Most of the Percy Jackson series is not what people would consider historically accurate, but it does give a great interpretation of ancient Greek Mythology. Author Rick Riordan thought of this series when his son asked for bedtime stories. After running out of myths to tell, Riordan thought of new ways to incorporate stories that his son would love. Though they are not the same, the books rely heavily on Greek mythology. The main character, Percy is considered a half-blood meaning half Greek God and half human. Percy, is the son of Poseidon, one of the most powerful gods. During his high school years, Percy attends a camp that teaches half-blooded children necessary skills for survival. While the antagonists in many of these books tend to be ancient gods there is also the disgraced half-blood who seeks revenge. Some other differences are the half-blood camp which is not depicted in any Greek mythology as well as the Lotus Hotel that Percy gets trapped at. There was Perseus, who was the son of Zeus. He was cast away when he was just a baby and remained stuck on an island ruled by Polydectes. The ruler was in love with Perseus’s mother and did not like the son. Polydectes thought if he made Perseus get the head of the Gorgon Medusa then he would die and thus not be present at the wedding. However, Perseus succeeded and became a hero.

This story brought into speculation if there was any relation between Perseus and Percy. They are both cunning young men with very powerful fathers. Their high status attracted many enemies. The accuracy between the ancient world culture’s and this book are many. The series includes the infamous Minotaur, Medusa, the three Furies. Having Greek mythology shown in a relatively easy book to read definitely draws interest on where the inspiration came from. Personally, I was interested in what the strengths and weaknesses of these gods had after reading the series. I wondered what other stories were out there about ordinary people taking on these beings of great power.

Source: http://rickriordan.com/about/frequently-asked-questions/

From the Trireme to the geography, Assassins Creed Origins is a unique representation of ancient Egypt. The creators seamlessly incorporated historical accuracy with dynamic gameplay to create an experience enjoyable for historians and gamers alike. The creators invested genuine time and effort to make the game as historically accurate as possible, while maintaining an action-packed piece for everyone. The geography and architecture alone are worth noting due to their shear detail. And while actual events and actual scale of the playable map are altered, they still follow relatively accurate timeline. It would likely not be as an enjoyable game from a player’s perspective if the game was completely true to history and it is easy to see why some details and events in the game are altered by the creators to make it more fun to play. In almost every way this game offers a chance for people to actually learn about history while having a good time.

The art and open world aspect of the game are designed so that players can actually go into certain areas of the map to take actual tours of museums and libraries. The storyline itself depicts Cleopatra, Alexandria, and ancient Egypt to the point where someone who didn’t even care to look through the game can come away with historical context and still learn a lot about that time period. While I wouldn’t go straight to the game over my textbook, I think there is still much to learn from the game from a big picture perspective.

It is my personal belief that something like this is a creative way at making something potentially unappealing to younger kids into something really educational. Yes, it is violent and bloody, but I would rather have my child play this than Call of Duty or Evil Within. They certainly would actually come away with some sense of history than any other game out there today. Using a platform like video games and media to reach kids that are growing further from books and studying is a great way to adapt to learning styles. Assassins Creed Origins does not only deliver a great experience, but offers players a chance to learn about the world and history in a different way.

 

Blog Post 1: 300

Ancient history is depicted today in many forms. One of the most popular forms of a modern representation of the ancient world is film. Movies based off of ancient history are either depicted very well or miss the mark in some capacity. The movie 300, is an example of a modern representation of western Europe’s ancient history. The movie highlights the Battle of Thermopylae, which took place in 480 B.C., as it tells the story of King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans fighting the Persian army of 100,000 (Imdb.com). This battle was a result of the Persian Empire’s invasions to conquer ancient Greece. The movie covers much of Spartan and Persian culture on top of the story itself to give the reader an idea as to what life was like there at the time. Some of these scenes showing this culture is accurate, but some are also inaccurate.

In the very beginning of the film, the Spartans are seen inspecting newborn infants to deem if they are fit for life. Should they be rather small or deformed, then the infants are discarded into what is called “the place of rejection.” This scene is questioned by many for its accuracy as it seems hard to believe that people would simply “discard” of newborns not up to a certain standard. However, the depiction of this practice is accurate as the Spartans actually did get rid of infants not up to their standards (Historyvshollywood.com). Another questionable depiction from the film is if the Spartans actually faced the Persians by themselves. In the movie, the culminating battle scene shows the force of 300 Spartans face the large army of Persians alone. This scene is inaccurate as the Spartans received aid from other small groups of Greek armies in the Battle of Thermopylae (Historyvshollywood.com). This false representation was most likely featured for dramatic cinema affect. Being that the title of the movie is 300 and the Spartans are shown alone as an army of 300 the entire time, it is perhaps assumed the most effective way of creating the battle scene was to feature the 300 Spartans alone. Tampering with history is never the best choice to make, however, it is only a small detail the filmmakers excluded in their motivation to drive the film home to the viewers. Thus, the argument can be posed that this is a valid choice.

This film on a major historical event portrays the story well overall. Despite some inaccuracies in the representations of people as well as the history, the film as a whole stays close to the actual story. Movies based on historical events will not always follow the history exactly. In order to please the audience and critics, certain aspects of the truth may be omitted or altered to achieve the cinema quality film makers strive for. The movie 300 serves as an example of modern media containing both inaccurate and accurate representations of history.

Works Cited

Historyvshollywood.com. HistoryvsHollywood.com, CTF Media, 2018.  http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/300spartans.php. 7 Sep 2018.

Imdb.com. IMDb.com, Inc, 2018. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/plotsummary. 7 Sep 2018.

 

Tyranny in the ancient and modern context vary significantly though, there are some very interesting and perhaps dangerous similarities. In the article Donald Trump: a Shakespearean tyrant to a T, the author Daniel Swift argues the daunting similarities between the similarities of the current US President and those of Richard III, a tyrannical character described in one of Shakespeare works, Twelfth Night. Swift brings up the observations of Shakespeare expert and Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt who wrote a book about tyranny in the modern times in comparison with its ancient context. However, he does not mention Donald Trump instead; he alludes to Trumpian words like grab (Swift). To be specific he compares him to Richard III whom he notes is “pathologically narcissistic, supremely arrogant, and born into wealth and a bully” (Swift).

        This likeliness seems to match some of the older connotations of the word. In ancient times, the word might have meant a person who was in fact born into wealth. The only way to really take power in pre-democratic times was to be born into wealth; even more similar to the older connotation of a tyrant is the characteristic of bullying and narcissism. I particularly disagree with the harshness of the word. For example, I cannot agree that the older aggression common to tyranny is prevalent or even possible in modern times. With the existence of strong and prominent democracies, tyranny cannot possibly withhold the level or magnitude of harshness and aggressive action that it once did. No longer is it possible (in theory) to strip the civil rights of man for the convenience of rule or purely to boost the narcissistic ego of man. This is one of the biggest differences between ancient and modern tyranny. In fact, there was a huge shift during the age of enlightenment between what we consider just and what is immoral. Before this time of thought and deliberation on the rights of man in any state, tyrants might have been permitted, lash their power and might on a mere citizen, but luckily in these days the moral compass of the human race has shifted to one that doesn’t tolerate such preposterous claims of divinity and absolute rule. The popularity of some type of democratic republic freezes the momentum of tyranny in its tracks. It is impossible for the meaning of tyranny in its original composition to ever flash its face again without large criticism either inside the state or not.

 

 

Article: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/donald-trump-a-shakespearean-tyrant-to-a-t/

The definition of tyranny has changed with time, and the ancient definition has lost its meaning. Tyrants in modern language have always been associated with terrible people such as Joseph Stalin or Caligula, while in ancient Greece, the meaning of a tyrant was different. These Greeks were not always bad, and they did not always do things that lead to badly functioning societies. In an article from CNN, the writer Adam Cathcart compares Kim Jong Un to a tyrant.  In ancient Greece the term tyrant was used to refer to anyone, good or bad, as someone who gained power in a polis. In my opinion, the word tyrant is used incorrectly in this article as it is exclusively used to describe someone who is a bad leader, or someone who doesn’t care for their subjects. Although the word tyrant doesn’t carry a positive or negative connotation with it in ancient Greece, it is true that the only meaning for it in the modern world is someone who is leading their country in a way that does not listen to their people in any way or has any policies to help their people. When we think of Kim Jung Un, we do not have any feelings of envy or admiration for his leadership style, while in ancient Greece, the word tyrant may be used for a leader that people expect to bring prosperity and happiness to their polis. The article focuses on how Kim Jung Un uses his power oppressively and wrong, while in ancient Greece it initially never carried any of these definitions. The way this article uses the definition of tyranny would not fit with the ancient definition, as it describes Kim as more of a dictator than a tyrant. Also, tyrant was used as a respectable title, while the modern meaning for tyrant has transformed into being exclusively used for a negative meaning. No leaders in the modern world would take kindly to being referred to as a tyrant, or approve of its use in their campaign. In ancient Greece, it was simply a word for an up and coming leader or someone who is already leading a polis. After looking at the article, it is clear that in modern English the words tyrant and dictator have switched roles. In ancient Greece, a more proper word to describe a leader such as Kim Jung Un would be dictator.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton