| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Asta Kask
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Sweden
263 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2007 : 08:40:54 AM
|
I read what Mr Ken had to say about the movie - he said it was an excellent movie because it was a) technically proficient, and b) it achieved its purpose. And I agree with him on that.
But if they really want to make a movie about a historical event - can't they at least get something right besides some of the names? "Life of Brian" was much, much, much, much closer to historical reality. Come to think of it, so was "Quest for the Holy Grail."
Did anyone else think that the movie wasn't so much about ancient Sparta as about the last 300 heterosexual men being assaulted by the Gay Pride festival from Hell. With the addition that the festival was apparently led by a 10-feet disco doll in the dress Liberace rejected because it was just too feminine?
I read Ken's review of Tom Cruise's Japanese epic "The Last Samurai." In it, Ken laments that Tom Cruise idolizes Japanese society. Well, Sparta was a brutal totalitarian slave state.
From the age of 6, all boys entered the so-called agoge. Their leader, the boy shepherd, was to make sure that they never ever disobeyed an order. They weren't fed enough, because they were expected to learn craft by stealing food. If they were caught, they were of course mercilessly beaten.
The best boys were selected to the Krypteia, or the Spartan Secret Service. They were given a mission: cross the mountains, in the middle of the night and kill a Helot (the slave population of Messalia). Only if they could kill a slave, picked more-or-less at random could they be worthy to enter the Spartan warrior elite. And Leonidas says "An age of freedom, and will know, that 300 Spartans gave their last breaths to defend it!" I guess it depends on whose eyes you are looking with.
From the age of 12, all young boys and girls were subjected to routine sodomy by their elders. This wasn't uncommon in Greek states, but it was only in Sparta that it was a crime to refuse. In exchange for these services, the older man was expected to help their young lovers - provided they were male. So calling the Athenians "boy-lovers" is... strange for a Spartan king (and the age of philosophy in Athens was 50 years in the future. The center of philosophy had been Miletos in Turkey, razed and burned after the Spartans refused their prayers for help.)
As for the Persians... well, Xerxes was a very pious man. By all accounts he was a skilled horseman, good with the spear and bow and devoted to Ahura-Mazdah. He was about as likely to call himself a God as George Bush is. For both, it would have been heresy of the first rank (no other similarities).
He was, also, a dictator and tyrant. But that doesn't make the Spartans less of tyrants and slave-owners. Nor does it alter the fact that the first Greeks to beat the Spartans in open battle were the Athenians.
With this in mind, and with Ken's laments on "The Last Samurai" in mind, you can perhaps figure out why 300 isn't my favorite movie.
- Who is John Galt? - |
|
|
Food
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 10:25:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asta Kask
But if they really want to make a movie about a historical event - can't they at least get something right besides some of the names?
There's little historical evidence as to what exactly happened. For instance, it's not certain if it really was only 300 men and not 3,000. When a movie is based on an historical event with so little documentation, there's no way it could be accurate because no one knows what accurate is.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a comic book movie, not an historical movie, and I treat it as such. |
 |
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 10:33:45 AM
|
Well, I haven't seen the movie yet- I'm waiting for the DVD- but I never had the impression that 300 was meant to be anything more than a live action comic that uses a historical setting as an inspiration- at best. Inaccuracies and wild romanticizing are expected. In other words, it's like the reality of Sparta in the same way Pretty Woman was about the reality of being a hooker. Last Samurai is less defensible but I have always found it a very enjoyable film if I tell myself it is not history but something that happened in an alternate universe somewhere. Same thing with allegedly biographical movies like Amadeus or Immortal Beloved (I love composer movies). It's just Hollywood.
"Meeting you makes me want to be a real noodle cook"
--Tampopo
Aacck- Food beat me while I was posting *g* |
Edited by - Sardu on 05/26/2007 10:36:10 AM |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 1:19:59 PM
|
While I agree with Asta Kask that a close analysis of 300 brings up many disturbing issues, I don't think it expects to be taken very seriously. The film idealises Sparta, true, but it doesn't avoid criticism either, as we see that they murder their newborn children and that they are quite sexist, as the struggle of the Queen to be heard proves. And not only that, the film tries hard to make the viewer realise it is neither a realistic account (remember the way real beasts such as elephants and wolves are shown?) nor objective, as the voiceover often cheers for the Spartans.
But I don't think it's comparable with The last samurai. That film expects to be taken seriously, and although it tries to deal with important topics in the end they only serve as a way to spice up the adventure. See what I mean? It's not that it doesn't really try, like 300, it is that it tries and fails, and this is why I think it's flawed.
Now, if there's really a film out there that resembles 300, I'd say it is Conan the barbarian. Not only it also a fantasy film (something that The last samurai isn't, despite its more than probable historical inacuracies), but it also shares the same ideology. As 300, Conan is a film told from the point of view of somebody who believes brute force is superior to intellect (represented here by Thulsa Doom, or by the Spartan priests and the Persian invaders in 300), and that those not devoted to the art of war are inferior. And like in 300 we don't pay much attention to it because it's played not for intellectual debate but for fun, and we all have, liberal included, a side of the brain that loves this stuff, black and white worlds with muscled heores, scantily clad females, worlds were our thirst of violence and revenge can be satisfied without feeling remorse afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Asta Kask
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Sweden
263 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 2:44:22 PM
|
I certainly agree with Neville, but the correct place for that is world of warcraft ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVPQwjFznbw&mode=related&search=[/url]). :)
My problem with 300 is that, historically, when a society begins idolizing Sparta - trouble has always been on the way. Besides, the "true" story (or, at least, the story from Herodotos which is admittedly very far from the true story) is not only more accurate but so much more interesting.
Most of what I learned about the Persian wars come from Tom Holland's book "Persian Fire: The first world empire and the battle for the west."
It's the story about how a democracy can be forced to work with tyranny to fight a greater evil. About an insignificant tribe at the end of the world that stood against the mightiest empire the world had seen. About the limits of power. About what faith can - and can't - do. And they turned it into Rocky vs. Thunderlips.
Now, what I'd really like to see is a story about the aftermath of the Peleponnesian war. Democracy has lost. A tyranny has been installed instead. Seventy men have escaped and are determined to win back their country. And within a few years (?) they succeed! Don't tell me that wouldn't make for a great movie.
- Who is John Galt? - |
Edited by - Asta Kask on 05/26/2007 2:48:08 PM |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 2:51:03 PM
|
quote:
Did anyone else think that the movie wasn't so much about ancient Sparta as about the last 300 heterosexual men being assaulted by the Gay Pride festival from Hell. With the addition that the festival was apparently led by a 10-feet disco doll in the dress Liberace rejected because it was just too feminine?
Well, the Greeks weren't exactly known for their strident heterosexuality. They went both ways even though Leonidas makes a snide comment about Athenian sexual practices.
Sure, they took cinematic liscense. In real life, Xerxes wouldn't have even considered lowering himself to talk to Leonidas like that. And there weren't any elephants in the battle. And the Spartans didn't fight bare-chested like that. They wore bronze armor and fought with discipline, just like all the other Greeks. That is why they were so effective on the battlefield. The Persians were indifferently equipped and fought as ragged individuals trying to gain individual glory on the field.
quote:
I read Ken's review of Tom Cruise's Japanese epic "The Last Samurai." In it, Ken laments that Tom Cruise idolizes Japanese society. Well, Sparta was a brutal totalitarian slave state.
I haven't read Ken's comments on The Last Samurai, but in reality, Cruise's character would've been siding with the actual "bad guys". Those soldiers in blue were fighting for modernity. The future. A parliament. Science. Technology. Cruise's boys were fighting essentially as Luddites to preserve a feudal system of lords and serfs where samurai could basically kill somebody of lower caste without many repercussions.
I guess it is hard to romanticize modernity and it is just easier to root for the underdogs...even though they deserved to be the underdogs.
Any notion of not practicing slavery in those ancient times would've been considered a bizarre idea.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson called Sparta "the North Korea of the ancient world". And thank God they were. Thermopylae, Salamis, and Platea saved Western Civilization. Greece was the cradle of Western Civilization. They were the first democracies. They were the first people in the world to consider the importance of the individual.
They weren't perfect, but they laid the framework. The Romans picked up on it and improved it. Europe then inherited those notions of laws and further refined it into the Europe and America we know today. America's Founders were a result of that process and the ideas of liberty and individualism that have continued to shape the world all trace back to those Greeks. Try to imagine a world without Plato or Socrates, or later, Cicero or Cincinnatus. Not something I want to contemplate. Now imagine a world where the Persians dominated everything and they eventually morphed into the stagnant, hidebound Ottoman Empire after the rise of Islam. No thank you.
Without the Greeks, we could all very well look and act like some Middle Eastern theocracy. It could've happened.
quote:
As for the Persians... well, Xerxes was a very pious man. By all accounts he was a skilled horseman, good with the spear and bow and devoted to Ahura-Mazdah. He was about as likely to call himself a God as George Bush is. For both, it would have been heresy of the first rank (no other similarities).
He was, also, a dictator and tyrant. But that doesn't make the Spartans less of tyrants and slave-owners. Nor does it alter the fact that the first Greeks to beat the Spartans in open battle were the Athenians.
But the Spartans weren't invading Persia. It was the other way around.
The bottom line is that you need merely to look around you right now. Take a walk down one of your tidy Swedish streets teeming with urbane, sophisticated people free to act and talk as they please. Look up and notice perhaps one or two jumbo aircraft full of people traveling about on their business. Or merely marvel at the internet you are using right this minute.
Do all of this and then take a minute to thank those Greeks. For in the final moments of 300 when the one-eyed character is delivering his speech about how they were securing a future they cannot even imagine, that is exactly what they were doing.
Now take a second to consider current day Iran. Sure, they have cars and computers and the trappings of modernity, but they got that stuff from Western Civilization. With a victorious Persia and the death of Western Civilization stillborn in it's crib, we would've had to have waited a LOT longer for Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Nicolai Tesla, Enrico Fermi, Thomas Jefferson, and Louis Pasteur. |
Edited by - Citizen Carrier on 05/26/2007 2:55:55 PM |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 3:42:42 PM
|
Citizen Carrier, aren't you getting too carried away? The Spartans would have surrendered to the Persians before approving the "future" we are living now. For what I know (not much) about their histry they were not exactly pro-democracy, much less in the modern terms. The fought an invasion the best way the could and no doubt behaved like heroes, but don't make the mistake of assuming they are like us. If the movie puts it this way it is because it is the easiest way modern audiences can relate to them.
I'm not even sure if the battle depicted in the movie was THAT relevant to make us what we are today. The Greek probably lost some battles to the Persian in their times, and I don't think they considered them as relevant as this particular event. Myths are just that.
As for an alternate "today" were Islam had crippled progress, you are mising lots of stuff. Consider for instance that the Persians in the movia are pre-Islamic (Islam started around the VI cetury after Christ) There's no doubt you are considering the whole question in modern terms, in a post September 11 light. Sure a Persian invasion would have changed our "today", but not necesarily in the way you think.
History is not black an white. In the case of my country, we were invaded by Muslim (I think Arabic, but I'm not sure) in the VIII century, and ironically they brought a period of progress and cultural splendor that lasted until the end of their dominion. They invented modern agriculture, and added new layers to the science they took from Greeks and Romans. They invented algebra and the number zero, for Christ sake. They were far more advanced than Europeans at the time, and if that isn't anymore, it's because all empires have their time, and theirs entered decadence as ours started to rise.
Ironically, too, we have a myth similar to the Spartans, the story of a city called Numantia. They were a village built in pre-Roman times, and when the Romans arrived they decided to resist until the end. When the Romans finally entered they discobered the inhabitants had commited mass suicide. They had slaughered their children and then killed themselves. Ironically, too, the moral of the story is the opposite. Had they surrendered to the Romans, they would probably have lived to see the rise of an actual empire and civilisation.
Anyway, I'm going too carried away myself. What I mean is that fighting for your turf and your way of life is alright, but that doesn't mean you are more advanced than your invader or that you are doing the right way on the long run. Again quoting the history of my country, we fought hard to get rid of the French Napoleonic invasion in the XIXth century. Then we took our hard earned freedom and offered it again to the same king who had sold us to Napoleon, and he quickly erased any trace of the few progress Napoleon's rule had introduced. Blast. |
Edited by - Neville on 05/26/2007 3:56:48 PM |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 5:17:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville
Citizen Carrier, aren't you getting too carried away? The Spartans would have surrendered to the Persians before approving the "future" we are living now. For what I know (not much) about their histry they were not exactly pro-democracy, much less in the modern terms. The fought an invasion the best way the could and no doubt behaved like heroes, but don't make the mistake of assuming they are like us. If the movie puts it this way it is because it is the easiest way modern audiences can relate to them.
I don't even know what America's Founders would think of America today, but I wasn't making the point that the Greeks were fighting for our future. I said that Greece was the cradle, the beginning of Western Civilization, and Persian victory would've killed it in it's infancy.
Political freedom, individualism, democracy, capitalism, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate are all hallmarks of our civilization. Sure, the Arabs could invent algebra and the Chinese knew of gunpowder, but without political freedom, individualism, and capitalism, there wasn't much of a chance that they were ever really going to do anything with those discoveries.
In the Persian world and the Islamic empires that followed on, nobody was really free except the king. For if your property and life can be taken on a whim for the slightest displeasure, then you aren't free. What incentive is there to become the next Henry Ford if you aren't going to make any money from it?
In contrast, look at how the Greeks in Xenophon conducted themselves when they found themselves adrift in the middle of the Persian Empire surrounded on all sides by enemies and with their key leaders all newly slain. They elected new leaders from among their ranks and they voted on all major decisions. Every soldier regardless of social standing had a vote. And there were many freed slaves in the ranks.
The 10,000 Greeks in Xenophon's history marched out of Persia intact while defeating many attacks made upon them. Consequently, when Persians invaded Greece with nearly 500,000 soldiers, not many of them made it out alive.
quote:
I'm not even sure if the battle depicted in the movie was THAT relevant to make us what we are today. The Greek probably lost some battles to the Persian in their times, and I don't think they considered them as relevant as this particular event. Myths are just that.
Thermopylae was more of a delaying action. Platea and Salamis were more important in securing the safety of Western Civilization. Simply put, the importance of Greece on the formation of modern European culture cannot be overstated.
quote:
As for an alternate "today" were Islam had crippled progress, you are mising lots of stuff. Consider for instance that the Persians in the movia are pre-Islamic (Islam started around the VI cetury after Christ) There's no doubt you are considering the whole question in modern terms, in a post September 11 light. Sure a Persian invasion would have changed our "today", but not necesarily in the way you think.
No, I understand that the Persians of that time were pre-Islam, but Islam embodies elements of Eastern culture that existed before Muhammed started writing. He didn't just create that stuff out of a vacuum, it is a reflection of his culture. An Eastern culture and mentality. One that did not place value on individualism, democracy, rationalism and other things.
quote:
History is not black an white. In the case of my country, we were invaded by Muslim (I think Arabic, but I'm not sure) in the VIII century, and ironically they brought a period of progress and cultural splendor that lasted until the end of their dominion. They invented modern agriculture, and added new layers to the science they took from Greeks and Romans. They invented algebra and the number zero, for Christ sake. They were far more advanced than Europeans at the time, and if that isn't anymore, it's because all empires have their time, and theirs entered decadence as ours started to rise.
Sure, they had some scientific advances, but they couldn't or weren't willing to overcome the limitations their religion placed on progress. We often talk about how stifling The Church was to scientific advancement, but compared to everywhere else in the world, Europe was pretty free.
quote:
Anyway, I'm going too carried away myself. What I mean is that fighting for your turf and your way of life is alright, but that doesn't mean you are more advanced than your invader or that you are doing the right way on the long run.
In warfare at least, the Greeks were more advanced than the Persians. The best example is the comparison betweent the Persians and the 10,000 Greeks in Xenophon. They destroyed an entire wing of the Persian army while suffering one hoplite wounded by an arrow. The Greeks, with their phalanx tactics, understood the importance of discipline over the individual displays of valor favored by Eastern warriors. The Greeks believed in decisive battles of annihiliation and the use of heavy infantry to close with and destroy the enemy in close combat.
The disciplined way armies of Western Civilization fight today is in direct lineage to those early Greeks. Eastern armies have understood this for a long time, which is why most of them have attempted "westernization" with varying degrees of success.
As for knowing whether or not it was the right thing to do in the long run, we have the luxury of hindsight. We know how it turned out and by observing the part of the world that evolved from the Persian Empire we can make fairly educated guesses about what the world would look like if the Persians had stomped out Western Civilization in it's infancy.
Just as we can make pretty good guesses about what the world would look like if the Nazis and the Japanese had won WWII. Or if the Soviets had overrun all of Europe and made every country look like East Germany. Quite a few authors make a lot of money theorizing what the outcomes would have been, just as I'm sure some have written about what the world would look like had the Greeks become a vassal state and an Eastern ethos stamped upon their character. |
Edited by - Citizen Carrier on 05/26/2007 5:32:11 PM |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 6:27:29 PM
|
You've made some interesting points, there, but I'd like to point out a few I disagree with:
1) You seem to link democracy, or regimes with other forms of progress. This simply is not true. Sure democracy is the more just type of regime, but it is not related to any other kinds of progress. Take Egypt, or the Mayas. They had great civilisations, they made very important scientific discoveries, but they weren't even close to democracy. In our present day, take China. They are a dictatorship (that instead of a dictator they have a comitee makes little difference), but they're becoming very important economically.
2)About the "freedom" in Europe, it didn't exist at the time. I can't speak for all countries (I think GB had a restricted democracy), but generally speaking many european countries were under feudal regimes until the XVIII - XIX centuries. Russia had a feudal structure until their 1917 revolution. And in the places it disappeared it was often replaced by other types of autoritarian regimes, such as more modern types of monarchies.
My point precisely was that the VIII century Arab invasion made Spain more free than it was before and more than it would be afterwards. And the examples I've mentioned are not exceptions, they were more advanced than us at the time. It is just that our civilisations are not in sync. We are still on a high point, while theirs declined a few centuries ago. |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 7:37:14 PM
|
quote:
1) You seem to link democracy, or regimes with other forms of progress. This simply is not true. Sure democracy is the more just type of regime, but it is not related to any other kinds of progress. Take Egypt, or the Mayas. They had great civilisations, they made very important scientific discoveries, but they weren't even close to democracy. In our present day, take China. They are a dictatorship (that instead of a dictator they have a comitee makes little difference), but they're becoming very important economically.
Yep, they are just now getting around to doing stuff with their space program we were doing in the 1950s and 60s. Think about how far along they'd be if they had democracy and capitalism for the last 60 years instead of the legacy of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.
I was saying that democracy, along with capitalism, individualism, rationalism, scientific inquiry, public debate, civic militarism (citizen soldiers) and other aspects is an ingredient to the progress we've enjoyed for the last few centuries. You mention that it is the most just system. What more needs to be said? You nailed it. Democracies tend to be far less stagnant, socially, than dictatorships, monarchies, or theocracies. Democracy mated with free market capitalism has produced the greatest advancements in human progress. I remember reading that the sum total of scientific and social progress made in the 20th Century alone exceeds that of all human experience preceeding the 20th Century. And most of those advancements were made in more or less democratic nations.
quote:
2)About the "freedom" in Europe, it didn't exist at the time. I can't speak for all countries (I think GB had a restricted democracy), but generally speaking many european countries were under feudal regimes until the XVIII - XIX centuries. Russia had a feudal structure until their 1917 revolution. And in the places it disappeared it was often replaced by other types of autoritarian regimes, such as more modern types of monarchies.
No, not "freedom" in the sense that we understand it today. But think of it this way through this example.
In 1571 a combined naval force of Papal, Venetian, Maltese and Spanish ships under the command of Don Juan defeated a larger Ottoman Turk force sailing to attack Italy. The Battle of Lepanto.
On many of the ships captured, the allies found veritable fortunes in gold and other valuables. The Ottoman commanders had sailed into battle with most of their family fortunes aboard.
Why would anybody do that?
Because they knew that in their absence, the Sultan could and often did seize their property and wealth if they displeased or failed him.
The Europeans all kept their money in banks. And they made investments. Private funding and investment is what allowed the Venetians to build a technologically superior navy than that of the Sultan, who was arguably the richest man in the world.
And Islamic law didn't allow for banking. Or lending money at interest.
The Europeans did not live in fear that their rulers would arbitrarily seize their property. They had rights. There were legal procedures that had to be observed before such things could happen.
As I said, the Sultan was the richest man in the world. The Ottoman Empire had access to all of the raw materials it could possibly need. So why in 1541 was his navy still relying on bows and arrows rather than cannons and muskets like the Europeans?
He specifically didn't want to arm his people with guns. He didn't trust them. The Europeans handed them out like appetizers.
Even though Europe was a domain of monarchs for a long, long time, there was already a sense of property rights and individual rights that were not recognized or even comprehended anywhere else in the world. Much of these rights expressed in laws that came directly from the Romans. If democracy was going to come from anywhere, it was going to be Europe.
|
|
|
|
Asta Kask
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Sweden
263 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 02:26:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Carrier
Historian Victor Davis Hanson called Sparta "the North Korea of the ancient world". And thank God they were. Thermopylae, Salamis, and Platea saved Western Civilization. Greece was the cradle of Western Civilization. They were the first democracies. They were the first people in the world to consider the importance of the individual.
First of all, democracy and the importance of the individual were both violently opposed by the Spartans. They loathed these ideas.
Second, you forget Marathon where the Athenians proved quite capable of smacking the Persians without the help of the Spartans.
Thermopylae was the result of a strategical mistake and helped save the Athenians, but a victory for the Greeks? Surely not.
Salamis was essentially a non-Spartan operation. There was a Spartan admiral, but his contribution consisted mostly of saying the Persians were unbeatable at sea.
Plataea is interesting. Were the Spartans, as Spartans, necessary for the victory? Or could they have won if they had been Athenian hoplites? Impossible to say, of course, but given the victory at Marathon you could argue that the special constitution of Sparta didn't play a very large part in the Persian Wars.
Come to think of it, you could put an entirely different spin on it. Here's a possible interpretation:
"Xerxes was the son of Darius, who failed to complete his victory in Greece. Greece had offended Darius by burning down Sardis, the state capital of Lydia. Xerxes saw it as a holy duty to complete the work of his father and destroy the terrorist state of Athens. And he was beaten back and defeated decisively, despite being able to take Athens and burn it to the ground."
I think Michael Moore could do something with that. :)
- Who is John Galt? - |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 7:58:57 PM
|
quote:
First of all, democracy and the importance of the individual were both violently opposed by the Spartans. They loathed these ideas.
An inaccurate generalization of the Spartans.
Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War recalls the Spartan general Brasidas addressing his soliders about the lack of fighting prowess of the northern tribes of Illyria and Macedonia. According to him, why were the northern "barbarians" not good fighters?
Why did they lack discipline and break on contact with the Greeks? Because, such tribes are the product of cultures "in which the many do not rule the few, but rather the few the many." [Thucydides 4.126]
Now that is just the opinion of Brasidas, but what is important is that the Spartan general and his men understood indivdualism and democracy and the benefits of both fairly well.
Perhaps VDH can make my case here about Western Civilization and the Greeks better than I can...
The Anabasis makes it clear, however, that the Greeks fought much differently than their adversaries and that such Hellenic characteristics in battle--a sense of personal freedom, superior discipline, matchless weapons, egalitarian comaraderie, individual initiative, constant tactical adaptation and flexibility, preference for shock battle of heavy infantry--were themselves the murderous dividends of Hellenic culture at large. The peculiar way Greeks killed grew out of consensual government, equality among the middling classes, civilian audit of military affairs, and politics apart from religion, freedom and individualism, and rationalism. The ordeal of the Ten Thousand, when stranded and near extinction, brought out of the polis that was innate in all Greek soldiers, who then conducted themselves on campaign precisely as civilians in their respective city-states. [Hanson, Carnage and Culture, page 4]
Far from merely being more "just" than other forms of government, Hanson believes that countries that practice consensual government tend to produce truly exceptional people, as might possibly explain why 10,000 Greeks could march into Persia, destroy an entire wing of the Persian army while taking one wounded in return, and then march out of Persia intact while huge armies of hundreds of thousands of men from a theocratic monarchy tended to disappear in Greece.
quote:
Second, you forget Marathon where the Athenians proved quite capable of smacking the Persians without the help of the Spartans.
I haven't forgotten it at all. I have made numerous references to "Greeks", not just Spartans. "Greeks" of that era were the best soldiers in the world. In the movie the narrator refers to the non-
Spartan Greeks in the battle as "gifted amatuers" who "do their part". No Greeks were gifted amatuers.
Honestly, I'm somewhat at a loss having to explain to a couple of Europeans the importance of Greece's survival which preserved the core values of Western Civilization. Europe, which is arguably [some Americans might disagree] the highest pinnacle of expression of those values. |
Edited by - Citizen Carrier on 05/27/2007 8:06:02 PM |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 9:44:59 PM
|
quote:
First of all, democracy and the importance of the individual were both violently opposed by the Spartans. They loathed these ideas.
I've been doing some more reading on the Spartans and democracy and have found the above statement to be even more inaccurate than I first supposed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta
Sparta operated under a mixture of monarchism (they had two kings ruling simultaneously), oligarchism and yes, democracy.
Far from "loathing" the idea of democracy, Spartiates elected "ephors" to carry out primary judicial functions. By 450 B.C., the Spartan kings had much reduced power. The ephors, which were elected to serve one year terms, held most of the power.
Aside from the Kings and the ephors, there was also the Gerousia. That was the Spartan senate and it's members were elected for life. They had to be over 60 years of age to serve in the Gerousia, so a "life" appointment wasn't all that long.
And since there was a Spartan contingent in "The 10,000" in Xenophon's Anabasis we cannot conclude that they "loathed" democracy because they partook of electing new leaders for that army after the original leaders had been slain by Persian treachery.
Perhaps the best indicator of Greek "freedom" comes from a Persian. Before the Battle of Cunaxa, Cyrus the Younger--who had hired the Greek "10,000" to help him seize the Persian throne from his brother Artaxerxes--addressed the captains and officers of the Greeks and said this:
"Gentlemen, not for want of men have I brought you here as my allies, but believe you to be better and stronger than large numbers of my own countrymen, and that is why I did it.
Show yourselves men, therefore, to be worthy of the freedom you possess and which I envy. Be sure I would give all I have and many times over if I could get that freedom." [Anabasis: The March Up Country, Xenophon, translated by W.H.D. Rouse, 1964]
Even Cyrus, a Persian of the royal family, understood that Greeks weren't like anybody else in the known world. That they considered themselves free men. He didn't even consider himself a free man. And he understood that this freedom and individualism made them the best allies to have on the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 1:18:35 PM
|
Although the idea of Spartans having partial Democracy brings new light to this debate, I don't think we can trust those words of praise you quote from Xenophont as being real. Historians of that period were quite... imaginative when it came to their accounts, specially when it comes to dramatic speeches.
Take my word, Citizen Carrier. I did a piece on college about the works of several Latin historians and they resembled historical facts as much as Hollywood movies do. |
|
|
|
CDiehl
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
361 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 3:05:56 PM
|
I think with all the discussion of the historical basis of the story of the 300 Spartans, we should bear in mind that the movie 300 was based most directly on a graphic novel, which was decidedly not trying to be historically accurate beyond the basics of the story. Frank Miller turned the story into a bloody, crazy, freak-filled comic book, then this movie turned that into a popcorn movie.
I usually prefer for a movie based on a historical event to portray that event accurately, or invent a fictitious world and set up a situation like what it was meant to portray. I often find that when I look up information about the actual history a movie is based on, it's more interesting than the movie. I am not surprised, but it is incredibly frustrating, because, if the history in question was interesting enough to be worth making a movie of, why screw around with it? Hollywood just seems to assume it can and needs to, punch up history to entertain us, as if we have no brains.
quote:
a Helot (the slave population of Messalia).
Actually, the place the helots came from was called Messenia.
quote:
And Leonidas says "An age of freedom, and will know, that 300 Spartans gave their last breaths to defend it!"
Yeah, it's historically inaccurate, but not the way you seem to think. Have you considered that the intent was to make Leonidas look like an idealist? True, it reminds me of the habit Braveheart had of putting stuff about freedom in William Wallace's mouth that sounds like it belongs in Revolutionary-era America rather than medieval Scotland. However, I cut the line from 300 slack because it's delivered with some energy and passion, instead of Mel Gibson's mumbling attempt at a brogue.
quote:
Thermopylae was more of a delaying action. Platea and Salamis were more important in securing the safety of Western Civilization.
Thermopylae was also the rallying cry. The story must have been an amazing recruiting tool to build up the Greek armies. Battles like Salamis and Plataea are the ones that win the war by accomplishing the strategic goals, but ones like Thermopylae are the ones that inspire the troops to win.
Edit - About the thread title, I'm not sure how accurate it is to call 300 "a hymn to slavery." For one thing, while the society that's cast as the "good guys" have slavery, so do their enemies, so it's not exactly like the Battle of Gettysburg. For another thing, a sad fact of history is that pretty much every civilization that has ever existed had slavery. Would you declare any movie that portrays a pre-modern civilization in a positive light "a hymn to slavery?" Is a movie set during the American Revolution " a hymn to slavery" because some the Americans owned slaves? For one other thing, slavery, or at least its abolition, is not an issue in the movie, nor was it one in the Persian Wars.
Finally, where is this review of The Last Samurai by, I presume Mr. Begg, to be found? Much as I enjoy the movie, I would love to see his take on it.
You know Grand Funk, don't you? The wild, shirtless lyrics of Mark Farner? The bong-rattling bass of Mel Schacher? The ... adequate drumwork of Don Brewer? |
Edited by - CDiehl on 05/28/2007 3:17:09 PM |
|
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 8:23:12 PM
|
You guys do realize you have now put at least a solid week's thought more than the guys who created the graphic novel and film, don't you?? *g*
"Meeting you makes me want to be a real noodle cook"
--Tampopo |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked