Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'

I'm not arguing either way myself, I simply like to point out historical facts and trends in American policy that many of our citizens are ignorant of. If people would learn history they would learn to question the politicians and corporate rulers who lead us into wars, not blindly follow. I love my country as much as anyone and have fought for her and will do so again, but we must not be ignorant of our evils as well as our good, and must beware as a great President once warned us, of the evil of the military-industrial complex which has permanently militarized our nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

I'm not arguing either way myself, I simply like to point out historical facts and trends in American policy that many of our citizens are ignorant of. If people would learn history they would learn to question the politicians and corporate rulers who lead us into wars, not blindly follow. I love my country as much as anyone and have fought for her and will do so again, but we must not be ignorant of our evils as well as our good, and must beware as a great President once warned us, of the evil of the military-industrial complex which has permanently militarized our nation.

---

Soo...

What next do you want to discuss?

How 'bout, the majority of American patriots, fought the British in a conventional style? (albiet difficult)

I'm under the impression they started with hit-and-run guerilla stuff. The musket-fife-bayonet-and-drum bit was later when things had gone down to an open war - but you will also have to remember that guerilla warfare and "terrorism" (largely the same thing really IMO, just in different circumstances) is the strategy of the side that flatly cannot afford to fight openly due to disparity in military power. The rebellious colonials could, as they had the numbers and the supply base and the technology and the Brits by and large had to haul in much of everything from overseas, and this in the face of the French cheerfully sabotaging everything they could on general principles. Quite simply, the transportation and logistical machinery of the time alone made it near impossible to conduct an overseas war against a foe possessing parity in weapons and military method; that the Brits did as well as they did only speaks of how truly exceptional a maritime power for the time they were.

These days nobody in their right minds will try to fight any First World army openly, even their peers. It just ain't worth the pain, the World Wars and colonial breakaways taught everyone that much. Most insurgents sensibly avoid direct confrontation with far less formidable militaries as well, as getting reduced to a greasy smear at the bottom of a smoking crater is by itself a rather poor way to get anything done.

Which is why they go asymmetrical. A handful of guys on a shoelace budget can totally frustrate the most overbearing leviathan of an army if they simply refuse to obligingly line up to be shot to bits or give up.

Guerilla warfare is not so much about winning, but keeping the other side from winning and flatly outlasting him.

insurgencies follow a cycle which goes from popular dissent through irregular warfare, on and on, where the later stages of an insurgency involve into a war of mobility and maneuver with semi-conventional or conventional forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I'm under the impression they started with hit-and-run guerilla stuff. The musket-fife-bayonet-and-drum bit was later when things had gone down to an open war - but you will also have to remember that guerilla warfare and "terrorism" (largely the same thing really IMO, just in different circumstances) is the strategy of the side that flatly cannot afford to fight openly due to disparity in military power. The rebellious colonials could, as they had the numbers and the supply base and the technology and the Brits by and large had to haul in much of everything from overseas, and this in the face of the French cheerfully sabotaging everything they could on general principles. Quite simply, the transportation and logistical machinery of the time alone made it near impossible to conduct an overseas war against a foe possessing parity in weapons and military method; that the Brits did as well as they did only speaks of how truly exceptional a maritime power for the time they were.

These days nobody in their right minds will try to fight any First World army openly, even their peers. It just ain't worth the pain, the World Wars and colonial breakaways taught everyone that much. Most insurgents sensibly avoid direct confrontation with far less formidable militaries as well, as getting reduced to a greasy smear at the bottom of a smoking crater is by itself a rather poor way to get anything done.

Which is why they go asymmetrical. A handful of guys on a shoelace budget can totally frustrate the most overbearing leviathan of an army if they simply refuse to obligingly line up to be shot to bits or give up.

Guerilla warfare is not so much about winning, but keeping the other side from winning and flatly outlasting him.

---

Nope, the colonials were militia. Later better trained by the french. They were not an insurgency. They fought conventionaly, did you get your ideas from "the patriot" !!

Hm, I suggest you read some American history there, Cossack. The revoultion was indeed an insurgency, even we in the military community refer to it as such in our studies of historical warfare. For example, look at this overview from West Point.

http://www.usma.edu/DMI/iw_presentat...Revolution.pdf

Quote:

---

Main Entry: in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

---

...is how Merriam-Webster Online defines the term. Them colonials would seem to qualify well enough.

If you want to try splitting hairs, please at least try to make sure you know what they are. And stop wasting my time with nonsense.

Plus, what I've heard of the "minutemen" suggests definite guerilla/partisan-style hit-and-run tactics; these are very sensible for what are essentially irregulars who know the terrain, and whose original purpose was to deal with angry natives with an essentially similar approach to this stuff. Doubtless quite good at making the life of regular line infantry very unpleasant indeed in the right circumstances as well, and for denying the enemy an effective control of a region.

Not so good for actually ejecting the Brits from the Americas though. If nothing else because local defense militias tend to be rather reluctant to go too far from their home areas, and as these particular specimen were essentially irregular light infantry they would not have been offensively terribly useful by themselves for much beyond "keeping up the pressure" by harassement. Or dealing with the kinds of nasty casualties involved in contesting the ownership of fortified positions, especially as attackers.

Ergo, the need for regular "line" forces.

Also, you're so not going to convince me the partisan fighting between the "revolutionary" and "loyalist" colonists did not take any number of ghastly turns and involve acts of squalid atrocity little talked about afterwards. My country had a brief civil war ninety years ago, and ugly stuff still gets dug up.

Hmm, that guy should say that looks more like a battle plan...

If you call this an isurgency, than I gues the American civil war (rebels) the Roman civil war (of late period) and any other civil war was an insurgency too?

Nope, not an insurgency. Unless you count Mel Gibsons character and waht he did in the begining, thaT seemed insurgent to me.

@ Watcman- not convince you? why its the season for miracles!!

EDIT: sry for answering so late, I will try to keep up with this dicussion.

Uh... you do know the difference between a civil war and an armed uprising against a (in any case perceived) foreign governement currently in possession of the region, right ? :inquisitive:

Please don't try to play funny word-games. They're neither amusing nor working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Uh... you do know the difference between a civil war and an armed uprising against a (in any case perceived) foreign governement currently in possession of the region, right ? :inquisitive:

Please don't try to play funny word-games. They're neither amusing nor working.

---

:tomato2:

Of what Zak said it seems they are the same...

No. :no:

Actually I can't comprehend how you could draw any such conclusion from what he's posted.

Whats the Revelution? a rebelion

the American cicil war? a rebelion

Roman civil war (late period) a rebelion

Rebelion- an insurgecy to Zak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Whats the Revelution? a rebelion

the American cicil war? a rebelion

Roman civil war (late period) a rebelion

Rebelion- an insurgecy to Zak.

---

well uh thats not quite what i said.. insurgency is certainly a means by which rebellions can be fought though. I did say, that there are levels of insurgency, the last stage of which is a war of movement. not all rebellions are insurgencies but all insurgencies i suppose you could say are rebellions. look at the taliban insurgency for instance, the commanders there sometimes control platoon and company sized maneuver elements in traditional engagements, yet an overall insurgency is conducted by the populace at large in many areas.

Hehe no you didnt say there was levels!

Not all rebelions are insurgencies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

insurgencies follow a cycle which goes from popular dissent through irregular warfare, on and on, where the later stages of an insurgency involve into a war of mobility and maneuver with semi-conventional or conventional forces.

---

uh in fact I did, on this very page.

Well If we're going by the international definition then it was an insurgency until Saratoga.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

From the Persian perpective the Greeks were a bunch of nasty border barbarians who'd been fomenting unrest and pillaging around in their border provinces. The universal imperial response to such (once the resources are available) is a punitive expedition, which sometimes end up as conquests (and a fair bit of territorial expansion indeed was just such police-action-become-permanent).

It's not like the Romans or Chinese or the much later European colonial powers ever regarded it as an option to tolerate such troublemaking on the part of fuzzy-wuzzies across the border either. Sort of a matter of prestige and credibility already; after all, what manner of empire lets some uppity savages get away with it without reprisals ?

---

You should not take the Persian perspective only, shouldn't you? Or will you imply that everything an empire is doing because of imperialistic imperatives is to be accepted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Meh. Athenian democracy is way overrated, doubly so as it was not really much more than an oligarchy anyway (the income levels under the hoplite class only got to vote because they were needed for the navy, and even this was widely enough resented). Look around the world of that time and you'll find no shortage of essentially similar, or indeed in some cases more sophisticated or properly democratic, systems. Carthage was essentially a comparable republic-type setup (mercantile city-states have always had a tendency towards that sort of thing). The Celts and Germans for the most part elected their kings and other authority-holders - a rather typical trait in "tribal" societies. Given the hands-off governance approach of the Achaemenids (and the patent limitations of the communications available), local governance in the Persian empire doubtless included a whole lot of similar structures already because much of the time it doesn't really pay to try to replace existing ones nevermind micromanage them. As long as the locals delivered their appointed dues the resident satrap would most likely have only been too happy if local town councils, village headmen and whatever could sort their issues out by themselves without requiring his attention.

In an empire that large and diverse (nevermind containing some fairly imposing natural barriers), you can't really not delegate a lot of stuff to the local level.

---

It is not democracy first. You know, Herodot tells us about the Persians considering to invent democracy after the dead of Kambyses (ok, they did not, but...). Mardonios threw out all the little tyrants from the Ionian poleis in 492 and established democracies instead. And later hellenistic states differ not really from earlier eastern empires.

And it is not a discussion wether Greek culture was "better" than Persian culture. There are a lot sympathetic things to say about the Persian culture and a lot unappealing about Greek culture. Things like that happened in Melos would have not be done by Persian victors for example.

But the mixtum compositum of the Greek world, the chaotic freedom of thoughts, not encarcerated by something like Christendom or Islam or Zoroastrianism, the detection of individualism and the agonistic nature of the culture led to a progress in human thinking which would have not be seen if the culture had been part of a benevolent and providing empire. The deterioration of scientific thinking and the rise of mysticism and transcendental religious thinking from the late 2nd c. BC onwards in my opinion was (at least partly) related to the spread of the Roman empire.

Wether you like one or the other is personal opinion. Surely most people could live with every system humans had developed since 10000 BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

You should not take the Persian perspective only, shouldn't you? Or will you imply that everything an empire is doing because of imperialistic imperatives is to be accepted?

---

Now where'd you get that from ? I don't ever recall claiming the Persian view was the only "right" one, any more than the Greek one was.

Quote:

---

But the mixtum compositum of the Greek world, the chaotic freedom of thoughts, not encarcerated by something like Christendom or Islam or Zoroastrianism, the detection of individualism and the agonistic nature of the culture led to a progress in human thinking which would have not be seen if the culture had been part of a benevolent and providing empire. The deterioration of scientific thinking and the rise of mysticism and transcendental religious thinking from the late 2nd c. BC onwards in my opinion was (at least partly) related to the spread of the Roman empire.

---

I'm somewhat sceptical as to how much exactly becoming a distant frontier satrapy (if even that) of Persia would actually have impacted the business-as-usual in Greece, save perhaps for less hoplite quarreling between the communities. Or how long the Achaemenids could have maintained their overlordship in the region for that matter - they had enough trouble keeping hold of areas much closer to their heartlands already, and by what I've read of it their footholds on the western coasts of the Black Sea and Aegean were at best somewhat tenuous and short-lived.

Distances, after all, are important enough; and Greece was far away indeed from Persepolis, and unlike with the equally Mediterranean Rome there was no ready sea connection.

Two wrongs don't make a right children.

that 300 movie sure was good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mucky305

that 300 movie sure was good!

---

I disagree! https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/...9/emot-haw.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mucky305

that 300 movie sure was good!

---

You know If you said that in a crowded street you could start a riot.

You should do it.

Any word on Glory of Persepolis?

But I bet the action wont be as good as 300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Any word on Glory of Persepolis?

But I bet the action wont be as good as 300.

---

http://www.gloryofpersepolis.com/

For all your Glory of Persepolis needs!

Still no video though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEI6YwE4VWU

I guess this will have to do in the meantime. Nutcases away! To the persecutionmobile!

Man, those Persians really got something against the Greeks.

It really comes down to if modern day Greece is ok or nuetral to America, if not, then I will agree to look at the Greco-persian wars without bias.

Is that what you easterners want from me? the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aecp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEI6YwE4VWU

I guess this will have to do in the meantime. Nutcases away! To the persecutionmobile!

---

Gotta love the Counter-propganda.:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Man, those Persians really got something against the Greeks.

It really comes down to if modern day Greece is ok or nuetral to America, if not, then I will agree to look at the Greco-persian wars without bias.

Is that what you easterners want from me? the truth?

---

lol I'm hardly an easterner.. Greece isnt very friendly to America these days either by the way, but then again who in their right mind is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

lol I'm hardly an easterner.. Greece isnt very friendly to America these days either by the way, but then again who in their right mind is?

---

People who who are smart enough to realize that we can change leaders and that we hate our current adiminstration as much as they do ( some countries like, china and india like bush More than us).

it doesnt matter who our leader is when we continue to oppress and exploit people across the world as national policy, not one party's policy.

I guess we need people like Zaknafien to counter the administrations power.

But when it comes to exploitation I bet ppl here would exploit others to benefit their countery.