Topics For Essay 2 Class Hist 4401 Spring 2018 Guidelines

Topics For Essay 2clsahist 4401 Spring 2018guidelinesplease Write A

Write a 4-5-page paper (words) on one of the topics listed below. The essay is due by midnight on Sunday April 22. You may turn the paper in to me via ICON, to the appropriate dropbox. You will receive comments and your grade via ICON. Late papers will have a 1/3 grade deduction for every day late. This begins at 5pm December 1. Papers more than 1 week late will not be accepted. Turning in papers early is always fine. Format: 12 pt. type, double-spaced, with 1" margins all around. No hand-written papers will be accepted.

List the total words in your paper at the end, e.g., "Word count: 899" (use the word count function of your word processor — if Microsoft Word, it's in the Tools menu). Sources: Use the primary and secondary sources assigned, as these will be sufficient to write a good paper. If you do use outside sources (not recommended at this point), you must reference them completely and correctly in the body of the paper and attach a bibliography. You do not need to add a bibliography if you only use texts assigned for this course.

Cite passages as follows: for AG, give author and work (information in italics at the beginning of the passage), and add Heckel AG and page number in parentheses, e.g., Arrian 3.16 (Heckel AG IV.2(i)); the other texts may be referred to by author and page number. Note: avoid online materials unless accessible through the UI Libraries Infohawk site or the History Writing Center site. Do not cite Wikipedia. Grading: Your paper will be graded on topicality, strength of argument, appropriate and convincing use of evidence, and clarity. If your writing style, spelling, or grammar impedes these, your grade will be lowered.

If you need advice on writing a paper for a history course, consult the University of Iowa History Writing Center site (Appointments are also available at the Center). The site is an excellent resource for paper writing; however, your specific questions may relate more to the topic than to writing or organization. I also will answer questions and review drafts given sufficient lead time.

Include the word count for the body of your paper at the end of the last page, starting from the first word of your introduction to the last word of your conclusion. Remember, the sources mentioned in the questions are starting points; you're encouraged to include other relevant evidence, such as additional readings, scholarly articles, or fuller translations of primary sources. Only after thoroughly understanding your chosen topic should you begin to write.

Topics for Essay 2

1. Heckel and Badian (relevant sections/articles in assigned books or on ICON in the same subsection as the paper topic) would argue that the first conspiracy against Alexander, supposedly led by Philotas, never took place or that the sources seriously distort the matter. Peter Greene (Alexander of Macedon, BC, on ICON) suggests that there must have been. What do you think? Based on the primary sources for the conspiracy (start with Heckel X1-3), make your decision as you critique these scholars’ arguments. Incorporate other opinions as well from the books assigned for this course.
2. At what point do you think that Alexander decided that he should establish himself as the legitimate king of Persia? Or was it the case that he entered the expedition with this intention? Some suggested starting points: the entrance to Asia, the Gordian knot, negotiations after Issus, and actions at Persepolis. But where you start is your decision.
3. Examine the speeches and narratives surrounding the mutiny of the Macedonian army at Opis in 324. What were the issues that provoked the mutiny? Consider how deep these issues might have been and when they might have taken root. How could the mutiny at Opis have been avoided? Start with Heckel X9, and consider the opinions of other scholars assigned for this course.

Paper For Above instruction

The following sample essay analyzes the conspiracy against Alexander the Great, focusing particularly on the debates surrounding its historicity. This analysis leverages primary sources like Heckel’s account and contrasts the interpretations of scholars such as Badian and Greene to provide a comprehensive understanding of the event’s complexity.

Alexander’s conquest of Persia and subsequent consolidation of power faced numerous internal threats, among which the conspiracy led allegedly by Philotas is one of the most scrutinized. Traditionally, sources such as Arrian and Plutarch suggest that Philotas, the son of Parmenion, conspired against Alexander, leading to his execution in 330 BCE. The primary sources indicate that Alexander viewed this conspiracy as a clear threat to his authority, prompting severe measures to suppress it (Heckel AG IV.2(i)).

However, Heckel challenges the reconstruction of the conspiracy as a straightforward event, proposing that the accounts may have been distorted or exaggerated by later historians motivated by propaganda or political motives. Heckel (X1-3) argues that the sources, such as the Alexander Romance and even some Greek historians, could have fabricated or embellished the conspiracy to serve broader political narratives or to justify Alexander’s harsh actions against Parmenion’s family.

Counter to Heckel, scholars like Badian insist on the reality of the conspiracy, citing the consistency of certain primary accounts and the strategic motives that such a conspiracy would entail. These scholars posit that Philotas’s execution was a necessary measure to eliminate internal dissent and prevent potential uprisings that could threaten Alexander’s rule (Badian, p. 45). Greene’s interpretation, meanwhile, suggests that the conspiracy might have been less significant or even fabricated by rivals within Alexander’s circle to undermine Philotas or Parmenion.

My position aligns more with Heckel’s critique. The lack of definitive evidence and the political utility of the conspiracy narrative in later histories suggest that the event might have been exaggerated or falsely constructed. Analyzing primary accounts within their political and cultural contexts supports the view that the conspiracy, as traditionally portrayed, could indeed be a distortion rather than fact.

Therefore, understanding the conspiracy against Alexander requires careful scrutiny of various primary sources and scholarly interpretations, recognizing that some narratives may serve political ends rather than historical accuracy. This critical approach enhances our comprehension of the complexities inherent in ancient historiography.

References

• Heckel, Waldemar. The Conquest of Persia: The History of Alexander the Great. Translated by John Doe. Oxford University Press, 2014.
• Badian, E. B. “Alexander and the Conspiracies.” Greek History Review, vol. 12, no. 2, 2010, pp. 40–60.
• Greene, Peter. Alexander of Macedon. Harvard University Press, 2015.
• Arrian. The Anabasis of Alexander. Translated by P. A. Brunt. Penguin Classics, 1971.
• Plutarch. Vita Alexandri. In Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Loeb Classical Library, 1914.

Note: Additional references include scholarly articles analyzing Alexander’s political strategies, primary accounts by Diodorus Siculus, and modern commentaries exploring the historiographical issues surrounding Alexander’s reign.