Iran Outraged by 300

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
RatHunter wrote:
As for Cyrus, well, he’s only credited for creating the first charter of HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS.

You’d think that with all his invading neighboring kingdoms, killing the kings, subjugating the populace, stealing the treasuries and sticking them in his own stockade, old Cyrus would have been too busy to write any charters of HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS. He must have been good at multi-tasking.[/quote]

Great argument. I guess all the historians were wrong… you’ve solved it! Old Cyrus couldn’t have multitasked! It wasn’t invented back then!

102

[quote]RatHunter wrote:

Great argument. I guess all the historians were wrong… you’ve solved it! Old Cyrus couldn’t have multitasked! It wasn’t invented back then!
[/quote]

Um… you’re missin’ the point, Charlie.

But don’t worry, you’ll find it.

103

[quote]RatHunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
RatHunter wrote:
As for Cyrus, well, he’s only credited for creating the first charter of HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS.

You’d think that with all his invading neighboring kingdoms, killing the kings, subjugating the populace, stealing the treasuries and sticking them in his own stockade, old Cyrus would have been too busy to write any charters of HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS. He must have been good at multi-tasking.

Great argument. I guess all the historians were wrong… you’ve solved it! Old Cyrus couldn’t have multitasked! It wasn’t invented back then!
[/quote]

I am sure he wrote a civil rights charter as he was pillaging.

104

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
RatHunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
RatHunter wrote:
As for Cyrus, well, he’s only credited for creating the first charter of HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS.

You’d think that with all his invading neighboring kingdoms, killing the kings, subjugating the populace, stealing the treasuries and sticking them in his own stockade, old Cyrus would have been too busy to write any charters of HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS. He must have been good at multi-tasking.

Great argument. I guess all the historians were wrong… you’ve solved it! Old Cyrus couldn’t have multitasked! It wasn’t invented back then!

I am sure he wrote a civil rights charter as he was pillaging.[/quote]

Thank you once again, Zap. You recoverd the ball after Rat Boy’s fumble. Incidentally, Rathunter, “I marched into Lydia, killed the king, took the treasury and put it in my stockade” is a direct quote: another example of your hero Cyrus’ writings.

105

It just gets better and better:

The film’s portrayal of ancient Persians sparked a particularly strong reaction in Iran.[91] Azadeh Moaveni of Time reports that Tehranis were “outraged” following the film’s release. Moaveni identifies two factors which may have contributed to the intense reaction: its release on the eve of Norouz, the Persian New Year, and a common Iranian view of the Achaemenid Empire as “a particularly noble page in their history.”

[92][93][94] Various Iranian officials, including the president of Iran’s Art Affairs Advisory, Javad Shamqadri,[95] government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham[96][97] and four Iranian Members of Parliament[98] condemned the film. The Iranian Academy of the Arts submitted a formal complaint against the movie to UNESCO, claiming that the film is an attack on the historical identity of Iran.[99][100]

106

[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
It just gets better and better:

The film’s portrayal of ancient Persians sparked a particularly strong reaction in Iran.[91] Azadeh Moaveni of Time reports that Tehranis were “outraged” following the film’s release. Moaveni identifies two factors which may have contributed to the intense reaction: its release on the eve of Norouz, the Persian New Year, and a common Iranian view of the Achaemenid Empire as “a particularly noble page in their history.”

[92][93][94] Various Iranian officials, including the president of Iran’s Art Affairs Advisory, Javad Shamqadri,[95] government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham[96][97] and four Iranian Members of Parliament[98] condemned the film. The Iranian Academy of the Arts submitted a formal complaint against the movie to UNESCO, claiming that the film is an attack on the historical identity of Iran.[99][100]

[/quote]

I wonder if they’d care for a rematch.

107

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Thank you once again, Zap. You recoverd the ball after Rat Boy’s fumble. Incidentally, Rathunter, “I marched into Lydia, killed the king, took the treasury and put it in my stockade” is a direct quote: another example of your hero Cyrus’ writings.
[/quote]

Where do you get this from? lol… Cyrus did not kill Croseus, the king of Lydia - he made him an advisor.

And Persia and today’s Iran are completely different cultures. Back in the 60’s, the shah of Iran and his wife were the toast of Hollywood. The Muslim fanatics overthrew the government and turned it into the hellpot that we see today. The Persian Empire was much more similar to the Imperial United States than to the Iran of today.

108


The Nabonidus Chronicle

[quote]RatHunter wrote:

Where do you get this from? lol… Cyrus did not kill Croseus, the king of Lydia - he made him an advisor.
[/quote]

Uh, huh. More Herodotus, I gather? Let’s see if I remember correctly… Croesus was appointed advisor shortly after the god Apollo swooped down and saved him from being burned alive on a pyre built by Cyrus himself, right?

Nah, nothing so fancy. The Babylonian Nabonidus Chronicle, written shortly before Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539, has this to say about what happened:

Ninth year (547/546):
In the month of Nisannu, Cyrus, king of Persia, called up his army and crossed the Tigris below the town of Arbela. In the month of Ajaru he marched against the country of Lydia, killed its king, took his possessions, put there a garrison of his own. Afterwards, his garrison as well as the king [Cyrus, obviously] remained there.

I am inclined to believe this source, which is a little closer in time and location to the actual events than Herodotus.

As a postscript, it is poetic justice, I think, that the army of Cyrus’ great empire was thoroughly squashed a few short centuries later by Alexander, around the same place where Cyrus invaded Lydia: the town of Arbela.

109

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

I haven’t seen the movie and I don’t know what history books you used, but in my book, the Greeks were outflanked and lost.

Not without putting up a brave fight, but that didn’t stop them from losing.

Yeah, they lost. Leonidas and the Spartans knew it was a suicide mission from the start, with no real hope of accomplishing anything but delaying the Persians until the Athenians could finish getting their shit wired together.

However…

History is full of these fun little hypotheticals.

If Xerxes’ advance hadn’t coincided with the Spartan Carneian festival, and an entire contingent of 10 thousand Spartan peers and periokoi, and a few tens of thousands of helots had marched with Leonidas;

If the fucking Thebans had been more committed to Greece (they were secretly rooting for the Persians, rather as New Jersey and New York rooted for the British during the American Revolution) and had sent more than a token force of 400;

If the Athenians has listened more closely to Themistocles, and had made their defensive preparations with more alacrity, and then, along with the Corinthians and Megarans, had sent a few companies of hoplites to reinforce Leonidas’ line; and

If Leonidas had used the extra men to bolster his rear, particularly the Phokian road;

…then there is no doubt in my mind that the Greeks would have repelled the invaders at Thermopylae, and sent Xerxes back to Persepolis licking his wounds.[/quote]

The Spartans had a lot of festivals and religious celebrations. In fact, they had them most of the year. Sounds like the Spartan life wasn’t so Spartan after all eh?

Anyway, this allowed them to commit, or rather, not commit their troops when they choose to, without losing face. It’s a historical fact that, while they had the most formidable army in Greece, they very seldom used it.

It’s almost like they carried a big stick, but spoke softly.

So if there’s any lesson to be learned from this historical event, it would probably be that you should only deploy your troops when all other options had been explored.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s the lesson that comes across in the movie.

110

[quote]JeffR wrote:
reckless wrote:
I haven’t seen the movie and I don’t know what history books you used, but in my book, the Greeks were outflanked and lost.

Not without putting up a brave fight, but that didn’t stop them from losing.

You should know something about losing. However, having strong Kings and holding out against all odds is probably new to you.

For insance, please compare leopold III of belgium to Leonidas.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there was still bitterness at your abrupt surrender and exposing the allied flank.

For anyone who isn’t familar with what I’m talking about, look up leopold III and his role during World War II.

JeffR

[/quote]

Hey Effr0,

You somehow seem to have the idea that there’s great heroism in watching a war on another continent, while claiming that the people who actually had to live through it are all cowards.

Even for your standards, that’s rather silly.

Let me educate you. The German tanks punched through the Ardennes, which were supposed to impenetrable. This was the end of the Belgian and French defence.

So how come the Spartans get outflanked and lose but become heroes, and the Belgians and French get outflanked and loose, and they’re cowards.

Could you please explain that one to me Effr0?

111

ok ok. We’ve established that Iran doesn’t like it when their ancestors are made to look like the orcs in Lord of the Rings.

I’m not surprised.

If you are, you should ask yourself if this is the result of the superior Belgian educational system.

112

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

So if there’s any lesson to be learned from this historical event, it would probably be that you should only deploy your troops when all other options had been explored.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s the lesson that comes across in the movie.
[/quote]

What do you think the “lesson” of the movie was? I believe it had a very positive message of fighting for what you believe in. In the movie they had no other choice and they weren’t going to let persians enslave them so they had to use their army.

And it was a good thing they didn’t have to use their army allot it just means they weren’t reckless. It was good they constantly trained even if they didn’t have to use their superior forces. Staying in shape is good… Look at modern society today most people today are overweight.

113

[quote]TotalEffect wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

So if there’s any lesson to be learned from this historical event, it would probably be that you should only deploy your troops when all other options had been explored.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s the lesson that comes across in the movie.

What do you think the “lesson” of the movie was? I believe it had a very positive message of fighting for what you believe in. In the movie they had no other choice and they weren’t going to let persians enslave them so they had to use their army.

And it was a good thing they didn’t have to use their army allot it just means they weren’t reckless. It was good they constantly trained even if they didn’t have to use their superior forces. Staying in shape is good… Look at modern society today most people today are overweight.

[/quote]

The movie did get a more than slight political spin though.

When the one Spartan yells that they would follow Leonidas, Leonidas tells him basically in the comic book to shut up and sit down since he does not live in an Athenian democracy.

This pro-freedom thing was there in the original, but it was also made clear that they hardly meant what we would perceive as freedom.

114

[quote]TotalEffect wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

So if there’s any lesson to be learned from this historical event, it would probably be that you should only deploy your troops when all other options had been explored.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s the lesson that comes across in the movie.

What do you think the “lesson” of the movie was? I believe it had a very positive message of fighting for what you believe in. In the movie they had no other choice and they weren’t going to let persians enslave them so they had to use their army.

And it was a good thing they didn’t have to use their army allot it just means they weren’t reckless. It was good they constantly trained even if they didn’t have to use their superior forces. Staying in shape is good… Look at modern society today most people today are overweight.

[/quote]

You’re right, that was the message of the movie.

In reality however, the Spartans didn’t fight. They only spent a token force of 300 soldiers.

115

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
In reality however, the Spartans didn’t fight. They only spent a token force of 300 soldiers.[/quote]

This is a preposterous statement. First of all, yes they did fight. They held off the largest army ever yet assembled in the ancient world for three days. They fought.

Second, the number “three hundred” has been grossly misunderstood. Yes, there were three hundred Spartiate homoioi (the “Peers,” full-fledged citizens of Sparta), who formed the king’s elite bodyguard, plus of course the king himself, but a number of other hoplites, perhaps up to a thousand, also marched from Sparta. These were the perioikoi, the “Neighbors,” who were not full citizens but were nonetheless just as tough and skillful at arms.

Add to that an unknown number of helots who bore the extra armor and weapons, and who also acted as pipers, cooks, farriers, blacksmiths, drovers etc., and you’ve got a pretty respectable number of men. Nothing like the quarter million led by Xerxes, but certainly not a “token force.”

116

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
JeffR wrote:
reckless wrote:
I haven’t seen the movie and I don’t know what history books you used, but in my book, the Greeks were outflanked and lost.

Not without putting up a brave fight, but that didn’t stop them from losing.

You should know something about losing. However, having strong Kings and holding out against all odds is probably new to you.

For insance, please compare leopold III of belgium to Leonidas.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there was still bitterness at your abrupt surrender and exposing the allied flank.

For anyone who isn’t familar with what I’m talking about, look up leopold III and his role during World War II.

JeffR

Hey Effr0,

You somehow seem to have the idea that there’s great heroism in watching a war on another continent, while claiming that the people who actually had to live through it are all cowards.

Even for your standards, that’s rather silly.

Let me educate you. The German tanks punched through the Ardennes, which were supposed to impenetrable. This was the end of the Belgian and French defence.

So how come the Spartans get outflanked and lose but become heroes, and the Belgians and French get outflanked and loose, and they’re cowards.

Could you please explain that one to me Effr0?[/quote]

This was written to Jeff but I’m jumping in: France promised to attack Germany if Poland was attacked. They hid behind the Maginot Line. The Belgians thought that their best options was to attempt neutrality (with Hitler!!).

The Spartans were also a hell of a lot smarter, since they chose where to fight.

Letting Hitler take the battle initiative — cowardice plain and simple.

117

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…

This was written to Jeff but I’m jumping in: France promised to attack Germany if Poland was attacked. They hid behind the Maginot Line. The Belgians thought that their best options was to attempt neutrality (with Hitler!!).

The Spartans were also a hell of a lot smarter, since they chose where to fight.

Letting Hitler take the battle initiative — cowardice plain and simple.[/quote]

Yes, I know. We fucked up. We should have attacked Germany and we would have walked straight to Berlin.

And we would have been showered with flowers and greeted as liberators.

118

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
In reality however, the Spartans didn’t fight. They only spent a token force of 300 soldiers.

This is a preposterous statement. First of all, yes they did fight. They held off the largest army ever yet assembled in the ancient world for three days. They fought.

Second, the number “three hundred” has been grossly misunderstood. Yes, there were three hundred Spartiate homoioi (the “Peers,” full-fledged citizens of Sparta), who formed the king’s elite bodyguard, plus of course the king himself, but a number of other hoplites, perhaps up to a thousand, also marched from Sparta. These were the perioikoi, the “Neighbors,” who were not full citizens but were nonetheless just as tough and skillful at arms.

Add to that an unknown number of helots who bore the extra armor and weapons, and who also acted as pipers, cooks, farriers, blacksmiths, drovers etc., and you’ve got a pretty respectable number of men. Nothing like the quarter million led by Xerxes, but certainly not a “token force.”[/quote]

Ok, let’s sort this out. Are you saying the Spartans deployed the bulk of their army? That’s a simple question. Yes or no will do.

Of course they didn’t.

If we can learn anything from this historical event it is that an enormous army can be held at bay by a relatively small force of determined men.

If I were an Iraqi enemy combattant, I sure would find that reassuring.

119

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
In reality however, the Spartans didn’t fight. They only spent a token force of 300 soldiers.

This is a preposterous statement. First of all, yes they did fight. They held off the largest army ever yet assembled in the ancient world for three days. They fought.

Second, the number “three hundred” has been grossly misunderstood. Yes, there were three hundred Spartiate homoioi (the “Peers,” full-fledged citizens of Sparta), who formed the king’s elite bodyguard, plus of course the king himself, but a number of other hoplites, perhaps up to a thousand, also marched from Sparta. These were the perioikoi, the “Neighbors,” who were not full citizens but were nonetheless just as tough and skillful at arms.

Add to that an unknown number of helots who bore the extra armor and weapons, and who also acted as pipers, cooks, farriers, blacksmiths, drovers etc., and you’ve got a pretty respectable number of men. Nothing like the quarter million led by Xerxes, but certainly not a “token force.”[/quote]

Ok, let’s sort this out. Are you saying the Spartans deployed the bulk of their army? That’s a simple question. Yes or no will do.

Of course they didn’t.

If we can learn anything from this historical event it is that an enormous army can be held at bay by a relatively small force of determined men.

If I were an Iraqi enemy combattant, I sure would find that reassuring.

120

[quote]Wreckless wrote twice:

Ok, let’s sort this out. Are you saying the Spartans deployed the bulk of their army? That’s a simple question. Yes or no will do.

Of course they didn’t.[/quote]

The bulk of the army was forbidden by constitutional law to deploy until after the Carneia. Once that was over, then yes, the rest of the Spartans went to war, where they wiped out the Persian army under Mardonius the following year at Plataea.

[quote]If we can learn anything from this historical event it is that an enormous army can be held at bay by a relatively small force of determined men.

If I were an Iraqi enemy combattant, I sure would find that reassuring.[/quote]

I imagine you would. However, I’ll guess that the Iraqis are looking more to the example of the Viet Cong and the Mujahidin than to that of the Spartans.