the whole essay i quoted from in the previous post if that would help

If you don't mind, that would be sooo helpful Thank you!!!

I've attached . The one i quoted earlier got 30/50 and the other got 40/50

Hey I'm also doing the Invention of Imperial Rome there do not seem to be any resources for it at all

Does anyone doing Greece in Conflict 460-403BC have any ideas for this question?

‘Fighting was the only way for the Greeks to solve conflicts.’ To what extent do the sources support this view of the relationships between Greek states in this period?

It's from the June 2010 paper and I literally have no ideas on what to write, despite having looked at the mark scheme

I would personally not do this question to be honest. Although if i had to do this question i would probably split it something like this.

1- How fighting solved conflicts: Samos (after the revolt),Amphipolis are the main two i can think of i'm sure there's more though.

2- How political changes stopped conflict: I don't know if it's relevant in this question but the Spartans stopped conflict with Persia. Brasidas in Thrace also used politics to gain support and allies in Thrace. Imposition of democracy in Athenian empire early on with support of allies.

3-Alliances: the question suggests it's about the relationships between states so a paragraph on alliances and debate between allies i think would fit although as i said not entirely sure

And in those paragraphs i would try to split them between events that happened to Sparta and Athens. Although the bottom paragraph is easier to do together.
I don't know if that's helped if it has great if not sorry :/

You have been very helpful yet again, thank you I too would not do this question in an exam, but I don't want to get into the habit of thinking 'I won't bother with that question because I wouldn't do it in the exam' because probably around half the past questions seem too difficult for me to do!! You seem to have such a wider knowledge of the time period than me though

(Below, I'm not criticising what you wrote because it is very useful, I'm just basically typing out my thought processes - when I wrote it it felt a bit like I was being critical and I didn't want you to think that haha)

Looking at this question again in the light of what you have said, for your first paragraph could you talk about how fighting solved political conflict in Athens? For example, after Pericles' death the conflict with Sparta played a large role in dictating who became the leader of Athens - Cleon in the Archidamian War, and then Alcibiades after Sicily, and also you could maybe talk about Lysander in Sparta in that his success at Notium made him leader (although I haven't got much evidence of a power struggle in Sparta so it may be a bit of a push).

I'm not sure when you referenced the revolt of Samos whether you were talking about the one in 411 (I think there was one then - I'm a bit sketchy on that period) or during the Pentecontaetia, but could you perhaps mention how Athens merely crushed the revolts of their allies with sieges and the like and never with any proper diplomacy?

You could also/instead link in Alcibiades with your second paragraph as well as the first in that putting power into Alcibiades' hands meant that the fighting between the oligarchs and the democrats was stopped and civil war prevented.

I don't really know much about Brasidas (thanks for drawing attention to that - I will definitely do more revision on him) but are you referring to him stirring up revolts among the Athenian allies?

Could you also talk about Athenian control of their allies which in some ways prevented conflict in that it made the allies incapable of putting up a lot of resistance? It was in some ways unsuccessful in that it encouraged conflict due to them having to rebel rather than just leave the League peacefully as they would have done otherwise. The Spartans in contrast seem to be more peaceful in their debates and assemblies as a method of dealing with conflict and that although they do end up declaring war on Athens they still offer an ultimatum to them, suggesting that the Spartans were able to solve conflict in other ways and it was primarily the Athenians who resorted to fighting (although Thucydides tries to give the impression of the exact opposite, especially as he says that the Athenians were willing to submit to arbitration).

I would also definitely talk about the truces - the 30 year truce, the 50 year truce but especially the Peace of Nicias. Although they all ultimately failed, I think they are good evidence that the Greeks tried to solve conflicts peacefully. However, the do seem to be just periods of peace in order for both sides to rebuild their armed forces.

You have been very helpful yet again, thank you I too would not do this question in an exam, but I don't want to get into the habit of thinking 'I won't bother with that question because I wouldn't do it in the exam' because probably around half the past questions seem too difficult for me to do!! You seem to have such a wider knowledge of the time period than me though

(Below, I'm not criticising what you wrote because it is very useful, I'm just basically typing out my thought processes - when I wrote it it felt a bit like I was being critical and I didn't want you to think that haha)

Looking at this question again in the light of what you have said, for your first paragraph could you talk about how fighting solved political conflict in Athens? For example, after Pericles' death the conflict with Sparta played a large role in dictating who became the leader of Athens - Cleon in the Archidamian War, and then Alcibiades after Sicily, and also you could maybe talk about Lysander in Sparta in that his success at Notium made him leader (although I haven't got much evidence of a power struggle in Sparta so it may be a bit of a push).

I'm not sure when you referenced the revolt of Samos whether you were talking about the one in 411 (I think there was one then - I'm a bit sketchy on that period) or during the Pentecontaetia, but could you perhaps mention how Athens merely crushed the revolts of their allies with sieges and the like and never with any proper diplomacy?

You could also/instead link in Alcibiades with your second paragraph as well as the first in that putting power into Alcibiades' hands meant that the fighting between the oligarchs and the democrats was stopped and civil war prevented.

I don't really know much about Brasidas (thanks for drawing attention to that - I will definitely do more revision on him) but are you referring to him stirring up revolts among the Athenian allies?

Could you also talk about Athenian control of their allies which in some ways prevented conflict in that it made the allies incapable of putting up a lot of resistance? It was in some ways unsuccessful in that it encouraged conflict due to them having to rebel rather than just leave the League peacefully as they would have done otherwise. The Spartans in contrast seem to be more peaceful in their debates and assemblies as a method of dealing with conflict and that although they do end up declaring war on Athens they still offer an ultimatum to them, suggesting that the Spartans were able to solve conflict in other ways and it was primarily the Athenians who resorted to fighting (although Thucydides tries to give the impression of the exact opposite, especially as he says that the Athenians were willing to submit to arbitration).

I would also definitely talk about the truces - the 30 year truce, the 50 year truce but especially the Peace of Nicias. Although they all ultimately failed, I think they are good evidence that the Greeks tried to solve conflicts peacefully. However, the do seem to be just periods of peace in order for both sides to rebuild their armed forces.

Hey I'm also doing the Invention of Imperial Rome there do not seem to be any resources for it at all

YES YES YES "Could you also talk about Athenian control of their allies which in some ways prevented conflict in that it made the allies incapable of putting up a lot of resistance? It was in some ways unsuccessful in that it encouraged conflict due to them having to rebel rather than just leave the League peacefully as they would have done otherwise. The Spartans in contrast seem to be more peaceful in their debates and assemblies as a method of dealing with conflict and that although they do end up declaring war on Athens they still offer an ultimatum to them, suggesting that the Spartans were able to solve conflict in other ways and it was primarily the Athenians who resorted to fighting (although Thucydides tries to give the impression of the exact opposite, especially as he says that the Athenians were willing to submit to arbitration)." that is a point i didn't even think of and my plan was very rushed to say the least i only thought of it in about 5 minutes. Brasidas is well worth revision as he's a very well covered Spartan in Thucydides (possibly due to Thucydides exile being down to him) and therefore is useful to show the Spartan side if you would.

I agree good to ponder the questions that you don't want to come up but i think it's all exam technique to know this one i would defo not do as i feel i don't fully understand it to be honest so would be shooting in the dark trying to answer it

Also here are a few resources i've either made or adapted to help with my revision hopefully these help too

Hi here are a few resources i've found and adapted or even made for my revision on Imperial Rome. Hopefully they help

Hi everyone, I am an AS classics student and my college were deciding whether to do an ancient history module next year instead of a literature module, how do you find it work wise? i heard you have to remember alot of sources :/, we will be doing the Greece option - the conflict one so if anyone could help me thanks

The Greece conflict in culture unit is tricky in its own way however there are some aspects that are helpful and build on the as course. Yes sources you do need to remember a lot of them however quoting wise it's ok I'd say but that might just be me


Posted from TSR Mobile

Hi here are a few resources i've found and adapted or even made for my revision on Imperial Rome. Hopefully they help