Hi folks! I want to use this week’s responses to dig into some of the key ideas of the course. Choose a question that you’re not sure about and talk about what you think is most important to understanding this aspect of the story.

Remember, the point here is not listing facts but interpretation. The questions on the review are meant to help you find a way of talking about the course material and making evidence-based assertions about how we can best understand the ancient Greek world.

The Peloponnesian War drastically reshaped Hellas by leaving the Greek world politically divided, economically weakened, and socially disillusioned. Before the war, Athens and Sparta represented two competing models of power—Athenian democracy supported by a naval empire and Spartan oligarchy grounded military discipline. The prolonged conflict destroyed this balance. Athens’ defeat led to the collapse of its empire, severe financial strain, and widespread doubt about democratic leadership, especially after the instability caused by the rule of the Thirty Tyrants. Although Sparta emerged victorious, it proved incapable of governing effectively, and its harsh treatment of other city-states generated resistance rather than unity.

Beyond political consequences, the war deeply affected Greek values and attitudes toward morality and power. Years of violence, plague, and civil conflict weakened traditional ideals such as moderation, justice, and civic responsibility. Thucydides emphasizes this moral decline in his account of events like the war Corcyra, where fear and ambition replaced law and custom. The Melian Dialogue further reflects a new emphasis on power over principle, showing how survival increasingly outweighed ethical considerations. By the war’s conclusion, Hellas was fragmented and exhausted, making the Greek city-states vulnerable to outside domination. Rather than strengthening Greece, the Peloponnesian War marked the beginning of its long term decline.

Spartans would explain their warrior society as one built upon discipline, duties and honor. These 3 ideals are central to understanding the way that Spartan society had operated, for one their political system only worked so long as corruption was avoided which can be noted by Aristotle. Furthermore their lands were completely worked by a slave class called heliots as the Spartan citizens would be trained for war from the age of 8 and women would control the land while the men were gone. This class of enslaved peoples is what allowed for Sparta to have a class of people solely focussed upon war. Women were important as they had many rights well above those of neighboring city states and were also seen as the last line of defense which gave them a certain right to power. These women were vastly important with child birth and raising Spartan children seen as being equally honorable to that of being a Spartan soldier. The Spartan mirage was essentially this image that Spartans were this unstoppable war machine and that idea stemmed from their ideals of perfect soldiers but as well as their portrayal with the battle of Thermopylae and the 300 to media coverage now with movies being made. But in reality Sparta ran off of war as they were not good at much of anything else not particularly interested in trade, work, literature or anything aside from war which would prove to be their downfall.    

Philip II and Alexander the Great were both influential rulers of Macedon who shared important similarities but also differed in their ambitions and goals, styles of leadership, and overall achievements. For example, both men were highly skilled military leaders. Philip reorganized the Macedonian army by creating the powerful phalanx formation and introducing the long spear, or sarissa, which made his army stronger and more disciplined. (Week 12 Slides) As Alexander inherited this army from his father, he proved himself to be an exceptional general, leading troops personally into battle and winning major victories such as the Battle of Issus against Darius in Persia. (Week 13 Slides) 

Concerning the differences between them, Philip’s main goal was to strengthen Macedon and unite the Greek city-states under his control. For example, after the decisive victory over Athens and Thebes at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE, Philip established the League of Corinth (or Hellenic League) to maintain unity in Greece. (Week 13 Slides) Alexander, however, sought far greater conquests. After becoming king, he invaded the Persian Empire, conquering vast territories that stretched from Greece to Egypt and into India. His victories at battles like Gaugamela demonstrate his desire to build a massive empire.(Week 13, Slide 52)

Additionally, their leadership styles also differed. Philip was practical and cautious, often using diplomacy, alliances, and marriages to secure power. Alexander was more daring and visionary, pushing his army into unknown lands and adopting elements of local cultures, such as Persian dress and customs, to help govern his empire. In conclusion, Philip laid the strong foundation of military and political power, while Alexander expanded upon it to create one of the largest empires in history.

I believe the Hellenistic world is different from earlier Greece because it moved away from small, independent city-states and became a large, multicultural world. In Classical Greece, people identified strongly with their polis, such as Athens or Sparta. After Alexander the Great, power shifted to large kingdoms, and Greek culture spread across many regions while mixing with local traditions.

One clear example from the readings and class discussions is Alexander’s policy of cultural blending. Alexander adopted Persian customs and encouraged marriages between Greeks and non-Greeks. This shows that the Hellenistic world was not only Greek but a mix of many cultures. Another example is the city of Alexandria in Egypt. The Library of Alexandria collected knowledge from across the Mediterranean and beyond, showing how culture and learning became international rather than focused on one city-state.

Philosophy is another strong example. In class, we learned that Stoicism and Epicureanism became popular during the Hellenistic period. Unlike earlier Greek philosophy, which focused on politics and the polis, these schools focused on personal happiness and inner peace. This reflects how people adapted to life in large empires where they had less political control.

Overall, these examples show that the Hellenistic world kept Greek culture but reshaped it to fit a much larger and more diverse society.

I highly enjoyed this course its not over yet but I do feel like I learne a deal of great things about ancient Greece I just found if strange how sparta is so rich in history,but yet they don't have as much history as the people that neighbord the lands around them. I understand they were rich in pride and war I just feel like the sparta story is not really told to the magnitude in which we should know. I really wish there was a indepth storyline that could tell exactly how sparta was