We’re Back! Sunday, Mar 22 2009

Well, folks. After a winter of rest from the campaign, we’re back in action. I apologize for our impromptu break, but this should be the beginning of a long string of posts. We’ll be featuring topics from the famed Trojan War, World War II, and others. Hope you guys enjoy. -Jerry-not-Tom

Today’s post is a character study of Akhilleus, also known as Achilles, as taken from information in The Iliad. This was something that I had to do for my worldview schoolwork. I had to analyze the Iliad and the Odyssey to try to determine the ancient Greek’s worldview. To provide a little bit of background information on the Trojan War, it was basically thousands of men fighting over one woman. Helen, who was supposed to be one of the most beautiful women in the world, ran off with a prince of Troy named Paris, or Alexandros. Now there were three little problems with this relationship. The first problem was that Helen was already married. The second problem was that Menelaos, her husband, happened to be king of Sparta, one of the military powerhouses in Greece. The third problem was that Menalaos’ brother Agamemnon was essentially “High King over all Kings in Greece” and as such had many other troops at his disposal. When these two brothers heard what Helen and Paris had done, they immediately sent out a call to anyone who had previously courted Helen to assemble their armies and rendezvous together to attack Troy( the specification for former suitors of Helen was the result of a little condition that Helen‘s dad had included into the courting process, namely that any former suitor of Helen would have to defend her and her husband if they needed help). For ten long years they fought before the walls of Troy to retake Menelaos’ bride. Akhilleus, while not a former suitor, accompanied the Greek soldiers. He rose from the ranks to become a champion. We’ll now see what he was like as an individual from the Greek army.

One of the main power sources that drive the Iliad’s storyline is the effect that Akhilleus’(that’s Achilles in another translation) character flaw had on the opposing Greek and Trojan armies, that flaw being anger. He was a generally nice and genial kind of person, but when he got angry, there wasn’t a chain built strong enough to restrain his wrath. Akhilleus would have made a prime subject of a Dr. Phil episode. There were two instances in the story were Akhilleus’ anger was aroused. The first came when Agamemnon, king of the Greeks and leader of the expedition, took Akhilleus’ favorite slave girl to compensate for the “ injustice” of his own girl being taken back to her father(who had convinced the “god” Apollo to smack the Greeks in light of Agamemnon’s previous refusal). Akhilleus not only removed himself from combat, thus depriving the Greeks of their best soldier, but also petitioned to the “head god” Zeus to give the Greeks no victory until they begged him to return. This caused the Greeks to be beat all the way back to the point that they were on the defensive and close to losing completely. The second instance was when Akhilleus, still sulking in his hut, learned that his best friend, Patroklos, had died at the hands of Hektor, the Trojan champion, while trying to reverse the negative affect that Akhilleus’ angry sulking was having on the army. This news spurred Akhilleus out of inactivity and back into the fight. He killed many Trojans, culminating with the death of Hektor. Let’s examine first the effect that the anger had on the Greek army at large.

After Akhilleus left, the Greek losses began to outweigh their gains. There were still times when they would gain ground on the battlefield, but for the most part, the Greeks fought on the defensive. The Trojans slowly beat the Greeks back down to their encampment on the shore. Then they broke through the Greek defenses and burned one of the ships that brought the Greeks there. Akhilleus’ anger also had a devastating effect on the Greek heroes, his friends.

Akhilleus’ absence on the battlefield left many of the heroes vulnerable. When Zeus “accorded” temporary victory to the Trojans, he “handicapped” the Greek heroes in several ways. Often, at a crucial point in the battle, one or other of the heroes would be wounded or killed and the way paved for the Trojans to take advantage of the situation. At one point, most of the commanders were wounded and the Trojans pushed all of the way to the ships. At other times, the commanders became trapped and only barely escaped with their lives. Such was the case with Menelaos and Nestor. The most prominent loss in the Greek ranks, and the subject of Akhilleus’ anger round two, was that of Patroklos. He was Akhilleus’ second in command as well as his best friend. Patroklos, seeing that the Greeks were on the verge of annihilation, volunteered to put on Akhilleus’ very distinctive armor and enter the fight, in hopes that the Trojans would mistake him for Akhilleus. The masquerade had its desired effect with the Trojan soldiers, though their commanders were not fooled, and they retreated all the way back to the city. It actually took intervention on the part of Apollo to prevent Patroklos from storming Troy that very day. Nevertheless, Patroklos killed many Trojan soldiers including Sarpedon, commander of the Lykians and son of Zeus. But one soldier came who Patroklos could not bring down. It was Hektor, first Prince and champion of Troy. They fought against each other, but were separated by the fight. Patroklos then fought other men and killed twenty-seven of them. On the fourth attack, the “god” Apollo “decided” to end this nonsense once and for all. First, he knocked the wind out of Patroklos. Then, he took away all of Patroklos’ armor and broke his spear! Seeing this hero unarmed, Hektor and another soldier teamed up on the helpless Patroklos and killed him. This set the stage for the most devastating effect of Akhilleus’ anger.

Akhilleus’ anger was a dual-edged sword. Though devastating to the Greeks, it also wasted the Trojans. Akhilleus, upon learning of Patroklos’ death immediately commenced preparing to return to the fight. He received new weapons from his mother, a lesser “goddess,” and prepared Patroklos for burial. He then left the camp and vowed never to return until, “I have made the Trojans sick of war!” Aside from twelve princes of Troy that he captured to be sacrificed over Patroklos’ pyre, Akhilleus left no survivors in his wake. Even as Patroklos had driven the Trojans back to the field before Troy, Akhilleus drove them off of the field and into the city, setting the stage for the final siege. One man alone chose not to enter the safety of the gates. It was Hektor. He alone chose to face Akhilleus, paying no attention to the pleas of his parents. They fought, and Akhilleus slew Hektor. Now, picture yourself as a soldier atop the Trojan wall. As if the fact that one of the men leading you, and the focus of all of this mess, is a spoiled brat who stole another man’s wife isn’t bad enough, now the only chance that you had in the world of keeping the Greeks out of your beloved Troy has just been killed by an incredibly angry man who is, minus “divine” intervention, invincible. What could be more demoralizing than that? How about seeing your only hope killed on the field, then witnessing his body being tied to the back of a chariot by the invincible maniac and the body being dragged around the city at full speed? On top of that, the widow of your city’s only hope begins running around and screaming hysterically? Well, that’s basically what happened. With Hektor eliminated, the end was in sight for Troy After conducting the funeral of Patroklos, Akhilleus burned off the last of his rage by taking Hektor’s body, still tied to the back of his chariot, for a few laps around Patroklos’ barrow each day. Finally, after a little prodding from his mother, Akhilleus let go of his anger, ransomed the body of Hektor back to the Trojan king, and allowed the Trojans time to properly bury Hektor. All that was left for Akhilleus was to wait for the day of his death and fight his hardest for the Greeks in the meantime. Character flaws like Akhilleus’ anger are natural to all of us. What is the Christian response to character flaws?

Character flaws aren’t something to fear or shy away from. They are as natural to each of us as death and taxes. They are part of the bundle of traits that we received after the fall. Not all are the same. Each flaw is as unique as the person holding it. We are not stuck with these flaws, however. God can easily work though these problems with us. He provides the antidote and the strength to take it. For example, the antidote for Akhilleus’ anger might be a mixture of self-control and forgiveness. All that is necessary for this change to take place is your surrendering control to God and allowing Him to come in and adjust your system. He is ready to help, but are you ready to ask for this help?

An interesting character, isn’t he? Kind of reminds me of Anakin Skywalker in a couple of ways…

One Response »

 

Roses in History Tuesday, Dec 23 2008

                                              Due to the excessive amount of whole roses, rose petals, and pollen in our blog, we’ve decided to recycle these donations and convert them into another post.

Roses have had a variety of uses in history. They have been used by the Greeks as a representation of their civilization, and a symbol of confidentiality. The phrase “sub rosa” is derived from this. The Romans were a little bit more practical in their uses. They first used the rose for medicinal purposes, but soon used it to decorate their tables and homes during feasts. One rather famous utilizer of the rose for interior decoration was Cleopatra, queen of Egypt. Aside from the roses’ obvious visual appeal, the Romans believed that the rose’s fragrance prevented drunkeness. In England, the rose was largly associated with the Catholic Church. Examples include rosaries ( prayer books constructed from rose hips) and Rose windows. They believed that the five rose petals  represented Jesus’ five wounds that he recieved as he was crucified (shrug). Also, the rose was a symbol of two families, York and Lancaster, that fought over the right to the English throne. This was the War of the Roses. Finally, the French used the rose largly for decoration. This is not exactly significant in itself as I have already mentioned that the Romans did this too. Te significance lies with the person who championed this in France: the Empress Josephine Bonapart, Napoleon’s wife! There was quite a lucrative rose trade going on between England and France during the Napoleonic Wars.

Well there you have it, folks. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from Tom and Jerry!

3 Responses »

 

Guest Post! Wednesday, Nov 19 2008

                                                   I know that I said that the next post was going to be about Henry Clay’s rival in Washington D.C. Before we get into that, I would like to introduce the first guest-post on Present in the Past: Jake W. ! This composition was entered by Jake into an essay contest hosted by the Arkansas Historical Preservation Association. It didn’t win, unfortunately(1out of 800 is pretty tall odds), but it is still a winner here at the house. So, without further ado, Jake’s Post!

                                          The Drennen -Scott House is a 166 to 170 year old building with thirty-one acres surrounding it. The house originally consisted of two rooms but as five generations passed the house down eleven rooms were added to the building. Around the house five or six buildings stood but while the house is being preserved today only two buildings stand. When Scott Bulloch, Caroline Bercher, and Drennen Bulloch contacted Tom Wing he toured the house and talked to the chancellor of the University of Arkansas Fort Smith about a grant for the building. As Mr. Wing explored the building he found what he believes to be most of the original furniture, pictures, documents, and letters which have been extremely helpful in finding more of the family’s history!

Now the Drennen-Scott House is being preserved and turned into a museum and classroom for UAFS students to learn how to work for a museum. The original furniture was taken and put in storage at The Historic Arkansas Museum until the house is finished . About five months after the cedar shingles were put on the house a storm blew in and damaged the shingles. The roof just now got replaced which slowed down the process. The museum will be finished in summer of 2010.

John Drennen is one of the men that lived in the house. It is believed that John Drennen and David Thompson built a wood lot near the Arkansas River to supply steam boats that ran through . After being flooded several times John and David bought Phillips Point other wise known as Van Buren for $11,000 in 1836. Later Arkansas, turning into a state, brought an excessive amount of people to Van Buren. In 1836 , John Drennen was elected to be a member of the House of Representatives. As David Thompson died in 1838, John Drennen was again elected to be a member of the House of Representatives in 1838. John Drennen became a very rich successful man. As John became more wealthy he began to worry about Van Buren so he donated block fourteen as a courthouse and Fairview Cemetery which John and his family have been buried in. John Drennen became a very successful businessman possessing real estate in many counties all over Arkansas . John Drennen also owned land in many other states . While John was traveling to Virginia he caught Yellow Fever which later took his life in 1855. John’s body was taken to and buried at Fairview Cemetery. After John Drennen died Caroline Scott passed the Drennen-Scott House to her son P.D. Scott Sr., which passed it down to P.D. Scott, Jr., who passed it to Caroline Scott who passed it to Mary Glen Bulloch , who finally passed it to Scott Bulloch, Drennen Bulloch, and Caroline Bercher the people who sold it to UAFS.

The Drennen-Scott House is important because it’s building, property, and history have and will tell stories for many more years.

 

 

9 Responses »

 

Old, Dusty, Politics- Part One Sunday, Nov 2 2008

                     Like it or not, folks, Tuesday is Election Day. To commemerate this day, let’s examine three of the biggest names in the political arenas in the early to mid 1800′s. We’ll take a look at the extremes then conclude with the more moderate politician. For brevity, we will look at each man’s political life alone.

                      ” If any one desires to know the leading and paramount object of our life, the preservation of the Union will furnish the key.”

                      The author of the above passage was a man by the name of Henry Clay. Like many other politicians of his time, his political career began in the courtroom. Although Clay recieved his legal degree and admission into the bar at New England, Clay actually began his practice in Lexington, Kentucky. He was elected to the Kentucky General Assembly. During his time there, he pushed moving the state capital from Frankfurt to Lexington, a measure that was defeated, he successfully defended the Kentucky Insurance Company from an attempt by Felix Grady to repeal the company’s charter, and he also successfully defended Aaron Burr during one of his trials, a descision he later regretted. In 1811, he was elected to the House of Representatives, and was made the Speaker of the House on his first day at work (what a promotion!). There he was an ardent ” War Hawk”, that is, he strongly wanted war with England during the time immediately before the War of 1812. Just as he supported the war at the beginning, he also helped develope and sign the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812. Additionally, he formed a commerce treaty with England. On his return to the US, he supported the formation of the Second National Bank, whose predecessor he had fought against. Clay is well known for his part in the “Missouri Compromise”, which designated the line between the states that could support slavery, and the states where slavery was outlawed. Also, to maintain balance between the slave states and the free, Missouri, which is actually north of the slave boundary line, was admitted as a slave state, and Maine was entered as a free. Clay brokered another compromise that agreed to gradually reduce the controversial Tariff of 1828, which somewhat involved yet another North-South political conflict. Throughout his career at Washington D.C. , Clay ran for president as many as six times. He was never elected, but he did become Secretary of State a couple of times under different presidencies. Clay’s closing act came with the Compromise of 1850. This issue arose over the spread of slavery into the newly-acquired territory from Mexico. The Compromise settled the dispute and bolstered the Fugitive Slave Act. Two years after the Compromise was passed, Henry Clay died at the age of 75., never to see the brutal Civil War that was brewing during his time in Washington. The “Man who knew no North- no South- no East- no West” truly helped maintain the Union for which he strove as long as he held breath.

I had origionally intended to put all three of my politicians into the same post, but due to the length of this post, I have decided to do a three-parter. Tune in next time when we examine one of Clay’s principle enemies at Washington D.C.

Leave a Response »

 

Genesis Worldview Tuesday, Oct 28 2008

  This is something that I had to write for my worldview schoolwork.                                                                  Aside from the historical accounts of the Creation, the flood, and the descent of Abraham’s offspring into Egypt, Genesis offers a little bit more information about the nature of things. It tells of God’s nature, the nature of the universe, and the nature of man. It reveals that, once upon a time, man lived in perfect conditions here on earth. Genesis shows that God and man had a perfect relationship with one another. However, Genesis also records that man disobeyed God’s command and that sin entered the world through that choice, corrupting and defiling every thing but heaven and its occupants. Let us examine this book and find out what it says about the natures of God, the universe, and man.

Genesis offers some very prominent answers about the nature of God. First, God is omnipotent. He created the universe, not from something, but out of nothing! Not only that, He created everything by fiat, that is, with his voice. He spoke, and it happened! One’s finite mind can barely grasp this extraordinary concept of creation by fiat. Not only did God create the world, he destroyed everything on it. In the days of Noah, man had become so corrupt that God REGRETTED having made the world at all! Only Noah’s family and representatives of every kind of living creature survived the flood aboard the ark. This takes me to my next point: God cares. He is involved. He has one on one communication with us and wants us to listen to him. He desires for us to do the things He wants us to do because they are the best things. His ways are perfect! He knows, He invented them! God knew that it would be better if Adam and Eve had never eaten the fruit. He even told them not to! Let us now turn to the nature of the universe and see what Genesis has to say about that.

Genesis explains the nature of the universe from a variety of angles. First, the universe was created by God. Genesis clearly states that God was here before the universe and He created it. The first chapter gives a detailed timeline of the creation of the universe. Secondly, the universe is neither perfect, nor pure. Man’s poor decision to eat the fruit not only caused personal harm, but also a specific curse on the earth for Adam’s sake. This curse resulted in the introduction of thorns and other bothersome plants into earth’s ecology. Not only that, the flood that destroyed the occupants of the world, save Noah and company, most likely changed the surface of the earth and its climate. Since the choices of man have had such devastating affects on the world, what is the nature of this being?

Although man was created by God just like the rest of the universe, man has several differences from the rest of creation. Man has a soul, and man has the knowledge of good and evil. Unlike the rest of creation, man has a part of him that is eternal. It won’t die. It will remain in existence for the rest of eternity. Where the soul remains depends on one’s either acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Savior. The second difference is that man possesses the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve gave us this ability when they ate of a tree that gave this knowledge. God did not want them to have this knowledge because he had given man the freedom of choice and such a knowledge would open a floodgate of possibilities of ways to sin against God. God knew that this knowledge was not necessary to life, in fact it is harmful to life as God intended. This has resulted in man’s heart becoming wicked by nature and total separation from God. Thankfully, Jesus bridged the gap by dying on the cross and taking our punishment. All that is required to pass this bridge is to believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior. It’s the first step towards living life as God originally intended.

Genesis is full of information pertaining to many different topics. It gives the accounts of the creation of the world, the Fall, the Flood, the dispersal of man into the world, and the start of the Jewish civilization though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Below the surface, however, Genesis presents much of the basis for the Biblical worldview. Genesis reveals things about God, the Universe, and the Nature of man. This really shows that Genesis truly is the starting point.

-From Jerry-not-Tom

P.S. : More posts on the way!

 

Leave a Response »

 

Audience Participation Thursday, Oct 16 2008

                     Ladies and Gentlemen, I need help. I am currently suffering from a severe case of indescision. I can’t deside what to write! I need you guys to give me ideas about topics. Preferably not food histories. Not every offered topic will make it onto the blog, but every suggestion will be considered. Thanks for your help.                    -Jerry not Tom

5 Responses »

 

Tanks and Bridges Thursday, Sep 25 2008

From Jerry-not-Tom

     Folks, besides the anniversary of 9/11, what other historically prominent, yet not so well known, event took place on these past two weeks in September? The answer is: Operation Market Garden. Operation Market Garden was an attempt by the Allies to bypass the German Siegfried Line, a strong defensive chain that protected the German’s industrial areas. The plan called for an invasion into Holland from the south. First, the Allies would drop mass amounts of paratroops into Holland. These paratroops, the first three divisions of the First Allied Airborne Army, were comprised of the 82^nd and 101^st American Airborne divisions, the British 1^st Airborne Division, and the Polish 1^st Independent Parachute Brigade. They would capture key bridges across the Rhine river. Meanwhile, the British Second Army would march across the Holland using the bridges that were captured by the paratroopers. That is, if everything went according to plan.

     Some red flags were already going up even before the Operation went into action. Arial reconnaissance had taken photographs of tanks in the area around the paratrooper drop zones. However, General Bernard Montgomery disregarded the information and continued the preparations for the attack. As it turns out, those tanks belonged to two SS PANZER divisions that were sent to Holland for a little peace and quiet!!! (Briefly, panzers are tanks and the SS were Hitler’s elite troops. These troops were so prized that, besides getting the Nazi‘s top of the line equipment, they got to ride in armored vehicles instead of walking like the standard infantry. SS panzer divisions, rather than distinguish between separate infantry and tank divisions, the infantry went with the tanks together. Infantry generally followed the armor in on foot, but the SS troops could ride into battle with the tanks. Basically, SS and panzer next to each other in the same report meant LOTS of trouble for the Allies.) These tanks alone would present a problem for the paratroopers, who didn’t carry very many anti-armor weapons, such as a bazooka. The SS driving the tanks only made things worse.

     Aside from this slight complication, Operation Market Garden also had a problem with staying supplied. It wasn’t so much a lack of supplies as moving them. That and Generals Bradley and Patton conveniently conducted a “continuous reconnaissance” against the Germans. Continuous reconnaissance could better be described as a “unrelenting attack.” Nevertheless, General Montgomery continued the plan for the attack.

     The nine day battle began on Sunday, September 17, 1944. The paratroop landings were mostly on target and the XXX Corps advanced with relatively few German problems. However, the XXX Corps ran into a couple of time delays, which got them behind schedule. This would pretty much be the rule throughout the fight.

     Going into detail about each day would take far too large of a post so, I’ll have to stop with this. The paratroopers captured most of their bridges, but were unable to hold them for the slowly advancing XXX Corps. All suffered heavy losses, but the cost was acutely high in the British 1^st Airborne. Theirs was the story of numerous heroic defenses and last stands. In fact, while the plan originally called for the entire British 1^st Airborne to defend the Arnhem Bridge. Seven-hundred and forty men held that bridge for twice as long as formerly planned, against far greater opposition than expected. Their last radio message was “ Out of ammo, God save the King.” and was heard only by German radio transmission interceptors. The bridge was renamed “ John Frost Bridge” in honor of the soldiers commanding officer. Operation Market Garden, though a defeat, was a shinning display of the Allied Airborne’s perseverance in the face of opposition.(Even when the opposition happens to be driving tanks.)

5 Responses »

 

The Great Escape Monday, Aug 25 2008

         From Jerry not Tom

         How many of you in the audience have heard of the movie The Great Escape? Well, this movie, and its historical counterpart, is the topic for today’s post. The Great Escape is a movie about the escape of seventy six American and British POWs from a German prison camp in World War II. It stars Steve McQueen, Richard Attenborough, Charles Bronson, and James Garner. In the story, the Germans took the POWs with the worst escape records and put them into Stalag Luft III, a newly constructed camp specially built to confine even the craftiest escape artists that could be found in the POW ranks. Its strength was soon tested, as about six POWs, almost immediately upon arrival, attempted to escape using various disguises. Unfortunately, none of them succeeded. Soon, the inmates were joined by one more prisoner, Roger Bartlett, the leading conspirator of many previous escape attempts. The SS informed him that if he should escape again, he would be executed. Undaunted, Bartlett at once set about arranging preparations for another attempt to escape. Only this time, instead only one or two dozen making the attempt as before, Bartlett planned to spring two hundred and fifty POWs, complete with civilian clothes and identification. Bartlett’s plan called for the digging of three tunnels, nicknamed “Tom,” “Dick,” and “Harry,” thirty feet under the compound all the way to the woods that stood outside the camp. With the help of (last names only) Mac Donald(intelligence), Hendley(scrounger), Hilts(information gatherer), Sedgwick(manufacturer), Blythe(forger), and Velinski(tunnel digger), Bartlett managed to sneak seventy-six men out of tunnel “Harry” even though they were twenty feet short of the woods. The escape was discovered before all of the two-hundred fifty could escape. The final fourth or so of the movie dealt with what happened to the escapees. Sedgwick, Velinski, and one other POW eluded the Nazis and reached safety. The other seventy three were recaptured by the Germans. Of these, fifty were shot by the SS, the rest were returned to the camp.

The Great Escape is an excellent movie in quality and content(though our TV Gaurdian picked up some mometary language, the seveverity of which is unknown to the writer). However, it doesn’t completely adhere to the historical account. The characters are fictitious, and some of the events were added to enhance the plot, Hollywood at it again. The Americans in the camp were unable to take part in the actual escape due to the fact that they were moved to other camps. They did get to assist in the preparations though. Also the movie stretched the ethnic participants in the escape somewhat making it appear that the only participants were of either British or American (though they did portray Velinski as a Polish airman). In actuality, the ethnic diversity of the camp was far more significant. Of the fifty that were executed because of thir involvement in the escape, 21 were British, 6 Canadian, 6 Polish, 5 Australian, 3 South African, 2 Norwegian, 2 New Zealender, 1 Greek, 1 French, 1 Lithuanian, 1 Czech, and 1 Belgian. Also, of the three men that eluded capture and made it back to the Allies, one was Dutch and the other two were Norwegian. Most of the details were correct in that the name of the camp, the three tunnels (although the locations of the tunnels were rearranged), and the number of escapees that made it out were accurately portrayed. Finally, the movie correctly showed that fifty of the escapees were shot by the SS.

I really enjoyed doing the research for this post. I learned a lot more about the real story and what happened at the camp. I was amazed at what these men accomplished in their drive for freedom from captivity. For instance, after the escape, the Germans conducted a census of the camp’s supplies. They discovered that 4000 bed boards, 90 beds, 34 chairs, 10 single chairs, 76 benches, 1219 knives, 478 spoons, 582 forks, 69 lamps, 246 water cans, 30 shovels, 1000 ft. of electric wire, 600 ft. of rope, 3424 towels, 1700 blankets, and over 1400 condensed milk cans. Of the twenty three that were recaptured and sent back to confinement camp, seventeen were returned to Stalag Luft III, the others were distributed to two other areas of detainment. Four of the men who landed in the same concentration camp made another attempt and actually succeeded in reaching the Allies once more. Though this escape was by far not the largest escape ever attempted, it is undoubtedly one of the best remembered in the annals of history.

 

 

3 Responses »

 

Just Keep Running Friday, Aug 15 2008

        Hello everyone! How has your summer been? I’m sorry for the lack of posts lately, but throughout July, I’ve been taking Dad’s US History class at the university through concurrent enrollment. It’s been a whole lot of fun. We covered the period of American history from pre-Columbian discovery through the Civil War. Taking the class with Dad was one of the most fun things I’ve ever done. I’ve learned a lot more about American history and I look forward to sharing some of it here with you guys. Now, as my partner mentioned before, I’m going to talk about his favorite Olympic event, the marathon race. First of all, what is a marathon race? A marathon race is a foot race that is just over 26 miles long. I don’t know what you’re thinking, but to me, that’s a long way to run! The marathon has a long history as an Olympic event, but lets focus on its origins for now. Between the fall of the Babylonian Empire to the Persians and Medes and the death of Alexander the Great, one thing was always sure to happen every few years, Persia’s kings would send an army to invade and attempt to conquer Greece. None of these invasions ever conquered all of Greece, though at times, they came pretty close. King Darius, (yes, that’s Daniel’s Darius) was the first Persian king to send his army to Greece. He sent it there to conquer the states of Athens and Eretria, who had assisted the state of Ionia when it rebelled against Persian rule. The fleet that Darius sent first traveled to Eretria, which succumbed. From Eretria, the Persian fleet moved to Marathon bay, where they were met by a significantly smaller Athenian army. A battle ensued and the underdog Athenian army won. Now, the origin of the Marathon foot race involves a legend about something that happened after the battle. According to the legend, a young messenger ran ,in full armor, from the battlefield after the victory to Athens, a distance of roughly 26 miles. There, immediately after delivering the joyous news, he died in the senate chamber at Athens. Although this legend’s historical accuracy has been questioned, it set the precedent for a race that has been with the Olympics since the 1896 Olympic games and continues to inspire us today.

 

One Response »

 

Award Winning! Saturday, Aug 9 2008

It is with great appreciation we humbly accept from our friend and “queen of blogs” MeggyT!!!

Sincerely,

Tom Not Jerry

Leave a Response »