EnMasse

[JPG]

[elmateo]

I have seen it. Considering the Spartans were 'heros' and that kicking the messengers into the well was considered a heroic act...

I am not so concerned about the Persia = Iran specifically as in general, that the story is west v. east, Huntington clash of civilizations, with western culture representing bravery, skill, integrity, skill, and reluctant warrior. Where as the east is hording, morally corrupt, and unsophisticated. Just watch as the armies of Xerxes are made up of all the non-white forces of the world: blacks, asians, middle easterners. Further, anyone who is against the militarist culture of fighting the other is corrupt and being bought off.

The audience is very clearly meant to identify with the Greeks and their western values (the Spartans are the epitome of macho-individualist American culture, characters of great moral-integrity who are the only ones to fight the 'other' to save their 'sissy' allies).

Movies are never separated from the cultural climate in which they were created.

[al-Qa'bong]

I still can't believe that nobody's mentioned Burt Lancaster yet...
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[Bacchus]

Ahh just saw him in Judgement in Nuremburg and he was excellent, as was Spencer Tracy, Colonel Klink and Captain Kirk.

Montgomery Clift was a surprise as was Marlene Dietrich and Maximillian Schnell. Magnificient peformances all around.
_________________
I want to be challenged and made to think before speaking, not talked down to and treated as a child.

[ronb]

Go Tell The Spartans. Sure. Great movie.

I suspect that the feller who made 300 has never heard of it. He sounds like an art director in way over his head. A Tony Scott devotee.

[al-Qa'bong]

[edward]

Has any one seen Hard Candy?

[Sibjyn]

[JPG]

[cueball]

I'd say the problem being highlighted here, has far deeper roots than this movie itself, and goes back into the depths of "western" cultural ideology. Even the concept "western" is problematic in this framework and always has been, and the Greeks and their resistance to the Eastern Persians has been employed as an metaphorical symbol of our "westerness," and our Christian values as popularized in western folklore.

It is not simply an accident that the very first thing the British did when the Ottoman Empire was begining to collapse was to recreate a Greek politcal entity in the Agean, which consequently became a geo-political device for British political ambitions in the Agean, and in the Balkans. This even though the greeks themselves had very little notion of themselves as Greeks outside of the Ottoman empire. In point of fact more Greek people lived outside of the Agean peninusla than in it, in Egypt, Trabazon, Smyrna, Lebanon, crimea and Egypt.

The prejudice apparently expressed in this film have far deeper roots than the present day conflict, and sounds like a cultural expression of the very same prejudices entailed in the past politcal conflicts which the present day conflicts stem from.

The reason that people are so enured in this belief in this idea that the Greeks are our cultural and political ancestors is because we have lionized them in our political folklore, even though the Greeks of Thermoplae have little or nothing to do with us. The West versus the East trope, is very old political propoganda, in fact, the Orientalist strain evident in almost every popular retelling of our own popular myths about them.

It does not sound like this movie expresses any new prejudice, but simply recounts the old, of which our present conflicts are an extension.

Its called "orientalism."
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[TS.]

It also involves the myth of the "western way of war." This is the idea that stereotypical "western" armies (small, well disciplined, well armed and well armoured) will always prevail against stereotypical "eastern" armies (large, poorly disciplined, hodgepodge of weapons and armour). Of course this is bullshit. The army of the Sassanid Persians wore impressive armour and fought in well disciplined units. And guess what? The Sassanids considerably destabilized both the Roman and Byzantine empires.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[elmateo]

[cueball]

I modified that scenario using the scenario tool, so that it was more realistic. I got so good at it that I had the romans pumping out Ironclads near the end, even playing at the impossible level. This was not good, so the primary modification I made was decreasing the technology development speed, but I also modified by creating leader units, such as a specializes Ceasar unit, and other mods.

This was a long time ago. I had as much fun moding the scenario as playing it.
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[al-Qa'bong]

[cueball]

Since you mentioned it the armies of Ghengis Khan were small and highly disciplined, at least the Mongol sections were, his assorted "pay by the battle" allies less so.
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[ronb]

[JPG]

Hey, The Patriot wasn't so bad. I was quite amused when he killed all thos redcoats at the beggining with only the help of his sons, and then took out the last one with a hatchet.

Clips from The Patriot. The part I'm talking about is the second clip, starts around the 0:40 or so.

Warning to the faint of heart and queasy of stomach, it's bloody. Bloody good that is. Seriously though, bloody.

And yes, in it you can see the mythical great American warrior that slaughters a heap of enemy. In this one though, the American is the oppressed.
_________________
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away...

[skeptikool]

[Rufus Polson]

I saw Kingdom of Heaven in the theatre. It was decent, but strangely disjointed; it felt as though fair amounts of character development, and some plot, that didn't happen were sort of assumed to have happened. I surmised that someone had done some serious hacking to get it to fit a time frame. I hear the DVD long version is better.

[ronb]

[ronb]

[JPG]

[West Coast Tiger]

Kinky Boots. Great movie based, apparently, on a true story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinky_Boots_%28film%29
_________________
~ Rational ravings from a relative stranger in a troubled paradise. ~

[Sibjyn]

Dan Savage weighs in on "300"

[Bacchus]

[cueball]

It seems that is most interesting about this movie is that it is actually a complete inversion of the actualy events that transpired during the war.

What actuallly happened was that the Greeks were totally overwhellemed by the superior conventional military force of a huge empire that won every single conventional battle in the campaign, including Thermopalae. The Greeks used traditional modes of delay and harrassment typical in asymetrical warfare using their superior local knowledge of the terrain, and of this Thermopalae is a classic example. Except for Salamais, there was no conventional military victories for the Greeks. They got their asses kicked.

Then, they retreated into the hills and began an insurgency, which slowly wore down the over extended empire over time, and the Persian just decided that so many olive trees were just not worth the cost of keeping their occupation army in place, and they left.

It was the Greeks who were the fanatic insirgents, fighting the mighty empire.
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[JPG]

[cueball]

Those are the ones we are "saving" from oppression, don't you get it? The warrior has got to have a prize!
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[al-Qa'bong]

[TS.]

[cueball]

I guess that all depends on how you read it. Because Platea happens, as you say, a year later, after the main invasion force leaves and the Greeks have regroup after a convincing strategic defeat. So this corresponds to the intial invszion period which features mostly Greeks running away, and fighting harrassing actions, against an militarty juggernaught. The Spartans coninue to raid from Peloponesia. When the occupation force is depleted for reasons of over-extension there is a set piece counter attack.

In anycase the overall dimensions of the struggle have the Greeks as the indiginous insurgents fighting an invading empire.
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[cueball]

Asymetric warfare is really just a term for guerilla war. It essentially means fighting using "non conventional means" (conventional being, at the time, set pieces battles in fields) to compensate against the material or technological superiority of the enemy. So Thermopalae takes on the quality of asymetric warfare, by use of highly advantageous position, to inflict casualties way beyond what would have been expected had the Greeks marched into the valley below.

It is also a delaying action, which is part of hit and run strategies, which maximize the attrition factor which is essential to asymetric war. The overall object is to avoid total defeat, not to defeat the enemy.


Clauszewitz talks about positive and negative objects.

Asymetric war is essentially warfare that seeks no "positive object." Positive objects being things such as defeating the enemy army in total, or capturing a capital city, which are aspects of conventional state vs. state wars. Asymertric warfare depends merely on denying the enemy success in achieving their positive objective. In this sense, merely remaining an active, but not necessarily militarily superior force is a sufficient goal, simply by means of denying the enemy success in achieving their positive object.

This is the entire greek strategy from the loss of Athens up until they counter attack a depleted Persian force the next year.

I'll just post the substantial quote I am thinking of, from Clauzewitz, he says it so much better than I:

[Bacchus]

[cueball]

The facts are in the standard material on the subject.

For one thing the whole issue begins under Darius and the Ionian revolt against Persian rule demonstrates that the Greeks were restive under Persian rule thematically during the Greco-Persian wars. But that is merely thematic not empirical evidence in the case of the Xerxes campaign.

But even during the campaign there is open revolt behind the Persian lines in Halkidikí, and fear of being trapped in Greece, with a harrassing Spartan army in Pellopenesia, the Athenians on the Islands, and no land route out through Thrace, is primary factor in the decision to remove the main body of the Persian army out of Greece, I sumise. What if Thermopalae happend but with the Greeks across the Persian line of supply? Its a scenario with disasterous implications for the whole Persian Empire, especially if the the entire Persian army is there. Nor are these spurious counter factual "theoreticals," since this is what more or less happened in the culminating phase of the Persian retreat after Palatea. Whatever its effect, they did revolt, and the revolt had a powerful impact on the Xerxes's campaign in general, as parts of the Persian army were detained besieging the revolting cities in Thrace, and he was forced to cease his mopping up operations against the Athenians.

I don't think that one can argue against the inference that in the case of their being temporarily succesful (Fallujah-like) open revolts of Greek cities that such things occured certainly against a backdrop of low level acts of insurection and non-co-operation.

The fact that the aysymetircal phase of the conflict is concluded in a set piece battle (wherein the substantially reduced -- in fact merely a section of the Persian main force remaining in Greece -- enemy is then defeated in detail,) notwithstanding, as it is the case that most guerilla campaigns end such. The Chinese Communist war in 1949 culminated in just such a series of traditional battles, as did the North Vietnamese war against Eruopean rule, when the NVA finally defeated the South Vietnamese regular army, or directly the earlier defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu.

So much to say, guerrilla campaigns often have parrallel "classic" and asymetric themes.

I think that the fact that the story is most often told by referencing its "classic" features is more to do with the particular ideological perspective of present day military historians, compounded by the fact that the large scale actions appear more signifcant, and noteworthy, not to mention praise worthy to the writers of the period, and the dearth of material on smaller scale incidents of fighting between occupied and occupier a normal and natural outcome of the way history is generally handed down to us.

The whole history of the Greco-Persian wars features revolts against Persian rule, as I pointed out. Harrasment and raiding are also thematic in Spartan and Greek war fighting, and abandoning cities and "making for the hills," (in this case hilly Islands which is even better) such as the Athenians did is also comon features of guerrilla (asymetrical) warfare. In the Maoist frame this is the emphasis on people, not territory, wherein the guerrilla strategist exchanges territory for time, while husbanding material resources, which is in this case people.

Its not suprising at all, in fact, as the terrrain in Greece lends itself to and encourages this type of warfare. Steep valleys, hills, mountains, gulleys, and other obstacles such as swift rivers, narrow sea channels. and islands, all can be used as effective "force multipliers" when facing superior opposition, especially when that opposition is unfamiliar with the terrain.

Thermopalae itself, has far more of the qualities of a the kind of termporary stand and fight suicide mission, fought in carefully chosen terrain, intended to wear down the enemy over time, that is a feature of strategies of "negative object" as Clauzewitz would have it, not set piece "decisive" battles intended to vanquish them in total, as in strategies with a "postive object."

Simply put: denying the enemy their victory by achieving their "positive object" is the object that characterizes asymetrical warfare strategies. In order to win, it was merely enough for the Greeks to maintain an operational military force in the field for long enough, as the primary object of Xerxes campaign was precisely aimed at the destruction of that force, onces he had captured the Athenian capital, which was his other "positive object."

So no, I don't have to "get my facts" anywhere. It is a conclusion easily reached when in reading the standard history.
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[Sibjyn]

[5 minutes to midnight]

[cueball]

[Sibjyn]

I spent at least $20 playing "Contra" at the arcade back in the 80's. Does that count?

[cueball]

Just think, back in the 80's, they might have paid you to actually do it, then you could speak from something other than your ass.
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[Rufus Polson]

[Sibjyn]

[cueball]

[Sibjyn]

Yes Cueball, it's always someone else's fault. Somebody else is always mean to you first, and you just can't help yourself but get abusive immediately

It's just that not a lot of us are buying your assertion that the Greeks were the original Viet Cong, or Iraqi resistance.

[Hephaestion]

Viet Cong??? Iraqi resistance? WTF? He never said that.
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin

[Sibjyn]

[cueball]

Metaphor? Not at all! That is a direct reference. Conflicts of this nature have a similar shape and form, in a general sense.

This is actually one of the points Clauzewitz is trying to get at, in On War, however, Mao explicitily acknowledges that Clauzewitz is probably right when he said that it is probably impossible to summarize a complete theory of war applicable to all epochs.

[Sibjyn]

[cueball]

Well that last is bullshit because the Greeks used all kinds of notorious dirty tricks. Themistocles sent a spy into the Persian camp to misinform Xerxes about the Greek intentions before Salamis, while even you must have heard of a Trojan Horse.

In anycase, I said nothing about tactics. I was talking about the general operations and strategy. Besides there is nothing particularly honourable about the Phalanx. It is for all intents and purpose merely a technological and organizational device. In ancient terms one might as well concieve of it as a human tank. I am sure the Persians thought it was most "dishonest," how the Greeks would cower in their shielded walls and point sticks at them, and not come out and fight sword to sword, like real men.

A pike is a weapon in the spear category, which is not intended to be thrown. You obviously don't bother reading what I write, I noted, that the Greeks used the sword as a side arm, their main arms were long spears, that were not thrown.

But I am glad you have decided to go out and research some stuff, even if it is for the extrodinarly silly purpose of internet one-ups-manship. You said swords originally, and that is all that is really relevant.'
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[cueball]

I think the problem you may be having here, Sibjyn, is that you think that Guerilla War is about sneaking up on people. It is not. Or even if that is part of the formula, it is so by benefit fo the fact that sneaking up on people is part of the formula of any type of war.

Its not about tactics its a comprehensive system of warfare, predicated on husbanding human resources, and winning by attrition in the long run against a superior enemy. Some tactics fit the formula more than other, but its theoretical premise goes beyond the tactical.

The idea that guerilla war is merely a set of tactics, including ambush, suprise, hit and run, etc, is a common misconception. These are aspects of it surely, but they are bent toward a poltical purpose, and a specific means of achieving that purpose, within a strategic and operational frame.
_________________
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[ronb]