#1
can someone read my essay and tell me how it is?

------------------

The Greco-Persian Wars, from a general perspective, saw the defeat of and ultimately, the downfall of the hegemonic dominant Persian Empire, at that time led under the helm of Xerxes I. In this same sense, it also saw to the rise and eventual glorification of Greece, under realization that their small groups of city-state militia, when united, could effectively cripple a much larger power such as the Persians. However, the real significance of the Greco-Persian Wars lies not in what came to an end as its result, but rather, what survived and flourished after it. With that time period in mind, the Greeks were arguable the first and foremost political innovators; especially with concern to Athens and their early democracy. After the wars, the Greeks would experience a “Golden Age”, and of course, the Peloponnesian Wars amongst themselves; but in general, a leap ahead in development in nearly all aspects of life. However, merely analyzing the wars as a whole is useless unless a specific cause and effect can be pinpointed. Can this be done, for such a large-scale and expansive war? The Battle of Salamis, in the end, directly caused the collapse of the Persian military exploit in the Hellenic region; but on a more abstract scale, allowed the Western civilization of the Greeks to survive. Salamis is in all likelihood, the single most influential military event in known history; not necessarily for its minor strategic innovations, nor the circumstances under which it occurred; but rather for the democratic system to which the victory ensured life indefinitely.
The Battle of Salamis was, by itself, by no means spectacularly remarkable. From certain perspectives, it can be seen as just another naval encounter which the Greeks happened to turn out victorious again. From a more intricate perspective, however, Salamis can be seen as a source of tactical innovation on behalf of the Greeks. Warfare in the classical West was extremely dependent on two things: size of the army, and size of the country in command of it; very basically, size was the most important factor behind military engagement in the ancient world. For example, the very fact that Persia was able to summon such a large navy (and a large infantry) was largely based on the fact that the Persian Empire was massive. The Greek city-states, on the other hand, even united, were miniscule in size compared to the Persians. However, the phalanx, as a formation, was very successful despite relatively small size compared to Persian forces against it would fight. The reason, of course, is closely related to size as well. The phalanx was based purely on brute force and the driving momentum of the formation. Simply put, the phalanx worked because it moved forward, and forward only. The significance of this otherwise commonplace historical fact in analysis of the battle of Salamis is that the success at Salamis was almost entirely based on the fact that the Greeks chose to row backwards, into a narrow strait. The rest is history: the low maneuverability of this section disabled use of the size factor of the Persian fleet, and in come the Greeks, and down the Persians go. Had the Hellenic fleet tried a phalanx-type organization in this situation, they undoubtedly would have been overrun by the much larger Persian fleet; so in this sense, the battle at Salamis was tactically innovative because it saw a divergence from the mob mentality that drove phalanxes (and the rest of Greek warfare).
What if the Greeks had indeed been overrun by the Persians? What would have come about as a result of Salamis, if that were the case? Of course, Greece definitely would have met a quick demise at the hands of Xerxes, but the most important thing that may have been lost is the Greek democracy. Taking into perspective the rest of the Persian engagement with the Greek city-states, it is hard not to say that Salamis marked the turning point of the Greco-Persian wars. Persia’s navy was under all circumstances, massive and very well equipped. The vast land mass that belonged to the Persian Empire was subsequently rather dependent on the maritime strength of the military. Because of this, and especially, the disproportionately heavy defeat of the Persian fleet at Salamis, the rest of the Persian army could not be reached or supplied effectively, from a relatively barren Greek territory. Victory at Salamis completely, utterly crippled the Persian military effort into Greece. After the battle at Salamis, the Greeks finally scattered the Persian force at Plataea, giving way to the end of the strenuously long Greco-Persian Wars. Salamis was by all means, the critical and decisive turning point of the war. The almost improbably formed alliance of Greek city-states, though shaky, was at long last able to defeat the Persian advance into the Mediterranean, and subsequently, Greece flourished. More specifically, and more importantly, democracy flourished. As a direct result of Salamis, democracy was stronger than ever: the triremes’ rowing crew gained democratic rights as a function of their duty in battle. This increased the spectrum of democracy to not merely high and middle-class citizens, but also the everyman who worked for the higher-ups. With no Persian threat, the democratic system flourished, eventually giving rise to Western civilization as it is known today. The end result of the battle of Salamis was not a crushed Persian navy, but democracy.
The naval engagement at Salamis was undoubtedly one of the most influential battles of all time. The decisive victory for the Greeks marked a pivotal turn for the outcome of the Greco-Persian wars. With the Persians incomparably shattered, the Peloponnesus could flourish and prosper. This allowed the democratic system of government to develop, as well as a specific Western culture. The spark of Western political philosophy with Plato, Socrates and Aristotle would have never happened if the Persians had indeed won. Indeed, the battle of Salamis allowed the continuation of a Western culture. No materialization of intellect and art would have been possible, no West would have ever risen to prominence had the battle at Salamis not been fought and won.

-----------

thanks, lol
Quote by SeveralSpecies
Btw, I don't spell it doughnut, because that spells duff-nut.
#2
nope. too lazy
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way
#6
hegemonic is totally the coolest word on the planet ... aside from taft
#7
You repeat some words too often so go back and use a thesaurus, some facts were overstated, minor spelling mistakes (grammar?), one thing that I didn't like was that you said western civilization as we know it would never exist but, how do you know? Change that, but over all it was good.
Quote by Senor Kristian
Viking fact no. 1: Viking helmets did not have horn.
Viking fact no. 2: Vikings tobogganed on their shields into battle.
Viking fact no. 3: Vikings drank mead.
Viking fact no. 4: One of your ancestors are likely to have been raped by a viking.
#8
interesting, but too short, needs more details and it needs to be proofread.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#9
some parts are a little too wordy. check it over again, you do want interesting and varied sentence structures and vocabulary but it looks a little overdone.
#10
Actually it is darn good. I noticed you were very observant with details and the way you put it on paper actually makes it more interesting. On the other hand though there are too many commas and pauses--and I mean too many and it appears cluttered. On the other hand good job, you're just on one of the select few intelligent posters here in UG compared to the vast noob majority
#11
was the essay just about the battle and its influence or the war as a whole? if the war as a whole you missed alot:p but if not it seems fine...