Michael Shubert
Blog 1
In ancient history, tyranny was merely an authoritarian sovereignty. A tyrannous leader wasn’t necessarily bad. When observing tyranny in ancient Greece we saw a more negative connotation with philosophers such as Plato. The newly evolving connotation in ancient Greece shaped what we think of today when we hear tyranny. Our modern term for a tyranny is “a cruel and obsessive ruler”. In the U.S. our president has made some controversial moves and as a result, some have become upset and labeled President Donald Trump as a “tyrant”.
On March 23 of this year, an article on “Interesting Times” was titled “America Takes the Next Step Toward Tyranny.” In the article, author Andrew Sullivan compares the actions of our president to the model of a rising tyrant created by the ancient philosopher Plato. Sullivan analyzes actions of President Donald Trump, such as firing several members of his cabinet, and compares them to the model created by Plato. Sullivan makes the argument that President Donald Trump is slowly gaining power over the U.S. and is making moves to exert more dominance over the government. President Trump is labeled as rude and cold. The connotation created by Sullivan in the article is more closely related to the modern term of a tyrant. President Donald Trump secured his position of power from an election by the people and has been entrusted to both lead and serve the people. Additionally, although President Donald Trump can be an aggressive individual and at times cold hearted, his power is still checked by the legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Therefore, the connotation carried with the label of tyrant on Donald Trump cannot be the same connotation as a tyrant in ancient (pre-democratic) societies.
In conclusion, the use of “tyrant” in this article would not fit the ancient definition of a tyrant; therefore, the label of tyrant labeled on President Donald Trump must have the same connotation as the modern definition of a tyrant. The president, in the article, is labeled as rude, aggressive, and power hungry which are similar to the modern definition of tyrant, “a cruel and obsessive leader”. The context of a modern tyrant, as conveyed in this article, proves that the modern use of tyrant today would not fit into ancient society’s definition of a tyrant.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyrant
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/america-takes-the-next-step-toward-tyranny.html

In today’s world, the terms “tyrant” and “oppression” usually go hand-in-hand. The modern tyrant is usually defined as a singular ruler of a country/state. Tyrants usually care more about their own wealth than they do about the welfare of the state or the people they rule. The only concern of the modern tyrant is how preserve and expand their power, as well as prevent any revolts or uprisings that could endanger their position. They restrict the rights of the people they rule over, and give them little, if any, freedom. However, when we look back in history, the ancient Greeks paint a very different picture of what a tyrant was.

In ancient Greece, a tyrant was simply someone who took power in an unorthodox way. They did not inherent the position of king or ruler. Contrary to the modern tyrant, the ancient Greeks actually liked their tyrants, generally speaking. Many tyrants brought a new way of doing things. They promoted regrowth among their state, worked to improve the state’s infrastructure, and brought new traditions and celebrations. Eventually, though, this term was used to describe rulers of other countries as a way to promote the democracy of the Greeks. Thus we have the modern tyrant.

In an article from The Federal, author Helen Raleigh brings to light how even with the spread democracy, tyranny is just as prevalent in present day politics as it was in the times of ancient civilization. Raleigh’s article World Tyrants’ Sham Elections Prove Calling Something ‘Democratic’ doesn’t Make it True, uses elections in countries such as Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Venezuela as examples to prove that just because something appears to be ‘democratic’, doesn’t mean it actually is. Raleigh also goes into detail about how modern day tyrants attain and preserve power during supposed election. According to Raleigh, tactics used during elections include: control over media, destroying the opposition, bribing voters, and one of the most popular tactics used- intimidating voters. If we use today’s definition, Raleigh’s use of the term ‘tyrant’ fits perfectly with current beliefs of what it means to be a tyrant. However, of you ask any ancient Greek they would probably disagree.

Nora Honrath

In modern times, the word tyrant has a strong negative connotation to it.  When one hears the word tyrant they normally never think of any good that comes with it.  They probably think of a ruler of a country with absolute power.  They probably think of the ruler as using violence to maintain order and keep their power.  However, the term tyrant did not always mean these things.  In ancient times the word tyrant usually described a monarch who had gained power in an unorthodox way as a strong ruler.  They often possessed strong military ability or were an aristocrat.  Tyrants were able to rise to power by pleasing their commercial and industrial supports through promoting trade and colonization.  These attributes all have a similar basis.  They are all positive changes that the tyrant is bringing to society.  The biggest difference in this kind of politics is the way that the leader rose to power.  Because of this, the new leader earned the name tyrant.

Recently, the president of Nicaragua, David Ortega, has been called a Tyrant.  He has received this title for violence that he has imposed on the citizens that protest against him.  The police and paramilitary in Nicaragua have killed over three hundred citizens in just the past four months.  If they do not kill them, they detain and torture them.  The police do this simply because they openly oppose the president.  Although he was not a standout military leader, David Ortega did participate in the rebel military to overthrow Dictator Anastasia Somoza.  He became involved in politics in the new political era.  The way that he initially gained power was in a similar way that an ancient “tryant” would.  He claimed that if elected, he would seek foreign investments to help poverty in Nicaragua, probably the country’s biggest problem.  However, he is now called a tyrant instead of president because of the way he uses violence to maintain full control of the country.  His stubbornness and the way he deals with protests has created a civil war in Nicaragua between parties.  The way he offers big businesses tax exemptions in exchange for political support in no way helps stimulate the economy and only helps him maintain his power.

By the modern definition of the word, David Ortega is indeed a tyrant.  However, if sticking to the more fundamental term first used in ancient times, David Ortega would not be a tyrant, but just a violent and greedy ruler.

Bibliography

Belli, Gioconda. “How Daniel Ortega Became a Tyrant.” ForeignAffairs.com, 24 Aug. 2018, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/nicaragua/2018-08-24/how-daniel-ortega-became-tyrant.

Though it is impossible to know what is actually true when it comes to ancient history, there are stories and events in which most people can agree on the major storyline. The same is true in the story and the legend of the city of Troy and the war with the Greeks. The movie Troy sticks to the general storyline of the Trojan War as well. The key events as well as the main characters in the war remain the same among the lore and the movie. The differences lie within the smaller details that are still being debated among historians today. The root of the war is claimed to have been started by Paris, the son of the king of Troy for stealing the wife of Menelaus, the king of Sparta. The key events during the war remain the same as well, Hector killing Patroclus, Achilles defeating Hector, the temporary peace between the two armies, and the end of the war by way of the Trojan horse. Although the story remains the same, there are small details within the film that are not historically accurate, if the history is true to begin with. The first inaccuracy is shown through the equipment the two armies use. At the time of the war, chariot warfare was not being used at this time, yet in the movie there is some use of these tactics. The trireme was also not being used at this time, but the Trojans sailed across the sea with a fleet of triremes. The other major difference that can be seen in the movie is the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. In history, it is known that Achilles and Patroclus are close friends, possibly even lovers. In the movie, however, the directors decided it would be better if they were cousins. The directors did their best to keep the movie as close to known history as possible, but had to make changes in order to make the movie more entertaining. The use of the chariots and triremes could have just been lack of knowledge of the technology at the time. I think the biggest decision that was made was deciding what Achilles and Patroclus relationship would be. Making them related takes away the possibility of them being lovers, which is most likely why the directors did this. That takes away any kind of politics from the movie. Although this movie is close to what we know about the event, it cannot be used as historically accurate because of how much is already unknown about the event to begin with. The movie was made to entertain viewers, and though it can enlighten people about the event it is not a trustworthy source.

Jonathan Gabriel

Sam Heideman

6 SEP 18

In our current culture, a fascination with our past is extremely common to come by. Seen through video games, novels, or movies, people present the history of civilization in a way that fulfills our curiosity; however, their stories are not always accurate. Through the motion picture 300, one is able to understand how bias dominates history and that the story of our past is often manipulated in order to maximize profits. From the beginning of the film, the audience is able to see huge exaggerations in the telling of the tale of the Spartan warriors against the Persian Empire. Rather than sending a Persian envoy into the depths of a well as the story is originally told, the modern interpretation shows this unlucky man falling into what seems to be a bottomless pit. This exaggeration is meant to make the story itself more dramatic than it actually is, bringing in a larger audience that enjoys the violence, making more money for those who produced the new rendition of the Spartans defiance. Furthermore, the film depicts the Spartans battle with the Persians as a major military victory, stopping the Persian conquest in its tracks. In reality, the battle of 300 Spartans only stopped Persia from advancing further into Greece. Already controlling the majority of the land from the boarders of Greece to current day Iran, Persia did not lose any ground after this defeat in Greece; they merely did not gain anything. The reason the movie portrays this alternate reality is for artistic interest only. As the Spartans supposedly gained a huge victory against Persia, a story of grandeur and heroism is created that is madly blown out of proportion. Frankly, with Sparta winning this battle even after losing all of their men, the story becomes much more interesting to the modern day population. However, there are accurate portions of the film. The movie depicts the Spartans in little armor and clothing, resembling their ideas of minimalism and masculinity. The film also shows how the Persians had the exact opposite view on material items. Showing them covered in gold jewelry and extravagant suits of armor, the film makers accurately display common Persian fads. This is supported through Greek art, depicting Spartan men fighting almost naked while the Persians are wearing clothes, something viewed as feminine during this time. All in all, the film 300 skews the story of the battle between Sparta and Persia in a way favorable to Sparta, making them the heroes in an attempt to sell a classic tale of good versus evil.

*The article reviewed does not necessarily reflect my own opinion nor that of the U.S. Navy.

In Andrew Sullivan’s article “America Takes the Next Step Toward Tyranny” from NYMag, he asserts that tyranny has not only gained footing in America, but that the second phase of tyranny has begun. Early in the article, Sullivan discusses the first phase of tyranny as described by Plato. This phase is a period of calm, during which the tyrant cancels debts, redistributes the land, among other things with the purpose of pleasing the people. Sullivan points to President Trumps tax cuts as one such act. This early phase of tyranny closely fits the pre-democratic definition of tyranny because the leader is beneficent and likely popular. Oxford English Dictionary defines “tyrant” several different ways including “(especially in ancient Greece) a ruler who seized absolute power without legal right.” While President Trump does not fit that description, it is important to note that the definition does not mention cruelty by the leader or displeasure from the citizens. As described by the article, the tyrant in the first phase could fit this definition.

As Plato’s narrative goes on to the second phase, however, the leader expels from government those who speak against him and replaces them with his allies. This description of a tyranny fits the post-rise of democracy stereotype that tyrannies are good at first but become corrupted. He writes about how President Trump has replaced many high ranking government officials with people who will do what he wants. Aside from this purge that Plato describes in his description of tyranny, he also writes about the need for a tyrant to stir up war in order to validate the need for a leader. Sullivan argues that President Trump does this through rhetoric wars with our allies and trade wars with nations such as China, as well as with increasing our military presence overseas. At the end of the article, he writes that as the President is backed into a corner, he may employ this greatest distraction, war. Oxford English Dictionary also defines “tyrant” as “a cruel and oppressive ruler.” This definition is closer to the second phase tyrant that the article describes, and a more fitting description of how the article uses the word tyrant.

              In ancient Greece a tyrant is a ruler who obtains power in an “unorthodox way…and exercises a strong one-man rule”.^[1] Although tyrants were viewed as well-known and beneficial, they “expelled many aristocratic opponents” despite their intentions of maintaining alliances.¹ Towards the end of the sixth century, tyrants held a bad reputation in the Greek states and were known to defy law and tradition. However, the tyrants’ contributions aided Greece in developing technology and communications which secured prosperity in the future for Greece.

              Modern tyranny takes on a new face that is seen in a variety of actions and movements. One aspect of modern tyranny is the advancement of artificial intelligence. Intelligence, as branch of technology, plays a key role in developing modern democracy but is also viewed as an act of tyranny. Tyranny is now considered to be any “oppressive” act that is capable of hindering our basic human rights.^[2] The rights that our society has created post-rise of democracy such as freedom of speech, religion, and press. Therefore anything that challenges the freedoms of modern democracy are considered to be tyrannical and have taken on a negative connotation. According to author Yuval Harari in the Atlantic, technology has embedded itself in “our inner lives, our emotions, thoughts, and choices [which can lead to unprecedented upheavals in human society, eroding human agency and, possibly, subverting human desires”.[3] For instance, the advancement of artificial intelligence in the military has given rise to UAV’s, unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones. Drones are replacing military personnel and their minds when targeting foreign enemies. The ability of a computer to control the fate of a person’s life goes against what American democracy stands for. This results in a fear of losing the very morals and freedoms that encompass our democracy. America then becomes divided, in regards to the extent of artificial intelligence due to its controversy against our morals, the foundation of democracy.

The current context of the word “tyrant” takes on a harsher connotation in post democratic society than in pre-democratic society. However, I think Yuval Harari’s article uses ‘tyrant’ in the correct setting because most people do not think of technology as something cruel, or ‘oppressive’.  This article bridges the gap of modern tyranny and ancient tyranny because it is conveyed in a less authoritative context. The article suggests that tyranny does not always have to be harsh and brutal, as depicted in modern society. There are other ways to define tyranny that have benefits and positive connotations associated with the term. The notion of technology as a form of tyranny fits the ancient definition of a ‘tyrant’ because it includes the advantages and disadvantages associated with the term. This article helps readers to see tyranny in its purest form with both negatives and positives, a mix of modern and ancient. Both scenarios of tyranny bring about negative connotations but have made big steps in stimulating economic growth.

^[1] From Chapter 3 of The Heritage of World Civilizations, Tenth Edition. Albert M. Craig, William A. Graham, Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, Frank M. Turner. Copyright 2016 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

^[2] “Tyranny.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed 5 Sep 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny.

[3] Harari, Yuval Noah. “Why Technology Favors Tyranny.” The Atlantic. August 30, 2018. Accessed September 05, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-noah-harari-technology-tyranny/568330/.

Kody Crider

West in the Pre-Modern

Sagstetter

300 vs The Real Spartans

The movie 300 was produced in 2007, and while the movie does have some historical accuracy, there is a lot added to the movie to create a protagonist feel to the Spartans. During the movie, the Spartans wear almost little to no armor aside from their helmets. Their entire body was left open and vulnerable; this is not entirely accurate. The real Spartans were known to value their armor, and their body was covered in armor making them all look the same. I believe the director did this to add to the warrior vibe of the Spartans and to attempt to put an emphasis on their strength and courage.

Adding to this inaccuracy, another part of the movie that is not entirely true is this protagonist role the Spartans played. While in the movie they were made out to be the good guy and had the audience supporting them, in reality the Spartans were quite cruel. The Spartans would conquer their neighboring lands and enslave the citizens to their labor force. The director most likely did not want to show this side of them because if this was shown in the movie, then it would have changed the whole plot of the story. The Spartans would then have not been the good guys they were made out to be in the movie, and this may have lowered the popularity of the movie.

I believe that using media to teach history is a valid way of learning history because it is modernized and relatable. Our generation is more willing to sit down and watch a movie about history then to open a history book and read it. Although, these modern representations of history may not always be accurate, they give a stage to shine light on the history of the world. 300 is not the most accurate but there are many movies and other forms of entertainment out there that are much more historically accurate and give viewers a true knowledge of the subject. Without this, we would most likely go on without studying or attempting to learn about the history of ancient civilizations which helped shape the world we live in today.