The Peace of Westphalia

4)What becomes of the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire as a result of the peace?

As a result of the peace, the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire was annulled, giving back to the people and the church, but still leaving the empire an empire.


5)How does the treaty define sovereignty?

This treaty defines sovereignty as appointed by the church, but the power is for the sovereign to hold.


6)What internal affairs of states does the peace specifically address?

The peace specifically addresses stealing from the people, taking land that wasn't meant to be taken, and where power resides.

Confessions book 9

How does Augustine dramatize the moment of his conversion? How important is it that events happened exactly the way that he said they did?

Augustine dramatizes his conversion to be explicitly God led. It is important that events happened exactly the way that he said they did because with that, not only is the climax of the story fulfilled as a narrative, but also his conversion was brought by good, and not by his own power, but his decision. With this, the nature of God and sin, which is one of the main themes of the confessions, is portrayed through this conversion to his audience, which is the people of the church.

Confessions book 8

What is Augustine’s “verdict” about the importance and limitation of classical wisdom for the Christian?

Augustine decided that classical wisdom is quite important for the Christian, but that truth comes from the Scripture. He agrees that man needs to be led out of the "cave" and into reality, but that it is God that does that, not man. Classical wisdom for the Christian is good to know, and should be known , but should also be known to be pagan, and not the same type of truth as the Scripture is.

Confessions Book Six

What does Augustine discover about human limitations and the consequent need to trust?

Augustine learned that the human limitation prevents one from being free from addiction, and that he needs to trust in God to free him. He learned that he could not change by his own power, but required greater power than himself to break his immoral habituation and be free from the sin around him. This would force him to work with God rather than against Him in order to do what is right according to God.

Confessions book 5

How good a speaker is Ambrose, and what does Augustine learn about rhetoric from listening to Ambrose’s sermons?

Ambrose was a magnificent speaker, and combines content and form into one way of speaking that forces you to see the content even if you only want to hear the eloquence of it. Through this experience, Augustine learns that rhetoric can sound good, but also should have good content through which people will be moved, not by the words alone, but also by what the words mean. This helps settle the war between content and form that Augustine was wrestling with by showing him the use of both.

The Prince

1) What, according to Machiavelli, is the basis of political authority?

According to Machiavelli, the prince needs to be liked by the people, and must deal with people who don't like him in certain ways. This would build a good unity within the people, allowing the prince will be able to guide the people to help him act with less resistance. Another aspect of authority is the ability to command the army under the prince. With this, the prince can use the army to press, or prevent certain movements to help rule adequately.

2) How does this theory differ from the others of his day?

Machiavelli believes that the consequences of actions are more important than their morality. This means that the prince shouldn't try to do good works because it is good, but instead because he needs the help of the followers in order to work at his best capacity. Another way of looking at this is pragmatism. The prince should act out of practicality rather than morality.

3) When he claims that a prince must assume many guises, what is Machiavelli saying about his understanding of human nature?

He is basically saying that human nature can't please everyone, so you must be a different person to different people in order to do just that. Another way of putting it is that human nature cant fill everything you must fill, so you must wear different hats to do that. It is more about survival as a prince than about being good to the state.

4) What is the role of artifice in political authority?

The role of  artifice in political authority is to be used when force doesn't work. Machiavelli uses the analogy of the prince having to be both a lion and a fox. The lion can protect itself from wolves, but will get ensnared in traps, and vice versa for the fox. Therefore, in order to overcome both, the prince must use both force in certain situations, and artifice in the others.

5) What might Machiavelli's prince have in common with Castigation's courtier?

Machiavelli's prince and Castigation's courtier both talk about how the prince/courtier should lead their life in order to be the most influential and successful with the resources they have.

Confessions chapter 3

When Augustine breaks the law and steals pears, how can we see that the freedom he feels is only an illusion?

We can see it as a counterfeit freedom rather than the real thing. His freedom of being able to take whatever he wishes isn't real freedom because he is still bound by the law, and is then bound by guilt for what he has done, but with God, we can live without that guilt, and be free, not because we are prohibited by God's law, but because we are saved by that law.

History Channel part 2

A. Having viewed more of the HC documentary, how would you use this source if you were researching a specific event within the Middle Ages?

I personally would use this as either a "cause and effect" source, or a contextual source. This documentary gives a good big picture of historical facts, while giving a lot of detail, but not enough for one specific event. When researching a topic, this would make the time a little easier to grasp in my mind,

  B. What would you say are the limitations of this source of information about the historical past?

Above all, this must be seen as an interpretation, not a primary source of the exact events. Along with that, we also must remember that the facts of the past have been filtered, and all of the facts have not been included.

The Confessions

What do we expect of an autobiography today, and how may we need to broaden our understanding of this form of writing to appreciate the Confessions?

In an autobiography today, we expect a story of someone's life from their view, and the great things they may have accomplished. In order to appreciate the Confessions, we may need to see this work as more of a personal journal of growth. Rather than it being a "rags to riches" type story, it is more likely to be a struggle with truth, and knowing God. I expect this book to be more of a discovery of the nature of God than the knowledge of one person's life.

History Chanel

A. Based on your viewing of the HC so far, how would you classify it as (a) historical source(s) and why?

I would say this is a secondary source. This piece of work is a group's interpretation of the historical past based off of the historical facts given to us through primary source texts. Evidence of this comes straight from the video with personal comments from the historians themselves, and there references to historical texts. Along with this, it is also a reenactment of the interpreted past from the historians' views.


B. How reliable do you consider it to be? Why?

I would consider this to be fairly reliable, but not enough so that I can watch it without filtering the facts from biases. Yes, most of the important facts of the historical past I feel are covered thoroughly through narration, reenactment, historian reviews, and the showing of primary sources, but there also seems to be some, not many, but some superstitions and biases in the presentation of this time period.

Western Civilizations chapter 10

What caused the Black Death? In what sense can it be seen as a product of the new world system that began with the Mongol conquest?

The Black Death was started in China by a Chinese microbe called Yersiniapestis. From there, it expanded rapidly through trade routes, expanding over nearly all of the known world. This can be seen as a product of the new world system that began with the Mongol conquest, because it was the new trade system that allowed it to travel so fast. Trade routes had increased due to the conquest, and therefore increasing infection radius of the Black Death.

               We live in a world in which the global circulation of people, information, goods, and bacteria is rapid. How does the medieval system compare to ours? What features seem familiar?

The medieval system seems to be a slower version than ours today. While bacteria may only be able to travel about two miles a day back then, one could probably travel to the other side of the world in under two days. That being said, most countries have checks for known diseased, or carriers of disease, and therefore bacteria are hindered at many modern day ports. That being said, the possibility of bad being sent with good seems equally possible as back then with so many people, information, goods, and bacteria being shipped hundreds of miles per day.

Western Civilizations chapter 9

How did the meaning and purposes of crusading change in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries?

In the twelfth century, crusading was mainly for gaining land and increasing the empire. Then, a spiritual scam was made to the people, and they began to join in crusading, killing unbelievers, and terrorizing people who weren't in the empire for that reason, making them go for the ruler to increase wealth and control. this sent crusading from public empire to personal gain

               The growth of towns and monarchies, and the Church increased the degree of control that those in power could exercise; but this growth also increased access to education and new forms of social mobility. Is this a paradox, or are these two phenomena related?

Let’s think of this as a bank next to a library. The bank representing the increased control of the people, as you need money to buy books, but the library is access to those books and social mobility, books coming and going out of the library. While these two have a relation, they are completely different “businesses” in the world, and one does not necessarily directly related to the other. That being said, if there were an increase in one, it is likely that the other would benefit.

Western Civilizations Chapter 8

The reforming movement with the church changed the relationship between the papacy and the secular rulers of Christendom. Explain why.


IN the church, the papacy gained much power. With this, they tried to exercise their supremacy over the other secular rulers, which they didn't like. This made them have to defend their positions, and have problems with the papacy, forever changing their relationship.




Based on what we have learned about the relationship between political power and religious power in previous chapters, would you say the clash between papacy and the Holy Roman Empire was inevitable?

The papacy did not have to exercise their power over the empire, but became too greedy to hold back their actions, and that led to big trouble with the Holy Roman Empire. I personally would have to say that the answer does not lie in a defined relationship between political and religious power, but instead lies more in human nature. For some reason, people who start in some sort of powerful position, and are given more power tend to become irrational, and personal about it. They only see what more they can gain, and will use all of the people they have crushed to get to where they are in order to get higher. This being said, the only thing they will do is reach their peak, and send themselves over the cliff, tumbling to the bottom. However, one who starts at the bottom, knows where they’ve come from, and are able to use that instead of other people in order to raise themselves to positions where they can help the general community without sinking tend to make people less mad, and lead the world into a new age of much fruit. IF you have that, and a God who has that planned for you, you can do some real damage to the culture you live in, and use the broken pieces to create something truly remarkable.

Western Civilizations Chapter 7

Byzantine culture was distinctive in many ways, what are some of its important features?

Byzantine culture was able to hold an effective and stable government and judicial system for nearly a millennia. This was probably the most important characteristic, seeing how this was what lead the Byzantines for a long time. Another important part of the Byzantine culture was their religion. The Byzantines were Orthodox, and had many churches in their part of the empire. Lastly, chariot racing was a major sport for the Byzantines. This sport was similarly as important as gladiatorial battles for the Romans.

               Arguably each of these three civilizations could claim the mantle of the Roman Empire. In your view, which one had the strongest claim to carry forward the legacies of the classical past?

In my opinion, I’d have to say the Byzantines had the strongest claim to carry forward the classical past. There are two main holds the Byzantines had for their past. The first is lineage. Byzantium was a Roman Heir, taking a third of the empire, meaning his lineage should lead back to strong Roman roots. The second is culture. The Byzantine’s culture directly paralleled that of Romans in many ways. They had chariot racing, paralleling the gladiatorial battles. They had a lot of trade, paralleling the Tiber River, bringing much trade to Rome over the years. Lastly, the distribution of power, while it wasn’t directly related to that of Rome’s, was still relatively close, and I’d say more of an improvement from that of Rome’s, being more stable for a much longer time.

connection #1

In your opinion, which phenomenon had a more profound impact on Rome: the over extension of imperial power or the mass migration of peoples from Romes frontier? Why?

I'd say the mass of people moving into Rome was a more profound impact, mainly because of what that does to the population. With so many people entering the empire, goods such as money and food had to be distributed differently, the mood of the people would change, resulting in a very different culture. All of this would impact Rome in a manner that is unable to be fixed, unless a dictator could see this happening and make the corrections in a short enough time.

Chapter 6 Review Question

1) What were the main differences between Jesus and the other Jewish leaders of his day?

Jesus, while he was a political leader, looked at the world with different eyes than the Pharisees. While the Pharisees were mainly focused on outward, following the law, being morally good, etc., Jesus was more focused on the inner person, focusing on what people purpose in their hears. He generally hung around the lower classes, seeing the good in them, and using the higher classes to show what not to do. The pharisees weren't happy about this.

Aeneid book 1

After Virgil calls upon the muses to write, he begins with Aeneas on the sea, heading from Troy. After that, Juno sends the four winds to hopefully sink Aeneas' ships because she wants Greece to be the largest city, however, the Fates have decided that Aeneas will found Rome, and Rome will be dominant over all other peoples. Neptune fells the waters shaking, and in anger sends the winds away, and guide Aeneas' ship to land on Carthage. Aeneas and his men then make there way to the beginning civilization that Dido started. Dido is hospitable to the Trojans, and throws a banquet in their honor. Venus is paranoid that Dido won't let them leave, and had Cupid make Dido love Aeneas. Dido, unaware of all of this, asks Aeneas to tell everyone the story of the Trojan war.

The Roman Empire

Why was Rome so successful in creating her empire?

There were three main advantages in Rome that aided her rise to an empire. These main advantages were military power, law, and tenacity. Rome mainly hot its army from the large county of Italy, making their army quite large. Rome having a very large army was not easily conquered and was very well protected thus leading to a safer and more successful empire. While Rome had a lot of military strength, what also contributed was its law. The Romans held the law very highly and respected it very much. This made the willingness to uphold the law was very strong. This helped Rome in its conquest, and with everyone cooperating by the law made the Romans very effective. Rome was also successful for its perseverance and tenacity. It never gave up and continued to fight multiple battles in order to reach the prophesied potential of becoming a great Empire, which in the end it did.

Aeneid book 6

Book six starts out with Aeneas and his men landing on the shores of Cumae. Aeneas goes into the cave and talks to the sibyl, then comes out of the cave to see the dead man the sibyl had prophesied would die. Aeneas and his men prepare the funeral pyre and burial, then Aeneas finds the golden bough the sibyl spoke of earlier. he goes back to the sibyl, and she takes him to the underworld. they use the bough to bribe the ferryman to take them across the river Styx. From there they go to the Field of Tears, and make it to the cross roads. One path leads to the Gate of Ivory, which Aeneas and the sibyl by pass, and go on the other path that leads to the Elysian Fields to meet Aeneas' father, Anchises. Anchises then tells Aeneas about the future of Rome, and shows him the line of people about to go into the overworld that are Roman. After talking ot his father, Aeneas goes back to the overworld, and his men and him begin to sail for Italy.

Aeneid book 4

As Aeneas finishes his story, Dido thinks about her love for Aeneas and starting his city, and later talks to Anna about her and Aeneas getting married. Juno sees Dido's love as a means of preventing Aeneas not going to Italy, and offers Venus a peace offering, and suggests that Dido and Aeneas get alone together. Venus sees what Juno is up to, but complies anyway. By means of a storm, Juno gets the two alone in a cave while out on a royal hunt. After spending time together, the two go back to Carthage as lovers, and Dido considers them to already be married. Jupiter learns of the love between them, and sends Mercury to remind Aeneas of his goal to found Rome. Aeneas, not knowing how to tell Dido, tries to make ready to leave without her knowing. She finds out, and makes a fire in the courtyard, unlit. Aeneas leaves, and Dido, heart broke, goes onto the pyre built earlier, and kills herself. Juno pities her, and ends Dido's suffering.

Aeneid book 3

This book starts off with Aeneas's continued story of the Trojan war. He escapes Troy and leads the survivors to Antander to build ships. They then use there newly made ships to sail to Thrace, and while making sacrifices, Aeneas meets the spirit of Polydorus who asks him for a funeral so his spirit can rest in peace. After Aeneas does this, he and his crew then sailed to Delos. When Aeneas arrives at Delos, Apollo speaks to Aeneas and tells him to go back to the land of his ancestors, which Anchises believes that to be the island of Crete. They travel to Crete and start building, however, a terrible plague comes to their newly build civilization in Crete, and the gods come to Aeneas in a dream and say that Anchises was mistaken. They also tell Aeneas that he is supposed to start a civilization in Italy, not Crete. The gods also tell prophecy of Roman supremacy, declaring, “You must prepare great walls for a great race” (3.223 ). They then sail for Italy, but a storm comes and they crash onto Strophades. The men kill and eat some of the roaming cows, and that gets the attention of the Harpies, who are birds with female faces. The Harpies then, out of anger, curse the men saying they will not found Rome until they are so hungry that they will eat the tables. Aeneas goes to another island and offers another sacrifice to Apollo, and then they sail for Italy. On the way, Aeneas runs into Andromache and she tells the story of her and Helenus' capture, and she also advises him to go the long way to Italy because it is safer. Again Aeneas and his crew start for Italy, they run into a man from Ulysses's crew and he tells them of the Cyclops that they deceived, shortly after,  the Cyclops in question shows up, and the men escape, and sail for Italy.

The Punic Wars

Were the Punic Wars the most important era of the Republic? Why or why not?

The Punic Wars were very important to the era of the Republic. In the rise of the Roman Republic, the Punic Wars were the largest threat to Romes rule. Also, without the Punic Wars, Rome would not have gotten the experience in fighting needed to keep the Republic under control from outside threats. Without the Punic Wars, Rome would have quickly risen to power, but quickly fallen due to a lack of military strength, preventing it from being a great republic, and later an empire. So, based off of this, I'd say that the Punic Wars were most important in the Era of the Republic.

Livy and Aeneas

Today I will be answering two question, one from Livy's preface, and another from the second book of the Aeneid.

1) What is the purpose of Livy's History according to his "Preface"?

According to Livy, his history is meant to tell what happened in Rome's past without changes made, he also doesn't want to tell what the gods did, but just what people did. So in essence, he wants to record what people did without divine intervention, and only include true facts rather than distort what happened for the benefit of others.

2) In one to two paragraphs, summarize book 2 of the Aeneid.

In the second book of the Aeneid, Aeneas begins to tell the story of the final hours of Troy. To start, the Greeks pile their best warriors into the horse they build, and convince the Trojans to take it as "a parting gift." This led to the later demise of Troy when the horse was opened and the warriors killed the guards, and let the rest of the Greek forces into the city. While this was happening, Hector comes to Aeneas in a dream, and wakes him to fight the Greek forces. Aeneas wakes his men, and they fight for Troy, but were too outnumbered. Because of this, Priam dies by Achilles's son's hands. Aeneas realizes that it is Helen that the war started, and goes to end her when Venus comes and tells him that is was the gods' fault that the war started, and tells him to run and go found Rome. Reluctantly, Aeneas grabs his father and son, and runs out of the city with his wife behind him. Once after out of the city, Aeneas realizes his wife is still in the city. He runs back in only to be met with her ghost, who tells him to run to Rome. And so Aeneas does this.

Early Rome

Today I am asked to come up with two questions on early Rome, so here we go.

1) Why did the Romans base so much of their culture from the Etruscans if they came from Troy?

2) WHat on the journey from Troy changed the founders of Rome to become such a different nation?

The Iliad Endings

The Iliad book 24 resolves many issues seen in book 1. Firstly, we no longer see the enraged Achilles, but instead see a nice, and quite hospitable Achilles. Also, we see no anger toward Agamemnon from Achilles as resolved in an earlier book, whereas in book one, we see them quarrel quite a bit. Book 24 seems to completely resolve not only issues from Achilles, but also Achilles himself. Achilles, although he has been through a lot, and his death is drawing near, he is able to find this kind of peace with the "enemy" king Priam, and is contented with giving the body of Hector back. Also, Achilles, rather than letting his anger surge through him and his action, seems to be trying to prevent it, and show Priam hospitality. Also, for a moment, Achilles, the fatherless son, and Priam, the son less father, actually embrace each other as father and son. This shows Achilles' rage almost completely gone, and he is ready to live again. All thogether, this one book resolves not only problems in book 1, but also throughout the story, and resolves Achilles himself.

Socrates' preposition

Explain the Socratic method in your own words, giving examples from The Defense to support your claims.

Socrates uses rhetorical questions, authoritative examples, and facts to back up his arguments. He also humbles himself to the audiences level, and tries to stay there in order to bring them up to his level. One of his rhetorical questions is something like, And who are these accusers? He also uses the god Apollo in his argument, which is both an authoritative example, and a figure that everyone can relate to, putting his argument on their level. All of this he does in a neatly and carefully wrapped present of words for his audience to understand and begin to think a different way. he also is very efficient, and has almost nothing that could be taken out of his questioning and representing that his argument could use without.

Iliad Book 16

1)Which god is Hector's patron in this book? What does this god have to do with prophecy? what is ironic about Patroclus' prophecy to Hector, that Hector rejects?

Apollo is Hector's patron because he was the one that had him kill Patroclus and was the support for him as Hector did the act. Apollo was the one that fulfilled the prophecy that Zeus gave for Patroclus to die. Patroclus had said he'd kill Hector, but Hector ended up killing Patroclus.

2) What responsibility does Patroclus have for his own death? To what extend is Apollo responsible? To what extent is Hector Responsible? To what extent is Achilles responsible? To what extent is Zeus responsible? Fate?

Patroclus) Patroclus is quite responsible for his own death. He strapped on a hero's armor, dashed into battle, and got himself killed, thinking that putting on Achilles' armor would scare all the Trojans, while he couldn't just stand around, and wait for Achilles to change his mind, and we can't blame him for his actions, he still went into battle, which puts his life on the line, and so he died.

Apollo) Apollo was basically the reason Patroclus got killed. Patroclus, who isn't Achilles, had to face a god, then man killing Hector himself, persuaded by Apollo to go after Patroclus.

Hector) While Hector killed Patroclus, I believe he isn't that responsible for Patroclus' death. He sees what he thinks is Achilles, and goes to kill him, as someone in a war might do, take out the major player, and so he goes to kill Achilles, but finds that Patroclus is the one in Achilles' armor. While Hector did have the choice to kill the person in the armor, you can't blame him for killing in a war.

Achilles) Achilles is very responsible for his friend's death. He strapped his dear friend into his armor, and send him into war in his stead, and got him killed. Achilles should have taken the armor himself and gone to fight the Trojans.

Zeus) While Apollo was the action that sent Patroclus to his death, it was Zeus that sent that action into action. He was the one who ultimately decided that he wanted Patroclus dead.

Fate) Fate I believe is also responsible for Patroclus' death. Achilles wasn't changing his mind, and it's his fate to go into battle, so what does Fate do? Fate gets Achilles' friend killed to get him into battle.

Oresteia

Summarize the dialog between the coral Leader and Aegisthus? What kind of character/ politicial leader does Aegisthus appear to be? What is the Chorus' hope about Orestes? How will this hope be fulfilled?

The coral Leader basically tells Aegisthus that he's doing wrong, and that he can't take the throne. Then Aegisthus flaunts his power and murder, then him and Clytemnestra go into the house. Aegisthus seems to be a tyrant coming into power through murdering the king. The chorus don't like this, so they are hoping Orestes will come back, and kill the tyrant. This hope will be fulfilled in the next play, and in secret, like and assassination.

The Allegory of the Cave

How does "The Allegory of the Cave" demonstrate Plato's view of structure of reality? Does this understanding enable him to reconcile the arguments of both Parmenides and Heraclitus?

Plato's view of the structure of reality is that reality exists in more than one level or degree, and that the two main degrees were being and becoming, which is changing, and imperfect. This is seen in "The Allegory of the Cave" by the people forced to look at the wall, which represents both being, and becoming, and just see the shadows of the bearers coming in and out. Socrates is seen by Plato as the one in the story who has been freed, and has seen the world, or becoming better, and less imperfect. He then came back to tell everyone in the cave about it, to lead them to a better being, which some don't want because their being where they are is much easier than to become better. This does reconcile for both of Parmenides' and Heraclitus' arguments because it gives both a place, and that the world has both being and change.

Plutarch's biography

I believe Plutarch wrote this biography because he agreed with the moral values of Lycurgus. He tells about all of the reformations that Lycurgus made in Sparta, and therefore wanted to remind everyone of those values. Things such as not killing a king baby in your arms, helping a country in many ways, and not being selfish and drunk with power are all things Lycurgus did. While he could have taken power, he changed a nation, and left it to chose wether or not to keep those reforms. While he could have had money, he abolished all worth of gold, and luxuries, and made the Spartans a tough people, not being familiar to the pleasures of a couch, and having money. All this and more made Plutarch want to make a piography about Lycurgus

Debate of Sparta and Athens

Today I will be reflecting on our debate of which city-state was superior, Athens or Sparta. I believe that for this being our first debate, we did pretty well, however, I think that our working together was not as well as it could have been, and that we could've backed up our arguments better. I think because of this, our arguments had many holes. This meant we were constantly on the defensive, and could hardly ever ask them good questions about their arguments which were well presented, backed up, and hard to rebut. Overall, I believe all did well.

Lycurgus

Based on your reading of Plutarch's "Lycurgus", and the background information (handout) on Plutarch, explain why you think has written this "biography", and what you understand to be Plutarch's point of view regarding the Spartan constitution. You must give evidence to support your claim.

I am going to answer this in two parts, part 1(explain why you think has written this "biography"), and part 2(what you understand to be Plutarch's point of view regarding the Spartan constitution).

1) I believe Plutarch wrote the biography of Lycurgus to emphasize many things that Lycurgus did that were what people needed in their education, moral beliefs, and tactics about doing things. Plutarch, I believe, was in complete, and is not then mostly agreement with Lycurgus, and wants his generation to see what Lycurgus was trying to set in stone.

2) I believe Plutarch sees the constitution as something that everyone should know, and so an unwritten law for Sparta works well, because every citizen now has it constantly ingrained in them, and it becomes less of a law, but more of a tradition, or common knowledge, like praying before food, or 2+2=4. Plutarch values this, and sees it as a great thing. For instance, he says in his biography of Lycurgus," Lycurgus...was of the opinion that the principles which make the most substantial and important contributions towards the prosperity and excellence of a state remain stable if they are implanted in the characters and training of the citizens,..."

Achilles Returns

Should Achilles have returned to the fighting following the "Embassy to Achilles"? Why or why not? Give evidence to support your line of argument.

While yes, the Achaean needed him, I believe Achilles had the right to say no. Agamemnon insulted him, took his prize, and left Achilles alone. The Iliad put it like this,"...(patroclus)all for a girl, just one, and here we offer you seven-outstanding beauties-that, and a treasure trove besides.... (Achilles)but my heart still heaves with rage whenever I call to mind that arrogance of his- how he mortified me right in front of the Argives - that son of Atreus treating me like some vagabond, like some outcast stripped of all my rights!...", so yes, based off of that, I'd say yes, Achilles had the right to say no.