Swêboz guide for EB 1.2
Tips and Tricks for New Players
from Hannibal Khan the Great, Brennus, Tellos Athenaios, and Winsington III.
Bah, I shouldn't be writing posts right after I've woken up (being Dutch myself)That's Schule. We don't use umlauts on everything
I don't really like the Frankfurter Schule either, but according to them, there is no such thing as objective research.
This space intentionally left blank.
According to postmodern theory there is no such thing as objective research. The mere fact that you choose the subject of your research makes you and it subjective. That is not just the Frankfurter Schule who says that, it is all postmodern theory. If you are to do valid and viable research you still have to keep as close to objective as you can, and in any case, present the opposite view as well and if possible explore the possibilities of it as well.
'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.
"Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk
Balloon count: 13
Jones' reply would be that most other documentaries about the Roman era are extremely biased towards the Romans (usually because they look no further than Roman sources). His documentary is an anti-dote. I agree with the sentiment, although I do think he could have done better. To someone who knows a bit more about the era, his agenda is very obvious.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
Frankly, my reply would be that the best antidote is the TRUTH. Or at least, as close to the truth as it's possible to get. But I guess that's just my ethos. -M
My Balloons:
Frankly, my reply would be that the best antidote is the TRUTH. Or at least, as close to the truth as it's possible to get. But I guess that's just my ethos. -M
Define "truth".
This space intentionally left blank.
Swêboz guide for EB 1.2
Tips and Tricks for New Players
from Hannibal Khan the Great, Brennus, Tellos Athenaios, and Winsington III.
This is not necessarily post-modernist. The concept of relative truth is something that has been laid out for over 2,000 years, especially in the Indian subcontinent.
This space intentionally left blank.
Hence why I added "or at least as close to the truth as it's possible to get." I would argue that there is a concrete reality, but it is impossible for humans to know it because our senses and/or the faculties we use to process sensations are clouded by our ideology and our perception of the way we think things "should be." Thus, all opinions are going to be inherently inaccurrate. However, there's a difference between accidentally being biased while in pursuit of truth and willfully presenting something one knows to be false in the interest of "evening the score." -M
My Balloons:
Maybe he is responding to the "Littkle ladybird Book" version of history. As a kid we had these short illustrated books about how lovely Cromwell was, how bad King John was, how William rightfully conquered England, all the usual Whig tripe.
I recall a lovely bit of work Jones did on the crusades, very scenic and some actual research too. Made some nice points about shoes, carrying armour, getting food, weather, basic sensible practical points to make about medieval life.
Then to ram home the point about violent Franks (ie debunking the "chivalrous crusader" myth) he had a bit about how intrinsically peaceful the Islamic world was until the crusaders came along and turned it violent. Honestly, as if the cradles of our civilisations haven't been warred over for thousands of years by endless armies of every colour, class and creed.
The East Romans got a very short shrift (as I see it they are absolutely central to the story of the crusades). I see the crusades as a violent resurgance of the death match between East Rome and the Islamic "Diadochi", with the crusaders crashing in like some invited latter-day Galatians to ruin the party.
Jones seems to be trying to ammend distorted simplifications with mildly less simplified distortions. I think he over-corrects to sway his audience further.
From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan
Jatte lambasts Calico Rat
In a perfect world, perhaps. But in this world, the general public is so used to seeing the Romans depicted as the bringers of civilization and the Celts and Germans as shirtless savages that did nothing but wage war (and didn't even know how to do that properly) that they consider it common knowledge. You need to be very persuasive to convince them that the barbarians may not have been barbarians.
Fair enough. I thought this problem was just with his Barbarian series (I filled several notebooks with comments on the errors and biased reporting in the accompanying booklet), but I know more of this era than I do of the Middle Ages.
On final word in his defence, though. His documentaries do seem to work. The reappraisal of the Barbarians in popular history has been going on for about a decade, yet I get the impression that Jones' documentary has done a lot to make this movement more widely accepted. That does not in any way pardon him for his sensationalist presentation, but it seems we need this approach to make the public more receptive for the better documentaries. I would prefer to be proven wrong on this, though.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
lol I didin't know you were taught stuff this way. Then again, Australia was quite different some decades ago...
Now that sounds interesting, I wish he would have continued in that direction, instead of taking sides in that conflict and making absurd moral claims.I recall a lovely bit of work Jones did on the crusades, very scenic and some actual research too. Made some nice points about shoes, carrying armour, getting food, weather, basic sensible practical points to make about medieval life.
Which is the usual garbage told by non-scientists. Yet another hobby "historian" who confuses peaceful with pragmatic.Then to ram home the point about violent Franks (ie debunking the "chivalrous crusader" myth) he had a bit about how intrinsically peaceful the Islamic world was until the crusaders came along and turned it violent.
I agree with your observations.The East Romans got a very short shrift (as I see it they are absolutely central to the story of the crusades). I see the crusades as a violent resurgance of the death match between East Rome and the Islamic "Diadochi", with the crusaders crashing in like some invited latter-day Galatians to ruin the party.
Jones seems to be trying to ammend distorted simplifications with mildly less simplified distortions. I think he over-corrects to sway his audience further.
Swêboz guide for EB 1.2
Tips and Tricks for New Players
from Hannibal Khan the Great, Brennus, Tellos Athenaios, and Winsington III.
Let's not forget that a significant part of his agenda is to make money and have enough clout to be given other projects to do, thus making more money.
This is not flippance (flippancy? The act of being flippant?) on my part: if Terry Jones (or anyone) did a documentary series on how everything you ever learned in school was exactly right, and that the state of the art on Roman-era history is Edward Gibbon, it wouldn't be as successful. This kind of thing happens in academic history and archaeology as well: every new PhD looking to make his bones (and get tenure, not to mention a lucrative book deal) has to come up with a new angle, or a total revision of the last generation. Otherwise, so dull, blah blah, we've heard that all before.
I exaggerate a little for effect. But to the extent that history is entertainment and thus business, people are strongly encouraged to stake out controversial and/or revisionist positions just to get noticed. It takes a lot to resist that kind of pressure.
οἵη περ φύλλων γενεὴ τοίη δὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.
Even as are the generations of leaves, such are the lives of men.
Glaucus, son of Hippolochus, Illiad, 6.146
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Finished essays: The Italian Wars (1494-1559), The siege of Buda (1686), The history of Boius tribe in the Carpathian Basin, Hungarian regiments' participation in the Austro-Prussian-Italian War in 1866, The Mithridatic Wars, Xenophon's Anabasis, The Carthagian colonization
Skipped essays: Serbian migration into the Kingdom of Hungary in the 18th century, The Order of Saint John in the Kingdom of Hungary
Yes and the pressure to give pride and recognition to people who have been written out or diminished is there too.
IIRC in a great film "Once Were Warriors" an admirable Maori mentor tells a troubled lad about that Maori club/lance/wooden thingy and says something like "the English thougt they had the ultimate infantry weapon in the bayonet until they met our warriors with their taiaha" .
I can think of at least two things wrong with that sentence (the English did not think much of stone-age weapons before or after meeting the Maoris, and the bayonet was a cheap mass-produced secondary killing tool for the rank and file, not any sort of "ultimate weapon"), but he was just trying to express some pride in a much derided tradition. It actually sounded quite cool when he said it too.
History is a messy bundle of conflicting points of view. Maybe a fractured narrartive style could reflect contested historical episodes, like they use in Oz where you follow different characters and see different PoV's?
That film Munich was a fictionalised version of events, but made some telling points about a real historical event: tragedy, clearsighted revenge, less clearsighted revenge, pointless murder and disillusion.
I guess the storyteller has to sell his story too, and that means telling lies.
From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan
Jatte lambasts Calico Rat
That would just means Jones is horribly uninformed about the field, the 19th and 20th century German universities were filled with praise for the barbarians and extreme exaggerations very similar to the ones he does in his documentaries. The good or evil of Rome has been in constant shift in peoples minds since the rennaisance, Rome was a constant in Papal anecdotes as a warning that no matter how powerful you are being unjust (as the Pope saw it) would get you destroyed.
If that is his version of history he was very much ahistorical. The Islamic World peaceful before the Crusades? Perhaps that is how they conquered North Africa, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Rhodes, Crete and Spain and half of France, while also managing to burn down Ostia and Rome? Not only that nobody is taught about chivalric Crusaders today, today's education goes in the exact opposite direction. The comparison to the Galatians is true, just remember that every 20 or more years another Christian area was falling to Islamic forces, when Alexius Comnenus made a jesture of reconciliation towards the Papacy the Crusades happened. The Islamic World was intrinsicly violent in a violent world, the fact that people have an axe to grind with the Crusades doesn't negate basic history. It isn't without reason that the Crusades used to be called Christendom's counter attack. I'm not saying wether or not they were justified, but the Jones version of events really is just the fashionable rather then historical version.
In addition to that what is over correct? Pro-Barbarian sentiment over Rome is very old, in fact over a hundred years old, the problem is finding a source for it in ancient texts.
I think its fair to observe that the core of the Caliphate was probably intrinsically less violent than contemporary western europe, in that it was anciently civilised, had an elaborate legal administration and intellectual distaste for violence (hence the adoption of slave soldiers who ultimately usurp the rule). The advent of Turkish rule led to a period of more intense warfare, but I'fd guess the Caliphate had previously been almost on a par with contemporary East Rome (if not China: IIRC even muslim merchants were astounded at people travelling around Tang and Sung China unarmed).
Certainly it was a violent world but Islam had given a relatively stable structure for many centuries, and was undoubtedly more civilised on many different scales.
There's still a major cult of Rome. Caesar is still better known than Alexander.
This may be n part the work of the Catholic church but I was raised in that tradition and in Australian Catholicism Rome stands for pagan cruelty and pride.
I think the cult of Rome in the English speaking world is in part attendent on the cult of the British Empire.
Is there something like that in the Francophone world? IIRC Napoleon explicitly evoked the Roman Empire, in keeping with the French First Republic's evocation of the Roman Republic.
From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan
Jatte lambasts Calico Rat
Which Caliphate do you mean the Fatamid or Baghdad one? I'm not uninformed about either, I don't pretend to be an expert but I will agree that the East was at the time more "civilized" then the West. That of course is a relative statement, the stage, and a lot of other cultural things that never entirely left Europe were neglected in the Islamic middle east during the middle ages. In addition to that it doesn't prove the Crusaders were bloodthirsty monsters depicted by Terry Jones, or that the Islamic world was peaceful, the emergence of Turkish rule changed the balance of power, hurt the Byzantine Empire greatly, and forced Alexius Comnenus to come to terms with the Papacy so he could get Papal support (in the form of the Crusade). Terry Jones largely skipped the battles in Asia Minor that restored Byzantine power. His Crusades is on par with the History Chanel, tv documentary series have largely been going down hill for awhile it isn't just him.
That depends entirely on what you mean by the cult of Rome, to many modern Europeans Rome is the bogeyman depicted by Terry Jones, I would probably guess that the cult of Rome had a resurgence when Gladiator came out and has since gone into a decline.There's still a major cult of Rome. Caesar is still better known than Alexander.
This may be n part the work of the Catholic church but I was raised in that tradition and in Australian Catholicism Rome stands for pagan cruelty and pride.
I think the cult of Rome in the English speaking world is in part attendent on the cult of the British Empire.
Is there something like that in the Francophone world? IIRC Napoleon explicitly evoked the Roman Empire, in keeping with the French First Republic's evocation of the Roman Republic.
Last edited by TancredTheNorman; 04-15-2010 at 04:51.
I am barely informed on Islamic history, but I am gratified to find we are in basic agreement.
While Rome is aknowledged as cruel (something of a bogeyman I guess), I think its ascendancy is assumed to have been inevitable, rather than an involved contested evolution. "Then the Romans came along and the others all bowed to the inevitable, except Hannibal who had the temerity to resist, and he was inevitably beaten but he inevitable legions wearing the inevitable LS..." etc etc.
From Hax, Nachtmeister & Subotan
Jatte lambasts Calico Rat
Hey guys, I have to run to philosophy class, but I'll post a bit about Islamic warfare and the caliphates when I get back, okay?
This space intentionally left blank.
It is also worth noting that Western Christendom had no problems with the status quo before the rise of the Turks, in a way you could blame the Byzantines for losing the Battle of Manzikert. I'm glad we agree on the cult of Rome to in that case, it is ironic that the Cult of Rome transformed depictions of Rome from Gladiator to a certain Starz show deserving Damnatio Memoriae
Thank you, I look forward to reading it.
Right. When Islam was founded, in around 650 AD, Arabic society could be very cruel. As I'm no expert at all on pre-Islamic history, I can tell you fairly little about it, but it is generally accepted that the rise of Islam certainly made life easier for some inhabitants of Arabia. Whereas one was completely dependent on the protection of the clan before the founding of Islam, the Arabian tribes were now also united under a single religion.
Meanwhile, in Persia and Anatolia, the Sassanids and Byzantines had fought eachother nearly to death, so when the Arabian warriors arrived, they pretty much rolled over the Sassanid and Byzantine empires. There was some struggle over Persia, but before long, the Sassanid empire was completely destroyed, while the Byzantines still controlled much of Anatolia.
In any case, whereas Christianity has very little to say about warfare and prisoners of war, etc, the Qur'an is a lot clearer about it:
1) It is illegal to pursue a war after your enemy has surrendered
2) It is illegal to kill prisoners of war
3) It is illegal to harm nature when doing battle
Especially the really orthodox Muslims, people like Salahuddin Ayyubi, who pretty much single-handedly overthrew the Shi'ite Fatimid government of Egypt, abided to these rules. While Islam is not inherently more forgiving than other religions, it has some very specific rules when it comes to fighting other people, especially Jews and Christians (who are defended in the Qur'an as being Ahl al-Kitab (whether the Muslims really abided to this all the time is debatable, especially with the massacre of the Banu Qurayza)). Apart from that, Muhammad also stated that one should "seek knowledge wherever you can, even if you have to travel to China".
This, as well as the fact that Islamic philosophy (as first proposed by Al-Farabi) states that knowledge and reason are not in conflict with religious authority, made the Muslims, when they conquered the Levant and Persia, where science had been practiced for many centuries, quite interested in the workings of the physical world. And thus started what we know as the Islamic Golden Age: through the collection of Sanskrit (which had been brought to Baghdad's House of Wisdom), Greek, Persian, Syriac and Chinese scientifical works and the way this was expanded by Muslim scientists like Omar Khayyam, Al-Khwarizmi, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), ibn Rushd (Averroës), ibn Sina (Avicenna) as well as many others, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Also, one should understand that mass conversion of non-Muslims didn't start until at least the 10th century; as non-Muslims had to pay the jizya, the Caliphs actually tried not to convert anyone, as that would mean a loss of tax revenue. In the early history of Islam, Islam was exclusively a religion for Arabs; the Ommayad Caliphate was also an Arabic caliphate, ruled by Arabs, for Arabs; which is also one of the biggest reasons for the fact that they were overthrown by the Abbasids, who found quite some support from their Persian subjects.
Also, I'd like to say two things.
1) I'm not Muslim
2) Don't involve modern-day politics in this debate. We are merely looking at Islamic history, not at Islamic theology or at the actions of radical fundamentalist groups in Palestine, Afghanistan or any other place.
This space intentionally left blank.
Accurate?
Swêboz guide for EB 1.2
Tips and Tricks for New Players
from Hannibal Khan the Great, Brennus, Tellos Athenaios, and Winsington III.
strange, he seemed like such a nice guy, kept to himself, liked the childern, and was always so quite.
quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae
Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.
Indeed if one looks to history, one will find in this case, a very subtle yet enormous void between the ideal, and the practice. And of course, like the constitution of the former CCCP, this has to do with inception, insinuation, expedience, ambiguity, interpretation, contradiction, and blatant misrepresentation. Some claim each native word was god-given to favor-folk; as we all know, each word, has more than one meaning, so together they may be used as one sees fit. Nonetheless, I suggest one may find the notes, or tone of Islam's rhyme and reason, hidden at Naqran or Al-Hirah, possibly placed beside St. Aretas, or swept away like the Tayi, Abd Alqais, Taghlib, and Lakhum of old. Herein, we might see written how a radical pose was dropped to achieve a radical end, and fundamentally change, to better dictate free will, the Medieval Near East? The simple fact is, some words have great weight, while others aren't worth the breath, it takes to say them.
Personally, I don’t judge…
that’s just me!
For a move, I'll say 'Black Robe.'
Then again I just like the sound of 'this one.'
Last edited by cmacq; 04-18-2010 at 00:19.
quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae
Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.
I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.
my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).
tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!
"We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode " -alBernameg
My problem with historically inaccurate movies in general is that they are the only source of knowledge most people have about history (especially in the the US). Because no movie is without a couple of inaccuracies, usually made because the plot demands it, I divide them into more accurate and less accurate. Comedies, such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Black Adder, are not listed.
More Accurate:
Henry The Vth: Both versions are excellent, but for that one scene in the first one where the knights are lowered onto their horses with cranes.
Dat Boot: But for the crew messing with the reporter, good.
Downfall: But for a couple minor nitpicks, good.
Gettysburg: I can't think of anything wrong.
Master And Commander: I can't think of anything wrong.
Platoon: I can't think of anything wrong.
The Warlord: The costumes are a little off, but Charlton Heston's attitude is spot on.
Tora! Tora! Tora!: I can't think anything wrong.
Waterloo: The lengths they went through to make it accurate are amazing. They dug pipe systems under the battlefield to simulate the wet conditions.
Zulu: This movie is about 50-50, but I like it, so I'm putting it up here.
Less Accurate:
Anything touched by Mel Gibson or Disney.
300: 300 is special because not only does it manage to be batshit over the top ridiculous in its inaccuracy (I mean, one can't even begin to list all the things wrong with that movie), it manages to be almost stupefyingly racist as well. Also, I wish they could have dropped Gorgo's name in there somewhere, like during the sex scene.
Leonidas: "Oh, Gorgo!"
Audience: "Wait, what?"
Alexander: Same as 300, but not nearly as bad.
Gladiator: The inaccuracies are legion. Along with a large variety of nitpicks, the major ones that stand out are everything in the beginning battle from the languages spoken to the way it is fought, the way Commodus is an insane, insecure, puny, dark haired guy, the depictions of gladiator fights as a Thunderdome style free-for-all, and the "Rome was meant to be a republic" bullshit.
Gods And Generals: This is what happens when a Southerner writes a US Civil War movie. Contains both heavy inaccuracy and whitewashing.
Kingdom Of Heaven: Many nitpicks and a ridiculous amount of whitewashing. Almost everyone in the movie is an agnostic.
Knights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*
Pearl Harbor: It has Ben Affleck. That alone should be sufficient to keep you away. If that's insufficient, it contains so much chronological and technical inaccuracy that I couldn't list it all here.
Patton: this movie. Montgomery was a badass IRL.
Saving Private Ryan: Post D-Day the movie starts veering into fantasy. Good technical accuracy though.
The Last Samurai: So many inaccuracies, and things that just stretch credibility. A dude mastering Japanese and swordplay in a single Winter?
Troy: While it's based off of a myth, it's a myth based on a true event that we know or can extrapolate a good amount of information on, and since they left out all of the mythological elements, should be taken as a depiction of a historical event. I did enjoy watching Orlando Bloom get smacked around.
Last edited by Ludens; 04-18-2010 at 11:11. Reason: language
Bookmarks