Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by zakhx150 (U8216913) on Sunday, 29th April 2007
i recently went to see the 300, the movie adaptation of the graphic novel. i thought it was AWESOME! sitting though it i noticed several things which actually seemed quite historically accurate and well researched (unlike Brad Pitt and TROY... but thats another story)
What was good (historically) in my opinion---->
1- inclusion of the Spartan constitution and the harsh inclusion of men into the warrior lifestyle. if this wasnt included it was have been historical sacrilege as the demonstration of the upbringing and lifestyle is testimony to the brutality, even quality, of Sparta's hoplite elite.
2- i picked up two quotes from plutarch's life of lycurgus:
"Only Spartan women give birth to real men" &
"Come back with this shield or upon it"
its alwaysgood to see some classical quotes. gives some credibility.
3- the representation of the Persians as monsters. Greeks, especially Athenians, were notoriously xenophobic and saw themselves as pure and perfect. I felt that showing the Persian masses as indestructable yet immensly grotesque figures was a good portrayal of classical Peloponese attitudes
4- contrary to traditional movie adaptations, the heroes didnt beat all the persians and go home happy. they all died with glory.
What was bad in my opinion --->
1- WHERE WERE THE HELOTS??????????
2- all that about the Spartan Queen in the council chamber... correct me if im wrong but iv never heard anythgin liek that. it being a movie there needed to be some demosntration of the quiet domesticated Sparta...
3- the ephors. i can understand they may have been old and crusty, perhaps resented. as Spartans they would still have been included in the day-to-day goings on of society. powerful social outcasts? i dont buy it??
conclusion: good movie, interesting ideas, but clearly glossed over.
anyone agree/disagree with me???
zakhx150. leicester Uni undergradLink to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 2
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Monday, 30th April 2007
There was very little historical accuracy in 300.
For example in reality the Spartans like most Greeks fought as hoplites in, for the time, heavy armour including breatplates, leg grieves etc. This was in contrast to the Persians who wore little or no metal armour and whose protection usually just consisted of a wicker shield.
For a slightly more accurate film on the battle you should watch '300 Spartans' - while still Holywood it at least paid lip sevice to historical accuracy.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 30th April 2007
3- the representation of the Persians as monsters. Greeks, especially Athenians, were notoriously xenophobic and saw themselves as pure and perfect. I felt that showing the Persian masses as indestructable yet immensly grotesque figures was a good portrayal of classical Peloponese attitudes聽
Doesn't Hollywood apply this representation to virtually every 'historical epic'?
Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 1st May 2007
the representation of the Persians as monsters. Greeks, especially Athenians, were notoriously xenophobic and saw themselves as pure and perfect. I felt that showing the Persian masses as indestructable yet immensly grotesque figures was a good portrayal of classical Peloponese attitudes 聽
I believe this has caused quite an uproar in Iran. I haven't seen the film yet, although I hope to see it soon. It does seem unusual for a Hollywood director to portray any party as grotesque in these politiclaly correct days. I hope this is not an attempt at anti-Iranian propaganda dressed up as entertaiment masquerading as history.
The ancient Greeks certainly saw themselves a superior, but does that viewpoint have any relevance in a 21st century film?Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 5
Posted by anteos (U4228723) on Tuesday, 1st May 2007
I've not seen the film but only the trailer, so forgive me if I'm wrong....
I wasn't aware that the persian used armoured Rhinos?
I also don't remember there being any elephants at thermopylae?Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 6
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007
colquhoun some books ive read about the persian military differ with that opinion. whilst the irregulars did indeed wear practically no armour it seems that the egyptians, medes, bactrians, babylonians, persians themselves and (obviously) their greek mercs/subjects wore armour.
the ionian greeks of course wore that nifty lammelar linen armour that somehow proved invulnerable to arrows (lol), whilst the rest of the above tended to wear something along the lines of bronze or iron scale armour.
the book is-The Battle of Thermopylae: A Campaign in Context ISBN-10: 1862273251Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 7
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007
It has been a while since I read Persian Fire but I am sure that Holland emphasised that the Greek armour was generally much superior to the Persian principally due to the prefered method of fighting. Greeks tended to want to fight close up whereas the Persians, even their Immortals were largerly lightly armed archers.
Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 8
Posted by zakhx150 (U8216913) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007
definitly no armoured rhinos...
however the Persian empire did expand into north Africa. elephants, whislt unlikly, are possibly.
wouldnt want one of those running at me in any case...Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd May 2007
I liked the film (and not because the good guys are some greeks, I personally did not mind Troy where greeks were supposed to be the bad ones) but then Hollywood or Bollywood the director of the film is not obliged to teach us history, his job is to tell a nice story, sell and make money for the producer. Afterall the director declared it that though he knew well the real story, he took actually the scenario from a cartoon or something, thus he meant to show all these amazing pictures shown in it.
If there were any hints of truth in the movie? Well, actually yes. It caught a bit of the martial spirit of Spartans, it showed really well the internal strife within the greek city states (in this case Sparta) where there were as many traitors as heros, it showed the expert training of Spartans and that their techniques (indeeed this is true) were not only one simple phalanx formation.
However to expect much more than that is not practical. The weaponry shown was loosely based on what Spartans might had wore, most probably they were more heavily clad to face the Persian archers (though often greek phalanxs in summer would opt for a helmet, a shield and leg protection). Then, the participation of other Greek cities (the likes of Athens or Corinth) is erased, in fact the initial allied army there was around 7000 souls. Then, by early 5th century the majority of Greek states (apart Epirus, Macedonia and some of the Thessalians) were already quite hardened on phalanx-style fighting, thus the reference to the low-quality fighting of Arcadians in comparison to Spartans is rather excessive. Spartans indeed had the best infantry but not in any sense by far superior than that of other states.
The reality about Spartans was a bit different. They were a hard army but not anything close to invincible no matter if they liked claimig so. Lets not forget that till then Spartans had mainly fought around their home with rather easy opponents (lesser states and cities) while they never exactly subdued all of Peloponese (really not a very big place anyway!). Athenians were already fighting in Minor Asia against what was the largest Empire on earth, their performances in Marathon and later in Plateae were exceptional - in the latter they fought side by side with Spartans and while they supported the whole battle by dealing with the most difficult part of Persian army its greek allies like Thebans, Spartans had it easy with dealing with forgoten Asian troops increasingly fed up with the whole affair and at the end claimed the most. Of course that is why rightly Athenians rose their head above Spartans just right after these wars as it was clear that it was them that made it. Spartans also suffered great losses in land battles against Athenians to the point that Pericles wondered what good was all that famous Spartan system when Athenians enjoyed life more and with 2 years of military service were fighting even better than Spartans who were professional soldiers.
That is why I personally never estimed highly Spartans. Their system was pure waste of time and it was simply surpassed by the following events. The truth is that in the 6th-4th century, the absolute army among greek states was not in any sense that of Sparta but Philip's army, one that remained in history absolutely invincible as it took one victory after the other over any kind of enemy and in any place you could imagine to the point that 30 years later the very same soldiers of Philip, after the death of his son Alexander, were still fighting and winning battles at the age of 50 and 60 years old (the famous "silver shields", the "Argyraspides"). Absolutely no comparison.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 10
Posted by VaudinCaesar (U8374567) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
I went to see 300 as well and i thourly enjoyed it to. I do agree though that it is not historically acuracy to back it up but it is nice to see traditional quotes and Spartan values in a hollywoods production!!!!
Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 11
Posted by KarlWF (U10879206) on Sunday, 20th January 2008
I honestly dont know why everyone always brings this up. The film was not supposed to be historically accurate. It did not claim so, not at any point. Maybe if it did, and then it wasnt factual AT ALL, then i might see the point in this thread.
The film was a pure spectacle, made for the uneducated masses. Thats all, nothing deep.
Karl-Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 12
Posted by jinks-cider-stash (U7847019) on Monday, 21st January 2008
I have also read that the Spartans were intensely vain and spent hours combing their hair, which, funnily enough, wasn't shown in the film.
Due to all the buffness and angry shouting, this low-budget film of the Frank Miller graphic novel attracted a lot of attention and did a lot better than expected. This popularity, inevitably, leads to questions over authenticity and representations (much like the Da Vinci Code). But this is missing the point, the film is purely entertainment. I personally thought it was alright, 90mins of popcorn fuelled escapism can't be a bad thing.
The Iranians, and the Chinese, will always object to how they are portrayed by western media (did someone say hypocrites?).
I have heard there are plans for a film version of Gates of Fire by Steve Pressfield. This is an excellent novelised version of events and would make a great on-screen epic.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 13
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 21st January 2008
I honestly dont know why everyone always brings this up. The film was not supposed to be historically accurate. It did not claim so, not at any point. Maybe if it did, and then it wasnt factual AT ALL, then i might see the point in this thread.
The film was a pure spectacle, made for the uneducated masses. Thats all, nothing deep.
碍补谤濒-听
Quite right. And the film is in fact based on the graphic novel of the same name (by Frank Miller) and it is apparently a good representation of that book. It never purports to be a historical recreation of the battle. If you want a debate about historical accuracy, base it on the book, not the film.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 14
Posted by Mark_of_Yell (U10885882) on Monday, 21st January 2008
Hi everyone
I think one accuracy of this film is that its inaccurate!
Us, the viewer was watching a tale spun by the David Wenham character (forget his screen name). He was instructed to tell all the Greeks what happened at Thermopylae - not just because he lost an eye, but because he was a great storyteller. So he exaggerates how mighty the Spartans were, and how evil the persians were. He spins a tale of brave Spartans fighting immense foes, of nightmarish monsters, six-packs, and the forces of darkness etc etc.
Perfectly reasonable in my opinion - why let the truth get in way of a good yarn!
MarkLink to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 15
Posted by scamander (U870981) on Monday, 21st January 2008
some good points on here. I agree that you cannot simply evaluate the film as a historical text since it doesn't pretend to be one. That said enough people will consider it to be the truth.
A few of the problems I had were in the way information and concetps were deliberately twisted.
The effeminancy of Xerxes was a tad harsh, certainly portraying him as something approaching a drag queen wasn't wholly credible. As for the quotations - these were almost cringeworthy. It seems that they were sprinkled randomly for credibility.
True the concept of freedom was hugely ironic, just don't mention the helots eh? The fighting was laughable - very nice but belonging to the Matrix more than 5th century hoplite fighting styles. To top it off the most homosexual of all the Greek city states gets to call the Athenians "boy lovers".....er....ok???
so - not to be considered as true in any sense, people will see it as such though and I imagine a great number of essays were thoroughly misinformed as a result of the film.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 22nd January 2008
Well if you wanted really to show yourself that you know a bit more about history (here ancient Greek) you would know anyway that there was no homosexual city in that culture - homosexuals were banned and secluded, in many cities (including Athens) taking civil positions and being a homosexual could mean you condamned to death.
The myth about homosexuality in ancient Greek societies (including pagan Roman ones) is partially due to Christian anti-greek propaganda (pure venom back in those times, it led to the deaths of thousands) of those lovely christian priests who taught "do not read greek books... see this? see that? they are homosexuals!), and 2) partially due to the wish of modern homosexuals to be based in a more ancient culture which is perceived as progressed.
In fact back then everyone used the homosexual title to describe their enemy (Athenians for the Spartans, Spartans for the Athenians, Macedonians for the Athenians, all Greeks for the Persians, Romans for the Greeks, Jewish and Christians for the pagans, Byzantines for the muslims, crusaders for the Byzantines and muslims, English for French, French for English and so on.... even today we see it with muslims and africans considering homosexuality as an "anglosaxon disease", fuelled of course by the freedom that people of that choice have in these countries (thus more visible than elsewhere).
A little bit of historical accuracy would not mind especially when we claim so.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 17
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 22nd January 2008
Hi E_Nik,
ummm... So there was no "Sacred Band of Thebes" then?
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 18
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 22nd January 2008
Or paiderastia?
To quote the above:
After a long hiatus marked by censorship of homosexual themes,[15] modern historians picked up the thread, starting with Erich Bethe in 1907 and continuing with K. J. Dover and many others. These scholars have shown that same-sex relations were openly practiced, largely with official sanction, in many areas of life from the 7th century BC until the Roman era.
Although this perspective is the scholarly consensus in North America and Northern Europe, some scholars believe that homosexual relationships, especially pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such relationships were not widely practiced by the common people (demos). One such scholar is Bruce Thornton, who argues that insults directed at passive homosexuals in the comedies of Aristophanes show the common people's dislike for male homosexuality. Other scholars, such as Victoria Wohl, emphasize that in Athens, same-sex desire was part of the "sexual ideology of the democracy," shared by the elite and the demos, as exemplified by the tyrant-slayers, Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Even those who argue that pederasty was limited to the upper classes generally concede that it was "part of the social structure of the polis."聽Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 19
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 22nd January 2008
Hi Stoggler,
There's plenty more evidence if you look for it. For instance, some of those ancient Greek plays have more choruses in one act than you'd find in an entire Judy Garland DVD box set...
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Be gentle with E_Nik - I think he may be trying to come to terms with some ummm... "issues" he might have...
Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 23rd January 2008
Rainbow, you are perceived as someone that wants to deepen his knowledge in ancient history. Hence, you should try to go beyond the surface.
It is no surprise that such descriptions about the one's or the other's homosexuality tendencies almost singlehandedly come not from inside the camp but from enemies - as I nicely explained above. In many cases, they come centuries after.
The Greek language is not the easiest to grasp and if the word "love" in English means two different things, the word "erotas" in Greek meant 5-6 different things ranging from the two english meanings to simple (non-erotic, non-sexual) friendship bonds, mutual affection or tendency to like or prefer something (i.e. the company of a friend than the company of an acquaintance). Most foreigners were not in position to make the difference and even half-literate Greeks of later centuries (late Roman times) could be mistaken (guess how much modern Greeks).
As I said above, many accusations just came centuries later, and one of them is about the Sacred Band. It was a favourite example of how bad translations led to give food to black propaganda especially among Asians that feared the Hellenisation tendencies of their youth, hence they used the argument of "do not imitate them they are gay, see this?".
In fact not only we know how they mistanslated things but we also know that there were numerous Greek (Romans and other foreigners with real interest for Greek literature) writers that pinpointed mistranslations and yellow propagandas.
There is even one (I do not remember his name and it is difficult to search that in the net), that talks about the yellow propaganda against the Theban Sacred Band who says that "I cannot believe that people think of these things about this military body - there is absolutely no basis for such 'abominable' accusations").
In fact such was the problem of not getting the correct meaning out of the texts (and not only relatively to yellowism) that it actually led to birth of the movement for revival of the Attic dialect in the late 1st A.D. century as a reaction. A movement that oddly gave birth to the Greek kathareuousa that went on to become the vernacular side of Greek for the rest 1900 years (with condiderable evolution of course) when it was finally abolished from education and official use in 1981 A.D. by the socialist government...
Now in such things you should use your own logic. One of the worst accusation for a Greek was (then, later and now) to be called 'katapygon' (need translation for that? Its the one who bends...). On what basis can you imagine that an army that wanted to be called 'glorious' could ever base his 'glory' on such practices?
PS: The "eromenos" and "eron" do nto refer to erotic pairs of course but may had been simply referred as in the modern sense 'fker' & 'fcked" that modern armies use to describe the difficult training that rookies receive from their trainers (which by no means is sexual).Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 23rd January 2008
I need not mention that I am by no means referring personally to the practice of homosexuality in a negative way.
I simply note that back then in Greek societies (like in so many other) these practices had a very negative image, I would say an extremely negative image as not only they were considered a disgrace (and Greeks lived and died for the status of their fame!). You should also note down that back then for Greek as well as for Persian societies (and likewise many modern societies like many muslim ones) a man was perceived as homosexual when he accepted the 'passive' position (i.e. "to be treated as a woman"). Any man that had "accepted that on him" would immediately "lose face" and lose all his political status and rights - if he held a political position it could potentially lead to his execution. Greek societies were therefore far from tolerating such practices.
A man that had the "active" position could be potentially considered as homosexual but it would depend on circumstances. E.g. if that happened in the course of a war, on war captives, it could be described as an attempt to humiliate the enemy (something like many did in modern wars). If that happened in the course of a more sincere erotic relationship then it was not at all accepted - afterall it would be not certain who did what, isn't it?
It takes no IQ to imagine that ancient Greek societies had the same percentage of homosexuals as all concurrent societies (Persians, Romans, Indians, Chinese, barbarians) as well as later ones and modern ones. It is also logical to imagine that since the bulk of ancient literature comes from them, it is form them that most possibly we will find references to homosexuality (unless we may find more about about ancient Phoenicians whose even most basic texts we greatly miss) - including in all that that at times Greek writers enjoyed great feedom (not always, but indeed very often) and since their religion did not prohibit them on talking on such things they could do such references. It goes without saying that out of the well known poets, musicians and philosophers you could find some homosexual people like it happened at all times till today.
But there is absolutely nothing that could set the basis that either these societies were adopting these practices more than other societies (they were not) or that they soomehow tolerated them (they were not).Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 22
Posted by scamander (U870981) on Thursday, 24th January 2008
E_Nikolaos_E
I suggest you read K.Dover's work on the issue, it may not add anything to your knowledge (since you beleive yourself to be all knowing) but might strip the arrogance from your tongue a little.
enjoy.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 23
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 24th January 2008
Hi Scamander,
In E_Nik's defence, he's Greek and views any criticism whatsoever of Greece, ancient or otherwise, as heresy and/or yellow Turkish propaganda. In this, he's remarkably consistent, although unfortunately his extreme bias makes him not exactly plausible...
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 24
Posted by scamander (U870981) on Thursday, 24th January 2008
I should add E_Nikoloas_E that you seem to misunderstand the concept of homosexuality itself.
Whether you are passive or active you are engaging in a homosexual act. The fact is that the former was a crime, mainly because it imitated a woman's sexual status. You could pretty much bugger who you wanted, the crime in an Athenian's eyes was to be on the end of it, literally.
Hence the male prostitutes which occupied the dockyards. Your argument flouders in that you skip over the active role and use the criticism of those being passive as evidence of discord for homosexuality. It wasn't, it was simply discord for being passive within the homosexual environ.
But thank you, I've often searched for a "flat earth argument" in the ancient world and you have framed a near perfect one.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 24th January 2008
I think I was very consistent in all what I said. I also think that things I mentioned are not only easily averated but are also 100% pure common sense.
The rest of what you say is either crypto-racism, either "hidden desires" (the desire to link homosexuality with advanced forms of culture) - in any sense it needs a lot of nerve, let alone imagination, to go out and claim that one human culture presented a higher rate of homosexuality. Most certainly it is not a science.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 24th January 2008
""I should add E_Nikoloas_E that you seem to misunderstand the concept of homosexuality itself.
Whether you are passive or active you are engaging in a homosexual act.""
Scamander, I know we often read each others" texts quite fast hence, I need not emphasise much on the fact that you did not understand much from what I was saying. I am not a specialist on the issue of homosexuality, others may be self-acclaimed specialists. But I think I explained in a very nice way some realities you do not want to see (either from your fear of being branded this or that either from your (quite racist) desire to have a laugh calling other cultures homosexuals.
There is not much more to discuss unless you start bringing examples of the exact way you think that ancient Greek societies accepted homosexuality or that ancient Greek practiced it a lot more than what happened in other cultures. In any sense before you suggest anything please see my main poinst (i have summed up lots of stuff) in order to avoid arguing on things I have already answered nicely earlier.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 27
Posted by scamander (U870981) on Friday, 25th January 2008
E_Nikoloas_E 鈥 three interesting paragraphs and I鈥檒l bring you to point on all three, one by one.
鈥淭he rest of what you say is either crypto-racism, either "hidden desires" (the desire to link homosexuality with advanced forms of culture) - in any sense it needs a lot of nerve, let alone imagination, to go out and claim that one human culture presented a higher rate of homosexuality. Most certainly it is not a science.鈥
Crypto-racism? Are you serious 鈥 more to the point what the hell are 鈥渉idden desires鈥? Ironically you end the paragraph stating how 鈥渋t鈥檚 not a science鈥. I agree, your views are the least scientific and rational I think I鈥檝e read in a long time. But thanks for sounding like a 6th-form sociology student.
First of all please drop the issue you have with homosexuality. It鈥檚 not a bad thing. Technically many Greek men were bisexual. Personally I鈥檇 argue that the sexual experience of Spartan men leant more towards homosexual than bisexual for a number of reasons. Firstly they were indoctrinated into a all-male military system in which access to women was only experienced at marriage. Even then it was very limited experience. However, Athenian men had far more access to women for a longer portion of their adult lives. Any ancient historian worth his salt is aware of the sexual attitudes of classical Greece. I鈥檝e already suggested some reading, but if you still want to bury your head in the sand that鈥檚 your prerogative.
鈥淪camander, I know we often read each others" texts quite fast hence, I need not emphasise much on the fact that you did not understand much from what I was saying. I am not a specialist on the issue of homosexuality, others may be self-acclaimed specialists. But I think I explained in a very nice way some realities you do not want to see (either from your fear of being branded this or that either from your (quite racist) desire to have a laugh calling other cultures homosexuals鈥
You don鈥檛 need to be a specialist on the subject of homosexuality to understand the basic aspect to it. The concept of the 鈥減assive鈥 and 鈥渁ctive鈥 can be understood by anyone with inkling to learn. 鈥淪elf-acclaimed鈥 specialists 鈥 is that a little dig at me? Hehe, you鈥檒l have to do far better than that. It鈥檚 quite simple, 鈥減assive鈥 = receiving, 鈥渁ctive鈥 = giving. You don鈥檛 need to go to special classes to learn that 鈥 it鈥檚 quite simple. You still didn鈥檛 deal with my argument, that when you refer to homosexual relations in the Classical period you only cite the negative references to it (normally when referring to the 鈥減assive鈥 homosexual acts). When it is mentioned in a positive manner you neatly forget it.
Your last sentence made me chuckle. What am I fearful of being branded exactly? Gay? I鈥檓 a straight man, but write for a gay newspaper and have no concern over that. Can you say the same? Your tone turns somewhat sinister though 鈥 how exactly am I having a 鈥渓augh鈥 calling other cultures homosexuals? Why is this also a 鈥渞acist鈥 thing to do? If you think that referring to a culture as having a homosexual element as being racist then presumably you are proposing that homosexuality is a negative concept. Again, you may wish to rid yourself of your own prejudices before you post on what鈥檚 considered to be an adult site.
鈥淭here is not much more to discuss unless you start bringing examples of the exact way you think that ancient Greek societies accepted homosexuality or that ancient Greek practiced it a lot more than what happened in other cultures. In any sense before you suggest anything please see my main poinst (i have summed up lots of stuff) in order to avoid arguing on things I have already answered nicely earlier.鈥
I don鈥檛 deign to call you a historian, examples have been given on here and I even referred a book to you. I could list and list examples, but I can鈥檛 see the reason, you鈥檝e displayed a lack of thought, intelligence and knowledge in the matter. Your last paragraph brilliantly underlines your inability to grasp the basics 鈥 you start asking me to argue how homosexuality was accepted more within Greek than other cultures. What? Do you even read what you write? I referred to two societies (Athenian and Spartan). Societies outside of this are irrelevant to the point.
But then a picture forms, along with your other concerns about homosexuality, your snide remarks and infantile approach it鈥檚 quite simple. You鈥檙e just narked that homosexuality was present, you spend your days arguing that all these Greek chaps back in the day didn鈥檛 have homosexual relationships 鈥 nah, that was all the others reporting. Forget the numerous original texts proving this. Nah, some Christians sat around making all of this up years backLink to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 25th January 2008
My main argument Scamander is that homosexuality (like so many other human bnehaviours sexual or not) tend not to vary much across different types of society no matter if we talk about
You talk to me as if I am any Ahmadinedjad who was asked during his talk in a US university (probably by a gay person - I do not think that among so other important issues this issue was in the mind of anyone else when talking to an Iranian politician, hehe!): In Iran we have no such things, these are for you!!
Well it is not me that says but but it is you actually that tries to say "These things were more prominent in your culture not so much in our culture".
Well wrong mate! And yes it is science what I said above, that no matter the average opinion on this subject and the cultural behaviours statistically there is no important variation even if comparing two extremely different societies (say the English and Saoudi Arabia) or Rome and Scandinavian kingdoms. The rest is just accusations and yes they have a highly racist nature. I do not tend to use this term but in this case what else can I use?Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 26th January 2008
I wish also to commend on your examples (which you were generous enough to give - very often people avoid going into more details in fear of exposing their lack of argumentation, something I rarely do myself cos when I talk it always makes sense (to me heheh!... ok I am joking!). No seriously, you mentioned that you do not refer to the sum of Greek societies. Correct. It would be really difficult to bunch sociologically societies as diverse as Syracuseans, Macedonians and Miletians). So you mention Athens and Sparta (earlier someone mentioned Thebes, so answered that part earlier), the two main cities of the 5th century of Greek mainland (and only of that century and of that geographical place anyway). So, take Sparta first. So they were favouring homosexual practices? Really? Who says so? Spartans themselves? Athenians? Aaaaaah that objectivity! I mean Ahmadinedjad said that half Americans are gay and that their soldiers in Iraq sleep with each other and so we are supposed to believe it? I mean this logic is amaaaaaaaaaazing! It is striking that those Athenians that had the rare chance to meet and talk with Spartans they did so only during the Olympics or in battle (they they would swear each other) or if very few of them ever visited Sparta they would stay 1-2 days for talks, living in a guarded place and then leave, hence I do not think there should be many with a clear view of the society of Sparta, and their view would depend on how much they liked their system or not (cos some 25% of Athenians actually would much rather have a more Spartan-like system rather than democracy).
But let鈥檚 see how clear Athenians鈥 views on Spartans were. I will choose some themes from their society (their political system, their military system, morality of women, beauty of women, macho men).
Political System:
-----------------
Democrat Athenians: "It is a really stupid system of governance. Really who knows who governs Sparta? Nobody knows. One year it is the 5 Ephors, the other year one of the two kings, the other yaer the Assembly. It is the example to avoid".
Conservative Athenians: "It is an excellent system that provides the necessary balance between all social classes and promotes a civilised society where the best lead the way"
Military System:
-----------------
Democrat Athenians: "It is really funny that those Spartans destroy all their life in the army and at the end they have nothing huge to show in war results while we Athenians spend only 2 years training, live our lifes normally and in war present at least the same if not better results in battle. The Spartan system is really useless"
Conservative Athenians: "The Spartan military system is the most sophisticated system ever developed and creates superb soldiers that ensure the security of the city. We should copy a lot from it".
Morality of women:
------------------
Democrat Athenians: "It is amazing how immoral are Spartan women. They go around wearing mini skirts showing their legs, they talk and even have the nerve to disagree with their men, they do not show respect and when men are away at war or at training they cheat on them. They are really immoral.
Conservative Athenians: "Spartan women are the flowers of the female race. They are educated. They are refined. You can have a discussion with them and they will impress you. They are hard working unlike ours who sit down all day in the house. They help even in civic issues. They stand by their men and they are very faithful unlike ours".
Female beauty:
--------------
Democrat Athenians: "Spartan women are repulsive. They do not shave their legs and dare wear mini skirts. They often smell sweat from work. They look and behave like men. Who would like to live next to such type of women?"
Conservative Athenians: "Spartan women are really attractive. They excersise sports, they are very athletic and have excellent bodies unlike our fatties who sit in the house all day. They are educated and they are witty and its a pleasure to meet one of them - not to mention they joy of having beautiful women wearing miniskirts around you!"
Macho men
---------
Athenian Democrats:: "Spartan men macho? Do not make us laugh. These are all gay men who prefer to live away from their women in the barracks to have fun there. It is said to be part of their training anyway. Even when they get married they have this custom of dressing their wife like a man cos that is the way they prefer it"
Conservative Athenians: "Spartan men are the personification of the male. It is hard to admit for us Athenians but the reality is that Spartans are more men than any of us and is proven in battles and in sports and in their stance in life"
So...
If anyone may get anything out of the above... Everything (positive and negative alike) is merely gossip and propaganda and the truth lies always more near the middle. I mean how many of you realise that the most well known and spread story about "Kaiadas", a story that even professional historians tend to believe, was 100% false as it was never averated:
It is the story of Spartans being so cruel with their children and so maniacs with eugonics (almost nazi-like), that whenever a retarded was born they throwed it from a special cliff, called "Kaiadas" (and has since became a legend that still in Greece is told - especially for unwanted children etc.). What is verified is that Spartans used this cliff to execute criminals condamned to death. There has never been verified a single case of a baby being thrown hence again it all comes down to negative propaganda. The truth is that Spartans like ANY OTHER SOCIETY till late 19th century would just let ill children die of natural causes since back then you did not have social securities to support human beings that could not later support themselves and people did it to a varying degree: rich people could afford to support an ill child, poor people would just leave it in the woods to die alone (that so often could easily become the joy of a childless mother, hence these were taking the woods and the rivers praying to Hera and Estia). Spartan citizens were neither too rich nor too poor so we can imagine something in the middle - what is sure is that less Spartan children would find their way to the woods than Athenian ones!!!!
Ok, so did you get some clues? Does the above helps at all with the treatment of the issue of homosexuality? Can you imagine so much vice going on between Athenians and Spartans and you cannot imagine at least a similar vice between Asians and Greeks and christians and Greeks... for God's shake for the first 300 years of christian imposement it was forbidden to say you were Greek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Talking about real arguments and not whatever.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 26th January 2008
Want me now to start with Athens? Or are you satisfied? Look, I am not playing the smart guy here, I only try to talk common sense in a real discussion, hoping that far from this specific issue I show to you a nice way for treating ancient texts and their references to ancient societies.
Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 31
Posted by scamander (U870981) on Monday, 28th January 2008
I'm not satisfied, I don't think any real historian could be with your vitriolic and childish rants. Your desperation to "relieve" Athens and Sparta of any homosexual connotations is laughable. Your fallacious pseudo-arguments that either polis saw homosexual relations as wrong are, well, the least credulous I've ever read.
In my research and studies in the Classical Period I came across a panoply of evidence which highlighted the sexual orientations of both Athenian and Spartan men. Your only technique is to deliberately distort, to find examples whereby the "passive" partner is mentioned and to raise this as the great example of how homosexuality was considered. You neatly ignore the mass of evidence supporting the homosexuality and bisexuality of both Athenian and Spartan men. Any such proof is jumped on as some great conspiracy.
I can see that this bruises your pride. Your first post marked you as someone completely alien to the rudimentary basics of being a historian, however, with each post you march a yard further into folly.
My only regret is that I've wasted a few minutes engaging with you. Please go now and take your ignorance with you. You may post, but I will ignore you.
Play nicely with your toys.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th January 2008
Why do you viciously attack me?
That you do not like modern Greeks and you want to brand their culture as one of homosexuality is (something you may use as negative) it is possible / that you are a homosexual and you want to link your sexual orientation with a higher culture habbit is also possible - both these things have happened in the past.
But what is most certain is that you do not care about history, you do not care about making real points and you do not care about
If nothing of the above holds true, how on earth can you claim you hold the truth when in these societies homosexuality was punished by certain social exclusion and possible death? Answer. Here and Nnw!
PS: i never used homosexuality in a negative way, only it its contemporary context... since afterall we are talking about history here.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th January 2008
To the point: (and I will mention only two things from the so many I can say to bring down your fallacies)
1) Do we have ANY Spartan writers promoting proudly homosexuality ... or is it all about Athenians who never set foot, never liked much Sparta anyway?
2) Did in Athens exist a law that forbade homosexuals from getting public positions?
YES OR NOT?
Answer Here and Now!
PS: You should be sorry for having spend so much time reading your translations of ancient texts and having understood virtually nothing. And that is not a personal attack to you, it is the harsh reality yourself presents to me.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 34
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th January 2008
(...why people have to be so unpleasant and so vicious when they fail to present an argument?...)
People can just go up and look at everyone's texts and judge for themselfs.
I have seen very often that argument here. In the absence of arguments they start the personal attack, covering their lies in a cloud of as-if-vexed political correctness (to appeal more to the anglosaxonic side of this discussion board) but this is not at all about dialogue and discussion.
Some should understand that sometimes they do not have ignorant people in front of them where they can say whatever...
... please answer...Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 35
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Tuesday, 29th January 2008
- the representation of the Persians as monsters. Greeks, especially Athenians, were notoriously xenophobic and saw themselves as pure and perfect. I felt that showing the Persian masses as indestructable yet immensly grotesque figures was a good portrayal of classical Peloponese attitudes
Or reflections of contemporary racist attitudes towards people from the "middle east"?Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 36
Posted by superste1988 (U11100695) on Wednesday, 20th February 2008
"The ancient Greeks certainly saw themselves a superior, but does that viewpoint have any relevance in a 21st century film?"
Yes obviously it does. That is how the Greeks thought. So does it not make sense to put that in as the whole film/graphic novel was created to tell the Greek side of the story not the Persian side ?Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
-
Message 37
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 20th February 2008
Well the movie received a lot of critiscism in Greece also as many people found certain points derogatory to their culture, perhaps not as many as Iranians but still several ones.
However, as one Iranian guy had said "it is just a movie, one based on the comics not the history books, so go on enjoy the film with some popcorn". Exactly. I similarly enjoyed Brad Pitt's "Troy" despite showing Greeks as half-Bulgarian half Vickings and Troyans soemthing of half Romans half Carolignians (i.e. whatever!)!
Films are films.Link to this forum: 300 --the movie-- well presented or hollywood trash?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.