ARLT Midterm

What were Socrates' core values? His key motivations in life?

Socrates' main desire was for everyone to understand that they were ignorant of mostly everything. The quote "I know that I know nothing" clearly demonstrates this idea. Socrates had a thirst for knowledge, and wished to be the master of knowledge and respect that all Athenians held with dignity. Although his teachings and practices were somewhat unconventional, his core motivation and intention of discovering the truth to everything was incredibly altruistic. Promoting dialogue was another one of Socrates' core values; he believed that through dialogue, questioning, confirmation, and conclusion the truth could be eventually uncovered. Socrates had always been interested in science and astronomy, and had never been too keen on religion or its "faithful" aspects. Lastly, Socrates was motivated by the "little voice in his head." He actually described the voice as guiding him in decisions, but it is unclear whether the voice was simply his subconscious telling him the right thing to do, or the result of a clinically mental case. Socrates' lifestyle was one of extreme moderation and self-restraint regarding expensive clothing and other items he didn't require; "Look at all these things I don't need" was his motto when attending the Athens marketplace. Socrates' core values and motivations included, the notion that "an unexamined life is not worth living," to know thyself, to evaluate the pursuit of knowledge, to hold truth and justice paramount, non-contradiction of one's beliefs/actions, moderation (self-control), moral autonomy, and the supremacy of the soul over the body. These values and motivations are shown in his dialogues with Alcibiades and his testimony at his trial. In Alcibiades I, the conversation is largely centered on Socrates' line of questioning to reach the conclusion the soul has dominion over the body, and is what is truly important. He also speaks to Alcibiades on what makes a good leader, and what kind of leader he wishes to be focusing mainly on his values of truth and justice. The trial shows us that non-contradiction was on of his cornerstones in that his choice to accept death if the people found him guilty proved that he did believe in Athens and by choosing exile he would become what they accused him of being, and therefore violate non-contradiction. In his apology as well as his conversations with Alcibiades he emphasizes knowing thyself; the story of his encounter with the Delphic Oracle and how he came to know that he was ignorant is a prime example. Socrates holds onto his values and motivations until the bitter end illustrated by his behavior on his deathbed. He shows no fear in the face of death as the mood is almost lighthearted, he knows although his body will perish his soul is eternal and will live on. He also appears to be absorbing everything he can about death, and his last words display his moderation in referring to seemingly trivial fact of paying a debt during such an intense experience.

How would you describe the vocation Socrates chose for himself? What kind of dialogue did he like to have with Athenians? How would you describe what it was like to dialogue with him—and to get "socratized" by him? (Refer to Plato's dialogue Alcibiades I).

The vocation Socrates chose was philosophy. He was a philosopher who devoted his life to applying logic to the problems and challenges that Athens dealt with every day. The "Socratic Dialogues" he enjoyed having with colleagues, politicians, followers, and arbitrary Athenians were sometimes seen as an annoyance but oftentimes resulted in meaningful and implementable solutions. This dialogue consisted of a primary broad-reaching and philosophical question, to which an answer was proposed, questioned, and revised over and over until no objections remained. The resulting solution was somewhat of a compromise between everyone involved, and placated every inputting Athenians (or at least this was the goal). To get "socratized" was to be asked sometimes confusing questions meant to get closer to the truth of a matter, or simply for Socrates to judge one's intelligence and worth. Plato's dialogue Alcibiades I demonstrates a sample Socratic dialogue between Socrates and Alcibiades. In the dialogue, Socrates insists to Alcibiades that he stops being so cold, arrogant, and proud in order to gain his followers back and instructs him on matters of politics, war, and righteousness. Together they work on improving Alcibiades' character because according to Socrates, only the virtuous has the right to govern Athens. This dialogue was characteristic of Socrates' many dialogues he participated in with various Athenians and foreigners alike. • Socrates chose the vocation to bring philosophy (truth) down to earth by applying logic to the problems and challenges of living; He has a talking style of argumentative and examining—called elenchus. He tried to improve Athenians' sense of justice through questioning them till they admit how little they know. Sometimes he annoyed people by talking non-stop, people called him the "gadfly"; when you have a dialogue with Socrates, he firstly doubt your knowledge of the topic, then he made you notice that you know nothing. He would persuade you that your idea is wrong and points to the contradictions in your thoughts. Finally, he will prove his idea or the truth with rational reasons. ANSWER #2: Socrates' trial is one of the most widely known events in Socrates life. It was the moment in which he exercised all of the principles that he professed throughout his life. He stayed true to his ideals of virtue and justice in that he refused to apologize for something in which he felt he was innocent, even at the risk of death. Furthermore, he didn't fear death as a punishment because he felt that, because he didn't know what death entailed, to fear it was illogical as it meant that he either felt it was very good or very bad, neither of which he had proof of. Socrates was accused of impiety and corrupting the youth. He was able to argue effectively that Meletus' accusations that he worshipped strange gods, yet didn't believe in gods, was (obviously) illogical and a flawed accusation. Furthermore, he argued that the youth listened to him of their own volition because it was amusing to listen to people who thought they were wise to be proven unwise. He also urged anyone who listened to him who had escaped corruption to come forward to argue against him, fully confident that no one would accuse him of such things. I do not know why Diogenes omits what Socrates actually says in his defense. Is it because the dialogue was only recorded by his devoted followers who might somehow try to paint Socrates in the best light by recording the dialogue in an (intentionally or unintentionally) skewed version of events-- therefore leading Diogenes to believe that these dialogues were not accurate historical sources? I must be honest in saying that I do not definitively know.

While still a teenager, how did Alexander emerge as a rival to his father? Do you think Alexander and./or Olympias had anything to do with Philip's assassination in 346 BC?

-The rift started when Philip (Alexander's father) decided to marry Cleopatra, a member of a high-ranking Macedonian family. -Although Philip has many other wives, none of their sons would seriously challenge the chances of Alexander's throne succession. Cleopatra's son, however, would be a serious challenge. This is because the son of Philip and Cleopatra would be a pure Macedonian. On the other hand, Alexander is only half-Macedonian. -The first "direct" rift between Alexander and Philip happened at a carousel. Attalus, the Cleopatra's uncle, being very drunk, called on the Macedonians to ask the gods for a legitimate successor to Philip. Alexander became deeply offended by this. He threw a cup at Attalus and said "Villain, do you consider me to be a bastard?" Philip then rose with his sword drawn, to confront Alexander. Luckily for both, Philip slipped and fell. Alexander then insulted his father by saying "This man, gentlemen, was preparing to cross from Europe to Asia, yet he is overturned merely crossing from couch to couch." This seriously strained Alexander and his father's relationship. -Although there is no hard evidence that Alexander or Olympias orchestrated Philip's assassination, there were a lot of rumors concerning their involvement. The reason is because the only people who have something to gain from Philip's death are Alexander and Olympias. Alexander wanted fame and glory and did not want his father to to win all of the battles so that there were none left for him. "Whenever Phillip was reported either to have captured a notable city or to have won a famous battle, Alexander appeared by no means elated, but would say to his comrades, 'Boys, my father will get everything first, and will leave no great or glorious deed for me to preform with your help." (Plutarch pg. 230) One example of Alexander emerging as a rival to his father is when he was just 18 and he was appointed to command one of the Macedonian wings at Chaeronea. A lot of people said that Alexander was responsible for the victory, but the King was not okay with this. "Thereupon the king himself, bearing the brut of the battler and not yielding the credit of the victory even to Alexander, began by forcing back the troops stationed oposite him, and in helping put them to flight became responsible for the victory" (Pg. 9 Arrian/diodorus) --> the Macedonians said after these type of exploits that "Alexander was their king, Phillip their general" (Plutarch pg. 232) At the wedding of Phillip and Cleopatra, Phillip rose to confront Alexander but tripped and fell, and Alexander insulted him by saying "This man, gentlemen, was preparing to cross from Europe to Asia, yet he is overturned merely crossing rom couch to couch" (pg. 233 Plutarch). I think that Olympias likely was very involved in the plot, and Alexander might have known about it, but chose not to be involved, but also not to stop it. He probably preferred to let others do the dirty work for him because he has some sense of honor, but he would still get to reap the rewards.

What was unusual about Alexander's mother Olympias? How did his parents' turbulent marriage impact his upbringing? How was the world of Macedonian dynastic family politics very different from the world of the Greek city-states?

...

As a King of Persia, what new challenges did Alexander face?

1. Cultural integration. Hellenic (Macedonian) and Persian were really different 2. Logistical problems of locations etc. 3. Different system of governments between Mac and Persia 4. Securing the loyalty of the Persians was a big problem 5. His own people, the Macedonians weren't very happy either 6. Hence, greatest challenge was that from within his own ranks and friends etc. Alexander was being viewed as an extremely power hungry, dominating etc. Then began an organised resistance against Alex.

How did some peoples of the Persian Empire resist him?

After the Battle of Gaugamela, a rebel emerged from the Persians named Bessos. He wanted to become the rightful Persian king and he attempted to do so by killing Darius. Alex was so angry by this (because he wanted to kill Darius himself) that he hunted down Bessos and killed him.

Pericles' relationship with Aspasia: What was unusual about this woman? Is the relationship consistent or inconsistent with his character?

Aspasia was seen to many as a teacher of rhetoric, and Pericles was fond and courted by "her astute grasp of politics." Pericles was captivated by her, in which questions began to form of their relationship and how deeply he felt compelled to Aspasia, to win her love and or appreciation. His love her Aspasia seemed to be passionate as she was nonetheless a courtesan. Not satisfied with his marriage, he took to Aspasia.

Why is Socrates' life not "biography worthy" by Plutarch's standards? Why do we possess so few hard facts about this man's life?

Because during that time, Socrate was not the type of ideal leader that Athenians want. Therefore, Plutarch did not even want to include him in bibliography. The reason there is so few facts about Socrates is because he has never written about himself and did not write down anything he said. All of his ideology is recorded by his students.

Alcibiades' death: Be able to describe in detail the cause and manner of his death. Was the way he faced death consistent or inconsistent with his character? In relation to his life, was his death: Appropriate? Tragic? Ironic? Absurd?

Because he betrayed Sparta and Persia, he became of the target of both country while he left Athen. Lysander sent an envoy to Pharnabazus who then dispatched his brother to Phrygia where Alcibiades was living with his mistress, Timandra. In 404 BC, as he was about to set out for the Persian court, his residence was surrounded and set on fire. Seeing no chance of escape he rushed out on his assassins, dagger in hand, and was killed by a shower of arrows.According to Aristotle, the site of Alcibiades' death was Elaphus, a mountain in Phrygia. His way facing death is inconsistence because of his character. Since he was such a person with great influence. charming personality, and acting like an idol, so he should die like a hero. Alcibiades was Athenians' idol, so he shouldn't died this way. He tried his best to show his talent and collect the honors in his entire life. Comparing to his life, his death is ironic, inappropriate, and tragic. With one exception, Alcibiades' role in the war ended with his command prior to the Battle of Aegospotami, in the last attested fact of his career. Alcibiades recognized that the Athenians were anchored in a tactically disadvantageous spot and advised them to move to Sestus where they could benefit from a harbor and a city. Diodorus, however, does not mention this advice, arguing instead that Alcibiades offered the Generals Thracian aid in exchange for a share in the command. In any case, the Generals of the Athenians, "considering that in case of defeat the blame would attach to them and that in case of success all men would attribute it to Alcibiades", asked him to leave and not come near the camp ever again. Days later the fleet would be annihilated by Lysander. After the Battle of Aegospotami, Alcibiades crossed the Hellespont and took refuge in Phrygia, with the object of securing the aid of Artaxerxes against Sparta. Lysander sent an envoy to Pharnabazus who then dispatched his brother to Phrygia where Alcibiades was living with his mistress, Timandra. In 404 BC, as he was about to set out for the Persian court, his residence was surrounded and set on fire. Seeing no chance of escape he rushed out on his assassins, grabbed his dagger and ran outside naked. He put on his cloak and tried to stab anyone that came near him. Eventually arrows from a distance killed him. He fearlessly went outside to welcome his death with dignity or plan of protection was on his mind. In both cases, it is true that he wanted to protect himself, either by fighting for his life literary or by boldly and manly accepting his decease and therefore keeping his name immortal as a great warrior. Adapting to the situation he had to adapt and to the thought of his death. Caught off guard, he knew he wouldn't be able to save his mortal life but at least he defended his dignity by fighting till the end.

What re-staging of Socrates does Plato present in his "Apology of Socrates"? Using the Focus Questions, what were Plato's motives for writing this? How would you describe Socrates' self-defense strategy in the speech? What 3-4 objectives do you think he had?

It restages Socrates' actual speech at the trial, defending himself (in 399BC) against the charges of "corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other diamonia that are novel." Some say Plato wrote this to record history, and some say this is not what he really said, but a philosophical work. He self-defended by 1. Saying he will not speak with oratorical skills but just using and saying the expression that comes into his head. (speaking in a plain, conversational manner - honesty, directness) 2. Used lots of ironies. 3. Used humors and jokes. Some objectives he had: 1. To defend himself for he thinks he did nothing wrong 2. Teach and educate people - e.g. showing the Orators how to speak in truth with wisdom persuasively 3. Embarrassed "wise" men by pointing out their false wisdom as ignorance.

What extraordinary advantages did Alexander have at his birth (= his physis)? Know who his father Philip II was--and the great potential of Macedonia as a land and powerful state in the fourth century BCE.

Macedon is a region in the Northwest characterized by fertile plains that supported large populations and a mountainous region with lots of trees and gold and silver mines. Because of its natural resources it was set to be more productive and more productive than its Greek city-state neighbors. However, it was poorly governed by a monarch who had trouble uniting the varied people and terrain until Philip II rose to power in 362 BC. Philip II became king at age 22 and possessed an uncommon skill as a leader. He had spent years as a prisoner in Thebes in his younger years, spending his time studying Greek military tactics and devices. When he became king of Macedon, he used the region's wealth to rebuild the Macedonian army. Taking a cue from the Greek military characteristics he observed, he recreated the Greek phalanx for his own military's uses. It was 16 soldiers wide and 16 deep, each armed with an 18 foot pike called a sarissa. He required these soldiers to get rid of heavy armor so that they could move. He had enough money to pay Macedon subjects 1 year salary to train in this new formation, and the more they drilled, the more intimidating the new formation was. Unlike the Greek phalanx, the Macedonian one could move forward, backward, left and right. He also re-designed the cavalry into a wedge formation that effectively split the enemy's formation and usually gave the death blow. Philip II interfered with Greek squabbles and by the 350s BC, Macedon became the bully of the Aegean, pushing its weight around. Especially solidifying this reputation was in 338 BC when Philip fought a battle with a blended Greek force (Athenian & Theban) at Chaeronea soundly defeating the Greeks. With this defeat, the Greeks had to acknowledge a new power, and were forced to accept a new Panhellenic league, one that was led by Philip himself. Philip had a greater ambition than just the Greek world-- he wanted the Persian empire for himself and Macedonia. Alexander was born into a royal lineage that was strong, wealthy, and aimed to conquer the known world. Alexander had many advantages growing up in the manner in which he did. His mother Olympia, although one of many wives that Phillip had, was really Phillip's principle wife for the majority of the time. He was raised as a noble Macedonian youth, having the opportunity to read, write, fight, and hunt. He was very bright, but in his position he was afforded the finest education money could buy. Philip recognized his intelligence, and got the best tutor that could be had, Aristotle. He also had the opportunity in his mid teens to accomplish many things militarily, which Phillip supported. He was being groomed to take Phillip's place when he died, until Phillip had a child with his new wife, Cleopatra Eurydice. Let me know if you need anything else.

Pericles and rhetoric: how is this skill the key to his success? What are 3-4 main points in each of the 3 speeches we find in Thucydides? How does each speech allow us to see his character in action?

Pericles is a charismatic and respected individual because he appeals to the pathos of the people of Athens. The three speeches he makes in Thucydides' On Justice Power and Human Nature are his Funeral Oration, Pericles War Speech and Pericles Last Speech. In each of his speeches he displays confidence that is contagious to those who listen. Pericles War Speech (Page 31): In this speech Pericles speaks to the Athenians as an expert of war because he is an experienced military general. He explains why Athens will not lose in battle with Sparta due to their excellent naval power. He also lists many reasons why Athens is better than Sparta and why they will have no trouble in defeating them in other ways than the sea - they are hindered with a lack of money, so they will not be able to wage war with as many resources. This speech allows us to see Pericles character because it shows his confidence when he tells the Athenians there is no way they can lose because they are so great. He plays off the Athenian ego and is able to gain the trust of the people because what he has to say sounds reasonable and true. Funeral Oration (Page 39): In this speech Pericles speaks to Athens honoring the citizens who died in various battles of the war. Although this speech was meant to be for the people who died, he focuses on those who are alive. He praises them for all they have done for Athens, but says they must do even more to honor those who have died to maintain the great city. He tries to inspire the people of Athens that there is hope for the city, but that they need to sacrifice as much as the people did before them. He describes what it means to be an Athenian (Freedom, Tolerant, like Noble and good things). This speech allows us to see Pericles character because of how he plays off the pathos of the people. His understanding of how the people were feeling allowed him to say the right thing to get the people to trust him. For example, he knew to play off of the Athenians grief in order to elicit a response to want to honor and fight for them in battle. Pericles Last Speech (Page 52): In this speech Pericles calls the people together to reevaluate why they have had trouble in the war because they blame Pericles for their failure. Pericles draws attention to Athens as a whole saying it is not one mans mistake that will bring down the great city of Athens, rather it is a collective effort and that no one should give up. He acknowledges the fact that the people are upset with him for persuading them to go to war as well as following through with it. This speech also displays Pericles confidence as an individual. He is able to stand up and admit his decision caused a bad outcome, but he has the confidence to push the Athenians in a direction to rectify this blunder. He tells the people to not be angry with him, but to rather stand strong together and make the situation better. Pericles and his rhetoric Pericles was called the "Olympian" not for his strength, but for his ability as an orator. He won over people by promoting his personal values effectively and evoking their pride. He uses his ethos, character and credibility, to win over the trust of the Athenians so they have faith in his ideas. He uses logos to give them reason to believe in him by stating facts about Athens and the ways of their military and democracy. He uses pathos by bringing out emotion in people and their pride of Athens and their nobility. Pericles always let others speak and spoke out only when needed, and when he did he would use his rhetoric to persuade all of Athens to believe him. Pericles' War Speech The Lacedaemonians threatened a war against Athens if they did not follow conditions set forth by them. Pericles advised the Athenians not to give in to them because they would still want a war either way. Pericles advises Athenians to refuse any demands to teach them to treat Athens as an equal. He talks about how the Peloponnesians are not prepared or backed by their own money or experience. Pericles explains how they focus on their own interests and neglect the common good for their overall necessities, leaving them unfit to win the war. Pericles then talks about how Athens has the power to win the war, and needs to show that they will not give in. Pericles' main ideas were that individual judgments ruin common good for all and that he was more afraid of Athens' mistakes than the enemy's traps. His advice was to settle on equal terms and go into arbitration. His plan followed justice as well as kept the dignity of the city. Pericles' Funeral Oration This was Pericles' most famous speech to honor the men who died in the war so far. His use of rhetoric inspired the Athenians during this time. He makes Athens into this Utopia and talks about all its positive aspects, successes, and powers. He says their democracy sets an example for other states and that it is free, generous, equal and obedient of its laws. Athens also has the ability to not only fight sufficiently, but Athenians also know how to have fun and recreation, ex. The Odeon. He speaks to the wives, parents, and kids of the deceased and advises them to look at the positive side of things. The men who died did so for a noble cause and to protect such a great city for the well being of their families. He also says how the good actions of protecting Athens in war wipe out all the wrong they ever did in their lives and they will be remembered for their good deed. Pericles' Last Speech Pericles' last speech was to defend his honor and to tell Athens not to blame him for everything that had gone wrong with the war and the plague. He says how the country as a whole is more important than individual people and that despite all their troubles, they live in a great city with wealth and opportunities. He stood his ground and what he believed was right for Athens and that it is not him who changed, but the people of Athens who were changing. The decision to go to war was not only his alone, but a decision made by everyone together. He advised them to apply more effort to the war than on hating him. He advised Athens to not expand their territory, but to just keep it intact. This showed that even though Athens was a democracy by name, the government was run by a first man, Pericles.

In the novel how are Alcibiades and Polemides both similar to and different from one another? Is one an alter ego for the other? Does the term "anti-hero" apply to Polemides, or is this misleading?

Polemides acts as the moral center of the novel. At the beginning of the novel, you assume Alcibiades is the main character, but then you realize Polemides is the focus, as he is further represented as the son of war. As a person, Polemidis is made up, he serves as an alter ego for Alcibiades, and his experiences do not match with Alcibiades. He is very much an individual, survivor, disloyal, and the anti-hero. There is a contrast between Alcibiades and Polemides. While Alcibiades is considered a great hero brought low by intrigue and political wrangling, Polemides, a much more lowly soldier, is brought even lower mostly by his association with Alcibiades.

How does Socrates argue against the stereotype and the caricature that Athenians had of him? How does he launch into an autobiographical account of his vocation (calling) to practice philosophy? What's the story about Chaerophon and the Delphic Oracle?

Socrates argues against the stereotype and caricature that Athenians had of him by first identifying his accusers and the falseness of their accusations. He comments how he has had many critics that have slandered him to the citizens of Athens for years and begs them to let go of their prejudice and listen to what he has to say. This leads him into an autobiographical account of how he became a philosopher. He speaks of his friend, the famously brave Chaerophron and how he asked the Delphic oracle is Socrates was the wisest man. The oracle answered yes and full of doubt Socrates went in search of other men who were wiser than him to prove the god wrong. However after examining the politicians, the poets, and the craftsmen, (developing many enemies along the way) he came to the same conclusion each time. These men had wisdom in a specific area but because of that, thought that they were wise on all subjects. Socrates was different in that he was aware of his ignorance, he knew that he did not know, and that is what made him the wisest. He then makes it his vocation to question and examine men to show them their own ignorance in order to help them become better, more virtuous, and wiser people. He continues to argue in the assembly in a typical Socratic line of questioning to show the vagueness and ridiculousness of the accusations against him by making analogies to simple concepts. Unfortunately, his efforts are in vain as he is eventually found guilty. ANSWER #2: According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that none was wiser. Socrates believed that what the Oracle had said was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded that, while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized that the Oracle was correct, in that while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. ANSWER #3: He argues the Athenians' minds were poisoned by his enemies when they were young and impressionable (and hence having these stereotypes and caricatures.) The enemies were envious and malicious of him. Socrates denies any expertise, and interprets the oracle as saying that the wisest of men are men like Socrates who humbly accept that their wisdom is deficient. He feels it his duty to the God of the oracle to continue questioning men who think they are wise in order to show them that they are not. The result has been to earn him many young admirers, and to earn the deep resentment of those whose ignorance he makes evident. He tells how Chaerephon went to the Oracle at Delphi, to ask if anyone was wiser than Socrates. When Chaerephon reported to Socrates that the god told him there is none wiser, Socrates took this as a riddle. He himself knew that he had no wisdom "great or small" but that he also knew that it is against the nature of the gods to lie. His reason for questioning so many people on so many subjects is ultimately done out of his duty to Apollo, the god of the oracle. Since the oracle has proclaimed him to be the wisest of men, he feels it his duty(calling, vocation) to show others that human wisdom does not come from any specialized knowledge, as the politicians or poets or craftsmen would like to claim, but rather from a recognition of the limitations of such knowledge.

Why do you think a slight majority of jurors voted "guilty"?

There were a few reasons the jury possibly found Socrates guilty by a slight majority. First of all, Athenians seemed essentially jealous and confrontational about the fact that Socrates believed he had a direct line of connection to Apollo. They did not like the idea that Apollo would tell him what to do for himself and Athens but not reveal himself to anyone else. They voted him guilty because they believed the gods would only speak through oracles, meaning he was possibly crazy. Also his words and teachings were threatening to government and the youth. The jury didn't want somebody around who believed he had so much personal power.

How many times did Alcibiades betray Athens? Explain his reasoning in abandoning Athens, serving Sparta, and conspiring with Persia.

The Athenians accused Pericles of mutilating statues of the gods and mimicked the Mysteries (rites of afterlife and Athenian cultural beliefs) under the influence of wine, which enraged the Athenians. They called him to trial, but decided not to until after he went to war to acquire Sicily. When he was called to stand trial, he abandoned the Athenians and sailed away. The Athenians then sentenced him to death He called to Sparta to give him immunity and safe conduct and in return he would render the Spartans services and benefits greater than the harm he had done fighting on the other side. He quickly adapted Spartan way of life and was able to gain power and prestige in Sparta. While he was there he had an affair with the Spartan king's wife in order to ensure that his descendants had the chance of being Spartan kings. This shows that his reason to serve Sparta was still for his own personal benefit of having power and fame. The Spartan king was upset at him and the rest of the Spartans were sick of him and they planned to kill him, but learning of this, Alcibiades then offered his services to the Persian King. His high ranks and importance gave the king reason to befriend him. The king listened to Alcibiades who advised him to wear out both Sparta and Athens, which caused Athens to regret their death sentence upon him. Alcibiades was scared though that if Athens was ruined, he might find himself in the hands of the Spartans, who hated him. He encouraged Athens to ally with Persia to have the upper hand at Samos and he also was summoned to be a general at this time for the Democratic Party. Afterwards, Athens asked Alcibiades to come back from exile so he did so after some conquering. Then, Alcibiades was charged by Thrasybulus of losing their ships and living a life of luxury in office. They said he drank a lot, consorted with prostitutes, and sailed for his own safety. The Athenians believed all these charges so once again, Alcibiades grew fearful and abandoned the army entirely. Later, the Athenians would regret this second outburst against him. Alcibiades first rose to prominence when he began advocating aggressive Athenian action after the signing of the Peace of Nicias. That treaty, an uneasy truce between Sparta and Athens signed midway through the Peloponnesian War, came at the end of seven years of fighting during which neither side had gained a decisive advantage. Alcibiades was offended that the Spartans had negotiated that treaty through Nicias and Laches, overlooking him on account of his youth. Disputes over the interpretation of the treaty led the Spartans to dispatch ambassadors to Athens with full powers to arrange all unsettled matters. The Athenians initially received these ambassadors well, but Alcibiades met with them in secret before they were to speak to the ecclesia (the Athenian Assembly) and told them that the Assembly was haughty and had great ambitions. He urged them to renounce their diplomatic authority to represent Sparta, and instead allow him to assist them through his influence in Athenian politics. The representatives agreed and, impressed with Alcibiades, they alienated themselves from Nicias, who genuinely wanted to reach an agreement with the Spartans. Alcibiades was subsequently appointed General. He took advantage of his increasing power to orchestrate the creation of an alliance between Argos, Mantinea, Elis, and other states in the Peloponnese, threatening Sparta's dominance in the region. In 415 BC, delegates from the Sicilian city of Segesta (Greek: Egesta) arrived at Athens to plead for the support of the Athenians in their war against Selinus. During the debates on the undertaking, Nicias was vehemently opposed to Athenian intervention. Alcibiades argued that a campaign in this new theatre would bring riches to the city and expand the empire, just as the Persian Wars had. In his speech Alcibiades predicted (over-optimistically) that the Athenians would be able to recruit allies in the region and impose their rule on Syracuse, the most powerful city of Sicily. Against his wishes Nicias was appointed General along with Alcibiades and Lamachus, all three of whom were given full powers to do whatever was in the best interests of Athens while in Sicily. One night during preparations for the expedition, the hermai, heads of the god Hermes on a plinth with a phallus, were mutilated throughout Athens. This was a religious scandal and was seen as a bad omen for the mission. Plutarch explains that Androcles, a political leader, used false witnesses who accused Alcibiades. Orators argued that Alcibiades should set sail as planned and stand trial on his return from the campaign. Alcibiades was suspicious of their intentions, and asked to be allowed to stand trial immediately, under penalty of death, in order to clear his name. This request was denied, and the fleet set sail soon after, with the charges unresolved. As Alcibiades had suspected, his absence emboldened his enemies, and they began to accuse him of other sacrilegious actions and comments and even alleged that these actions were connected with a plot against the democracy. According to Thucydides, the Athenians were always in fear and took everything suspiciously. Alcibiades told the heralds that he would follow them back to Athens in his ship, but in Thurii he escaped with his crew; in Athens he was convicted in absentia and condemned to death. His property was confiscated and a reward of one talent was promised to whoever succeeded in killing any who had fled. Meanwhile the Athenian force in Sicily, after a few early victories, moved against Messina, where the Generals expected their secret allies within the city to betray it to them. Alcibiades, however, foreseeing that he would be outlawed, gave information to the friends from Syracuse, who succeeded in preventing the admission of the Athenians. After his disappearance at Thurii, Alcibiades quickly contacted the Spartans, "promising to render them aid and service greater than all the harm he had previously done them as an enemy" if they would offer him sanctuary. The Spartans granted this request and received him among them. In the debate at Sparta over whether to send a force to relieve Syracuse, Alcibiades spoke and instilled fear of Athenian ambition into the Spartan ephors by informing them that the Athenians hoped to conquer Sicily, Italy, and even Carthage. Alcibiades knowingly exaggerated the plans of the Athenians to convince the Spartans of the benefit they stood to gain from his help. After making the threat seem imminent, Alcibiades advised the Spartans to send troops and most importantly, a Spartan commander to discipline and aid the Syracusans. Alcibiades served as a military adviser to Sparta and helped the Spartans secure several crucial successes. He advised them to build a permanent fort at Decelea, just over ten miles (16 km) from Athens and within sight of the city. By doing this, the Spartans cut the Athenians off entirely from their homes and crops and the silver mines of Sunium. This was part of Alcibiades'plan to renew the war with Athens in Attica. The move was devastating to Athens and forced the citizens to live within the long walls of the city year round, making them entirely dependent on their seaborne trade for food. Seeing Athens thus beleaguered on a second front, members of the Delian League began to contemplate revolt. In the wake of Athens' disastrous defeat in Sicily, Alcibiades sailed to Ionia with a Spartan fleet and succeeded in persuading several critical cities to revolt. In spite of these valuable contributions to the Spartan cause, Alcibiades fell out of favor with the Spartan government at around this time, ruled by Agis II.[ On his arrival in the local Persian court, Alcibiades won the trust of the powerful satrap and made several policy suggestions, which were well received. According to Thucydides, Alcibiades immediately began to do all he could with Tissaphernes to injure the Peloponnesian cause. At his urging, the satrap reduced the payments he was making to the Peloponnesian fleet and began delivering them irregularly. Alcibiades next advised Tissaphernes to bribe the Generals of the cities to gain valuable intelligence on their activities. Lastly, and most importantly, he told the satrap to be in no hurry to bring the Persian fleet into the conflict, as the longer the war dragged out the more exhausted the combatants would become. This would allow the Persians to more easily conquer the region in the aftermath of the fighting. Alcibiades tried to convince the satrap that it was in Persia's interest to wear both Athens and Sparta out at first, "and after docking the Athenian power as much as he could, forthwith to rid the country of the Peloponnesians". Although Alcibiades' advice benefited the Persians, it was merely a means to an end; Thucydides tells us that his real motive was to use his alleged influence with the Persians to effect his restoration to Athens. Alcibiades seemed to assume that the "radical democracy" would never agree to his recall to Athens. Therefore, he exchanged messages with the Athenian leaders at Samos and suggested that if they could install an oligarchy friendly to him he would return to Athens and bring with him Persian money and possibly the Persian fleet of 147 triremes. Alcibiades set about winning over the most influential military officers, and achieved his goal by offering them a threefold plan: the Athenian constitution was to be changed, the recall of Alcibiades was to be voted, and Alcibiades was to win over Tissaphernes and the King of Persia to the Athenian side. Most of the officers in the Athenian fleet accepted the plan and welcomed the prospect of a narrower constitution, which would allow them a greater share in determining policy. At this point, Alcibiades' scheme encountered a great obstacle. Tissaphernes would not make an agreement on any terms, wanting to follow his policy of neutrality. Tissaphernes was a prudent leader and had recognized the advantages of wearing each side out without direct Persian involvement. Alcibiades realized this and, by presenting the Athenians with stiffer and stiffer demands on Tissaphernes' behalf, attempted to convince them that he had persuaded Tissaphernes to support them, but that they had not conceded enough to him. Although the envoys were angered at the audacity of the Persian demands, they nevertheless departed with the impression that Alcibiades could have brought about an agreement among the powers if he had chosen to do so.[58] This fiasco at the court of Tissaphernes, however, put an end to the negotiations between the conspirators and Alcibiades. The group was convinced that Alcibiades could not deliver his side of the bargain without demanding exorbitantly high concessions of them and they accordingly abandoned their plans to restore him to Athens.

How are both Alcibiades and Polemides enigmatic human beings? What secrets about each man does the reader have to decipher? What do you think is the motivating force behind the successes and failures each man experiences? Does each man possess a "vision" or a "core value" that keeps driving him on?

"An enigmatic human being is someone who is difficult to understand because his personhood, motivations, and thought-processes are unknown or unclear to others; a person may be enigmatic if his actions or decisions may seem in contradiction. Alcibiades and Polemides are both enigmatic human beings for different reasons. Alcibiades at first seems like a person who is driven by his desire for glory and fame. During his conversation with his cousin Euryptolemus and Polemides, Alcibiades reveals his desire to achieve military and political glory in Athens. However, despite what he says, when the Athenians sought to punish Alcibiades for dishonoring and mocking the gods, Alcibiades becomes a traitor and flees Athens to serve the Spartans. Furthermore, when he makes enemies in Sparta and is unable to return to either Sparta or Athens, Alcibiades flees to Persia to serve that country. Ultimately, when he is unable to return to either Sparta, Athens, or Persia, he flees to Thrace and lives there in refuge. Alcibiades' decision to flee rather than face the consequences of his actions makes him very different than Socrates, who preferred death to disobeying the laws and became an honorable martyr, ultimately leading to fame that has continued to the present day. Thus, even though Alcibiades sought fa me, by becoming a traitor, he did not achieve the glory and fame that others such as Socrates obtained. His actions as a traitor make him an enigmatic human being since they lead others to question his motivations or core values. The reader has to decipher why Alcibiades did not maintain his loyalty to Athens and attempt to seek glory in Athens, as he had originally hoped, but rather fled and became a traitor. It is possible that Alcibiades' desire to survive outweighed his yearning for glory. Furthermore, since he prostituted himself to different countries or city-states, Alcibiades may have been driven by his desire to please others and obtain the approval of others, even if they were once his enemies. Thus, even though at first it appears that Alcibiades' core value and ambition were to achieve glory in Athens, his desire to survive and obtain the pleasure of others become the overriding values that drive his actions. Polemides is an even more enigmatic human being since Pressfield uses him more as an instrument to focalize on the Peloponnesian war and the life of Alcibiades and spends less time trying to focus on the nature of Polemides himself. Consequently, we mainly learn about Polemides' core values and motivations by reading about his actions as an agent. The reader is left to read between the lines in order to infer what core values drive Polemides as a person. Polemides appears to be a person who is devoted to fighting in battle; he fights for what he believes in and shows loyalty to those whom he consider of importance of Athens. For example, during a battle against Lysander and the other Spartans, when Polemides believes that Alcibiades has been injured, he searches frantically for Alcibiades in hope to save him, realizing that without Alcibiades, Athens may be in danger. Thus, he demonstrates loyalty to Athens by desiring to save the person whom he considered to be of utmost im portance to the Athenians. However, despite this loyalty, Pressfield also shows Polemides as a character who sells his services to enemies of Athens, such as Lysander, by accepting pay in return for doing tasks for the Spartans. As a result of his contradicting actions, Polemides is an enigmatic character who poses to readers the challenge of understanding his core values and motivations. Since Polemides received his military training in Sparta, it is possible that part of him feels a certain amount of loyalty to Sparta even though Athens was truly his homeland. However, when he is hired by the Spartans to assassinate Alcibiades, Polemides ultimately changes his mind and decides not to carry out the slaughter of Alcibiades, showing that he also feels a certain amount of loyalty to both Alcibiades and Athens. Thus, Polemides' core values are in conflict with each other since he possesses loyalty towards both Sparta and Athens and at each moment is faced with the challenge of deciding whom to serve."

In the novel, is the manner of each man's death significant? What key role does Polemides play in the death of Alcibiades? In your opinion what is the meaning of Polemides' death?

"In Tides of War, the death of Alcibiades and Polemides serve as symbols of the  values and motivations behind each man's life. Pressfield describes Alcibiades' death as one sought by his political enemies and the brothers of a girl that he dishonored. Alcibiades had become a fugitive from Athens, Sparta, Persia, and Thrace, and his Persian and Spartan enemies, including Lysander, were searching for him to assassinate him. On top of that, the brothers of a girl that Alcibiades had dishonored were searching for him to kill him as revenge. Finally when the Persians, Spartans, and the brothers of the girl find him, they set his abode on fire and hurl javelins at him from a distance to avoid fighting him up close. By combining these different versions of Alcibiades' death in his novel, Pressfield highlights the core characteristics of Alcibiades. Throughout the novel, Alcibiades is shown as someone without restraint or moderation and who indulged himself by having affairs w ith m any women. His life of excess ultimately contributes to his death since the brothers of one of his lovers decide to kill him. Furthermore, in addition to living excessively, Alcibiades lived as a traitor by never staying loyal to one country. Whenever he was in danger in one country or city-state, he fled to another place and devoted his services there; for example, when the Athenians wanted to kill him for dishonoring the gods, Alcibiades fled Athens to serve the Spartans; and when he could not return to Sparta or Athens, he fled to Persia to serve that country. Because of his disloyalties, Alcibiades created enemies in many places, arousing anger and triggering political enemies such as Lysander to kill him. Thus, Alcibiades' assassination by his political enemies and the brothers of a previous lover shows that his flaws of excessiveness and disloyalty ultimately serve as his downfall. One of the novel's narrators, Polemides, also becomes entangled in Alcibiades' death. Lysander hires Polemides to kill Alcibiades, but upon contemplation, Polemides decided not to carry out the assassination and decides to flee. However, his change of heart does not prevent Alcibiades' death since the brothers seeking revenge set Alcibiades' abode on fire, serving as the first step towards killing him. Ultimately, after Alcibiades had been burnt by the fire and wounded by the javelins thrown at him, Polemides ran inside Alcibiades' home and tried to protect him from being physically strewn before his enemies. He makes a promise to protect the last woman that Alcibiades had been with, Timandra. After that, Alcibiades asks Polemides to "take what he came for" while exposing his neck to Polemides. Thus, Alcibiades allows Polemides to kill him, likely in an act of euthanasia or mercy killing to put him out of his misery. Unlike Alcibiades' eventful assassination, Polemides' death is anti-climactic. He fell on an iron spike and suffered lockjaw, causing his death. Polemides' death is very ironic; even though he had fought in battle for many years and escaped death, he dies of a trivial accident, ultimately experiencing a useless and meaningless death. This death brings up the issue of heroism. Even though Polemides had served in battle, just as Alcibiades had prostituted himself to many countries by seeking the pleasure of those who were once his political enemies, Polemides also sells his services to enemies by doing tasks for outsiders such as Lysander for a charge. It is possible that Pressfield wants to show the unheroic nature of that type of life by creating an unheroic death for Polemides. Since Polemides also was really a nonexistent character that Pressfield simply uses in order to allow focalization on Alcibiades' life and the Peloponnesian war, it is also possible that Pressfield c reates a meaningless and unheroic death for Polemides to indirectly hint that Polemides' character is not the focus of the novel but rather an instrument of showing the history behind the war and the life of Alcibiades."

Use the Focus Questions to review Plutarch's biography. What do you think are the 5-6 key twists-and-turns in Alcibiades' life?

- Athens' invasion of Sicily in 415 BC was the most important turning point in his life, as it was his largest betrayal. Alcibiades gave a strong speech in favor of the expedition with an alpha, proud and egoistic ethos. He successfully convinced Athens to invade Sicily, but his celebration of mock religious rituals in his house before the expedition caused him to become the prime suspect of the Herms defacing case. Because the invasion of Sicily in 415 BC was soon after the defacing of herms in Athens, Alcibiades continued on with the war. However, a ship was sent during the war to retrieve Alcibiades in order to trial him. Knowing so, Alcibiades fled and helped the Spartans defeat the Athenians. He became a Spartan like a "chameleon." - When Alcibiades managed once again to serve Athens, and even become a savior of the Athenian empire despite of the betrayals he has committed -When Alcibiades seeks asylum in Sparta, providing devastating military advice against Athens. -When he adopts Spartan dress and customs like a "chameleon," according to Plutarch, and then seduces and impregnates the Spartan king's wife - When Alcibiades allies himself with Persian leaders against both Athens and Sparta, his career becomes almost unbelievably complex and devious. -he returns triumphantly to Athens and appeals to some citizens as a possible tyrant ANSWER #2: • Leading Athens to negotiate against Nicias and manipulate the Spartan ambassadors, ending up in a defeat against Sparta and lofty goals to attack Sicily • Forced to leave the war to stand trial for making fun of the Gods and the Mysterious. While returning to Athens, fearing the death penalty, he defected and left for Sparta. • Assimilated into Spartan culture, impregnated the King's wife, trying to make sure his offspring would succeed to become Spartan Kings. Eventually ousted from Sparta. • Turns to Tissaphernes his Persian friend and renounces Sparta. Gets Athens to renounce democracy and put in place an oligarchy of 400 men. • His secret-agent Persian friend Tissaphernes turns on him and imprisons him. Alcibiades escapes and claims that Tissaphernes freed him. Lives in exile for three years. • Athens recalls Alcibiades to become a General once again to protect themselves from the Persians. Fights off the Persians in a victorious battle and becomes the heart of the people again

When Alexander entered Egypt, what mysterious event occurred at the Oracle of Ammon in the oasis of Siwah? What's your opinion about what really happened?

- When Alexander entered Egypt, his visit to the Oracle of Ammon in the oasis of Siwah was a fascinatingly mysterious event. Though many people before him never made the long journey through the desert, Alexander did manage to survive the trip. When he arrived at the Oracle, Alexander was pronounced a god, and was told he would conquer the entire world. He was acknowledged as the son of Ammon, a god. It was then that Alexander became the ruler of Egypt. Ptolemy claimed that two speaking snakes led Alexander to the oracle, but in actuality, I believe that they had two guides leading the way.

Apply this "narration alteration" by comparing Thucydides and Tides of War on episodes like the plague in Athens and the invasion of Syracuse (e.g., the battle of Epipolae).

--Pressfield is more emotional in his account of the Plague in comparison to Thucydides, and breaks it down into many different parts. He makes sure that the characters have individual identities and multiple narrations. Both Polemides' wife and child die after the Plague, which of course creates emotion. His father is dying, and the characters practice what is currently known as euthanasia in the story to protect his dignity. It's a gruesome, emotional scene, but the reference to euthanasia is an example of 19th century terminology—not ancient century Greece. There is no evidence that soldiers in ancient Athens ever practiced euthanasia, so this is an example of Pressfield making contact with present societal values. --Thucydides describes the battle of Epipolae in 2 pages. It is a panoptic, general account of the battle from the perspective of a general. It's a very abstract description of the movement of the troops. On page 132, Thucydides talks about the flow of the battle against the Athenians. He describes the "ebb & flow" in battle, because he had trouble as an historian reconstructing the battle in the war because it was difficult to see. He also mentions that friendly fire took place, when they accidentally killed their own men. Pressfield expands the 2-page description of the battle into an entire chapter—14 pages long, from a panoptic view into a micro optic view. The confusion and brutality of war is brought alive by Pressfield's expansion and character narrations. For example, the narrator says, "Wine they could have; we all needed it. Fear was on us now. You could hear it...as the skins passed hand-to-hand and each ranker gulped the liquid courage..." (Pressfield, p.173). He indicates that the troops were drinking right before the war, but Thucydides never gets personal in his accounts of the soldiers. He goes further into his micro optic explanation of the battle when the emotions of the soldiers in battle are brought to light. In fact, one of the soldiers is so distraught with grief that he commits suicide because he is so traumatized by the experience of "friendly fire." He says, "He was unhinged and begged me to cut his throat" (Pressfield 182). However, trauma like this is a current phenomenon. Soldiers during Athens, Greece were never treated for trauma like soldiers are today. This is another way in which Pressfield is referencing contemporary issues into the novel, in order to bring pathos where the biographic descriptions left out descriptions of personalities and insight of people.

When we compare the way Pressfield tells the story of Alcibiades to Thucydides and Plutarch, how do we see "narration alteration" at work? How does Pressfield complicate the way the narration is "focalized" for us? How does he represent events and characters more "realistically" and even "naturalistically"? (Be able to define "realism" and "naturalism" as modes of representation.)

--Pressfield's story Tides of War is told from the perspective of 4 different narrators. The first narrator is Anonymous, followed by grandfather Jason, then Polemides, and lastly Lion's notes. The author chooses to do this because the narration of the story is non-authoritative, meaning that there is no one overarching truth or reality, but rather how each character experienced the event, and filtered through their independent stories. Plutarch and Thucydides, on the other hand, act as both author and narrator when describing the life of Alcibiades, giving the narrator a sense of authority. The introduction of fictionalized characters also allows Pressfield to give emotional insight into who Alcibiades was as a person, something that is left out from a historical account in ancient biographies. --Focalization gives insight into the lives of other characters. For example, in Tides of War the first narrator, Anonymous introduces Alcibiades for the first time by explaining, "Of all I knew, this man could not be called the most haunted...I helped to defend him once, on trial for his life" (Pressfield, p.5). Through his eyes, we first understand Alcibiades character as being mysterious. -- Compared to Plutarch and Thucydides' "panoptic" view of Alcibiades life, Pressfield represents events and characters more "realistically" and "naturalistically." Panoptic means a far away and objective overview of something. "Realism" and "naturalism" are both styles that emerged in the 19th century to make audiences feel like they are experiencing the world with the characters. Pressfield gives a much more detailed and intimate portrayal of the characters. In doing so, he introduces sentimentality—conventional emotions—into the story. Pressfield creates a young wife, Phoebe, for the character Polemides, and she has just had a baby. By introducing multiple narrations, taking the reader inside Polemides' home and describing his family members and neighbors, it creates a much more realistic and human experience than if we were just reading the historical details from a distance.

How does Pressfield also use "characterization transformation"? Explain why he invents the fictional Polemides and 3-4 other key fictional characters. How are these characters essential to making the story more meaningful for today's readers? Why do we see Alcibiades mostly through the eyes of these characters?

...

As a King of Persia, what new challenges did Alexander face? How did some peoples of the Persian Empire resist him? How did some of his own Macedonians resist him? Know the key conspiracies of Philotas and the Royal Pages, Alexander's murder of Cleitus, the fates of Parmenion and Callisthenes.

It was difficult for Alexander to combine the two roles of King of Macedonia and Great King of Persia. As the King of Persia, he commanded Macedonians to adopt Persian customs, in order to fuse the Macedonian culture and Persian culture together, and to achieve security and permanence of his empire as a whole. The policy of such a fusion involved: --- Persians and Macedonians were to live in harmony --- Persian soldiers would fight for Alexander --- Persian religious practices would be tolerated --- Some Persian customs were adopted Alexander wanted Persians and Macedonians to be joined and unified as one race. However, his approach created problems, and was resisted by the people. 1. Macedonians believed that they were a superior race. Macedonians saw themselves as victors and looked with contempt on the defeated Persians. They did not understand Alexander's tolerance of Persians, and did not share Alexander's vision of an empire where Macedonians and Persians lived in harmony. 2. Macedonian monarchy differed from that of the Persian monarchy. In Macedonia, king and nobles were very close. The king was 'first among equals'. Nobles gave their support and loyalty; in return he sought their advice. However, in Persia the 'Great King' had an exalted status. He was above all others and even though not considered a god, there was a certain 'aura' surrounding him. Alexander began as 'first among equals' but after Darius' death, became the 'Great King'. Most Macedonians felt Alexander was elevating himself to too high a status. There were several events related to such a conflict between Alexander and his people: Conspiracy of Philotas: A man named Dimnus plot to kill Alexander. Cebalinus and Nicomachus told Philotas of Dimnus' plot and asked to speak with Alexander. But Philotas replied that the King was too busy and rejected them twice. Finally Alexander found out about this and arrested Dimnus. Dimnus was killed when he resisted arrest. Philotas was also arrested and charged with treason. He was tortured to get a confession and then stoned to death with other conspirators of the Royal Page. Alexander's murder of Cleitus At a drinking party, someone began chanting verses written to insult and mock the Macedonian commanders, recently defeated by the natives. Older members were offended but Alexander enjoyed it and asked the singer to continue. Cleitus became extremely angry and a screaming match followed by him and Alexander. The words exchange indicated Cleitus' disapproval of the Policy of Fusin and Alexander's elevation of himself to the high status. The drunken argument finally resulted in Alexander's murder of Cleitus: he snatched a spear from one of the bodyguards and killed Cleitus. The Fate of Parmenion: Parmenio was Philotas' father. Alexander believed that Parmenio was a danger if he decided to avenge the death of his son. In addition, Parmenio opposed many of Alexander's ideas, including the Policy of Fusion, so that it was dangerous for Alexander to leave him in his position. Alexander killed him before Parmenio found out about the death of his son. Parmenio was popular in public, so that Alexander's action was seen as cruelty. The Fate of Callisthenes: During the first years of Alexander's campaign in Asia, Callisthenes showered praises upon the Macedonian conqueror. However, as Alexander penetrated further into Asia, he began to sharply criticize Alexander's actions, especially his adoption of Persian customs, with special scorn for Alexander's growing desire that those who presented themselves before him perform the servile ceremony. Callisthenes was later implicated in a treasonous conspiracy and thrown into prison.

How did some of his own Macedonians resist him?

1. During this time, Alexander took the Persian title "King of Kings" (Shahanshah) and adopted some elements of Persian dress and customs at his court 2. Notably the custom of Obesis (bowing) that Persians showed to their social superiors.The Greeks regarded the gesture as the province of deities and believed that Alexander meant to deify himself by requiring it.

What do you think are the 6-7 most important developments or moments in Pericles' life? Be able to describe these in detail.

1. Funeral Oration: • Good Orator- demonstrated in Funeral Oration speech • In his speech, he was successful in manifesting different personalities at different segments of the speech. • Pericles changes the ethos and logos from one part of the speech to the other. • By being a good orator, he was able to stir the passion of the people and intensify their love for Athens. 2. Limited Athenian Citizenship: • Pericles made the citizenship accessible to only those of Athenian origin. • Acclaimed himself as the first citizen of Athens. 3. Ostracized Cimon: • Cimon was rich and got public favor by bestowing his own fortune. • He accused Cimon to have betrayed his city by acting as a friend of Sparta. • Pericles supported the poor. 4. Peloponnesian War: • Plutarch states that Cimon struck a power-sharing deal with his opponents, according to which Pericles would carry through the interior affairs and Cimon would be the leader of the Athenian army, campaigning abroad • Plutarch seems to believe that Pericles and the Athenians incited the war, scrambling to implement their belligerent tactics "with a sort of arrogance and a love of strife" • Thucydides hints at the same thing, believing the reason for the war was Sparta's fear of Athenian power and growth. However, as he is generally regarded as an admirer of Pericles, Thucydides has been criticized for bias towards Sparta. 5. Aspasia of Miletus: • The woman he really adored was Aspacia. • She became Pericles' mistress and they began to live together as if they were married. • This relationship aroused many reactions and even Pericles' own son, Xanthippus, who had political ambitions, did not hesitate to slander his father. 6. Death: • Believed to have died of Plague. • Suffered death along with his own people of Athens. • Some believe God sent the plague to punish him for his exaggerated self and power.

Why did he return to Athens as a commander with supreme authority? Why did the Athenians want him back? Why did they reject him again?

Alcibiades joined Persia after leaving Sparta. When Athen tried to ally with Persia, Persians requested them to have him back. He led the Athen ships for several victories with his talent in military, so he got elected as a commando with supreme authority. Athenians needed his talent to lead millitary. Since he had been in Sparta for a while, he could lead the military for victories. Because of his failure and defeated in Notium. The loss of battle made Athenians not believe in him anymore. Then he got rejected.

How did Alexander continue to experience leadership problems when he returned to Persia and then Babylon? Compare the accounts of his death in Plutarch and Arrian. Be able to describe in detail the cause and manner of his death. How are there two different causes of his death? Was the way he faced death consistent or inconsistent with his character? In relation to his life, was his death: appropriate? tragic? ironic? absurd? What do you think is the meaning of his enigmatic last words?

Alexander did not experience leadership problems when he was in Persia or Babylon. He was perceived as being arrogant and having an elitist attitude, both of which were questionable observations. He did face struggles in The Battle of Granicus, and many perceived that he was overly willing to fight. This was likely due to his vast armies and his ability to recruit soldiers from surrounding states. However, it could be perceived that he was slightly greedy in his peace treaties with the nations he conquered, however this really does not hold much weight when looking at his overall conquering of the Persian Empire, and the circumstances that were present. Many historians view his treaty with Darius in Syria as unfair for Darius, but in reality Darius's initial offer was simply to give Alexander land that he already conquered (not a very generous offer). He was actually looked at favorably as he travelled south through Israel and in Egypt. In other parts of the Levant he faced struggles, but ended up being overall successful in his military campaign. Arrian recounts his death as being caused by a fever that did not go away. He writes that Alexander had a fever, and drank heavily while having this fever, thus causing him to not recover properly; in addition he was planning to continue on his campaign likely causing him more stress and thus Arrian writes that Alexander died. "Alexander died in the hundred and fourteenth Olympiad, during the archonship of Hegesias at Athens."Plutarch's story is similar except for a hypothesis that Olympias may have poisoned Alexander. "But most historians think that the story about the poisoning is a complete fabrication." The way he faced death seems to be consistent based on the way it is described in the history book. Leading up to his death, he had difficulty speaking because of his illness, the recounts of Arrian and Plutarch state that he didn't say much for a couple days prior to his death. However his "enigmatic" last words were in response to being asked who should be left the kingdom, he replied "the strongest man".

How did Alexander inherit Philip's great project of invading and conquering the Persian Empire? Why was the Macedonian army a superior fighting force to the Persian army?

Alexander inherited his father's vision for a greater Greek empire after his assassination in 336 BC. Philip II of Macedon, Alexander's father and ruler of a coalition of Greek states, was responsible for unifying much of the region under his command through alliances and military conquests. He ascended to the Macedonian throne after the death of his two elder brothers, and through a series of diplomatic agreements as well as victories on the battlefield, succeeded in the creation of the League of Corinth in 337 BC. Through this newly created union, Philip II organized support for an invasion of the Persian Empire, and was elected hegemon (leader) of the army headed eastward. However, a year after its creation, Philip II was assassinated in 336 BC, opening the way for Alexander to take the throne. Anointed king at the young age of 20 years old, Alexander was by no means a newcomer to the battlefield, and he relished the opportunity to prove himself against Greece's most powerful opponent yet. He made use of an elite army his father Philip had built through some key innovations, including the use of a phalanx formation for his infantry, and the introduction of an extremely long spear called a sarissa. In addition, Philip was able to use his immense personal wealth to pay his soldiers for year round training, at a time when most foot soldiers trained 2-3 months out of the year before returning to their regular jobs. Macedon's army was therefore a notably superior force by the time Alexander launched his campaign eastwards in 334 BC.

Which anecdotes best reveal key qualities or dynamics in his character?

Anecdote 1: A story describes how Alcibiades bites his wrestling opponent when he is pinned down and unable to escape. His opponent accuses Alcibiades of biting "like a woman" to which Alcibiades responds "Nay, but like a lion". This anecdote reveals several qualities of Alcibiades including his refusal to surrender and ability to escape under pressure. This quality is displayed countless times by Alcibiades, including when he flees the Athenians guards sent to arrest him during the campaign to capture Sicily. This anecdote also reveals Alcibiades disregard for the well-being of others in his drive to achieve his own goals. Anybody can bite a foe in a wrestling match to gain an advantage; the point is that wrestling does not allow such moves so that practice does not actually harm those involved. This mimics Alcibiades strategy with the Spartan diplomats, who he convinces to be harsher in negotiations just so he can turn the public towards his own opinion. Anecdote 2: When Alcibiades loses power with the Athenians he moves to Sparta and takes up their way of living to gain influence and power there. This anecdote again reveals the two key qualities of Alcibiades, which are to secure victory no matter the odds, and a person motivated only by self-interest. The ability of Alcibiades to change his behavior so rapidly proves once again his ability to succeed no matter the circumstances. It also proves that Alcibiades speeches discussing Sparta & Athens virtues were not truly his opinion but rather speeches delivered with the intention of gaining popularity, Because Alcibiades does not have any values that he lives by (beside the constant desire for power), his actions can bring great harm to other people.

Compare C.C.W. Taylor's attempt to organize what we know about Socrates' life to Diogenes Laertius' biography. In a haphazard way, what kinds of information about Socrates does Diogenes manage to convey?

C.C.W. Taylor's attempt to organize what we know about Socrates into a single volume turned out to be very convincingly but minimalist. C.C.W. Taylor tried to combine the writings of Plato, Xenophon, and other ancient Greek historians into a structured publication easy to read for the newcomer; the result was a slightly defensive description of a pious, inquisitive Socrates whose philosophical beliefs permeated every aspect of his life. The short account portrays Socrates as primarily a thinker rather than a doer, and attempts to explain his action through the lens of his Socratic Dialogues. Diogenes Laertius' biography, on the other hand, is quite an unphilosophical and uncritical manuscript, merely reciting facts from now lost accounts of Socrates' life and times. Diogenes oftentimes did not cite his sources, and chiefly described the superficial aspects of Socrates' life instead of the deeper philosophical portions; there was no insightful aspect to Diogenes' work. Haphazardly, Diogenes does manage to convey Socrates' life after 30 years old, however unchronologically and unthematically. Diogenes Laertius' biography of Socrates lacks finesse in that it compiles lots of different facts about Socrates without seamlessly incorporating them in a way that makes the work a fluid read. Instead, the random facts seem quite disjointed, rather than forming a cohesive piece. The facts are not organized in any order-- whether it be chronological or conceptual. This makes the biography hard to follow. The biography contains information on Socrates' personal life-- that he preferred to live in simplicity for example. It also includes information about his dress, wives, that he learned to play the lyre at an old age. It also gives examples of the kinds of things he said and to whom, such as when he speaks with Aeschines who tells Socrates that he is poor and has nothing to offer but himself, to which Socrates replies that offering himself is the greatest gift of all. (More examples can be found on Ares Reserve, pages 165-167). It of course, includes information about his trial and death. The information about Socrates is revealed mostly in facts, versus dialogue.

What type of leadership did Pericles display as a democratic leader? What vision did he have for Athenians? Know details of this vision from the Funeral Oration in Thucydides. How would you describe his leader - follower dynamics? How does Thucydides describe and evaluate them?

From what I obtained from "The Funeral Oration", Pericles was considered an incorruptible democratic figure. He prided himself on his knowledge and preparation regarding battles. He was most known for his rhetoric and fine linguistic skills, used to persuade the masses during his credible speeches. He help Athens over a notion of supremacy, due to its democratic system. He believed that his citizens privileged live styles and admiration for their Athens would in turn resignation within them, a desire to fight for their homeland.

Explain the image he comes up with to explain how he "cared for the souls" of Athenians: the gadfly.

In Socrates' defense, he describes his role as that of a gadfly, an insect that constantly stings a horse, thereby agitating it and preventing it from becoming sluggish. Likewise, Socrates, with his teaching of philosophy and challenging the status quo, is the gadfly of the Athenian society, a necessary existence to help people examine their lives ("an unexamined life is not worth living for a human being") and prevent the city from becoming indolent and careless. ("to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth.") He explains that although his actions may seem agitating, but it is ultimately to "care for the souls" of the Athenians, and that to silence a gadfly like him would be of great cost to the society. ("If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me.") The quote of Socrates from Plato's Apology on saying how he is the gadfly of Athens and Athenians. "I am the gadfly of the Athenian people, given to them by God, and they will never have another, if they kill me. And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me, and therefore I would advise you to spare me." A gadfly constantly agitates a horse and prevents it from being sluggish and going to sleep, and it is similar to what Socrates is to Athenians. Socrates claims that he is the greatest gift from God to Athens as someone to care for their souls. He goes around the city and talks to "experts" of all fields, and as he does so, he causes the people he talked to start to realize that they are far from knowledgeable, and being to know that they don't know. By stirring up conversations in the marketplace, he prevents the City of Athens from becoming ignorant what they do not know, and overly perceive their achievements. He cares for the souls of Athenians by keeping them in search of the true knowledge and not to be satisfied by their current status. "I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you."

Why did Alexander insist on invading India? How did he defeat King Porus and his elephants? Why did his men mutiny at the Beas River and refuse to advance farther?

Insist on invading India - Insisted on invading India because he needed to give his army something to do/some goal - need to divert their attention after killing Cleitus, and want to bring his army and his people back to unity - he also wanted to surpass Heracles and Dionysus who had made it that far according to Greek legend Defeated King Porus - Alexander and King Porus army were camping on the two sides of river Hydaspes - Porus, across the river, had his men guarding all the spots that Alexander can easily ford. - Seeing that, Alexander had his army separated and moved constantly, so Porus wouldn't know where he will be landing. He had nightly practice of leading cavalry men along the banks, having these men making loud uproar, so Porus won't be alarmed when he attacks in the future. - on the other hand, because the Indian River was very rough at that time of the year and that Alexander's army was scattered all over the other side of the river, Porus assumed that Alexander will wait and attack in the winter when he has many landing spots and smooth river - and during a stormy, rainy night, Alexander secretly resembled his boats and attempted to cross the river to a spot that is 20 miles from Porus's camp - however, Alexander's horsemen disembarked on a island instead of the firm ground, so they have to cross the remaining of the rough river by feet; water was above the chest of the soldiers and horses barely kept their head above water - When Alexander was faced with Porus's army with the huge elephants in the middle, he attacked the two wings of his enemies with his horsemen and order the infantry not to join until he created chaos in Porus's army. - Alexander forced Porus men to the elephant in the middle, thus creating chaos and confining the elephants in small spaces. - As elephant's commanders were killed, the elephants started attacking Porus's men who were right next to them - After Alexander defeated Porus, he didn't kill him but instead gave Porus a larger land to rule Refuse to advance - Soldiers were far from home, not knowing when Alexander will end this war and lead them back - Many died from disease; Many are getting old; Most are longing for wives, daughters, sons - Also, they know that brave enemies, including a large numbers of elephants that they dread, are waiting across the river to fight them - thus they have low spirit and unwilling to go along with Alexander

How does Pressfield's representation of warfare differ from Thucydides? In addition to the battle of Epipolae, be able to describe 1-2 other battle scenes that depart from the way Thucydides represents war. Which modern wars come to mind when we read Pressfield's accounts of ancient battles?

Peloponnesian War (430 B.C.), which we saw Sparta and the other city-states of Greece try to reign in the power of Athens, through many different lenses. He gives us a more panoptic view by bringing emotion into account. His story focuses on the fortunes of Alcibiades (451-404 B.C.), the most gifted, though mercurial, leader of his day. Pressfield focuses on the power of focalization, describes Alcibiades as a boy adopted by Pericles, the great democratic leader of Athens. He was physically beautiful, intellectually gifted and dishonest. He became a supporter of Socrates, but contrary to the great philosophers teachings, determined to try his hand at politics. He became the worst kind of populist, opportunistic, demagogue--ultimately fighting for Athens three different times, but also joining the Spartans and even the Persians during periods when he had been exiled from Athens. He was the driving force behind the ill-advised decision to try to conquer Syracuse (415-13 B.C.), which may have been the single most significant factor contributing to Athen's eventual downfall, as the Expedition proved to be a disastrous drain on men and materiel. THUCYDIDES: Thucydides (460 B.C.) was a Greekhistorian and Athenian general. His account of the Peloponnesian War differes from Pressfield's in the fact that it focuses on scientific facts, with an extreme cause and effect approach, rather than word of mouth stories or intervention from the Gods. Throughout his story, he was exiled from Athens, where he conducted research and was able to he viewed the war from both sides. DESCRIBE BATTLE SCENES: An Athenian by birth, Pressfield changes his allegiance repeatedly, fighting now for the Athenians, now for the Spartans, now for the Persians, all in the service of the god Necessity (or strife). He is the great man of his age, courageous in battle and eloquent in speech. Pressfield captures the chaos and brutality of the fighting from the soldier's perspective, but still conveys the larger picture of the battles. His interpretation of the Sicilian expedition (415-413 BC), which was such a disastrous campaign for Athens, is particularly good. Athens coveted the wealth and resources of Sicily and made a strategic gamble. The battle differ's from Thucydides verision because Pressfield uses several different narrative voices. The majority of the story is told through the eyes of Polemides, an Athenian soldier who has close access to Alcibiades, and who ultimately has a hand in his downfall. Polemides is telling the story while in prison awaiting execution, and his scribe is Jason, who interrupts the narrative occasionally to offer his own perspective on events. This same Jason, it turns out, is a friend of Socrates, also awaiting execution in the same prison. Thus Pressfield very neatly ties the large-scale political storyline to the familiar and intimate story of Socrates' trial and death. CURRENT DAY PARALLELS: There are parallels between the Athenian expedition to Sicily in 415-413 BC and the US raid into Iraq. It can be tailored to fit within the context of the Peloponnesian War and yet not deal specifically with the larger conflict, with the major point: hubris (i.e. Athens biting off more than it could chew). Athens coveted the wealth and resources of Sicily and made a strategic gamble, which ended up in the most miserable way possible.

Know the key conspiracies of Philotas and the Royal Pages, Alexander's murder of Cleitus, the fates of Parmenion and Callisthenes.

Philotas, Alex's close friend was executed for saying things like Alex didn't deserve a lot of the credit and recognition that he got because he relied a lot on other more experienced and talented men. The death of the son necessitated the death of the father, and thus Parmenion. Most infamously, Alexander personally killed the man who had saved his life at Granicus, Cleitus the Black, during a drunken argument at Maracanda. Plot by the Royal pages, however was caught. His official historian, Callisthenes of Olynthus, was implicated in the plot. Callis. was then held captive and apparently died there.

How does he explain the moral authority that guides him as a "sort of divine and daimonic thing . . . a sort of voice" (p. 47)? What do you understand this to be?

Socrates describes the moral authority that guides him as a voice inside him that always turns him away from what he is about to do (when he is about to do something foolish, supposedly) but never urges him forward. He describes it as "a divine and daimonic thing" and later claims it to be "the sign of the god." We could understand this voice as Socrates' psyche or rationality, a reflection of his true self and what he believes/reasons to be right. (Know thyself.) It is not uncommon for us to also have a conversation with ourselves inside our head when we're faced with a decision. Socrates states this "daimonic" voice has been occurring to him since he was a child, stating it held him back and never pushed him forward. He is essentially claiming this inner voice gives him moral autonomy and authority, allowing him to know what choice to make when he is considering doing something wrong, and allowing him to discern what is ultimately good for himself. Daimon in greek is a spiritual force, rather than human (the way the Greeks envisioned their gods), thus Socrates's use of this word makes it seem as though he has separate, private gods he follows from those of the Greeks. In this way, the divine and daimonic voice described on page 47 can be interpreted as what gives Socrates all his wisdom, as the oracle Delphy said, he was the wisest man in Athens because he knew himself.

How does Socrates respond to an imaginary citizen's attempt to shame him for practicing philosophy by claiming that his calling was the greatest thing ever to happen to Athens?

Socrates respond to the imaginary citizens of Athens by Recognizing his ignorance in most worldly affairs.Socrates concluded that he must be wiser than other men only in that he knows that he knows nothing. In order to spread this peculiar wisdom, Socrates explains that he considered it his duty to question supposed "wise" men and to expose their false wisdom as ignorance. These activities earned him much admiration amongst the youth of Athens, but much hatred and anger from the people he embarrassed. He cites their contempt as the reason for his being put on trial.

How did Athenians during Socrates' lifetime rely on distorted images of him in the form of a stereotype and a caricature?

Socrates was a strange figure for Athenians. He often performed obscene and strange acts just to see how people would react, and posed mysterious philosophical questions that nobody could fully truthfully answer. For this reason, Athenians misunderstood the man and his quest for the ultimate truth; the only feasible way for the people to provide a sensible character in their minds of Socrates was to caricature his actions and stereotype his ideas into those of a "warped old man." The comedic plays of Athens provided a means for people to poke fun at Socrates' practices and further capture his ideologies in a very biased way. Without these distorted means of representing Socrates, the general Athenian public may have been slightly fearful of his acts. Socrates was definitely an outsider, and the only way to become an insider was to make himself more "publicly attractive" by making the public rely on these warped and sometimes untrue parodies of him.

From the "Phaedo," be able to describe in detail the cause and manner of Socrates' death. Was the way he faced death consistent or inconsistent with his character? In relation to his life, was his death: appropriate? tragic? ironic? absurd? What do you think is the meaning of his enigmatic last words?

Socrates was charged for two crimes - disobeying Greek Gods but his own God and corrupting the youth. After several trails, the jurors voted that Socrates was guilty and the verdict was to give him a death penalty. Therefore, Socrates was imprisoned until the execution day, when he needed to drink the poison and die. Before he drank the poison, he had a philosophical discussion on soul with his friends present and he claimed that the soul is immortal and a separate part from one's body. After he took a bath, he talked to the women and his children and then he cleared them out, because he did not want any tears or sorrow during his execution. Also, Crito told Socrates that it was unnecessary for him to drink the poison right away, but Socrates opposed Crito's suggestion and stated that death was the best relieve for him then, because either falling into a long sleep or having the soul entering an afterlife to continue his mission to educate other people (souls) seemed to be a good option for him. Afterwards, he drank the poison, gave last goodbyes, said a few words to Crito - "we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt," and died peacefully. The way he faced death shows consistency with his character - a calm, rational, and truthful person. His calmness reflected the advice he gave to Alcibiades that one should know how to self-control (sophrosyne) and no emotions should be shown. In addition, his words to his children and asked them to take care of themselves were consistent with what he told Alcibiades to do before - to know thyself and to look after your very own self. The events that are related toward the end of the dialogue are of particular significance in revealing somewhat further the true character of Socrates. His concern for the welfare of his wife and children, his request that a small debt that he owed be paid, his kindly attitude toward the attendant who administers the poison, his faith in what lies beyond death, and above all the courage and nobility with which he accepts his fate, are all indications of his goodness. Of him it has well been said that he acquired the art of dying beautifully. Nevertheless, as he was such a wise individual, his death does not seem appropriate but rather tragic and absurd. Especially not long after his death, Athenians had remorse in their verdict and wished Socrates was still alive to give them advice. Additionally, his death was indeed a tragedy, since he was innocent on the charges and the penalty was unjust. However, Socrates considered death able to heal his soul from his body - this was rather ironic, because he was never sure what would happen after death. As for his enigmatic last words, by the time he drinks the hemlock, Socrates' soul is already in the grasp of the divine, and little else is required to release him. Asclepius is the Greek god of medicine, and an offering would typically be made to thank the god for curing a disease. In my opinion, Socrates' suggestion in his dying words is that he has been cured of the disease that is life, and should therefore be thankful to Asclepius. For as long as we are alive our soul is tempted and distracted by the flesh. Only through death can our soul achieve that release that "cures" it of these ills. Supplemental: Consistent: As Socrates once said that he does not eager for lavish food or seducing drinking; he needs only what is most basic enough for supporting his life. His wise thus appears in the aspects of being self-constrained from desire. He refused Crito's advice to have a delicious dinner, drinking or sex as he understands that he will not gain anything from the self-indulgence. Even confronting the last moment of being alive, Socrates was not scared by death, he showed his calmness and great sense of reasonability. The last thing he remembered and order was to pay off the debt owning to the god of healing. As consistent with his belief that soul and part are separate from each other, Socrates actually is set free form his sick body. Appropriate: Socrates has character as of being persistent and reasonable. His death is indeed appropriate to his life as being a great philosopher. He died being remembered. His idea and belief is being far ahead of other Athenians'. He reminds people of self-ignorance and self-examination; he is a gadfly, as he himself described, to Athens. He is saying something that is good for people to recognize themselves but these words are annoying even arose anger among the public. He understands very well why he is not welcomed. His way of death makes people remember him and his words. From Pheado, the death of Socrates is described as not fearful. When Plato was asked about Socrates death, he said that Socrates died nobly and without fear. Socrates was not upset about his death sentenced and at the last day he also mentioned that he did not think his present fate was misfortune. He rather accepts his death than not able to teach Athenians. I think the death of Socrates is ironic because he spent his life normally in private way. He never wanted to be a public figure but as his death sentenced took place, he became one of the most famous public figure. Socrates last word was to Crito. He said, " Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt". This was noted by Plato in his dialogue Phaedo. According to Ancient Greek myth, a cock (rooster) should be offered by the sick to the god Asclepius in order to receive a cure. Thus, Socrates, certain of his impending death, was metaphorically comparing life to a sickness of which he was about to be cured by dying. Many other thinks, he was already in poison so he actually did not know what was he saying. But I think he saw death is a cure of disease named life and that is why he wanted Crito to offered a rooster to the Medicine God.

In the penalty phase of the trial, what do you think Socrates' motives were? What suggestions did he make to the jurors for a penalty? Was he being sincere, humorous, or antagonistic?

Socrates was charged for two following reasons. 1."corrupting the young" 2."not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual beings" (Apology 24b-24c). The accusers of Socrates proposed the punishment of death. In proposing death, the accusers might well have expected to counter with a proposal for exile--a punishment that probably would have satisfied both them and the jury. Instead, Socrates audaciously proposes to the jury that he be rewarded, not punished. According to Plato, Socrates asks the jury for free meals in the Prytaneum, a public dining hall in the center of Athens. Socrates must have known that his proposed "punishment" would infuriate the jury. I. F. To comply with the demand that a genuine punishment be proposed, Socrates reluctantly suggested a fine of one mina of silver--about one-fifth of his modest net worth, according to Xenophon. Plato and other supporters of Socrates upped the offer to thirty minae by agreeing to come up with silver of their own. Most jurors likely believed even the heftier fine to be far too slight of a punishment for the unrepentant defendant. In the final vote, a larger majority of jurors favored a punishment of death than voted in the first instance for conviction. According to Diogenes Laertius, 360 jurors voted for death, 140 for the fine. Under Athenian law, execution was accomplished by drinking a cup of poisoned hemlock. But Socrates was ready to die, he was humorous but sincere when talking about death.

How did he face the prospect of death? What attitude toward death did he "model" for the jurors? How did he predict how distraught and sorry the Athenians would be for condemning him?

Socrates was given the opportunity to suggest his own punishment and could probably have avoided death by recommending exile. Socrates was not afraid of death, rather, he believed in after life. And he thinks death can set this soul free, and his spirit can stay alive after his death. Or in more extreme way, his soul can only be set free by death. He predicts that history will come to see his conviction as "shameful for Athens," though he professes to have no ill will for the jurors who convict him. He was kind of detached from the Athenians and the public. He see through things that other people would never understand, which is "death is not the end" Socrates faces his death with fearlessness and completely joy. Socrates faces death with no fear for three reasons: His service of God; his believe in justice; and his uncertain of death. Awakening that he is divined to be the "wisest man," Socrates believes that he "comes to the assistance of the god" and even though in severe danger, it is his mission to show ignorant people that they are not wise as they thought (Plato 35). Socrates also believes in justice and law. For him, justice always overwhelms death; therefore, fear of death would never lead him "to submit to a single person contrary to what is just" (Plato 47). Last, Socrates suggests that we should honestly admit our ignorance, and so does our attitude toward death. Since "no one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all goods for people," we should not fear death "as if [we know] for certain that it's the worst thing of all (Plato 44). On the other hand, Socrates shows his joy for two reasons: Death may be a nice sleep and death may be an opportunity of visiting intelligent spirits. According to him, death is either a rest or a journey, and no matter which one it is, that would be "an advantage" for human beings. Here, Socrates "models" a brand new attitude for the jurors, reminding them that death cannot be something bad. Finally, Socrates prophesies that the Athenians would become distraught and sorrowful after condemning him because they "won't easily find another like [him]," who "awakens, persuades, and reproaches each and every [Athenians] and never stops alighting everywhere on [them] the whole day" (Plato 46). Even worse, they would eventually lose their joy of listening to people being examined. Indeed, no one else could examine the "wise men" as Socrates does, and without Socrates, no one could tell the "wise men" that they are actually not so wise (Plato 49).

Why was Socrates' trial the most famous episode of his life? What did the Athenians accuse him of? In your opinion, was there any validity to the charges? If not, how can we explain them?

Socrates' trial was the most famous episode of his life because the trial was the best record that interpreted his personalities. There were no sufficient reference about Socrates' early life, and he did not wish to enter the public life. However, his last trial made him well known since Plato and Xenophon recorded most of his brilliant conversations. The Athenian accused Socrates of corrupting the young and not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, but new daimonic activities instead. From a modern view, there was no validity to the charges. The education of the young was not in charge of an individual. There were influenced by Socrates, their families, members of the council and the law. If there were really someone corrupted, the Athenian should accuse the entire society instead of Socrates. Regarding the second charge, as Socrates mentioned in his apology, he does believe in daimons—the children of gods. This indicates that Socrates did believe in god in some circumstance. Moreover, from a contemporary perspective, there is no point to put a person to death because of his religious belief as long as he obeys the law.

Be able to describe in a few detailed sentences the key battles at the Granicus River (334 BC in modern Turkey), Issus (333 in Syria) and Gaugamela (331 in Iraq). Pay special attention to Alexander's strategy and the behavior of King Darius III at Issus and Gaugamela. (Use Arrian as your main source, but compare the accounts in Plutarch.)

The battle at the Granicus River was a battle in 334 BC between the army of Alexander the Great and the satraps of the western Persian empire. The opposing forces were positioned across the Granicus River, and Alexander took the Persians by surprise with an immediate attack instead of waiting until dawn to cross. With heavy phalanxes in the center and cavalry arrayed on the flanks, Alexander made a feint towards the Persians' right flank. When the Persians moved to reinforce the flank, Alexander lead a charge that broke the center of the Persian line, routing their forces. Many Persian nobles were killed in this battle by Alexander and his bodyguards. Alexander's forces sustained about 300 to 400 casualties, while the Persians lost 1,000 cavalry and 3,000 infantry, mostly in the rout. The battle of Issus was a battle in 333 BC between the army of Alexander the Great and a Persian army led by King Darius III. The fighting began when Persian cavalry charged Alexander's left flank, which held just long enough for Alexander to lead his hypaspists (spearmen) in a charge that broke the center of the Persian line. Alexander then mounted a horse to lead his companion cavalry in an assault on Darius III himself, who fled the battle. Instead of pursing Darius, however, Alexander had to turn his cavalry around to assist his troubled left flank. Darius escaped, but many Persian soldiers were killed by pursing Greek cavalry. The battle of Gaugamela was a battle in 331 BC between the army of Alexander the Great and a Persian army led by King Darius III. Alexander began the battle by advancing his phalanxes toward the center of the Persian line, with his flanks echeloned back to lure the enemy cavalry to attack. As the Persian cavalry charged Alexander's left flank, he rode with his companions to his own right flank to distract and split the Persian forces. Alexander then lead a decisive wedge-shaped cavalry charge into the weakened Persian center. Darius again fled the battle, but as at Issus, Alexander could not pursue him because Permenion required assistance holding the left flank. This was one of Alexander's greatest victories, and a large amount of loot was gathered from the Persian supply train.

How do these fictional characters display a "personality viewpoint" that is different from the "character viewpoint" we usually find in ancient history and biography?

The characters display a "personality viewpoint" as the story is told from a first person's point of view, also called a realistic or naturalistic representation. By telling the story from a point of view perspective, the narrator's Logos and Pathos can be more easily identified with, as they are first hand emotions that transcend through the narrator's thoughts and feelings to writing. The use of polyglotism also shows the difference in classes in society in Athens showing different personalities from these different classes, something that would otherwise be lost if the novel was transcribed by a third party. This differs from the use of "character viewpoint" that is usually found from ancient history and biography, as most records of ancient history and biographies are translated or scribed by a third party, not the person himself. As such, it is more difficult for the third party to convey the Ethos, Logos, and Pathos used by the original speaker, as the third party does not possess the "personality viewpoint" that the speaker has.

What unexpected events prevented Alcibiades from leading the invasion? How would you interpret the hostility toward him which these events aroused in Athenians?

The conspiracy prevented Alcibiades from leading the invasion. He was accused of defacing religious statues. (on page 123). People reported that he mocked religious rituals in his house. People connected that to the desecration of the sacred statues in Athens. The accusations placed upon him illustrates that there were a niche of people in Athens that did not support Alcibiades. The fact that Alcibiades wasn't even given a trial shows the extent of hatred some people had for Alcibiades. One night during preparations for the expedition, the hermai, heads of the god Hermes on a plinth with a phallus, were mutilated throughout Athens. This was a religious scandal and was seen as a bad omen for the mission. Plutarch explains that Androcles, a political leader, used false witnesses who accused Alcibiades and his friends of mutilating the statues, and of profaning the Eleusinian Mysteries. Later his opponents, chief among them being Androcles and Thessalus, Cimon's son, enlisted orators to argue that Alcibiades should set sail as planned and stand trial on his return from the campaign. Alcibiades was suspicious of their intentions, and asked to be allowed to stand trial immediately, under penalty of death, in order to clear his name. Therefore, he ran away to Sparta.

How are some of these fictional characters (Polemides, Lion, Eunice, Telamon) driven by needs and values that are different from the men and women we find in ancient history and biography? Compared to the ancient characters, do these fictional characters have a similar or different philosophy of life?

The fictional characters differ vastly in terms of needs and values compared to the men and women found in ancient history. The men in ancient history were usually orators, speaking for political purposes and having the need to take charge. They usually win by playing a war of words rather than swords with their enemy. The women on the other hand are usually submissive and depended on the full support of a man as a breadwinner. The fictional characters however, are complete opposites. They are very much their own individuals and are viewed as anti heroes in situations they are placed in, such as Polemides and his characteristic of being disloyal. These fictional characters have a different philosophy of life as they adopt the notion that strife is life's oldest and most holy fundament and that war is never over.

In the dialogue "Crito" why does Plato invent an imaginary conversation between Socrates and the Laws of Athens themselves? Is this conversation consistent or inconsistent with the moral autonomy Socrates proclaimed in the "Apology"?

The imaginary conversation with the Laws of Athens is used by Plato as a tool to demonstrate the sorts of dilemmas that could have been going on in Socrates head after he was given his sentence, perhaps so that Plato himself could wrap his head around Socrates' seemingly irrational decision of accepting his fate. In this conversation, the Laws take on the role of questioner that is usually held by Socrates, and in doing so dissect and destroy Socrates' natural human desire to run away. They ask questions such as "Will you live by currying favor with every man and acting the slave-and do nothing in Thessaly besides eat?". The conversation thus shows a different side of Socrates, a man whose moral autonomy is not the result of certainty, but of constant internal struggle. Answer One: In the dialogue - "Crito," Plato (or Socrates) invents an imaginary conversation between Socrates and the Laws of Athens to further convince Crito that it is an unjust act for Socrates to escape and self-exile from Athens. At this point of the dialogue, Socrates introduces the voice of the Laws of Athens, which speaks to him and explain why it would be unjust for him to leave his cell. Since the Laws exist as one entity, to break one would be to break them all, and in doing so, Socrates would cause them great harm. The citizen is bound to the Laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the Laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the Laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the Laws to let him go. These Laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is implicitly endorsing the Laws, and is willing to abide by them. Socrates, more than most, should be in accord with this contract, as he has lived a happy seventy years fully content with the Athenian way of life. If Socrates were to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. And when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. Thus, Socrates convinces Crito that it would be better not to attempt an escape, and this conversation between Socrates and the Laws themselves serve his purpose nicely. At a first glance, this conversation seems to be inconsistent with the moral autonomy Socrates proclaimed in the "Apology." In "Apology," Socrates states that individuals can choose to follow what they consider just or right, even if the Laws of the State prohibits it or other people are against it. Apparently, Socrates is not guilty on the crimes he is condemned for, but he still decides to follow the jurors' unjust verdict - a death penalty. Nonetheless, while recalling his conversation with the Laws of Athens, he thinks there is a social contract between the citizens and the State - if he thought the law was not just and he tried to appeal it but failed, he still had to submit to it. Therefore, he cannot allow himself to escape from the prison, because that will contradict his own values. In order to follow what he believes is just and what the "divine and daimonic thing" tells him to do, he decides not to self-exile, and that shows consistency between the conversation and the moral autonomy he proclaimed. Answer Two: Socrates invents an imaginary conversation here to first accentuate the importance of obliging the duty as an Athenian, then insisted on achieving his errand as practicing philosophy, proving that the guilt imposed on him is not just but he would never do injustice in return for injustice he received. Socrates' conversation with Laws of Athens consists of mutual questioning and answering, which points out that Socrates lived comfortably under the social system within Athens. His birth and the education and everything else that established him as a person at present come from the city's care. As his parents married under the law of Athens; he learned the knowledge from people in city of Athens. Except for the brief leaving during the expedition of the War, Socrates spent most of his time within the city, which indicates that he is even more satisfied with the city's care than most of other Athenians. Accepting the trial, however, is the responsibility that he has to bear in return. He either proves to the public his innocence or accepts the punishment if he cannot entreat the vote for his acquittal. Fail to do them will result in his acquiescence in committing the indictment imposed on him. As he himself is doing injustice thing, which contradicts with his value of being justice through life. On the other hand, running away to escape from punishment is a misconduct violating the Law of Athens. Doing so, as Socrates mentioned in the conversation, in fact commits these slander attacking him, as he corrupted the youth not to obey the Law and being impious to the social system as a whole. Socrates claimed in Apology that practicing philosophy is his career and there is a voice inside him "holding him back from doing what is wrong". He acts to be consistent in his belief and did not disobey the voice, the intuition, to not misbehavior. The conversation is not contradictory to his proclaimed theory as moral autonomy. Moral autonomy stated that individual should make decision based on individual interest and not to be influenced by others' intention. Under this condition, Socrates is concerning the goodness of his soul, to be set free and obeying his belief persistently. He neither listened to Crito's advice of running away nor trying to save his own life by paying large amount of fines. He decided to die in glory to make Athenians remember his contribution and his wise.

How does he portray his so-called "wisdom" as not true wisdom but ironic wisdom? How does he suggest that his vocation was nevertheless a "heroic" effort like those of Hercules and Achilles?

The ironic wisdom of Socrates is that he knows he does not know. The fact that people who has some knowledge, think they are the experts and they know everything there is to know about certain things. The arrogance or ignorance of those people who have "wisdom", stop them from searching further for the true wisdom/knowledge. The very fact that they don't know they do not know, makes Socrates the wisest man in Greece( according to the Oracle), because having those "wisdom" actually prevent them from reaching the true wisdom. He suggest that his vocation is as heroic an effort as those of Hercules and Achilles by comparing the choice that he made to pursue his philosophical life to the choice that Hercules and Achilles made. Achilles made the choice to avenge his friend knowing that it will cost him his life; Socrates compare himself to this character to show that, in some sense he was making the same heroic choice in his life which end up costing his own life.

Which anecdotes about Alexander's birth, boyhood and adolescence predict his remarkable but also troubled life?

The story of the birth of Alexander is a major anecdote that predicts his remarkable life. When Philip and Olympias got married, the night before Olympias was to go into the bridal chamber, Olympias dreamed hat a thunderbolt hit her on the belly and started a great fire. She dreamt that the fire burst into flames and went everywhere around her and eventually died away. Later, Phillip dreamt that he set a seal-ring to Olympias' belly and thought that there was a carving of a lion on the ring. Aristander of Telmissus, upon hearing the dreams, stated that Olympias was pregnant and that she would bore a son who was naturally courageous and lionlike. Furthermore, there was a serpent that was seen laying next to the bed of Olympias when she went to sleep. Thus, this propagated the rumor that a god came to her bed in the form of a serpent on the night that Alexander was conceived. When news that Olympias had given birth reached Philip, the prophets exclaimed that his son would be unconquerable as he was on a day of triple victory. As a boy, Alexander would say many things that indicate his aspirations and predict his future accomplishments. As a small boy Alexander was heard saying, "Only if I can compete with kings", which was his response to being asked to compete in the footrace at the Olympic games. Also, when Philip was absent, Alexander kept the Persian envoys company and they were impressed by his kind and questioning nature. As he would not ask childish questions, but only those of substance. Furthermore, when Alexander would be told about his father's accomplishments, he would not be proud, but instead would say, "Boys, my father will get everything first and will leave no great or glorious deed for me to perform with your help." Another interesting anecdote from Alexander's childhood was when Philip was looking to buy a horse and no one could tame it. Alexander stepped forward and challenged his father that he could manage the horse better than anyone and if he did not he would pay the price of the horse. Alexander ran to the horse and turned it towards the sun. so that it was not confused and angered by it's own shadow and was able to ride the horse. This impressed Philip so much that he said, "Son seek a kingdom equal to yourself; for Macedonia cannot contain you." Finally, in adolescence at the mere age of 16, Alexander had been left behind by his father as regent. In Philip's absence the Maedians began rebelling. Alexander successfully subdued them, seized their city, expelled the barbarians, had new people move there to mix the population there, and named the city Alexandropolis. These were the anecdotes of Alexander's birth, childhood, and adolescence that predicted and foreshadowed Alexander's remarkable, but troubled life.

Pericles' death: Be able to describe in detail the cause and manner of his death. Was the way he faced death consistent or inconsistent with his character? In relation to his life, was his death: Appropriate? Tragic? Ironic? Absurd?

The way in which Pericles died was extremely ironic to how he lived his life, yet it was appropriate. The cause of his death was the plague that swept through Athens and killed 25-30% of the population. The plague did not kill Pericles right away, rather it weakened him over time until he could no longer fight the sickness. His death was in no way glorious, but rather a democratic death that many of the people of Athens faced as well. In this way, his death was inconsistent with his character because throughout his life he was looked up to by the people of Athens as a respected military strategist and charismatic speaker. He died a very anti-climactic death. Although I believe Pericles death was ironic, I also believe his death was appropriate in relation to his life. Throughout his life Pericles consistently advocated for the people and democracy - his death was extremely democratic because it was the way many others died in Athens. Essentially his death signifies that no one person, no matter how great they are, is immune from the plague, thus appropriately exemplifying how democratic he thought Athens was. ANSWER #2: Pericles's death varies, dependent on the perspective. As a democratic leader dedicated to supporting the people, the masses, and the law, his death was appropriate. Like the common man, he was consumed by the plague and died honorably as such just like his people suffered. He died a common man, and that justly and appropriately represents his character and leadership. However, it is also ironic as this plague had scoured the city-state and ravaged the people. The people, afflicted by this illness were forced to move within the city walls upon Pericles authority. The plague spread amongst them rather than allow for the people to live normally outside the walls, they were forced into their demise. And as such, so was Pericles. As he made this decision to ultimately help the people, her worsened matters. With outrage, the plaque killed him along with the common man. His strategic decision making ultimately failed him and his people in the end, and lead to his demise and death. Thus, tragic and ironic in the same turn of events.

Does Xenophon's account of the trial support Plato's—or does it contradict it in some ways? How is this Socrates not quite so unique or morally autonomous as Plato's? How do you evaluate Xenophon's claim that Socrates was old and tired—and just wanted to end his life by antagonizing the jurors to render the death penalty?

Xenophon's perspective on Socrates and his attitude towards death is significantly different from Plato's. He mentions two main points: "first, that Socrates had always held it of the utmost importance to commit no impiety against the gods, or give any appearance of injustice towards men; and secondly, [... that] he actually believed the right time had come for him to die." The first of Xenophon's claims is in complete accordance to Plato's account. In both accounts, Socrates refutes the claims of corrupting the youth, and of not engaging in impiety (although more through logos in Plato's version). The second claim of an almost suicidal Socrates is not well supported by Plato's account however. Plato's Socrates is ready to face death if need be in order to keep living a life of philosophy and justice, but is not asking for it in any way. He clearly tells the jury "If you put me to death you won't easily find another like me." He doesn't seem "old" and "tired" at all. His arguments are passionate, and when he speaks of why death can't be that bad, he says that if Hades exists, then he'd be happy to "spend time examining and searching people there, just as I do here". This seems to show that he's still hungry for more knowledge, and thus not likely to want to die. In Xenophon's account of the trial, the image of Socrates becomes a little different from the Plato's view. Unlike Plato reasons Socrates' faith and logic system, Xenophon chooses to emphasize on Socrates' external behavior. He does not explain why people detest Socrates and how Socrates understand where his danger come from; however, it is important to explain these two points of view because they are elements that constructs Socrates' unique identity. Without knowing the background and Socrates' personal beliefs, it becomes hard to identity Socrates as a unique and morally autonomous person. Furthermore, to describe Socrates a tired old man who just wants to end his life, Xenophon loses a vivid view that Socrates is such a faithful and rational person: He does not fear of death because he has no reason to do so; he embraces the death because he has a reason to do so. Unfortunately, Xenophon portrays a brave man, not a unique Socrates.

Use the Focus Questions to review Plutarch's biography of Pericles.

a) Pericles' birth and appearance - his name means "very famous" - children's names reflect a quality of their father - Pericles did not want socialize or like being in the spot light unless necessary - noble birth: - father was once ostracized - Pericles does not want to be ostracized and worked in favor of the people for fear of becoming a tyrant - mother dreamed of giving birth to a lion - may symbolize his greatness as a ruler - Pericles born with an irregularly shaped head - a common source of ridicule in many comedies; despite this deformity, Pericles grows to become a great individual and leader - said to resemble a tyrant - feared being ostracized and did not meddle in government affairs - instead proved himself in the military b) Anaxagoras as a mentor - Pericles composed himself similarly to Anaxagoras - acted calmly and logically - Spoke calmly and logically to have a great effect on his listeners - Pericles has control over his emotions - did not believe in superstition - Story of Pericles finding a ram's head with one horn: People thought it was a bad omen. c) Pericles avoided social interactions - only seen walking to the marketplace and the council hall - did not join friends for supper - did not want to seem common - difficult to maintain air of greatness - avoided speaking publicly unless absolutely necessary - did not deal with trivial matters himself d) Nicknamed the "Olympian" - Learned his tone of speaking from Anaxagoras - supported rhetoric with science - He was so able to convince people of his point of view that he was called the "Olympian" - instructed and guided the people e) Pericles' political involvement - Pericles did not equal his rival Cimon in wealth - Cimon opened up his personal estate to the public - Pericles used government funds to give money to the people - people earn compensation through working on public projects, serving on the jury, and rowing war ships - Started a program of city beautification - used public funds to start many building projects such as the Parthenon, the chapel at Eleusis, the Odeum, and the temple of Castor and Pollux - Political rivalry with Thucydides resulted in Thucydides being ostracized - Pericles no longer seen as "gentle and familiar" - changes leadership style to that of a physician and patient, doing what is best for the needs of Athens f) Pericles' relationship with Aspasia - Pericles and his first wife mutually agreed to divorce - Pericles made arrangements for her to be given to another man - Pericles' new love interest, Aspasia, was beautiful and educated - known to teach rhetoric - Aspasia was rumored to be a courtesan - Aspasia was known to convince many men of great power of her opinions

This includes: (a) his physis [individual nature at birth]; (b) the rational parts of his soul [ability to perceive and process information accurately; to see cause and effect; to use deduction and inference]; (c) the non-rational parts [instincts; powerful emotions or passions; the role of "spirit" or ego-centered motivations and decisions]. How is his character the sum total of the moral habits he developed as his physis responds to education and the struggle within the soul among reason, the non-rational parts, and "spirit"?

a) Physis (given nature) - see "Pericles' birth and appearance" in question 1 b) Rational - Pericles learned much of his rational thought from several philosophers, mainly Anaxagoras - Pericles was not superstitious - Pericles had great forethought in many matters - he often foresaw the reaction that the people of Athens would have to certain situations. ex: During the eulogy, Pericles thought of how the people of Athens would be in mourning and used logic and reason to ease their sadness. c) Non-rational - Pericles' relationship with Aspasia is said to have been driven by passion - this became a great source of ridicule for comedians; previously, Pericles did not reveal much of his private life, often refusing dinner invitations. - it takes a bit of ego for Pericles to decide what was "right" for Athens - Resisted physis and non-rational parts in early life - did not want to become involved politically for fear of being ostracized - took control of emotions and limited his socialization - In later life, he let some non-rational aspects take hold - he changed his ruling style from trusting in the demos to trusting himself - instructed the people of what Athens needed - ego - Pericles divorced his wife and took in Aspasia - passion driven ANSWER #2: • He was an intellectual statesman. • Not known for his bravery or courageous action, but rather for his calculated and informed deeds. • Pericles is best known for his rhetoric. • His ability to persuade his citizens with his words was his dominant attribute. Example of 'The Funeral Oration". • Not egocentric. • He stepped down peacefully when asked to during the plague. • He returned to his General standing with valor and humility. • Known for being a humble servant of the democratic system. • Was also known for creating allies amongst the majorities to assume power.

How would you describe his character (ethos)? Use Plutarch's concept of the soul (psyche) to explain why his character developed the way it did.

• Alcibiades' ethos is one of complete ego. He could be compared to Narcissus, one who is so obsessed with his self-image that both got each other killed, in one way or the other. • Plutarch's concept of the soul comes from duality. The cosmic soul is one that is eternal and rational and more closely is similar to the Budhhist sense of reincarnation. The worldly soul is one of nurture and NOT nature, where a person's environment is conducive to his sense of self worth. • Alcibiades' cosmic soul is unaffected and has no bearing on his personality. • Being raised in royal fashion with war hero parents and a general for a guardian caused Alcibiades' worldly soul to be tainted, and gave him sense of ego unparalleled in ancient times.

How was Athens' invasion of Sicily in 415 BC the most important turning point in his life? From Thucydides, what were 3-4 of Alcibiades' arguments in favor of the expedition? What kind of leader - follower dynamics led to the decision to invade Sicily?

• Long wanted bases on Sicily - hoped to gain grain and timber resources • Thought they could end ongoing Peloponnesian War by becoming a hegemon of the region by taking over parts of Sicily • Wanted to cut Syracuse down and conveniently Sicilian city of Egesta wanted help from Athens - Athenian ambassadors returned with glowing reports to go to war Why was it the most important turning point? It was the most important turning point in Alcibiades' life, as it was his largest betrayal. Alcibiades gave a strong speech in favor of the expedition with an alpha, proud and egoistic ethos. He successfully convinced Athens to invade Sicily, but his celebration of mock religious rituals in his house before the expedition caused him to become the prime suspect of the Herms defacing case. Because the invasion of Sicily in 415 BC was soon after the defacing of herms in Athens, Alcibiades continued on with the war. However, a ship was sent during the war to retrieve Alcibiades in order to trial him. Knowing so, Alcibiades fled and helped the Spartans defeat the Athenians. He became a Spartan like a "chameleon." Alcibiades' 3-4 Arguments in Favor for the Expedition 1. Because he has been previously successful, which demonstrates his strength e.g. Seven Chariots in the Olympics - 1st, 2nd and 4th place, they should continue to do so. He felt that there was nothing wrong with displaying strength, as it is something Athens has been doing in its history. He urged people to use him in battle whilst he was still 'in his prime.' 2. Says that Sicily is not as strong as they seem, as they have domestic unrest (civil war) and falsified numbers on armed forces and population. On the other hand, he also believed that the Athenians' naval power was unrivaled. 3. Wanted to be an honorable ally to Egesta, as he explains that is how Athens has made all their allies, which has led to their successful empire. They do not only make allies for help, and must aid their allies when called upon. 4. Realist view: If Athens is not gaining, then the Sicilians gain and the Athens lose. The norm/culture for Athens is to grow, and therefore must invade Sicily. Leader Follower Dynamics that led to the decision • Followers, especially the elder, understood Nikias' point of view, but Alcibiades gave the most "spirited case" for the expedition. They knew he had the talent and quality, which compensated his poor behavior in his private life. They were convinced and even excited to spread their empire. • However, Alcibiades' main goal was to achieve glory and fulfill his megalomaniac desires. He wanted to be a hero, which required an expedition/project. Thus, he projected his arrogance and hunger for power, as he advised Athens to go to war without real research/knowledge on the situation. In many ways, Alcibiades led the expedition with selfish motives. • Athens invasion of Sicily is the largest turning point in Alcibiades life because it is at this point that the Athenian courts order him arrested and the point at which he leaves Athens and seeks power through other avenues. • Alcibiades has several arguments in favor of war with Sparta including: 1. The idea that Athenians are a smarter people than others and therefore can wage war successfully. • 2. Because Athenians are considered smarter he also suggests that it is right to subjugate the people of Sicily to their rules of governance, (Like the modern day idea of spreading democracy) • 3. The idea that if an empire is not constantly growing in power it is becoming weaker because it's enemies will be getting stronger. • The leader-follower dynamic is one of a leader who inspires his followers and pushes them towards action. The followers already have a sense that as citizens of Athens they are greater than other peoples. More sensible leaders counter the peoples ambitions and encourage them to be more realistic, but Alcibiades instead inflames their feelings and pushes them to action in order to be able to take charge. Pg 120 "And don't think that either youth or age has any power without the other: remember that the greatest strength comes from a mixture of the simplest people with the middle sort and those who make the most exact judgments all together" Alcibiades is aware that he is relatively young (around 35). And he is also aware that people undermine his zeal by attributing his zeal to youthful passions, which shines light on his lack of experience/ maturity. He addresses the people's view by explaining that a city needs a mixture of different sorts of people. His invasion of Sicily is the most important turning point in his life because it acts as an opportunity to not only address any doubts that people have of him but also to become legendary. Pg 119. "[...] because if we do not rule others we run the risk of being ruled by them ourselves. You should not weigh peace in the same balance as others do unless you plan to change your way of life to match theirs" In his argument, he does two things here. It should be noticed that he restricts Athenians exclusively to two options. 1st option is to rule others which advocates the expedition and the 2nd option is to become subjects/slaves of another. His ability to restrict Athenians to two options demonstrates his political skill. Pg 120. "I find that if a city which is used to being active grows idle, it will quickly be destroyed by this change; and the safest way for a people to live is to conduct civic affairs according to their current laws and customs for better or for worse, with the least possible change" His argument against presupposes that an idle state will be destroyed. And the only way to progress and survive is through changing/ conquering others. Pg 118. "as a result, no one thinks of this as his own country, so they are not sufficiently armed to defend their own lives, and they do not have the usual fortifications for the defense of their land" Here he speaks of the cities in Sicily and how the inhabitants are not loyal. His argument for this expedition attempts to shed light on the easiness of this expedition.

How would you describe Pericles' character (ethos)? Apply Plutarch's concept of the soul (psyche) to explain why Pericles' character developed the way it did.

• Plutarch describes a human being as three fold - Body(soma), soul or mind (psyche) , and spirit • Pericles exemplified the character of a leader throughout his political life. • Not the most attractive among other men. • Had a sharp mind, accused Cimon of being a friend of Sparta • Once in charge of Athens, he was sympathetic towards the poor and the public, in general. Public welfare was made the motto, and private welfare was given the least importance in his reign. • Changed his ethos based on the different occasions. For example- changes ethos in the funeral oration speech to address the people of Athens about the dead warriors. He presented himself as a personality that could stir the passion of the people towards Athens. He presented himself as a calm, controlled, rational and analytic leader. He also demonstrated strong knowledge about geography and military strategy. • His character showed he was rational. Explained the sacrifices of the great men in the funeral oration speech.