For this week, I read the account of Harmodius and Aristogiton by Thucydides in The Peloponnesian War. What made this passage important to me is that it joins personal relationships with political rebellion; it gives a view into how love, honor, and insult might propel people into radical action. I was particularly impressed by the very strong distrust of tyranny shown by the Athenians motivated by the memories of oppression under Pisistratus and how that collective memory elevated their level of fear during the Peloponnesian War. According to Thucydides, "the commons had heard how oppressive the tyranny of Pisistratus and his sons had become before it ended" [1]. This collective trauma caused the Athenians to be more suspicious of any possible threats against their liberty.

Thucydides would seem intent upon disclosing that political eruption was often born out of personal motives, such as the intense and fierce love and injustice Aristogiton had felt when Harmodius rejected him. He wrote as if the actions of an individual could cause a ripple that surged throughout society, especially when political tensions ran high. This text is a window into a world in which personal grievance can spur massive political movement, personal honor being interlaced with civic duties, and fear of tyranny.

Compared to other readings about ancient Greece, this account drove home the notion that tyranny and rebellion coexist in complex relations where the tyrant is not an embodiment of pure evil but rather a catalyst toward resistance and heroism. I would have liked it if the document had gone into further discussion on the implications this tale of personal courage and defiance had for Athenian democracy, specifically how the legacy of Harmodius and Aristogiton shaped the view of the Athenians on freedom and civic responsibility.

The reading I chose this week was The Rule of Law - Solon. I picked this reading because it’s interesting to discover Solon’s laws that eliminated the traditional Eupatrid rule and led Athens to a direction that led to full citizenship. One passage that jumped out to me in the reading was the description of wealthy man. A man of great wealth has the power of resourceful workage towards wheat-bearing land, horses, and mules when they possess silver and gold. The reading is communicating what stands out having different laws in place as Athenians were unjust to the citizens. This document tells me about how Athenian citizens were treated poorly by greed. This document relates to what we learned in class about Sparta, Athens, and their conflicting aspects. I would like to learn more about any differences that would happen if greed never took place towards citizens of Athens.

The reading I chose this week is, Solon's The Rule of Law. I decided to analyze this text because every time I see rule and law in the same sentence or title, I feel drawn to see whether the author will spit the most raw and truthful analogy known to man. Solon was well-known for being an Athenian statesman and lawmaker who laid out the foundations of Athenian democracy so it was wise to see what he would communicate to his people from his perspective. Within his text, he established that the downfall of the Athenian city wouldn't be the fault or desire of the gods, moreover, the blame would be seen by the people who desired to see their city's downfall. The way he ensured to tell the reader that it's man, (as in human beings, not one gender in particular) who chooses to darken their city through greed, arrogance, and the acceptance of oppression shows that in this time Solon tried to wake his people in what has been happening throughout Greece within the years. The Greeks in different cities have seen their city-states fall because they accepted the idea of oppression and that rule can only fall to one person or the strongest over the equity of everyone within the same state. This can be a true definition of the rule of law as the rules aren't meant to restrain everyone but instead protect everyone. In one part of the passage, Solon states "If you have grievous sufferings through your wrong-headedness, charge not the gods with having assigned you this lot. You yourselves have raised up these men by giving means of protection, and it is through this that you have gained the evil of servitude." (Solon). This had to be the most gangster thing I heard but in our class, I believe this showed that Greek culture and sociology around the time became one that accepted tyranny and blamed the gods for allowing tyrants to bring destruction to their cities. Solon insisted that this ideology should change and that his people must accept individuality and rise against any evil forms of servitude because they control their own forthcoming, not the gods nor one man. In the end, this makes one wonder whether the people of the time read this and followed his words or if they enacted how today's society reacts and only understood the flaws that Solon spoke about over the realness that everyone is in control of the law as they choose how to rule it out. As Solon said, "Each separate man of you walks with the tread of a fox, but in the mass, you have the brain of an idiot; for you look to the tongue and the word of a wheedler and never turn your eyes to the deed as it is being done" (Solon).

The reading I picked is The Tyranny at Corinth. The passage that stood out to me is when the men arrived at Labda’s with intentions of killing her baby due to a prophecy that was said. The author is letting us know how Cypselus came to be the tyrant in Corinth. He escaped death as an infant and fulfilled the prophecy of becoming a kingly race. We later see his son following in his fathers footsteps. This document is informing us of the type of ruler that Corinth had. For thirty years “he (Cypselus) showed himself a harsh ruler—many of the Corinthians he drove into banishment, many he deprived of their fortunes, and a still greater number of their lives”.

The reading I picked for this week is The Battle of Thermopylae. The reason I chose this particular reading is due to its valuable inside into the Greeks character and war ethos. Xerxes envoys asked for Greeks surrender and become part of the Persian Empire, which meant becoming subjects to a king. This definitely enraged the proud Greeks, particularly the war driven Spartan. This request went completely against the Greek ideals.

Herodotus paints a picture of a more united Greece against their common enemy. Greece was still taking steps towards a democracy, and Persia was more than threatened by the prospect of equality, undermining the supreme authority of a king.

This week I chose to read The Rule of Law by Solon. I was drawn to reading it due to the excerpt about Solon refuting the idea of making himself a tyrant, I was curious how he would justify not taking power when it seems no one would have objected to him taking it. The passage that stood out to me was "The people will best follow its leaders if it be neither given undue liberty nor unduly oppressed; for excess bears arrogance, whenever great prosperity attends on men whose minds are not well balanced." To me Solon is defining his rule on this idea he has. As long as he as the leader tows this line then all will be well with Athens. This article tells us that Solon was a smart politician who knew what he was doing and knew exactly how far to push or lean on matters of state. This document is another in a long list of sources that show us how the democracy of Athens formed.

I picked the Tyranny at Corinth because it was interesting and would like to know more about it. The detail that came to my mind was the collapse of the tyranny and the government ruler that was not conventional. The Greeks did not see tyranny as negative because they believed it was another shape of government. I think the author is trying to communicate that "kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see" when he showed the innocent mother giving her baby to the man who was supposed to kill him, but when the baby smiled to the man his heart sweetening and he could kill the baby. He gave it to the other man who passed him to the other and no one was able to kill the baby. That is why I think the author put this story in the middle of a conflict to show there is always a solution for each problem. In my opinion, the story is showing the story repeating today even though it was written in the past we still see similarities with wars. This document does contract our reading with the passage of the baby which was another kind of reading because it softened the tyranny story with their blood eyes. I would like to see when there will be peace and no more war, or dictators ruling things the way they want for their citizens, and when the war ends in the readings. We shall see.

The reading I chose to pick was the rule of law by Solon because it sets the foundation of Athenian government with an constitution. The particular passage that jumped out at me as I read it was where Solon mentions that people are obedient to laws, and the laws he wants to set forth created a balance in Athen’s by limiting greed, and creating a system that not only benefits the wealthy but to also regular citizens. 

     What I think the author was trying to communicate is that he wanted to undo the system Athenian’s were following because it was unjust to the citizens. Having more citizens going into slavery because they had owed debt that they needed to pay off. Solon wanted to help give the citizens a chance where they can be apart of Athenian democracy. What I think this document is telling us about the time and place it comes from is that Athenian’s in Ancient Greece were in constant flow of change and their creativity in constantly creating within their society continued to keep their society thriving compared to Sparta. 

The reading I picked was, The Battle of Thermopylae. I picked this document because I found the title interesting. I knew it was the narrative of important battle in Greece. The passage that I found interesting was when Demaratus is telling Xerxes that the Spartans are not to be delt with. He says “Now, you have to deal with the strongest kingdom and town in Greece, and with the bravest men.” What the author is trying to communicate is that the ignorance of Xerxes led to a great loss. Despite being warned about the excellence and war skills of the spartan, he thought that just because he had the upper hand by thousands, he could defeat them easily. This document from this time tells us how power can blind a man's reasoning and how it often leads to disaster. This supports our previous reading because it shows how Xerxes lost most of his army just to defeat a few hundred man and ignored the signs, it shows how power and greed can be the biggest weakness of man.  

The detail that stood out to me is how Periander acted after taking power from his father. I wondered whether he would continue acting like his father or be a completely different ruler. I think the author is trying to show what it's like to be a tyrant. He does this by showing how Periander managed his power but also his personal struggle. This view on two accepts of tyrant life shows how, although someone can have a lot of power, they still battle internal struggles. The time and place this document is describing is Ancient Greece and time it was ruled by tyrants. I would like to know more about how Periander compared to other tyrants

I choose the play-write “ The Persians “ and I choose it  just because I’ve found all the interactions between the Greeks and the Persian empire to be particularly interesting.

One line I found to be particularly interesting 

“But beds are filled with tears

in longing for husbands:

the Persian ladies, in womanish

longing for their dear lords—

each is left without a yoke-mate,

having sent off the impetuous warrior

who shares her bed.”

I think the document was trying to explain that , many people were left in disarray , fear  etc not wondering if their loved ones would return.

I believe the author ( AESCHYLUS )

 is telling us  that even though tensions were astronomically high between the people of Persia and people of Greece, the  cost of the war had been so monumental and the damage was so costly and irreversible, that the Greeks even were able to sympathize . Due to the author who’s writing it and his perspective , It’s emphasizing to us the stress  brought upon by  war and its uncertainties  as well as the pain done to humans period on both sides . 

For this week I chose The Battle of Thermopylae by Herodotus. The primary objective for the 700 Greek soliders (mostly Spartans) directed by Sparta's King Leonidas was to delay the Persians and buy time for the rest of Greece to unite and mobilize an army to withstand a full scale massive Persian invasion force. The primary objective was to slow the Persians down and thin their massive numbers a little in the process. All 700 die but slow down and weaken a force of some possible 250,000 Persians. Persian King Xerxes before the battle cannot believe the 700 would just sacrifice themselves for such a thing and thinks they have no chance. He orders his elite soldiers, The Immortals, to capture the 700. Xerxes advisor wanrs him the Spartans are a professional army their life is war and death with no in between. They yield to none. Xerxes kipnapping expeditionary force is all but annihilate to his shock. While killing all 700 Greeks eventually it thins out Xerxes immortal soldiers in the process and cost the lives of two of his royal family members. A steep price to pay along with the thousands he lost in shipwrecks due to a storm just before landing on Greece. All bad omens of what was to come. The summation of The Battle of Thermopylae is best fit with this quote: "We (Persia) have men. They (Sparta) has warriors."

The reading that I picked was “The Battle of Thermopylae” by Herodotus. The reason that it interested me was because I was interested in getting familiar with the major battles between the Greeks and the Persians. The detail that particularly jumped out to me as I read through was the fact that the Thespians decided on their own that they wouldn’t leave the Leonidas and the Spartans. They refused to retreat which contrasts with the Thebans who were held hostage. I believe the author was trying to communicate that the Greeks, especially the Spartans fought hard and endured to the end against the Persians although this wasn’t enough to defeat the Persians. In my opinion this document is telling us that the time and place that this comes from the Greeks were divided against themselves. This document seems to support the Spartan way of fighting, which is to the death or by winning. I would like to find out more about other battles between the Greeks and the Persians.