The Peloponnesian War Essay Example for Free

The Peloponnesian War Essay The Greek empire did not comprise of any center for power ruling over the states, instead it consisted of numerous city-states each having independence and being governed in a manner separate from the rest. Where Athens had a democratic style of government, with everyone from the populace having the right to participate in the government (except for women and slaves), Sparta had a totalitarian form of governance. The populace was divided into 3 distinct classes which included Spartan men (who were all raised to be warriors), Spartan women (who were patriotic, proud, and exhibited more independence then women from other states) and finally Helots, or slaves (Adams). Aside from the political difference between the states, even their culture was vastly different. The lifestyles of Athenian citizens encouraged them to seek artistic and intellectual pursuits whereas Spartan men were trained to be soldiers from birth and led a life by the sword. Athens was the most powerful state amongst the other states in the Greek Empire. After the expulsion of the Persian from the continent by the Greek allies led by Athens, the state became the central power by increasing their forces and converting the ally states into tribute paying states with the money earned going into improving Athens infrastructure and help strengthen its naval fleet. It did not make matters any better when in a Helot uprising in Sparta, when Sparta called for aid from all the other Greek allies, it dismissed the contingent from Athens as they feared the troops would change sides and support the Helots instead, since Athens was a democratic state and Sparta was not. . The Peloponnesian War, which lasted from 431 – 404 BC provided the states a chance to enter into direct confrontation with each other to resolve their issues once and for all. In my opinion, the Peloponnesian War was an outlet for the states to finally destroy the others as each saw the others existence as an affront. The superiority of Athens and their cultural background clashed with the ferocity and dominant attitude of the Spartans and eventually an altercation would have taken place. This paper will identify the strengths of the two city-states, determine which factors gave them an edge over the other and will analyze whether the states where able to maximize the potential of those benefits. Military Background Athens Athens was the most prosperous state on the continent. It had wealth and a large population, being the centre for business and politics. After the Persian invasion, Athens took on the leading role and used its position to build its own state far surpassing the others. When the Persians had been defeated, the allies of Athens were reduced to subservient tribute paying states that were supposed to aid Athens prosper even more. The policies adopted by Athens towards the other states exhibit the superior attitude with which Athens looked upon the other states. Athens had a defensive wall built around its city which made land attacks impractical and futile. Since the Persians had left and Athens had begun work to strengthen the walls, Sparta had seriously been against the measure as they recognize the tactical benefit Athens would obtain as Sparta would have difficulty in defeating Athens with the presence of the wall. Athens also had a strong naval fleet. Its fleets were much superior to the other states’ and it was able to maximize upon its advantage by using said fleets to ravage the Peloponnesus (Hooker, 1999). Sparta Sparta, as mentioned earlier, was a state which trained every one of its inhabitants to become warriors. From birth onwards, Spartan men lived a life of training and fighting to become the ultimate soldiers. Therefore the Spartan army relied on its brute strength and its training superiority. The Spartan infantry was more numerous than the Athenian and in size; the Spartan army far surpassed the other states’. Throughout the course of the Peloponnese War, Sparta used its numbers to ravage the territory around Athens (Attica in general). Historical Events Exhibiting Military Strategies The first war between Sparta and Athens was the Archidamian War, named after the Spartan king, was initiated by the Spartans. The Spartan troops invaded the lands surrounding Athens and were meant to deprive the city-state of its food source and access to its productive land. The strategy employed by the Spartans was a strategy any land based army would adopt. To cut off supplies and eventually force the opponent to surrender is probably the most successful way to gain victory without shedding much blood on the attacker’s side. Spartan troops however were unable to succeed by this strategy as Athens was able to acquire food and material via its ports which it still had access to. The Spartan army itself was unable to stay over long periods of time due to the harvesting of their own crops and the inability to leave the helots unsupervised in the home state. The success of sieges work only if they are meant to last over longer durations, but the Spartans were able to stay at most for 40 days. From the start of the War we can see that the strengths of both the armies were conflicting with each other and an outright battle to rule was out of the question as both sides wished to play by their strengths. Athens adopted the strategy to avoid any land battles with its far more superior opponent due to its numbers and experience in land battles. But in 430 BC an outbreak of plague hit the city and roughly one third of the Athens population died. But the plague had the effect that the Spartan armies did not want to catch the sickness and decided to put the ravaging expeditions on a hold as it would bring them in proximity to the Athenians (B. Strassler, 1996). After recovering from the plague, Athens launched an offensive by sending out its naval troops to ravage the port cities of the Peloponnesus. Athens began stretching its military activities to further reaches and began setting up posts in the Peloponnesus bringing the war closer to the Spartans. Instead of engaging in direct confrontations, the Athenian forces began drawing the Spartan helots to them which crippled Sparta as most of the domestic work was tended to by these slaves. Sparta led an expedition to the Athenian colony of Amphipolis, which was controlled nearby silver mines which basically funded the Athenian troops. A war was fought in Brasidas which eventually led to the two states signing a truce which lasted 6 years (ThinkQuest). The truce was an excuse for both sides to build up their strengths as both had faced economic losses. During the era of peace, the Athenians were able to gather support from the states of Argos, Mantinea and Arcadia. The allied coalition appeared to get early victories but was eventually crushed by the Spartan forces. It can clearly be seen that Sparta had the major advantage in land battles and that Athens was initially wise in avoiding direct clashes as in the battle of Mantinea, which was the largest land battle fought in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta was able to crush its opponents brutally. The deciding battle in the war could probably be the Sicilian expedition. Syracuse (which shared the same race as the Spartans) were attacking Sicily (which shared the race with Athenians). Since Sicily was the second largest state and would have provided much needed resource to Athens, Athens decided to help them. Troops sent for aiding Sicily proved incapable of defeating the Syracusan forces. While the Athenian forces waited to gather more allies in the surrounding vicinity, Syracuse was able to get the support from Sparta which tipped the scale in Sparta’s favor. Around this time Athens was facing harsh times as Spartan forces had made access to their lands difficult and food and other necessities had to be shipped in which cost a lot to the Athens government. The main source of funding for the Athenian forces was the silver mines which had now been taken over by the Spartans. To accommodate for the decrease in capital, Athens began demanding more tribute from its allies. This created friction amongst the coalition and would eventually lead to dissatisfaction in the allies. (Hanson, 2005) Realizing the tactical advantage Athens possessed due to its navy, Sparta contacted the Persians and took their aid in building its own navy. The navy would prove to be the decisive factor as in 405 the critical blow hit Athens when the Spartan commander Lysander took his navy northward to Hellespont and destroyed the Athenian forces existing there. This blow seemed too big to bear and Athens eventually conceded defeat and had to succumb to the humiliating terms laid down by the Spartans (Thucydides Lattimore, 1998). Personal Observations Pertaining to the Peloponnesian War The war was not won due to the number of forces or the number of allies that any side had but it relied on the ability of the army to change to meet the situation. Both sides possessed benefits in separate areas, with Spartans having superiority on land and Athens having the superiority on the seas. But Sparta was constantly reevaluating its approaches and battle plans and would accommodate for the situation at hand. Rather than relying strictly on sieges and confronting on the mainland, Sparta developed its own naval strength and reduced the competitive advantage that the Athens forces had over it. Even though from the beginning Sparta would have been deemed as the military superior, Athens had a number of opportunities to tip the war in their favor. Such as during the Sicilian expedition, it was mismanagement and lethargy which cost the Athens forces defeat. Conclusion The strengths of the two states were clearly exhibited in this research paper but no amount of strength is affective if it does not keep training and does not keep advancing. The Athens forces made this mistake by simply relying on one’s strength and believing it would win them the war where in truth Sparta proved to be the wiser of the two and used the opponent’s strength, incorporated into its own arsenal and eventually won the war. The Spartans were able to not only maximize on their own strength during the war (land based warfare) but created advancements in their weakness as well and had they not done so, the war would have lasted for numerous more years due to an intermittent deadlock as both sides initially had opposing tactical advantages. References Adams, P. (n. d. ). Comparing Athens and Sparta. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from Discovery Education: http://school. discoveryeducation. com/lessonplans/programs/spartans/ B. Strassler, R. (1996). In R. B. Strassler, The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. New York: The Free Press. Hanson, V. D. (2005). In V. D. Hanson, A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War. New York: Random House. Hooker, R. (1999, June 6). Ancient Greece. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from Ancient Greece: The Peloponnesian War: http://wsu. edu/~dee/GREECE/PELOWARS. HTM ThinkQuest. (n. d. ). Peleponnesian War. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from ThinkQuest. com: http://library. thinkquest. org/17709/wars/peloponn. htm Thucydides, Lattimore, S. (1998). In S. Lattimore, The Peloponnesian War. Hackett Publishing.

The Nature of the Mind :: essays research papers

A leading exponent of the substantial view was George Berkeley, an 18th century Anglican bishop and philosopher. Berkeley argued that there is no such thing as matter and what humans see as the material world is nothing but an idea in God's mind, and that therefore the human mind is purely a manifestation of the soul. Few philosophers take an extreme view today, but the view that the human mind is of a nature or essence somehow different from, and higher than, the mere operations of the brain, continues to be widely held. Berkeley's views were attacked, and in the eyes of many demolished, by T.H. Huxley, a 19th century biologist and disciple of Charles Darwin, who agreed that the phenomena of the mind were of a unique order, but argued that they can only be explained in reference to events in the brain. Huxley drew on a tradition of materialist thought in British philosophy dating to Thomas Hobbes, who argued in the 17th century that mental events were ultimately physical in nature, although with the biological knowledge of his day he could not say what their physical basis was. Huxley blended Hobbes with Darwin to produce the modern materialist or functional view. Huxley's view was reinforced by the steady expansion of knowledge about the functions of the human brain. In the 19th century it was not possible to say with certainty how the brain carried out such functions as memory, emotion, perception and reason. This left the field open for substantialists to argue for an autonomous mind, or for a metaphysical theory of the mind. But each advance in the study of the brain during the 20th century made this harder, since it became more and more apparent that all the components of the mind have their origins in the functioning of the brain. Huxley's rationalism, however, was disturbed in the early 20th century by the ideas of Sigmund Freud, who developed a theory of the unconscious mind, and argued that those mental processes of which humans are subjectively aware are only a small part of their total mental activity. Freudianism was in a sense a revival of the substantial view of the mind in a secular guise.

International Economics Essay

1. Why did the Mercantilists consider holdings of precious metals so important to nation-state building? (6 points) Wealth was viewed as synonymous with holdings of precious metals. Nation-states wished to become wealthy and this meant obtaining large holdings of precious metals. It is also argued by some that the shortage of coinage constrained the growth of these nation-sates and that precious metals were required to increase the supply of coinage (money) in order for the countries to grow. 2. Assume that both the United States and Germany produce beef and computer chips with the following costs: (12 points) a. What is the opportunity cost of beef (B) and computer chips (C) in each country? In the United States: the opportunity cost of one unit of beef is 2 chips; the opportunity cost of one chip is 1/2 unit of beef. In Germany: the opportunity cost of one unit of beef is 4 chips; the opportunity cost of one  chip is 1/4 unit of beef. b. In which commodity does the United States have a comparative cost advantage? What about Germany? The United States has a comparative cost advantage in beef with respect to Germany, while Germany has a comparative cost advantage in computer chips. c. What is the range for mutually beneficial trade between the United States and Germany for each computer chip traded? The range for mutually beneficial trade between the United States and Germany for each unit of beef that the United States exports is: 2C < 1B < 4C d. How much would the United States and Germany gain if 1 unit of beef is exchanged for 3 chips? Both the United States and Germany would gain 1 chip for each unit of beef traded. 3. â€Å"If U.S. productivity growth does not keep up with that of its trading partners, the United States will quickly lose its international competitiveness and not be able to export any products, and its standard of living will fall.† Critically evaluate this statement in light of what you have learned in chapter 3 of the textbook. (10 points) This statement could be true if trade was based on absolute advantage. However, since trade can take place on the basis of comparative advantage, what counts is relative cost differences. Consequently a country can be less efficient or become less efficient in all goods and yet again from trade as long as there are relative cost differences in autarky. Thus, different rates of productivity growth may change what a country exports, but it is unlikely that it would ever take away the basis for trade, its ability to expert. 4. The following table shows the number of days of labor required to produce a unit of textiles and autos in the United Kingdom and the United States: (12 points) Textiles Autos United Kingdom 3 days 6 days United States 2 days 5 days a. Calculate the number of units of textiles and autos that can be produced from 1 day of labor in each country. In the United Kingdom one day of labor can produce 1/3 of a unit of textiles and 1/6 of a unit of automobiles. In the United States, one day of labor can produce  ½ of a unit of textiles and 1/5 of a unit of automobiles. b. Suppose that the United States has 1,000 days of labor available. Construct the production-possibilities frontier for the United States. 500 U.S c. Construct the U.S. consumption-possibilities frontier with trade if the terms of trade are 1 auto: 2 units of textiles. 500 textiles U.S d. Select a pre-trade consumption point for the United States, and indicate how trade can yield a consumption point that gives the United States greater consumption of both goods. 500 textiles U.S 5. In the previous question, suppose that the United States always wishes to consume autos and textiles at the ratio of 1 auto to 10 textiles. What quantity of each good would the United States consume in autarky? What combination would the United States consume with trade and complete specialization? What would be the gains from trade? (10 points) In autarky, the production ( and consumption ) of textiles and autos will utilize all the available 1000 days of labor. Thus, with T = number of units of textiles produced and A = number of autos produced, 1000 = ( 2 days / unit) T + (5 days / unit )A. The consumption requirement is that 10 units of textiles be consumed for every unit of automobiles. Hence, total textile production is equal to (10) ( total auto production), 10A thus, given the available labor, and substituting 10A for T, 1000 = (2)(10A) + 5 A A= 40 units If A = 40 units, then textile production and trade, textile production equal 500 units. Consumption of textiles (CT) is equal to textile production minus the textile exports used to enquire auto imports, and auto imports are equal to auto consumption (CA). With the international terms of trade of 1A:2T, auto imports = (1A/2T)(exports of textiles) = (1A/2T)*(textile production – textile consumption). By the demand assumption, consumption of auto is also equal to (1/10)(textile concumption). Hence , CA = (1/2)(500 –CT ) and CA = (1/10)(CT). Thus, (1/2)(500- CT) = (1/10)(CT) 250 – (1/2)(CT) = (1/10)(CT) 0.6CT = 250 CT = 416 2/3 units With Ct = 416 2/3 units, CA therefore equals 41 2/3 Unitts. Because of specialization and trade, the united States had gained 16 2/3 Units of textiles ( 416 2/3 – 400 ) and 1 2/3 ( 41 2/3 – 40 ) in comparison with autarky situation. Another method of arriving at these results is to utilize the equations for the PPF and for the consumption pattern. In autarky the PPF equation is T = 500 – 2  ½ A, and the consumption equation is CT = 10CA. Solving the two equations for the two unknowns yields A = CA = 40 and T = CT = 400. With  trade, the equations to be utilized are for the consumption- possibilities frontier with trade has the equation T = 500 – 2A. When this equation is put with the consumption equation CT = 10 CA and the two equation are solved for two unknowns, the equilibrium results are A = CA = 41 2/3 AND T = CT = 416 2/3

Intro to Creating Realistic Photo Textures in Games

One of the major challenges of current and next-generation game development is the creation of the massive number of art resources required to create an immersive game world. Character, environment, and other supporting models must be created, and levels must be shelled out and populated with those models. But while you may have a functionally-playable game at that point (with the addition of a tremendous amount of other programming and resource work), you are lacking color, depth, and physical texture in your world. Taking a game from a gray box prototype to a completed game, suitable for public viewing, requires a lot of work for artists to create textures and materials to give the game the feeling of being in the world youve created. Weve touched on this briefly in previous tutorials: The basic concepts of UV mappingApplying and painting textures for a modelManually editing UV map coordinatesCylindrical maps and dealing with seamsIntermediate-level UV mapping techniques In those exercises, we used simple example maps that were hand-painted, but not designed for production work, nor realism. In this series, were going to show you how to make realistic photo textures for your own games, and do so on a reasonable budget. The results you can achieve with a small amount of work may surprise you. Lets get started. There are three primary ways to create photorealistic textures for games. Photo reference/Hand painting. These are the original two techniques for creating game textures. This is the simple process of creating a bitmapped image for use in a game, whether created completely from scratch using a paint application, or converting a photo into a game-ready format. (Both of these techniques are not necessarily simple in actual practice, as youll see later in this article.) This can be very quick, or moderately time-consuming, depending on what sort of results you desire, and how much work youre willing to put in.Procedurally-created. This method relies on algorithms and pre-defined inputs (either photo or completely synthetic) to create tileable/seamless pattern materials. Tiled materials allow you to use a single, highly-detailed texture to apply to a large surface in the game world, and have it repeat along the entire object, without obvious seams where one instance ends and the next begins. This is potentially the most efficient way to create good materials f or your game, however, most procedurally-created materials are quite clearly computer-generated-although the algorithms are improving all the time. Used wisely, however, they can be a tremendous time-saver for areas of your game which dont need to stand up to close scrutiny.High-poly to low-poly model and texture conversion. This is the most labor-intensive of the three options. This is frequently used for high-detail character models, or environment art that will be seen at close range (for example, walls that the character shelters behind in a first-person shooter). To perform this technique, an artist creates an extremely-high polygon model, far greater than the game engine is capable of handling in realtime, and then uses software techniques to bake textures onto a lower-polygon version of the same model. This transfers the surface detail from three-dimensional polygon data into a painted texture on the lower-poly model. This may include normal, bump, displacement, specular high light, ambient occlusion, and other map types to further create the illusion that the low-poly model has more detail than it does in reality. As you can imagine, the labor required to perform this process is extremely time and cost-prohibitive. The results can be spectacular, but you need to carefully assess whether this is necessary for your project. Most AAA games that are currently on the market for consoles use a combination of all three of these methods. You need to determine what is best suited for your project. If you are creating a more stylized game, hand-painted textures may be the way to go. If youre making a military first-person shooter, you are likely to use a lot of photo-based textures and high-poly models converted down with normal maps for maximum scene detail.