Why did the Athens had a greater impact on the shaping of modern-day America? Please include 5 quotes and reasons behind. Like I have said please don’t reject the question please. The question is not complex. Please and thank you
Transcribed Image Text: 1 of 4
Ancient History Sourcebook:
Thucydides (c.460/455-c.399 BCE): Pericles' Funeral Oration
from the Peloponnesian War (Book 2.34-46)
This famous speech was given by the Athenian leader Pericles after the first battles of the Peloponnesian war.
Funerals after such battles were public rituals and Pericles used the occasion to make a classic statement of the value
of democracy.
In the same winter the Athenians gave a funeral at the public cost to those who had first fallen in this war. It was a
custom of their ancestors, and the manner of it is as follows. Three days before the ceremony, the bones of the dead
are laid out in a tent which has been erected; and their friends bring to their relatives such offerings as they please.
In the funeral procession cypress coffins are borne in cars, one for each tribe; the bones of the deceased being
placed in the coffin of their tribe. Among these is carried one empty bier decked for the missing, that is, for those
whose bodies could not be recovered. Any citizen or stranger who pleases, joins in the procession: and the female
relatives are there to wail at the burial. The dead are laid in the public sepulchre in the Beautiful suburb of the city, in
which those who fall in war are always buried; with the exception of those slain at Marathon, who for their singular
and extraordinary valour were interred on the spot where they fell. After the bodies have been laid in the earth, a
hosen
state, of approved wisdom and eminent reputation, pronounces over them an appropriate
panegyric; after which all retire. Such is the manner of the burying; and throughout the whole of the war, whenever
the occasion arose, the established custom was observed. Meanwhile these were the first that had fallen, and
Pericles, son of Xanthippus, was chosen to pronounce their eulogium. When the proper time arrived, he advanced
from the sepulchre to an elevated platform in order to be heard by as many of the crowd as possible, and spoke as
follows:
"Most of my predecessors in this place have commended him who made this speech part of the law, telling us that it
is well that it should be delivered at the burial of those who fall in battle. For myself, I should have thought that the
worth which had displayed itself in deeds would be sufficiently rewarded by honours also shown by deeds; such as
you now see in this funeral prepared at the people's cost. And I could have wished that the reputations of many
brave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth of a single individual, to stand or fall according as he spoke well or
ill. For it is hard to speak properly upon a subject where it is even difficult to convince your hearers that you are
speaking the truth. On the one hand, the friend who is familiar with every fact of the story may think that some point
has not been set forth with that fullness which he wishes and knows it to deserve; on the other, he who is a stranger
to the matter may be led by envy to suspect exaggeration if he hears anything above his own nature. For men can
endure to hear others praised only so long as they can severally persuade themselves of their own ability to equal
the actions recounted: when this point is passed, envy comes in and with it incredulity. However, since our ancestors
have stamped this custom with their approval, it becomes my duty to obey the law and to try to satisfy your several
wishes and opinions as best I may.
"I shall begin with our ancestors: it is both just and proper that they should have the honour of the first mention on
an occasion like the present. They dwelt in the country without break in the succession from generation to
generation, and handed it down free to the present time by their valour. And if our more remote ancestors deserve
praise, much more do our own fathers, who added to their inheritance the empire which we now possess, and
spared no pains to be able to leave their acquisitions to us of the present generation. Lastly, there are few parts of
our dominions that have not been augmented by those of us here, who are still more or less in the vigour of life;
while the mother country has been furnished by us with everything that can enable her to depend on her own
resources whether for war or for peace. That part of our history which tells of the military achievements which gave
us our several possessions, or of the ready valour with which either we or our fathers stemmed the tide of Hellenic or
foreign aggression, is a theme too familiar to my hearers for me to dilate on, and I shall therefore pass it by. But
what was the road by which we reached our position, what the form of government under which our greatness grew,
what the national habits out of which it sprang; these are questions which I may try to solve before I proceed to my
Transcribed Image Text: 1 of 4
Polybius 6.11.11-6.18.3:
The Constitution of the Roman Republic
John Porter, translator
Notice: This translation is the copyrighted property of the author and should not be reproduced
without the author's permission.
Thanks are due to Professor Michael Swan for his many useful comments and suggestions on an
earlier version of this document.
Any remaining errors or infelicities are, of course, those of the author.
[Polybius here sets forth a general analysis of the Roman constitution at the time of the
Second Punic War.]
[6.11.11] I have already mentioned the three divisions of government in control of state affairs.
Regarding their respective roles, everything was so equally and fittingly set out and
administered, in all respects, that no one, not even any of the Romans themselves, could say for
certain whether their system of government was aristocratic in its general nature, or democratic,
or monarchical. And this uncertainty is only reasonable, for if we were to focus on the powers of
the consuls it would appear to be altogether monarchical and kingly in nature. If, however, we
were to focus on the powers of the Senate, it would appear to be a government under the control
of an aristocracy. And yet if one were to look at the powers enjoyed by the People, it would seem
plain that it was democratic in nature. As for the parts of government controlled by each element,
they were at that time and (with a few exceptions) still are as follows:
[6.12.1] The consuls, when in Rome prior to leading out their legions, are in charge of all public
affairs. For all of the other public officials, with the exception of the tribunes, are below the
consuls and subject to their authority, and it is the consuls who introduce ambassadors to the
Senate. In addition to the powers just mentioned, the consuls introduce to the Senate urgent
matters for its consideration and bring about the detailed implementation of its decrees.
Moreover, it is the consuls' duty to consider all matters of public concern which are to be decided
by the People: they summon the assemblies, introduce measures requiring a vote, and have
authority over the execution of the decisions of the majority. Furthermore, they enjoy nearly
autocratic powers as regards preparations for war and the general conduct of military affairs in
the field. It is within their power to give whatever commands to the allies that they think right, to
appoint military tribunes, to levy soldiers, and to choose those fit for military service. When in
the field they also have authority to punish any of those under their command whom they wish.
And they have the power to dispense whatever public funds they might propose, a quaestor being
appointed to accompany them and carry out their orders in such matters. As a result, one might