I chose Homer's 'Odysseus and the Suitors'. I found it interesting how the preview in the beginning made the story sound like an action adventure. Like Odysseus being undercover scouting the noblemen. It peaked my interest as I thought about Agent 007 (and all his disguises), I wanted to know what Odysseus unravels or discovers during the time. 

The whole passage is pretty descriptive with some parts being a bit gory but if I can pick out a part, it would be when Odysseus drew his bow and arrow and struck Antinoös with it. The way Homer describe's the scene taking place is pretty remarkable. From the way the bow struck Antinoös throat to feet kicking and choking.. I would say Homer out did himself with this one, and I would definitely go see it if it were in the movies. Another part was when Eurymachos tried to bargain with Odysseus but it wasn't working and instead went on the attack alone and died because of so. 

I think Homer was trying to convey how not everyone in Ithaca wanted to continue living in such ways the way Ithacans do. Hinting why they indulged in sinful acts, over feasted, drank all the wine etc. even though it meant consuming the towns food and product. I think the author was communicating the growth in greed and self sabotage. Also, the betrayal amongst their own kind. I think this document is hinting at a place where your word still had value and meaning, also the position you held matter to the people highly. I would like to know more about who would the deaths of Antinoös and Eurymachos affect, now that they have been murdered.

I chose this week's reading simply because the title seemed interesting to me. The reading itself shares valuable insight into how Homeric Greece was, at the end of the Greek Dark Age, deeply attached to its Bronze Age ancestors and often regarded them as beings almost superhuman from whose values and achievements their present identity was forged. The whole document is full of an exalted sense of respect for the heroic ideals of the past through story and myth, including bravery, honor, and divine favor. The retelling of larger-than-life characters, such as Achilles, or gods themselves, like Zeus, had not only the purpose of recalling great moments in history but also of giving a boost to cultural pride when society was rebuild­ing. The glorification of ancestors means, on the part of the author, the wish to continue with the past, placing the present generation as heirs to a noble legacy.

The present paper also points to the social and cultural dynamics of Homeric Greece by showing how, though the society at that time was coming out of the hardships of the Dark Age, it found strength in its mythologized history. This veneration of Bronze Age heroes differs from other readings that present a critical or varied perspective on that age but reflects the notion that oral tradition played an important role in shaping social values. Common to so many works from this era, it was a culture continuing to change, attempting to reconcile its past glories with present challenges. This immediately raises questions as to the percentage of myth and history within these stories and leads further to exploration of the role of women, oral tradition, and the more mundane realities of life during this period.

1- I picked The Death of Patroclos because the title grabbed my attention. When I started reading it, I realized the passage was interesting and had many characters like Achilles and his mother, the goddess of water even though the reading did not say much about her. I was curious to know more about the death of Patroclos. It was a very complex time to live under the oppressors. 

2- When I was reading. I thought about The Archaic Age Tyrants. There were so many battles for the Olympic Games. Cylon of Athens tried to coup the city of games but failed 632 times. It was interesting to know more about the foundation of these important games that are still popular today. 

3- The author in the reading showed how society lived and how they needed to fight for their rights. People died under the ruler’s power because they needed to do everything, they ordered them.  

4- I believe the document tells us that society in the past worked hard and did not have choices but fought for their freedom.  Society had so many difficulties. Besides their lands being stolen there were other issues like health, housing, and schooling to live a decent life.

5- Yes, this document seems to support our other readings. In the readings, we see hard times, fights to settle down the control and power, of properties and people.   Many people died to make things right for the future folks to have better lucky days.

6- I would like to know how they settle down the fight for the city of the games and also know more about Achilles and his goddess mother.  

I choose the excerpt from the Readings from Hellas, "The Beginning of Things" by Hesiod. The moment the excerpt interested me was in the title as it would seem to explain the beginning of things. I always enjoy reading about how different cultures and societies interpret the beginning of our Earth and how humanity came to be. Scientifically, I believe in the evolution theory, however, when I read stories like the one in Hesoid's reading it is amazing to see how one adds lore to our human history. In this reading, the narrator introduces the explanation of how the universe came to be with immortals and gods first being created by Kronos, the father of all gods. Kronos would then assemble his family of gods and even create the main divinity of Greek mythology which was Zeus. With Zeus, humans were created and rebirthed in a cycle of five, where humans transformed from gold beings to iron beings, to bronze beings, and eventually a fourth and fifth type of beings. Seeing the transition of iron beings to bronze beings in the third cycle of Zeus destroying his creations and rebuilding them. The document explains the end of the Bronze Age as it begins explaining that the Bronze beings were starting to use iron as a main source, which stood as a prominent tool used during Greece's Dark Ages as Greeks left the Bronze Age and the old material in that age. As a historian and nerd, I love seeing how different stories have similar patterns of foretelling as many religions and cultures have all explained a cycle where humanity was eradicated and rebuilt to live a form of life or way of living differently. Some examples would be Noah's Arc, Hinduism's Samara, and the Mayan belief that the Earth underwent five different suns in its cycle with humanity. These various stories make one wonder whether these correlations give our history a more hidden meaning or if it's true that the Earth did undergo five different cycles with humanity. I also wonder whether this influence of explaining the start of things started in Ancient Greece or even before their time.

The reading I chose was Odysseus and the Suitors and I chose it because I see Odysseus being referred to in other places so it caught my eye. One detail that stood out to me is when Odysseus declared his identity as a way to express power and authority after the disrespect of the suitors trying to claim his wife and his power. I think the author was trying to express the concept of loyalty, we see the stark difference between the loyalty and faith that Penelope holds throughout the story for Odysseus and the lack of loyalty that the suitors have when they see a chance to accomplish their own goals. I think this reading was trying to show us how people will take any opportunity to better themselves in any chance that they get even if it goes against someone who had the makings of a hero and good leader like Odysseus. I would like to find out more about the fates of the suitors and if marrying the wife of a leader was normal in those times or if this was a one time thing.

The reading I chose was The Beginnings of Things by Hesiod. I think it interested me because it was the only reading that was not written by Homer. The passage that jumped out to me is: “ After this, Zeus of the wide brows established yet one more generation of men, the fifth, to be on the fertile earth. And I wish that I were not any part of the fifth generation of men, but had died before it came, or been born afterward.” I believe the author is trying to communicate to us that during this time it was difficult because hard work and pain did not seem to end, due to it being the “age of iron”. The author also states that the gods will send anxieties to trouble the fifth generation, and eventually destroy them as well. In my opinion, this document is telling us that during the Iron Age, it was challenging. He also telling us about the faults in the Grecian people, and how the city will flourish when men decide not to “step off the road of rightness.”

The reading I chose was Odysseus and the Suitors. I chose this reading because I already read the Odyssey and enjoyed this part of the story when Odysseus returns to Ithaca to enact vengeance on the people who tried to take his land. What jumped out at me as I was reading this passage was Odysseus' ruthlessness, particularly when Eurymachos was trying to rally the other men to fight back against Odysseus and was subsequently shot in the chest right after. I believe the author, Homer, was trying to show us that Greek relationships can be built on trust and not portrayed with themes of unfaithfulness as many other Greek stories do. Penelope, Odysseus' wife, remained faithful and even took over her husbands job while he was away fighting a war and coming home for 20 years.

This document is an excerpt from Homers The Odyssey, which he wrote after the Greek Dark Ages about the mythical journey of Odysseus after the Siege of Troy. After reading this I wanted to find out more about exactly how these men were able to simply stay at Odysseus' home and wait for his wife to pick one of them as her new husband in order to take over Ithaca. Is that really how this process worked in ancient times?

The reading I chose was The Death of Patroclus. The reason I chose this particular reading is due to the chain of events it enfolded. The death of his comrade and companion saddened and enraged Achilles, who decides to abandon his refuse to fight alongside King Agamemnon. This leads the Greeks to victory over the Trojans, but Achilles is fighting for revenge, and he kills Hector, prince of Troy.

The passage that caught my attention the most was “When you have cleared them away from the ships, come straight back. If after that the loud-thundering lord of Hera gives you a chance of triumph, never think of fighting on your own account without me, you will steal my honors in that way. Don’t be excited by fighting and victory so as to lead our men as far the city walls, or one of the Olympian gods may meddle; Apollo Shoot far is very fond of them. You must turn back as soon as you have saved the ships and let them ravage the plain.…” The reason this chapter stood out was due to the fact that, by doing the opposite, and not following Achilles orders, Patroclus was killed, not before giving foretelling Hector about his own demise The author seems to want to communicate that in the pursuit of triumph and glory, one needs to know the limits and not fall for the momentary glory.

The document gives us context to the ethics of war during Homeric times. Even the gods are limited on their interference on the affairs of men. Zeus beloved son, Sarpedon is killed by Patroclus, who seemed to have been caught up in an ephemeral glory afterwards by trying to take Troy going against Achilles' orders.

I find this document relates to the Greek concept of Arete, the pursuit of excellence. All of the protagonists of this event were in the same pursuits, yet they all had different reasons. They were defending what they thought was ideal, noble, glorious, yet they all had a different way of getting there. Hector and his allies were defending their homeland, Achilles lost his comrade and companion, whom he was mentor to, as well as the opportunity to see him achieved excellence.

I picked The Death of Patroclos as my reading because it’s a crucial part of The Iliad and sheds light on how the Ancient Greeks of the 8^th century saw the Mycenaeans. On the surface, The Iliad might appear to be glorifying the memory of the Mycenaeans, but a closer inspection shows the Trojans, not the Mycenaeans, as the noble people in the story valiantly fighting for their own self-determination, even if its destined that they lose the war. Meanwhile, the Mycenaeans show themselves to be full of vice and hubris, specifically through Agamemnon and Achilles, and are punished by the gods a numerous times for it. In my opinion, Homer’s portrayal of Achilles is anything but positive with his ego and temper frequently getting the better of him, and his willingness to let the war drag on and many Achaeans die in vain just because he’s too petty to move on from Agamemnon’s slight against him. A truly damning critique of Achilles is further revealed in The Death of Patroclos as its only after the willingly sending his intimate friend and protégé, Patroclos, to his death, a symbolic loss of great proportion to the ancient Greeks, does he snap out of his tantrum.

These examples show the Ancient Greeks of the 8^th century had complicated feelings about their long-deceased predecessor and seems to have seen them as a strong but flawed people who reaped their own eventual destruction. I would like to learn more about what the relationship between mentor and protégé meant to the ancient Hellenes.

The reading I chose was Odysseus and the Suitors and I chose this reading because the title stuck out to me and I wanted to know a bit more about Odysseus and his connection. The details that jumped out to me the most were the fact that not only did Odysseus kill Antinoos, but Antinoos was blamed for the wrong doings and spoken bad about while he's laying in a pool of his own blood. Out of fear he was outed and the suitors were now on Odysseus' side trying to spare their own lives through the chaos. He didn't give in to the efforts which I thought was interesting because you'd think he would want them on his side but he'd rather bloodshed. I think the author was trying to communicate that even though people try to "create peace" through fear, it will not always work. When there is betrayal, you cannot always find a way out or switch who you work for. Eurymachos tried to win him through gold and bronze which tells us that during this time, it was a way to gain attention and solve conflicts. I would like to find out more about the suitors and how they continued without Eurymachos and Antinoos or if they all died at the hands of Odysseus.

I chose to read Odysseus and the Suitors, I'm familiar with the Odyssey and was curious about which scene of the suitors would it be about. The passage that stood out to me was “If you are really Ithacan Odysseus come back, what you have said is just and right. Plenty of wild doings here, plenty more on your farms! But there lies the guilty man, Antinoös, who is answerable for everything. He was the ringleader; a wife was not what he wanted, not so much as something else, which Cronion has not allowed him to do. He wished to murder your son by a secret assault, and to be sole lord and master in this fine country of Ithaca". The concept that all these suitors who all equally were attempting to take the throne of Ithaca getting caught and thinking they could suddenly wash away their disloyalty by admitting they were aware that Antinoös was going to kill Odysseus' son, like no your just admitting your guilt. Homer was trying to communicate that the suitors are all cowards, when faced by their rightful king the suitors try and wipe away their own treachery by putting all the blame on one man, none of them were strong enough to face punishment.

This document seems to show the idea the idea that a ruler was someone of virtue in Ancient Greece. Odysseus is here to resume the mantle of responsibility, while all the suitor want the power and riches but not the responsibility of office. I would like to find out what did the palace of Ithaca look like, it would allow me to better visualize what this scene might have looked like.

The reading I chose for this week was Agamemnon’s Insult by Homer. The reason why I picked this one in particular was because of the title and I was a little familiar with stories about King Agamemnon . 

The detail that jumped out the most to me from this passage was, king Agamemnon's demanding a prize that he deemed greater or with the same value as the Apollos Priest daughter in order to release her. He also said that if such prize wasn't given to him, he will forcibly take what Achiles, and his men's hold dear most as a prize. 

I think the author was trying to communicate how big of tyrant king Agamemnon was. Also how Agamemnon’s  selfish needs, arrogance and pride, came first then anything, including his soldiers and citizens. 

This document shows how tyrant rulers from this time felt like they were Gods. These rulers were willing to sacrifice everything and bring their nations into chaos just for their own selfish wishes and to show their power. 

This document also relates to the notion of the Greeks wanting to become a better society as Achilles understood that this show of power from king Agamemnon was wrong and unnecessary. He was willing to sacrifice himself to protect his family and his nation, to stop this unforgettable act from Agamemnon's. I would like to find out more about the after math of this event, what would happen to Achilles and king Agamemnon's . 

The reading that I picked was Agamemnon’s  Insult. The detail in particular that jumped out to me was when Achilles said to Agamemnon “People-devouring king, since you rule over nobodies!”. The reason I chose this was because it describes Agamemnon’s character in a sentence. He isn’t a true leader/ ruler for his people due to him being a tyrant. What he uses his power for is for his own personal gain and not for the benefit for the people. What I believe the author was trying to communicate is how the downfall of the Mycenaeans in the Bronze age is caused by their own doing by the rulers who were in charge such like Agaememnon. There is no future for the people if the one who is in power, does not think about the people’s needs before their own in a sense. 

    I feel like what this document is telling us about this time and place it comes from is how easily the ancient world was able to collapse during the Bronze Age due to having bad leadership. Although the Mycenaeans were a great society that excelled during the Bronze Age and are the original Greeks because of tyrants in power, lead to their collapse. 

    What I would like to find out more about is besides Homer being the primary source of writing about the Trojan war. I wonder if there are any other possible primary sources that can be deemed liable to support what Homer has written. 

The story I picked was "The Beginning of Things", by Heisod. The reason I picked the Beginnings of Things is because of my interest in learning about how life was in the beginning phases of the BCE timeline by the gods. One passage that jumped out to me was when Zeus was establishing different generations of men and destroying them. Zeus destroyed future generations of men because men couldn’t take care of themselves this time, as they were doing almost everything wrong. I think the author was trying to communicate to the audience how important it is to have goodwill toward others, as the gods will punish you if you don’t worship them and act like a fool. What this document tells me about the timeline of this story is that the power of the gods can have such a significant impact on people because they were the ones with most control and can see from down below what people were doing, good or bad. This document, has a lot of similarities in ideas to other readings about gods that I have read because the gods didn’t worry about morality. I would like to learn more about what would’ve happened to people back then if no gods had complete power over them.

One of Apollo’s  priest daughter was captured by Agamemnon, Achilles the famous warrior attempted to convince Agamemnon to release the daughter of the priest. Agamemnon demanded and  stole a captive from Achilles, Causing him do develop disdain for Agamemnon and as a result of this disdain, Withdrawal from helping the Mycenaeans. Patroclus attempted to defend the Greeks and go into war in place of Achilles during his absence , a brave act.

Achilles essentially left his comrades to die specifically a close friend , because he was busy lamenting about the loss of a slave . A selfish act such as this , shows how individual interest  were able to interfere  with a greater common cause at certain points in the war .  What jumped out to me most is Reflecting on the death of 

Patroclus  , it appears the author ( Homer )  was trying to convey a theme of extreme bravery and self sacrifice , a man stepped into a position he wasn’t necessarily ready for  and died for the greater good of his people and what he believed in .

A lesson is also taught to Achilles with the death of  his friend as he realizes his own self interest and self loathing  led to him abounding his comrades ,  from this point forward he owes it to himself to fight on the side of the Greeks so that this death is not in vein.

There’s One line in particular that seems to depict not only Achilles tragic arrogance  and selfishness,  but also a general anti war sentiment  which came surprisingly from the most feared warrior . “ Hurry, Patroclos, my friend, be off with your horses! I see fire sweeping about the ships! I fear they may take the ships and then we shall never get away “ , in response to pleas for help , Achilles the most fierce warrior sends his friend off to fight in his own place , while also acknowledging the high stakes  and desperation surrounding the imminent attack. This shows a temporarily broken spirit, he was willing to leave the fate of his people totally in the hands of others even though he could’ve potentially helped them massively. This sort of hopeless , hands off sentiment coming from such a fierce warrior makes me wonder how many other Greeks possibly shared this position, perhaps some Greeks wanted to where to be over so bad they lost interest in fighting like Achilles did temporarily.

I think this document although not the focus of it also supports depictions of Agamemnon as being very self centered stubborn and tyrannical, as he was not going to budge as far as releasing the slave unless his own terms where met.

His arrogance and swift dismissal of  pleas for the daughter’s release , support the notion that he held an inflated sense of self and might .

I would like to find out more about how Agamemnon felt after learning of Achilles abandoning  Patroclos , and if his criticism of Achilles would be very critical or passive  afterwards.

I wonder if he rubbed salt in the wounds of Achilles character the way Hector did when he said to Patroclos , “ So Patroclos, you thought that you could sack our city! you thought you would rob our women of the day of freedom, and carry them off to your own country! Fool!… Ah, poor wretch, your Achilles is a good man, but he was no help to you, although no doubt he warned you earnestly when you started (and he stayed behind)” .

The reading that I chose for this week is “The Death of Patroclus.” The reason why I chose this book was primarily just due to the title; I am unfamiliar with a lot of Homer's work, and this one just stuck out more to me. From what I was able to gather from this reading is that Homer seems to convey the idea that the interplay of heroism, fate, and divine intervention in the lives of mortals is expressed so incredibly well, especially through the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles. This epic suggests that even exemplary feats of bravery cannot help but fall to forces much stronger than anything mortal control could conjure by portraying Patroclus as a fearless fighter whom the gods' will cannot but destroy. The anger and pride of Achilles further underscore the self-destructive quality of unchecked emotions during wartime, where a personal grudge can have wider catastrophic consequences. This idea of mortals, however heroic, being nothing compared to a greater divine grand design is further driven home by the divine interventions of the gods.

We can conclude that Homer's work here seems to align and support other historical pieces as it remains consonant with other readings on the time and place of the Trojan War regarding the prevalence of divine influence upon, and the heroic ideal of, mortals; it also delivers greater depth to the character of Achilles. Whereas other literature dealing with his life might focus more on simple levels of honor and glory, this text brings out the emotional depth of Achilles, along with the tragic and necessary consequences of war, which no great hero will ever escape. Finally, the author discusses the fragility of life, the limits of personal agency, and the loss that inevitably accompanies war and heroism.

The reading I picked is The Death of Patroclus. The reason I picked this reading is because I was always curious as to why Achilles joined the fight late. The detail of how Achilles wants to join the battle is because he disagrees with Agamemnon, blaming his decision to join his war. I think the author wanted to get across the dangers of being ignorant. Achilles chose his pride which cost the life of his friend. This document is telling me that based on the time and place people still allow their emotions to get the better of them which causes their demise in the end. I would like to know what Achilles felt after winning the war. Did he hate himself or did he blame Agamemnon for his death?

The reading that I decided to pick was “The Beginning of Things" by Hesiod. There was no particular reason it interested me other than it standing out from the other readings. As I read the piece of writing the detail that jumped out to me is the fact that when men don’t take issues into their own hands, not only themselves but their whole city flourishes. I believe the author was trying to communicate that there is incentive or good reason to act fairly towards each other, leaving the punishments to the gods. The document is telling us that during this time and place the gods were immortal and had no worries. The humans or mortals on the other hand faced the practical world through independent farming. This document seems to be similar to our other readings where the Gods didn’t have to worry about morality or mortality. I would like to find out more about what exactly would cause these farmers to take retaliation into their own hands. Why would the people not leave their trust in the gods to settle their differences?

Admittedly, I chose this one because I was somewhat familiar with Agamemnon from Wolfgang Petersen's movie Troy. I was wondering if he was as bad as he was portrayed in that movie. Well, it turns out seemingly he was. Agamemnon from the reading is all the worst aspects of a tyrant and perhaps that was the one of the messages being conveyed. He speaks using the term "I" a lot which is a dead giveaway for someone who is quite conceited. He is a voracious consumer no war, women, spoils, triumph or victory is enough for him. Agamemnon always wants more and would prefer other to do his bidding directly when it comes to waging war then put himself in the frontlines and achieve it himself. Conversely his best warrior and ironically enough, his main adversary is the model leader. He puts the needs of his men before him, he leads by example and never tries to put himself in a position where he can take away from him men. Our readings do not seems to support or deny these happenings yet. We are still early in the course and records of this mini dark age of Greece are quite sparse. I have a felling though the weeks ahead will confirm that this way of life was accurate not only for the time and place but somewhat the same in the Iron Age as well. This time frame is warlike, tribal in a sense, with a fear of wrathful or meddling gods and a time of men with great courage and valor but most likely died by the dozens at a very young age. Women were seen unfortunately as trophies and war spoils or as collateral for some sort of power play.