Chapter 4: gold and iron
Question
1. What is meant by “Persia winked at the worst possible moment?
In 5th century there were unrests in various of the Persian territories. The Greeks blamed this on the
decadence of the Persian elite. However, the Greek accounts are influenced by the very negative
picture against Persia in Greece at that time.
The Persians throughout the 5th century were able to largely put down revolt in the empire (in Egypt,
Babylon and Asia Minor).
In the 5th century Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BC) and Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BC) had were struggling to
keep constantly rebelling Egypt a part of the empire. Still, in the mid - 4th century their empire
remained by far the greatest in the region with the biggest armies.
2. What were the indications of strength and weakness of the Achaemenid-Persian empire?
How was it organized? How did it pursue a divide-and-rule strategy? How did the Greek
city states respond?
In the 5th and 4th century the Achaemenid empire had to fave various internal revolts for example in
Egypt, Babylon, Cyprus, Asia Minor and in the eastern parts of the empire. However, they were able
to put down these revolt, as they still commanded the largest armies. They continued to control most
of the important trade hubs and to boost trade within their borders (e.g. by enhancing the royal road
a trade route in the Levant or by maintaining a canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
They also resulted to 'bandwagoning', i.e. to gain the support of the Empire to get advantages over
other smaller states: Sessally, Argos, Thebes all proposed an alliance with Persia.
WEAKNESS: widespread unrest, rebellion, inflation, higher intrest rates, tax revolts
STRENGHTS: commercial life continued to flourish, they were able to field vast armies, had great
armies and were strategically smart (divide and rule)
ORGANIZATION
The organization of the Achaemenid empire relied on the use of Satraps. The empire was divided into
Satrapies. The Satraps ruling those Satrapies were responsible for taxation, maintaining stability and
reporting to the court. The Satraps regularly received delegations form the subjugated peoples.
Delegations also had to appear to the king himself to pay homage and tribute. Those who abided the
rules of the Persians were treated very mildly (does how didn't were punished harshly).
The system was decentralized: Holslag describes it as "local self-government under Persian
supervision". When there was unrest in a Satrapy it was first on the Satrap to restore order. (e.g. the
Satrap of Ionia first tried to appease the Greeks by ousting the tyrants and making the Ionian city
states democracies and forces them to settle disputes among themselves via Persian arbitration and
to swear an oath of peace with each other.
DIVIDE AND RULE
Persia resulted to a divide and rule strategy for example (1) in playing out the Greek city states
against each other in the Pelopennesian War, in which it supported Sparta against Athens.
(2) In 456 Artaxerxes I tried to bribe the Spartans to attack the Athenians so as to stop them aiding
Egypt and Cyprus revolting against the Persians. (3) Later in 341, when King Philip II of Macedon was
about to invade Athens, Persia provided military aid for Athens against Macedon.
RESPONS OF THE GREEK CITY STATES
The Greek city states responded to the threat of the larger empire by 'balancing', i.e. by uniting
against it. (1) This was the case in the Persian invasion of Greece where various city states formed an
alliance (sometimes called Hellenic alliance). (2) Even after Persia was defeated at the Battle of
Plataea Athens and various other cities went on to form the Delian League to continue to fight
against Persia. (3) Likewise, Philip II united the Greek city states to fight against Persia (he planned to
invade Persia way before his son would eventually do it) in the League on Corinth.
, 3. To which extent did the Greek city states unite against common challenges? What were the
drivers of building leagues? What do we know about classical Greek diplomacy?
Holslag describes ancient Greece as a "laboratory of diplomacy. Ambassadors of one city when to the
assembly of another (many city states had democratic assemblies) to give passionate speeches to
promoted their interests.
As the Greeks shared a common language and culture they felt a polarization between them and the
other states and were more than willing to remove their personal issues with other city states for the
benefit of expansion as the Greeks had a problem with “stenochoria”, or “confined space” and
colonization was often necessary to keep growing the population.
Greeks were often unified through a common language and a similar culture and prone to creating
alliances against common enemies. One of these alliances was the “Amphictyonic League”, during
the time of the 6th and 7th century Sparta and Corinth were the strongest cities and therefore they
made an alliance with each other in 525 B.C. in order to unify their land power(Sparta) and sea
power(Corinth). Here we can mention the destruction of the city of Cirrha for its impiety in the First
Sacred War (595-585) by the League. There is also the Delian League founded in 478 B.C. an
association of Greek city-states with the number of members ranging from 150-330 under the
leadership of Athens whose purpose was to continue fighting the Persian Empire at the time of the
Persian invasion. This is the time after the Battle of Plataea at the end of the Second Persian invasion
of Greece. The name comes from the place of the meeting, The island of Delos, where the congress
was held in a temple and where the treasury was located unil Pericles moved it to Athens.
Another example of unification is when Athens and Sparta came together during the First invasion of
Persia.
Leagues were formed around a hegemonic power. For example: the Delian League was formed
around Athens, the Peloponnesian League around Sparta, the League of Corinth around Macedon.
Within these leagues, the smaller states usually had to pay taxes, and contribute troops, to the
leading state, which provided security in return
There were also leagues formed against possible hegemons.
Smaller leagues achieved a remarkable degree of integration, for example the Arcadian League
required cities to surrender a significant degree of their autonomy if they wanted to join.
Classical diplomacy could either be horizontal or vertical. The conclusion is that the enemy worked
as the unifier in Greece. Politics was expansionist in its nature and expanding was more important
than keeping one’s own culture.
4. How did Greek intellectuals look at governance, diplomacy and the tenability of peace?
Draw a mental map of the international order of the whole Mediterranean after Alexander
the Great.
Greek intellectuals were concerned with the lack of "Hellenic unity" (unity among the Greek city
states). Herodotus emphasized the kinship of the Greeks, who had to rally against the Persian
barbarians. In this sense the Peloponnesian war was the worst thing for those Greek intellectuals as
it meant Greeks fighting Greeks, hostility instead of unity:
Thucydides thought of it as a disaster and "unprecedented tragedy" for the Greeks.
In a play by Aristophanes the women of Athens organize a sex strike to stop the
Peloponnesian war.
In 415 Euripides wrote a tragedy called "The women of Troy" to protest against the violence
between Greek city states
Plato proposed his model of a city in which inhabitants could live in harmony with each
other. He said "Greeks should not ravage Greeks"
, Hence the Greeks (or Greek intellectuals) wanted unity and peace among the Greek city states,
however they were skeptical that it could ever be achieved (hence they were adhering to a realist
interpretation of IR).
Aristotle for example thought in the realist tradition in that a country must carefully watch
other countries military activity and prepare accordingly. He said "war was often necessary to
defend freedom"
Thucydides, equally a realist, wrote that human nature was market by self interest and the
bedrock of international politics was the balance of power (i.e. states have to look after their
own military in order so that it matches that of their rivals). He, hence, explained the
Peloponnesian war (between Sparta and Athens) by the increased power of Athens which
disturbed the power balance in Greece (making Sparta feel threatened)
Thucydides, furthermore, pointed out the limits of law and arbitration between states: In the
lead up to the Peloponnesian war a peace treaty was existing (the Thirty Years' Peace treaty,
agreed upon after the first Peloponnesian war), however, each side mutually declared the
other to be violating the treaty and were each interpreting and using in their own interest.
(Hence the limit of such interstate arbitration).
After the death of Alexander the Great the "uni-polar world was over" and a multi-polar system of
international relations started. After his death his empire could not be sustained and split in to four
parts:
The Antigonid dynasty in Macedon.
The Attalid dynasty in Asia Minor.
Ptolemy I ruled Egypt.
The Seleucid dynasty in Mesopotamia.
These kingdoms (and other powers more to the west) would fight among each other over power for
over a century - the Mediteranian, the Middle East and North Africa were turning into a giant arena
of International Relations - until the rise of Rome would provide a new hegemonic peace.
5. Summarize the rise, the governance and the arts of the Maurya Empire.
Mahapadma Nanda (345 - 321 BC) seized the throne of the Magadha kingdom (which had emerged
as the strongest out of the 16 Mahajanapadas). He in expanded its territories and thus founded the
Nanda Empire, which stretched over vast parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. However, the Nanda king
was overthrown by Chandragupta in 321 already, who then founded the Maurya Empire.
Chandragupta managed to forge a peace agreement with Seleucus I Nicator who wanted to invade
India just like Alexander the Great had tried before. With the peace agreement the Maurya Empire
expanded until the Hindu Kush (where he build the s.c. Grand Trunk Road boosting trade between
India and the Middle East). Chandragupta's son Bindusara (ca. 297 - 273 BC) further concurred the
most of the Deccan Plateau and his grandson Ashoka further concurred Kalinga to the east.
After defeating the kingdom of Kalinga Ashoka (supposedly because of the carnage of the war)
renounced violence, converted to Buddhism (which had come up in the 5th century BC in India). He
then turned to a benign form of governing, in which he made harmony and "the welfare of all" his
duty as a king. He, thus, used Buddhism to legitimate his rule as a benign and therefor rightful king.
(Buddhism was also promoted abroad (moral conquest) in places as far as Sri Lanka, Egypt and
Greece.)
Even if Ashoka promoted benevolence and harmony as the basis of his rule, he still had to rely on
hard power too. He maintained a large army (600.000 men) and he kept a network of spies and royal
emissary - called Pulisanis - in order to keep control over the empire.
Under the Maurya the arts flourished in India, which were very sophisticates for that time and could
only be matched by Persia. Pataliputra, the the Maurya Empire was the largest city in the world and a
centre of culture, polices and science.
Question
1. What is meant by “Persia winked at the worst possible moment?
In 5th century there were unrests in various of the Persian territories. The Greeks blamed this on the
decadence of the Persian elite. However, the Greek accounts are influenced by the very negative
picture against Persia in Greece at that time.
The Persians throughout the 5th century were able to largely put down revolt in the empire (in Egypt,
Babylon and Asia Minor).
In the 5th century Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BC) and Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BC) had were struggling to
keep constantly rebelling Egypt a part of the empire. Still, in the mid - 4th century their empire
remained by far the greatest in the region with the biggest armies.
2. What were the indications of strength and weakness of the Achaemenid-Persian empire?
How was it organized? How did it pursue a divide-and-rule strategy? How did the Greek
city states respond?
In the 5th and 4th century the Achaemenid empire had to fave various internal revolts for example in
Egypt, Babylon, Cyprus, Asia Minor and in the eastern parts of the empire. However, they were able
to put down these revolt, as they still commanded the largest armies. They continued to control most
of the important trade hubs and to boost trade within their borders (e.g. by enhancing the royal road
a trade route in the Levant or by maintaining a canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
They also resulted to 'bandwagoning', i.e. to gain the support of the Empire to get advantages over
other smaller states: Sessally, Argos, Thebes all proposed an alliance with Persia.
WEAKNESS: widespread unrest, rebellion, inflation, higher intrest rates, tax revolts
STRENGHTS: commercial life continued to flourish, they were able to field vast armies, had great
armies and were strategically smart (divide and rule)
ORGANIZATION
The organization of the Achaemenid empire relied on the use of Satraps. The empire was divided into
Satrapies. The Satraps ruling those Satrapies were responsible for taxation, maintaining stability and
reporting to the court. The Satraps regularly received delegations form the subjugated peoples.
Delegations also had to appear to the king himself to pay homage and tribute. Those who abided the
rules of the Persians were treated very mildly (does how didn't were punished harshly).
The system was decentralized: Holslag describes it as "local self-government under Persian
supervision". When there was unrest in a Satrapy it was first on the Satrap to restore order. (e.g. the
Satrap of Ionia first tried to appease the Greeks by ousting the tyrants and making the Ionian city
states democracies and forces them to settle disputes among themselves via Persian arbitration and
to swear an oath of peace with each other.
DIVIDE AND RULE
Persia resulted to a divide and rule strategy for example (1) in playing out the Greek city states
against each other in the Pelopennesian War, in which it supported Sparta against Athens.
(2) In 456 Artaxerxes I tried to bribe the Spartans to attack the Athenians so as to stop them aiding
Egypt and Cyprus revolting against the Persians. (3) Later in 341, when King Philip II of Macedon was
about to invade Athens, Persia provided military aid for Athens against Macedon.
RESPONS OF THE GREEK CITY STATES
The Greek city states responded to the threat of the larger empire by 'balancing', i.e. by uniting
against it. (1) This was the case in the Persian invasion of Greece where various city states formed an
alliance (sometimes called Hellenic alliance). (2) Even after Persia was defeated at the Battle of
Plataea Athens and various other cities went on to form the Delian League to continue to fight
against Persia. (3) Likewise, Philip II united the Greek city states to fight against Persia (he planned to
invade Persia way before his son would eventually do it) in the League on Corinth.
, 3. To which extent did the Greek city states unite against common challenges? What were the
drivers of building leagues? What do we know about classical Greek diplomacy?
Holslag describes ancient Greece as a "laboratory of diplomacy. Ambassadors of one city when to the
assembly of another (many city states had democratic assemblies) to give passionate speeches to
promoted their interests.
As the Greeks shared a common language and culture they felt a polarization between them and the
other states and were more than willing to remove their personal issues with other city states for the
benefit of expansion as the Greeks had a problem with “stenochoria”, or “confined space” and
colonization was often necessary to keep growing the population.
Greeks were often unified through a common language and a similar culture and prone to creating
alliances against common enemies. One of these alliances was the “Amphictyonic League”, during
the time of the 6th and 7th century Sparta and Corinth were the strongest cities and therefore they
made an alliance with each other in 525 B.C. in order to unify their land power(Sparta) and sea
power(Corinth). Here we can mention the destruction of the city of Cirrha for its impiety in the First
Sacred War (595-585) by the League. There is also the Delian League founded in 478 B.C. an
association of Greek city-states with the number of members ranging from 150-330 under the
leadership of Athens whose purpose was to continue fighting the Persian Empire at the time of the
Persian invasion. This is the time after the Battle of Plataea at the end of the Second Persian invasion
of Greece. The name comes from the place of the meeting, The island of Delos, where the congress
was held in a temple and where the treasury was located unil Pericles moved it to Athens.
Another example of unification is when Athens and Sparta came together during the First invasion of
Persia.
Leagues were formed around a hegemonic power. For example: the Delian League was formed
around Athens, the Peloponnesian League around Sparta, the League of Corinth around Macedon.
Within these leagues, the smaller states usually had to pay taxes, and contribute troops, to the
leading state, which provided security in return
There were also leagues formed against possible hegemons.
Smaller leagues achieved a remarkable degree of integration, for example the Arcadian League
required cities to surrender a significant degree of their autonomy if they wanted to join.
Classical diplomacy could either be horizontal or vertical. The conclusion is that the enemy worked
as the unifier in Greece. Politics was expansionist in its nature and expanding was more important
than keeping one’s own culture.
4. How did Greek intellectuals look at governance, diplomacy and the tenability of peace?
Draw a mental map of the international order of the whole Mediterranean after Alexander
the Great.
Greek intellectuals were concerned with the lack of "Hellenic unity" (unity among the Greek city
states). Herodotus emphasized the kinship of the Greeks, who had to rally against the Persian
barbarians. In this sense the Peloponnesian war was the worst thing for those Greek intellectuals as
it meant Greeks fighting Greeks, hostility instead of unity:
Thucydides thought of it as a disaster and "unprecedented tragedy" for the Greeks.
In a play by Aristophanes the women of Athens organize a sex strike to stop the
Peloponnesian war.
In 415 Euripides wrote a tragedy called "The women of Troy" to protest against the violence
between Greek city states
Plato proposed his model of a city in which inhabitants could live in harmony with each
other. He said "Greeks should not ravage Greeks"
, Hence the Greeks (or Greek intellectuals) wanted unity and peace among the Greek city states,
however they were skeptical that it could ever be achieved (hence they were adhering to a realist
interpretation of IR).
Aristotle for example thought in the realist tradition in that a country must carefully watch
other countries military activity and prepare accordingly. He said "war was often necessary to
defend freedom"
Thucydides, equally a realist, wrote that human nature was market by self interest and the
bedrock of international politics was the balance of power (i.e. states have to look after their
own military in order so that it matches that of their rivals). He, hence, explained the
Peloponnesian war (between Sparta and Athens) by the increased power of Athens which
disturbed the power balance in Greece (making Sparta feel threatened)
Thucydides, furthermore, pointed out the limits of law and arbitration between states: In the
lead up to the Peloponnesian war a peace treaty was existing (the Thirty Years' Peace treaty,
agreed upon after the first Peloponnesian war), however, each side mutually declared the
other to be violating the treaty and were each interpreting and using in their own interest.
(Hence the limit of such interstate arbitration).
After the death of Alexander the Great the "uni-polar world was over" and a multi-polar system of
international relations started. After his death his empire could not be sustained and split in to four
parts:
The Antigonid dynasty in Macedon.
The Attalid dynasty in Asia Minor.
Ptolemy I ruled Egypt.
The Seleucid dynasty in Mesopotamia.
These kingdoms (and other powers more to the west) would fight among each other over power for
over a century - the Mediteranian, the Middle East and North Africa were turning into a giant arena
of International Relations - until the rise of Rome would provide a new hegemonic peace.
5. Summarize the rise, the governance and the arts of the Maurya Empire.
Mahapadma Nanda (345 - 321 BC) seized the throne of the Magadha kingdom (which had emerged
as the strongest out of the 16 Mahajanapadas). He in expanded its territories and thus founded the
Nanda Empire, which stretched over vast parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. However, the Nanda king
was overthrown by Chandragupta in 321 already, who then founded the Maurya Empire.
Chandragupta managed to forge a peace agreement with Seleucus I Nicator who wanted to invade
India just like Alexander the Great had tried before. With the peace agreement the Maurya Empire
expanded until the Hindu Kush (where he build the s.c. Grand Trunk Road boosting trade between
India and the Middle East). Chandragupta's son Bindusara (ca. 297 - 273 BC) further concurred the
most of the Deccan Plateau and his grandson Ashoka further concurred Kalinga to the east.
After defeating the kingdom of Kalinga Ashoka (supposedly because of the carnage of the war)
renounced violence, converted to Buddhism (which had come up in the 5th century BC in India). He
then turned to a benign form of governing, in which he made harmony and "the welfare of all" his
duty as a king. He, thus, used Buddhism to legitimate his rule as a benign and therefor rightful king.
(Buddhism was also promoted abroad (moral conquest) in places as far as Sri Lanka, Egypt and
Greece.)
Even if Ashoka promoted benevolence and harmony as the basis of his rule, he still had to rely on
hard power too. He maintained a large army (600.000 men) and he kept a network of spies and royal
emissary - called Pulisanis - in order to keep control over the empire.
Under the Maurya the arts flourished in India, which were very sophisticates for that time and could
only be matched by Persia. Pataliputra, the the Maurya Empire was the largest city in the world and a
centre of culture, polices and science.
