In the funeral scene the representation of conflicting perspectives are presented through the Plebians. Both Brutus and Mark Antony utilise different approaches to justify their view on the recent assasination. Brutus through syllogistic and blatant reasoning attempts to persuade the crowd that Caesar was a tyrant and full of ambition. For example (quote). Mark Anthony appeals to the crowd’s emotion and posesses that empathy which Brutus lacks. He claims that Caesar was not ambitious (crown of lupercal) and that he loved Rome evident through the will. Through his inflammatory words and his use of (technique) evident in (quote) meaning is created that ultimately influenced the responders, the mob in this case.

First Triumvirate

anc

estelle-lazer-and-the-skeletons-of-pompeii

engaassesment_karlos-ishac2

ENGLISH

engaassesment_karlos-ishac

Historical Investigation Essay

karlos-ishac-historical-investigation-troy

Bibliography included

Interesting Final Notes

Contemporary Sources

3 images of my main contemporary sources

Homer

Wolfgang Petersen

Heinrich Schliemann

Essay: Troy (Film)

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:EN-AU; mso-fareast-language:EN-AU;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Inevitably Homer’s account and the works of Heinrich Schliemann provoked so much controversy and interest that the adaptation of the text to film was destined to occur. In 2004 the infamous director Wolfgang Petersen, in the same mindset as Schliemann before, took Homer’s account and transitioned it onto the big screen in an attempt to create the events as a reality. In the least case if you were watching the film without any background knowledge about Troy and it’s mysterious roots, the events would seem realistic and believable. Petersen has made many omissions mainly of fantasy elements such as Gods, mythological creatures and Achilles immortality. It is a clear separation of the director’s judgement of fact and fiction, and this interpretation is evident in many scenes of the film. For example when the seer Calchas predicts the Trojans will win the war because he had seen an eagle holding a snake, Hector outbursts in rage demeaning Calchas’ dependency on superstition “You can’t base a war off bird science” and “The God’s will not fight this war for us”. In another incident where a child confronts Achilles questioning his immortality, Achilles replies saying “I wouldn’t be bothering with the shield then”. In both these cases it is made clear that Petersen’s purpose is to show that these events would have very likely occurred if you discern the facts from Greek religious/mythological influence.

Essay: Schliemann’s Credibility

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:EN-AU; mso-fareast-language:EN-AU;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

To many it may have seemed that Schliemann was a Messiah of history as his finds sparked convincing arguments of what was believed to be a myth. However to the average historian Schliemann was just another madman caught up in his own little world. Although his discoveries possessed great significance and importance to historical study there are many reasons against his authenticity. We must first consider his personal state of mind. Schliemann was a grieving man in a personal depression and this text was his oxygen. It is believed he re-read the text many times and could recite dialogue from the text perfectly. The account had a major impact on his life it consumed his entire personality and lifestyle. This is evident when Schliemann took residence in Greece and named all his servants after mythological Greek figures. He existed as if he was in Ancient Greece. On the practical side the Mask of Agamemnon was dated too old to be that of the Trojan War and Priam’s treasure bears no link to the war itself and could represent any piece of wealth from Troy’s history. Schliemann’s sly behaviour towards the Turkish Government and his own self obsession should not be ignored when analysing his sanity. Apart from this Schliemann was not a credited nor licensed archaeologist he was just an individual on a mission.