Classics Reloaded

We Live in a World of "Soft Men"

2007-08-24T00:08:00.000-05:00

In reading Herodotus’ Histories, I came across an intriguing quote. In his advice to the Persians, Cyrus the Great claims “soft lands tend to breed soft men” (IX: 122). Cyrus was, of course, speaking in a literal sense, as he continued on, “it is impossible for one and the same country to produce remarkable crops and good fighting men.” However, I am interested in the statement on a more figurative level.

How strong can one really be without having endured difficulties at some point? This idea has been expressed, or at least experienced, in nearly every facet of life. Simply put by Friedrich Nietzsche, “What does not kill me, makes me stronger.” Being hardened in the past, in the Persian War and now, makes one stronger and better prepared for the present. Imagine a star NFL prospect, breezing through high school and college; always facing weak, outmatched opponents; never truly being called to face superior or even equal opponents. Will he be prepared to be a star professional? Absolutely not. Without having faced true competition, he has not fully prepared himself for the trials that will certainly lie ahead. It is experiencing and eventually overcoming defeat that reveals true character - athletically, personally, professionally. Lack of adversity leads to complacency. In a state of complacency, there can be no improvement. One becomes “soft.”

In the Classical world, this was not an option. Sparta was able to defeat Athens by being the more hardened soldiers. In a land of little agriculture and, compared to Athens, far inferior economic and academic realms, Spartans did not have the option of milling about the agora, discussing the eternal Form of beauty. Rather, they had to be in a constant state of complete military preparedness in order to keep in check the ever-restless helots and protect their expanding land. It is impossible to pinpoint, but one could certainly argue that it was the very nature of Athens soft, academically inclined society that led to its defeat at the hands of the smaller, harder Spartans.

It is in today’s world, however, that Cyrus’ advice may be most crucial on an individual level. The majority of Westerners are able, if they choose, to live a life of leisure (compared to what was available in all but the very recent past). We may play in clean, neatly organized games and play groups, slide through large, unchallenging schools, slip into an unexciting, run-of-the-mill job, ease into quiet retirement in a pampered home and eventually death in soft bed surrounded by family members. Never before have we as a society been so completely unchallenged. If you don’t want to work in school, in most places you will find no one to challenge you to do so. If you have no interest in moving beyond a dead-end job, no one will ask for your resume to promote you. No, it is now our own individual responsibilities to seek out these challenges. Study the hard subjects. Take the difficult jobs. Play the national powerhouse teams. Yes, you will have to work harder than everyone else around you. Yes, you will fail. And, if you continue to work, yes, you will overcome. And then you will have the satisfaction of looking at those around you, knowing that you are quicker, stronger, smarter, harder.

Apologies

2007-08-24T00:03:00.000-05:00

I would like to extend huge apologies to anyone who has emailed me at my classicsreloaded@gmail.com account. Unbeknownst to me, there was a major glitch which, while allowing some administrative emails though, was blocking most other ones. So for these past months, while I thought no one was bothering to email me, it really turned out that, in fact, I just wasn't receiving those emails. I am so sorry to those who have emailed me in the past. I will return all messges, no matter how long overdue. Now that the problem is fixed, I hope all will feel free to email any comments, suggestions, ideas, etc. etc. to me at classicsreloaded@gmail.com I would love to hear from you.

Archimedes' Death Ray

2007-05-01T22:43:00.000-05:00

When I heard of Archimedes’ Death Ray, the name alone was enough to get me interested. Who could resist some thing called a Death Ray?? After some investigation, I learned that this story dates back to the Second Punic War. According to Greek and Roman historians, when, in 212 BC, Syracuse faced an attack from the Romans, they turned to Archimedes, the great (and local) physicist, mathematician, and engineer, for defense. According to the story, he developed his Death Ray as a means of halting the approaching Roman naval fleet. Archimedes instructed the soldiers of Syracuse to polish their shields until they shone like mirrors. They were then positioned along the coast of the island, facing the incoming Roman navy. The sun was reflected off of the many shields onto Roman ships, causing them to burst into flames and thus ending the Roman advance.

At first, I agreed with many scholars that the whole thing sounded a bit far-fetched. The idea of being able to burn up the Roman fleet like ants under a magnifying glass simply with polished shields seemed unbelievable. However, some experiments have been done that bring my initial doubt into question. An engineering class at MIT tested the ability of reflective metal shields to light wooden ships on fire. After a few tests, the engineers declared that it is, in fact, possible! Granted, the results were not perfect. The MIT students, for example, found that direct sunlight was necessary as the shields were highly responsive to even minimal cloud coverage. Nevertheless, they showed that it was indeed possible to ignite wood with nothing more than the sun and some highly reflective metal shields. The same group collaborated with the team from Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters to perform another test. They were unable to produce the flash ignition that the initial MIT team created, although there was some burning, eventually causing a 10 in. hole in the boat.

Surely, these test results cannot be taken to mean that the story of Archimedes is true. However, they have convinced me that the Death Ray is not out of the realm of possibility.

Rome: A Civilization of Student-Athletes

2007-03-01T10:01:00.000-05:00

As a student-athlete myself, I often hear the benefits of a fully rounded education, i.e. one involving athletics, touted. Members of the Athletic Department, coaches, sometimes even professors tell us of the great advantage we have, of the far superior education we are receiving by training not just our minds while at college but also our bodies.

I have always agreed with these sentiments. I certainly can see the life-long benefits of being an athlete; it is one of the reasons I made the decision to be a collegiate athlete. Commitment, discipline, loyalty, dedication, selflessness, leadership, the ability to put in an unbelievable amount of work for an often-distant goal. However, I always thought that the speeches I had heard in favor of athletics as a crucial part of becoming the best, most fully developed person one could be as somewhat weak. The sentiments were most often simply stated as fact and never fully explained. That’s why I was excited to read of a group that had finally gotten it right. The Romans.

In a particularly interesting section of The Conspiracy of Catiline, Sallust goes into detail about how Athens’ reputation benefited unduly from the presence of many great writers and how the Romans were, regardless, the superior civilization:

“But, assuredly, Fortune rules in all things. She makes everything famous or obscure rather from caprice than in conformity with truth. The exploits of the Athenians, as far as I can judge, were very great and glorious, yet something inferior to what fame has represented them. But because writers of great talent flourished there, the actions of the Athenians are celebrated over the world as the most splendid of achievements. Thus, the merit of those who have acted is estimated at the highest point to which illustrious intellects could exalt it in their writings.

But among the Romans there was never any such abundance of writers; for, with them, the most able men were the most actively employed. No one exercised the mind independently of the body; every man of ability chose to act rather than narrate, and was more desirous that his own merits should be celebrated by others, than that he himself should record theirs.” (emphasis my own) (The Conspiracy of Catiline:8)

What Sallust seems to me to be saying is spot-on. Only so much about life can be understood or appreciated through just observation and recording. At some point, you have to get out there and do something. This is where, if Sallust’s representation is to be believed, the Romans were very successful. Rather just sitting around in comfort and philosophizing about the state of the human soul like the Athenians, the Romans were constantly training their bodies, in addition to their minds, for war. They were traveling and conquering. They were not content to stay at home. They were insatiable.

Of course, I see the arrogance and ignorance inherent in this argument. The Athenians, lest the Romans forget, had an empire of their own; one that was not won by sitting around the Agora and talking. Also, this may very well be an idealized view of Roman culture, not taking into account the more practical and less idealized side of their position. And there is an obvious need for writers and historians in every culture. Otherwise why would I bother writing this blog at all?

However, these concerns must be set aside so the big picture can be seen. What the Romans are saying is that, without the body, the mind is not as strong as is could be. It is debatable to what extent this is true, but I would be willing to argue with anyone who says that one cannot learn invaluable life lessons on the racecourse or playing field. These are lessons that could never be taught in a classroom or read in a book. They are lessons that must be attained individually, through struggle, pain, triumph, and sometimes failure. Whether they come from the battlefield, as they did for the Romans, or from the racecourse, as they do for today’s athletic warriors, lessons learned from physical challenges are among, if not the, most important in life.

Train your mind. Train your body. Be insatiable. That is the lesson of the Romans.

Dead Languages Not So Dead Here

2007-02-11T00:27:00.000-05:00

True, it seems an unlikely pairing - a couple of dead languages with one of the newest, hippest forms of broadcasting, podcasts. However, the marriage is a welcome one, especially as I begin studying Latin for the first time this semester. At Haverford College's site Classics Podcasts you will find links to numerous audio files of spoken Greek and Latin, many of which can easily be downloaded right into your iTunes. There is something novel yet thrilling about hearing Cicero and Virgil spoken in their original tongue, and here you will find a plenty to listen to.

The Persian War: A Battle of Wits

2007-01-25T11:22:00.000-05:00

It is tempting to view the Greek victory in the Persian War as an achievement of superior power and fighting. However, this really wasn’t the case. The Greeks were victorious because they out-planned and out-thought the Persians, taking advantage of their own knowledge of the terrain and benefiting from Persians’ errors on the battlefield.

It is not up for debate who had the most obvious advantages going into the war; the Persian Empire was the largest and most powerful the world had known. There was a seemingly endless supply of human capital to fill the ranks of the Persian army. Furthermore, she enjoyed superior firepower compared to the Greeks, in terms of technology, their ships, for example, were faster, lighter, and more maneuverable than the Greeks’, as well as the sheer amount of firepower.

The Greeks, however, had some more important intangible advantages. First of all, they were fighting on and for their own homeland. They fought every battle knowing that a loss would bring the enemy that much closer to their own families and homes. The Greeks were fighting to save their own way of life. Additionally, the Greeks were fighting of their own accord. Because of the democratic structure of the city-states, the soldiers were fighting because they voted that this was the best course of action. This type of motivation can be a huge factor in the face of an enemy fighting simply because their despotic ruler sitting atop his throne on a nearby hilltop tells them to.

However, the real reason the Greeks won was their ability to engage the enemy at locations best suited for a Greek victory. The Greeks knew the terrain and they also knew their own militaristic limitations. This allowed them to choose battle sites that would minimize the advantages of the enemy. This was certainly the case at the battle of Salamis. The Greeks were aware of the superiority of the Persian fleet. Their ships were smaller and faster. The Greeks, on the other hand, were dealing with older, slower, less agile triremes. In order to make this as little of a factor as possible, they managed, through a little trickery on the part of Themistocles, to engage the Persians in the shallow bay of Salamis. By battling in such a shallow, closed-in area the speed and maneuverability of the Persian fleet was neutralized as best could be hoped for. They did not have to room to either get up to full speed or to take advantage of their full mobility. On top of that, the Persians, or at least the vast majority of them, were unable to swim. Essentially, once they were thrown overboard, they were as good as dead. So the Greeks didn’t necessarily have to destroy every enemy sailor, just get them off their ships. The Greeks, on the other hand, practiced quick turning and ramming maneuvers in preparations for just such a battle. In a smaller area, their slower speed never arose as a problem as no one had the room to get to full speed. Therefore, they were more prepared for a battle in such conditions because they chose them.

It is also interesting to look at the Battle of Thermopylae in such a light. Although the Greeks obviously lost the battle, it was only through a fortunate chance event for the Persians. Had Ephialtes not showed the Persians another way around the pass at Thermopylae they most likely would not have won. Up until that point, the Greeks were dominating the Persians, slaughtering the huge force as they funneled through the narrow pass. Once again, the Greeks, aware of the fact that they were vastly outnumbered, chose a location highly favorable to their smaller, more elite forces. The Persians’ size became a near non-factor as they had t0 squeeze through the Hot Gates. The Greeks were far more capable of picking off the Persian force one chariot at a time. This, again, is evidence of the Greeks’ cunning in making the most of a battle situation.

The Greeks were careful to draw the Persians into battle at locations where the Greeks were able to take advantage of their familiarity with the land and military forces involved. For this reason, it is valuable to look at the Persian War, not just as a battle of two great powers, but also as a battle of wits.

I always knew I liked Wikipedia....

2007-01-12T22:45:00.000-05:00

A little something of interest: today's Featured Article on Wikipedia is on Alcibiades. An Ancient Greek who I find incredibly intriguing and a website I can't get enough of - doesn't get much better.

On another note: I am coming into reading week and exam time. So, as you might imagine, it's time to focus a little more on school work and a little less on my new pet blog. Posts may be a little less frequent for a bit, but don't worry, I'm not going anywhere.

Antigone: Family vs. Country

2007-01-04T00:38:00.000-05:00

A fascinating debate from classical literature that rages on today is the question of who was in the right in Sophocles’ Antigone. Both Antigone and her uncle, the king of Thebes, Creon, believed that they were doing what was best – Antigone’s burial of her brother Polyneices and Creon’s refusal to and subsequent condemnation of his niece. Who was right?

It seems likely that even Sophocles’ audience would have been in conflict over which character made the correct decision. Both were acting according to the law they believed to be superior. Creon believed that since Polyneices was a traitor to Thebes (he had, after all, lead an army against his brother, King Eteocles) he deserved the punishment fitting of such a traitor. Antigone, quite to the contrary, believed that family loyalty takes precedence over everything, even the law of the land. She therefore had no choice but to bury her brother. When it comes down to it, this is a story of family versus country. Which demands our greater loyalty?

Sophocles makes the answer unclear. Both Antigone and Creon suffer horrible fates. Antigone loses her own life. Creon loses his niece and, consequently, his son and wife. It is debatable who suffers more in such a situation. However, I think the text seems to hint that Creon was in the wrong and that he was the one who suffered more when all was said and done. In the end, Creon decides that he must free Antigone; that she was not wholly in the wrong. He declares, “We must not wage a vain war with destiny;” deciding, “’tis best to keep the established laws, even to death’s end.” However, it is too late. By the time Antigone’s cave is opened, she has already hung herself. The tragedy of her death is magnified by the fact that Creon acknowledged the error of his judgment with almost enough time to save her, but it was just barely too late. To make things worse, Heamon, Creon’s son and Antigone’s fiancé, kills himself after finding his love hanging in the cave. These two incidents alone would be enough of a horror for Creon. But it is not yet over. Eurydice, the queen, upon hearing of the deaths of both her son and niece, quietly climbs to her room and she, too, commits suicide. Creon, thus, is left wholly alone at the end of the play, believing he is being severely punished for his wrongful condemnation of Antigone. She, on the other hand, accepts death. She has the ability to avoid it, if she were to but leave her brother’s body lying outside the city. However, she takes action, knowing full well the consequences. She never doubts herself, as seen in her address to her fallen brother, “And yet I have honored thee, as the wise will deem, rightly.” Antigone, at least, has the satisfaction of believing herself to have a death in sacrifice for her family. Creon, on the other hand, is left with nothing.

I know no answer can be provided with complete certainty, but I am curious to see what others have to say on the topic. Who was in the right? Who does the text itself point to as being correct, or at least more correct than the other?

Wiki Classical Dictionary

2006-12-28T21:25:00.000-05:00

Here's a good resource I recently came across: the Wiki Classical Dictionary. There looks to be a wide range of info here, 742 articles, although I haven't looked extensively myself. One problem seems to be that the wiki has not been updated since March 6, 2006. I think this kind of a site could be a great source of information if it were being continuously updated and expanded. Give it a look and see if you don't have some information to add yourself.

Un-Democratic? Or TOO Democratic?

2006-12-25T00:32:00.000-05:00

First of all, I would like to thank all who have commented on this blog and encourage more to do so. This is exactly why I wanted to start Classics Reloaded. It is easy enough to sit around by yourself, coming up with ideas, tossing them around your own head, with no one to challenge or support you, then moving on. I was hoping that this would be a place for me to do more than that. This will be for me a testing ground of sorts for different ideas, theories, etc. that I may come across. Ideally, I want this to be a conversation. I am just starting off in the field of classics. I know I have a lot to learn. It is my hope that this blog will be a place for me to share my thoughts and receive criticisms and encouragement from you, the readers.

That being said, the most recent comments on my last two posts, both on democracy in Athens, have really got me thinking. As I read them over, I realized that I do indeed need to take a closer, more critical look at my own thoughts on this topic. I believe that I may have been too hasty in my judgments of Athenian democracy. I think that I may have come out too strongly in my posts against the Athenians, sounding as though I was certain of the undemocratic nature of Athens rather than accurately conveying the state that I was in – one of questioning and doubt. I believe that the events that I discussed were intriguing occurrences in a democracy and warrant a closer look. I do not, however, claim to have the answers.

Looking more closely at my issues with the cases of Alcibiades and Nicias, I realize now that it is not the democracticness, as you might say, of Athens that I should be questioning, but rather, perhaps, the fairness, or justness of the system. (I am still searching for the correct word here, for neither of these are quite accurate.) The problem may not be that Athens was not democratic enough, but rather quite the opposite, that it was too democratic. With the citizens having the right and expectation to vote on quite literally everything, there were no checks on the swings of public opinion. If there was a particularly persuasive orator speaking against Alcibiades, he would be put to death. Is this wrong? Not technically. If that is what the people want, then, in a pure democracy, that must be what happens. Morally, however, it is easy, hopefully obvious, to take issue with this possibility. This very well may be a flaw in the system. One that was remedied with modern democracies, beginning with America. This is precisely why today we have a republic, not a true democracy. The legislature and judiciary, in essence, are in place to protect us from ourselves. I believe the necessity for this protection can, at times, be seen in ancient Athens.

Again, this is a topic that requires far, far more discussion than what has already taken place. I hope that anyone who has anything to contribute will post a comment. As you can see, I may at times, be a little too hasty to post my thoughts on here. That’s when I hope you will call me out on it. The comments here have forced me to reconsider my opinions, to take a closer look at stories I already thought I understood and find a more convincing argument. Hopefully with more time and research, I will yet again fine-tune my opinion on this and other topics. We shall see...

How Democratic Was Athens? (con’t)

2006-12-23T01:22:00.000-05:00

This, of course, is a topic that could, and has been, expanded upon to a much greater extent than I can here. However, in this post, I will explore another incident in the Peloponnesian War which brings into question the fairness of Athenian democracy. I acknowledge there is a great deal more to say on this topic, and I intend to return to it in the future.

In war, it was not abnormal for Athenian generals to be tried and punished for crimes and shortcomings in war - they were always to provide a proper burial for the dead; they were never permitted to hit a soldier. These all seem like reasonable expectations for military leaders. However, you’d expect there to be a limit. You, being the Athenian people, can’t punish someone for doing something in you best interests but that you don’t like… right?

Apparently not. As the inevitable failure of the Sicilian Expedition became increasingly apparent, Nicias, one of the greatest generals Athens ever produced and the man responsible for the earlier Peace of Nicias, refused to retreat from Sicily out of fear of the Athenian people. His fellow general, Demosthenes, openly declared that it would be best for the Athenians to retreat. Even the soldiers were “crying out so loudly about their desperate position” (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War VII:48). It seems as though this would be an acceptable move. But Nicias disagreed.

The troublesome part of this story is that Nicias did not demand that the Athenians stay in Sicily because he believed it to be the best move militarily. Nor because he thought they had a better chance to win the battle. Indeed, according to Thucydides, Nicias agreed that “ their affairs were in a bad way.” He was, nevertheless, unwilling to leave. Nicias knew the Athenian people well – they would not approve of the withdrawal. He also knew what fate awaited him upon his return. “Hostile critics” would deliver speeches and reports to the Athenians “whose judgments would be swayed by any clever speech designed to create prejudice.” Even his own soldiers could not be counted on; regardless of how dire they agreed the situation was while in Sicily, they “would, as soon as they got to Athens, entirely change their tune and would say the generals had been bribed to betray them and return” (VII:48). Plutarch agrees, explaining that Nicias refused to retreat, “not because he underrated the Syracuseasn, but because he was still more afraid of the Athenian people and of the accusations and trials which would follow at home” (The Rise and Fall of Athens VII:22).

I find this to be not only disturbing but ineffective. This seems problematic to the idea of the great Athenian democracy. How fair is a government when one of its best generals is too afraid of the prejudiced condemnation of his fellow citizens to make the militaristic decisions which he believes to be best? How well run is an army when decisions are being made for any reason other than what will give the group the best chance of victory and/or survival? Nicias made a conscious decision that death at the hands of his enemy in a failed battle would be preferable to being “put to death on a disgraceful charge and by an unjust verdict of the Athenians” (VII:48). Nicias is described as “knowing the Athenian character.” If even he did not fully trust the constructs of the judicial system, I think it is safe to say that system was corrupt.

So, how fair is a system in which innocent leaders are liable to be put to death for making a unpopular but responsible decision? Not very, I would have to say.

How democratic was Athens?

2006-12-18T23:50:00.000-05:00

Since I've known what Ancient Greece was, I've known that Athenian democracy is touted as the great predecessor of our own American democracy and of all democracies, to some extent, throughout the world. This is a fact often taken for granted in studying the ancient world. It is very easy to make comparisons between the U.S. and Athens.

However, as I am learning more about the form of democracy developed and employed at the height of Athenian power, I am become more and more suspicious that this system may not be all it is cracked up to be. There are the obvious undemocratic aspects of Athens, such as slavery and the political and social repression of women. I am willing to leave these out of the equation, given that America, too, was guilty of these same crimes for the better part of her existence.

Apart from this, however, I am finding things that make me wonder how democratic this place really was. Several instances in the Peloponnesian War are particularly questionable. Take the case of Alcibiades, for example. The night before the great (but doomed) Athenian expedition to Sicily was to launch all but one of the Hermea in the city were mutilated. The Hermea, podiums with the head of Hermes and a phallus, were located all throughout the city calling on the god for protection from evil. Such a sacrilege, particularly the night before such a crucial expedition, was seen as a very bad omen for the mission and a grave crime that had to be punished. Although it still remains uncertain who was responsible for the acts, Alcibiades was accused. (His actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant to the point I am making with this story.) According to Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War, Alcibiades denied the charges but requested to stand trial before leaving for Sicily. He begged the citizens not to listen to his enemies in his absence but rather try and, if necessary, put him to death right there while he could still defend himself. He even acknowledged “how unwise it would be to send him out in command of such a large army with such serious accusations still hanging over his head” (VI: 29). This seems like a very level-headed and fair thing for a man in such a position to say. However, the Athenians, so worked up about their attack on Sicily, were willing to overlook this offense for the sack of the mission. The Athenians decided, then, it would be best not to hold up the army. Alcibiades would sail with them and return in a set number of days to stand trial.

Does this sound very democratic to you? Because of his position of military and social prominence, Alcibiades was allowed to avoid trial. Eventually, after fighting for some time with Sicily, Alcibiades, rather than returning to Athens for his trial at the appointed time, deserted. He ended up becoming a key advisor and strategist for none other than the Spartans. Even if he wasn’t the one who mutilated the Hermea, he’s still probably not the kind of guy you want leading your army into an expedition of such a size and importance of that of the one headed for Sicily. (He then deserted Sparta and returned to, yes, you guessed it, Athens. And (get this!) he was reinstated as a general! How’s that for democracy?) The fact that the popularity of Alcibiades, as well as the influence of his enemies who wanted more time to gather incriminating evidence, was capable of overruling law, a fairly serious, religious law at that, says to me that this “democracy” still had a long way to go.

In my next post, I will look into another incident from the expedition to Sicily that brings into question the democratic nature of Athens: Nicias’ fear of the Athenian public, therefore courts, and his subsequent unwillingness to surrender.

Who's up for some soccer?

2006-12-13T15:34:00.001-05:00

Who ever said classicists weren't fun?? This skit by Monty Python shows a dramatic 'football' match between some famous Ancient Greek and German philosophers. Just further proof of the superiority of the classical world. Enjoy.

Princeton/Standford Writing Papers

2006-12-12T00:44:00.000-05:00

Here's an other good link for you: The Princeton/Stanford Writing Papers in Classics (PSWPC). This joint project between the Classics Departments of Princeton and Stanford Universities acts as a means of making available papers by professors and grad students of each school prior to publication. It is a great way to read some quality new work before it is even published.

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death: The Melian Dialogue

2006-12-09T14:39:00.000-05:00

In a class I am currently taking we were, in our study of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian Wars, the Melian Dialogue (V: 84-116). This debate, between representatives of Athens and the council of Melos, takes place in 416 BC, right in the meat of the war. Melos, a small island city-state, while known as being sympathetic to Sparta, claimed neutrality in the war. (Recent evidence has suggested that at least some Melians did, in fact, pay tribute to Sparta. That can be looked into more in-depth later.) Athens, eager to secure all islands as allies in their domination of the seas, sailed to the island to demand their tribute, whether through debate or force. This dialogue consists basically of the Melians trying to convince the Athenians to let them remain neutral and the Athenians, in turn, demanding the Melians pay tribute and become their ally

In discussing this in class, I was shocked to discover that the vast majority of students, when polled, would have surrendered to the Athenians rather than fight had they been in the Melian council. I am certain that most, if not all of the students, were influenced by the outcome of the actual historical events – the Melians resisted and were eventually defeated; all the men were killed, the women and children sold into slavery, and their city repopulated by Athenians. Nevertheless, where was these students’ sense of pride and honor? Their respect for national freedom, even in the face of an overwhelming enemy? Especially in this classroom situation, where there is nothing really at stake, how could you not vote in favor of freedom??

This debate, and the hubris of the Athenians, reminded me of another similar historical event, one with a very different outcome. The American Revolution. True, there are some major differences; the American’s had no Sparta to fall back on, nor were the Melians a colony of Athens. However, the core of the Melians’ and Americans’ conundrum is the same: do you surrender to foreign rule in order to avoid destruction, or do you take up arms, despite a horribly unequal battle, to sacrifice everything to save your independence? When debating this issue from the Melians’ perspective, the phrase that I came back to again and again was one from Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” I agree with the Melians. They had no choice but to fight. If freedom is not worth fighting for, what is? Henry would have agreed; “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” The Melians clearly did not think so. If the they had just handed over their city, an independent polis built up over 700 years, to the first oppressor that came by, they would have been undoing all the hard work of their predecessors. They would be selling freedom at far too low of a price. The Melians affirm this position, stating “we who are still free would show ourselves great coward and weaklings if we failed to face everything than comes rather than submit to slavery” (V:100).

It unnerves me that my peers, representative, I fear, of my generation, were so unwilling to send our imaginary Melians into battle in the name of freedom. Are we too comfortable today, confident that the freedoms we enjoy in America are permanent? Do we take these for granted? I hope not. Freedoms are never for certain and we must always willing to fight for them, regardless of the costs. Because, in answer to Patrick Henry, I say that a life bought by chains and slavery is not one worth living.

The Toga Party Problem

2006-12-06T09:37:00.000-05:00

A plight common to students of the Classics is something I like to refer to as the “Toga Party Problem.” This name came about when, upon excitedly telling a friend of mine about the classes I would be taking the next semester, a course load heavy in the Classics department, she responded, “That sounds fun. It’ll be like one big toga party!” Somehow, she was picturing my semester as one long “TOGA, TOGA, TOGA!” scene from Animal House. Not exactly what I was thinking of.

I have received this same response, in some form or another, from a wide variety of people – classmates, family friends, and (most frighteningly) recruiters at career fairs. I find that it is easy to get discouraged by all this. However, I think there are a few key points about a major in the Classics, or any of the liberal arts or, as I have often heard them called, "unemployable majors," that must be kept in mind when faced with such situations.

Firstly, Classics is not an easy concentration. True, we are not cooped up in labs for hours upon hours, nor are we pounding away at calculators. This does not mean, however, that we are not working, and not working hard. The most obvious place where this is true is in the languages. Latin and Ancient Greek are not simple subjects to be easily picked up. And reading ancient, stylistically-challenging texts, such as those by Thucydides, requires a level of language proficiency that I could only dream about at this point in my studies.

Languages aside, there is nothing easy about the rest of the courses in any Classics department. Most people are far more unfamiliar with the ancient world than they are with more modern history. By modern, here, I’m talking anything more than a few hundred years after the birth of Christ. This means that a lot of time needs to be spent learning the basics of the various classical cultures. Not simple.

Secondly, there are countless sources of information about the relevance of a classical education in the modern world. This, most certainly, will be the subject of many future posts, and has already been addressed on the surface in a previous post, so I don’t want to go too much into it here. Suffice to say, it is most definitely relevant.

Most importantly, when discussing an undergraduate major, it all comes down to what you are expecting from your college education. It seems to me that a majority – I hesitate to preface that with vast, although it is tempting – of college students today, not to mention their parents, view their college years merely as something necessary for getting that premier job and increasing their earning potential. I am most certainly not condemning this. We need money to live. And who wouldn’t want some prestigious, high-paying, power-trip of a job on Wall Street? But who ever said you had to sacrifice all the fun and intellectual excitement of college for that?

I want to first acknowledge that some kids do, legitimately, enjoy business classes, and finance courses, and the like. More power to them. But others, too many I think, suffer through four years of dry lectures and endless problem sets because they think without that they will never get hired by anyone after graduation. This is disheartening.

Call me an idealist, but this is not what I think college is for. This is a time when you can study what ever your heart desires to whatever extent you wish. The only time, really, that this is possible. Leave the rest of your life to worry about how you will get hired, and where the money will come from. Some company will hire you. I promise. Even, gasp, if you have an “unemployable” major in the liberal arts. So live it up while you can.

rogueclassicism

2006-12-06T00:16:00.000-05:00

Here's a blog I recently found that I love -rogueclassicism. It is updated many times throughout the day - with more information than I think is possible to take in in one day. Nevertheless, this is a great source for some really quality information about the classical world - from references in news media, to regular "Latin Proverb of the Day," and much more. I highly recommend giving it a look.

Why study history?

2006-12-05T00:35:00.000-05:00

Disclaimer: This title almost makes me laugh; it is so huge. Entire books have been written on this topic. I anticipate that I will return to it in future posts. So let’s think of this one as merely the first installment. Let’s go.

I have always heard that history repeats itself, as I am sure all of you have. This seemed for a long time as though it may be something that was really just meant to scare us. A phrase used by middle school teachers to make sure that their pesky little students were paying attention in class. Because if we didn’t, history teachers silently implied, we were all going to become the next Lost Generation of some terrible war or fall victim to another similarly devastating catastrophe that could have been avoided had only we listened in 7th grade World History. As time went on, I began to agree, however, that the study of history has very important implications in today’s world and that having the background and vocabulary of historical inquiry is essential for fully understanding something as seemingly simple as what’s in the newspaper on any given day. How are you to understand the current political situation in Russia without knowing the socialist past and subsequent downfall of the USSR? What previous wars and international relations can we look to in order to better understand what is the best next move for the U.S. in the Middle East? World affairs are just too complicated today to attempt to understand without at least some basic understanding of the history uniting and dividing various countries and region. I guess there was a reason I always had to do those weekly “Current Events” presentations in history class.

I have never, however, heard these concerns presented as eloquently and urgently as Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides opens Book I by assessing his reasons for writing, sources, and methodology. It is in this section that he states:

"It will be enough for me, however, if these words of mine are judged useful by those who want to understand clearly the events which happened and which (human nature being what it is) will, at some time or an other and in much the same ways, be repeated." (I: 22 – Penguin Classics translation)

This seems to me enough motivation for studying history. Had the North and South looked closely at the events of the Peloponnesian War, would they have been more willing to compromise rather than launching into the Civil War? Would the story of these two neighbors and sometimes-allies, members, at one point, of the same league of city-states, have affected the Union or the Confederacy leaders? There are many lessons to be learned from the Peloponnesian War – the best and worst ways to treat both allies and enemies and the wrong way to offer negotiations, among a great number of other things. Would world history be different had our leaders studied to a greater extent the events of the past? I suppose no one can say for sure. But I, for one, most definitely agree with Thucydides that they would be – and for the better.

Why "Classics Reloaded"?

2006-12-04T20:51:00.000-05:00

One may be wondering what, precisely, the title of this blog means. I believe that a good title is to the point and creative; concise enough to be effective, yet original enough to be memorable. This is what I hope my title, Classics Reloaded, will achieve.

I say Reloaded because it is my goal that this blog will serve as a fresh look at old, ancient in fact, information- events, people, theories, concerns and more. Additionally, this blog will aim to reinterpret the classics to make them relevant to today’s world. This is a task which I know is best left to those more informed about both the classical and contemporary worlds than I, but I intend to give it the old college try here. That being said, a site that I very highly recommend is famed classicist and historian Victor Davis Hanson’s Works and Days. Take some time to look at his posts. His applications of historical events to today’s news stories is both completely relevant and very interesting.

All this being said, I just hope people don't confused this with Street Fighter...

Volo, non valeo

2006-12-03T23:17:00.000-05:00

I am willing, but unable to write as I would like to about the classical world. Being an undergraduate Classics major only recently introduced to the field, I readily admit that I have but a limited range of knowledge. However, this blog will serve just one avenue through which I will gain the scope of knowledge about the classical world to which I aspire. As I learn more, through my university courses, news articles, online sources, and more, I will use this as a venue to explore events, ideas, and anything else relating to the classical world in greater detail. It is my hope that any reader, from the completely new to fully trained classicist, will gain some new insight from the posts that are to come. Enjoy.
MJD