Blog #5

If you were a young teenage girl of the citizen class, in which city-state would you rather live? Why?

I would rather live in Sparta because compared to Athenian girls and women, Spartan women held a higher place in society. While their rights were still limited Spartan women were taught how to read and write, gymnastics, athletics and survival skills. They were also able to own their own property and during times of war they would be charged with protecting their husbands possessions.  This, in stark contrast to the women of Athens who were in essence their husbands property and had no rights. They could not even leave the house unless they were prostitutes or courtesans. The only education Athenian women received was basically household tasks such as sewing or cooking. 

If you were a slave, in which would you rather live? Why?

I would much rather live in Sparta. Sparta had Helots, as supposed to regular slaves. Helots were comparable to share-croppers in American history. While the slaves in Athens were the lowest of the low, the Helots had to give half of their crops to the Spartiates but still had some independence. While it was true that the Athenian slaves did play some roles that were more unique than the farming Helots of Sparta, such as policeman, their owner could kill their slave at their own discretion. I frankly don't think I'd be that interested in living a city where I could be killed at the drop of a hat. 

If you were a boy in the citizen class, which city would you rather live in? Why?

I would want to live in Athens because in Sparta I would be forced into military service at an early age until I was sixty and I would have to leave in a society centered around war. My "mentor" would be a pedophile rapist and I would be taken from my family at a young age. In Athens, I would grow up in a diverse society and receive a comprehensive education. I would also receive two years of military training but it would not dominate my entire life.

If you were a young soldier, in which city would you rather live?

It depends on my motivation. If I was looking to become a high-ranking military leader in one of Greece's premier armies I would probably want to live in Sparta. If I had other aspirations in life I would much prefer Athens. Knowing myself, I would prefer Athens because I wouldn't want my life dominated by the army. Also, since the Athenian navy was very big if I served in that I would have the opportunity to travel all over and see new places. The army in Athens was less intense and unlike Sparta you could see your family and spend time outside of the barracks. 

If you were a wealthy member of the citizen class, which city would you rather live in?

I would, of course, like to live in Athens. I would be able to buy what I want, live where I want etc... Sparta was very much more strict and also more communal than Athens. In terms of technical things if I lived in Athens I could do stuff like travel around different parts of the world because of it's role as an important port. Not to mention I'd have access to many more good from merchants trading in Athens.

Blog #4

"New ideas in politics and philosophy tend to emerge in times of social, political, and/or economic stress. How can this be explained?"

First of all, people are more open to new ideas when they are unhappy with their current situation. In times of happiness people are going to be less open to people coming in with radical new ideas on how to change things, because people don't want change. However, when people are unhappy, new ideas and change sounds wonderful. People will look to almost any idea with hope and this allows very smart people to capitalize on this by introducing their concepts. If a government is working well and people are happy with it, a philosopher with an idea for how to better run the government is going to be ignored. But if you take a government that is not working well and people that aren't happy that philosopher will be listened to. My point being, it is not only that these ideas are thought of during times of stress but that they are brought to the forefront by a population that will listen.

Population Growth in the Classical Period

Population growth was the biggest development of the classical period, true or false?

False. Population growth was simply a side effect of the other developments of the time. Once the other developments began to take form then population growth became a key factor in the progession of those developments. I am talking about devlepments such as the mass domestication of animals. Without such developments the population growth that we saw occur in that time period would not have been possible because there simply would not have been enough food. People did not start having a ton of kids and then find ways to feed all of them, it was the other way around. That being said, once there was enough food to have a large population then people could develop other things such as metal tools, new farming methods, new ways to build buildings or run governments. So while it while it was important in developing other things, population growth itself was not the biggest development of the period.

Changes of the classical period...

What were the main changes of the classical period?

The main changes of the classical period were that the world unified into nations and civilizations. This allowed for trade between nations in different parts of the world. Also, the critical mass of so many people living in one area allowed for civilizations to flourish because with advances in farming people could be architects or blacksmiths or scholars. Up until the classical period you would have small population bubbles or even small cities but none had the food supply to truly support a big enough population in which everyone would not have to farm or hunt. The breakthrough was really the domestication of animals and advances in farming which allowed significantly less people to produce significantly more food and thus support a very big population in a small area allowing civilization to form. Without these advances the civilizations could not be formed.

"Yali's Question"

Why do you think that What Europeans came to control a large share of the modern world, while those inhabiting the Americas, Africa and Asia became subjects of colonization?

When I first saw this question I though a couple things. The first thing was that they colonized other, smaller, weaker country, tribes, etc... But then the question of why Europe was more powerful occurred to me. I think it may have to do with European lifestyle compared to how people lived in other areas. In Europe everyone was in closer proximity than elsewhere. Thus, people were fighting for their land all the time. Governments were fighting for territory and so on. So they had armies that were constantly striving to be more powerful than the other armies. They armies were able to take new technology from their enemies and so the armies were constantly improving. So when they went to a less developed place they were able to crush or dominate the locals.

One more thought I had was that someone could probably write a book on this... and in fact, someone has.



"Guns, Germs and Steel"