Hey folks,

Athens is a very different place from Sparta, but they also have some things in common. What are this week’s readings telling you about what it meant to be Athenian?

I chose the first reading as it interested me to learn about how the Athenian government developed. A passage that jumped out at me was at the end when it spoke about returning Athens to its former glory and restoring its enslaved citizens who were exiled and sold. I would like to know more about what this is specifically referring too and what is considered its former glory. I think the author was trying to communicate the significance of the document to Athens the people and the development of their government. I also think this is meant to highlight Athens advancement. This further supports what we already know about Athenian culture specifically with mythology as this fits into that sort of story, while also speaking on Athens political development. I think the document tells us this was significant and influential time for Athens. I also would like to know more about Athenian government.

The reading I chose was Herodotus, The Battle of Thermopylae because it offers a compelling example of how history and storytelling can shape cultural identity. A specific detail that stood out to me was when Xerxes’ spy saw Spartans calmly combing their hair and exercising before battle. That moment symbolized their discipline and fearlessness, showing how they prepared to die with honor rather than panic. In my perspective, Herodotus was trying to communicate that courage and moral strength can be just as important as military power. His narrative highlights the Greek ideal of arete, or excellence through bravery and self-sacrifice. The Spartans’ behavior reflected the values of their society: duty, loyalty, and pride in defending their homeland. The reading discloses the mindset of ancient Greece, where warfare was not seen as a struggle for survival but as a test of character. In contrast to the other readings, Herodotus' story reinforces the idea that Greek history often blends fact with moral reflection. I’d like to examine accounts from the Persians to see if they had similar perspectives of the events since they are to completely different cultures.

The reading I chose was "The Rule of Law". It's always interesting to explore in what manner different civilizations decided to both empower and restrain themselves through law. Within the passage, the part that mostly jumped out at me was when it mentioned how the wealthy went unchecked due to the ignorance of people and their unwillingness to do anything about. I believe what the author was trying to communicate is that a state without laws was on the path of destruction, and that obedience to a just law for both poor and rich were necessary to prevent. In my opinion, this document is telling me that it comes from a time when the urges of a mans flesh were going unchecked, plunging the unfortunate state that they reside in to suffer the effects of such actions. How this document summarizes the condition that Athens was in due to the rule of the Eupatrids relates to some of the other readings, such as the Tyranny of Corinth, because of how he, who was not under any just laws, decided for himself that he was fit to govern over the people. What I would like to find out more about is if any other wise individuals added to the laws set in place by Solon?

I picked The Rule of Law: Solon. I enjoyed reading this one because as a leader, he desired to balance the scales between the rich and the poor. What stood out to me was when he said you can not please everyone. I think the author was trying to communicate how determined he was to stick true to his moral compass despite the backlash he felt he received. I think this document shares how opposing Solon’s ideas were to the ideas at the time. No one really cared about assisting those indebted to their slave masters. In the reading, he shared how much blood would have shed had another man been in power at that time. He spared the lives of many and set slaves free. I think his morals and values contradict the morals and values of the wealthy Athenians who only cared about those in power and not the entire community. I would like to know how despite what who raised Solon and where did he get his sense of morality, determination and boldness from.

During the lecture and reading about the Athens, i found it compelling how the city anointed its lawmakers along with how the laws of the time were distributebed. The Athens and Athenians that occupied different areas made it so easy to dictate how laws could have perhaps been passed without a majority of anyone's votes. But also something that was ironic was how the people perhaps looked at their lawmakers even when one was looking to take care of everyone as opposed to helping one side

What interested me the most about this reading was the confrontation during the Persian invasion of Greece led by King Xerxes. It was well known for the valiant stand of a small Greek force and made up of 300 Spartans under king Leonidas against the Persian army. It became a symbol of resistance that boosted Greek morale and city-states were unified.

The Spartans fought in a way of worth and showed they were skillful. Xerxes biggest error was ordering the city of Athens to be torched. Ephialtes was the one who revealed the hidden path to the Persians. Leonidas dismissed most of the Greek army and the rest fought to death. The battle became a legendary example of heroic defiance.

For this weeks reading I chose the Persians by Aeschylus. Initially it stood out to me because it is the oldest surviving play in Greek tragedy. One line that really caught my attention was when King Darius says, “Though now amid misfortunes, continue to find pleasure for your hearts from day to day, for ploutos brings no comfort whatsoever to the dead.” It’s powerful because it reminds people to value life itself rather than wealth or status. Throughout the play, Aeschylus was showing that arrogance and pride or hybris lead to destruction. By making the Persians the focus, he warns that no nation or ruler, no matter how powerful, can escape fate or the will of the gods. At the same time, he humanizes the enemy, encouraging empathy and reflection. The play showed that the Athenians deeply valued respect for the gods and a balanced life. The play highlighted strength and praised it but also warned about arrogance. The play also shows how theater was a very important part of Athenian culture and was used to teach moral lessons. I think like most of the other readings about Greek culture, this document supports how valued the gods were by the Greeks but this document also promoted balance and and humility. I would like to learn overall more about Athenian theater and what happened during these events. How did the audiences react? How did they feel? What were the discussions that were had throughout these kind of events?

For this week’s discussion response, I selected the reading on Herodotus—The Tyranny at Corinth. I picked this particular reading because of the ‘viewpoint’ or ‘definition’ of what a “Tyrant” was from a Greek perspective versus that of an American or Western perspective. From someone who was viewed as a ruler who seized power, often with popular support, and moved to challenge an existing oligarchy. In contrast, to someone who is understood as a cruel, oppressive ruler who wields absolute power. 

The ‘Greek tyrant’ was surely a unique individual. Although tyrants were at times viewed as a ‘desirable thing’ to maintain the economic and social structures within society; in the story around Cypselus and his son Periander, they seemed to replicate the ‘image’ of the cruel and oppressive tyrant, rather than the more ‘popular tyrant.’ The bloodshed that Periander and his father, Cypselus, continued to exhibit towards the people, not to mention the influence by Thrasybulus, demonstrated without a doubt that the rulership of a tyrant was not always advantageous for the people.  

Herodotus drew back on the notion that even though the people may have ‘chosen’ recent tyrants to rule over them, they did not fully grasp or comprehend the consequences that would result from their actions and decisions.  

A question that comes to mind: ‘Why would these tyrants, when selected by the people, want to mistreat the very ones who appointed(elected) them to this position?’ Even further, did the people truly KNOW what these tyrants would be like(maybe just on the surface), despite their popularity?

Reading Chosen: The Battle of Thermopylae by Herodotus

I chose this reading because the story of the Spartans’ bravery at Thermopylae has always stood out to me as one of the most powerful examples of courage in ancient history. The detail that really caught my attention was when Herodotus described how the Spartans fought to the last man, even after their weapons broke, using their hands and teeth to resist the Persians. That image made their determination feel very real.

I think Herodotus was trying to show how powerful loyalty and honor were in Greek culture, especially in Sparta. He wanted his audience to see that freedom and duty to one’s city-state were worth dying for. The document tells us that this was a time when courage, sacrifice, and collective identity mattered more than individual survival.

Compared to Solon’s Rule of Law, which focuses on justice and good governance, Herodotus gives us a picture of heroism in wartime. Both, however, reflect how the Greeks valued order and duty — whether through law or through the battlefield. Together they show that Greek society placed great importance on personal responsibility and the idea of doing what is right for the greater good.

The reading that I went with was “The Tyranny at Corinth” by Herodotus and the reason why I choose this reading is because I wouldn’t really expect a tyranny in Athens and wanted to see the start and ending of it. Sosicles, speaking out against oppressive rule, shared the story of Cypselus’ rise in Corinth. Prophecies warned the powerful Bacchiadae clan that Labda’s son, ostracized from their ranks, would unseat them. They dispatched killers to eliminate the child; however, a killer softened at the sight of the baby’s grin. Consequently, Labda concealed him within a grain storage bin, a ‘cypsel’, giving him his future moniker. Having grown up, Cypselus made the prediction come true, he took over the city. For three decades he governed severely, eliminating opponents, claiming wealth, moreover sending people away from their homes. Periander took over from Cypselus, starting gently. However, letters from Thrasybulus, a harsh ruler from Miletus, changed everything. Thrasybulus suggested removing anyone important, likening them to tall stalks of grain needing to be cut down so he could maintain control. Periander listened, acting brutally while finishing the ruthless eliminations started by his dad. To illustrate just how far things can go wrong, Sosicles recounts Periander’s act, forcing every woman in Corinth to disrobe, then setting their garments ablaze, all to satisfy the spirit of his deceased wife, Melissa. Through these stories, Sosicles hopes to warn the Spartans about the cruel consequences inherent in oppressive rule.

The Battle of Thermopylae, as recounted in Herodotus's Histories, is, perhaps, the most powerful testimony of courage, sacrifice, and cultural identity in the ancient world. What really interested me about the document was how vividly it captures not only a military confrontation between Greeks and Persians but also the stark contrast between their values and worldviews. Herodotus's narrative practice elevates the historical account of a battle into a moral and cultural statement. The Spartan warriors, for instance, would have combed their hair before battle or jokingly refer to fighting in the shade when the blocking sun was covered with the Persian arrows—this text is clearly much more than a reporting of warfare but is instead a reflection on Greek ideals of honor, discipline, and defiance against overwhelming odds. The first detail that really struck me was the description of the Persian spy who saw the Spartans training for battle. Rather than the usual picture of agitated men behaving in disarray, the spy finds them exercising and grooming themselves. When Xerxes inquiries about the behavior, the exiled Spartan Demaratus explains that these men are preparing for death as is their custom, adorning themselves before risking their lives. This is a nutshell version of what Herodotus intends to draw as central contrast: while the Persians see numbers and conquest when they talk about war, the Greeks-one could say, particularly Spartans-see war as a test of personal virtue (arete) and collective honor. Another is the famous remark by Spartan soldier Dienekes: when told that Persian arrows would darken the sun, he said that they would "fight in the shade." That bit of repartee was high in its sharpness and dictates in Boy on His Will Metaphor; This was the quintessence of the Greek heroic spirit and spoke to the crux where humor and valor ran asunder in the Spartan idea. There is a sense in which one could say that the aim of Herodotus's writing in this account was more than an event in military confrontation. He was trying to send a moral and cultural message about courage, freedom, and identity. By dramatizing the confrontation between the disciplined few and the mighty empire, Herodotus translates the Greek resistance into a symbol of human valor. Through the dialogues of Xerxes and Demaratus, the cultural gap between East and West is revealed: why should free men die rather than submit? Such a conception cannot possibly exist for Greeks. They cannot imagine living without freedom and honor. Therefore, the narrative is not simply a historical narrative; it also represents the meaning of liberty, which contributed moral superiority to the Greeks' way of life. The inevitability of doom for the Spartans is accepted in some divine insititution, showing that they really add some unbreakable beliefs to the ancient Greek idea that human action must follow destiny and the will of the gods. In my opinion, this document reveals a great deal about the time it comes from: late fifth century BCE Greece, during and just after the Persian Wars. It shows how deeply the Greeks valued communal duty, martial discipline, and the pursuit of honor unto death. It also illustrates the intertwining of religion and warfare, wherein prophecies and omens inform decisions regarding warfare, and sacrifice is seen as both a political and a spiritual act. The behavior of the Spartans exemplifies the Greek ideal that a noble death was preferable to a shameful life. By painting the Persians as vast, wealthy, and tyrannical, Herodotus constructs a moral geography that would shape Western cultural identity for centuries. On the one hand, there is an extent of corroboration and contradictory evidence within the text in concern when viewed against the entire historical and cultural canvas. On the one hand, the values highlighted by Herodotus and considered by him to be laudable-honor, bravery, and self-sacrifice-are consistent with the Spartan values known to us and the older heroic traditions of the Greeks as portrayed in epic poems such as the Iliad of Homer. The religious and fatalistic representations fit comfortably in the worldview of the classical period. On the other hand, the exaggerated romanticism of the account and its speeches tend to distort and oversimplify the historical reality. For instance, the account of a united Greek defense presented by Herodotus seems in stark contrast to the actual political situation in the Greek world wherein many city-states wavered in their allegiance or even colluded with Persia to prevent a unified undertaking. Similarly, the view of the Persians as immature or cowardly reflects Greek bias rather than an impartial appraisal of their stature. Yet it is precisely these exaggerations that ultimately suit Herodotus in the larger purpose of narrating an account that glorifies the virtues of free men standing in unity against the tyranny. In conclusion, Herodotus’s “Battle of Thermopylae” is more than a historical report; it is a cultural and moral statement about what it meant to be Greek. Through vivid storytelling and dramatic contrasts, the author communicates the values of courage, freedom, and honor that defined Greek identity in the classical age. The document reveals not only how the Greeks viewed themselves and their enemies, but also how they wished to be remembered by future generations. Even with its biases and mythic elements, Herodotus’s account captures the essence of a society that believed true greatness lay not in survival, but in dying nobly for a just cause.

Being Athenian was about way more than just living in a city with democracy or having a say in the assembly. The Athenians didn't think of themselves as lone wolves, but as members of a greater whole: the community, the polis. And that feeling of belonging was almost overwhelming. Since Solon and then Cleisthenes changed the city, taking part has gone from being a privilege to being something you've just got to do. Even if you were just expressing your opinion or listening, even if you didn't have the right to vote like women, that deep connection with the city was undeniable. The polis wasn't just about where you lived; it was a part of who you were.

For the Athenians, freedom wasn't about doing whatever you wanted without limits. It was about not being a slave to someone else and, most importantly, having a say in what happened around you. That's why they fought so hard against the Persians, why they rejected tyrants. You could even say that losing that freedom was like no longer being Athenian. It's interesting that this same pride, this belief that their way of life was better, showed up in every part of their culture: in art, in theatre, even in how they looked down on other Greeks.

But here's where it gets interesting: being Athenian was also, basically, being an intellectual. Or at least, trying to be one. Education, conversation and serious thinking were the very foundation of city life. If an Athenian couldn't express himself well, couldn't understand what was going on around him, he simply lacked a sense of fulfilment. Because in Athens, the word was power. Politics happened through speaking. Philosophy was born in the agora. Poetry had a big influence on what the public thought. Everything, absolutely everything, happened through dialogue. This made them very different from the Spartans, who believed in strength and blind obedience, while Athens believed in language and criticism.