There have existed many forms of government worldwide, but none of them resemble modern systems. However, the Greek government model was the foundation for the United States and some other Western nations. To understand these societies perfectly, we must first study the Greek one and how every aspect of it worked. Herodotus’ ‘Histories’ is a great place to begin since it is a crucial source of information on the Athenian political ideology. Throughout this work, which is a collection of nine books, Herodotus talks about the political atmosphere in his time and significant events that occurred and connects them to the Persian war’s atmosphere while giving his arguments. His work is more than a historical narrative, and it is an academic work where dialogue happens between political thinkers of Herodotus’ time. He wrote at a pivotal time in history, and the ideas he developed helped shape how his peers perceived politics.
Herodotus compares the forms of government in Athens and Persia, a democracy and a monarchy, respectively. He mentions them multiple times in Histories, negatively and positively. For him, freedom was not caused by Athens’ constitution and democratic nature, but rather by the lack of inequality and tyranny in society. An example is his belief that Sparta was a free region, despite its undemocratic state and being one of the most regulated Greek cities. Herodotus valued equality above all else, and he believed that it was the foundation of a good government. In 5.92 of his work, Herodotus has Socles, a character, state that abolishing a democracy for tyranny is comparable to turning the world upside down. He was firmly against an act like this since he believed that having an unequal government goes against the natural order.
Herodotus supports his argument for a tyrannical government by bringing attention to the issues of democracy. An example is when he does not depict the Athenian autocrat Peisistratos as a corrupt or harsh individual. He notes that “Pisistratus ruled the Athenians, disturbing in no way the order of offices nor changing the laws, but governing the city according to its established constitution and arranging all things fairly and well.” People falsely believed that the Athenians were oppressed, but their ruler did not rule because of greed, but rather because he felt he was entitled to the position. We can, therefore, conclude that Herodotus did not believe that tyranny was absolute evil. He never neglects to mention that tyranny is a political system and acknowledges that it is riddled with limitations like people lacking absolute freedom. There is considerable evidence supporting democracy. He uses a speech from a Persian political discussion where Otanes states that the favorable rule is the one by the majority because it promotes equal rights. Otanes believed that the democracy described by Herodotus would be the foundation for a good, functional society. Reading further, we find that Herodotus’ opposition to tyranny was mainly because he had noted that no Greek stated had lasted in a tyrannical government.
Herodotus’ work also focuses on the rudimental elements of the Athenian democratic ideology. He describes how the Spartans feared the Athenian power since it would grow to be their rival and to stop this from happening, they reinstated tyranny to weaken them. It further goes to prove his belief that tyranny equaled weakness, and democratic freedom was the path to gaining strength and power. Athenian ideology in Histories is apparent in Otane’s speech, where he praises democracy. He says that it “determines offices by lot, and holds power accountable, and conducts all deliberating publicly.” According to him, the rule of the people and their general assembly are what truly define democracy. Herodotus refers to the Athenian ideology on democracy multiple times in his work through his words and characters. To him, attaining freedom is a sure way to gaining strength and power, while tyranny is the complete opposite. It is why the Athenians grew powerful and why the Spartans had to incorporate a tyrannical system in their government to weaken them.
Mandeville’s travels has no clear author, and it began to circulate in the late 1350s. The narrator acknowledges that he is a knight which is plausible because, at the time, there was a growing number of milites literati in England. Not knowing who the author is does not affect the quality of this work, whose complexity knows no bounds. The way the narration is done ensures that readers can access diverse information from various sources. The information is filtered through the judgment of the narrator, whose intimate relationship with the readers ensures that they trust his authority on the subject matter. The book describes the journey to Egypt from the Holy Land and describes various recognized pilgrim itineraries from Western Europe. Mandeville’s book was a way for people who did not make pilgrimages to travel to these regions mentally. All the places visited in the book were kinked with their Biblical history.
In the book, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Nestorian are depicted fairly, and the narrator emphasizes that their teachings are related. Their main link was how the papacy perceived them as being heretical and schismatic, which shows that Rome’s position was not reasonable. When in Egypt, the narrator claims that they served in the Sultan’s army and recalls a conversation he had where religion and the practices of the West are discussed. The Sultan notes how Christians do not behave like they profess, thus justifying the belief that Muslims are morally superior to them, especially when it comes to charity. He shows the failings of Christianity by comparing them to the cannibalism of Lamory, the cult of Juggernaut and polyandry. At the time, this was a revolutionary stance because most people did not dare speak on the overconfidence and pride of the Latin Church compared to other churches and religions. Mandeville’s criticism is indirect, though that does not take away from its profound message. He is still a staunch Catholic despite his praise of the Greek and Muslim religions, and he never questions the central doctrines of Christianity.
Mandeville’s book was at the time an up to date account of the world. Europe’s moral superiority over the rest of the world was questioned, and the customs and beliefs of the East that were looked down on are used to critique the behavior of the Christian world. He emphasizes that what is considered normal in Europe might be seen as weird in the East and focuses on the need to view our world from a different perspective. An example he gives is the Vegetable lamb of Tartary, a story no one had questioned for years in the West for hundreds of years, which people in the East would not have hesitated to question.