Jihadization Each of these phases is unique and has specific signatures… The NYPD shows its grasp of the realities of 4GW by not seeing the enemy as a structure or organization:
The Persian Wars Between and bc Persia was for the policy-making classes in the largest Greek states a constant preoccupation. It is not known, however, how far down the social scale this preoccupation extended in reality.
Persia was never less than a subject for artistic and oratorical reference, and sometimes it actually determined foreign policy decisions. The situation for the far more numerous smaller states of mainland Greece was different inasmuch as a distinctive policy of their own toward Persia or anybody else was hardly an option for most of the time.
But, even at this exalted moment, choice of sides, Greek or Persian, could be seen, as it was by Herodotusas having been determined either by preference for local masters or by a desire to spite an equal and rival state next door.
Nor is it obvious that for small Greek places the change to control by distant Persia would have made much day-to-day difference, judging from the experience of their kinsmen and counterparts in Anatolia or of the Jews the other articulate Persian subject nation.
Modern Western notions of religious tolerance do not apply, however. It remains true that Persia had no policy of dismantling the social structures of its subject communities or of driving their religions underground though it has been held that the Persian king Xerxes tried to impose orthodoxy in a way that compelled some Magi to emigrate.
Persia certainly had no motive for destroying the economies of the peoples in its empire. Naturally, it expected the ruling groups or individuals to guarantee payment of tribute and generally deferential behaviour, but then the Athenian and Spartan empires expected the same of their dependents.
The Athenians, at least, were strikingly realistic and undogmatic about not demanding regimes that resembled their own democracy in more than the name.
The Ionian revolt But the experience of the Asiatic Greek cities was different again, because it was precisely here that the great confrontation between Greeks and Persians began, about bc.
The puzzle is to explain why the revolt happened when it did, after nearly half a century of rule by the Achaemenid Persian kings that is, since when Cyrus the Great conquered them; his main successors were Cambyses [—], Darius I [—], Xerxes I [—], Artaxerxes I [—], and Darius II [—].
Too little is known about the details of Persian rule in Anatolia during the period — to say definitely that it was not oppressive, but, as stated above, Miletus, the centre of the revolt, was flourishing in The causes of the Ionian revolt are especially hard to determine because the revolt was a short-term failure.
Concessions were made after it, however, and its longer-term consequence, the Persian Wars proper, resulted in the establishment of a strong Athenian influence in western Anatolia alongside the Persian. Defeats lead, especially in oral traditions, to recriminations: This is odd, because it is inconsistent with the whole thrust of his narrative, which regards the clash as an inevitability from a much earlier date; it is part of his general view that military monarchies like the Persian expand necessarily hence his earlier inclusion of material about, for instance, BabyloniaEgypt, and Scythia, places previously attacked by Persia.
There were always Greeks who were attracted to a Persian life-style. Causes of the Persian Wars It should now be clear that Herodotus saw the revolt in terms of the ambitions of individuals he singles out the Milesians Aristagoras and Histiaeusand this must be part of the truth.
But this must be supplemented by deeper explanations, because the rising was a very general affair. Economic factors A simple economic explanation, such as used to be fashionable, is no longer acceptable.
Perhaps one should look instead for military causes: Ionians disliked the military service to which they were then compelled they did not even care much for the naval training they had to undergo, in a better cause, before Lade. Persia not only expected personal military service but punished attempts to evade it, even at high social levels.
Its method of organizing defense and of raising occasional large armies there was no large Persian standing army was analogous to the method of later feudalism:Ancient Greece was located in Greece and in the countries we now call Bulgaria and Turkey. Some of the important city-states in Ancient Greece were, Athens, Macedonia, Sparta.
Historiography is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject.
The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and . Aug 21, · Watch video · Sparta was a warrior society in ancient Greece that reached the height of its power after defeating rival city-state Athens in the Peloponnesian War ( The Blog of Scott Aaronson If you take just one piece of information from this blog: Quantum computers would not solve hard search problems instantaneously by simply trying all the possible solutions at once.
Athens was one of the most important and powerful cities in Ancient Greece. The city-state was located on a peninsula that stretches southeastward into the Aegean Sea, northeast of Sparta. It is known for large contributions to Western Civilization.
Sparta and Athens were both Greek city states that dominated ancient Greece during the fifth century BCE. Each city state had at least a partially elected government and a strong military, and both relied on the labor of slaves.
Sparta and Athens had similar forms of government; both city states.