Recently in class, we received our packets for our Revolutions Unit. As an introduction, we read part of Leon Batista Alberti’s biography. Leon Batista Alberti lived during the 1400s and is considered to have been a “Renaissance man.” A “Renaissance man” is someone who has interest and knowledge regarding many different subjects.

Something that I noticed was how the first page of the reading was mainly about Alberti’s skills and areas in which he excelled. He mentioned horseback riding, archery, mathematics, physics, canon and civil law and much more. Later he transitioned into stories that show many positive character traits such as dedication, loyalty, and self-control. The word choice is also different from many books and literature I have previously read. Usually when a person is being complimented, the person gets time to shine, but it is not in a way that might come across as bragging. Alberti’s autobiography, however, has some sort of a compliment about himself in almost every sentence. Maybe society was different during the Renaissance, and it was acceptable for someone to show such little humility. As a class, we thought it was definitely coming across as boastful, but I think the writer and receiver of such compliments plays a large role in how we perceive the writer of the compliments.

In the instance of Alberti’s autobiography, the compliments are written by him and directed towards him. This is likely why it comes across as egotistical and braggadocious. If he were writing these same exact things about someone else, would we still think of him in the same way? I tend to think we would not. People who compliment others are commonly seen as kind and uplifting rather than thinking highly of themselves. Even if Alberti wrote these same compliments about a group of people that included himself, the positive remarks would not be so concentrated solely on him. This could give the tone of the writing more of a “group effort” feeling and still not lead readers to infer that the author is self-centered and arrogant.

Alberti’s writing also led me to think about the differences between how people were during the Renaissance and how people are today involving professions and areas of study. Based on the term “Renaissance man” and the contents of Alberti’s autobiography, people living during the Renaissance had a goal of becoming a master of almost everything. Now, people may have hobbies and interests on the side, but they commonly hone in on one specific area of expertise and/or skill set for a given profession. People still change careers, but to me it does not seem like people are trying to be an expert in everything all at once like it appears to have been during the Renaissance.

Another point that was mentioned during class was that people did not think of themselves as living during the Renaissance. That is only a term people have given to the time period after it ended. I decided to look up the time period of the Renaissance and word history of the Renaissance. I found that the Renaissance time period refers to the 14th century to the 17th century, but the word Renaissance did not start to be used until 1837. This goes to show the separation of when the Renaissance ended and when people started to call it as such.

As the second semester began, our class continued our simulation of the Athens versus Melos conflict. We were getting close to reaching a resolution, but some things still had to be decided upon to reach a complete agreement between the two sides.

In the previous negotiation session, Athens and Melos both hinted at possibly agreeing that Melos could join the Delian League for 10 years with a one-time contribution of 200 troops and 3 ships. What was left to be discussed was how many talents Melos would pay to Athens each year. This turned out to be a large point of negotiation. Athens wanted at least 10 talents annually from Melos, but Melos wanted the amount to be no higher than 5 talents per year. Then we tried coming up with different numbers of talents, such as 7 talents or 9 talents, but these were arbitrary numbers that were disputed among negotiators. There did not seem to be any way to reach an agreement about the number of talents given annually to Athens by Melos. How would the negotiations proceed now?

Then Melos offered to raise the number of ships in the one-time contribution if the number of annual talents was lowered. That got people talking, but neither side was really willing to go as high or low as the other side wanted. Melos claimed that they did not make enough money to pay the 10 talents annually that Athens was asking for. They said that they only made 40 talents per year, and giving up a quarter of their revenue would cause their people to starve. Then Athens proposed that Melos could gradually increase the cost of their goods to slowly start bringing in more and more money. At the same time, Melos would be able to pay Athens a gradually increasing amount of talents as their income grows. This was a plan that both sides could agree on. We decided that we would have the number of talents be seven talents for the first two years, eight talents in the third and fourth years, and so on, until there were 11 talents in the ninth and tenth years. Melos also added one more ship to the one-time contribution for a total of 200 troops and 4 ships. With this compromise of yearly payment, the Athens versus Melos conflict was resolved. Melos agreed to join the Delian League for ten years with a one-time contribution of 200 troops and 4 ships, in addition to the annually increasing amount of talents. Athens agreed to let Melos keep its oligarchic form of government, and they removed their troops off of Melos’ shores and got rid of the naval blockade. An agreement had been reached.

When I thought about it, the negotiations turned out so well because each side maintained what they thought were important aspects of their identities. Athens was able to maintain its self-identity of a noble empire, spreading democracy and expanding the Delian League. Melos retained its self identity of a centuries-old oligarchy, thriving and independent from the reaches of democracy. Overall, the scenario became a “meet in the middle” situation where neither side got everything they wanted. Even still, both sides came away from the conflict satisfied with the outcome, and Athens and Melos could exist together in peace.

This week was the last week of the first semester. In class this week, we started our Athens vs. Melos negotiation role play. The class was split into four groups: Athenian Admirals, Melosian Rulers, Athenian Generals, and Melosian Generals. Each of the four groups had a confidential set of goals and strategies for the negotiation.

This Athens vs. Melos activity has proven itself to be one of my favorites activities from history class so far this year. The way the desks are set up in the classroom really sets the atmosphere for me. There are four desks facing each other in the center, enough for one representative from each of the four groups. The rest of the desks are placed behind the desks in the center for the people who are not speaking at any particular moment. It is like each of us are highly respected individuals from our own countries that have met for the sole purpose of negotiation and progress. It transforms the space from a classroom into what feels like an official space for deliberation.

I have never done a role play like this before, and the new experience is fun and engaging. It is good that as a class we were given lots of information and notes to help us prepare for the discussions. There are also clear points of view for both Athens and Melos, so there is not anyone who is indifferent about how the negotiations may go. I like it when I am at the center table and I get to voice what my group’s proposals are. Both sides play their roles well, and it is interesting how the negotiations flow. For the most part, either Athens or Melos proposes something, and the other side responds. If there is a disagreement, the side that disagrees will usually propose something more moderate than what had been originally suggested. The discussion continues in this manner until both sides reach some type of agreement about a certain issue.

It is also nice that the negotiations are formal and relaxed at the same time. The negotiations are relaxed since we know we are only playing roles, and everyone knows that we are learning as we go along. However, it also feels very formal. We have had opening statements from each of the four groups. There has also been a contract of the terms of controlling violence between Athens and Melos. As Athens and Melos groups, we often like to confer within our country’s groups, and we say something along the lines of: “We would like to request a 90 second independent caucus.” Then we vote to decide if the motion is approved, and there are other things that make the discussions feel real as well. There is definitely structure and a process to these negotiations. That helps so that we are not just making up lines on the spot.

We are going to write an essay about the usefulness of the Workable Peace Framework based on how our negotiations go as we follow the Workable Peace Framework. We noted that it may be helpful to separate identities, beliefs, interests, and emotions to examine our own country’s position in the negotiations as well as the other country’s position.

Happy New Year! During our first week back from Winter Break, we began to prepare for our Athens versus Melos role play. In addition to reading background information about ancient Greece, Athens, and Melos, and learning about the different roles, we looked at the Workable Peace Framework for handling disagreements and conflicts.

The Workable Peace Framework is represented as a diagram. The center of the diagram is a circle labeled “Sources of Conflict” that is divided into quadrants. There is one category in each of the quadrants: Identities, beliefs, emotions, and interests. We examined how identities, beliefs, emotions, and interests relate to each other when a conflict arises. We used the example of a teenager who wants a later curfew time. As we filled the different quadrants, we realized that the lines that separate them are not well defined. Certain words can be part of more than one category or move between categories depending on how they are framed.

On either side of the “Sources of Conflict” are acronyms for the words “WARS” and “PEACE.” Each letter represents a step towards war or peace during a conflict. I noticed that the first step towards either war or peace sets up the direction the conflict might take. In a two-sided conflict, if one side takes one step in the direction of peace, the other side may be more likely to take another step in the direction of peace. The same might be true for going in the direction of war. I think people’s first reactions to conflict are critical for this reason. The first reactions of either side will probably determine how the two sides will interact with each other and with the conflict itself.

For the most part, though, it does not seem like people automatically try to seek peace as their first reaction to conflict. Many times, people stop trying to meet each other’s needs, which is the first step in the direction of war. People tend to think about only what they want without trying to negotiate or compromise anything. When the stakes of the conflict are high, such as between two countries, conflict resolution in the direction of peace is necessary, and the two sides each may have to give up something to achieve peace.

In the case of Athens versus Melos, there is also a difference in resources and power between the two sides. Athens clearly has a more powerful military and navy, and Melos is at a disadvantage in this way. Athens wants to force Melos into joining the Delian League. This would require Melos paying annual tribute to Athens and sending military troops and ships to Athens. This would make Athens even more powerful as it expands. Melos does not want to be overtaken by Athens and have its oligarchy replaced with a democracy. Both perspectives are very different, but it seems like Athens is taking a generally offensive approach, while Melos is taking a generally defensive approach. The directions of the role play involve the class being split into groups to negotiate this conflict in the direction of peace.