Knights & Knaves Alehouse

JamesEightBitStar wrote: I mean, the real Sparta sucked. Not only that, but I remember from my history class that in a later war, Sparta was actually beaten and had to get its butt saved by Athens. And what was all that stuff about "free man fighting against tyranny" that the Spartans kept spouting? I mean, Sparta was a country where you died as a baby if you were found to be "weak." Most of the mindset of this movie, in fact, strikes me as purely American ideals being grafted onto a historical culture where said ideals really just don't fit.

They were freee men, they were free to live and die for Sparta. Those children found to be infrim were not men. Classical democracy basically meant elite, slave owning males had the right to some voice in their governance the enamy they faced had no such system in place. Modern language may obscure things a bit but it doesn't change the basic tlae one bit. Soem Spartans stood and fought knowing they may lose but failing to stand and fight and they would lose the war.

Gentlegamer wrote:

JamesEightBitStar wrote: I also didn't get the whole glorification of Sparta. I mean, the real Sparta sucked. Not only that, but I remember from my history class that in a later war, Sparta was actually beaten and had to get its butt saved by Athens.

The real Sparta defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War (after the Persian Wars).

And what was all that stuff about "free man fighting against tyranny" that the Spartans kept spouting? I mean, Sparta was a country where you died as a baby if you were found to be "weak." Most of the mindset of this movie, in fact, strikes me as purely American ideals being grafted onto a historical culture where said ideals really just don't fit.

Those Spartans fought to the death to defend civilization. Admittedly, Sparta itself was a bit "weird" compared to the other Greek cities, but they were still Hellenes: one of the first time the Greeks saw themselves as one people. The battle of Thermopylae was lost, but the war was won, and the world is richer for its preservation of civilization in its infancy.

It's also important to remember that the Persians (Iranians) have always been the enemy of civilization.

Yes, the Spartans were defending western civilization in its infancy, but I don't think that's the point. They themselves partook almost not at all of what we'd consider western civilization. As Greeks, they defended Greece (and Greeks as a people wasn't a new concept). The stand at Thermopylae was heroic, but the Spartans themselves shouldn't be portrayed as different from what they were.

Mythmere wrote:

Gentlegamer wrote:

JamesEightBitStar wrote: I also didn't get the whole glorification of Sparta. I mean, the real Sparta sucked. Not only that, but I remember from my history class that in a later war, Sparta was actually beaten and had to get its butt saved by Athens.

The real Sparta defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War (after the Persian Wars).

And what was all that stuff about "free man fighting against tyranny" that the Spartans kept spouting? I mean, Sparta was a country where you died as a baby if you were found to be "weak." Most of the mindset of this movie, in fact, strikes me as purely American ideals being grafted onto a historical culture where said ideals really just don't fit.

Those Spartans fought to the death to defend civilization. Admittedly, Sparta itself was a bit "weird" compared to the other Greek cities, but they were still Hellenes: one of the first time the Greeks saw themselves as one people. The battle of Thermopylae was lost, but the war was won, and the world is richer for its preservation of civilization in its infancy.

It's also important to remember that the Persians (Iranians) have always been the enemy of civilization.

Yes, the Spartans were defending western civilization in its infancy, but I don't think that's the point. They themselves partook almost not at all of what we'd consider western civilization. As Greeks, they defended Greece (and Greeks as a people wasn't a new concept). The stand at Thermopylae was heroic, but the Spartans themselves shouldn't be portrayed as different from what they were.

Myth, if you need even so much as a molecule of historical accuracy to enjoy a film, then you'd best skip this one. There's more cowshit in this movie than a Kansas City stockyard.

JDJarvis wrote:

JamesEightBitStar wrote: I mean, the real Sparta sucked. Not only that, but I remember from my history class that in a later war, Sparta was actually beaten and had to get its butt saved by Athens. And what was all that stuff about "free man fighting against tyranny" that the Spartans kept spouting? I mean, Sparta was a country where you died as a baby if you were found to be "weak." Most of the mindset of this movie, in fact, strikes me as purely American ideals being grafted onto a historical culture where said ideals really just don't fit.

They were freee men, they were free to live and die for Sparta. Those children found to be infrim were not men. Classical democracy basically meant elite, slave owning males had the right to some voice in their governance the enamy they faced had no such system in place. Modern language may obscure things a bit but it doesn't change the basic tlae one bit. Soem Spartans stood and fought knowing they may lose but failing to stand and fight and they would lose the war.

Sparta wasn't a democracy at all though. Athens was, but not Sparta.

Sparta was a rigid, "totalitarian" society where 75% of the population consisted of helots, who were an entire people enslaved by virtue of ethnicity. In Athens there were slaves - captured in war or debtors - but they did not enslave their neighbours wholesale.

In fact some of the concept for the novel Brave New World came from Sparta, because Spartan children were raised by the state, not in a family.

Moreover much of the Spartan army consisted of helot slaves - much like the Turkish Janissaries or early Mamelukes.

Spartans themselves were not "free men" either. They did not have a democracy; the individual was presumed to live and die for the state, not his family or his own interests. Sparta was a dual monarchy run by two kings, plus a council of aristocratic nobles.

Mythmere wrote:
Yes, the Spartans were defending western civilization in its infancy, but I don't think that's the point.

The terms "the West" and "civilization" are synonyms. That is, modifying "civilization" with "western" is redundant . . . there is no other civilization.

As Greeks, they defended Greece (and Greeks as a people wasn't a new concept).

Sure it was. Consult your Thucydides for more details. In brief, before this time, the various peoples in Greece thought of themselves as separate tribes or cities.

The stand at Thermopylae was heroic, but the Spartans themselves shouldn't be portrayed as different from what they were.

I haven't seen the film to judge how different they were portrayed, but then, the film is based on a graphic novel, so I think the chief point is to entertain. The history minded among have to be able to suspend our (historical) disbelief.

Gentlegamer wrote:The terms "the West" and "civilization" are synonyms. That is, modifying "civilization" with "western" is redundant . . . there is no other civilization.

Is China not a civilisation?

Gentlegamer wrote:The terms "the West" and "civilization" are synonyms. That is, modifying "civilization" with "western" is redundant . . . there is no other civilization.

They are only synonyms in the West and only in certain kinds of discourse.

As Greeks, they defended Greece (and Greeks as a people wasn't a new concept).

Sure it was. Consult your Thucydides for more details. In brief, before this time, the various peoples in Greece thought of themselves as separate tribes or cities.

As they did afterwards, as well. However, the idea of a division between Greek and Non Greek appears to be at least as old as Homer. Exactly what form this took from locale to locale, period to period and individual to individual is another matter.

Of course the Greeks would have called themselves "Hellenes" and Greece "Hellas."

Edgewaters wrote:Spartans themselves were not "free men" either. They did not have a democracy; the individual was presumed to live and die for the state, not his family or his own interests.

I've just had a curious bout of deja vu.

dcs wrote:

Edgewaters wrote:Spartans themselves were not "free men" either. They did not have a democracy; the individual was presumed to live and die for the state, not his family or his own interests.

I've just had a curious bout of deja vu.

Oh, I wouldn't equate Haliburton with "the state". Well, not quite yet anyway, and there's still time to change that.

Matthew wrote: As they did afterwards, as well. However, the idea of a division between Greek and Non Greek appears to be at least as old as Homer. Exactly what form this took from locale to locale, period to period and individual to individual is another matter.

From "History of the Pelopennesian War," Book I:

"Before the Trojan war there is no indication of any common action in Hellas, nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name; on the contrary, before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, no such appellation existed, but the country went by the names of the different tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian. It was not till Hellen and his sons grew strong in Phthiotis, and were invited as allies into the other cities, that one by one they gradually acquired from the connection the name of Hellenes; though a long time elapsed before that name could fasten itself upon all. The best proof of this is furnished by Homer. Born long after the Trojan War, he nowhere calls all of them by that name, nor indeed any of them except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes: in his poems they are called Danaans, Argives, and Achaeans. He does not even use the term barbarian, probably because the Hellenes had not yet been marked off from the rest of the world by one distinctive appellation. It appears therefore that the several Hellenic communities, comprising not only those who first acquired the name, city by city, as they came to understand each other, but also those who assumed it afterwards as the name of the whole people, were before the Trojan war prevented by their want of strength and the absence of mutual intercourse from displaying any collective action."

So back to the movie...

...saw it couple days ago. Don't see how anyone could confuse it with any sort of attempt at a historical accounting, nor an accurate depiction of the Spartan peoples at any level. It's a film version of a graphic novel, which was itself a story which took inspiration from an actual event. Nothing more.

For me, it was fun movie, visually exciting. I wouldn't call it a great movie. But a fun movie nonetheless.

I'm waiting til it hits the dollar theater.

Will it be 100 then?

LOLOLOLOLOL

Gentlegamer wrote:

Matthew wrote: As they did afterwards, as well. However, the idea of a division between Greek and Non Greek appears to be at least as old as Homer. Exactly what form this took from locale to locale, period to period and individual to individual is another matter.

From "History of the Pelopennesian War," Book I:

"Before the Trojan war there is no indication of any common action in Hellas, nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name; on the contrary, before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, no such appellation existed, but the country went by the names of the different tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian. It was not till Hellen and his sons grew strong in Phthiotis, and were invited as allies into the other cities, that one by one they gradually acquired from the connection the name of Hellenes; though a long time elapsed before that name could fasten itself upon all. The best proof of this is furnished by Homer. Born long after the Trojan War, he nowhere calls all of them by that name, nor indeed any of them except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes: in his poems they are called Danaans, Argives, and Achaeans. He does not even use the term barbarian, probably because the Hellenes had not yet been marked off from the rest of the world by one distinctive appellation. It appears therefore that the several Hellenic communities, comprising not only those who first acquired the name, city by city, as they came to understand each other, but also those who assumed it afterwards as the name of the whole people, were before the Trojan war prevented by their want of strength and the absence of mutual intercourse from displaying any collective action."

Excellent point and backup. My problem with this is that the Trojan War was mythical history by the time of the War against the Persians. Lots happened in between the time of Homer and the time of Thermopylae. I'm not arguing that point too hard, because the city-states certainly all felt themselves superior to and different from the others. But Thucydides is pretty clear as far as I recall that the city states had a long history of trade, diplomacy, and treaties. Certainly they viewed themselves as a group to be superior to the Thracians and Macedonians by the time of Alexander; I recall that for sure from college. I don't think it's a stretch to say that they viewed themselves as a group (loosely knit, true) by the time of the war with the persians.

Thucydides may well be wrong about this, since Homer describes the Carians as barbarophonoi. Could be a later addition, though.

Thucydides and Herodotus also have very specific agendas, but even so, Herodotus' narrative conceives of a 'Greek people' prior to the Greek-Persian confict (though obviously he himself is writing afterwards, he is aware of the role the conflict played in defining 'Greek'). It's a matter of degrees, rather than momentous life changing moments. After Thermopylae and the end of the Persian War, it's not as if the Greeks became a unified people. The idea of a 'Greek' people was further defined by Thermopylae, but it was not invented by it.