\'Gates of Fire\' By Steven Pressfield

[Lochinvar]

Dear Ross,
I'm with you on the 'F-word', yet the simple, but sad, truth is that people use it.
PS. I enjoyed your book.
PPS. Really, I b****y did!!! :wink: :roll:
PPPS. Memo to self - must stop swearing!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I've just started it myself. It is quite interesting, to say the least! 8)

[Ross Cowan]

PS. I enjoyed your book.
PPS. Really, I b****y did!!! :wink: :roll:

:lol:

Byron: I hope you enjoy it.

Cheers,

R

[Senovara]

the foul language detracted from the heroics and made me dislike some of the characters. Of course hoplites and legionaries used obscene language (read Aristophanes or the legends on the sling bullets from Perusia), but I think Pressfield should have moderated the language. He has demeaned a great moment in history.

Also, it is a very lazy way to write. ‘F***’ this and that, is simply filler. It is a lot harder to think up a decent insult or curse without resorting to the F-word.

I love you Ross!! You really hit the nail on the head. (BTW, I enjoyed Imperial Roman legionary AD 161-284)

I'm not opposed to swearing in books, but yes it was all too distracting. And before anyone mentions it ... no, I don't think they should be speaking flowery, Shakespearean or Victorian prose either!

However, this doesn't mean that I avoid Pressfield's books altogether - I've been meaning to read "Last of the Amazons".

[Ross Cowan]

(BTW, I enjoyed Imperial Roman legionary AD 161-284)

Many thanks!

R

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

the foul language detracted from the heroics and made me dislike some of the characters. Of course hoplites and legionaries used obscene language (read Aristophanes or the legends on the sling bullets from Perusia), but I think Pressfield should have moderated the language. He has demeaned a great moment in history.

Also, it is a very lazy way to write. ‘F***’ this and that, is simply filler. It is a lot harder to think up a decent insult or curse without resorting to the F-word.

I love you Ross!! You really hit the nail on the head. (BTW, I enjoyed Imperial Roman legionary AD 161-284)

I'm not opposed to swearing in books, but yes it was all too distracting. And before anyone mentions it ... no, I don't think they should be speaking flowery, Shakespearean or Victorian prose either!

However, this doesn't mean that I avoid Pressfield's books altogether - I've been meaning to read "Last of the Amazons".

It's not too bad.... :lol:

But I think the point of the book is more to emphasis the fact that the 'heroics' were not such high minded ideals, but rather bloody deeds, by men who had a bloody mind set, of necessity, not because they were chasing some high minded ideal...other than survival of their culture... :?

[PMBardunias]

Why would they all speak in shakspearean prose?

Its not a question of them speaking in prose- that would be antithetical to a Spartan reguardless of the depth of his vocabulary. My problem is not simply with the cursing, but the feel of the interplay between Spartans. He obviously modelled them after the type "barracks" interactions so often portrayed in modern war movies.

Spartans inculcated a very specific speech pattern. We still call this laconic speech. They sought to use the fewest words to convey the most meaning. My favorite example of this is the story of the spartan answer to Phillip and alexander when they threatened invasion- stating that if they came to Sparta they would level the place and sell them as slaves..blah..blah..blah... The reply was simply "If". Of course they never went. There are many of these, and though most are surely apocraphal, they bely the truth of the spartan attitude.

I don't think anything like this exists in our modern world. They probably would not have cursed in the way we do. (being from NY originally I often use the "F" word as a conjunction or in the odd construct like: Un-f...ing-believable and For-f...ing-get about it!). It would be a waste of words. There would be no reason to say "we killed the f...ing Persian F...ers". They would have simply saidersians, dead. Ross was just telling me about a headstone in Sparta that simply read "Dead, in war."

I think the closest thing you will see to their affectation would be to watch the movie Zulu and see Michael Caine and that Sergent's attitude. There must be a term for such cold-blooded calm in the face of danger, but being a spartan I do not know it. :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hmmmm, I don't recall swearing to that extent, but then working in the oil industry in Scotland, perhaps I have become deaf to these things.

As to speaking in S prose, well that is just a flippant remark, so I wouldn't build a case on it. And those examples of Laconic speech would be the words of ephors? Kings? Generals? I would not find it hard to imagine the use of obscenity on the battle field, I'm afraid. We can't put our own values on an ancient and pagan people, although I would imagine they had an aversion to blasphemy, or however you would term pagan disrespect of the gods...but to imagine they did not swear? Sorry, it would not be such a big deal!

[PMBardunias]

And those examples of Laconic speech would be the words of ephors? Kings? Generals?

I'm glad you wrote this because it reminded me of the main problem with using the attitude of a conscript army as a model. ALL Spartiates were Ephors- in the sense that they were all elidgable- and Spartans were not simply trained to be soldiers, but to be Generals, so all were that as well. Even the most humble Spartan would have aspired to this fashion- like the affected poverty and simple cloaks.

but to imagine they did not swear? Sorry, it would not be such a big deal

Its not swearing per se, the most famous spartan quote is a double -entendre. Molon Lave is appropriate to be said with one hand holding your crotch if you get my meaning. They surely loved such clever and brief turns of phrase. Have you ever read Plutarch's Spartan sayings? Not all are accurate, but they give the idea.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I have it somewhere, but then, I find it hard to imagine anyone could be king? I thought in times of war only then could the kings lead the army.
The ephors were a group of elders who kept them in check?

I would disagree that this type of speech is not used today, just those who manage to churn out the most words are lauded as great writers/speakers, and those of few words are ignored......that is a fact I am afraid!

[PMBardunias]

I have it somewhere, but then, I find it hard to imagine anyone could be king?

Not everyone could. There were two bloodlines from which the spartans could draw their kings- sounds like the USA!

I thought in times of war only then could the kings lead the army.
The ephors were a group of elders who kept them in check?

What? you mean they were not degenerate mongrels who lived on a hill with subaquatic virgins??? :lol:

Actually, they were elected by the whole assembly of spartiates and anyone could be one. You could only serve once and only for a year. At the end of your year you were expected to stand trial for any excesses you may have done. It is probably the best system of representative democracy the world has known, but like our own was subject to graft. Rich men could buy off poor men who were ephors.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There were rich Spartans.... hock: :lol:

And careful, I may have ancestors there , so less of the degenerate mongrels, if you please.......we came much later.... :wink:

[PMBardunias]

There were rich Spartans....

Yea, there allotment of land, Kleroi, was supposed to be equal for all, but a fool of an Ephor changed the rules to allow you to give your land to not only your children, but anyone. Soon the rich found themselves "gifted" of many Kleroi. Even without this poorer spartans would mortgage their Kleroi for cash.

And careful, I may have ancestors there , so less of the degenerate mongrels, if you please.......we came much later....

Actually, I was referring to "300" and the hatchet-jpb they did on the ephors. Though we are a bit degenerate these days.

[Paullus Scipio]

Certainly Pressfield got it very wrong in thinking that the rank-and-file of the Spartan Army were similar to modern 'squaddies' or 'grunts' - as has been pointed out they were, in effect, an army of 'officers' whose nearest equivalent, perhaps, was a mediaeval array entirely of land-owning knights....aristocrats all.

Though we are a bit degenerate these days.

....aaah, Paul, a terrible confession....personal experience speaking, doubtless........but what can one expect...no doubt one of those far-distant Homioi would have sniffed haughtily and made a pithy laconic remark about mixing blood with hypomeiones (lit: Inferiors)Perioikoi ( lit:dwellers round about = neighbours) and Helots ( peasants) D lol:

[Narukami]

Why would they all speak in Shakespearean prose?

Spartans inculcated a very specific speech pattern. We still call this laconic speech. They sought to use the fewest words to convey the most meaning.

I don't think anything like this exists in our modern world.
:wink:

In fact there is a least one example of this in recent military history.

During the Battle of the Bulge, when called upon by the Germans to surrender Bastogne, General McAuliffe of the 101st Airborne Div simply replied "Nuts."

It doesn't get much more laconic or eloquent than that.

:wink:

Narukami