My ancestors were Gaelic and Norse, my problem with 300 is just the historical inaccuracy. The comic and movie portrays them as a "free" society vs a Persian slave army. A more accurate portrayal would have the slave owning eugenicist pedophiles of Sparta (not uncommon among Greek city states of the time by any means) facing a multi-cultural mixture of mostly paid soldiers fighting for the Achaemenid dynasty that allowed a lot of local autonomy in conquered areas and civilized and provided infrastructure for a large territory while the Greeks were basically just fighting amongst themselves for the most part. I dislike Sparta mainly because I was born with a deformed foot, had I been born a Spartan I'd have been euthanized at birth. Under the Achaemenid dynasty I'd have been allowed to live... kinda makes it hard for me to see them as the bad guys.Samtemdo8 said:Clearly your ancestors must have been Athenians if you hate the Spartans and their movie so much lolKyrian007 said:
SPARTANS, TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!!! (AC: Odyssey has 300)
- Thread starter Samtemdo8_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, but they be white and Persians be not white. All that matters innit?Kyrian007 said:
This escalated rather quickly.
That seems to be the basis for a lot of laconophilia in media over the years. Heck, I'd have guessed more entertainment media would have portrayed the Spartans as villains because of their opposition to Athens in the Peloponnesian war, but yes hand them some more "ethnic" adversaries for stories instead of focusing on the "white on white" violence and bam... you get yourself a blockbuster.Adam Jensen said:
Well in the end the "Greeks" would be conquered by the "Persians" in the form of the Ottoman Turks conquest of the Byzantine Empire.Kyrian007 said:My ancestors were Gaelic and Norse, my problem with 300 is just the historical inaccuracy. The comic and movie portrays them as a "free" society vs a Persian slave army. A more accurate portrayal would have the slave owning eugenicist pedophiles of Sparta (not uncommon among Greek city states of the time by any means) facing a multi-cultural mixture of mostly paid soldiers fighting for the Achaemenid dynasty that allowed a lot of local autonomy in conquered areas and civilized and provided infrastructure for a large territory while the Greeks were basically just fighting amongst themselves for the most part. I dislike Sparta mainly because I was born with a deformed foot, had I been born a Spartan I'd have been euthanized at birth. Under the Achaemenid dynasty I'd have been allowed to live... kinda makes it hard for me to see them as the bad guys.Samtemdo8 said:Clearly your ancestors must have been Athenians if you hate the Spartans and their movie so much lolKyrian007 said:
But yes reading this book I own the Greeks are portrayed as increadibly arrogant compared to the Persians.
Interestingly enough there has been 3 portrayals of major Greek Wars in Movies so far:Kyrian007 said:
The Trojan War in Troy 2004
The Greco-Pesian War in 300.
And the Wars of Alexander the Great in Alexander 2004.
No movie about the Peloponnesian War however, and that war is deemed to be the reason Greece declined as a Great Civilization until the Macedonians revitilized them.
While I'd agree that a pike phalanx would have an even better chance, the key word being 'hoplite', once given a pike, he ceases to be a hoplite and becomes a pezoi (contextual use of the word, not literal). Still, the problem is that pikemen emphasise both strength and weakness of the hoplite: indomitable from the front; inflexible in battlefield manoeuvres; weak to missiles (more so because of a smaller shield); etc. etc. My tendency is to consider the hoplite better because only really one strength is increased. That said, command structures that gave rise to pike phalanxes were way better so cultural speaking, hoplites would need a lot of training to take advantage of any potential lochos/pentekostys level tactical superiority.Chimpzy said:
Artistic cherry picking is hardly unique to Sparta, though I do agree with your position.Kyrian007 said:
Pretty much everything about Spartan society would be considered morally reprehensible (or just plain dumb) by modern standards, whether it's the standard by which Homoioi were held (is it any wonder that post-Plataea, their numbers never increased?), the stupid number of social strata and the gulf between the Homoioi and pretty much everyone else, treatment of helots (I mean, they genuinely had a 'kill a slave holiday'), the intentional killing of deformed newborns as you mention (to them, since they basically threw them off a cliff it was a matter of 'the will of the gods' concerning survival), their military training (even contemplate anything remotely resembling the agoge, there'd be civil unrest at the first suggestion of it), Carneia banning military action, and literally everything about the krypteia. And let's not forget that Gorgo was Leonidas half-niece...
The problem is that in the eyes of the casual viewer, the sole formal martial tradition, being a duarchy, bizarrely progressive views towards the role of women in society and the quaint legend of heroism of an outnumbered band fighting to the death while quipping is enough to make people overlook (whether in being willfully ignorant, or just ordinarily ignorant) all their myriad faults. Things could have been vastly different. Had Ephialtes not blabbed to the Persians, the Greeks would have held out long enough for the Persians to go hungry and need to bugger off for a few months, and the Battle of Thermopylae would be nothing more than a footnote in the general campaign of a modest Greek force that so happened to have a dinky contingent of Spartans. I mean, what popular medium is actually willing to concede that the Lacedaemonian contribution to the combat troops was only about a fifth of the total force and that the King led more than just Spartiates (worse, who actually knows, without looking it up, the name of Leonidas' co-king and his contribution to the war?)? It doesn't take much of an internet search to figure out that even the most conservative estimates place the allied Greek force at 4000+ (7000-ish being the accepted number). Besides, most military analysts dub Thermopylae an unmitigated disaster as it made Themistocles' position at Artemisium untenable, except that Themistocles actually had a contingency.
But it is what the battle represents that makes people like it. It drips with symbolism so much, it knows it can get away with whatever nationalist or racist undertones representations of it may convey. As told by Dilios, 300 is the perfect story for whipping up patriotic fervour and hatred for the foreign invader and their subsequent wholesale slaughter.
Besides, who would want to watch a film about Athens? They have no story or legend that people at large have a hankering to tell or be told, merely a succession of poets and philosophers, it'd be like the ancient equivalent of Copenhagen. By comparison to land warfare, their famous shtick of naval warfare had no sophistication in that time (based on what we know) that can be easily conveyed in a realistic manner to consumers of pop culture, and it just doesn't smack of 'manliness' in the way that Spartan hoplites do (not a defence, BTW). Further, this is reinforced by the contrast of Attic vs Laconic wit. Virtually no-one appreciates Attic wit (whether ancient or modern) these days because of how it is deemed pretentious, socially elitist and literarily imprenetrable (at least by casual readers). Laconic wit is easily appreciated and again hearkens to traditional 'manliness'. Why talk a man to death when you can more easily laugh and stab him through the neck? *shrug*
Not sure if you've read the Lion of Macedon books by David Gemmell (fictionalised life of Parmenio
(*blech*), then fictionalised life of Alexander the Great unsurprisingly with a title like that), but it does paint the Spartans in a more negative light than is generally found in media. One idea for a film could be the struggle between tyranny & democracy (the Boeotarchs post-Peloponnesian Wars, the build up and climax at Leuctra). That makes for a good story with applicable modern themes, but whether anyone would actually want to see that or not...?Funny you mention that, all of those films are (circuitously and otherwise) based on older films of similar names...Samtemdo8 said:
I think the reason the Peloponnesian War doesn't have any popular media based on it is because of how 'dry' it is. There's no 'story' behind it, much less a romantic story. Sort of like (obvious reasons notwithstanding) why no-one is going to see anything based on the Wars of Unification (German, that is) (1864 notwithstanding). As you mention, the war rendered the Greece a barbarian landscape for longer than they'd be comfortable admitting.
Just one quick correction.
I'd possibly go so far as progressive views towards about 1/5th of the women in their society, the ones that weren't slaves at any rate. And I'd watch a film about Athens. About poets and philosophers being pretentious and socially elitist. A show about people being pretentious and socially elitist? In a way you're kind of describing M*A*S*H... and that was brilliant. It would be a much better world if we all enjoyed such things more than violence. And I'M saying that... yes, a video game enthusiast. A guy who just this morning laughed for about 5 minutes straight because while playing Fallout 4 I shot a raider in a bar and his eyeball landed in an ash tray next to his lit cigarette.SckizoBoy said:
Good point... though I'd probably readjust that fraction (likely much lower), since the wives/mothers of Homoioi as a proportion of adult women resident in Lacaedamon was probably very low compared to helots, freedmen and Perioeci (more so when combined)...Kyrian007 said:
See, I'd totally dig a comedy-drama about a failing theatre production (New Comedies going stale or something) and plot being driven by scepticism about innovations of poetry/music/technology... 'cos a lot of western pop culture owes its existence and history to Greek theatre (and language, at that).
Yes and no.Samtemdo8 said:
The when you look at the Spartans, you are looking at elite soldiers. Compare such soldiers to dismounted knights in full plate and the Spartans don't look so great.
The best infantry of the medieval period, Swiss mercenaries, are not the subject of many popular movies and games the way Spartans/Romans are.
As far as I can google, the muscle cuirass seen in your screenshot was issued to Roman officers but not rank and file. They mostly had lorica segmentata or lorica hamata (mail). Eventually the Romans dropped the lorica segmentata in favor of mail.
In general, technology and tactics are developed to defeat existing technology and tactics. Even if the armor doesn't look as cool it is probably better.
OTOH
The invention of the stirrup made cavalry more viable in medieval times than it was in antiquity. This meant more wealthy men choosing to fight on horseback and fewer fighting on foot. So there were fewer infantry with good equipment.
Armies tended to exclude the poor in ancient times, because there was no pay and you had to support yourself. Under the feudal system, peasants could be conscripted. So there were more infantry with poor equipment.
The ideal weapon would be the pike. Alexander the Great used them to great effect, and his pike-armed phalanxes could easily stop such cavalry - if they attacked from the front. Unfortunately, cavalry are pretty good at going around and attacking from the sides or rear. It all depends on how well the cavalry manoeuvres and how well the pikemen are protected and managed.Samtemdo8 said:
Spears are not a good weapon, but well trained troops such as Spartans could possibly knock knights off their horses. It would be pretty messy though and I wouldn't rate their chances highly.
The Romans used caltrops against cavalry. If they scouted them, they would throw them on the ground and take out most of the horses
The more serious problem is that the knights could dismount and attack on foot. They would be very difficult to kill by infantry, even Romans.
I totally agree the movie is awful history. I still love it despite that. Mostly because I view it as essentially a Spartan Propaganda film. I have little doubt if the Spartans had made films, their depiction of Thermopyle would look something like 300, where everyone else was a loser or flat out evil while they were the pure, strong ones, the only manly men in Greece. The fact the imagery is straight up fantasy in a lot of places cements this("And the Persians had WIZARDS! AND WAR RHINOS! AND THEIR KING WAS COVERED IN GOLD!")Kyrian007 said:My ancestors were Gaelic and Norse, my problem with 300 is just the historical inaccuracy. The comic and movie portrays them as a "free" society vs a Persian slave army. A more accurate portrayal would have the slave owning eugenicist pedophiles of Sparta (not uncommon among Greek city states of the time by any means) facing a multi-cultural mixture of mostly paid soldiers fighting for the Achaemenid dynasty that allowed a lot of local autonomy in conquered areas and civilized and provided infrastructure for a large territory while the Greeks were basically just fighting amongst themselves for the most part. I dislike Sparta mainly because I was born with a deformed foot, had I been born a Spartan I'd have been euthanized at birth. Under the Achaemenid dynasty I'd have been allowed to live... kinda makes it hard for me to see them as the bad guys.Samtemdo8 said:Clearly your ancestors must have been Athenians if you hate the Spartans and their movie so much lolKyrian007 said:
It's even acknowledged somewhat in universe, where at the end pretty much everything shown and heard(even things he couldn't have possibly witnessed...like them all getting killed) is told by one of the Spartans just before another battle.
So its pretty much confirmed, this game is going full on fantasy.
Medusas, Cyclops, and Minotaurs and magical weapons.
This kinda makes me wish God of War still took place in Ancient Greece...
Medusas, Cyclops, and Minotaurs and magical weapons.
This kinda makes me wish God of War still took place in Ancient Greece...
Didn't Origins have bits where you could fight the Egyption Gods in full on huge boss battles?Samtemdo8 said:
Hell, didn't AC3 had a DLC where COnner had magical Native American Powers so he could fight King Washington wielding a Laser Staff in a golden Pyramid?
This series has been bumping up against fantasy for a while now and it's never taken itself particularly seriously. This really doesn't surprise me.
Well, there was the Curse of the Pharaohs DLC which is canonical, AFAIK, where Bayek went to the afterlife to deal with some shit...Dalisclock said:
That was handwaved as a drug trip, I think. I never played (mostly because of my disdain for ACIII in general).
Eh, we've known for a bit, Ubisoft let quite a few LetsPlayers tease the Gorgon bossfight, and the whole mythology direction that Origins took. Not that I mind, let them embrace it fully... just wish they dropped the AC tag!Samtemdo8 said:
Yeah, Assassin's Creed is pretty much dead to me now. Forget my objections to the depiction of Spartans as anything but the child-molesting eugenicists that they were... I've seen some gameplay now. Area of effect spells, pitched battles, magic weapons? What the hell game is this? I'm not saying its bad, but its clearly not Assassin's Creed anymore. Good lord, Watch Dogs has more claim to being Assassin's Creed than Assassin's Creed does anymore. Even Assassin's Creed 3 had an assassination somewhere in it, Odyssey has way more to it than what I've seen at this point... but nothing so far has led me to believe this is anything more than just the latest gen version of Golden Axe or Gauntlet. Just call this Dynasty Warriors X and let Assassin's Creed finally just die. Its death has lasted about as long as one of Altair's victims in the first game... faaaaarrrrrrrrr to long.
Anyone play this one? I'll admit it looks fun, but Ubisoft...also is there multiplayer? That might be a deal-maker for me if you and a friend can storm Troy together...
If I can hang off a giant stone wang then the game is good enough for me.Silentpony said:
No multiplayer.
Way too early... by about 700-800 years even if MP was included...Silentpony said:
I think the earliest they'd hypothetically go is First Graeco-Persian War, just as a not so subtle dig at Sparta, and have Persian skins, which would be a neat segue.