Speech Structure - Executive Summary
Preamble
Demosthenes displayed apologizing who first takes the floor, before the elderly speakers (§1).
Narration
To §2-12 Demosthenes refers to the situation found the Athenians and specifically describes that have been found in distress and this is due to them. Even urges them to do their duty to democracy and to make the right decisions. Specifically,
A. First topic: the Athenians should not be discouraged by difficult situations, since they have not done anything to improve the situation are, but should be encouraged by the examples of their ancestors and of Philip the same (§§ 2-7).
B. Second issue: The position of Philip is not as strong as it seems, since the allies resent his arrogance. The Athenians
…show more content…
This statement is due to a former version of the legislation of Solon, which forbade speaking people who had not completed their 50th year of age. This provision had languished in the 4th century but kept rather only ceremonial. Even states that will speak first compared with those who they used previously and obviously meant people who played a significant role in the politics of Athens and they were offered each time issues, which would discuss the ecclesia. Between and on top of the crowd will be standing Eyboulos, which Demosthenes was a supporter until recently and with that of the declaration for leniency from the side of the audience wants to show his respect for his political opponents. Another reason for this is the statement and why to succeed the favor of the public will have a direct impact on the attack which will immediately proceed after against his political opponents. We see him said he would have avoided the Athenians this state, they are now if they had been properly advised and had their lead to many mistakes. Amazingly, as says Mr. Tsatsos, seeing Demosthenes within three dense sentences, stating only what must be running through all the psychological scale. Starts from modesty, perhaps cowardice and concludes with a sword in the unlikely face of his opponent. This underlines Demosthenes is the wrong policy of the past in contrast with what he proposes. This contrast …show more content…
This is because of the insolence and impudence, that has come Philip, increasingly strengthening threatens the open. It is obvious that things have changed now that has outgrown the limits due to the power acquired. In §9 uses shape in arsine and position twice to show how Philip works as a hunter, who is always alert and captures the victims of his nets, in contrast with the Athenians, who remain passive and attend to their surrounding uninvolved. Introducing Philip with this way and the actions of, probably refers to the successful operations against Athens from 357, as the occupation of Potidaea, Pydna and Methoni, mixing the themes of central Greece, the siege of Heraion Wall and the exclusion of the Athenians of the trade routes in the Black
Demosthenes and Isocrates came to prominence in fourth century B.C.E. Athens as public speakers and as politicians. Isocrates was a teacher of rhetoric, or the art of public speaking, while Demosthenes was a professional litigator, writing speeches for clients arguing in the courts of law, and occasionally presenting arguments himself. Both men were highly respected citizens and opinion makers throughout the sphere of influence maintained by Athens, though they held opposing views regarding the proper course for Athenian government, warfare between the Greek city-states, and the prospect of invasion from the Persian Empire to the east. While the Greek city-states engaged in fratricidal warfare, Philip of Macedon began consolidation of his political power by essentially offering up his highly trained professional Macedonian army as mercenary soldiers to the various city-states requesting assistance or protection and demanding control as hegemon or monarch of the city-state in return for military aid. Following a declaration of truce, Philip would impose his rule upon the vanquished as well.
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
Before Solon was name to reform the laws of the city, Athens was in great chaos. Solon had to tackle issues that were within the city itself. Because of the fact that only aristocrats and nobles were given the power to elect man, many of the “common people” were against that notion; as a result, quarrels between the common people and the aristocrats arose. Furthermore, due the the war that the Athenians just finished, and the accumulation of debts, the poorest of the poor had their lands seized and either sold themselves as slaves or their children and family members.
(2.36.4). Pericles did not wish to simply reiterate what Athens had achieved, but rather he wanted to address how and why Athens achieved it. He believed that Athenian politics, culture, and character were more relevant to the deceased soldiers than their ancestor’s military successes. Accordingly, he praised these elements of Athenian society and in the process justified the soldiers’ sacrifice. He spoke “but what was the road by which we reached our position, what the form of government under which our greatness grew, what the national habits out of which it sprang; these are the questions which I may try to solve before I proceed to my eulogy upon these men; since I think this to be a subject upon which on the present occasion a speaker may properly dwell, and to which the whole assemblage, whether citizens or foreigners, may listen with advantage.”
In this paper, I will first extract Thucydides views from the Melian Dialogue and then analyze whether or not these views are well founded. Thucydides believed that the Athenians had the stronger argument. Proof of this lies in the way Thucydides picked the arguments for each side. For the moment, we will disregard the actual content of the arguments, and look at argumentation forms and the flow of the debate. The Melians argued using consequences of an Athenian take over.
Athens government and military is considerably different from their neighbors. According to Pericles, Athens government is not a copy of our neighbors...
Of all the history of the Ancient Greece, there were two events that showed really well how disunity among the Greeks highly contributed to its downfall, which were the Peloponnesian War and Successors’ War. Interestingly, both wars occurred after a unity and followed by a unity that was carried out by “outsiders”. This may have actually shown that the Greeks had never learned from their past
The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.
The causes of the Peloponnesian War proved to be too great between the tension-filled stubborn Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. As Thucydides says in Karl Walling’s article, “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed” (4). The three phases of the war, which again, are the Archidamian war, the Sicilian Expedition and the Decelean war, show the events that followed the causes of the war, while also showing the forthcoming detrimental effects that eventually consumed both Athens and eventually Sparta effectively reshaping Greece.
He says "..... The Lacedaemonians do not invade our country alone, but bring with them all their confederates; while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbour, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their home". Pericles is telling the funeral audience that just because we sit here at a funeral we are winning easily against Sparta. They need help even on land they are more familiar with and we still defeat them. So not only does Athens have the better form of government that was passed down from generation to generation but we also obviously have better war tactics than Sparta in which that is supposed to be their specialty. He says this to distraught funeral crowd who deep in their mind are questioning if they could win this war and Pericles is giving them a sense of hope and a sense that they could win this war with
In Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War the Athenian Empire started out with just intentions, but once they had a taste for power they did whatever it took to obtain more, even if they had to take it by force. Over time the Athenian Empire became ruled by individuals acting with the sole purpose of furthering their own self-interests at any cost, which led to the empire becoming more amenable to the use of force as a means to get what they desired. One such instance where someone in the Athenian Empire was more than willing to use force to get what he or she wanted was during the Mytilenenian dialogues. The Athenian colony of Mytilene attempted to rebel against Athenian rule but when they failed their fate rested on the outcome of the debate between Diodotus and Cleon. Thucydides refers to Cleon as the “most violent man in Athens” and he demonstrates how he earned that name when he suggests that the Athenians kill every man of fighting age and enslave the rest. Cleon then says, “Give these people the punishment they deserve… show them that the penalty for rebellion is death” (Thucydides, p. 70-71) because he believes that this show of power and force will dissuade other colonies under Athenian rule from thinking about rebellion. Fortunately for the Mytilenians Athens did not use force in this
Plato’s Republic is a dialogue set in Athens, which at the time of documentation was the center of the democratic world. Despite the city’s knowledge and construction of political structures ahead of its time, the main question addressed in the Republic is that of justice. What is justice, and why should we want to be just? Many competing thoughts are outlined within the Republic, notably that of a Sophist named Thrasymachus, who stated that justice is “nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (Plato, p. 15, 5c). Socrates, the main philosopher in this dialogue who claims that he “knows nothing” (Plato, p. 35, 354c) disagrees with Thrasymachus and spends the entire book trying to disprove the argument that the unjust person
The death of Pericles was a significant event in the course of the Peloponnesian War; however, even without Pericles' leadership the Athenian Assembly had countless opportunities to prevent their loss and chose not to take them. The fickleness and inefficiency of democracy ('the mob') allowed the Athenians to be easily influenced and therefore electing populists such as Cleon, Lysicles and Hyperbolus into dominant leadership roles. Election, via democratic means, of such populists, meant that the Athenians would take a much more aggressive approach to the war and therefore abandon the policies that Pericles had previously established. So in turn, democracy the institution for which the Athenians fought tirelessly to protect, rather than the death of Pericles, ironically became the dominant factor influencing the final outcome of this Ancient Greek civil war.
...ders are unable to adequately rule their people. It is evident to me that a tyrant need not be a particularly evil or dangerous leader, but merely one who cares more about his own power and honor than the people he leads, who lets his pride and greed overwhelm his responsibilities to the city or society he has been entrusted with. Agamemnon never tortured or killed his own men, but his judgment in protecting his men was compromised by his desire to gain honor in the sight of others. Tyranny can be overwhelming or subtle, but the very hint of its existence is sure to cause disharmony in the government, leading to the unjust, and thus unhappy society that Plato described.
The march towards developing a democratic society is often obstructed with societal unrest due to the influence of the status quo on the instruments of power. Before the rule of Solon, Athens underwent this same rule, as there was much discontent among the social classes in Athens. The society suffered financial disparity that often was the trigger for the war among the rich and poor in the society. This was a major factor that forced Solon into power to institute policies that would see a reformed Athens. By so doing, the society was looking for an avenue that would guarantee democracy and a society that is fair for everyone. The city-state of Athens was the epicenter of the revolution for the Athenian democracy during the fifth century BC. In the Athenian democracy, the electorate voted for the legislation of bills instead of a direct democracy where the electorates are tasked with electing representatives who later developed the bill. Among the first people who made significant contributions to the development of the Athenian democracy were Solon (594 BC), Cleisthenes (508/7 BC), Pericles (495 – 429 BC) and Ephialtes (462 BC). Pericles was the longest serving democratic leader who contributed much development in democracy in the city. This paper will give an account of the age of the Pericles.