View Full Version : The 300 Spartans!
Incongruous
11-13-2005, 09:45
Look at this!
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001NBMDK.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
If this is that new upcoming movie god save us all!
Bugger it looks like this is the 1962 version. Oh well!
http://www.timeout.com/film/news/589.html
Aaah but heres the real deal!
Not really a remake.
Its a movie adaption of Frank 'Sin City' Miller's graphic novel 300 - which is based on the famous last stand of the Spartans and their king.
Should be good ~:)
http://www.crazyallcomics.cl/300.jpg
Ja'chyra
11-13-2005, 11:53
Except we all know that there were more troops there than just 300 Spartans ~:eek:
Sjakihata
11-13-2005, 12:28
managed to defeat the huge Persian army at Thermopylae in 480 BC.
Grey_Fox
11-13-2005, 14:10
Yeah, sickening....
Stoopid Hollywood, the story is as good as it gets already, no need to change it...
Except we all know that there were more troops there than just 300 Spartans ~:eek:
Yeah, sickening....
Stoopid Hollywood, the story is as good as it gets already, no need to change it...
managed to defeat the huge Persian army at Thermopylae in 480 BC.
Indeed, but I believe the 300 are the focus of the story - cannot remember if the 2000 or so Greek allies had a central role in the book.
But the book doesnt even try to claim to be historically accurate.
I repeat Its a film of the graphic novel
edyzmedieval
11-13-2005, 14:13
Since when did the Spartans defeat the Persians?! :laugh4:
I believe that website got it wrong, they all die in the book
Kralizec
11-13-2005, 14:22
When will people stop expecting history films to be historicly accurate? ~:rolleyes:
Especially as ITS NOT A FRIGGING HISTORY FILM ! ITS FRANK MILLER'S FILM OF HIS GRPAHIC NOVEL !!!
God-damn ! ~:rolleyes:
Duke Malcolm
11-13-2005, 14:35
But, isn't there already a fantastic film entitled The 300 Spartans, in which Leonidas and his band of merry men are defeated?
Kagemusha
11-13-2005, 14:37
Frank Miller is one of the best, if not the best writer of comic books at the moment. So i believe it will be good. Its a story, not a document.:bow:
But, isn't there already a fantastic film entitled The 300 Spartans, in which Leonidas and his band of merry men are defeated?
Yes, it would be the first link he posted
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001NBMDK.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
But I assure you they all die in Frank Miller's version too.
From Ign
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/492/492542p1.html
The Stax Report: Script Review of 300
An exclusive first look at the big-screen adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel!
by Stax
February 17, 2004 - Stax here with my reaction to the screenplay for 300. This 121-page second draft dated May 22, 2003 was penned by Michael Gordon (the forthcoming G.I. Joe movie). It is an adaptation of the Frank Miller/Lynn Varley graphic novel miniseries of the same name published by Dark Horse Comics. 300 will be produced by Gianni Nunnari and Mark Canton. Frank Miller is expected to be involved in some capacity. 300 is a separate project than the similar Gates of Fire and The 300 Spartans remake.
300 is a fictionalized account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. where Leonidas, King of Sparta, and his 300 warriors confronted the overwhelming forces of Persian ruler Xerxes. Unlike Gates of Fire, Leonidas is the main protagonist of this retelling. He has long wanted to unite the Greeks under one banner and Xerxes' hostility has given his dream newfound urgency. Sparta will fall to the mighty Persian army unless they stand against Xerxes.
Leonidas determines that the cities themselves cannot be held so the only way to halt Xerxes' seemingly inevitable march towards victory is to make their stand at the Hot Gates (a.k.a. Gates of Fire), an imposing, narrow mountain pass that will give the Spartans a distinct advantage over Xerxes' sheer numbers. The Persians fall for Leonidas' ploy, underestimating the effectiveness of The Hot Gates and the Spartans' will to survive.
The outcome of the Battle of Thermopylae is known to history but why should I spoil it for you if you don't already know? Suffice to say that it's still remembered today along with similar "small force vs. huge army" battles like The Alamo and Rorke's Drift.
What made Gordon's draft of 300 a better account of the Battle of Thermopylae than David Self's adaptation of Gates of Fire was that it succeeded in developing its characters. Leonidas is not overlooked here as he was in Gates; he is Spartacus, William Wallace, and Maximus all rolled into one. A wise and noble leader of men who can also throw down with the best of him.
His beautiful and gutsy wife Gorgo risks her life not only for Sparta (and all of Greece) but also to help save her husband. Leonidas may fight on the battlefield but Gorgo must navigate the treacherous world of Hellenic politics. While she's only a supporting character, Gorgo is a brave and strong-willed heroine in a story otherwise devoid of women.
Leonidas' constant companion and captain of the guard is his younger brother Artemis. Their hatred for the Persians goes back to a tragic encounter in their youth (it's the opening sequence of this draft). The captain, as the script mostly refers to Artemis, is also the father of Stelios but he shows his son no preferential treatment over the other troops.
The character that borders on being the most outrageous and least developed is Xerxes. He is a true supervillain: a garish megalomaniac hellbent on ruling the world. His enormous golden throne is carried by dozens of slaves, he is tended to by a bevy of concubines, and he himself is literally larger-than-life. My only nitpicks with this draft usually involved him. For example, Xerxes has the script's worst line when he utters that old chestnut "resistance is futile." Other than little moments like that, Gordon's script was a smooth and fun ride.
Unlike Leonidas, Xerxes relies on his generals to fight his battles and if they fail ... well, let's just say there apparently wasn't much job security in the ancient Persian army. On the positive side, though, they were apparently a more diverse outfit – including Africans, Asians, and Indians – than the Greeks.
Dark Horse
The most interesting and memorable character was the deformed hunchback Ephialtes. A Spartan by birth, Ephialtes lives in the mountains because his parents feared raising him in the city. He knows this terrain better than anyone and wants to serve his king but the regular Spartan troops show him no respect. Ephialtes is this story's Gollum, a sympathetic wretch capable of both decency and deceit. Simply put, he steals the show.
The actual battle of Thermopylae spans most of the story, taking place in segments. My favorite one wasn't necessarily the final stand, which was powerful and poignant, but rather a sequence three-quarters of the way through where the Persians' seemingly invincible elite corps, The Immortals, make the unfortune mistake of raiding the Spartan camp. Things don't go quite as they had expected. 'Nuff said.
The scale of 300's battle scenes was beyond epic. They are akin to those depicted in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and possibly Troy, judging by its latest trailer). The spectacle of thousands upon thousands of Persians storming this craggy mountain pass would have seemed unfilmable just a few years ago but in this post-Helm's Deep era anything is possible thanks to CGI.
Hopefully, these epic battles won't be scaled down too much due to budgetary concerns but there's no denying that this film will be hugely expensive. Fortunately, it will be worth every cent.
300 was a grand tale of heroism and valor during wartime. Its timely (and clearly allegorical) overtones gave it an additional resonance but even if one didn't pick up on them, 300 still packed an emotional punch. This glorious war epic deserves to be realized onscreen but the question remains whether it can now escape the gates of fire, er, development hell. – STAX
Gawain of Orkeny
11-13-2005, 16:45
But, isn't there already a fantastic film entitled The 300 Spartans, in which Leonidas and his band of merry men are defeated?
There can be victory in death. The Spartans lost the battle but because of them the Greeks won the war. The Spartans werent defeated but they were killed.
There can be victory in death. The Spartans lost the battle but because of them the Greeks won the war. The Spartans werent defeated but they were killed.
Indeedy, they were victorious in the long term - their objective was never to defeat Persia there and then :bow:
Duke Malcolm
11-13-2005, 17:26
There can be victory in death. The Spartans lost the battle but because of them the Greeks won the war. The Spartans werent defeated but they were killed.
I know that, but in the article it says that the 300 Spartans led by Leonidas defeated the mighty Persian Army at Thermopylae.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-13-2005, 17:45
I know that, but in the article it says that the 300 Spartans led by Leonidas defeated the mighty Persian Army at Thermopylae.
In hindsight they did indeed.
The Stranger
11-13-2005, 20:03
bleugh
There can be victory in death. The Spartans lost the battle but because of them the Greeks won the war. The Spartans werent defeated but they were killed.
Erm in fairness the Spartans were defeated. They were all killed and the pass was then open for the Persian horde. However as you say, and this is why the battle is so famous, their sacrifice was the foundation of eventual Greek victory. Thermopylae was a defeat, but it was also a success. The Spartans etc did not fail. Kind of the opposite to a Phyrric victory.
The old film about it is, by the way, utter pants.
QwertyMIDX
11-13-2005, 21:14
The people who actually won the Persian War for the Greeks were the Athenian sailors at Salamis, never seen a movie about them though.
Kanamori
11-13-2005, 21:38
One of histories greatest sea battles.~:cheers:
Teleklos Archelaou
11-13-2005, 21:46
I love seeing new movies come out that are set in the ancient world, but I could do without another 'heroic sacrifice' against the forces-of-evil movie. Especially one that has gotten most of its praise from its gritty and bloody realism, and expects to be a stylish slaughterfest.
Alexanderofmacedon
11-13-2005, 22:00
Would they have that at a local Hollywood/Blockbuster video? I need to watch that...
You guys should relive thermopolae(sp?). put 3 units of 121 spartans all gold def. atk and exp. and then put like 4 full stacks of Parthians. It's cool...
solypsist
11-13-2005, 22:05
sounds like a cool flick
Leet Eriksson
11-13-2005, 22:43
Will the movie have the same style of sin city?
I can't wait, sounds awesome!
Alexanderofmacedon
11-13-2005, 23:33
The 300 Spartans (or so) were to hold off the Persians to give time to the Greek allies to go deeper into Greece to regroup (I think it was to regroup). The Spartans were to hold a pass; Thermopylae. The Persians threw tons of men that were all defeated by the Spartans. The Persians thought there was no other way through the mountains other than that pass so they kept hitting it and failing.
A Greek peasant trying to gain favor with he Persians told the Persian King an other pass. The Persians went through it and incircled the Spartans. The Persian king did not let them die fighting, but instead ordered his archers to rain hell on the remaining Spartans.
I think...~D
and the fate of leonidas his body was mutilated after his death on account of how many persian soldiers lost there lives.a modern day equivelant would be the battle for the grain elevator at stalingrad.[were approx fifty russian soldiers defied three german divisons].
Grey_Fox
11-14-2005, 15:21
Or at a pass in North Africa where 300 German troops held off 15,000 Americans which was celebrated in Germany as another Thermopylae, albeit they succeeded where the Greek army of 8000 failed.
Will the movie have the same style of sin city?
I can't wait, sounds awesome!
The graphic novel is in a similar style- but in colour with plenty of red for blood ~D
Or at a pass in North Africa where 300 German troops held off 15,000 Americans which was celebrated in Germany as another Thermopylae, albeit they succeeded where the Greek army of 8000 failed.
I don't think the Spartans had guns though ~:rolleyes:
Gawain of Orkeny
11-14-2005, 17:32
And there were a few more than 15000 Persians and the Germans werent betrayed. If the Persians hadnt found out about the pass I doubt they would have gotten through the Spartans.
solypsist
11-14-2005, 17:52
it doesnt matter if you win every battle if you still lose the war
Or at a pass in North Africa where 300 German troops held off 15,000 Americans which was celebrated in Germany as another Thermopylae, albeit they succeeded where the Greek army of 8000 failed.
Grey_Fox
11-14-2005, 20:06
I didn't mean it as a dig against anyone, I suppose I should have put 'Another modern equivalent would be'.
The point about guns is irrelevant, what matters is both had the same type of weapons, so there was no real technological difference between the Greeks and Persians or the Americans and Germans.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-14-2005, 20:11
The point about guns is irrelevant, what matters is both had the same type of weapons, so there was no real technological difference between the Greeks and Persians or the Americans and Germans
No its relevant. You can kill many more men faster with a gun and at longer range than the Spartans ever dreamed of. If you had 10 men to attack a place that was defended by a guy with a gun it would be a lot harder than doing the same if both sides were armed with swords and the defender would have a far greater chance of winning. Besides that German arms in general were superior to ours.
yesdachi
11-14-2005, 20:27
No its relevant. You can kill many more men faster with a gun and at longer range than the Spartans ever dreamed of. If you had 10 men to attack a place that was defended by a guy with a gun it would be a lot harder than doing the same if both sides were armed with swords and the defender would have a far greater chance of winning. Besides that German arms in general were superior to ours.
True, I’m thinking of the assault on Normandy as an example and plenty of others where a single defended position with the same guns as an enemy would be considerably more lethal than the attackers. ~:)
Grey_Fox
11-14-2005, 20:31
No its relevant. You can kill many more men faster with a gun and at longer range than the Spartans ever dreamed of.
While true, you are ignoring the fact that casualty rates in modern warfare are lower than those in ancient warfare. As for the germans having better weapons, the Spartans had better armour and longer spears meaning they can hit at further range than the Persians and cause more damage.
This incident is described in 'An Army at Dawn' (sorry but can't remember the name of the author at the moment).
Gawain of Orkeny
11-14-2005, 20:33
While true, you are ignoring the fact that casualty rates in modern warfare are lower than those in ancient warfare.
Thats because of advances in medicine and not because our weapons arent as lethal. If anything the reverse is true.
While true, you are ignoring the fact that casualty rates in modern warfare are lower than those in ancient warfare. As for the germans having better weapons, the Spartans had better armour and longer spears meaning they can hit at further range than the Persians and cause more damage.
This incident is described in 'An Army at Dawn' (sorry but can't remember the name of the author at the moment).
That is true. The Spartan Hoplites where ideally equipped for holding a defensive line. Long spears and heavy armour. Most of the Persians would have been equipped in their traditional manner of light armour (if any), wicker shields and light weapons. Nevertheless Thermopaylae was a magnificent performance for the Spartans.
Kasserine (sp?) Pass is a good modern example really. The American forces had many of the weakness of the Persians. Green troops, over confident commanders, light armour and little local knowledge coupled with poor coordination. The Germans were in a similar position to the Spartans. Outnumbered but dug in, with a well planned defence and a fearsome reputation. In this case however the defenders were not betrayed and won the battle. But they lost the war, partly because the Americans learnt from their mistakes in Africa.
I forgot to note that the Spartans were raised and trained for war. They were the closest thing to a professional army that Greece had. Only the Immortals could come even close to their level of training and discipline (and they did not). Much of the Persian horde would have been untrained and perhaps unwilling levy troops from around the Persian Empire.
Grey_Fox
11-14-2005, 20:59
Thats because of advances in medicine and not because our weapons arent as lethal. If anything the reverse is true.
Gawain, I'm not talking about fatalities, when I speak of casualties, I mean the number of KIA, WIA, MIA and captured.
Kasserine Pass is different to Thermopylae in that the Germans were attacking and had a better odds than the Greeks in that they were only outnumbered 2:1 or so (I mean 'only' in a relative sense).
Gawain of Orkeny
11-14-2005, 21:02
Gawain, I'm not talking about fatalities, when I speak of casualties, I mean the number of KIA, WIA, MIA and captured.
WW2 had more casualties than all the ancient wars combined. Your missing two points over and over. Its easier today for a small well equipped force to hold off a larger one than in those days and that the only reason the Spartans lost is they were betrayed. Also as has been said the Greeks won the war while the Germans lost. I would have to then say the Spartans were the more succesful of the two.
Grey_Fox
11-14-2005, 21:15
WW2 had more casualties than all the ancient wars combined. Your missing two points over and over. Its easier today for a small well equipped force to hold off a larger one than in those days and that the only reason the Spartans lost is they were betrayed. Also as has been said the Greeks won the war while the Germans lost. I would have to then say the Spartans were the more succesful of the two.
I meant to say the percentage of casualties in individual actions is lower today than it was in the old days. If the Persians had won at Salamis they wouldn't have needed the 'secret' path.
Anways, the action between the 300 Germans and the 15000 Americans is similar in terms of the battle, however I do realise it is different in the context of the war as a whole.
i wish i had kept my mouth shut.
as for caualty figures lower??.the battle of stalingrad alone the figures make grim reading in deed
hungarian 2, army 80,000 dead-63,000 wounded
8th italian army 84,000+ dead/missing captured + another 29,000 wounded frost bitten
romanian losses- 158,800+ dead injured missing
german allies had incurred in a matter of months nearly 500.000 casualties
this does not include
the number of german soviet losses[ german 600.000 + soviet 1 or 2 million casualties.
Alexanderofmacedon
11-15-2005, 00:04
Jesus really?
Grey_Fox
11-15-2005, 00:52
I never said the figures were lower. What I said was that the odds of being killed or injured in any individual action are less nowadays than they were in ancient warfare.
Papewaio
11-15-2005, 00:58
The Persians hadn't really known defeat with their current army and most certainly not with their Immortals in that particular time.
So the battle was significant in showing that a small force of Greeks and in particular Spartans could do. It should that the Persians were not invincible as an army and that the Immortals were not invincible as a unit.
This had huge repercussions later on when the Persians had to fight a much larger force of Greeks and all the Sparatans turned up and not just 300.
Mind you the 300 at the past were supposedly the bodyguard of a King so it was the top tier of Sparatans fighting in all likelyhood.
Anyhow the morale of the Persians would have taken a huge blow after seeing what 300 could do and now facing the entire lot of them along with their subjects and a whole horde of Allies as well.
====
For Australia in WWII the Kokoda Track would probably be the closest equivalent to this battle.
Kokoda Track Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_Campaign)
Lieutenant-General Sydney Rowell, the commander of the Allied armies' New Guinea Force, ordered the 100-strong B company of the Australian 39th (Militia) Battalion, to travel overland along the Track to the village of Kokoda. Once there, B Company was to secure the airstrip at Kokoda, in preparation for an Allied build-up along the Papuan north coast. As the militia company was securing its positions, news reached them of Japanese landings on the north coast of New Guinea.
First Battle of Kokoda
Skirmishing, and several fierce assaults by the Japanese soldiers, caused the outnumbered Australians to fall back through Kokoda. They soon re-took Kokoda, but after two days, a renewed Japanese offensive forced the Australians to retreat once again. Kokoda was captured by the Japanese on July 29. Although the defenders were outnumbered, under-resourced, and near-starving, the resistance was such that the Japanese believed they were dealing with a force more than 6,000 strong.
So 100 men lost the Airfield but skirmished so fiercely that the Japanese reported that they were dealing with more the 6000 men.
Significance for Australia
While the Gallipoli Campaign of World War I was Australia's first military test as a new nation, the Kokoda and subsequent New Guinea campaign was the first time that Australia's security had been threatened directly. Given that at the time, Papua New Guinea was an Australian colony, Kokoda was also the first time that Australians fought and died repelling an invader on Australian soil. It was also the first time that Australia had fought without the material presence or support of the United Kingdom.
The dire peril facing Australia during the South Pacific and New Guinea campaigns underlined Australia's security problems, and would later lead to the populate-or-perish post-war mass immigration programme, and the signing of the ANZUS defense treaty.
Ralph Honner summed up the magnitude of the achievement, when he described the Battle of Isurava as "Australia's Thermopylae". If the Battle of Gallipoli forged an "ANZAC spirit", then Kokoda perhaps surpassed that spirit or even saved it, since the Australian people may have faced invasion, had the campaign been lost.
Also of the 90,000 + german prisoners captured after stalingrad only approx 5000 would see german soil again this mainly to do with the poor condition the ordinary german soldier was in, rather than russians abusing prisoners .couple this with the fact that in a state were ordinary people starved and millions of soviet troops had died in a horrfic war started BY nazi germany the welfare of the ordinary german soldier was not a soviet priority.
if you also look at the battle it was a war of attrition.it was also unusall in the amount of hand to hand combat and house to house fighting that took place. so in that sense it differs little to the battle of cannae. replace spears and swords, with guns,picks,shovels, flamethrowers.
Watchman
11-15-2005, 13:36
Nevermind that the USSR barely had provisions in place to feed its own troops...
That aside, the Persians would've won Thermopylae right fine even without the lucky break of the flanking route. It'd just have taken more time and utterly expendable levy infantry to wear out the Greeks by sheer attrition... but then again I've read that even the ancient city-states of Mesopotamia had used warfare as a form of population control.
Be that as it may, wasn't this particular campaign the one where the Persians eventually gave up and went home with all their actually valuable troops, leaving the thousands of throwaway conscripts to be mopped up by the Greeks (which took them a while) ?
Tachikaze
11-15-2005, 15:56
When will people stop expecting history films to be historicly accurate? ~:rolleyes:
Then why use names and events from actual history? Why don't they use fictitious nations and armies so that the film audience isn't misled?
This was done with Inherit the Wind, allowing the writers to monkey with the story to make their points.
hellenes
11-15-2005, 17:05
Not really a remake.
Its a movie adaption of Frank 'Sin City' Miller's graphic novel 300 - which is based on the famous last stand of the Spartans and their king.
Should be good ~:)
http://www.crazyallcomics.cl/300.jpg
That comic makes me vomit...
Ancient Spartans BLACK?
I respect all the black people and their history but the theory of Black Athena just makes one wonder with the sickness of some individual minds...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813512778/103-4178421-5101414?v=glance
The answer... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807845558/103-4178421-5101414?v=glance
Hellenes
That comic makes me vomit...
Ancient Spartans BLACK?
I respect all the black people and their history but the theory of Black Athena just makes one wonder with the sickness of some individual minds...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813512778/103-4178421-5101414?v=glance
The answer... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807845558/103-4178421-5101414?v=glance
Hellenes
Miller does not depict the Spartans and other Hellenes as being 'black' in his graphic novel but he does depict the Persians as being sub-Saharan Africans! It's so bad it actually gives afrocentric historical revisionists cause to celebrate. The graphic novel is apparently full of ahistorical nonsense like that.
I cringe at the thought of Hollyweird taking this particular Miller creation and adapting it for the big screen. The half of me that is Greek is quietly screaming out in protest of yet another half baked depiction of my ancestor's acheivements. I'm still recovering from Oliver Stone's 'Alexander'.
I was thoroughly underwhelmed by most aspects of Sin City except for its striking visuals and Mickey Rourke's shockingly superb voice over. If anything watching Sin City reminded me why I stopped reading comics when I was 14 or 15. Frank Miller may be one of the great comic book writers/artists of all time but his dialogue is alarmingly pretentious and loses a great deal of impact when matched to live action cinema. I had to keep from snickering during most of the silly monologues in Sin City, such profound nonsense!
Watchman
11-15-2005, 22:34
Miller used to make pretty darn good comics. Alas, he's been losing his touch for a while now - IMHO the last indisputably good works he made were Ronin and the about first three or four Sin City books. After that it's been downhill; whatever the sequel to that brilliant old warhorse The Dark Knight Returns was now called it was crap, and I've developed a hearty dislike of the increasingly gratuitious and pretentious melodrama and "gritty angst" of the Sin City series in general and the character of Dwight in particular, who supplies a large dose of the stuck-up monologue.
The character that borders on being the most outrageous and least developed is Xerxes. He is a true supervillain: a garish megalomaniac hellbent on ruling the world. His enormous golden throne is carried by dozens of slaves, he is tended to by a bevy of concubines, and he himself is literally larger-than-life....
"Officer, someone has been to the graveyard at night and looted the earthly remnants of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. A few examples of very bad scriptwriting found at the scene suggest the perpetrators may have connections to the movie industry..."
God, why ?
That aside, methinks the ancient Greeks tend to get rather overrated on the basis of certain battles - because when you really look at it, Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis alike went like they went mostly due to succesful startegy instead of something like "fighting spirit" or "Greek heroism" or whatever. Think about it. The Persian army was one meant for manoeuvre; it was built up so it could use its vast numbers of infantry to pin down the enemy, weaken him with massed archery, and roll up his flanks with cavalry and other mobile forces. Conversely the Greek hoplites were all about slow linear formations of heavy infantry clashing directly, and indeed often found it necessary to settle a place in advance to have suitable terrain to fight on.
At both Thermopylae and Marathon the Greeks were able to force the Persians into a position that functionally eliminated the maneuverability of their opponents and allowed them to either lauch a linear attack or wait for the enemy to come to them in very confined space, with both flanks anchored by geography.
I understand they didn't tend to fare nearly as well on open fields.
If I recall correctly Salamis was essentially a naval ambush. Now, this is galley warfare we're dealing with. Among its defining features were a tendency to be utterly ruinous to whoever lost the battle, and the rather extreme vulnerability of the ships' flanks if they weren't properly covered by comrades. What this amounts to in practice is that the Persians would have had to engage in some fairly Herculean heroics, and the Greeks in some truly glaring naval ineptitude, just to avoid losing a better part of their ships present...
While all the occasions mentioned speak highly of the strategic skill of the Greeks, that by default makes them somewhat moot for judging their ability and quality on the tactical level. As such this is all well and good - after all, good strategy is all about maximizing your own advantages and minimizing those of your enemy, isn't it ? But it's something one should remember before engaging in too much hero-worship.
hellenes
11-15-2005, 22:52
Miller does not depict the Spartans and other Hellenes as being 'black' in his graphic novel but he does depict the Persians as being sub-Saharan Africans! It's so bad it actually gives afrocentric historical revisionists cause to celebrate. The graphic novel is apparently full of ahistorical nonsense like that.
I cringe at the thought of Hollyweird taking this particular Miller creation and adapting it for the big screen. The half of me that is Greek is quietly screaming out in protest of yet another half baked depiction of my ancestor's acheivements. I'm still recovering from Oliver Stone's 'Alexander'.
I was thoroughly underwhelmed by most aspects of Sin City except for its striking visuals and Mickey Rourke's shockingly superb voice over. If anything watching Sin City reminded me why I stopped reading comics when I was 14 or 15. Frank Miller may be one of the great comic book writers/artists of all time but his dialogue is alarmingly pretentious and loses a great deal of impact when matched to live action cinema. I had to keep from snickering during most of the silly monologues in Sin City, such profound nonsense!
https://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7365/300one9ul.th.jpg (https://img35.imageshack.us/my.php?image=300one9ul.jpg)
The Spartans are shown as Sub Saharan African...
Hellenes
https://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7365/300one9ul.th.jpg (https://img35.imageshack.us/my.php?image=300one9ul.jpg)
The Spartans are shown as Sub Saharan African...
Hellenes
Well I would characterize the figures in that pic as being borderline neanderthal! It's definitely a stylistic.. umr, interpretation. ~:eek:
Watchman
11-15-2005, 23:11
Miller's had an annoying tendency to draw a lot of his chars in similar fashion for quite a while. I think it's meant to make them look tough, rugged, menacing or whatever. ~:rolleyes:
The hair, however, is prolly historically correct. AFAIK the Spartans were long known for braiding their hair in a distinctive manner.
Geoffrey S
11-15-2005, 23:13
Miller does not depict the Spartans and other Hellenes as being 'black' in his graphic novel but he does depict the Persians as being sub-Saharan Africans! It's so bad it actually gives afrocentric historical revisionists cause to celebrate. The graphic novel is apparently full of ahistorical nonsense like that.
All of them, or just a few? The Persians did have a reasonable number of African people in their army, though from just how far south I don't know.
hellenes
11-15-2005, 23:16
Well I would characterize the figures in that pic as being borderline neanderthal! It's definitely a stylistic.. umr, interpretation. ~:eek:
Well one shouldnt insult some ugly black people though there are some really nice ones too
https://img471.imageshack.us/img471/5862/beyonce022mv.th.jpg (https://img471.imageshack.us/my.php?image=beyonce022mv.jpg)
However one likes Miller those are some Black Spartanz from da hood...
Hellenes
Well I would characterize the figures in that pic as being borderline neanderthal! It's definitely a stylistic.. umr, interpretation. ~:eek:
~:confused: ~:confused: its not artistic interpration it"s the biggest pile of shite i have seen . were are these characters taken from.?? the hills have eyes.christ they don"t need any weapons one look at them without there helmets, and they would frighten the persians to death.they are neithier depicted black or anything else. they look like they have just escaped from a secure unit for the insane.
god help us
Watchman
11-16-2005, 01:20
Well, when you consider the grinder the homoioi were put through from infancy, odds are most of them had a fair few screws loose by modern standards...
Me, I'm writing it up to Miller's often somewhat dubious aesthetic props.
While one can imagine there being individual sub-Saharan Africans in Persian service one doubts if they were particularly great in number. Although it's certainly possible Africans could have ended up in Persia as slaves, mercenaries, traders or whatever (there's a neat sea connection after all), one doubts if they were ever particularly numerous in the army. AFAIK Persia never did much in the way of amphibious expansion out in the Indian Ocean, and as there was Egypt (at least around that time, far as I know; the Persia of Alexander's time was a bit different animal anyway) in the way it is difficult to see how a large number of sub-Saharan Africans would've ended up under Persian overlordship. Or North Africans, for that matter; I for one have thus far managed to utterly miss any mention of the Persians ever being interested in establishing colonies around the Mediterranean, and again methinks there was Egypt standing in the way of land-based expansion in that direction.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.