The true "300"

[Suraknar]

Really now? I guess you read the wrong article, for Ancient Greek (as opposed to the modern Greek language) was divided into several main dialect groups which had a very different form of pronunciation and even writing. Attic is the one that most Western students learn today, but there were Doric, Aeolic, Thessalian and Northwestern dialects to deal with, as well. All of which had their own subdivisions which were also often very hard to understand for the different speakers.

We are also talking of a period of over twenty-five hundred years ago. Even (a much smaller period of) five hundred years ago, the people that now inhabit the country that is the Netherlands could not understand each other if they crossed a provincial border, and if you go back another three hundred years you'd find instances of people not being able to understand jack of what was being said if they travelled to the next bloody village.

The chance, therefore, that the so-called "Greeks" (a modern term rooted in the 18th-century ideology of nationalism) could understand each other -- even if most of them spoke Doric (some spoke Thessalian) -- was pretty damn small, indeed.

Read the wrong article? Not really, its all part of a life-long study ;)

So let me see where I shall begin... Ahh yes the Dialects.

Your assumption of the Ancient greeks not being able to communicate eachother and then the conjecture of the battle of thermopilae not being as we know it is in itself a logical fallacy.

Yes the greek language is characterised by various dialects as a result of Historical events, and the factors which contributed to its devellopment in to a City State system. You would have a chance of being right if you displaced your assumptions another 3 centuries to the past of the period in question here.

A major factor in what contributed to a system of City States in Greece was the difficult terrain, and lack of communication, indeed various Greeks of various regions had very little contact in the begining with eachother which after a couple of centuries contributed to the vocalic dialectisation of the Language.

Greeks speaking various dialects could actually comprehend one another in various degrees of difficulty which were directly linked to the geographical distance amongst them. meaning that tw dialects of neigboring regions were actually very easy to understand and comprehend by two people each comming from one or the other.

So in essence, your argument may apply here for the Greek Dark Age period or the begining of the classical perriod of Greece, 8th, 7th and with some reserve 6th centuries BC. (We shall not go beyond that period and the differences between Mycenaic Period and Dorian expansion/invasion).

However, by the 5th Century (The period of the Battle of thermopilae) Greek Civilisation had already made tremendeous sociological & cultural evolution, aswell as Greeks had become more cosmopolitan exchanging and being more in contact with one another as well as with other cultures. The greek language became more uniform.

Crucial to this uniformity was also the devellopments in Literature, song and theatrical plays (tragodies).

In the wake of Alexander the Great, all greeks including macedonian greeks spoke the "Koine" Greek, aka Common Greek, Althought some dialects were kept for Literature such as Attic, people spoke Koine amongst them. And Koine Greek is what evolved today to Modern Greek.

Corinth a know city of the Ancient world, only 49 miles from Athens, and a major Trade Center on the 6th Century, spoke a Doric Dialect while Athens, spoke the Attic-Ionic Dialect of greek.

Are you saying that the inhabitants of these two important City-States, Trade and Economic Centers ...could not understand eachother? If you do...good for you, nice opinion...but the Historical fact is agaist you, unless you can provide your own (which I very much doubt).

Simple answer: no.

Less simple answer: no. You see, this entire idea of sacrifice for freedom and all that was an invention of later generations, something pioneered by Herodotus and carried on strongly by the proponents of Hellenism (not to mention future Greek nationalists). It's a propaganda story that you're telling here, friend, something that I just debunked.

This is best Explained by Spino, which I agree with in his own analysis.

However, here is my own reply on the matter, since you accuse me of spreading propaganda, friend.

You see, the intire Idea of Propaganda, is a modern 20th Century Invention. While the terminology dates back to the 16th-17th century in the Catholic Church, the meaning of the term changed during the 20th century.

Knowing this fact, renders your whole argument about Herodotus trying to propagate nationalistic messages through his work, virtually moot. :P

I am a studdent of Human History, promoting propaganda goes against all the principles that render History a science in itself.

Here we have a fellow forumer that posts a thread asking to know more facts about what he saw in a movie, and here we have you Sir, jumping in Propagating the message that its all false and propaganda instead of helping the OP find his answers. And on top of it, debate the intervention in response to your own propagandist actions.

Inspiring, honorable, glorious, dulce et decorum est etc., etc., yada yada... but all values superimposed upon the event by centuries upon centuries of misinformation and propaganda, all based on that one piece of work delivered by our good friend Herodotus.

You seem to be very biassed against Herodotus, but again, your statements are just that, biassed propaganda, unless you can put forth valid sources and basis of your accusations. Your statements are what is actually Propaganda.

Thermopylae was an act of Spartan honor (e tan epi tas and all that) and Thespian bravery... and general stupidity. A small rear guard action that didn't effect anything in the long term.

Thermopylae was a willing sacrifice in an attempt to boost morale and incite Unity. It succeeded at that 100 fold. if you fail to recognise this, I must question your capacity to evaluate information and rationalise a conclusion friend.

This is meaningful to the debate in what way?

This is very meaningfull in order to establish context and a basis upon which to refute your accusation of propaganda. Propaganda not only was not a possible Idea back then (as we saw above), but even if it were, it could not have been as effective as it is today.

Since propaganda does nothing but appeal to the uninformed minds.

Of course... Herodotus was extremely well-informed -- one hundred years later, without any kind of way (not to forget motivation!) to carry out empirical research of any kind.

Spino replyed to this one very well. I need not add anything else except that you are again using modern terminology and methodology to discredit the work of a person more than 2000 years ago. How empirical is that of you?

Herodotus may have been the world's first real historian (or at least the West's) but the science which all of us hold such an interest in has, with him, a very, very crappy, sensationalist, and blatantly ignorant base which is rooted, basically, in hearsay. He was no Thucydides, friends. Amongst the ranks of the already rather hard-to-trust ancient historians (certainly when compared to the modern science), Herodotus is one of the worst when it comes to accuracy. His way of describing Persian warfare alone is enough proof -- not to mention the enormous volume in information of how he incorrectly described wars, foreign practices, and other cultures.

Again, your bias of herodotus...

If you have proof of the validity of all that which you say is propaganda, tangible verifiable and credible proof please come forth with it. If not what we are left with is the facts and the facts come from those that wrote them and we uncovered.

Now if you wish to express your own personal opinions on a certain subject, please take care of specifying to the one seeking answers that these are indeed your own conclusions and opinions, and dont present them in an assertive manner which missinforms rather than informs.

In all due respect your original reply is what is Propaganda.

As for your various and unfounded accusations of the reason Herodotus chose to bring forth Historical facts of his world and time. Have you considered the context before comming to these conclusions?

herodotus was from Halicarnassus, his work is written in Ancient Doric, not the Attic-Ionic that was spoken in his City State.

Have you ever wondered why?

Have you even considered the possibility that he may have tryed to appeal not only to the warring Spartans and Athenians but also to his fellow Halicarnassians since, they, during the Persian Wars were sided with persia and not the Greeks?

Have you considered the possibility that he may have simply wanted to appeal to them by conveying a simple message?

"here we are bowing to persia when across the sea, other greeks are ready to give their lives and the life of their king to preserve greek autonomy"

I am guessing not, but it is ok. You have the right to your opinion and your analysis, as much as I have to my own, which I just stated above about Herodotus. let us debate plausibility now.

What is missing from your assertions is context friend, and that can be very detrimental in any serious studdy of history.

[The Wizard]

Greeks speaking various dialects could actually comprehend one another in various degrees of difficulty which were directly linked to the geographical distance amongst them. meaning that tw dialects of neigboring regions were actually very easy to understand and comprehend by two people each comming from one or the other.

My friend, my friend, my friend... you are speaking of intellectuals here -- the extremely limited minority of Hellenics (i.e. ancient Greeks) who were familiar with the advances that ancient Greece made, often held as widespread throughout the territory in mainstream history (that is: "300" history). Your typical Greek -- that is, the people who fought at Thermopylae -- had barely an inkling, if one at all, of what philosophy, architecture, surgery or whatever else the ancient Greeks produced that Rome improved, was.

I am a studdent of Human History, promoting propaganda goes against all the principles that render History a science in itself.

You have read my post, yes? Then I am sure you have read the part where I distinguish between modern historiography and pre-modern historiography, I assume?

Because it seems, reading your post, that you have not. Herodotus was the West's first historian, friend (if not the world's), and he was not bound in any kind of way, form, or shape, to the tenets of objectivity, empirical research and scientific justification.

You seem to like Herodotus. Let me tell you why the man is not to be trusted when it comes to trying to reconstruct the actual happenings of an event (say, around the time of the Greco-Persian Wars).

You (and others) all view this from a Greek point of view. Have you ever viewed this from a Persian (that is to say Iranian, to be correct) point of view? Have you ever wondered if Herodotus' writings on Achaemenid Iran were correct? Have you ever pondered the possibility that Herodotus really knew nothing substantial on the matter and was viewing things from the typically biased Greek side of things, that saw the Iranians ("Persians") as dirty savages, so-called "barbarians"?

Apparently you haven't.

You see, Herodotus didn't know, nor did he understand, the Iran of that day. He wrote about an empire of slaves, ruled by a tyrant, commandeered by its despot's every whim, in this case to make illicit war upon an innocent grouping of "free" city-states (the notion that Sparta was "free" is of course hilarious) -- and then to fail, of course, despite the supposedly immense difference in numbers.

All of it is a lie.

Achaemenid Iran was a dictatorship. It was a despotate. All of that is true: but in the context of the time that was only natural, for even in the so-called "democracy" of Athens was the city-state ruled, in reality, by a virtual oligarchy which jealously guarded its self-bestowed rights.

In fact, in the context of the time, Achaemenid Iran was an extremely benevolent empire. Countries, tribes, clans, regions and nations (an endless list, "a thousand nations" as Herodotus writes -- one of his few metaphors for truth instead of lie) conquered by Cyrus the Great, his son Cambyses and his relative Darius were allowed to live in peace and abide by their own rules -- not those of Persepolis. This is how the cities of Greek Asia Minor had slaves while, in Iran, people were paid fairly and squarely for their labor.

Meanwhile, the so-called tyranny that was this Achaemenid Empire was in reality a system most akin to the modern idea of a federation. Of course, these are ancient times, and this 'federation' was upheld and enforced by Achaemenid military might, and was based on coercion and not the typical values we, modern people, think of when we think 'federation'. This meant that, indeed, troops and ships (mostly Phoenician, those latter) were provided by Achaemenid 'allies' under pressure and threat of repercussion, but they were not commandeered. A crucial difference.

Of course, the idea that this was an "illicit," "illegal" war against "free" city-states is laughable. A simple case of "national" bias (the modern, ideological term 'national' used here lacking better words): to the Hellenic Herodotus, Iranians were savages, barbaroi, as foreign as can be and therefore as ill-understood as can be. Greek city-states were neither "free", nor can any war in that day and age be called "illegal," without tapping into a substantial pool of bias and prejudice -- from both sides. It depended entirely on who was writing (in our case, all Greeks) what was "legal" and what was "illegal," for instance.

This all adds up to present you the fact that Herodotus did not know the Iran of the Achaemenids. In fact, the man did not even take the time to get to know the entire culture. Realizing that he was writing 2500 years ago, this is completely understandable (the man practically invented Western historiography, so give him a break for his faults while doing so) -- but it does make him a very bad source to rely on for claims as to conduct, numbers, strategy and outcomes, be they Greek or Persian. The man is simply too held down by the constraints of his own time to take as fact.

As for your various and unfounded accusations of the reason Herodotus chose to bring forth Historical facts of his world and time. Have you considered the context before comming to these conclusions?

herodotus was from Halicarnassus, his work is written in Ancient Doric, not the Attic-Ionic that was spoken in his City State.

As you said, friend, and as I explained (saying that the mutual intelligibility of Greek was present only in the extremely limited upper castes of ancient Greek society): Herodotus was a literate member of the intellectual class of ancient Greece (Hellas). He had a marked interest, if not a full-blown political motivation, to unify the members of his class (speaking for all of the Greeks, of course!) against the widespread bloodshed that took place in the Peloponnesian War -- which had just reached another ceasefire.

The man, therefore, needed a unifying element. That element became the Persian empire, the neighboring titan -- and the evil, savage, slave-driven empire which stood as a reminder that "Greece" (non-existant in the fullest at the time) stood for freedom, liberty -- and perhaps even democracy. Thermopylae, after all, Herodotus reminds us on quite numerous occasions, was fought by free men, citizen-soldiers of the Greek states. Not the supposedly conscripted, unfree "slaves" (in Herodotus' completely incorrect treatise on the matter) that manned Xerxes' army.

So, in the end, Thermopylae was not about heroic Greeks standing for their so-called "values" (as if ideology existed at the time) against their exact opposites. It was (mostly -- especially concerning this movie, "300") about the stubborn nature of Spartan honor: a Spartiate simply did not run. E tan epi tas. And every single one of them knew the consequences of choosing the wrong alternative (as the only survivor found out the hard way -- he died at Mantinea, I've read, charging the 'Persians' on his own to save his lost honor). Not about any far-fetched ideas of some mutual Greek ideology -- which, if existant at all, was prevalent only amongst the intellectuals of society... an extremely limited group.

[Incongruous]

I thought that there was small wall in the pass which the Greeks made use of.