Dead Languages Not So Dead Here

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

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....

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

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

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?

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)

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?

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?

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

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

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

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.