Iran Outraged by 300

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]HardcoreHorn wrote:
jwillow wrote:
HardcoreHorn wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Information Age may also make war obsolete. When people actually have to look at the images of war night after night, it might dawn on them to stop that.

I hope the world isn’t that pussified.

You’re obviously a guy that’s never seen combat.

I haven’t seen combat but that’s not what the post said. I have seen, as the post puts it, plenty of images of war (you can find them on the internet pretty easily) and none of them have discouraged me from war.[/quote]

Gee, but you have never gone to war so you have been discouraged from war regardless of what you blame it on. Otherwise, you would join up and head off to it. People sitting in the stands cheering on a football team aren’t playing football. They put forth no risk in the game and will receive no injuries from playing. They are all talk.

62

[quote]Professor X wrote:
HardcoreHorn wrote:
jwillow wrote:
HardcoreHorn wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Information Age may also make war obsolete. When people actually have to look at the images of war night after night, it might dawn on them to stop that.

I hope the world isn’t that pussified.

You’re obviously a guy that’s never seen combat.

I haven’t seen combat but that’s not what the post said. I have seen, as the post puts it, plenty of images of war (you can find them on the internet pretty easily) and none of them have discouraged me from war.

Gee, but you have never gone to war so you have been discouraged from war regardless of what you blame it on. Otherwise, you would join up and head off to it. People sitting in the stands cheering on a football team aren’t playing football. They put forth no risk in the game and will receive no injuries from playing. They are all talk.[/quote]

I’ve already pointed out numerous times that I’ll be in the military soon enough. I’m going to be commissioned as a Naval Officer in two years time.

63

If Iran is pissed because of 300, America should be pissed off because of this movie:

Yet,I haven’t heard anyone bitching and it’s about a war that’s going on TODAY not over 2000 years ago.

64

[quote]SeanT wrote:
Actually it was based on a comic book. There never was a million persian soldiers to fight the battle. Remember history is written by the winners. I think it was 10,000 vs 300. Still very slim odds, but they outsmarted them and won.[/quote]

Your grasp of history scares me.

It was a quarter of a million on the Persian side versus 7,000 Greeks (by the most conservative estimates) led by Leonidas and his 300 Spartiate bodyguards.

The Greeks put up one hell of a fight, which delayed the advance of the Persian Army, but every last one of them (except for the men that Leonidas sent home on the last day) was killed on the battlefield. Thermopylae was a strategic victory, perhaps, but a loss in the tactical sense.

65

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Is it coincidence that the most violent places on the planet are also some of the least technologically advanced?
[/quote]

I beg to differ, sir. Washington, DC is quite technologically advanced. :wink:

66

The Iranians’ objection to this movie is silly for a number of reasons. First off, modern-day Iran has about as much in common with the Persian Empire as modern-day Iraq has with the Babylonian empire… which is to say, not much.

Second, the people who were portrayed as “bloodthirsty savages” were most likely not Persian, as Xerxes’ army also comprised Egyptians, Sikhs, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Nubians, Turks, Parthians, Assyrians and other sundry races from around his empire. The 1000 “Immortals”, the emperor’s private bodyguard, were all Persian noblemen, and as I recall from the comic book they were not portrayed as being particularly savage.

Third, considering (as I mentioned on another thread) that the battle of Thermopylae is the story of a feisty band of devout, warlike men facing impossible odds in defiance of the overwhelmingly powerful invading army of a belligerent empire, it is the Iranians (and the Iraqis, and the Afghans, and the Palestinians) who should probably be cheering the Spartans on.

67

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Iranians’ objection to this movie is silly for a number of reasons. First off, modern-day Iran has about as much in common with the Persian Empire as modern-day Iraq has with the Babylonian empire… which is to say, not much.

Second, the people who were portrayed as “bloodthirsty savages” were most likely not Persian, as Xerxes’ army also comprised Egyptians, Sikhs, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Nubians, Turks, Parthians, Assyrians and other sundry races from around his empire. The 1000 “Immortals”, the emperor’s private bodyguard, were all Persian noblemen, and as I recall from the comic book they were not portrayed as being particularly savage.

[/quote]

Agreed… Iranians of today have hardly anything in common with the the Persian Empire, they have as much in common with them as the Parsi’s in India have in common with the ancient Persians.

(Subsequent to the fall of the Persian Sassanid Empire, after which Zoroastrianism was supplanted by Islam, Zoroastrians became an increasingly persecuted minority and many fled to other regions in the hope of preserving their religious tradition.

Among them were several groups who eventually migrated to the western shores of the Indian subcontinent, where they finally settled.

Although the Parsis of India originally emigrated from Persia, they no longer have social or familial ties to Persians, and do not share language or recent history with them. Over the centuries since the first Zoroastrians arrived in India, the Parsis have integrated themselves into Indian society while simultaneously maintaining their own distinct customs and traditions (and thus ethnic identity).)

But regarding Sikhs in Xerxes’ army… mate, Sikhism only began in the sixteenth century in Northern India with the teachings of Nanak and nine successive human gurus… there was no such thing as a sikh during the battle of Thermopylae… so you are wrong there pal :slight_smile:

68

I hope you guys don’t think that this is actual history. Herodotus wrote his “histories” about 2500 years ago… which over time and countless translations could have changed significantly from the original. Who knows if Herodotus actually wrote history, perhaps he was just writing a good story?

Were Spartans really descendants of Hercules, because that’s what Herodotus wrote… If we can take Herodotus’ accounts as fact, then how about Homer’s Trojan War and the Odyssey? We might as well believe the Old Testament (which came much later than Herodotus). Did everyone really come from Adam and Eve?

Even the great Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero questioned the veracity of Herodotus’ so called histories, which included tales about “giant man-eating ants”. You can’t believe everything you read, even if it comes from “history books”.

But if you are to believe Herodotus and the heroic stand of the Spartans, you should know it was the west that started the war against the east. Croesus of Lydia attempted to invade Persia and was utterly defeated by Cyrus the Great. But true to his namesake, Cyrus made Croesus his advisor instead of executing him and annexed Lydia into the Persian empire.

The first Persian attack on Greek lands happened much later after Athens burns Sardis to the ground - and the Persian emperor Darius attempts retribution. He was defeated by the Greeks in the battle of Marathon (you guys know that story). Later Xerxes attacks Greece again to avenge Marathon… and the rest is “history”.

69

I just hope Iran develops cool fat crab-men people to start beheading us.
I might Re-up for that.

70

[quote]RatHunter wrote:

But if you are to believe Herodotus and the heroic stand of the Spartans, you should know it was the west that started the war against the east. Croesus of Lydia attempted to invade Persia and was utterly defeated by Cyrus the Great.[/quote]

The kingdom of Lydia was hardly “the west”. Unless you consider Turkey to be part of “the west”. The Lydians were more closely related to the Hittites than they were to the Greeks.

And as for Croesus’ “invasion of Persia,” he crossed a friggin’ river, for heaven’s sake. The modern equivalent would be if president Calderon were to lead some troops across the Rio Grande, was intercepted at El Paso and forced to retreat to Juarez, then the following winter the US used that little incursion as justification to launch a full-scale invasion and annexation of Mexico.

71

[quote]nik19 wrote:
But regarding Sikhs in Xerxes’ army… mate, Sikhism only began in the sixteenth century in Northern India with the teachings of Nanak and nine successive human gurus… there were no such thing as a sikh during the battle of Thermopylae… so you are wrong there pal :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Shit!

Well, it had to happen sometime. :wink:

Okay, let’s say that the ancestors of the Sikhs and the Turks fought for Xerxes, then. Sheesh.

72

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Shit!

Well, it had to happen sometime. :wink:

Okay, let’s say that the ancestors of the Sikhs and the Turks fought for Xerxes, then. Sheesh.

[/quote]

lol… hey no worries mate, I love reading your posts,they are very informative… everyone makes a little mistake here and there.

But you could just say Indians, regarding the ancestors of the sikhs… sikhs are Indian… they aren’t a seperate nationality or anything like that. :slight_smile:

Cheers

Nik

73

[quote]nik19 wrote:
But you could just say Indians, regarding the ancestors of the sikhs

[/quote]

Yeah, but then some doofas would think I was talking about Cherokees and Apaches. Besides, I think it was only the Punjabi and the Sindhi that fought at Thermopylae.

74

[quote]PGJ wrote:
That is hilarious. They are concerned about being perceived as “bloodthirsty”.
These are the same people who danced in the streets on 9/11.[/quote]

the picture above depicts an Iranian mother and daughter, lighting a candle in the memory of those who have lost loved ones in the tragedy of September 11th.
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Look at how many Iranian officials condemned the attacked before making such accusations.
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

75

[quote]RatHunter wrote:
Were Spartans really descendants of Hercules, because that’s what Herodotus wrote… [/quote]

Why not? Heracles was likely a historic figure (a king of Argos, famous for his great strength), around whom a cult developed after his death. There is more evidence for a historic Heracles, in fact, than there is for a historic Jesus.

Heracles was mentioned in scores of ancient writings besides Herodotus, including Josephus’ Antiquities and Tacitus’ Annals, two sources often cited as proof of Jesus’ historicity.

76

Whatever anyone says, its all George W. Bush’s fault. We know that Bush pushed for the creation of this film, knowing full well that the American people, in their righteous indignation, would go screaming from the movie theatre for Iranian blood!!

77

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

The kingdom of Lydia was hardly “the west”. Unless you consider Turkey to be part of “the west”. The Lydians were more closely related to the Hittites than they were to the Greeks.

And as for Croesus’ “invasion of Persia,” he crossed a friggin’ river, for heaven’s sake. The modern equivalent would be if president Calderon were to lead some troops across the Rio Grande, was intercepted at El Paso and forced to retreat to Juarez, then the following winter the US used that little incursion as justification to launch a full-scale invasion and annexation of Mexico.[/quote]

Actually, Croesus went to the Oracle at Delphi and was told “If Croesus crossed the Halys, a great empire shall be brought down”. Unfortunately, that empire turned out to be his. Croesus launched a full campaign into Persian terrority, he didn’t cross the river just for a visit lol.

Lydia is considered more Greek because according to mythology, Heracles served Lydia’s ruler for some time and there he fathered children. From these children came a Heraclid dynasty of kings that claim a direct line from Heracles (much like Sparta). So yes, I would consider Lydia “west”.

78

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
RatHunter wrote:
Were Spartans really descendants of Hercules, because that’s what Herodotus wrote…

Why not? Heracles was likely a historic figure (a king of Argos, famous for his great strength), around whom a cult developed after his death. There is more evidence for a historic Heracles, in fact, than there is for a historic Jesus.

Heracles was mentioned in scores of ancient writings besides Herodotus, including Josephus’ Antiquities and Tacitus’ Annals, two sources often cited as proof of Jesus’ historicity.[/quote]

But if you are to believe in Heracles, then you are to believe in Zeus and the rest of the Greek Gods. Again, determining history that old is impossible, it’s hard enough to believe in Jesus, much less Heracles, Hydras, Minotaurs, and three-headed lions.

79

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
RatHunter wrote:

But if you are to believe Herodotus and the heroic stand of the Spartans, you should know it was the west that started the war against the east. Croesus of Lydia attempted to invade Persia and was utterly defeated by Cyrus the Great.

The kingdom of Lydia was hardly “the west”. Unless you consider Turkey to be part of “the west”. The Lydians were more closely related to the Hittites than they were to the Greeks.

And as for Croesus’ “invasion of Persia,” he crossed a friggin’ river, for heaven’s sake. The modern equivalent would be if president Calderon were to lead some troops across the Rio Grande, was intercepted at El Paso and forced to retreat to Juarez, then the following winter the US used that little incursion as justification to launch a full-scale invasion and annexation of Mexico.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying his BS.

80

[quote]RatHunter wrote:
Actually, Croesus went to the Oracle at Delphi and was told “If Croesus crossed the Halys, a great empire shall be brought down”. Unfortunately, that empire turned out to be his. Croesus launched a full campaign into Persian terrority, he didn’t cross the river just for a visit lol.

Lydia is considered more Greek because according to mythology, Heracles served Lydia’s ruler for some time and there he fathered children. From these children came a Heraclid dynasty of kings that claim a direct line from Heracles (much like Sparta). So yes, I would consider Lydia “west”.

[/quote]
Yeah, I know about the Delphic prophesy, and yes, I realize that he didn’t just go for a visit. My point was that he crossed a river on the Lydian border, made a short incursion into Persian territory, and was forced to retreat. When he disbanded his army for winter (as was the custom in ancient times), Cyrus launched a full scale assault and annexed the entire kingdom of Lydia.

And please don’t try to make Croesus out to be a “western aggressor” (or even “western.” He spoke Anatolian, and worshipped different gods than the Greeks (including one that demanded sacrifices of puppies). Overall, Lydian culture was decidedly more oriental than Greek… although Hellenic culture did make inroads under the reign of Alyattes, Croesus’ father).

It is my belief that Croesus saw in the upstart king Cyrus (who had just led a successful coup d’etat against the Medes in Persia) an ambitious, land-grabbing tyrant who would soon attempt to bring Lydia and all the lands to the west under Persian control (indeed, the Persian Medes had already grabbed all of the Lydian territories up to the Halys river in Alyattes’ time). So Croesus embarked on his own (somewhat ill-advised) campaign to expand his eastern frontier, before Cyrus could himself invade.

One interesting footnote about Cyrus: Shortly after the capture of Lydia, the Spartans sent an envoy to Sardis to see Cyrus for themselves. Upon seeing the Spartan ambassadors, Cyrus reportedly sneered and said, “who are the Spartans?!”

His empire was to find out who the Spartans were soon enough.