Prompt 3

Bruce Wayne, otherwise known as Batman is, while performing heroic deeds, more of an anti-hero than a hero. Bruce Wayne is a pompous, womanizing, rich snob while Batman is a brave hero who cleans the streets of Gotham City.

Batman has one major line that he refuses to cross; he refuses to kill another human being. Regardless of whether they are good or evil he will not kill. He “teams up” with the justice department of Gotham City fighting crime by capturing the “baddies” and then leaving them for the police. He is active only at night for two reasons, the first reason, being less important, is to add to his characters fright factor; the second reason is because he believes in kick-starting the citizen’s belief in their judicial system. While having faith in something (Batman) is better than nothing, his job is a double edged sword because Bruce knows that he cannot be Batman forever and therefore must inspire the police force to work harder as well as inspire the public to have faith in justice and the law.

If Batman were to cross the line then his plan for aiding the police force would never come to fruition. While the character Batman allows people to disagree with his methods this allows them to side with the police. However many people see what Batman is doing and have sided with both. If Batman were to suddenly start executing criminals than he transfers that ultimate power from the judicial system and into his hands. If that were to happen the law would turn against him as would the citizens of Gotham City.

Batman can have on a specific level of hubris otherwise he’ll get head strong and sloppy. After all he possesses no super-human capabilities. He utilizes his sharp mind, vast intellect, wealth, and detective skills in order to fight crime. Bruce Wayne on the other hand is nearly untouchable being the wealthiest man in the city; and since he is, he does act with much hubris. You really either love him or hate him because while he acts like a jerk in real life, it’s in order to live an isolated life in which he is able to keep his “hobby” alive without worrying about others. Achilles and Agamemnon both act with considerable amounts of hubris. Agamemnon seems to think that as long as he has Achilles fighting for him he is unstoppable; and Achilles acts as if he is well, unstoppable. He shouldn’t seeing as his mother told him he’d die in battle. No I correct myself, he only cares about being immortal in memory which he was guaranteed if he fought.

Achilles could certainly not be a modern day hero. First off he’d look absolutely preposterous (not saying some hero’s that exist don’t already look rather silly). Secondly, he died in The Iliad so that presents a bit of a problem. If you set aside these two complications then I’m sure his fighting skill could stand up in the modern day. If the ancient Greek gods took into consideration guns in the future then he certainly would have nothing to worry about.

1st Prompt

Prior to this course I have done minimal in school education on Greek mythology. I took an Ancient Roman History course and researched on my own. Of course, like all other 90’s babies I’ve seen Disney’s Hercules and loved it. As I grew older and my mom grew more attached to the SciFi channel I sat through countless episodes of the series of Hercules. After realizing that the acting was atrocious and the storylines far from accurate I decided to begin researching on my own all the mysteries of the ancient Greeks.

I’m not going to list the names of all the deities I had learned through my countless hours of researching but I’ll summarize by saying that I new the 12 gods of Mt. Olympus, the Titans, and a good number of the everyday spirits that the Greeks believed in. Since my heydays of Greek research I’ve moved on to topics that are of more interest to me. As for why I believe the Greeks instilled human flaws in their gods… well, I like to believe that it was because they were smart enough to realize that gods cannot be perfect. It follows absolutely no sense of logic. Albeit neither does the theory of immortal, intangible entities but by adding the flaws of mankind to their gods they were more likely able to convince the masses that they existed.

Prompt #2: This is Spartaaaaaa! ! !

My understanding of Spartan society is that they existed as a powerful and formidable warring state that living a relatively simple minded and efficient life. The women held much more power than those in most other societies due to the fact that the Spartan men were often too busy training, or off fighting in wars. As a society there was not much romance to be had and that is evident in the phrase "Come home wearing your shield, or on it" because the mans only job was to be a soldier and his shield meant the ability to live to fight again. It was tradition that when Spartan men fell in battle they were brought home strapped on top of it. The ruling class, the Spartiates, gave themselves wholly to war. At birth a boy was inspected by the elders, and if he appeared too weakly for future military service, he was taken into the mountains and abandoned. If he was fit, he was taken from his mother at the age of seven to begin rigorous military training. He became a soldier at 20, a citizen at 30, and continued as a soldier until 60. Thus his entire life was spent under rigorous discipline. Spartiate women, under less severe discipline, were part of the soldierly society and were not secluded. The Spartiates were the only citizens and the only sharers in the allotment of lands and of the helots (serfs who were bound to the land). The helots farmed the land and paid part of the produce to their masters, the Spartiates. They could not be sold, but they had no legal or civil rights and were constantly watched by a sort of Spartiate secret police for fear of insurrection. In somewhat less stringent subjection were the perioeci, freemen who were permitted to carry on commerce and handicrafts, by which some of them prospered. Nevertheless, the perioeci were entirely subordinate to the Spartiates.

Spartan government was an odd affair, but its overwhelming characteristic was stability . The Spartans, in fact, had the most stable government in the history of ancient Greece (some historians call this stability, "political stagnation"). At the top of government was the monarchy; the monarchy, however, was a dual monarchy. Below the monarchy was a council which was composed of the two kings plus twenty-eight nobles, all of whom were over sixty, that is, retired from the military. The council debated and set legislative and foreign policy, and was the supreme criminal court. Below the council (or above it), was an assembly of all the Spartiate males (a democracy, in other words) that selected the council and approved or vetoed council proposals. Above them all, however, was a small group of five men known as the ephorate . For all practical purposes, Spartan government was the ephorate, for these five men led the council, ran the military, ran the educational system, ran the infant selection system, and had veto power over everything coming out of the council or the assembly. They even had power to depose the king; however, they needed powerful divine proof (in the form of omens or oracles) to exercise this power. So what kind of government was Spartan government? It was a democratic timocratic monarchical oligarchy. Chew on that a few times. :)