Реферат: Александр Македонский и греческие полисы

Alexander the Great and Greek polices.

This work can be divided into two parts: 1)Understanding the meaning of the word police and its crisis; 2) Relationsbetween Alexander and Greek polices.

Before 400-300 BC <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region> was a great empire with along history and culture. The first invention of a Greekswas the deductive proof, which was extraordinary step. Any other civilizationhas not reached idea of reception of the conclusions extremely on the basis ofthe deductive reasoning which is starting with obviously formulated axioms. Thereason is a greek society of the classical period.Mathematicians and philosophers (quite often it there were same persons)belonged to the supreme layers of a society where any practical activities wereconsidered as unworthy employment. Mathematics preferred abstract reasoning onnumbers and spatial attitudes to the solving of practical problems. Themathematics consisted of a arithmetic — theoretical aspect and logistic — computing aspect. The lowest layers were engaged in logistic. In a greek society there were such a great names like Plato,Eratosthenes, Pythagoras, Euclid and Aristotle. They were a ancestors of aalgebra and geometry. They’ve made a good work, they’ve deducted the rules andaxioms that we still use in our life. For example, Pythagoreans deducted atheorem, which is now called “a Pythagoras’ theorem”. That is the one of thehundreds rules, theorems and axioms that were deducted by greekminds.

Also <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region> had a good states (polices).The most famous greek police were <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City>. That was a democratic state, thefirst commercial center. Some people call <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City>a slave society country. It’s not so: <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City>had slaves, but they were not a lot – around 18-20% of the population of thestate. <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City> wasa prospering country.

But a Greek empire fell down. What werethe reasons we will try to understand now. At first let’s think about theproblem of the polices. In a book called «

Греки и Александр Македонский» (Москва, Наука, 1993 p.5-13) it’s said that in a classical works of XIX andof the beginnings of the XX century there is no problem about a polices. Thatis because it was realized simply like a part of the system 4 society. Thissystem existed from about 2000-3000 BC and until the middle of the Middle ageand internal divisions of such a huge period seemed to be not very important.

For the other historians, modernizators, this topic also was not very important. Theypreferred a method that made closer the ancient world to the modern one –capitalistic.

In a <st1:place w:st=«on»>Soviet Union</st1:place>in the 20’s and 30’s years of a XX century the crisis of police was apprehendedlike a decline of a slave society.

The opinion has changed in the 30’s of XX century.It was changed by Heserbroek. He said that the policeis not only a political, it’s also a economic structure of the society. Thecrisis of the police was realized from the social and economic side, andideological side was considered like a consequence.

The basis of the crisis is the <st1:place w:st=«on»>Peloponnesus</st1:place> war. At this time economy in the <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City> fell down. That isbecause in the war the men were needed to fight, but there were no men in theagricultural land. A peasantry became poor: peasants sold their land and becamea mercenary. Handicraft also was declined. In the time of war many of theneighbors of the country (police) stopped trading. As a consequence in thatcountry many of the artisans didn’t know where to sell their products. As aresult of this crisis the social life of the police became different. Thestandard of the life decreased. The crime increased. Finally it was difficultto drive the police.

But there are some scientists who deniedthe crisis concept. One of them is Shtaerman. Shethinks that changes in the IV century BC were not so important in a society’slife.

Other topic is a cities of a <st1:place w:st=«on»>Asia Minor</st1:place> and Alexander the Great. One of thescientists, who worked on this topic, is Droesden. Hewrote about the generosity of the Alexander the Great, who returned to greeks the freedom. But Droesdensupposed that it was a benefit to Alexander to give some freedom to the greek cities. He thought that it’s better to have loyalcities in <st1:place w:st=«on»>Asia Minor</st1:place>, that to have not stablepolices in <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>,which can make a rising, and they did; but Alexander pushed them back and greeks were punished.

But other historian doesn’t think so. Hethinks that for ancient states it was better to assault the cities and lands.The cities, that were taken by force, had been robbed. But cities, thatcomplacently surrendered, were spared. Exactly this method were used byAlexander the Great. Evidence of the giving freedom to cities Beckerman namedas some exceptions.

The conquest of <st1:place w:st=«on»>Asia</st1:place>was not only by the Macedonian forces, but also Greek – the members of aCorinthian union. But neither <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>,nor other states in Corinthian union hadn’t got any conquered cities or otherspoils. However, greeks didn’t worried about suchthing. Why? They wanted to take vengeance on Persians. Persians burnt greek cities and temples – Alexander the Great burnt Persepole, Persians came into Halide (

Эллада) –Alexander took his army to Ekbatan. (Moscow,“Science”, 1993 p.155-158)

Thus Alexander conquered Persians, alsosubordinated Greek cities, which some of them he gave freedom. But he gave themnot full freedom, he made that cities like an autonomy. According to greek concept of freedom, free police- it’s independentcountry, that decides internal and xternal pilitics for itself. I.e. they had their own ruler, theirown rules; but they couldn’t make external politics. They couldn’t fight witheach other, but that was happened in <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

The politics of the Alexander to a Asiancities were discovered by Ranovich (

Ранович, «Эллинизм и его историческая роль». 1950 Институт Истории,Москва p.49-58). He says that Alexander the Great needed the interior support because hedidn’t have enough money and military force. So he secured himself by a likingof the greek cities. Repairing the democraticstructure he also made a military ally. In this situation Alexander’s thinkingwas similar to thinking of his father – Philip. Philip sent an army in <st1:place w:st=«on»>Asia</st1:place> to liberate Hellenic cities.

Ranovich

spared alot of attention on a meaning of the word “freedom”. Ranovichsays that exactly the Alexander’s policy might change the meaning of that word, that was unproperto the monarchy. Meaning of the freedom was not a meaning like in a classicalpolice, it was new. The new meaning is a independence from the <st1:place w:st=«on»>Persian empire</st1:place>. (Ранович, «Эллинизм и его историческая роль», Москва, 1950,Институт Истории, p.53).

But I think Ranovichoverstated the role of the Macedonian ruler. He said that Alexander’s conquestsare so important and made a revolution in relationships between defeatedcountry and a defeater, that any other civilizations didn’t know.

(Ранович, «Эллинизм и егоисторическая роль», Москва, 1950, Институт Истории, p.51)

Another historian thinks that it’s noreason to dispute about differences of a legal status of the police and of aactual one. That is because it’s foolish to show the small differences in astatement de jure and de facto, where the state isruled by one person, so Badian thinks that it’snecessary to start discover with the Alexander’s father- Philip. Philip sent anarmy to defeat the Persians to give freedom to the greekpolices. Thus it’s true that Philip planned the Asian conquest, he organized aCorinthian union. It means that Alexander the Great inherited some Asian cities.Philip just didn’t organized them well.

As a Ranovich Shoffman shows us political thoughts, which had been usedby Alexander. He spoke about Alexander’s policy:”

Widely advertisingthe demagogical slogan of clearing Asian Greeks from oppression andhumiliations which half-centuries ago they have undergone because ofdictatorship of the Persian government, Alexander used it in political ends fora gain of sympathies at the population of cities of Asia Minor”. (Шофман А.С.,«Восточная политика Александра Македонского», Москва, 1976, ИздательствоКазанского университета, p.52). Alexanderbelieved that he must use antipersian type of war,that he must show himself like a tyrant defeater. Alexander limited the Greekpower in <st1:place w:st=«on»>Asia Minor</st1:place>. But sometimes he tried topay attention on the greek traditions, however hedidn’t manage to do this, that is because it’s difficult to combine absolutemonarchy and democratic state.

All this stuff means that most of historians agreesthat Alexander the Great gave some freedom to policies, that he’d conquered,but this freedom meant that policies could decide their internal policy, alsoAlexander influenced all of the external policy.

A CONCLUSION. In work three basic interconnectedproblems have been put: specificity of the given stage of crisis of the policy;specificity of display of crisis in policies of various type; features ofmutual relations of social and economic and political aspects of crisis of thepolicy, specificity of display of social and economic bases of crisis inpolitical sphere.

Once again we shall define initial positions: we meannot crisis of the policy in general, but crisis of the Greek classical policy.And the second — in the work the area of political history was discovered. Atsuch approach, summing up, it is necessary to speak about crisis of the policyin aspect of crisis of system of policies.

Specificity of a stage of crisis of the policyconsidered in the given work, in my opinion, consists first of all that crisis,former earlier internal crisis of separate policies (differently and in adifferent degree touched them), becomes now crisis of a polices systems. Forthe first time in the history practically all policies and actually <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and <st1:place w:st=«on»>Asia Minor</st1:place> appeared depending on one foreign force. In anHellenistic epoch as a consequence of aplace of uniform power Alexander the Great there have come some the competingstates, at separate policies or their unions the opportunity has appeared,maneuvering between these forces to carry out even partly an independentpolicy. But this policy was always a policy, with caution on the powerfulneighbors. From the point of view of destinies of the policy Hellenistic worldwas transitive. The Hellenistic states and could not find organic forms ofinclusion of the policy in the structure. Integrally they included only thepolicies again based in the East, in the won territories, old Greek cities onall an extent of a Hellenism remained an element appreciably alien to thestructure of a Hellenistic monarchy. The variety of forms of communicationsbetween the policy and a monarchy is observed. Position besides was complicatedconstant struggle of “great powers” as a result of which separate policies passfrom sphere of influence of one state in sphere of influence of another. Logicend of this process became inclusion of the policy in structure of <st1:place w:st=«on»>Roman empire</st1:place>.

So, despite of all originality of destinies,development of policies of both regions goes in one direction. Its essence willbe that the policy ceases to be the subject of history and turns to its object.Elide from system of politically independent policies which course of historywas defined, first of all, by interaction of separate policies with each otheror with external forces, turns to a field of struggle various external inrelation to the world of policies of forces. The world of policies tried todefend the existence. All three most significant states of Greece IV century BC- <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Thebes</st1:place></st1:City>, <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Sparta</st1:place></st1:City> and <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City>, at this or thatsupport of other states, have acted against <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Macedonia</st1:place></st1:country-region>. In these performances itis possible to note three features. All of them were at war under slogans ofstruggle for freedom of Greeks, however not all <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region> has supported them. Thepolicy distinctly enough understood, that the macedonianauthority threatens freedom of all Elide, and not just its own independence. Atthe same time hardly this struggle was perceived as struggle of a monarchyagainst the policy as such. Further, all these policies have suffered defeat,that distinctly enough shows final hopelessness of the polices’ world. At last,all three policies have never acted in common. The little strong and long association of Greeks was impossible, andenmity of policies, within IV century BC Applying for hegemony, appeared morestrongly external threat. Specificity of crisis in policies of various type inthe best way comes to light at comparison of <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City> and <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Sparta</st1:place></st1:City>. I agree with those researchers whosee the final reason of crisis in economic development which character comes inthe contradiction with traditional structure of the policy. In a number ofresearches some symptoms of crisis in political sphere have been revealed.Studying of the Athenian material allows to speak about washing out earliervery precise borders of civil collective and, on the other hand, about knownisolation of various groups of the citizenship having the economic andpolitical interests. In <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City>it were some political groups, which heads in the sights and social behaviorreflect interests of separate layers of citizens at this time of operate.Interests of these groups come in the contradiction with each other, betweenthem there is a struggle accepting from time to time sharp character. All thisleads to decomposition of civil collective and easing of communications in it.At the same time in speeches of political orators obviously almost generalaversion modern him democratic building in <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City>. Though adherence of democracy isconstantly declared, in them the aspiration to this or that restriction of thisdemocracy distinctly enough appears. The analysis of political strike given inwork testifies to crisis of democracy which is considered as one of aspects ofcrisis of the policy in <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Athens</st1:place></st1:City>.Crisis in <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Sparta</st1:place></st1:City>is differently shown. In my opinion, as an starting point of revealing of itsattributes fight at Leuctrah can serve. In whatessence of this event? All build <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Sparta</st1:place></st1:City>,all its life were based that belonged to it Massena, which grounds have beendivided on some structure, providing existence of citizens. Now appeared bases of it building areundermined, that the point in development of crisis can be considered as somekind of condition. How crisis of the policy appears in since this time? We knowabout social performances during earlier time, for the subsequent <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Sparta</st1:place></st1:City> gives time vividexamples of sharp social struggle. But the considered period — time of relativeinternal calmness, anyway, is not observed. On the other hand, <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Sparta</st1:place></st1:City> at this particular time conductsstruggle for restoration of the hegemony in <st1:place w:st=«on»>Peloponnesus</st1:place>,she aspires to revive the authority above Messiness. The policy ventures directmilitary collision with <st1:country-region w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Macedonia</st1:place></st1:country-region>,i.e. aspires to carry out a traditional policy traditional methods incompletely others, radically changed conditions. Crisis found here expressionin full discrepancy of a policy of the policy to external conditions, thatarrangement of forces which has developed in Elide. Differently, we againapproach to a problem of crisis of the policy as crisis of system of policies.As to <st1:place w:st=«on»>Asia Minor</st1:place> it is necessary to note, thatany of Asian policies has not accepted participation in a Limy (

ламийской) war. Onthis circumstance in the literature it has not been inverted that attentionwhich it, certainly, deserves. It is represented, that this fact also shouldsearch for an explanation in deep processes of crisis of the policy. In crisisof the policy, more precisely, crisis of the Greek classical policy it isnecessary to see process of loss and deformation of its intrinsiccharacteristics, i.e. those features and attributes which do by those. One ofthem is a political independence. Speaking about it, I mean in this case notindependence of the separate policy, but system of independent policies. TheGreek cities of <st1:place w:st=«on»>Asia</st1:place> Minor appeared instructure of the Persian power, i.e. have lost the independence. It is possible to come out with the assumption,that and creations of the Corinthian union, for policies of Asia Minor it isnecessary to date that stage of crisis of the policy which on Balkan peninsulabegan from defeat of Greeks at Heroine time. If this assumption is fair, I havethe right to allocate Asian variant of crisis of the policy — a variantconnected to earlier submission of the policy external, alien it by the socialnature to force. The formulation of this assumption again puts us before theperson of a problem of crisis of the policy as crisis of system of policies.The world of the Greek cities not once was exposed to an attack on the part offorces alien to it, however during rise and blossoming of the policy Greekscould resist to them. Comparison of an epoch of the Greco-Persian wars and IVcentury BC is indicative. In Greco-Persian wars Elide could defend freedom instruggle against the Persian power which too was at top of the power. In IVcentury BC, when the Ahimenide state tended todecline, it nevertheless managed to subordinate to itself Greeks of Asia Minor.Whether we in this submission have no right to see result of development ofcrisis of system of policies? For Greeks of Balkan peninsula creation of theCorinthian union was the certificate restraining their political sovereigntyand by virtue of it by the phenomenon negative, especially for large policies;for Greeks of Asia Minor Alexander's gain became the phenomenon some othercharacter. In a number of attitudes change of the Persian control macedonian meant change of mister, but in one attitude thischange was essential: at Alexander democracy everywhere is restored. Revivaldemocratic building though and in conditions of macedonianauthority, are equitable to interests of weight of citizenship and has served,probably, finally as the reason of that Asian Greeks appeared away from Limian wars. Thefinal stage of crisis of the policy was time of destruction of system ofindependent policies, time of transition from the world of the cities-states byan Hellenistic epoch. But crisis of the policy did not mean the end of thepolicy, its destruction. The policy continued to exist within many centuries,new policies were based also, however in its character there were essentialchanges.

Bibliography:

1.

Ранович А.Б. «Эллинизм и его историческаяроль» Москва 1950, «Институт истории».

2.

Маринович Л.П. «Греки и Александр Македонский» Москва1993, «Наука».

3.

Шофман А.С. «Восточная политика АлександраМакедонского» Москва 1976, «Издательство Казанского университета».

еще рефераты

Еще работы по иностранным языкам. истории

Реферат по иностранным языкам. истории

История японского языка

29 Августа 2013