Orlick as the Dark Side of Pip in Dickens Great Expectations Essay

Orlick as the Dark Side of Pip in Dickens' Great Expectations Charles Dickens’ aptly titled novel Great Expectations focuses on the journey of the stories chief protagonist, Pip, to fulfill the expectations of his life that have been set for him by external forces. The fusing of the seemingly unattainable aspects of high society and upper class, coupled with Pip’s insatiable desire to reach such status, drives him to realize these expectations that have been prescribed for him. The encompassing desire that he feels stems from his experiences with Mrs. Havisham and the unbridled passion that he feels for Estella. Pip realizes that due to the society-imposed caste system that he is trapped in, he will never be able to acquire Estella’s love working as a lowly blacksmith at the forge. The gloomy realizations that Pip is undergoing cause him to categorically despise everything about himself, feeling ashamed for the life he is living when illuminated by the throngs of the upper class. These feelings are summed up in Pip’s utter disgust and hatred for the character of Orlick. To Pip, Orlick represents everything that he abhors about himself. When Pip sees Orlick he envisions what awaits him in the future; being ensnared in a life that he couldn’t bear. Orlick, in actualization, is Pip without his high expectations. But there is a much deeper and ominous aspect of the relationship between Pip and Orlick. Dickens uses the character of Orlick to symbolize the darkside of Pip. Pip’s innermost primal feelings and desires are represented through Orlick’s actions, which Pip is ultimately responsible for. These actions ultimately lead to the downfall of both men. In the first scene where we see Pip and Orlick together, there is ... ...eration. It’s ironic that if only Pip had followed through with the original expectations that he had set for himself instead of the supposed greater expectations that he hoped for, he would have been better off. Works Cited and Consulted Bell, Vereen. "Understanding the Characters of Great Expectations." Victorian Newsletter 27 (1965): 21-24. Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. Ed. Janice Carlisle. Boston: Bedford, St. Martin's, 1996. Rawlins, Jack P. "Great Expectations: Dickens and the Betrayal." Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. 23 (1983): 667-683. Millhauser, Milton. "Great Expectations: The Downfall." Dickens Studies Annual 2 (1972): 267-276. Rosenberg, Edgar. "Last Words on Great Expectations." Dickens Studies Annual 9 (1981): 87- 107. Sucksmith, Harvey Peter. The Narrative Art of Charles Dickens. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1970.

Summit Of Greatness

It was December 2, 1804, with over 400 musicians and singers performing. The world famous cathederal, Notre Dame, was filled. All eyes were set upon Napoleon Bonaparte. This Corsican native slowly ascended the steps to the alter alone, siezing the crown with his own hands. He held it aloft and brought it to rest on his head. Napoleon Bonaparte was crowned Emperor of France that day. Napoleon was an everday guy. He was a 5? 2? lieutenant who was later ranked a general. He married Josephine DeVorne. At first, Napoleon wasn’t very liked amongst certain parts of Europe. Mothers would say to their kids at night to make them sleep a little nightmare raising lullaby†¦ † Baby baby, naughty baby, hush you scwaling thing i say, hush your scwaling or it may be Bonepart that pass this way. † Napoleon was nothing more then an average Corsican man with a cleaver mind. Working was a passion for Napoleon. In 1805, Napoleon planned to cross the English channel. Much like most other conquerors in Eurpope’s land Napoleon had one goal in mind, to conquer all of Europe. As he crossed the channel to invade Great Britain, with 2,000 ships, and 200,000 soldiers, he soon met victory. With that in mind, Russia and Austria wouldn’t allow Napoleon to roam with triumph. Soon after the Grand Army was put to the test against the French. The Russian army was known as the strongest and most feared around. Russia and Austria’s plan to win was by outnumbering Napoleon 2:1. France was looking pretty weak and had no chance of defeating the Russian’s and Austrian’s. But Napoleon saw the flaw in this. The Austrians and Russians were planning to meet half way. Their armies were scattered. So, Napoleon figured if if he was to beat the one army before the two armies linked up,then his men would’ve still stood a chance. Napoleon did just so. He took General Mac (Austria’s general) by surprised and conquered them leaving them forced surrendor. 27,000 men surrendered. Mac lost almost half his army. † I didn’t intend to fight any but England, until your master provoked me† said Napoleon. Nothing stood now between Napoleon and Vienna. In 8 days, Napoleon destroyed Austria’s army by marching, (200,000 marching men, marched 500 miles in 40 days-defeated Austria’s army). On November first Napoleon lead his army into Vienna, the capitol of Austria. The emperor was the first to fleed. Leaving behind his palace and gardens free for the enemy. Bonaparte triumphed alongthe streets. Many then stopped worshipping Napoleon, such as Ludwig Beethoven. On October 21, British admiral Nelson destroyed Napoleon’s army, and took along his own life. Napoleon no longer had the Grand army. French stopped challangeing the British army. It was December of 1805, when Napoleon was faced with an even greater challenge. He was now 1,000 miles from Paris, and was in the center of Europe. With enemies from all angles, Europes land was a great trap to Napoleon’s men. With the knowledge that the Russian’s has once again united with the Austrian’s in November, this time with 90,000 allies put together against France’s 75,000 men, Napoleon had one of two choices. He could’ve either gone back or to move along foward. Bonaparte would’ve NEVER moved back. So, now Napoleon was to face Alexander I, the emperor of Russia. Alexander I(28 years of age) was very jealous of Napoleon. He believed that it was his destiny to triumph over Napoleon. The war against the Russian’s seemed impossible. But leave it up to Napoleon, he was a thinker. He had a plan to encourage the enemy to think he was scared. He wanted to lead the enemy to the battle field of Australit, by making them think Napoleon was weaker then he really was. Once again, Napoleon succeeded. The Russian’s came to battle by hitting Napoleon on the right (the weaker end) first. Bonaparte wanted them to do exactly that. The Russian’s fed right into his plan! Napoleon had a secret for the Russian’s. He had previously set up 2 divisons within 70 miles in 2 days to attack the Russian’s. The attack caught the enemy by surprise and yet gave Napoleon another victory. Napoleon was sort of an artist he planned each battle as if the next move would perfect the whole piece of art, the end of the battle. Napoleon being the whole hearted Corsican man he was. He never let the power get to his head. Over a duration of time Bonaparte’s name was being spread all throughtout Europe. He still managed to write letter’s to his wife and he even elected each of his siblings to an office. His brother Joseph to be the king of Naples, Jerome the king of West Falia, Louis the king of Holand. His sister Caroline to be a Queen, pauline a princess, and Alicia a Dutchess. Trough all the battles and victory Napoleon gained much popularity in no time. Yet, he remained a mother’s boy. He loved his mother and made her Madame Mayor. Josephine and Napoleon were made for eachother. Though, both of them had their own quirrels. Josephine hated all the mistresses Napoleon had. Napoleon hated the habits that Josephine had with spending money. Josephine knew that one day no matter how strong her love was for Napoleon, he would’ve had to divorce her. The day came on November 30, 1809.

History of Pueblo Revolt Essay

â€Å"Every piece of written history starts when somebody becomes curious and asks questions.†[1] In Weber’s compilation he gathers several of these curious peoples works and binds their writings together to form a sort of continued discussion. Arguing from different sources and coming from different backgrounds, they indubitably arrive at different conclusions. From Garner to Gutià ©rrez and from Chà ¡vez to Knaut, they all are part of a continued dialogue on what that caused the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. By addressing the readings as a sum instead of individual accounts, one can gain a more detailed view. While some poke holes in others theories, most of the time, the writers simply offer different perspectives. The vast range of the arguments speak to the difficulty of the topic. Examining an event (or series of events, as the case may be) 300 years ago is an arduous task, but trying to determine causation of such events is even more cumbersome. Typically numerous factors exist and to give these factors any sort of rankings requires a fair bit of perspiration on the part of the researcher. This essay will attempt to evaluate this eclectic mix of commentaries to sift out the strong arguments from the weak. In 1598, when Juan de Oà ±ate arrived in northern New Mexico with a small group of colonists to Pueblo country, Spain demanded payment of tribute and the friars demanded allegiance of religion. For over 80 years Spanish lived with Pueblo before the revolt – multiple generations.[2] As Knaut points out, that as â€Å"colonists were isolated from the south in a land where indigenous inhabitants numbered in the tens of thousands†, meaning there was plenty of contact between the two groups.[3] Within that time families intermarried, and a large mestizo population arose, creating an intersection in the Venn diagram of early New Mexico. What Knaut argues in Acculturation and Miscegenation is not necessarily as hard as the others to prove who or what caused the revolt, but rather works in earnest to present what he sees as the creation of a mixed culture, with syncretism occurring on both sides. Perhaps in this essay more questions that answers are created†¦ why after 82 years of living together would the Pueblos revolt? Garner has a more direct answer to this question. He, unlike Knaut, does not spend as much time underlining the syncretism that occurs, but spends more time examining the relationship between Pueblo and Franciscan, and reigning in the perhaps unfair harshness of previous works in relation to the government. Garner believed that drought, famine and Apache raids caused the revolt, shedding the competing notions that religious incompatibility or having a suitable leader as primary causes.[4] The two arguments in the proceeding articles before Garner – that religion was the primary cause – fall flat from Garner’s lens. In one instance, he cites the friction between Father Isidro Ordonez and Governor Pedro de Peralta as a result of the governments unfair treatment of the Indian. Peralta eventually decides to have Ordonez arrested, but the colonists (or ecomenderos) proceed to abandon the governor.[5] Garner goes on that governors of early New Mexico are interpreted in a negative light primarily because â€Å"documents are strongly biased against them.†[6] He explains that the reason that these documents are so biased is because of the natural tension between the writers of these records, the Franciscans, and those whom they wrote about, the governors.[7] Garner continues to impress that the Franciscans were the friend to the Indian and foe to the governor. He cites Scholes who states, â€Å"the religious and economic motives of empire were anta gonistic if not essentially incompatible.† Having earlier established a different relationship structure than what was typically seen, (a shift from the Hispanic-Pueblo dichotomy to a more complex relationship of priest-Indian-mestizo-colonist-governor) Garner then moves on to the crux of the issue – the cause of the revolt. â€Å"The kind of peace that had been pervading New Mexico was contingent upon relative prosperity,† writes Garner. The Spanish had used their organizational skills to create surpluses in the Pueblo economy – but the famine of 1670 was so implacable it essentially collapsed the system. The drought of the 1660s – the precursor to the famine – was so severe it caused â€Å"Indians and Spanish alike to eat hides and straps,† as written by Fray Francisco de Ayeta in an account to the King. In the face of such an oppressive environment, Indians naturally began to question why Spanish controlled their food source. This, coupled with a new emphasis on nativism, turned up the heat and brought the already tense situation to a simmer. This movement towards nativism perhaps may have been a reaction to Indian culture sprouting up in both mestizo and Spanish life. Garner continues on this thread noting that Governor Lopez de Mendizabal was forced to â€Å"crack down on Pueblo religious and cultural activity.† While syncretism among the Pueblos was tolerable, among the Spanish it was viewed as inexcusable. These two factors were the foci of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680.[8] In contrast, the setting that Bowden and Gutià ©rrez attempt to construct in their essays is a religious clash, one that, while not noticeable immediately, was exacerbated by the droughts and famine. After introducing the essay, Bowden then discusses the similarities of the Pueblo religion, and then highlights some of the missteps the Franciscans took in their interactions and, most of all, the conversion process. First they insisted that the Pueblos should learn Spanish, and â€Å"almost without exception,† failed to make any attempt to learn native language. Also, they instituted mandatory mass attendance for all Indians – but strangely not all Spaniards. On top of this, leaders who continued practicing the previous traditions were whipped or executed.[9] (27-28) Bowden raises a number of valid points – the Franciscans do not appear to be the same persons that protested against the injustices to the Pueblos by the Governor Peralta. Rather, they seem to be creators of an oppressive environment that was quite insensitive to the Pueblo people. However, if you note Bowden’s sources, he cites textbooks for his long diatribe. Garner, in contrast, relies heavier on topic specific articles written by respected names such as France V. Scholes and Jack D. Forbes. While Bowden’s sources are legitimate, he seems to be using information that is more generalized, and not as focused on the relevant issues. Gutià ©rrez points to â€Å"loss of authority† among the Franciscans as the central reason for the revolt.[10] He notes that this gradual loss of power began in 1640s. Because of the uncertainty and unease that followed, the Friars pushed for more drastic measure to balance out this loss of power – a crackdown on syncretism and an emphasis on martyrdom. But the connections that Gutià ©rrez makes are weak; he points to the loss of power in the 1640s, but does not cite any kind of example to support his point until 1655.[11] In addition, most of examples of this â€Å"loss of authority† do not come until the mid 1660s and the early 1670s in the midst of drought, quarreling among Spaniards and attacks by Athapascan raiders. And Gutià ©rrez’ examples of Franciscan brutality arise, interestingly enough, around the time that Garner points to heavy handed response by the Spanish to combat syncretism. Gutià ©rrez’ illustrations seem to support Garner’s idea of the Indians being â€Å"like children in a new world and entrapped in the struggle between the Franciscans and Hispanic community.†[12] Angà ©lico Chà ¡vez provides yet another take on the Pueblo Revolt. While Gutià ©rrez, Garner and Bowden all spend considerable time on relations, Chà ¡vez – as his title Pohà ©-yemo’s Representative and the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 – puts much more emphasis on establishing a new leader as a primary cause of the Pueblo revolt. Chà ¡vez seems to avoid tackling the revolt squarely (like Knaut) partly because he devotes most of his time supporting his argument for Domingo Naranjo as the leader (arguably 21 of the 24 pages). Despite Chà ¡vez lengthy narrative supporting Domingo Naranjo, the black leader with yellow eyes, many scholars reject this notion, because it seems to runs counter to what most sources suggest. Historian Stefanie Beninato agrees that Naranjo was a leader, but â€Å"one of several† as â€Å"the concept of a single leader is not viable in the theocratic social structure of the Pueblo world.†[13] Garner too, while recognizing Popà © as instrumental, rejects the idea that he was a â€Å"unique Indian leader,† but rather he arose out of necessity, as opposed to the creation of necessity.[14] While, many critique Chà ¡vez’ uncommon interpretation, it reminds one to reexamine the mestizo and mulatto population in New Mexico. Naranjo, real or not, represents the truth that the black/white Pueblo/Hispanic definition was increasingly blurred in the years leading up to the revolt, and an entirely different culture had emerged. Pohà ©-yemo had multiple windows in to this culture of multiplicity. Garner’s essay seems to be built around the most logic because his essay points to lack of basic necessities as the true cause of the revolt. When there is enough food and prosperity people get along. When there is a shortage, it pushes groups to exceptional measures. Rarely has a revolt occurred without certain factors mitigating access to peoples’ basic needs. Garner also spends ample time with the battle itself, and provides plenty of evidence of to why it was a success; particularly because of the cultural coexistence with the Spanish. Garner is not without flaw – he fails to address certain issues, notably that of the presence of a larger mestizo culture. While he acknowledges it somewhat, he seems more preoccupied with the Franciscan-ecomedero versus government dynamic. This oversight, however excusable, provides good reason for holding onto multiple sources while dissecting historical events such as these. In the absence of primary documents, the importance of rigorous scholarship is especially crucial. To hold the works of these â€Å"curious† scholars together stresses the value for careful thought and due diligence.

Why is Parliament so weak in relation to the executive?

The domination of the legislature, which includes Parliament, by the executive branch, which contains government, is a majorly important feature of the British political system. According to French philosopher Montesquieu, the lack of the separation of powers and, hence, the fusion of the executive and legislative branches (as, uniquely, in the UK) may lead to a large accumulation of power in one branch. Unlike the USA political system where these branches are kept strictly separate, there is excessive executive power which means that Parliament can be exposed as weak and powerless to the ruling party. There are many factors that make Parliament look weak in relation to the executive including; the electoral system, the scrutiny of MP’s, and the power (if any) of the House of Lords. The first past the post electoral system allows governments in the UK to seemingly dominate Parliament without representing a very large proportion of the electorate. The system ensures that one party with win an absolute majority, which tends to be very large, and, hence, means that parliament is relatively powerless in contrast as the role of dissidents is limited which allows government to dominate. The 1997 landslide victory of New Labour was only achieved with about 36% of the vote. This comparatively small percentage of the voting population gave the party a mammoth 197 seat majority after sitting on the other side of the chamber for 18 years. The huge numbers of seats in Parliament that were given to Labour meant that fair representation of political opinion was undermined hugely. Additionally, the majorities necessary for new laws would be a given if the party were behind their leader which in the case of Tony Blair was almost always the case. It is in these ways that Parliament is made to look weak in relation to the executive. In theory, however, the flip side of a strong single-party government is that there are still enough seats left in Parliament to perform a critical checking role and for opposition parties to present themselves as a realistic alternative to the government of the day. This system also excludes extremist parties, such as the BNP, from representation in the legislature unless its electoral support is geographically strenuous; it is unlikely to win any seats under FPTP which is positive in order to prevent them from electoral legitimacy. In any case the Commons have the ultimate power to remove the present government from office. Scrutiny of fellow MP’s is made difficult if one party dominates the House of Commons. MP’s have insufficient time and support to be able to call ministers to account effectively. MPs often lack the technical expertise to scrutinise legislation adequately and on the occasions that they do ask penetrating questions, the respondent usually has a response prepared and/or by civil servants. In addition, poor timing of Opposition days might blunt impact which is why any attack on the present government must be carefully planned. In February 2010, the former bosses of the Royal Bank of Scotland were for three hours questioned vigorously by a select committee and they responded with both candour and courtesy. The committee members probed diligently enough but, not for the first time, they were outsmarted by expert witnesses with too much technical information at their disposal. This proves that the understaffed and poorly resourced scrutinizers cannot do their job properly and, hence, also highlights how weak Parliament are in relation to the executive. However, MP’s are allowed freedom to ask questions in areas of special interest to them without having to worry about party whips. In Parliament, in the past, a number of important bills have been debated and published in draft, including Identity Cards and Mental Health Bills. In addition, whatever a minister proposes is subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny at some stage so will have to be viable with room for agreement from the entire Parliament. Finally, constant debate ensures that even the ruling party is affected by what Parliament thinks even if this is not so obvious at first glance. The House of Lords’ lack of authority and powers means that the government can often avoid pretty much anything that it throws. The powers of the Lords are extremely limited by law as it has absolutely no power over financial matters and can’t veto legislation in the long term. Additionally, all amendments can be overturned and, like the Commons, the Lords have a limited role in developing legislation. In 1997, Tony Blair abolished the honour of hereditary peerage but allowed the 92 hereditary peers to retain their seats before appointing a vast number of Labour peers into the House of Lords in order to make it even easier for him to gain a majority. The huge power of government is shown here and can be manipulated to make Parliament look weaker. However, when peers do vote against legislation then parliamentary gridlock can be created. This was certainly the case in 2007 where the House of Lords defied the general consensus in the Commons with 361 votes to 121 in favour of a 100% appointed House of Lords. It is in this way that Parliament can stand up to the executive, whose party have a majority in Parliament, and force compromises by the government. This particular controversial case of rebellion has proved a success for the Lords as to this day Peers still have to be 100% appointed. In conclusion, it seems Parliament has been made to look powerless by government who can make use of the first past the post system and gain large majorities without large representation. Additionally, scrutiny directed at MP’s is easily combated with the brilliantly crafted answers of government. Government has also become increasingly dominant thanks to further Lords reform by Tony Blair and the mere delaying of laws by which act as a thorn on legislation. However, it has to be said that Parliament has many ways in which it can reduce the ‘bullying’ it receives from the ruling party. The electoral system has obvious advantages that arguably improve Parliament’s role such as the ability to improve on scrutinising future laws and to offer better decisions than the ruling party.

Interpretation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 2

Interpretation - Essay Example Apparently, the common ancestry implies that we share several ideas, customs, and behaviours thus making the world a one big union of strangers. It is from the cosmopolitanism ideology that we all belong to the world despite our ethnic and racial differences that Koichi notes â€Å"Japan is represented and represents itself as a culturally and racially homogenous and uniquely particularistic by way of a strategic binary opposition between two imaginary cultural entities†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Koichi, 2005; p. 104). From this, it becomes clear that actually, humanity belongs to the world and should be free to move from place to place. The cultural, racial and political entities that have served to divide human beings are imaginary; since we all belong to this world and we are equal to the people we find in other places that we might visit. Since we belong to this world, it is, therefore, surprising that some Japanese discriminate others. The realization that we share many aspects should help in creating mutual respect rather than enmity and animosity or the kind of discrimination perpetuated by the Medias in today’s society. Moreover, the Japanese nihonjinron should describe how unique Japanese culture is as well as indicate that it somehow ties to some global cultures just to bring about the whole notion of worldliness. Cosmopolitanism further connotes a scenario where our diversity does not distance us from fellow human beings, but rather brings us closer to the creation of a global community. We live in a globalized world where cultural exchanges are a reality. Cosmopolitanism implies the inclusion of all despite our differences whether at home, in Olympic Games, FIFA world, workplace or any other place where human interaction can occur. It is saddening that indeed, cultural politics are continuously destroying the positive associations that we should be having considering the fact that we are all human beings and perceptibly, from a common

Adapting to Workplace Changes in Professionalism Essay

Adapting to Workplace Changes in Professionalism - Essay Example Also in staff meetings, the communication process should be clear, logical, and professional (Allanwood, Gavin, and Peter Beare, 2014, para.1). Higher education institutions are an example where such group culture can be experienced. Active cultures bring about employee motivation, alignment of goals, structures that are needed and controls to improve the effectiveness of the organization. Group culture in the workplace also influences its effectiveness since culture assists in external adaptation and integration of internal issues of the organization. In higher education institutions, a culture may begin when a single individual has an idea of a new enterprise. The founder of the idea then assembles more people and comes up with a core group that has a shared vision with that of the founder. The core group believes that the idea is a good one and therefore they see the need for investing time and money in it (Allanwood, Gavin, and Peter Beare, 2014, Para.1). The core group then starts to work in a union to create an organization by raising funds, incorporating, obtaining patents, and locating space. At that point, new recruits are brought in the society and history commences to build. The initial organizational culture is an outgrowth of the philosophy of the founder. As time goes by the original culture is embedded or modified by other group cultures. The members of the organization teach each other about the preferred organization’s behaviors, values, beliefs, and expectations (Cozby, Paul, Patricia, Worden, and Daniel, Kee, 1989, Para 7). When members of the organization in higher education institutions interact with each other, they use terminology, language, and rituals related to demeanor and deference. There are various types of group culture experienced in the higher education institutions. They include; Constructive culture. Here the employees work together, beginnings from the

Acropolis in the Late Bronze Age Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Acropolis in the Late Bronze Age - Essay Example It is the highest point of Athens (Blegen 1967, 22). Acropolis is situated on a horizontally topped rock wrapping; the area of approximately 3 hectors with 500 feet exceeding the sea level. In the more primordial times, it was known as Cecropia (with reference to the name of first Athenian king) (Mountjoy 1995, 122). In the ancient history of Greece, the ancient city of Athens clutches an explicit historical significance because of antediluvian developmental arenas (John 2001, 23). When it is to be conferred about well known migration from Athens city towards Acropolis, it reveals different momentous ciphers about the actual phenomenon. Many of the historians refer it to as a natural disaster or any other catastrophe such as rain flood, storm or earth quake. However the symptoms of actual occurrence divulge abundant facts and events associated to the migration (Myres and John 1958, 46). Some of the historians disclose it as a threat of invasion at Athens that is accentuated over the need of migration. The late Bronze Age covers the overall underlying phenomenon. The period of late Bronze Age is traced from 1600 B.C to 1100 B.C. The well known migration from Athens to Acropolis is found in the history as Dorian migration. In the fundamental study, we will focus on identification of the actual causes for what people were forced to migrate toward a higher peak point of the city for the sake of shelter (Mountjoy 1995, 129). Background Late Bronze Age was equipped in resolution on the shore of model settlements in Mycenae and property was bordered by mountains. At the same time impenetrable refinement was divergent to the prevailing mores. The late Bronze Age was most likely to be overlapping with the early Iron Age (John, 41). Some of the historians entail that the latest epochs of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age are identical. According to the numerous archaeologists the late Bronze Age was collapsed with the said migration. The migrants were those people who l ived around the Aegean Sea. They were forced to migrate to upper most point of the Athens city (Hall, 40). Until a few years back (than to the late Bronze Age), the Athenians were not that much notorious to the urbanity. The fortification of exploration of excavations was the main apprehension of the time. At last there were five excavations which were furnished through the Athens history (Robinson and Boegehold, 81). If these excavations are to be further explored in order to dig out the ground facts of that time, the early crusades reveal about the continuances of flight of stairs which were prime from the inferior portion of the city (Athens) to upper corner toward Acropolis. The history of Late Bronze Age also covers the dark age of Athens (Myres and John, 12). Migration The destruction of Mycenaean places was mistrustful as it forced people to move towards upper segment of Acropolis (Bury, 21). Numerous archaeologists argue that it was because of rain flood since it is observed that people recurrently move to higher situate when there is a flood. But there were no symptoms of flood. It is because the destruction of the flood is somewhat explicit. The fire at that place was also not evident because it leaves nothing behind (Drews, 8). The feudal system was in institution at conventions. The invaders were destructing the places to eradicate the feudalism. It seems more sophisticated if the foundation of destruction may be referred to as being some sort of invasion (Anonymous, 39). It is said that the Dorian invaders assaulted the population that were residing in Peloponnesus. The Dorian belonged to subsequent lower social class and they were looking for amputation of feudal system and insurgency to improve their life styles