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

1.
I don't think the American "revolution" would have succeeded if it had been only the war of some rich plantation owners?

Could someone explain why there is no difference between, let's say an American "terrorist" of 1777 fighting the British forces, a French "terrorist" of 1944 fighting the German forces, a Yewish terrorist of 1947 fighting the British forces (and bombing a hotel) and the current "freedom fighters" of Irak fighting the Shiit or Sunnite or Kurdish population and sometimes the government and the US forces? I see some differences. One difference fe may be the fact that a peaceful change of power in the Irak would have been possible by election (with all the problems I know) and some of the different groups didn't want to accept it? Of course you could say elections are only a part of western thinking and so on...

The USA should have never started this war or should have had a concept for the time after the victory. But that is no reason to name the terrorists in Irak freedom fighters. They fight mostly for particular interests and for the suppression of the other religious or ethnic groups.


2.
As far as the "new" interpretation of the Greek and Persians war was discussed: some facts remain that it was a defensive action of some Greek poleis against a more or less unprovoked invasion; an invasion similar to the invasions the Persian empire had done before. Maybe the Ionian poleis had not the right to rebel against the Persian empire (why not, did they really invite the Persians to rule them?) and Athens and Eretria sent 25 ships to help that would not explain the gigantic endeavours made by the Persians to invade Greece. And the Persian recon expedition in the western mediteranean made shortly before 500 should not be dismissed totally. It was done before the rebellion. Persian ideology was imperialistic, about ruling the known world, so Greece was just another Lydia or Ionia. It was a bit like Rome in the later times I think. No reason to get upset in the one or other way.

And the results: of course the Greeks did not fight for "democracy" as an abstract concept. They fight for their freedom and different systems. But it is very doubtful that the part of the base principles of the western way which originate in the Greek-Roman world would have survived or developed if the Persians would have won the war. And it is not exactly clear to me what fundamental goodies of the world stem especially from the Persian culture as an adequate substitute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

:laugh4: thats got to be the best quote I've seen all week. Almost good enough to make into a sigline.

That's probably the best example of why most of the world hates Americans. And did you ever stop to think, there's actual reasons the islamic extremists don't like us?

---

You're wrong Zaknafien! This is why most the world hates America.

Aren't you guys forgetting for example the little detail the Iraqi insurgents alone consists of numerous groups which often have wildly different motivations ? You've got various breeds of native militants, then the inevitable opportunists that always appear in an anarchy, and then various breeds of foreign jihadists. Most of whom don't tolerate each other all that well, and have entirely different aims. Some differences in methods too, by what I've read of it.

Quote:

---

They fight mostly for particular interests and for the suppression of the other religious or ethnic groups.

---

Show me a "freedom fighter" that didn't fight for "particular interests" - that's sort of part of the job description.

Quote:

---

As far as the "new" interpretation of the Greek and Persians war was discussed: some facts remain that it was a defensive action of some Greek polis against a more or less unprovoked invasion; an invasion similar to the invasions the Persian empire had done before. Maybe the Ionian poleis had not the right to rebel against the Persian empire (why not, did they really invite the Persians to rule them?) and Athens and Eretria sent 25 ships to help that would not explain the gigantic endeavours made by the Persians to invade Greece. And the Persian recon expedition in the western mediteranean made shortly before 500 should not be dismissed totally. It was done before the rebellion. Persian ideology was imperialistic, about ruling the known world, so Greece was just another Lydia or Ionia. It was a bit like Rome in the later times I think. No reason to get upset in the one or other way.

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

And the results: of course the Greeks did not fight for "democracy" as an abstract concept. They fight for their freedom and different systems. But it is very doubtful that the part of the base principles of the western way which originate in the Greek-Roman world would have survived or developed if the Persians would have won the war. And it is not exactly clear to me what fundamental goodies of the world stem especially from the Persian culture as an adequate substitute.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

In the comic he is also easy to outrage - he kills the messenger with SPARTA on his lips...

---

I have to disagree with you there, I don't think that the he's shouting at the top of his lungs when he kicks the messanger down the well in the comic. In the comic Leonidas is cynical or sardonic, as you said, but this makes his emotional outburst when he throws his spear against Xerxes so much more intense. In the movie there's really no point to it, since Leonidas has been shouting all the time and showing emotion at every turn. So what we get is the narrator telling us that "It was a really awesome war cry, trust me!"

Quote:

---

Concerning Gorgo - it doesn't mean that she has done a bad job, just because her character isn't sympathic - however I agree that the subplot was useless and I think the scene in teh Spartan council was the most embarassing of the whole movie...

---

My problem with the actress playing Gorgo was that she didn't really do anything to set her apart from any other female lead in a sword n' sandal movie. Besides that I thought Gorgo came off as aloof and contentious, and the part where she goes "You won't like this, this won't be over quickly" (I can't remeber the exact quote) brought back memories from Return of the Kings "I am no man!". Must a powerful, independant female character in a movie such as this always be a cliche?

Quote:

---

But in the comic the Spartans also don't keep their phalanx

---

True enough, but in the comic the phalanx was the standard and breaking formation was the exception. In the movie I think it was the other way around, the Spartans broke formation in a matter of seconds and from that point on it was pretty much spinning in slow-mo for the rest of the movie, which got repetetive really fast.

Quote:

---

Btw - I think there are very few scenes in the movie that lack special effects sicne almost everything was created with the PC. But I agree that some simply looked ridiculous - such as the flying head of the beheaded Persian general, though this was taken 1:1 from the comic...

---

Yeah, but my main problem with the way this movie was filmed is that they failed to give us a real battle. Most of the time it felt like there were about a dozen Spartans fighting a few Persians at a time.

Quote:

---

First of all - I think that this movie hasn't all to mutch in common with the real battle at the termopylae - I wouldn't call it "depicting an ancient battle" but "loosely based on an ancient battle". It is fast action movie - not a monumental thing like lord of the rings. It's style is exaggeration and it uses lots of SFX. It doesn't tell an epic story - it focuses on combat...
What kind of music would you have prefered? These standart orchestral sounds during the complete movie? I think something harder (like nu-metal) fits better...

---

My main problem with it was that it felt out of place, perhaps not so much in the context of the movie but in the way it was used. Things would be pretty normal, Spartans watching the Persian fleet floundering in a storm and then BAM riffs out of nowhere. But I have to agree with you, it does kinda fit the movie, given it's execution and intentions.


Oh, and I see that everyone is discussing terrorism now. That's fantastic. I guess some people on this forum can't go five minutes without turning any given topic to their political bullshit of choice.

I can't really agree with the idea of the Founding Fathers of the US being interested in personal gain. A quick study of geo politics and the mercantile system would soon reveal that the major reason for the Revolution, at least with the working classes was that New England (land of the Boston massacre, Boston Tea Party) is notoriously bad for farming which was the major way to make money if you're Joe Blow so they had to manufacture products which competed directly with Britain. Obviously, Britain didn't really like the competition, especially from one of its own colonies which are only supposed to provide food and raw materials, which the Southern and Mid Atlantic colonies at the time did quite well. The taxes stemmed from this (to prevent competition from New England Industry) and the cost of the French and Indian War (which Britain felt the colonists weren't bearing sufficiently). Men like Jefferson and Washington were already wealthy from selling agricultural goods domestically and abroad, mainly to Britain for what was at the time good money. If they revolted and lost they would be hanged, not recieve a 'stern' letter from the U.N. 17 times, no inspector at the door asking nicely to look for muskets and gunpowder, hanged. So the choice would be, not to pay taxes and possibly be executed (a good possibility at that) or pay taxes and continue in the same trade that had made them wealthy. Not for nothing, but which would you choose if you were interested only in personal gain. 300 is a movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aecp

Oh, and I see that everyone is discussing terrorism now. That's fantastic. I guess some people on this forum can't go five minutes without turning any given topic to their political bullshit of choice.

---

Explanation please? Maybe I'm just new but I don't see any one talking about stuff like this in anyother thread. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

300 is a movie.

---

Can we stop reading such comments please? Nobody argued it is a donut, we are just analysing the movie (and the comic), for crying out loud. There is such a thing as literary analysis and it is applied to works of art where speech and imagery is prominent you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesus_saves

Explanation please? Maybe I'm just new but I don't see any one talking about stuff like this in anyother thread. :dizzy2:

---

Almost every 300 thread and quite a few others have at times been derailed into debates which have nothing to do with the original topic. Some people seem to want to feel persecuted and see conspiracies against themselves, their nation or heritage everywhere. Of course this thread might be an exception, since it's intent was discussion of the political ramifications of 300. But I still can't see what that has to do with terrorism.

Well, I'd really like to do an 'analysis' of the movie too. Most of what I've seen however is 'the West is corrupt and imperialist' then 'no, the East is a bunch of terrorists'. The only 'critical analysis' I've seen is discussing the 'deep political ramifications' of a fictional movie based on a battle fought closed to 2500 years ago. I hate groupthink, I don't mind opinions but there seems to be alot of blanket statements made and I as a U.S. citizen, a U.S. Sailor, and a guy that happens to like a stupid movie, do not like being labeled as a drooling mongoloid just because I don't believe my country to be the 'Great Satan' that it seems so hip to characterize it as these days. So to all Europeans I say this, thank you for being the cradle of my culture. To Easterners including Iranians and Iraqis, thank you for being the cradle of civilization. To my fellow Americans, if you love this country, work to make her better (come up with a better plan because we can always improve). To those who simply disagree with the current or past situations, work to make her better (see previous). If you truly hate the U.S., then leave or just stay away. Don't murder our people, hack our databases, or consider it your sworn solemn duty to wipe us off the Earth because we really look down on that. Now, can everyone be friends? I personally liked 300 because it played on themes that I think are the nobler parts of the human spirit like courage honor and freedom (it's just a movie) the old good guy vs. bad guy theme. I know that the Persians were overdone on the bad and the Spartans overdone on the good, but I still liked it. Opposing thoughts?

Personally I didn't pass judgement on the US, Iran or any country, neither do I care to; my comments are focused on showing why and how the movie is propagandistic, as some people obviously managed to miss it, no matter how in-your-face everything is shown in it.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

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

---

Exploitation denominates such a large number of things. Perhaps you could be more specific. Do you mean child labour? Do you mean putting trade restrictions on exports from developing countries, whilst you maintain free trade when exporting your own products to those self-same countries?

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Exploitation denominates such a large number of things. Perhaps you could be more specific. Do you mean child labour? Do you mean putting trade restrictions on exports from developing countries, whilst you maintain free trade when exporting your own products to those self-same countries?

Foot

---

pff ya!:laugh4:

if it was my country, sure. But not when its the handful of CEOs and coporate moguls who are really running the show for global empire.

"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?"

what the hell is an easterner?? where is that east west line drawn? Why is it that greek civ is called western civ? is that a way for northern europeans to feel "Ancient"? let me tell you guys something greece is not Norway or England or germany. Greece is (metaphoracly speaking) Persia ( about 30 percent of modern Iran) Serbia, Armenia, Southern Italy.

Why is it that in northern euro people try to divide the world using Greece as the dividing line? Greek culture is more like what you guys call "eastern" then it is "western" aka northern euro

Syntax error. Does not compute.

In other words, "wut ?" :inquisitive:

first part was a qoute by Cossack

I am aware of that. It's the rest that leaves me puzzled.

well Greek civilization is concidered western civilization right? I want to ask what qualifies it as western civilization, or what is "western"civilization? is it the democracy ( more like an oligarchy) of Ancient Athens? it is from this notion that people get the ideas of "eastern" and "western" If by eastern one thinks of Arabs, camels, desert then no Greek is not "eastern" nor is Persia. Greeks are culturaly closer to Persians, Armenians then they are say England.

Re: West-East

The West-East juxtaposition is associated in modern perception, as I said in a previous post with a) Democracy vs Autocratic rule (more specifically by a divine king). The fact that Athens wasn't a parliamentary democracy with a all residents allowed to vote doesn't mean it was an oligarchy btw. b) Rationalism vs Mysticism, c) (less important) living on Europe vs living in Asia (which has been geographically defined like this from ancient times).

P.S. btw, the Greek government today is hardly hostile towards the U.S. The average Joe (or "Babis", the Greek equivalent of "Joe" :P) on the street is usually contemptuous of the U.S. of A. for many reasons, not worth enumerating here.

P.S.S. It is funny this is brought up here since it has been a matter of controversy in Greece in modern times, the question "Where do we belong (i.e. East or West)?" asked on both political and cultural grounds.

well the military of anceint persia/parthia with empaphasis on heavy cav, and the feudalistic government is closer to medival northern and northwestern euro than the greek system isnt it?

Well in modern times Iran being an islamic country there is a big diffrence but in ancient times greeks and Persians were very similar especialy in phenotype.

This whole thing is about perceptions, not elusive facts. The British for example have seriously considered Greece and Rome the basis of their cultural heritage (just look at the Albert Memorial monument in London) up to Victorian times at least. It is no wonder these attitudes persist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

what the hell is an easterner?? where is that east west line drawn? Why is it that greek civ is called western civ? is that a way for northern europeans to feel "Ancient"? let me tell you guys something greece is not Norway or England or germany. Greece is (metaphoracly speaking) Persia ( about 30 percent of modern Iran) Serbia, Armenia, Southern Italy.

Why is it that in northern euro people try to divide the world using Greece as the dividing line? Greek culture is more like what you guys call "eastern" then it is "western" aka northern euro

---

IMO that distinction existed long before "northern euro" had any chance of dividing much of anything. Perhaps not as much as "east vs. west" as Europe vs. Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herodotos

So far it was a matter of mere seizure on both sides. But after this (the Persians say), the Greeks were very much to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe./.../We of Asia did not deign to notice the seizure of our women; but the Greeks, for the sake of a Lacedaemonian woman, recruited a great armada, came to Asia, and destroyed the power of Priam. Ever since then we have regarded Greeks as our enemies.” For the Persians claim Asia for their own, and the foreign peoples that inhabit it; Europe and the Greek people they consider to be separate from them.

---

So unless Herodotos is completely off the mark, the Greeks considered themselves European and the Persians Asian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

Greece is (metaphoracly speaking) Persia ( about 30 percent of modern Iran) Serbia, Armenia, Southern Italy.

---

What?

Quote:

---

well the military of anceint persia/parthia with empaphasis on heavy cav, and the feudalistic government is closer to medival northern and northwestern euro than the greek system isnt it?

---

Uh, I guess, if you don't mind using an utterly arbitrary example. But why? Is medieval times somehow more defining of "north euro" than any other? Instead, why not mention the Renaissance, which actually explains to a certain extent the feeling of kinship that western Europe perceives with ancient Greece? Or mabye the fact that focus on heavy infantry in close formation was prevalent in certain parts of Europe both before and after heavy cavalry became dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

well the military of anceint persia/parthia with empaphasis on heavy cav, and the feudalistic government is closer to medival northern and northwestern euro than the greek system isnt it?

---

What ? That's baloney. Emphasis on cavalry comes primarily from geographical and ecological factors, mainly if a region is suited for horse-breeding and cavalry warfare. Feudal structures conversely are a "quick and dirty" method of regional control and defense, usually centering around heavy cavalry drawn from the local landed aristocracy which owns or adminsters estates to support its military function and receives various benefits and privileges in return. This is mainly because heavy cavalry was the only troop type whose sheer expense in most contexts necessitated such complicated and often troublesome systems.

Europe north of the Med and west of around Poland and Hungary was never really good "horse country" - proof of the pudding being the utter inability of steppe nomads to make inroads therein without first settling down. The Medieval feudal system came into being as a response to the inability of the crumbling post-Carolingian central adminstrations to respond effectively to a slew of fast-moving "foreign" raiders (mainly the Moors, Vikings and Hungarians), and the staggering costs warhorses commanded and the ultimately somewhat ephemeral military dominance of the feudal chivalry tells certain things how much of an emergency measure that developement actually was.

Regions like Fennoscandia, sparsely populated, thickly forested and very poor country for both horse breeding and cavalry action, conversely never underwent the feudalization process to nearly the same degree as the comparatively open lands to the south; instead they relied chiefly on infantry levies not too much different from the old Viking fyrds, with the few knights often tending to act more as elite mounted infantry.

And it's hardly a coincidence that quite "direct democratic" political systems were the norm in the cold forests of the north, where horses were sparse, just as they weren't entirely unusual in the rugged Hellas - where conversely the political structures closest resembling Medieval feudalism not coincidentially were to be found in Thessaly and Macedonia, both pockets of "horse country"...

Originally Posted by artavazd
Greece is (metaphoracly speaking) Persia ( about 30 percent of modern Iran) Serbia, Armenia, Southern Italy.


What?


Im talking about cultural similarities


What makes nations such as America, France, England, The Scandanavian naitons (Western Nations) "modern" is not democracy, but the bill of rights in the case of America, and its diffrent forms in western europe. Ancient Persia was a very tolerant empire which emphasized fundemental rights that people had. To Greeks every one else was a barbarian and should be Hellenized.

p.s. I am not Persian. Im Armenian. I feel no connections with modern Iran. In Armenia we also refer to "east" and "west" but the notion there has to do with islam. When we talk about eastern culture we generaly refer to Islam and arabic culture. I can see how in a way modern iran will be in that catagory, but ancient Iranians would certanily be catagorized in the "western" catagory

I'm getting that sneaking suspicion that we're both talking, but it's not meeting in the middle.

I'm also getting that old "WTF?" feeling, mind you.

Quote:

---

To Greeks every one else was a barbarian and should be Hellenized.

---

Where did you get that from?:inquisitive:

And "barbarian" is not necessarily an insult, it is used to refer to someone who doesn't speak Greek, because foreign languages being unintelligible sounded like "barbarbarbar", i.e. gibberish. If one is not a Greek speaker, one is a barbarian (to a Greek) as a matter of fact, not opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

What makes nations such as America, France, England, The Scandanavian naitons (Western Nations) "modern" is not democracy, but the bill of rights in the case of America, and its diffrent forms in western europe.

---

What ?

Quote:

---

Ancient Persia was a very tolerant empire which emphasized fundemental rights that people had.

---

In the case you didn't know, not messing with the peculiar local practices of assorted diverse fuzzy-wuzzies you've ended up as the overlord of was the norm for all big multi-ethnic "old school" empires. Lasted until the appereance of nationalism in the 1800s; the amount of grief for example the Russian and Ottoman Empires created for themselves after having been bitten by the nationalist bug, and their eventual fates, tells volumes of why the "old school" approach had been so universally observed.

It should be noted, however, that "old school" empires usually didn't give a rat's ass about treating everyone equally. Quite the contrary; they tended to devise highly complicated sets of rules, laws and privileges for different groups, communities etc. whose main point was ensuring those could go on coexisting reasonably peacefully, didn't cause trouble, and could contribute to the benefit of the realm and its rulers.

Quote:

---

To Greeks every one else was a barbarian and should be Hellenized.

---

Bollocks. The Ptolemies and Seleucids and Bactrians and whoever wouldn't have lasted two months ruling over diverse, large, and often frighteningly self-confident and ancient populaces with "panhellenist" attitudes like that. The Seleucids brilliantly managed to saddle themselves with major revolts when they tried to pull that crap on the Jews in their twilight years - a classic case of grasping for straws in the form of "traditional values" in the face of endless crisis you can't cope with, I'd guess.

Quote:

---

p.s. I am not Persian. Im Armenian. I feel no connections with modern Iran. In Armenia we also refer to "east" and "west" but the notion there has to do with islam. When we talk about eastern culture we generaly refer to Islam and arabic culture. I can see how in a way modern iran will be in that catagory, but ancient Iranians would certanily be catagorized in the "western" catagory

---

Fascinating. Your point ?

An easterner is somebody from the mid east and asia.:2thumbsup:

How do Russians count ?

I thought 'easterners' were from the United State's Atlantic sea board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

How do Russians count ?

---

* a BIG shrug

A european west of the Ural, an asian east of the Ural.

Now however's that distinction tenable ? Both are citizens of the same state, go through the same education system etc. after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

How do Russians count ?

---

That's easy to answer. Russia was not yet invented in the classical era, so it's neither west nor east.:2thumbsup:

I'm disappointed. That wording was totally asking for it, and nobody's done a tsukkomi yet... :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I'm disappointed. That wording was totally asking for it, and nobody's done a tsukkomi yet... :shame:

---

What do you mean my qoute?

Comon race is by country? yeah right...:laugh4: :clown: :2thumbsup:

Nah. "How do Russians count ?" That's just begging for smartass answers like "with their fingers"...

Race ? What race ? Chariots ?

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!

---

Ah Ha ha ha! Did you look at the related Videos?

IRAN'S GOING TO CURE AIDS IN MAY 2007!

A word of Advice;When trying to make counter propaganda it's best not to come
up with lies more ridiculous than the Original :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Nah. "How do Russians count ?" That's just begging for smartass answers like "with their fingers"...

Race ? What race ? Chariots ?

---

Yeah lets make a race!
In the mean while (you know what I mean!) I cant bother you while you're trying to make "jokes"!!:clown: :clown: :laugh4:

No, seriously. What's "race" got to do with anything here ? :inquisitive:

Did everyone just start posting in Bartixian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

No, seriously. What's "race" got to do with anything here ? :inquisitive:

---

Ok, ok. It aaaallll started when artavazd asked "What the hell is an easterner??"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

Did everyone just start posting in Bartixian?

---

If that's the case than we have to destroy the thread before the infection spreads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Ok, ok. It aaaallll started when artavazd asked "What the hell is an easterner??"

---

The Hell does that have to do with "race" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The Hell does that have to do with "race" ?

---

Plz Watchman read from where I pointed, to now. (except for your post mine had nothin to do with that)

:book:
:book:
:inquisitive:
...the heck you talkin' about ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:book:
:book:
:inquisitive:
...the heck you talkin' about ?

---

U said wat about tha russians, I pointed out the mountains bla blah.

U said they're tha same country and I said their race doesnt matter (east asia west euro).

But dont change the subject, argue how they they are related (How russia has to be one race...)

:shocked2:
...maybe it's just because I haven't slept a wink in the past 24 hours or so, but what the hell are you talking about ?

watchman you have a hard time understaning what people are posting. You put down stupid sarcastic remarks such as huh? wat? Do I not speak English well? I think you need some sleep to get your senses back.

I qoute you watchman

"That's easy to answer. Russia was not yet invented in the classical era, so it's neither west nor east."

So I ask you what is Sweden? what is England What is Finland? What is Kazakhastan??? neither of these were "invented" in the classical era either.


You guys are missing my point. All I am saying is Greeks and Ancient Persians had more things in common than do Greeks with northern and northwestern europe. The bitter notion of east and west is created by western Europe. After the Arab invasion of the middle east and near east. Now Greeks and Arabs will not have much in common, but again im saying persians and greeks do. When one thinks of east and west today they think of arabs and muslims and deserts. People have to realize that the entire near east was inhabited by indo-european peoples before these demographic changes occured. The only remenents of the original indo-european peope will be the Armenians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

Did everyone just start posting in Bartixian?

---

The way I see it they've lost their minds trying to count Ze Russians.
And that missing Khelvan is also somehow involved, i suppose.

Please, don't lock this tread =).

kak diela minime :shakehands: