I believe that our form of representative democracy as put forth by our founding fathers is superior to the democracy used by ancient Athens. There are many noticeable differences between total democracy used by Athens and the democratic republic that the United States uses today. One of the main differences that is worth noting is the times. In ancient Athens, as we saw during our in-class assembly, an issue that arose was whether or not slaves and metics would be allowed to vote. While this doesn’t necessarily play into whether or not total or our version of democracy throughout time is better (considering we had slaves who were unrepresented in our past, as well) it is necessary to note this key difference in how ancient Athens was represented compared to us especially when looking at today’s democratic republic.

 

Also, as seen in our class assembly, things got extremely chaotic when trying to vote for anything. This is what can happen when allowing anyone that shows up to speak at an assembly and vote. The way it was set up by our founding fathers, we elect people who will make decisions that are aligned with what we believe. Essentially, the people we put in place are put there to represent the rest of us. In my mind, this is better for a couple of reasons. One thing that is put in place is the Electoral College. In some instances, such as the 2016 election, a candidate that didn’t have as many votes won the presidency. However, where the losing candidate got all of her votes were in the bigger cities and a much larger demographic actually voted for Donald Trump. If it were merely a populous vote, then those who live in small communities in Rhode Island, North Dakota, etc. would not have a voice. The election would only be decided by places like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. Especially in an Athenian society where only educated really had a say, it would be much more of the same.

 

Elected leaders aren’t the only important issues that lie in America today. There are numerous things such as tax reform that need discussed and voted on. It is much more effective to have Congressmen in place to discuss such issues. As stated, things are much less chaotic than if it were everyone voting on certain issues. We put people in place whose job it is to become educated on all of the issues at hand and represent the people who voted them into office. Today’s equivalent of the Athenian model would be if some issue would arise and there was a mass text or internet poll sent out for everyone to vote on. It would be chaotic and people wouldn’t be properly educated in many cases to make these decisions. In both forms of government, the people are represented. However, putting people in place to represent us makes things far less chaotic and has served as an effective form of government for many years. While it is obviously without faults, the democratic republic of today is undoubtedly superior to the Athenian democracy of ancient times.

 

Sources: http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/

 

It is clear that the representative and direct models of democracy both have their advantages as well as their disadvantages. The key to determining which model is better for a country is looking at the country using the system and how the two models could be used in the government. The three biggest factors when looking at how the two forms of democracy will affect the country is looking at how large the country is, the population, and what state the country is in.

The United States has been using the representative model of democracy, and has been using it successfully for many years. The U.S. is a very large country with a very large population, at least compared to Athens, and is one of the major world powers. Direct democracy would not be possible in America because of how large it is. No matter where events are held, anyone livening in the far corners of the country would almost never be able to attend, therefore leaving their voices unheard. With representative democracy however, it is possible to hear the voices of the general public from every state, including Alaska and Hawaii. Likewise, with such a large population, having a direct democracy would cause a large amount of chaos within government, because too many voices would be heard. Although not everyone’s voice is heard in a representative democracy, there is still a lot of different opinions heard from everyone that is involved. Finally, with the United States place as one of the world leaders, and our country being in a mostly stable state, it is not necessary to make major changes to the way things are being run. What is important, is taking care of the citizens, and ensuring their safety and well-being.

On the other hand, a direct democracy for Athens is the most reasonable choice. Athens, being a city state, is much smaller with a much smaller population. Having a direct democracy gives any citizen that wants to be heard, the chance to be heard. Although it is not possible to fit every citizen in the assemblies, it is possible to get a voice heard from every group of citizen.

It is more important to look at the country or city state rather than the model that is being used, in order to determine whether representative democracy or direct democracy is better.

The movie 300 is definitely a great one to watch. While it gives a good overview of the Battle of Thermopyle, it also has a lot of inaccurate information. It is clear that it is a very expensive movie to produce and considering that kind of investment, the moviemakers made some changes to the plot to get a better reaction out of the audience. In the beginning of the movie, it shows Leonidas becoming king at a very young age while sources reveal that he did not become king until he was about 40 years old, in year 490 B.C.E. (Petersen). In the movie, Leonidas gets the kingdom after killing a lion that was chasing him. His actions showed his bravery, strength, and other values that Spartans live for.

Furthermore, in the movie, King Xerxes is portrayed as a god while all the men under him are portrayed as worthless slaves. When king Xerxes attempts to cut a deal with king Leonidas in the movie, he gets off his chariot and uses the back of his men as steps. When he gets near king Leonidas, King Leonidas told him that his men are treated like slaves while Spartans are warriors. In reality, the Persians pay their workers because they do not believe in free servitude. The purpose of that is to make king Xerxes appear as a heartless ruler while King Leonidas gets to be the good person.

Lastly, the movie exaggerated the size of the Persian army, while lowering the true number of Greeks that fought during that battle. “By the time he reached Thermopylae, Leonidas had assembled a force of about seven thousand men” (Petersen). While the Greeks are divided in many tribes, when it comes time to battle another nation, the Greeks come together as one to protect their land. In addition to the size of the Greek army, the Greeks “also knew that the Aegean in August was subject to violent, unexpected windstorms, and storms did occur with extraordinary force and frequency, destroying a significant portion of the Persian fleet” (Petersen). The Spartans were great warriors, the movie made it seem like their combat skills were the main reason they defeated the Persians, omitting to mention any weather conditions that affected the Persians army.

Source :

Petersen, Nis. “Leonidas.” Great Lives from History: The Ancient World, Prehistory-476 c.e., edited by Christina A. Salowey, Salem, 2004. Salem Online.

There are many movies based on historical data that provide an idea of events transpired in the past. The movie 300 is based on the Battle of Thermopylae in which 300 Spartans courageously stand up against a great Persian army.  The movie accurately provides a glimpse of the dominance of Spartans in battle. The Spartans were known for their warrior-like tendencies. According to Demaratus, King Xerxes of the Persian Empire had to “deal with the strongest kingdom and town in Greece, and with the bravest men” (Demaratus on the Spartan Way of Living).  The movie also provides a glimpse of the mind of King Xerxes and his opinion on the Spartan people. King Xerxes was boastful and overly confident that his vast army would trample over the small-numbered Spartans. However, King Leonidas and his Spartans gave the Persian army a loss in their numbers.

While the movie does provide a glimpse of the Spartan culture, it does not provide an accurate portrayal of the events that took place in the Battle of Thermopylae nor their true nature. There are several examples of the inaccurate facts about the Battle of Thermopylae shown in the movie. For example, King Leonidas never meets with King Xerxes because King Xerxes did not engage on the battlefield. According to an epitaph by Simonides, King Leonidas died in conflict early in their stand against the Persian Armies (Demaratus on the Spartan Way of Living). In the movie 300, King Leonidas survives until the very last battle in which he injures King Xerxes. The movie 300 also portrays the war between the Persian Empire and the Greeks as the end of the Persian Empire. However, despite the loss in the war, the Persian Empire continued to rule a vast part of the world.

The producers of the movie 300 changed some of the historical representation to appeal to the audience. The movie is not only based on the Spartans and Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae but focuses on the perspective of King Leonidas. Had the movie stayed true to historical data and King Leonidas not lived past the second day, it would have been a completely different movie. The movie not based on the love of a king for his kingdom and his queen would likely have resulted in a documentary-like perspective on the Spartan stand against the Persians.

Despite the inaccuracies in 300, the movie allows people to gain an interest in the history of the Greeks and their battle against the tyranny of King Xerxes and his Persian Empire. In the movie, King Leonidas is seen as a man of reason, integrity, and love for his home and people. King Xerxes, however, is portrayed as evil, unreasonable, and greedy. The producers created the film in such a way to appeal to people who love a story in which the force of good overcomes evil. It provides Hollywood with a perfect story.

 

Works Cited

“Demaratus on the Spartan Way of Living.” Greece, A History of Ancient Greece, Mythology, history-world.org/Greek%20Sparta.htm.