300

[Ceraziefish]

So, everyone was having a good time talking about the movie 300. J-Stop made a very prophetic post:

It's historically inaccurate!

It's actually based on a graphic novel!

The graphic novel is historically inaccurate!

[insert dine in hell joke here].

And then I came in and was a jackass with this post:

I thought the movie was poorly written and had reactionary politics. It was also racist and homophobic.

Fwee... Part of the racism and homophobia was historical, though. They left out a lot of stuff that I just found offense. I made a mammoth post about this movie in my livejournal... Basically I thought it sucked, but maybe I'm being too judgemental and uptight. It was fun, and the phalanx scenes were pretty awesome (the ones where they were actually being a phalanx, especially the first one where they pushed the dudes off the cliff; that was awesome).

Overall, though? *Shrug.* I was offended.

Cue the GPS:

I generally believe that people who allow themselves to be offended are either stupid or so ignorentlly caught up in their ways they cannot see past their own nose.

Then there was a lot of arguing and flaming, until it got interesting (to me, anyway)

The Persians were much more free than the Spartans -- fact. The gn and then the movie made the Persians look like they were evil, heathen, slave-drivers -- fact. The Spartan military was VERY gay -- fact. These historical facts were left out to make a more "stylistic" representation of the Battle. It is a sad commentary on our society that Frank Miller felt the true story wouldn't make a "cool" graphic novel.

It's all relative.

In contrast Egypt and Rhoads and all the other conquered people of the Persian Empire were no more free then the French government was under the German Empire.

We don't see the Spartans as free because they were very much the ancestors of the socialists as the Athenians are the ancestors of Democracy. They believed in making all citizens (and a citizen was a soldier) equal.

In "Gates of Fire" (which is historical fiction but was recommended to me as about as accurate as you can get. The Spartans told jokes after a long day of training:

"What is the difference between a Spartan soldier and a Spartan King?"

"The Spartan soldier sleeps in the shit hold over here, the Spartan King sleeps in the shit hole over there!"

And just as in the 300, when the Spartans march the only way they could tell who was the king is because he is so widely known in the city. He wears exactly what the footsolders wear.

But they govern themselves, which in the ancient world was "fireedom". It doesn't matter how free the individual was, the concept is focused on self government. If the Spartans surrended they'd take care of their own and live the lives they always had... but be at the call of the Persian King. Unacceptable.

Um... I don't understand. You said yourself that they'd be able to take care of their own and live the lives they always had. Are you saying that the Persian king would be able to call them up to go to war? But the Spartan king could already do that. So their life would be exactly the same, except someone else would be controlling their crazy totalitarian little country.

And, if the Spartans were so into freedom and self governance, why did they go conquer Athens (and therefore most of the rest of Greece) after the war with Persia?

But they were being ruled by a SPARTAN, not a Persian. You understand how that is different, right?

They were interested in their own self government, just as the United States is.

The Persians conquered people and absorbed them into their empire. Any nation would fight to protect it's sovereignty.

I understand the reason that they wanted to be ruled by a Spartan and not a Persian, and the reason is completely an illusion, a racist and nationalist illusion. A Persian is just as good as a Spartan. The only problem is if the Persian is biased against the Spartans, but really, King Leonidas seems to have a low opinion of many (civilian) Spartans anyway, so I don't really see this making a difference.

Do you know why the Revolutionary War was fought? It wasn't because the Americans wanted to put an American in power, most of them were first or second generation British people anyway. They fought the war because their rights weren't being respected and they were considered unequal citizens. To facilitate the war, some concept of nationalism may have been introduced, but that just reinforces the idea that nationalism is an illusion anyway, meant to control people.

I mean, GPS, look at the flavor text quote for the "Nationalism" technology in Civ 4: It's Napoleon talking about using the idea of nationalism to control people.

Nationalism is a relatively recent idea, not invented until the 19th century or so. These people did have the same concept of sovereignty that we do. Again, if they were so interested in self governance, why did they conquer other cities in Greece?

Persia didn't last long? Uh, I don't know too much about Persian history, but weren't they contemporaries of Alexander the Great, too, about three hundred years later? When Greece was still a bunch of warring city states? Anyway, your point is mostly invalid, mostly because there never was a "Greek" empire. There were lots of wars fought between the different cities and alliances, leagues, etc were made, but very few Greeks (with the exception of Alexander the Great, whose empire barely survived his death, making it even shorter than the Persian Empire) actually made an empire and went outside of Greece (not entirely sure of this, however, because Greek history is not my strong point. Correct me if I'm wrong). The fact is that, technologically and culturally, Persia was a greater country.

Just for fun; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...rld_500_BCE.png

So; In-a this thread we talk about the history that was going on around the Battle of Thermopylae, and how it was pictured in the 300. You can also analyze the film in other ways too, for example, how it communicated or didn't communicate various agendas.

One thing I'm wondering about is why people got mad at me for calling it racist/homophobic, because it was based off a graphic novel, which they admitted was racist/homophobic. Personally, I don't really see how this makes it okay. They're still putting out racist/homophobic material. It's still their responsibility, not Frank Miller's.

[Gundampilotspaz]

One thing I'm wondering about is why people got mad at me for calling it racist/homophobic, because it was based off a graphic novel, which they admitted was racist/homophobic. Personally, I don't really see how this makes it okay. They're still putting out racist/homophobic material. It's still their responsibility, not Frank Miller's.

Mostly because you can intemperate it anyway you want, doesn't mean or matter if the artist meant for it to be that way.

On top of the fact that it is their right to say whatever they want in any form they wish,

I understand the reason that they wanted to be ruled by a Spartan and not a Persian, and the reason is completely an illusion, a racist and nationalist illusion. A Persian is just as good as a Spartan. The only problem is if the Persian is biased against the Spartans, but really, King Leonidas seems to have a low opinion of many (civilian) Spartans anyway, so I don't really see this making a difference.

If, by some form of magic, Germany conquered the United States during World War 2 but allowed us to remain under our own laws as long as we paid tribute to them and followed their orders when called upon.... would this nation be happy?

No, we want to control our own destiny. Nationalism is an "illusion" but it exists. I identify myself as Roman because that is where I come from, I take pride in the fact that the blood that flows though my vains once ruled the world.

When we are united under a single government, which is to come down the road, these feelings won't disappear.

"You have never tasted freedom, friend," Dienekes spoke, "or you would know it as purchased not with gold, but steel." He contained his anger swiftly, reaching to rap the Eqyptian's shoulder like a friend and to meet his eyes with a smile.

This movie is about a war 2500 years ago, and nothing more. Persia attacked the Greeks, Persians were bitter for YEARS.

Xerses father, has a servant come to him before he ate his evening meal and whisper in his ear "Remember the Athenians"

Persia didn't last long? Uh, I don't know too much about Persian history, but weren't they contemporaries of Alexander the Great, too, about three hundred years later? When Greece was still a bunch of warring city states? Anyway, your point is mostly invalid, mostly because there never was a "Greek" empire. There were lots of wars fought between the different cities and alliances, leagues, etc were made, but very few Greeks (with the exception of Alexander the Great, whose empire barely survived his death, making it even shorter than the Persian Empire) actually made an empire and went outside of Greece (not entirely sure of this, however, because Greek history is not my strong point. Correct me if I'm wrong). The fact is that, technologically and culturally, Persia was a greater country

Alexander was Greek!

The Greek Empire would evidentially grow powerful enough to overthrow the Persians and rule all the land that once was Persia.

Upon Alexanders death, the Empire was divided among his sons. The Greeks ruled the world until the Romans defeated the Macedonians in *looks it up* 168 B.C. When the power of the legions overcame the phalanx.

But of course, although Alexander conquered the Persians and United the Greeks... the Spartans never joined.

[Ceraziefish]

Mostly because you can intemperate it anyway you want, doesn't mean or matter if the artist meant for it to be that way.

On top of the fact that it is their right to say whatever they want in any form they wish,

They have the right to say it, of course, but I have the right to disagree with it. Do I think 300 should not have been made? No, of course not. I enjoyed the fight scenes, it was an excellent use of an evening. Do I think we should ignore what they are saying in this movie? No, I think it needs to be met and disagreed with it, because they are saying some horrible things.

If, by some form of magic, Germany conquered the United States during World War 2 but allowed us to remain under our own laws as long as we paid tribute to them and followed their orders when called upon.... would this nation be happy?

No, we want to control our own destiny. Nationalism is an "illusion" but it exists. I identify myself as Roman because that is where I come from, I take pride in the fact that the blood that flows though my vains once ruled the world.

When we are united under a single government, which is to come down the road, these feelings won't disappear.

Slightly off-topic; Rome didn't rule the world rarararah. The Mongols, the Russians and the British Empire both controlled much larger areas.

On-topic: I can understand why the United States would object to being controlled by Nazi Germany. But they wouldn't object because of ideas of self-determination or nationalism, they'd object because the Nazis would be lining up the Jews, homosexuals, black people etc and killing them.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the people in charge aren't horrible, I don't see it making much of a difference. After all, I don't think many people in Palestine or Britain feel nationalism for the Roman Empire; in the middle ages, most people in Italy didn't feel nationalism for the Roman Empire. They didn't feel nationalism for Italy, it was like five different countries! Do the people of modern-day Sparta feel as though they are chafing under the Athenian yoke? After all, Sparta and Athens are both still cities, and Athens is the capital of Greece.

Alexander was Greek!

The Greek Empire would evidentially grow powerful enough to overthrow the Persians and rule all the land that once was Persia.

Upon Alexanders death, the Empire was divided among his sons. The Greeks ruled the world until the Romans defeated the Macedonians in *looks it up* 168 B.C. When the power of the legions overcame the phalanx.

But of course, although Alexander conquered the Persians and United the Greeks... the Spartans never joined.

Uh... Alexander's Empire completely collapsed after his death. It wasn't divided between his sons, it was divided between his generals, and they fought bloody wars against each other for years.

From Wikipedia:

On his death bed, his marshals asked him to whom he bequeathed his kingdom. Since Alexander had no obvious and legitimate heir (his son Alexander IV would be born after his death, and his other son was by a concubine, not a wife), it was a question of vital importance. There is some debate to what Alexander replied. Some believe that Alexander said, "Kratisto" (that is, "To the strongest!") or "Krat'eroi" (to the stronger).

Don't get me wrong; I dig the greeks just as much as you do. I don't want to discredit them or anything, I think their history is incredible. But the "Macedonian Empire" was hardly a single unit after the death of Alexander, and it certainly didn't outlast the Persian Empire.

Also from Wikipedia:

After Alexander's death, in 323 BC, the rule of his Empire was given to Alexander's half-brother Philip Arridaeus and Alexander's son Alexander IV. However, since Philip was mentally ill and the son of Alexander still a baby, two regents were named in Perdiccas (who had received Alexander's ring at this death) and Craterus (who may have been the one mentioned as successor by Alexander), although Perdiccas quickly managed to take sole power.

Perdiccas soon eliminated several of his opponents, killing about 30 (Diodorus Siculus), and at the Partition of Babylon named former generals of Alexander as satraps of the various regions of his Empire. In 321 BC Perdiccas was assassinated by his own troops during his conflict with Ptolemy, leading to the Partition of Triparadisus, in which Antipater was named as the new regent, and the satrapies again shared between the various generals. From that time, Alexander's officers were focused on the explicit formation of rival monarchies and territorial states.

Ultimately, the conflict was settled after the Battle of Ipsus in Phrygia in 301 BC. Alexander's empire was divided at first into four major portions: Cassander ruled in Macedon, Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus in Mesopotamia and Persia, and Ptolemy I Soter in the Levant and Egypt. Antigonus ruled for a while in Anatolia and Syria but was eventually defeated by the other generals at Ipsus (301 BC). Control over Indian territory passed to Chandragupta Maurya, the first Maurya emperor, who further expanded his dominions after a settlement with Seleucus.

By 270 BC, the Hellenistic states were consolidated, with

* The Antigonid Empire in Macedonia and Greece;

* The Seleucid Empire in Mesopotamia and Persia;

* The Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt, Palestine and Cyrenaica

That is not a unified Grecian Empire at all.

[darkon]

GPS. On your mentioning of the Persian Empire being shortlived. The Achaemenid Empire, which many people ignorantly assume is the "only" Persian Empire lasted about 200 years. But Persian power remained a steady player in Eurasia until it evolved into the Islamic Empire (The Persian ideas of freedom permeated into Islamic society, hence why they worked to keep all the works of antiquity alive, as opposed to the freedom-crushing Western Europe). It's a common thought among Roman historians that if the Roman Empire had made the move to expand its borders into Persia they would've survived longer since the entire empire was controlled essentially by conquering. But the leading reason why Rome never invaded Persia is because they didn't feel they could win a war with Persia on Persian soil.

[Gundampilotspaz]

What we are struggling with are the differences between political and personal freedom.

Political freedom is what was fought for in the battle against the Persians.

You don't believe this is important, that is clear. However, you fail to see that it was very important to them. This causes your argument "PERsIA wAS MOrE FrEE" to be completely irrelevant.

No Spartan was upset that he was a Spartan... unless they were dead before birth.

[Gundampilotspaz]

GPS. On your mentioning of the Persian Empire being shortlived. The Achaemenid Empire, which many people ignorantly assume is the "only" Persian Empire lasted about 200 years. But Persian power remained a steady player in Eurasia until it evolved into the Islamic Empire (The Persian ideas of freedom permeated into Islamic society, hence why they worked to keep all the works of antiquity alive, as opposed to the freedom-crushing Western Europe). It's a common thought among Roman historians that if the Roman Empire had made the move to expand its borders into Persia they would've survived longer since the entire empire was controlled essentially by conquering. But the leading reason why Rome never invaded Persia is because they didn't feel they could win a war with Persia on Persian soil.

At it's hight, I said. Rome lasted several hundred years after it reached it's hight of power... the Persians lost everything to Alexander and never really got it back... of course there were some wars against Persia and Rome. But as you said, and I would agree, Rome couldn't fight Persia on Persian soil just as the Persians and the Ottomans for that matter, couldn't make a strong foothold in Europe.

[Ceraziefish]

What we are struggling with are the differences between political and personal freedom.

Political freedom is what was fought for in the battle against the Persians.

You don't believe this is important, that is clear. However, you fail to see that it was very important to them. This causes your argument "PERsIA wAS MOrE FrEE" to be completely irrelevant.

No Spartan was upset that he was a Spartan... unless they were dead before birth.

Alright. Can you tell me why political freedom is important? For that matter, could you tell me why personal freedom is important? I'm not bashing you or anything, I just want to know what you think about the subject.

What Darkon pointed out was correct; the 'Persian Empire' pictured in 300 is just one of many Persian empires.

And the Ottoman empire had a strong presence in Europe for years, including controlling Greece for a number of years.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Alright. Can you tell me why political freedom is important? For that matter, could you tell me why personal freedom is important? I'm not bashing you or anything, I just want to know what you think about the subject.

A people of the same culture should be allowed to govern themselves.

Any human should have the right to choose and act and think as he chooses.

And the Ottoman empire had a strong presence in Europe for years, including controlling Greece for a number of years.

But they never pushed deep into Europe. The Romans (Eastern Empire) and the Crusades both took land in the Middle-East. But held it for every short time, and never went farther.

[James_xeno]

Quite astounding to hear that there are those who doubt, let alone dismiss or deny the very concept of political/national/social/cultural selfdetermination. Societal, national, what ever you want to call it, sovereignty is in many ways just as important as individual freedom. Really, how can you even claim to have the latter, without the former?

It's a little off topic I know, sorry.

[Ceraziefish]

A people of the same culture should be allowed to govern themselves.

Any human should have the right to choose and act and think as he chooses.

But shouldn't people from multiple cultures be allowed to work together?

This was the cornerstone of the Persian Empire, the Islamic empires, and the Ottoman Empire. In fact, one of the main reasons the Ottoman empire collapsed was because the people saw Germans, Italians, etc organizing into nations based on culture/ethnicity. The various ethnicities inside the Ottoman Empire saw this and it led to the Ottoman Empire collapsing in the early twentieth century.

And I ask you; are the people in the Middle East better off than they were under the Ottoman Empire? I think not.

But they never pushed deep into Europe. The Romans (Eastern Empire) and the Crusades both took land in the Middle-East. But held it for every short time, and never went farther.

Hungary is pretty far into Europe (for the Ottomans), Palestine is reasonably far into the Middle East. The Roman Empire held their eastern empire for years, some of the Crusader states reached the two hundred year mark.

[Gundampilotspaz]

But shouldn't people from multiple cultures be allowed to work together?

This was the cornerstone of the Persian Empire, the Islamic empires, and the Ottoman Empire. In fact, one of the main reasons the Ottoman empire collapsed was because the people saw Germans, Italians, etc organizing into nations based on culture/ethnicity. The various ethnicities inside the Ottoman Empire saw this and it led to the Ottoman Empire collapsing in the early twentieth century.

And I ask you; are the people in the Middle East better off than they were under the Ottoman Empire? I think not.

So you're an imperialist?

Good to know

[Ceraziefish]

So you're an imperialist?

Good to know

No. I think both ideas are wrong.

I do think that, by and large, people of their own cultures should have political freedom. I agree with you on that. I'm just trying to get things talked about. The problem in the Middle East isn't that the Ottoman Empire is gone, more that most countries in the world aren't respecting the various countries in the Middle East's right to self-determination.

I definitely think, though, that the Ottoman Empire was a more positive influence on the world than, say, Germany becoming a nation. I suppose a better way to say it might be that both are wrong.

[JeremyGEE]

Either way. 300 is a movie. JUST a movie. Treat it like art eh?

[LeadingMan]

Either way. 300 is a movie. JUST a movie. Treat it like art eh?

They are treating it like art. What they're arguing about is the motivation behind the creation of said art.

In the end it will always "just be a movie." Just like the bible is "just a book." But that doesn't mean controversy, opinion, discussion and debate won't be generated from it. Like any piece of art this movie asks you to think about it and challenges you on some level. Some do so, and think "Man this is wicked cool." Others think "That is so incredibly wrong it hurts."

Neither thought is inherantly wrong.

[Ceraziefish]

They are treating it like art. What they're arguing about is the motivation behind the creation of said art.

In the end it will always "just be a movie." Just like the bible is "just a book." But that doesn't mean controversy, opinion, discussion and debate won't be generated from it. Like any piece of art this movie asks you to think about it and challenges you on some level. Some do so, and think "Man this is wicked cool." Others think "That is so incredibly wrong it hurts."

Neither thought is inherantly wrong.

Very nice post! I agree. Just because it's a movie doesn't exempt it from criticism. I think it's weird that people are writing it off as "just a movie." I mean, even if it's just a movie, it's still got some screwed up stuff goin' on.

Quite astounding to hear that there are those who doubt, let alone dismiss or deny the very concept of political/national/social/cultural selfdetermination. Societal, national, what ever you want to call it, sovereignty is in many ways just as important as individual freedom. Really, how can you even claim to have the latter, without the former?

It's a little off topic I know, sorry.

It's really not that off-topic. I was just questioning it in the specific case of the Greeks and the Persians.

Really I guess it's a case of "It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees." I see what GPS was saying about Sparta wanting to be ruled by a Spartan. I was just saying that, as long as the culture of Sparta is respected and allowed to flourish, it doesn't matter too much if the ruler is Persian or Spartan. I mean, is the United States stifling Hawaii with its imperialism? Possibly, but I think a lot of Hawaiians are better off since we took it over.

I guess in my ideal solution to 300 there would have been some way to avoid the war without Sparta becoming a vassal state of Persia, but both sides are depicted in the movie as having absolutely awful diplomats. (Persians have uptight assholes, Spartans have feet)

[Siendra]

The movie had serious pacing issues, a poorly written script, and some bad CG work.

That being said, it was still a fun watch.

Uou guys need to get over it. It was neither an epic masterpiece, nor did it have some kind of political agenda. It's a fucking movie.

[The Lone Magician]

I saw it last night, it was awesome: It had graphic violence AND sex and boobs! Does it get any better?

[Chris]

The movie had serious pacing issues, a poorly written script, and some bad CG work.

That being said, it was still a fun watch.

Uou guys need to get over it. It was neither an epic masterpiece, nor did it have some kind of political agenda. It's a fucking movie.

:snakes:

[Ceraziefish]

Uou guys need to get over it. It was neither an epic masterpiece, nor did it have some kind of political agenda. It's a fucking movie.

Because movies can't have political agendas. :awesome:

[noodle]

i got exactly what i expected from it, a 300 person kill fest. granted, the whole persian mutants was a bit unexpected, it didnt really bother me seeing as how its based off of a comic and not going for historical accuracy. i wasnt expecting an amazingly epic movie that would blow my mind and i didnt get one. i am okay with that.

[Poophy]

Because movies can't have political agendas.

Fahrenheit 9/11? :snakes:

[Gundampilotspaz]

Because movies can't have political agendas.

Saving Private Ryan was a pro-war film that was designed to make the French look weak and the Germans look evil! :awesome:

[Galkar]

Dudes, he was being sarcastic.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Dudes, he was being sarcastic.

I countered it with more sarcasm...