Sociological theories are statements addressing the supposed facts appertaining to figuring out the causality effects of certain historical events happening. The arguments tend to range from a scope of pinpoint description to a variety of evaluations and or interpretations with regards to the events. Apparently, some theoretical sociological paradigms are founded on the aspects of evaluating individual historical events to aid in the determination of prospects while some mainly endeavor to promote analyses of further propositions. To this end, this paper critically explores the theoretical sociological models which stand firmly to expound on the classical antiquities as regards Greece.
Evidently, there are several theories which affirm the historical perspectives of ancient Greece. Relevant research materials have been put forth to aid in the classification and or evaluation of the Greece’s economy at large. Also, the satisfactory findings from original documents done by renowned social scientists like Aristotle declare the debatable facts concerning the supposed dimensions needed for the in-depth study of ancient Greece.
Evidently, relevant arguments posed by Herzog, (2015) have likened the economy of ancient Greece as primitive, or modern. Apparently, other distinguished scholars suppose that scale of the economy of Greece in the Hellenistic era was rather great to be classified as primitive. To this end, the ancient Greece manifested itself on the perspectives about the apparent coexistence of different economic classes. A typical male citizen in the old Greece was overly suited to own property, hold public office and enjoy the right to vote. The women lacked the rights to do the same and as such were designated to certain house chores. There existed three distinct economic classes as regards the classical Greece. The first class, which was top of the social hierarchy, was characterized by the possession of large sums of money and or wealth. They were aliased “aristos” and were wealthier. They had access to armor, weapons and horses anytime they embarked on a military campaign. Aristocrats divided into rather potential factions and or clans which assumed control of all the political positions in the city-state. Their wealth came from property possessions and also from ownership of best lands which were fertile and nearest to the protection of city states.
The second class of citizens was paupers and was aliased “periokoi.” They owned land which was less fertile and located far from the city states thereby prompting the essential agency of security. Their properties were located far from the polis, and as such, they resorted to collecting themselves in strategic small villages which were proximate to the neighboring polis. Eventually, the second class grew rather substantially owing to the rising incidences of splitting of inheritances among siblings over time.
The third class constituted the middle and or business class, commonly known as the nouveau riche. The third class engaged widely in trade and commerce and all the related concepts of manufacturing and production of commodities. They were wealthy but lacked in the faculties about the rise in significant stations seeing as the aristoi jealously secured their status quo through the imposition of such policies as regards the dictatorial rise in power, strictly to persons who owned land. Regardless, the rising into powerful positions was thus supplemented by the movements between classes which categorically determined the amassing of wealth and bankruptcy by individual economic classes. The supposed rising or going down a notch in the economic classes was impacted by certain key factors such as the instance of ill-health, unsolicited political skirmishes, and war.
The ancient Greeks resorted to the first inquiries about the central hold of power. The subsequent failure and or delay in the settling of the issue led to the assumption of power by hereditary individuals which were classified as either monarchies or tyrants in accordance with Pleios, (2015). Or the intercept of political power by the select few, a system termed as oligarchies, or the supposed control of power by every male citizen, a system is known as democracy and which did more in the way of contributing significantly to the civilization of Greece. Correspondingly, sources reveal that Athens exhibited the aspects of democracy within its constitution, and was later emulated by other city-states. The assembly of Athens convened once a month in a spacious place capable of holding a considerable number of people. Any male eighteen years of age and over could air their views freely and vote by a show of hands. Attendances were accounted for through allowances to aid in the encouragement of the members who resided far. Quite so, citizens accounted for an insignificant percentage of the polis population trend. A smaller portion of the elite rather dominated the political playground, in the assembly or otherwise. Critics of democracy cited that the system could just as easily be manipulated by par excellence oratory skills or prominent leaders and in the event, get jeopardized by their feelings. The assembly in Athens prioritized issued in order of their significance and had within it, a select committee to oversee the discussions.
Another system explored by the ancient Greeks was the monarchies. Monarchies were rare and more often than not, were distinguishable from tyranny only when the hereditary leader was less of a despot and ruled with the interest of his people at heart. The most salient monarchies in ancient Greece were seen in the states of Macedonia and Epirus, where the leaders shared power with an existent assembly but were somewhat limited. Sparta fell short of being a monarch owing to the apparent system of two kings. They did wield significant power, though. The kings were subject to trial and even exile.
According to Nalbantoglou et al. (2015), tyranny manifested itself through such aspects as entails the existence of sole rulers of a polis who had ousted their incumbent predecessor through such vile acts as murder. Greek tyrants were not necessarily ill driven as is correlated with the word nowadays. They only acted in their interests. For Athenians, tyranny posed itself as a loophole for discrediting the Persian kings, Darius and Xerxes, the true archetypes of tyranny.
The concept of oligarchy entailed the incorporation of a system of power managed by a group of persons, small or otherwise. Oligarchies were the most salient system in use and were applied in the face of democracy dysfunction in ancient Greece. In Athens, the laws were implemented and enforced by magistrates. The concept of citizen participation was highly regarded in Greece.
Cite this page
Greeks Sociological Theory. (2017, Nov 06). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/2-greeks-sociological-theory
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: