A.

Herodotus, the first historian, and Thucydides the second, chronological order had no effect on their popularity. Mainly because they are the most widely quoted historians that will classically be used.

Herodotus writes his history of the Persian War not only as a historian but also as a storyteller. His writing has an emotional component unique to his style; he writes more on the character of the people involved in the war, rather than commenting on military strategy or geographical specifications. He describes Mardonius as stubborn when he does not follow the advice of the Thebans. While he shows both sides to the story (that of the Persians and that of the Athenians), his writing does not exhibit the same air of objectivity as Thucydides’. Herodotus describes Mardonius’ plans: “Mardonius comsidered with himself how he might compass their ruin.” Herodotus then goes on to tell how Mardonius ravages the Megarid. Herodotus portrays the Persians as the antagonists; as if they are more morally wrong than the Greeks in the acts they commit in the war. For example, he writes that “the other Peloponnesians […] embraced the good side.” (That side being that of the Athenians). His writing is full of literary devices, such as vivid imagery: “As he spoke, the Persians let down a flood of tears.” And “the women of Rgos were seized with madness.”

One main difference between the writing of Herodotus and that of Thucydides is that while Thucydides refers to himself in the third person, Herodotus uses the first person. This shows a lack of objectivity, which can further be seen when he gives his own opinion: “To me it shows very clearly how completely the rest of the barbarians were dependent on the Persian troops, that here they all fled at once, without ever coming to blows with the enemy; merely because they saw the Persians running away.

It is clear to tell that Herotus’ world view is that of an Athenian. There are many examples of Athenian pride in his writing. For example, when the Megarians cannot hold off the Persians any longer and no one else will take their place, Herodotus writes how the Athenians valiantly volunteer their services: “Of the rest none were willing to go, whereupon the Athenians offered themselves.” We also get a glimpse of Herodotus’ religious beliefs in his writing. He describes how Tisamenus, the soothsayer, goes to Delphi to inquire about his lack of offspring. The Pythoness tells him that he will win in glorious combats. The Lacedaemonians then interpret the oracle to mean that Tisamenus will be victorious in battle. Thus, we can see that Herodotus believed in the gods and in the oracle.

Thucydides’ literary style is very analytical. He is concise and to point with any deviation other than he abundance of antithesis. Meaning his opposition, “Indeed, the daring action of Aristogiton and Harmodius was undertaken in consequence of a love affair, which I shall relate at some length, to show that the Athenians are not more accurate than the rest of the world in their accounts of their own tyrants and of the facts of their own history. Pisistratus dying at an advanced age in possession of the tyranny, was succeeded by his eldest son, Hippias, and not Hipparchus, as is vulgarly believed. Harmodius was then in the flower of youthful beauty, and Aristogiton, a citizen in the middle rank of life, was his lover and possessed him. Solicited without success by Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus, Harmodius told Aristogiton, and the enraged lover, afraid that the powerful Hipparchus might take Harmodius by force, immediately formed a design, such as his condition in life permitted, for overthrowing the tyranny. In the meantime Hipparchus, after a second solicitation of Harmodius, attended with no better success, unwilling to use violence, arranged to insult him in some covert way. Indeed, generally their government was not grievous to the multitude, or in any way odious in practice; and these tyrants cultivated wisdom and virtue as much as any, and without exacting from the Athenians more than a twentieth of their income, splendidly adorned their city, and carried on their wars, and provided sacrifices for the temples. For the rest, the city was left in full enjoyment of its existing laws, except that care was always taken to have the offices in the hands of some one of the family. Among those of them that held the yearly archonship at Athens was Pisistratus, son of the tyrant Hippias, and named after his grandfather, who dedicated during his term of office the altar to the twelve gods in the market-place, and that of Apollo in the Pythian precinct. The Athenian people afterwards built on to and lengthened the altar in the market-place, and obliterated the inscription; but that in the Pythian precinct can still be seen, though in faded letters, and is to the following effect:” He also writes in an esoteric format leaving much of the translated material today not fully understood by modern historians. He meant for certain details to only be deciphered by those around him. His eyewitness accounts leave the reader with a sense of better understanding as compared to Herodotus because truthfully Thucydides states his facts and lets the reader be the judge.

Thucydides world view was composed of analyzing human nature. He was particular when we cognitively dissected his information, because in his environment the Athenians survived on scrutiny. To most correct one can never choose a side. He was contrarian and more closely knowing events in real life take nasty turns such as the division of polis’. Thucydides was careful and more politically correct than Herodotus.

But one can never say that the other was the better. They are equally the best and the first to give insight on such foreign past events.

B. Thucydides starts out by giving a brief history of the funeral how to of Pericles’ day. Almost congruous to today’s funerary practices, our military would be a bit less barbaric than leaving unhygienic bones about, under a tent in the open air no less. Typically today veterans would remain at all times in a casket with whatever remains, adorned with our nations flag. More specifically, “A funeral honors detail shall, at a minimum, perform at the funeral a ceremony that includes the folding of a United States flag and presentation of the flag to the veteran's family and the playing of Taps. Unless a bugler is a member of the detail, the funeral honors detail shall play a recorded version of Taps using audio equipment which the detail shall provide if adequate audio equipment is not otherwise available for use at the funeral.” The casket would be available during a wake period (prior to actual military attended services) and procession would be similar to the cypress coffins. Although, today individuals will get their own casket and it would be closed, not open. The arms forces in title 10 states that any deceased personnel of the armed forces shall have, “At least two members of the funeral honors detail for a veteran's funeral shall be members of the armed forces (other than members in a retired status), at least one of whom shall be a member of the armed force of which the veteran was a member. The remainder of the detail may consist of members of the armed forces (including members in a retired status), or members of veterans organizations or other organizations approved for purposes of this section under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. Each member of the armed forces in the detail shall wear the uniform of the member's armed force while serving in the detail.” This is of course referring to all active duty soldiers. Other than this process no one usually says so much as solemn words at military veteran funerals.

The orator would thus follow closely with an endearing speech. “For it is hard to speak properly upon a subject where it is even difficult to convince your hearers that you are speaking the truth.” Thucydides makes Pericles sound as though he is a sensitive man and sensitive he was, to the fact that loss can be of a deeper kind of pain. Thucydides names many key points of what they now have; the progression can be appreciated thanks to the hard work ensued by their ancestors. Nothing in life is given freely. That is what their beloved soldiers died for, a right, a chiefly earned right. Pericles soothes the people with the fact that death is only a small price to pay considering almost every forefather did so in combat and remarks on how that affects the current status of military at that time. It’s only traditional if one would want to include the past that it must chronologically come first in the present. Today this is not seen in any veteran funeral service, or at least not directly known to the public.

Pericles continues on to thoroughly describe how democracy has been erected over the fact that men have died for a government to even be allowed to exist. First of all it’s in my opinion rude and tactless. Usually when one goes to any ceremony (today) as such one expects to hear relevant, kind words about the deceased. No matter how relevant it could be in the news it should not be brought up at the ceremony of their death. It would be as if a man were to give a speech at a funeral for military veterans and mention Barrack Obama’s inauguration. Although this assumption could be terribly wrong, the people of Pericles’ time could have very much, as he indicated, loved to hear his digression on government. Pericles said “class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition.” Yes, that is the PERFECT thing to say when you an audience of tearful loved ones. He might as well have come out and said, “Our soldiers should be grateful that democracy is here because it created equality among classes of soldiers.” As if democracy had no previous help from the paving way of past military endeavors.

As Pericles’ goes on about democracy he mentions the openness of Athens. Prone to danger, this somehow shields them from neighboring detriments to society. He praises the soldiers who fought as it appears “unsupported”, who then daringly defeat all targets. “And yet if with habits not of labour but of ease, and courage not of art but of nature, we are still willing to encounter danger, we have the double advantage of escaping the experience of hardships in anticipation and of facing them in the hour of need as fearlessly as those who are never free from them.”

He goes on to say how each soldier’s greatness can be found with his daring liberality. In a way he thanks them for their true nature of being an Athenian. And they themselves have now all become nameless panegyrics.

Pericles values democracy as any good Athenian should. This in some respects provides the perfect situation in which he can boast about it. Although in today’s standards it would be considered a little disrespectful. Pericles intended to thank in a round about way the loved ones of the valiant soldiers through his concise speech on the democracy. He wanted closure in his conclusion, yet room enough for future progression of government through military to be known.

"Laws Relating to Funeral Honors." Ushistory.org. 03 Feb. 2009 <http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/funerallaws.htm>.

C.

Plutarch focused mainly on Alexander the Great’s character when writing his account of the famous conqueror’s rise to power. In Plutarch’s own words, “My intention is not to write histories, but lives.” The events described in Plutarch’s account reflect the conflicting character of Alexander the Great. While reading Plutarch’s writing, I felt internally conflicted myself; I could not decide whether Alexander was the protagonist or antagonist of the story. At times I saw him as a generous, kind-hearted man, as in the following quotations:

“Alexander was always very chaste and courteous in his relations with the opposite sex, and he had a great respect for the institution of marriage.”

“He disdained a life of comfortable sloth. This young warrior was always a great patron of the arts and of learning.”

However, at other times, Plutarch would describe Alexander as a violent and egotistical man, as in the next quotations:

“The Thebans gave him an insulting reply, so Alexander killed six thousand of them, demolished their city, and sold all of the surviving inhabitants as slaves.”

“[…] he offered a prize for the man who could drink the most wine. Promachus drank twelve quarts and got the prize, but three days later he died. Forty-one others also died from this debauch.”

Now, one must take into consideration the time period Alexander lived in, as well as the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the author. The time period would excuse some of Alexander’s more cruel, vicious actions, and make some of his better qualities all the more admirable. For example, at the time, most would probably not have objected to Alexander’s slaughter of the Thebans; many other rulers would have done the same. Also, his respectful treatment of women was truly unique as there was no such thing as “women’s rights” at the time of Alexander the Great. However, the conflict remains: what kind of a man was this Alexander?

First, an examination of some of Alexander’s best qualities:

1.Tolerance- Alexander was always extremely tolerant of foreign culture. When Alexander rested his army in Parthia, he tried on some of the native garments, and then wore them when speaking with the local people. He met a woman there, and fell in love. According to Plutarch, “Instead of taking Roxane by force, Alexander went through all of the Bactrian ceremonies for an official marriage.” This shows respect on Alexander’s part not only for women, but also for foreign customs.

2. Great self-restraint- Alexander was a master of moderation. His marriage to Roxane is a prime example: “This demonstration of his self-control and respect for their culture endeared him to the barbarians.” This is also reflected in his eating habits. “Alexander was totally in command of his appetite, and neither a glutton nor a gourmet.” Especially in matters concerning food, and in that particular time period, Alexander’s moderation with his appetite is an extremely commendable quality.

3. Trust- Alexander was an independent thinker; he trusted his gut. If there were a person he held in high esteem, no rumor could rob him of his trust for that person. Case in point: his dealings with his doctor, Philip the Acarnanian. When Alexander got sick, no doctor wanted to treat him for fear of failing and being punished for it. When Philip volunteered his services, Alexander recognized that the doctor was risking his own life to save Alexander’s. Even when he received a letter from Parmenio saying that Darius had sent Philip to poison Alexander, he still accepted the medication from Philip. “When Philip came in with a potion, Alexander took out ther letter and handed it to him, and while Philip read the letter, Alexander drank the potion with a smile. In a short time, Alexander was well.”

4. Generosity- Alexander the Great had a slew of good fortune, and he was not reluctant to share his wealth with those around him. Take, for instance, the following example: “Alexander was 200 talents in debt, having spent everything he had in making sure that his best men were able to provide for their families.” Plutarch also describes a series of events in which one of Alexander’s men is transporting some of Alexander’s treasure by means of a donkey. When the donkey tires, the man carries the treasure on his own back. When Alexander sees the man struggling under the weight, he tells the man that he can keep the treasure for himself.

5. Respect- Alexander’s gentler side can be seen in the way he treated women, like his first wife Roxane, and animals, like his horse Bucephalus. As I have already gone into detail concerning Alexander’s respect for women, at a time when women were regarded as possessions rather than people, I will talk about his devotion to his horse. When the old war horse dies, Alexander grieves as though he has lost a friend, and “On that spot he ordered a city to be built, named Bucephalia.”

Next, a look at Alexander’s darker side, and his worst qualities:

1. Paranoia- While trust was one of Alexander’s best qualities, its counterpart, paranoia, was one of his worst. As time went on, and Alexander gained more power (and more enemies), he became increasingly paranoid. When Philotas’ enemies succeeded in convincing Alexander that Philotas was conspiring against him, Alexander executed a slew of murders to ensure all possible conspirators be put to death: “Alexander ordered Philotas arrested and questioned under torture. Although Philotas denied that he had any part in the conspiracy, Alexander had him executed. Alexander also sent assassins to kill Philotas’ father, Parmenio, who was second in command of the army and had been a loyal friend of Alexander’s father, King Philip.”

2. Ruthlessness- Alexander showed a decreasing respect for human life as he became more powerful. At one point in time, he decided to have his army march through the Gedrosian Desert rather than traveling by ship. He ended up losing seventy-five percent of his army to hunger and thirst.

3. Hubris- This quality was common among major Greek leaders in history. However widespread, hubris remains an unflattering characteristic that Alexander the Great possessed. He had a penchant for naming cities after himself, such as “Alexandropolis.” He was also known to “lapse into braggadocio.” A prime example of his hubris is his letter to Darius: “All of Asia is mine, including all of its treasure. The money you offer is already mine. As for your daughter, if I want to marry her, I will do so, whether or not you approve.”

4. Violence- As a great general, Alexander was quick with a sword and had many victories under his belt. However, sometimes the magnificent war leader would go too far. When Alexander’s best friend Hephaestion dies, Alexander goes on a killing spree. “He crucified the doctor who had treated Hephaestion. […] Then he went into the country of the Cossaeans and for no reason massacred the entire nation.”

5. Impulsive behavior-Although level-headedness was one of Alexander’s best traits, he was also known to act impulsively, especially when he had been drinking. When Alexander mocks his own soldiers along with some foreign men, his friend Clitus stands up to him. Clitus said, “Those poor Macedonians you laugh at have, by their wounds fighting for you, made you so great now that you disown your father Philip and call yourself the son of Ammon.” Clitus is exactly right, but Alexander is enraged, and kills his friend: “Alexander grabbed a spear and threw it, killing Clitus.”