obimoshman1234
the one and only
just wondering how other people would go about answering that uestion. So if u dont mind just leaving like an outline of ur answer so i can compare to what i wrote would be cool ty.
yes this is true, but i think the question is asking why greece did not allow itself to become a subject state to persia, why it said no and faught back- ie the differences between greece and other states that peacefully became part of the persian empire.Rhanoct said:ummm.. isn't it more why did persia go to war with greece? 1) policy of eastern expansion 2) revenge for the burning of sardis
greece could either go to war with persia or be absorbed into the empire..
hope i'm not missing something obvious >:|
I did the same exam as you but did not choose this question. The way i interpreted it was the reasoning why the greeks got involved in warfare with the persians.obimoshman1234 said:ok what i wrote is what i got in my trials ok not persia with greece rather greece with persia. i will wait for couple more replies then outline what i did cause apparently i answered it correctly according to my teacher who marked this section. But so far 2inspr and may-cat on right track but u must remember its the whole time period and that the Persian wars continued until 448 bc when treaty was signed but thats all i will say.
Yea i went further than marathon pretty much i went till 448 bc when treaty was signed. Mainly saying how ionian revolt was techically act of war by greece which is is if u think about it. Then continued to say that war with persia inevitable and the battles which occured on greek soil are proof of this and that the greeks went to war for defencsive reasons. Then continued on saying how Greece CONTINUED or in otherwords went to war again through Delian league and the actions they took up and the reasons for this. I didnt get ful marks mainly cause i didnt argue strongly enough on the inevitability of the war i.e. mentioning themistocles preparations creating athenian fleet that sorta stuff. I mean i didnt actually describe one battle at all but rather mention them and the outcomes really i didnt think it would need describtion of battle.-may-cat- said:I did the same exam as you but did not choose this question. The way i interpreted it was the reasoning why the greeks got involved in warfare with the persians.
When discussing how i would tackle this question with my teacher, he told me not to get sucked into the trap of describing why the greeks went to the individual battles themselves, instead to look at the underlying reasons for the whole war and focus on how different historians have portrayed these reasons, not going anywhere past Marathon in terms of description of individual battles.
Did you go further then Marathon? In Ancient it is highly possible that two essays could argue in completly different ways and both receive full marks
I go to mosman high. I can see your argument, i think both answers would probably be acceptable, as long as you were strong in your justificationsobimoshman1234 said:Yea i went further than marathon pretty much i went till 448 bc when treaty was signed. Mainly saying how ionian revolt was techically act of war by greece which is is if u think about it. Then continued to say that war with persia inevitable and the battles which occured on greek soil are proof of this and that the greeks went to war for defencsive reasons. Then continued on saying how Greece CONTINUED or in otherwords went to war again through Delian league and the actions they took up and the reasons for this. I didnt get ful marks mainly cause i didnt argue strongly enough on the inevitability of the war i.e. mentioning themistocles preparations creating athenian fleet that sorta stuff. I mean i didnt actually describe one battle at all but rather mention them and the outcomes really i didnt think it would need describtion of battle.
But i guess ur right may-cat both answers probably right what school u go to anyway????????
yea, i love ancient history like that, how different conclusions can be made depending on how you choose to view the sources.obimoshman1234 said:yea that why i didnt get full marks cause i didnt put enough evidence for the inevitability of the war but cool now i haev another way to approach this uestion and other people can see how it should be answered lol