Ana içeriğe atla

Human Conflict in Herodotus and Caser

 


Herodotus and Caeser observers the political and ethical ramifications of wars in their contemplation into history. In, Xerxes Invades Greece, Herodotus revolves around the conflict among Persia, Greek, and Romans and the themes that prevail are power, greed, honor, and revenge. While all can contribute to the reasons for conflict, power shows itself as the strongest and most comprehensive. This is mainly because, in Herodotus narration, other motives contribute to one single motive, power, portraying it as the most prominent reason for human conflict. On the other hand, Julies Caesar gives an equal amount of importance to freedom and power.

Herodotus portrays power as the single most incentive drive that bears human conflict. In the first few paragraphs of Heredotious narration into Xerxes Invades Greece Xerces voices his convictions about why they should wage war and expand their expedition against Athens. One of the motives he touches upon is vengeance, “thereby I may obtain vengeance from the Athenians for the wrongs committed by them against the Persians and against my father” (Halsall, August 2000). However, vengeance is not the king’s motive, the core reason why he seeks revenge stems from his implacable desire to augment the power of Persians. He asserts that “I may rival those who have preceded me in this post of honor, and increase the power of Persia as much as any of them” (Halsall, August 2000) meaning he strives to transcend the achievements of his predecessors, and to do so he contemplates and finds going into war the fittest. Therefore, although Xerxes remarks that vengeance is one of his reasons, the true reason lies in his desire to acquire more power. This goes to illustrate that Heredotious depicts patriarchy, greed for wealth/land, and honor, alas, Heredotious’ narration also unveils that power is what binds them all. All these motives contribute to power.

What is more, the power Xerxes values is not solely about expanding its nation's lands, it is also about the Persian’s political power. Artabanus tries to employ a wiser approach to Xerxes brute force-driven plan but his argument fails. “Artabanus fearfully states that “Again, hurry always brings about disasters, from which huge sufferings are wont to arise; but in delay lie many advantages, not apparent (it may be) at first sight, but such as in course of time are seen of all. wisdom lacks but why?” (Halsall, August 2000) And Heredotious narrates “Artabanus loses the argument, and Xerxes prepares to invade Greece” (Halsall, August 2000). Although Herodotus does not provide a reason why or how his argument is refuted, it can be inferred that Xerxes values sustaining a powerful image more than securing a win. Anything distorting that image musters the utmost vengeance and anything that reinforces it is an absolute must. This is mainly because even though Xerxes revolves around the idea of dominating Europe, Herodotus’ obscure narration of how Artabanus argument is refuted so easily implies that Xerxes didn’t even listen to him. Consequently, this means that Xerxes prefers losing the battle and meeting his demise to backing off and losing his powerful image and honor. This denotes that Xerxes is not merely searching for materialistic achievements, Herodotus narration unveils that loots plundered in a war or conquered lands only signifies the power of the nation and that is why they are important. However, what carries the utmost importance is acquiring power which means the search for power is the primary source of human conflict.

On the other hand, Herodotus also touches upon other motives that are not necessarily pertinent to power. Tom Holland mentions that Herodotus’ narration sometimes presents itself to be one-sided and this may cause him to be considered as a “greek lover” Tom holland says “Herodotus is really playing off the idea of the Greeks as the defenders of the freedom whereas Persians as the slaves, they have to be wiped to the front” (Tom Holland on Herodotus' Histories, 2014). Tom Holland’s remark implies that the demeanors of individuals change in accordance with their nations. This explains why Persians were afraid to voice their ideas in front of Xerxes Greeks “the other Persians were silent; all feared to raise their voice against the plan proposed to them. This example bolsters Holland’s observation on Herodotus depiction of Persians, they are sheepishly following orders. Furthermore, Xerxes prefers to lose the battle to retreat. On the other hand, In the verge of war, the Greeks consider retreating “The Greek forces at Thermopylae, when the Persian army drew near to the entrance of the pass, were seized with fear; and a council was held to consider about a retreat” (Halsall, August 2000). and asking for help. This goes to allude to the idea that Greek valued freedom and winning the war more than sustaining their powerful image which proves that human conflict differs in Herodotus narration, and one of the reasons for it is freedom.

Julies Caesar draws the search for power and the urge to preserve freedom as two main motives for human conflict. Caesar in his The Gallic Wars starts his narration with an image where two clusters of communities, Gauls and Belgae were forming a unity against the Roman people. Caesar states that such an attempt of confederacy stems from their fear that they are going to be attacked, “because they feared that, after all [Celtic], Gaul was subdued, our army would be led against them (McDevitte and Bohn, p.1) “and also they wanted Germans to be banished from their territory. Caesar observation of their motives signifies one of the reasons that people find worthy fighting for, freedom. In other words, the reason Gauls and Belgae engage in a confederacy is to preserve their freedom and in order to protect it, they are ready to wage war. On the other hand, the Roman empire is waging war to control and conquer Gauls and Belgae and subject them under its dominion. This unveils that the reasons for conflict may present themselves as either power or freedom which are inevitably woven into each other. To put it simply, Caesar portrays the Roman Empire’s search for power as a reason for conflict, and he also depicts freedom as a motive for conflict.

In conclusion, Caesar and Herodotus contemplation into history unveils that power is one of the most common motives for men to wage war. Caeser takes a closer look at freedom and power. In the conflict between Gaul and Roman Empire what is most prevailing is Gaul’s attempt to sustain their freedom, while Roman’s implacable chase for asserting their dominance, and establishing an order with which they can control them. In addition, Herodotus’ articulation on Xerxes reveals that the most prominent impetus for human conflict is power. Herodotus presents many motives that can contribute to human conflict but all those motives such as honor and revenge are only entailed to the pursuit of acquiring power.  

 

Holland, Tom. 'Tom Holland on Herodotus' Histories.' YouTube, uploaded by the Hay Festival, 11 December 2014,  .

Caesar, Julius. Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, book 2. Translated by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn, The Internet Classics Archive, classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.2.2.html. Copy the URL to access this source.

Herodotus. 'Xerxes Invades Greece.' The Histories. Internet Ancient History Sourcebook, www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/herodotus-xerxes.asp. Copy the URL to access this source

Yorumlar

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...