What I DONT Like About 300

[quote]CC wrote:
nik19 wrote:
a lot of stuff about language

Wow, nik. Thanks for that amazing post. [/quote]

Hey cheers mate,

Yea I’ve been fascinated by those things all my life aswell… I have a flair for languages and I have friends from all over the world, I love learning about new cultures.

Once you know sanskrit all the other Indian languages are relatively easier to understand and alot of european languages seem a bit easier to learn aswell.

There alot of intelligent people on this board including yourself… I seriously learn so much by just spending a day reading the forum. I see alot of people talking about the Greeks, Romans, Mayans etc, being Indian myself, I just like to highlight some of our achievements or try and dispel some of the myths floating around about that region.

Thank you for your kind words…

Cheers

Nik

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
diesel25 wrote:
Sure, its portrayed in a light to make easy heros of the Spartans - but any group of men brave enough to stand before many-fold their number have an engraved place in history.

Was it really brave or was it just a part of the warring culture of Sparta? As far as ‘Greek’ culture goes Spartans were the ignorant rednecks of their day.

The conflict portrayed in this film is just one more data point in a litany of historical battles to prove how the mindless masses can be wielded against an enemy foe in the interests of the ruling class–weather there was actual reason for conflict or not.[/quote]

there is nothing wrong in sacrifising yourself to protect what you love. What would you do if tonight a group of 10 or more guys invade your house? would you just let them hurt your family and take your belongings?

i would make a stand even if that meant having my body stabbed everywhere. i would make sure that my mother and sister would have the time to get the hell out at least.

They werent just protecting their country. they were protecting their loved ones, their homes, their way of life.

amazing. i am gaining so much knowledge on this website. i am learning history etc…it is so cool

[quote]nik19 wrote:
Rah-Knee wrote:

Are you aware that the swastika was used in several indigenous european religions thousands of years before national socialism existed? It is far from being exclusive to hinduism. For example Aries’ throne has a swastika on it in greek mythology, and it is found extensively in norse religious symbology.

Yes I am aware, that it was used in several indigenous european religions thousands of years before national socialism existed.

But…

The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit ‘svastika’ meaning any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and things to denote good luck.

It can be translated literally as “little thing associated with well-being”, corresponding roughly to “lucky charm”, or “thing that is auspicious”.

The word first appears in Classical Sanskrit (in the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics).

The swastika is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism…religions with billions of adherents worldwide

Hindus often decorate the Swastika with a dot in each quadrant.

It is often imprinted on religious texts, marriage invitations, decorations etc. It is used to mark religious flags in Jainism and to mark Buddhist temples in Asia.

It is said that ancient Indian migrants who went exploring the world during those times were responsible for the diffusion of the symbol in its several forms across Europe. Greece had trade relations with India at that time aswell… when Alexander the Great was in India, there was alot of intermarriage between the greek troops and the local Indian population which led to intermingling of cultures and language as well… heck Asoka the Great Indian Emperor was half greek half Indian as a result.

But irrespective of how the swastika symbol was diffused into the west… it is sacred to Indians and Adolph Hitler twisted the theories of Gustaf Kossinna (1858-1931), to put forward the Aryans as a master race of Indo-Europeans, who were supposed to be Nordic in appearance and directly ancestral to the Germans.

These Nordic invaders were defined as directly opposite to native south Asian peoples, called Dravidians, who were supposed to have been darker-skinned and he took the ancient symbol and used to to represent his disgusting ideology, although he altered it… (his tilts to the left) but fact remains, the fact that it is banned in many parts of the world is a cause of great concern for Indian people abroad because for us, it is a good luck charm!

More on the false Aryan Invasion Theory on Archeology.com

Who Were the Aryans? Hitler's Persistent Mythology [/quote]

That’s all well and great, but you are saying that the swastika originated solely in ancient India. This just isn’t true. A design as basic as that would likely have emerged in isolated groups the world over. It’s like someone claiming that a circle or square only originated in one specific area.

Hitler didn’t really pick the swastika out either, he was entangled with some religious cults like madame blavatsky’s black sun stuff. It was already part of the pseudo-religious nordicist movement that started before his birth.

But yeah, the nazis ruined lots of cool things like stylish uniforms and an array of religious symbols.

I wonder what’s higher, the number of people who went to see 300 so far, or the amount of virgins posting in this thread.

Guess what: I have no idea who Frank Miller is. I have no idea what book ‘Troy’ was based on ( I would assume The Iliad, since it’s the most famous account of the story, but a similar story is told in other Greek classics, The Aeneid being one). I am only vaguely familiar with the way the ‘Spartan 300’ is viewed by historians. I don’t consider this movie to be any more of a ‘true story’ than Gladiator was. They’re both entertainment, nothing more.

So does this make me ignorant? Stupid? Uneducated? Perhaps in your opinion… But here’s the thing: Troy was, from the 15 minutes I saw, a TERRIBLE movie, so I didn’t take the time to investigate it. Should I have watched it advance my knowledge of Greek history? Really? Like 300 (and Galdiator, and Braveheart, etc) I don’t consider it to be anything more than Historical Fiction (though I haven’t seen it, so maybe I’m wrong).

It isn’t the JOB of these movies to educate us – it IS their job to ENTERTAIN us. And your own education can enhance the experience. You enjoyed the movie more than your friends because it draws from your heritage and relates back to your childhood. That’s great. I loved seeing the portrayal of Marcus Aurelius in Gladiator because I had read his ‘Meditations’ earlier that year and felt pretty cool telling my girlfriend about Stoicism and Greek Philosophy. Sweet.

This thread is filled with people who are quite confident in their intellects from watching The History Channel, reading Wikipedia on occasion, and knowing the backstory for Hollywood Blockbusters --AND they’re talking about how ignorant our culture is because of our fascination with pop culture!

And I AM curious why you’re ‘more reclusive these days’. Is it because you seriously feel that your intellect is somehow superior to the rest of society because they’e not knowlegeable about Greek history? Give me a fucking break. Sure, knowledge of history is important. So write a book for us to read, or go teach highschool.

Sorry for getting all worked up, I really don’t care that much, but a lot of you need to get off your high horses and realize you’ve got plenty to learn – WE ALL DO!

I think we can ALL agree that it was a fantastic movie, regardless of historical accuracy. Also, I think we have ALL learned a bit of actual history because of this movie.

Let’s put the academic swords away and let it stand as one of the best T-movies ever. We have picked this thing to pieces (myself included), yet we will all buy it on DVD as soon as it comes out.

So far it’s in the top 3-4 of everyone here.

Holy history lesson!

Here I thought that the original “Aryans” were Indo-Persians who exported their culture to Europeans who then thousands of years later wrongly considered themselves “Aryan”.

I was way off.

– ElbowStrike

[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:

That’s all well and great, but you are saying that the swastika originated solely in ancient India. This just isn’t true. A design as basic as that would likely have emerged in isolated groups the world over. It’s like someone claiming that a circle or square only originated in one specific area.[/quote]

It doesn’t seem like you have any evidence, but the real indication would come from the meaning of the symbol as found in Europe. It’s pretty unlikely that a symbol would evolve with the same meaning in separate parts of the world without any cultural exchange. Regardless, the simplicity of symbols gives no guarantee that they will be independently reproduced.

nik19, thanks for all the info. It’s especially helpful for a south asian who’s just rediscovering his culture.

[quote]nik19 wrote:
It was the first language on earth, now you have to speak sanskrit to understand the significance of what Im going to say properly.[/quote]

Well, I’m by no means fluent, but I do understand a few little things. I agree that it is a very complex, flexible and powerful language, quite unique.

I don’t think either you or me have any proof here, but I’m inclined to disagree. Seems slightly idealized to me if you’re speaking literally.
But I know where you’re coming from and I’m somewhat familiar with all that background. We may agree on an ideal plane, if not on the concrete and literal one.

Interesting. So, you’re saying that, because the Indian civilization is one of the oldest, if not THE oldest, their culture and language has spread all over the ancient world through trade and whatnot and influenced the ancient languages.

If, thousands of years ago, they were the most advanced civilization, then it makes sense. At least, it appears that it was the Indians who figured out a lot of the fundamentals of mathematics before everyone else.
If you count from one to ten in Sanskrit, a Russian or a Romanian or a French will understand immediately what you’re saying even if they don’t know any language other than their native one. This is what surprised me above all when learning about the similarities of the Indo-European languages. Well, if it was the Indians who figured out a lot of the basic math, then it’s not so surprising after all.

This is very interesting. I filed it for further processing. :slight_smile: Thanks for your insights.

[quote]nik19 wrote:
But irrespective of how the swastika symbol was diffused into the west… it is sacred to Indians and Adolph Hitler twisted the theories of Gustaf Kossinna (1858-1931), to put forward the Aryans as a master race of Indo-Europeans, who were supposed to be Nordic in appearance and directly ancestral to the Germans.[/quote]

One theory that I’ve heard emphasizes the swastika as a solar symbol to explain why it was chosen by Hitler as the main symbol for his ideology.
In some hatha-yoga texts (and keep in mind that Hitler was a little bit like a New Age guy and he was reading this stuff a lot) the swastika is connected to the so-called energy of fire, related to aggression, dominance and authority (manipura chakra).

It is believed by some that it was this meaning that determined Hitler to use the swastika as his main symbol. Again, keep in mind that Hitler was taking these things quite literally.

Anyway, enough about Hitler. It’s quite interesting, though, if it’s true what someone said in this thread that the swastika was also a symbol of the god Ares in the greek mythology (swastika was used everywhere, not just in India), then it would be quite an amazing coincidence, since Ares symbolizes pretty much the same things like the fire and manipura chakra in Yoga.

Maybe I spend too much time reading and I’m becoming a New Age dude myself. :slight_smile:

It is funny to see some of you guys use speculation as a counter-argument to someone who has researched a subject. Well I think that blah blah blah blah blah.

[/quote]There may be a central hero that stands out in these films but by and large they are just shown as pawns doing the “man’s” bidding. Back in these times it really was about preserving the interest of the ruling class. After all, these were the real stake-holders when all was said and done–politics aside.[/quote]

Wow!! You really know nothing about Spartan culture, do you? The Spartan “knights” were actually called peers.

They were “the Man” in that they ruled their own land based upon a democtatic assembly at which all the peers voted. It was not like the Roman Senate sending the Legions off to die.

It was a council of warriors deciding to go off to war. The Three Hundred left Sparta knowing they would die to the last man, and the king went too. Don’t disrespect the the sublime nobility of their sacrifice by dirtying it up with your own opinions of modern politics.

I’m more pissed that hitler ruined combat boots. Doesn’t stop me but I get called a Nazi sometimes.

[quote]EllTee wrote:
They were “the Man” in that they ruled their own land based upon a democtatic assembly at which all the peers voted. It was not like the Roman Senate sending the Legions off to die.
[/quote]

Based on whose history? Yours? Comic book movies…so funny…

Hmmmm…lets see, a democracy that votes for a king…me thinks not!

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EllTee wrote:
They were “the Man” in that they ruled their own land based upon a democtatic assembly at which all the peers voted. It was not like the Roman Senate sending the Legions off to die.

Based on whose history? Yours? Comic book movies…so funny…

Hmmmm…lets see, a democracy that votes for a king…me thinks not![/quote]

Time to crack the history books Lift. Sparta had 2 kings and a form of democracy. The warriors were the ruling class. They did not have to be tricked into being warriors by the leaders as you are trying to portray.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EllTee wrote:
They were “the Man” in that they ruled their own land based upon a democtatic assembly at which all the peers voted. It was not like the Roman Senate sending the Legions off to die.

Based on whose history? Yours? Comic book movies…so funny…

Hmmmm…lets see, a democracy that votes for a king…me thinks not!

Time to crack the history books Lift. Sparta had 2 kings and a form of democracy. The warriors were the ruling class. They did not have to be tricked into being warriors by the leaders as you are trying to portray.[/quote]

My understanding is that Spartans really didn’t own anything. Male citizens were warriors, that is all. They were not allowed to have 'jobs". They had slaves and lesser inhabitants (non-warriors without citizen status) to do the job think. They didn’t work in fields, in shops, or in trade. The were professional soldiers 100% of the time from about age 7 to 60. Even the kings were soldiers. It’s almost communistic in their approach to property. Their money was iron bars because they had no real value. No reason to save up iron. Pretty much everything was for the state. I think that’s why the Queen in the movie was so willing to have an affair with that dude. It was for the betterment of the state (or she thought).

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EllTee wrote:
They were “the Man” in that they ruled their own land based upon a democtatic assembly at which all the peers voted. It was not like the Roman Senate sending the Legions off to die.

Based on whose history? Yours? Comic book movies…so funny…

Hmmmm…lets see, a democracy that votes for a king…me thinks not![/quote]

Dude . . . Read any account of history you want that devotes more than 1 page to the Spartans. I am not giving you my interpretation of some event, I am stating fact.

This is like an argument I would be having with my 8-yr-old.

Do you want to dispute the color of the sky, too?

[quote]Roy wrote:
I wonder what’s higher, the number of people who went to see 300 so far, or the amount of virgins posting in this thread.

[/quote]

thats so funny, hahahah

nik 19

The Indian civilization was the most advanced civilization of its time and is the only one that has survived throughout the ages. It is far more ancient than the other major civilizations that sprung up in the world (Greek, Roman, Mayan, Chinese etc) only the ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt were its contemporaries.

I tend to believe this us false (in regards to the indian civilization being the most advanced). Consindering the advances made in Mesopotamia (writting was invented there for example) and Iran<—where
algebra and astronomy originated from…not to mention to a lesser extent the bag pipes thats commonly associated with a different country