Hanson 300 Article

[Johnny Shumate]

Our alphabet originated in Egypt in which it spread to the Phoenicians. Aramaic evolved from this which was adopted by the Persians. Besides Aramaic, the Phoenician alphabet gave rise to the Greek alphabet. Greek is in turn the source for all the modern scripts of Europe. So our alphabet comes from the Phoenicians, not the Persians.

If the definition of Agriculture includes large scale cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organized irrigation, then the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the Sumerians, starting ca. 5,500 BC. Not the Persians...

Babylon, not Persian, is the main contributor to astronomy. Astronomy did flourish in the Persian Empire and other parts of the Islamic world.

Johnny

[Narukami]

Johnny - The Persian empire had many of these things, whereas the biblical Jews had few.

And speaking of the "biblical Jews" and the Persian Empire, a short digression...

The Persian king, Cyrus, understood the strategic importance of Judea in his world spanning empire and sent the Jews home.

Not only had Cyrus permitted the Judaeans to return
to the weed-covered rubble of their homeland, but
had even paid for the rebuilding in Jerusalem of their
obliterated Temple. Yahweh, the Judaeans' god, was
said to have hailed the Persian king in gratitude as
His "anointed," His "Christ," and asserted that for the
messiah of his chosen people the earth itself would
prove the limit. "I will break in pieces the doors of
bronze and cut asunder the bars of iron, I will give
you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in
secret places, that you may know that it is I, the
Lord, the God of Israel, who call you by your name."
--Tom Holland, Persian Fire, p147.

My how things have changed in 2500 years. :wink:

Narukami

[Narukami]

More to the point...


My objections here are not to Miller's comic book (I made those objections before in another thread) but rather to Dr. Hanson's historical analysis of both the comic and the battle it is based upon.

As I said above, this idea that comics must by their very nature simplify history, or complex ideas, is I think a false one. However, it seems to be "accepted wisdom" and I will not argue that point. I do agree with Jona that some of Millers "arc types" are overwrought to the point of being offensive, but then the same could be said of The Lord Of The Rings.

Be that as it may, even though comic book artists might deal in over simplification as their stock in trade historians should not. The article by Dr. Hanson (linked at the top of this thread -- Thanks for the link TNarcher ) seems to me to be a gross over simplification.

Every historian has an agenda, and in this case I believe Hanson's is firmly rooted in the 21st century. His simplification is very similar to Stephen Ambrose's simplification of World War II as a struggle between the children of democracy against the children of fascism. (What about those Soviet children who died in their millions fighting the Nazis? What about them Mr. Ambrose?)

Yes, 300 is just a film, and I have every intention of seeing it, but this film should not be dismissed lightly. Film is a powerful medium with an incredible power to influence those who watch it. How many people saw Gladiator and thought it to be an accurate portrayal of the Roman Empire? Or Troy of the Trojan War? Or Saving Pvt. Ryan of the Normandy battles?

We can debate the artistic merits of these films and graphic novels as we please, but when it comes to history we should be rigorous in our standards and skeptical of any simplification that ignores salient facts, inconvenient or otherwise. If we are to see our present and our path to the future clearly then we must view our past with the same clarity. I believe Dr. Hanson's simplification clouds our vision of the past and thus our view of the present.

As Jenny correctly points out, modern Iran and ancient Persia are not the same thing (Nor, for that matter, is the United States and ancient Greece.) but I do realize that I am skating on the thin ice of modern politics here, so I will venture to further down this path.

Narukami

[Robert Vermaat]

So our alphabet comes from the Phoenicians, not the Persians.
If the definition of Agriculture includes large scale cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organized irrigation, then the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the Sumerians, starting ca. 5,500 BC. Not the Persians...
Babylon, not Persian, is the main contributor to astronomy. Astronomy did flourish in the Persian Empire and other parts of the Islamic world.

Erm, Johnny, no-one claimed that these inventions were made by the Persians.

These were your words:

I would say the only culture from the near East that has had the biggest impact on Western civilzation would be the Jews and their scriptures...

My answer was a list of inventions from the Near East. Are we agreed that you were wrong?

[Tarbicus]

but when it comes to history we should be rigorous in our standards and skeptical of any simplification that ignores salient facts, inconvenient or otherwise.

But if it's boring to 99% of the people in the world nobody will care. It's just a simple fact of life. At least this way they get to know the story, and then the TV documentaries are made (just look at the huge amount of Roman docus), the docus get better, and more people pick up books to read up on the subject. After 300 is released then Gates of Fire will probably sell out, and maybe then the Clooney project might get made, and then more books are sold.

It doesn't necessarily erode historical fact, it just acts as a prod to poke people with.

[Johnny Shumate]

Robert,
No, I was right...
Read my original statement:

What contributions has Persia offered to Western civilization..?

I did not say:

What contributions has the near East offered to Western civilization..?

Also, I never stated that Persia offered nothing to Western civilization. I simply asked the question. "what did they"....

Your main argument is that these inventions are greater than the contribution of the Jews and their scriptures. Correct..? Whichever one is greater depends on your point of view..!

Johnny

[Narukami]

but when it comes to history we should be rigorous in our standards and skeptical of any simplification that ignores salient facts, inconvenient or otherwise.

But if it's boring to 99% of the people in the world nobody will care. It's just a simple fact of life. At least this way they get to know the story, and then the TV documentaries are made (just look at the huge amount of Roman docus), the docus get better, and more people pick up books to read up on the subject. After 300 is released then Gates of Fire will probably sell out, and maybe then the Clooney project might get made, and then more books are sold.

It doesn't necessarily erode historical fact, it just acts as a prod to poke people with.

Absolutely Tarbicus!

Please don't get me wrong, -- you are quite right. 300 is entertainment not history, and yes I do hope it does well enough to prod Clooney, or others, into doing Gates Of Fire.

Again, my concern is not with 300 but rather with Dr. Hanson's article and what I see as his simplification of the subject matter at hand.

I think that we have, in other threads, dealt with some of the artistic merits, or de-merits, of 300 as a comic book, and no doubt will create new threads when the film is released and we have seen it. As TLC, and others, have said before this film will probably be a triumph of style over content (post-modern or otherwise) but sometimes that's fine too. And at that time we can debate again Jona's points about the "agenda" of this film.

Again, my real concern was the Hanson article. As for the film itself...

It is unfair to pass judgment until I have seen it. The trailer gives me pause, but I will see the film.

Narukami

[Sean Manning]

We do owe the Ancient Greeks an unimaginable amount (although Western freedom has other roots too, such as Germanic culture and some ideas that developed in Medieval Catholic theology). The Achaemenids were largely a people of herdsmen, soldiers, and governors with fewer permanent achievements to their credit (although the Achaemenid development of qanats and other agricultural infrastructure, and the easy trade which their empire brought, and their shutting down serious warmaking across most of the Middle East for 200 years did a lot of good to now-dead non-Westerners).

However, I am not sure how this is relevant to the claims that Thermopylae is not simply about freedom versus slavery, and that Hanson oversimplifies and tries to drag in modern parallels by their ankles. It saddens me that such a good historian has tried to become a bad commentator on current events, because I think it interferes with his ability to see history objectively. The story of the 300 (and that of the allied contingent who didn't run off, cough, get ordered away) is a powerful one. The fight for national independence, the heroism of dying hopelessly to save your comrades, these are strong enough themes without dragging in East versus West and Freedom versus Slavery as the Ancients did and Hanson does.

As for how good the movie is, and whether it tries to hint at any of the complexities of Thermopylae, we will have to wait and see.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I agree. IMHO, the Hanson article read more like a Ancient Greek fanboi raving than an actual researcher who knew what he was talking about.

[Primitivus]

Yes, 300 is just a film, and I have every intention of seeing it, but this film should not be dismissed lightly. Film is a powerful medium with an incredible power to influence those who watch it. How many people saw Gladiator and thought it to be an accurate portrayal of the Roman Empire?

The 300 Spartans was pivotal in helping nurture my interest in classical history and in reinforcing my understanding of the importance of courage and self-sacrifice. It remains one of my favorite films. I assume I'll view this movie after it is released on DVD. I'm wary of its impact though. The membership of RAT is well-educated and intelligent. They would be discerning in these matters. However, not everyone who sees the film will have even the most rudimentary comprehension of the true history behind this comic book interpretation. I'm afraid some of the viewers will have their (mis)understanding of these events completely shaped by 300...

[Craig Gascoigne]

When veiwing 300 I will veiw for what it is a piece of entertainment/art and will enjoy/not like it based on my veiws, as that is the only reference I really have.

When reading history I view it the same way, no matter if modern or ancient it will be coloured by the person views writing it and the persons view reading it by their life experiances. It will always be that way, thus others views will always be different or like our own depend on experiance.

As to the aruguement of if east vs west I see that as irrelevant it human achievement and we all influence one another by the exchange of ideas. Was then it is now.

[Felix]

As Narukami mentioned, the Persians did one critical thing for Western Civilization: they sent the Jews back to Judea. Without this, there is no Second Temple. Without this effort, no one tries to collate the Hebrew Bible into a coherent document (needed to pull the disparate returnees and Jews who were left behind by the Babylonians). Without these things, the events of the New Testament weren't going to happen.

The Persian Empire also left another idea, although not one written down in some famous document. They ran their empire with tolerance for the religious and cultural peculiarities of their subjects; and this idea was adopted by Alexander (over the objections of many Macedonians) and does get into the Western tradition through Alex. I am not saying they invented the modern idea of religious freedom, but maybe they forshadowed it; and the people who did invent the modern idea may have known about this precedent.

[Anonymous]

My! What a deal of discussion! I've made it clear elsewhere that I fear this film will be very unsatisfying for people who would like to see a version of the battle that is as historically accurate as possible. However, I seem to remember one Greek who was quoted as giving thanks to the Gods, "First, that I am a human and not an animal; second, that I am free and not a slave; third, that I am a man and not a woman; but, above all, that I am Greek and not a Barbarian." (Perhaps someone can provide a more exact version).

This speech encapsulates all the frightfully non-PC notions that people are objecting to in "300" (with the exception of the one about ugliness and evil nature going hand-in-hand). It has always struck me that the Ancient Greeks had a deep-seated notion of their superiority to all other nations, rather like my own countrymen in the days of Empire, which we find hard to swallow today, but which must have been part-and-parcel of one's love of country in times when war was about nation against nation.

I don't think we can blame the film for reflecting such attitudes, since it would appear they are among the most historically-accurate aspects of the production. On the other hand, I'm surprised to find Victor Davis Hanson defending the film as he does. I've aready decided I will go to see it, whatever people say or my own misgivings - I'll be interested to see whether Hanson has any good reason for his stance on it.

[Idomeneas]

As Narukami mentioned, the Persians did one critical thing for Western Civilization: they sent the Jews back to Judea. Without this, there is no Second Temple. Without this effort, no one tries to collate the Hebrew Bible into a coherent document (needed to pull the disparate returnees and Jews who were left behind by the Babylonians). Without these things, the events of the New Testament weren't going to happen.

The Persian Empire also left another idea, although not one written down in some famous document. They ran their empire with tolerance for the religious and cultural peculiarities of their subjects; and this idea was adopted by Alexander (over the objections of many Macedonians) and does get into the Western tradition through Alex. I am not saying they invented the modern idea of religious freedom, but maybe they forshadowed it; and the people who did invent the modern idea may have known about this precedent.

err.. i dont get it clear. the best thing a whole persian empire ever succeeded to contribute was just to send Hebrews home?

[Felix]

I don't think I said that. :?

Further up this thread, I got the impression that people were debating Persia's contributions to "Western Civilization". What I offered were two issues where Persia left a direct legacy to the West; not necessarily the best thing the empire ever did (however that is judged).