2000 word essay about similarities on how Ancient Greece and Rome fell

>2000 word essay about similarities on how Ancient Greece and Rome fell
>Gives one week

Is this normal?

For an intro class, yes. 2000 word essays are nothing; if you're anything like me, you'll average 800 words on a single spaced page (halve that if your professor wants doublespacing), so you're talking 2.5-5 pages. Depending on how much research you need to do, you should be able to kick that back in an afternoon, 2 days at the very most if you need to do a lot of looking into things.

It does seem a bit short.

I bet if you told the truth they wouldn't like it

Writing it can be done in a day or two easily, I churned out shit like that overnight when I was a lazy student who left things to the last minute, but surely if OP hasn't already been studying this he needs to read a few books first. Hard to get enough reading done in a week for a decent essay unless you have nothing else to.

They both fell to Christianity, it sounds like a simple essay to me.

I'll save you some time
It was (((degeneracy)))

What ancient Greece? Mycenaeans in the Bronze Age Collapse? Conquest of Greece by Rome? The transformation of classical Greek society into medieval Byzantine Greece?

this.

Don't have much book resources because I'm currently a foreign exchange student

Athens specifically

Which fall of Ancient Greece?
For that matter which Fall of Rome?

Athens was a maritime power conquered by Sparta after like 24 years of war, Rome was a land power which disintegrated over the course of centuries of misrule and military-economic decline. What similarities even are there?

The actual question was:
"Were there any common factors which brought about the collapse of 'democracy' in both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome?"

>Athens

Well, Athens never "fell" in a way that Rome did, in battle or the like. It just kind of fell into irrelevance. Perhaps you could talk about how both the city of Rome and the city of Athens gradually became more and more irrelevant to the Roman empire after the founding of Constantinople. How important/unimportant were they really in the final years of the Principate and the beginning of the Dominate? What exactly did Constantinople take away from them that made them unneeded? What did Byzantines think of these cities which were so important in ancient times?

This thread is a meme guys don't reply

>greek tech spreads to rome
>rome conquers greece
>rome tech spreads to germania
>germanics conquer rome

is this some kind of meme where you pretend a small essay is difficult? 2000 words is nothing, this post is already over 2% your essay

Oh well never mind about my post then.

That's very doable. Pop an addie and you can easily crank it out in one productive day. 2-3 tops

That sounds pretty easy, corruption and oligarchy there you go

>200 word essay due tomorrow

Guys...

Sounds pretty short

1)Which greece
2)Which Rome

Doesn't Christianity come with virtues like chastity and diligence that would normally prevent such a fall?

literally half an hour of typing

>200 words
>an essay

>newfags don't know pasta
>oh we were double memeing
>oh this reply is part of the joke
Et cetera, et cetera

>pretending to be retarded
>haha memes, my dudes

>newfags

>2000 words
why bother you can barely explain why you have chosen your thesis statement

>believing in simple cultural adherence
economy is the only factor that forces societal change

(free) time allows people to organize

This 2000 words is nothing. OP is a brainlet

...ancient greece did?

Lemme guess ”DA JOOOOOOOOS"

>virtues like chastity and diligence that would normally prevent such a fall?
that's fucking cute

Ancient Rome here sounds like the Republic
>demogaoges
>constant war and unrest
>more poverty that demogaoges took advantage of
Plutarch does specify that a growing gap between rich and poor causes unrest. It's in his life of the Gracchi.

Above are similarities between the two. Another one would be it was a multigeneration phenomena. Nothing instant.

OP, you're pathetic. I gave myself a 15 minute timer and no research beyond what I generally knew about the two (and that's very heavily biased towards Rome) and I came up with a 970 "essay", although it's very clearly unpolished. Will put it up in the upcoming posts to give you at least a very basic and biased idea of how simple a topic this is.

The collapse of democratic and republican forms of governance in Ancient Rome and Classical Athens had few if any common factors. They were dissimilar in governance in the first place, and the collapse of such political formats were created from different pressures and would go on to different lasting effects.

The Roman Republic is traditionally dated at around 507 B.C., with the collapse of the Tarquin dynasty, and lasted for some five centuries, ultimately becoming the dominant power in the Mediterranean by the time it was done for. When it did, what vanished was the Roman Republic itself, not the Roman state; Rome would transition into an empire that encompassed all of the same territories, be dominated by the same ethnic group, and generally enjoy wealth and stability for more centuries to come.

The causes of this collapse are complicated, as the Roman Republic was a dynamic political setup with numerous reforms and changes over the centuries, but certainly a strong theory can be found in Livy's notions of class and how they worked together. When the city of Rome was acting as a city-state, you had two main classes, the wealthier “Patrician” families, and the poorer “plebian” families. While relations between the two were not always smooth, they needed each other's minimum co-operation, if for no other reason than survival against external enemies in what's now central Italy. Without Patrician money and organization, or without plebian manpower, the army could not field itself, and someone like the Volscians or the Aquinians would come along and plunder them. As the Republic expanded, you included an ever growing number of allied cities and communities that would add a third class, or perhaps multiple classes to the mix.

1/4?

Individual classes fortunes would wax and wane with the crisis of the day and the reaction to it, but ultimately the system was held in a kind of stability as the pressing need to be able to project military force in a hostile world bound them together.

Then, in the very late second century B.C., consul Gaius Marius instituted a sweeping reform of the Roman military. No longer would the Republic be defended by a citizen's militia that would arm themselves at personal expense and be provisioned by wealthy citizen contribution, he overhauled the system to create a standing professional army that would be provisioned by their commanders and the votes of the Roman Senate. While this had many benefits to the Roman state and was probably necessary due to the crises of the time, it had some unanticipated drawbacks. No longer were all the classes of the Roman Republic bound together in what was essentially a mutual defense pact. Instead of shifting power between the various classes already extant, Marius created a new class, the professional soldier. This class, like classes generally do, started to act in its own interests. The new power in Rome was the army itself, and by extension the army chiefs. Marius would become increasingly dicatorial, and his ideas were stopped by another military figure, his lieutenant Sulla, who tried to turn the clock back. But even Sulla's purges could do little to stop the Senate from being completely impotent in the face of an out of control general, a problem the Republic never really had to deal with, and after a few more civil wars, the entire edifice came crashing down, Octavian, better known as Augustus, took the title of “First Citizen”, centralized command of the legions (The real key to power and stability at that point), and ruled the Roman Empire, spanning the entirety of the Mediterranean.

2/4

Athens has few points of comparison to this. Athenian democracy was a direct legislative democracy of their citizens, rather than a very civically constricted republic as the Romans had. At their height, they had an empire which was miniscule compared to Rome, and far less internally stable, since they acted more as a protection racket and could barely integrate their subject cities. Unlike the Romans, they did not generally attempt to rule the “foreign policy” of their occupied territories, instead just insisting on tribute. It did not last, when the Peloponesean war against Sparta was lost, those polities declared independence. Democracy was temporarily extinguished, not from internal reform and revolution, but from an external enemy in the Lacedemonians imposing an oligarchy on a conquered government. And this government was extremely unstable, lasting little more than a year before being overthrown by the enormous number of people inside Athens they had offended. This new democratic regime lasted until the conquest of Athens (and all of Greece) by Phillip of Macedon in 338 B.C. Some thirty years later, when Macedonian rule had declined, you again had democratic government in Athens, albeit one that still paid heed to Macedonian dictates. This government would last until the Romans turned them into a civitas foederata, which still held democratic traditions, at least in the municipal sense. Democracy in Athens would not fully extinguish until the times of the Roman Empire. In all cases, the collapse of Athenian democracy was synonymous with conquest and collapse of the Athenian state, and a new regime being imposed by outsiders. It seems reasonable to suppose that in absence of some sort of external pressure imposing government from without, Athens would have stayed in a democratic form more or less forever.

3/4

This is not to say, of course, that Athenian democracy was eternally stable. By its very nature with weak structural limits on the legislative power, people came and went, were exiled and executed, and the government changed its mind with the wind. But the very notion that democratic rule was the “proper” way for Athens stuck around through the centuries, and what voices there were inside the polis calling for its end were few, far between, and generally unheeded.
4/4

Are you an idiot?

>3 word essay on the Holy Roman Empire due tomorrow

WE

Complexity.

But it's more fun than the neonazi morons.

nice job meanie

>Write >Holy >Roman >Empire
>Get A