Democracy Over Time

The Ancient Greeks are known to be the founders and inventors of democracy. The Athenian democracy is one of the prime examples of a direct democracy- a democracy in which the people ruled. According to Athenian philosophers, “the type of government [the Athenians] were developing was inclusive of all ‘essential’ people” (Haddox). Every free adult male in the Athenian population was allowed to contribute to government and important political decisions. Over time, this direct model of democracy has evolved into what is now the American representative model of democracy. This American system, however, is vastly different from the ancient system when it comes to representation in government affairs.

The founding fathers of the United States democracy admired the Ancient Greeks’ democratic system, but feared there would be drastic consequences if Americans followed a strictly radical direct democracy. The Athenian democracy, in comparison with modern American democracy, was overall more inclusive and transparent with its citizens (Romeo). This, however, caused for some problems in the decision making process of government. Men would become overly passionate about their own personal gain when voting, yelling and shouting always ensued, and voting on a person’s banishment could influence the political outcomes of the Assembly. Overall, the “mob mentality” was a constant, overbearing influence on the Athenian Assembly. As written by James Madison in Federalist 55, “in all very numerous assemblies…passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason” (Romeo 1).

In contrast to the ancient democratic system, the modern American system uses representation of the people in political decision making rather than allowing the people to vote directly. This eliminates the “mob mentality,” but still allows the people to have some say of what goes on in government. By electing officials to vote in representation of the people, it is more likely that more people will vote the one time required, opposed to traveling long, unnecessary distances to an assembly to vote every couple of days or weeks. A representative vote promotes widespread participation in a large population, whereas a direct democracy may be more successful in a small, local population.

The American representative model of democracy is a vast improvement on the direct democratic model used by the Athenians. In modern democracies, citizens have the capability to contribute to government by voting for public officials or deciding to run for office themselves. The American democracy “is more complex and more interconnected, making direct democracy impractical” (Haddox). Although some officials may fail to carry out the policies favored by their constituents, the decisions made by the officials are still made to better the country as a whole. If every person in the United States had a direct vote towards an issue, all would vote in favor of satisfying their personal agendas. Overall, the representative model is a much more organized and reliable system that that of the Ancient Athenians.

democracy

References

Romeo, Nick. “What Modern Democracies Didn’t Copy from Ancient Greece.” National Geographic, 6 Nov. 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com.au/history/what-modern-democracies-didnt-copy-from-ancient-greece.aspx

Haddox, Anthony. “The Athenian Representative Democracy.” California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 2016.

The Evolution of Democracy

Today’s American democratic system is similar to the Athenian model in terms of the presence of political parties and Assemblies resembling the House of Representatives; however, the two systems also greatly differ due to the context of their time period and degree of social advancement. The most significant distinction that separates ancient American democracy from Athenian democracy is the participating electorate and officials.

America has implemented the electoral system to place public officials in office. According to the Fifteenth Amendment, a citizen cannot be denied the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote. The only restriction on voting eligibility lies in the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which states that a citizen must be eighteen years or older to vote. The overall constituency is very inclusive, and everyone is encouraged to cast a vote.

On the contrary, in Athens, the right to vote depended primarily on citizenship status, which was very choice. Despite the reforms of Solon and Cleisthenes (which included a diversity of socioeconomic strati), to be a citizen and vote, a person must have two Athenian parents and further have the means to go and participate in the Assembly. The Assembly was wholly male and excluded metics and slaves, many of whom have fought for Athens in the Peloponnesian War and civil war. A quote from The Old Oligarch illustrates this point:

“The poor and the people generally are right to have more than the highborn and wealthy for the reason that it is the people who man the ships and impart strength to the city far more than the hoplites, the high-born, and the good men. This being the case, it seems right for everyone to have a share in the magistries”(39).

Another difference is that voters in America can suggest laws and amendments, as well as elect public officials to represent them. Constituents indirectly vote on legislation by choosing officials who will represent their opinions; in other words, only House representatives, Senators, and the President vote on legislation, not the common people. However, in Athens, positions in public office were not determined by Assembly but rather random lottery. The pure purpose of the Assembly was for male citizens to exercise their opinions regarding the government’s operation and assert policy reforms. The Assembly resembled the First Amendment in action, and participating male citizens could suggest policy reforms, propose laws, and directly vote on legislation.

Interestingly, both democracies utilized different approaches to combat mob rule, causing discrepancies between the systems; Athens limiting the vote to citizens, and the United States implementing indirect democracy. As a result, there are discrepancies between the systems.

Blog Post 2: Athens or America? Which was better?

A hot-button issue in today’s politics is representation. Our founding fathers specifically wanted a representative model of government to avoid what they saw as the mob-rule of the Athenians. In fact, James Madison even said, “the true distinction between [ancient democracies] and the American government lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter…which leaves a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States” (Federalist 63). But sometimes elected representatives fail to carry out the policies favored by their constituents. Do you think the representative (American) model of democracy or the direct (Athenian) model is a better way to govern? Why? Use specific examples.

Please remember to check the category “Blog Post 2: Representative vs. Direct Democracy” and include your word count (> 400 words).

Blog Post 2: Democracy Ancient and Modern

By now, you realize that Athenian democracy was very different than our modern day, representative democracy (which is actually much closer to the Roman Republican model than the Athenian model). What do you see as the most significant difference OR similarity between the American and the Athenian system? Use at least one example from modern day (20th-21st century) politics and one example from 5th century Athenian politics to illustrate your point. Be sure to use concrete examples—as in, specific outcomes or events that resulted from certain features of government, not generic stuff like, “We have a president and they didn’t.”

Please remember to check the category: Blog Post 2: Democracy Ancient and Modern and include your word count at the bottom of your entry (> 400 words).

Blog Post #1

Over time, the connotation of the word “tyranny” has evolved into something much different than it used to be. In ancient (pre-democratic) times, a tyrant was one who was looked at as one who exercised his power without any legal restraint. While this is a little similar to today, tyrants of old did not have the negative reputation that they do nowadays. Being a tyrant was a sign of absolute power and it was respected by most people. Today, however, tyranny is looked at as overstepping legal bounds and illegitimizes one’s power. It is often associated with dictators that are ruling illegally.

On April 27, 2018, CNN posted an article about Kim Jung Un being a tyrant over North Korea. It was essentially analyzed the Korea’s claims that they were aiming for peace and why this did not change the fact that Un is a tyrant. Kim Jung Un is globally known as the cruelest leader in today’s world. He is the dictator of North Korea and life there is miserable. He embodies everything that tyranny is said to be. He hates the United States and our way of life and has long been threatening us with nuclear force. Tyranny today is largely paired with communism. This is why once democracy came to form, tyranny changed connotations so much. Generally, if you go against modern day democracy, it is tyrannical.

I do believe that the term “tyranny” is used correctly today. Tyranny is looked at as an illegal or oppressive way of ruling and I think that is similar to what it was in ancient times. They were ruling with no regard to legal restraint which is what it is now in a nutshell; however, it just used to be looked at in a different way. Today, I believe we look at it in the correct connotation which is that tyranny is a very detrimental thing and should be resisted.

Troy: Hollywood flare or Historically Accurate?

Depicting the great story of Homer’s Iliad, the 2004 motion picture Troy starring Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom provides a fairly accurate portrayal while at the same time maintaining that Hollywood flare.

The film did a good job showcasing different types of fighting that could have been used during that time. There were scenes of open battle initially on the beaches of Troy, and scenes of a more organized Trojan wall of shields that were used to fight off a large amount of Greek soldiers. The one on one fighting scenes of Achilles, Paris, Patroclus and Prince Hector were also fairly accurate according to the Iliad and Greek legend.

Paris is also accurately depicted as sort of a coward as he prefers to fight from a distance with his bow and arrow (eventually fatally wounding Achilles by shooting him in the heel). The common respect for the dead is also portrayed often as both sides are shown collecting their dead while the fighting stops and is also shown when Hector’s body is abused after he is slain by Achilles. Some aspects of the movie that deviated from the original story of the Iliad included character deaths that did not happen in the correct way/order, Helen claiming she was not of Spartan descent even though in reality she was a Spartan Princess and Menelaus became King of Sparta by marrying her, and most criminal of all, choosing to portray a ten year siege as we know from Homer, in just the span of a couple weeks. There were a number of sieges that took place in neighboring city states and towns of Troy that were not mentioned and there was also a lack of film on the massive Greek fleet’s difficult journey towards Troy.

Despite these flaws, most of what we see in the movie makes sense relative to the time period and to the Iliad. The movie did have to make some of these decisions in order to compact the story of the great Trojan War into a two hour film and that is understandable. Characters were killed off in different fashions in order to create more conflict and drama in the film, and backstories of characters were slightly twisted in order to provide a more touching role that the audience of the film could rally behind. Even though Troy includes some fiction and missing key aspects, it will still go down as a well made movie about the Greek conflict we all know and love.

-Jacob Ramos

Troy-Pitt-2-web-e1460667624103-800x400 — (Brad Pitt shows off his “flow”)

Works Cited

-https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/historical-review-troy-good-bad-ugly.html/2

-https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/

The Giant of Marathon

Giant

Looking for movies set during fifth century BC, instead of choosing the clique 300 – Rah, I found “The Giant of Marathon” After watching the ancient film itself – it came out in 1959 – I had a good couple laughs and found several similarities and discrepancies in the films depictions of up and coming Athens. For those of you who don’t do that many of the readings and can’t infer from knowledge, the events during “The Giant of Marathon” reference the Battle of Marathon, fought during the Persian Wars.

I surprisingly found that the film followed a few key facts from history. First, the Athenians did send a messenger to the Spartans asking for help against the Persian’s. According to known information, the Spartans declined to help because of a religious day of celebration keeping them from battle, they did the same in the movie, though they heroically joined in at the last second. Second, in a scene when asking for the Spartans help, Phillippides is standing bellowing a council made up of older gentlemen. In Spartan culture, it was traditional to seek the wisdom and council of the elders. Third, the rivalry between Sparta and Athens is portrayed in the film. According to history, the Athenians and the Spartans hated each other, but as soon as the Persians came into the picture everyone was all, “You’re Greek, I’m Greek, Screw the Persians!”

In stark contrast to our history’s recollection, I found some noticeable discrepancies. First, Philippides was said to run from Marathon to Athens to spread news of the glorious underdog victory only to dropped dead once he reached the city. However, in the movie, in the end, he walks away happily into the sunset with his royal wife-to-be. The director needed Phillippides to live because of his character’s romantic involvement with noble councilmen’s daughter. Second, reference back to point made earlier, during actual Battle of Marathon the Spartans did not join the Athenians. Athens took the “W” with the help of the Plataeans. Contradictory, in the film, the Spartans reluctantly come with support. Third, a lot of the battle tactics taken by the Athenians in the movie were simply not feasible. For almost 20 minutes they were underwater setting traps. In reality, the Athenians simply outnumbered the Persians when it came to triremes.

Overall I do not think this film is a valid depiction of history. It got a few things correct but took many artistic liberties when it came to making an interesting film (for 1959). By choosing to have the Spartans come in at the last second, it sheds a positive light Sparta and makes them look like heroes. As for not killing Philippides, if the main character were to die that wouldn’t make for a great ending. As well, the thrill of the battle scene and the suspense of how long the Athenians could stay underwater could have peaked the audience’s interest.

Inconsistency with the movie “300”

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.

Blog Post #1

There is a great difference in the connotation of the word tyranny compared to pre-democratic Greek society and our modern post-democratic society. Before the rise of democracy, a tyrant was an oppressive ruler who came to power through inheritance or force. Despite their cruel ruling, the word “tyrant” did not have a negative connotation because no matter how they ruled, tyrants were strong leaders who brought upon positive changes to society. As democracies grew and spread, “tyrant” developed a negative connotation because they are now viewed as selfish, incompetent, and arrogant leaders who bring destruction to society.

An article from the Daily Intelligencer: America Takes Next Step towards Tyranny, defines our president as tyrant. The author, Andrew Sullivan, describes Trump’s presidency as “the purge. Any constraints that had been in place to moderate the tyrant’s whim are set aside; no advice that counters his own gut impulses can be tolerated.” People have been fired, or quit, because they can no longer deal with a tyrant in power. The article continues to point out that America’s wellbeing is not a concern in the eyes of Trump, instead all he wants is a push for capitalism overseas because that is how he himself achieved greatness. This article defines Trump as a tyrant based off of Plato’s definition of a tyrant. Our president can be compared to “a late-stage democracy, dripping with decadence and corruption, with elites dedicated primarily to enriching themselves, and a people well past any civic virtue.” There is worries that Trump will become even more dangerous in the future through manipulation of the Republican Party. They make it clear that our president has no care for collateral damage and is full of ignorance. Persuasive diction is used. If he continues at the rate he is going, “war is coming. And there will be nothing and no one to stop him.”

Sullivan has accused Trump to being a modern tyrant- decadent, cruel, unjust, and having little to no concern of the American people. I think that if you are reading this article with the pre-democratic definition it does not fit. This definition contradicts the connotation of a tyrant that the ancient Greeks had because instead of perfecting our country, it seems as if the majority of people think our president is failing America. However, if you are reading with a post-democratic definition it seems to fit because of how negatively Sullivan portrays Trump.

Work Cited

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/america-takes-the-next-step-toward-tyranny.html

The Truth in the Movie ‘300’

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.