Tooj 17 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. Have you seen it yet anyways or are you still too busy fighting off the hoardings of the crazy lady from work and the ever so nice lady from Uni? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. But I thought that the Spartans fought off the Persians because they were free men defending their country (as well as being real hard bastards), that's WHY they held them back so long. I think it's aspect of the story that's pretty appealing, rather than one that detracts from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11122 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 watched it on the pc, reckon it'd benefit from the big screen and the sound system there. It was ok, not awful acting, not awful script and not awful plot. Type of film you should watch once and at the cinema imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. They did though, the "Immortals" were like the persian SAS (except in far greater numbers!) and they fought them! Here's the wiki entry for the battle of Thermopylae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 watched it on the pc, reckon it'd benefit from the big screen and the sound system there. It was ok, not awful acting, not awful script and not awful plot. Type of film you should watch once and at the cinema imo. Serves you right then you thieving gyppo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. They did though, the "Immortals" were like the persian SAS (except in far greater numbers!) and they fought them! Here's the wiki entry for the battle of Thermopylae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae The gospel that is Wiki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11122 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I think we're trying to agree with eachother, more than eachother... p.s. Thermopylae happened 20 odd years after Sun Tzu's Art of War was supposed to have been completted. I've always been intrigued as how two men on entirely different sides of the globe can be think so similarly. I'm not going to launch into the psyche of man, just safe to say it interests me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. They did though, the "Immortals" were like the persian SAS (except in far greater numbers!) and they fought them! Here's the wiki entry for the battle of Thermopylae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae The gospel that is Wiki. Yes, it can't be beaten as a source of all knowledge! A lad at work knew somebody who actually put a link to wiki in a piece of work for an Msc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. They did though, the "Immortals" were like the persian SAS (except in far greater numbers!) and they fought them! Here's the wiki entry for the battle of Thermopylae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae The gospel that is Wiki. Yes, it can't be beaten as a source of all knowledge! A lad at work knew somebody who actually put a link to wiki in a piece of work for an Msc! I'd never directly use wikipedia as a reference, but I have followed the reference links at the bottom of articles (often from authorised and well-respected publications) and used them in one of my essays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. They did though, the "Immortals" were like the persian SAS (except in far greater numbers!) and they fought them! Here's the wiki entry for the battle of Thermopylae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae The gospel that is Wiki. Yes, it can't be beaten as a source of all knowledge! A lad at work knew somebody who actually put a link to wiki in a piece of work for an Msc! I'd never directly use wikipedia as a reference, but I have followed the reference links at the bottom of articles (often from authorised and well-respected publications) and used them in one of my essays. Thats one of the things i like about wiki, that even if people will question the voracity of articles within it, you will often find very good links and references which can be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Just got back from seeing 300, I enjoyed it, I thought it was good but not great, the casting of David Wenham has Dilios was lamentable, the bloke has got the most irritating voice and just didn't command any presence or power at all. Gerard Butler was superb but I found his Scottish accent creeping in far too much, if he had been McLeonidas it would have been fine. Like many recent films of this genre you keep getting glimpses of the influence of Gladiator and all that does is serve as a reminder of how much better that film is than any of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.../\......\o/... 0 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 His voice has turned me gay. "What can you do...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Just got back from seeing 300, I enjoyed it, I thought it was good but not great, the casting of David Wenham has Dilios was lamentable, the bloke has got the most irritating voice and just didn't command any presence or power at all. Gerard Butler was superb but I found his Scottish accent creeping in far too much, if he had been McLeonidas it would have been fine. Like many recent films of this genre you keep getting glimpses of the influence of Gladiator and all that does is serve as a reminder of how much better that film is than any of the others. Gladiator benefitting from crap there then cos it was poor itself. To find the best film of the genre you have to go back to Spartacus. Gladiator is a pale imitation of it. And once and for all Joaquin Pheonix cannot act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Just got back from seeing 300, I enjoyed it, I thought it was good but not great, the casting of David Wenham has Dilios was lamentable, the bloke has got the most irritating voice and just didn't command any presence or power at all. Gerard Butler was superb but I found his Scottish accent creeping in far too much, if he had been McLeonidas it would have been fine. Like many recent films of this genre you keep getting glimpses of the influence of Gladiator and all that does is serve as a reminder of how much better that film is than any of the others. Gladiator benefitting from crap there then cos it was poor itself. To find the best film of the genre you have to go back to Spartacus. Gladiator is a pale imitation of it. And once and for all Joaquin Pheonix cannot act. Spartacus - the worst film Kubrick was ever involved with. Ben-Hur was canny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Just got back from seeing 300, I enjoyed it, I thought it was good but not great, the casting of David Wenham has Dilios was lamentable, the bloke has got the most irritating voice and just didn't command any presence or power at all. Gerard Butler was superb but I found his Scottish accent creeping in far too much, if he had been McLeonidas it would have been fine. Like many recent films of this genre you keep getting glimpses of the influence of Gladiator and all that does is serve as a reminder of how much better that film is than any of the others. Gladiator benefitting from crap there then cos it was poor itself. To find the best film of the genre you have to go back to Spartacus. Gladiator is a pale imitation of it. And once and for all Joaquin Pheonix cannot act. Spartacus - the worst film Kubrick was ever involved with. Ben-Hur was canny. Have you heard of eyes wide shut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10556 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. The Persian army at the time was the greatest army on earth (having conquered a huge swathe of the planet) irrespective of it's make-up, therefore I think the feat of holding out for 3 days deserves a raise in the "impressive-ometer needle " IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Just got back from seeing 300, I enjoyed it, I thought it was good but not great, the casting of David Wenham has Dilios was lamentable, the bloke has got the most irritating voice and just didn't command any presence or power at all. Gerard Butler was superb but I found his Scottish accent creeping in far too much, if he had been McLeonidas it would have been fine. Like many recent films of this genre you keep getting glimpses of the influence of Gladiator and all that does is serve as a reminder of how much better that film is than any of the others. Gladiator benefitting from crap there then cos it was poor itself. To find the best film of the genre you have to go back to Spartacus. Gladiator is a pale imitation of it. And once and for all Joaquin Pheonix cannot act. Spartacus - the worst film Kubrick was ever involved with. Ben-Hur was canny. Have you heard of eyes wide shut? Yeah. Never seen it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Just got back from seeing 300, I enjoyed it, I thought it was good but not great, the casting of David Wenham has Dilios was lamentable, the bloke has got the most irritating voice and just didn't command any presence or power at all. Gerard Butler was superb but I found his Scottish accent creeping in far too much, if he had been McLeonidas it would have been fine. Like many recent films of this genre you keep getting glimpses of the influence of Gladiator and all that does is serve as a reminder of how much better that film is than any of the others. Gladiator benefitting from crap there then cos it was poor itself. To find the best film of the genre you have to go back to Spartacus. Gladiator is a pale imitation of it. And once and for all Joaquin Pheonix cannot act. I totally disagree, I think Gladiator is superb, in my opinion the best film for many a year, Spartacus was good in its day but that day is long since gone, and is badly dated in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Gladiator is canny good like. Entertaining stuff and well-made. Some great action and special effects and decent story too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.../\......\o/... 0 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11122 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Just got back from seeing 300, I enjoyed it, I thought it was good but not great, the casting of David Wenham has Dilios was lamentable, the bloke has got the most irritating voice and just didn't command any presence or power at all. Gerard Butler was superb but I found his Scottish accent creeping in far too much, if he had been McLeonidas it would have been fine. Like many recent films of this genre you keep getting glimpses of the influence of Gladiator and all that does is serve as a reminder of how much better that film is than any of the others. Gladiator benefitting from crap there then cos it was poor itself. To find the best film of the genre you have to go back to Spartacus. Gladiator is a pale imitation of it. And once and for all Joaquin Pheonix cannot act. Spartacus - the worst film Kubrick was ever involved with. Ben-Hur was canny. Have you heard of eyes wide shut? Yeah. Never seen it though. worse than an anal relapse tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 There speaks the voice of experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 wasn't the Persian army also made mostly of conscripts, slaves and mercernaries? Where as the Spartans were warriors all, also benefitting from fighting for their country and freedom, instead of fighting from fear and greed. (Or that's what my more historical aware housemate told me ) Isn't that the point? My point being that the feat has it's impressive-ometer needle dampened by the fact that they weren't fighting against the Persian SAS... It's still impressive, but the "facts" detract from the legend. Tbh I don't think you understand how war or armies worked back then (and I don’t think your housemate is very “historically aware” at all ). In the Greek force only the 300 Spartans would be "professional" soldiers if such a thing really existed back then. The rest force the Greek force would be made up of helots (slaves of Sparta – who didn’t really benefit much, even though 1000-2000 of them remained and died with their Spartan masters and Thespians) and most of the rest would be citizen hoplites few if any of which were “professional” soldiers in any modern context, at best they could be likened to a kinda of Territorial Army. So the Greeks were NOT “warriors all” far from it, although the Thespians especially had reason to fight. In comparison the Persian army probably had a contingent of "professional" soldiers (in such as a term can be applied) of at the very least TWICE as many men as the TOTAL number of the Greek force at Thermpolea. As well as many battle hardened mercenaries and veterans from the various provinces of the empire (although a lot couldn’t be used due to the terrain chosen, it was pointless sending elite cavalry in against Greek Phalanxes if you couldn’t flank them for example). The Persian army was hardly an untrained mob, although aspects of it probably were bordering on that (but it’s sheer size left a lot that weren’t) and certainly had a core (bigger than what the combined might of the Greeks would later throw at it) of very “professional” troops, and indeed probably the most feared and respected troops in the “world” at that time. So I don’t think anything can be "taken away" in that context at it simply was NOT a “rabble” against a “professional army”, far, far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Fop = the new HTT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Fop = the new HTT? I just don't like misinformation much. (and it's not like it is my opinion, it's very easy to read up on this from a wide range of sources, and as I've said it is very interesting too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now