Ap World History Dbq

1. Persia and Greece took different approaches to the political system, each yielding differing results. Persia’s system seemed to be more organized, as is evidenced by the lines, “Darius divided the empire into about twenty provinces, each under the supervision of a Persian satrap, or governor, who was often related or connected by marriage to the royal family” (page 111, paragraph 14). Greek’s style is shown in the lines, “Ultimately, the tyrants were unwitting catalysts in an evolving political process. Some were able to pass their positions on to their sons, but eventually the tyrant-family was ejected” (page 120, paragraph 25). Persia stuck with their government once Darius I came into power and he put his system into effect.

Greek kings may have been the farthest thing from that. The Greeks were weak in comparison, and couldn’t keep in power. They likely had the opportunity, just didn’t have the ability to do so. Even Greek tyrants had the same problem. The tyrants used force to come into power, of course, but they were unable to keep it. A possible factor or reason for the differences may be the circumstances surrounding how each system came to be. King Darius had struggles in his early years, the book says, “His success in crushing many early challenges to his rule testifies to his skill, energy, and ruthlessness” (page 111, paragraph 12). The Persian king dealt with problems and may have had to rule with an iron fist in order to keep his brutal reputation. Greek power may have been just a matter of chance. “Authority in the community developed along one of two lines...” (page 120, paragraph 25). This implies that the political system may have just happened and no particularly grueling work went into it, much unlike the conflicts Darius had to go through. By comparing and contrasting, one can see that Persia and Greece exemplify how two very successful societies can exist with two very different

Athens and Sparta came into conflict through Athens’ position as an imperial power. The textbook says, “The emergence of Athens as an imperial power after the Persian invasion aroused the suspicions of other Greek states and led to open hostilities between former allies” (page 127, paragraph 22). Although Athens and Sparta had joined together to defeat Persia, Athens’ hunger for power caused a rift to form between the two city-states. Athens was corrupt and kept much of the wealth to themselves, and it seems Sparta was not pleased with that thus was the start of the Peloponnesian wars. A possible factor to explain the outcome is evidenced in lines, “Pericles knew that, as long as Athens controlled the sea lanes and was able to provision itself, the enemy hoplites must soon return to their farms and the city could not be starved into submission” (page 128, paragraph 22). Athens was much too cocky and confident in their navy, not believing anyone could come close to touching their power. This was obviously not the case, as the textbook says, “The Persian Empire had bankrolled the construction of ships by the Spartan alliance, so Sparta finally was able to take the conflict into Athens’ own element, the sea” (page 128, paragraph 23). Athens never accounted for Sparta to take get assistance from an outside source-let alone a former enemy- or even for Sparta to attack from the sea. Athens had faith in Sparta staying on land and because Athens was so arrogant, Sparta