300:New Frank Miller Movie About Sparta and the Persians[Vanity]

While I too look forward to this film, I am not sure if I can agree with: "I hope the movie lays of the whole homo erotic themes."

Errr... What?

His Graphic Novel, was, err, Graphic.

An appropriately timed movie about a war with Persia.

History should be honest. You do understand don't you the Spartan army was built around the homosexual relationship? Full citizens such as the 300 were the "homoioi". Wives were just an unpleasant duty necessary to breed new soldiers.

Western civilization owes the 300 a great debt for buying the time needed to stop the Persian conquest of Greece. Take them for what they were.

Haven't read the graphic novel, but they DID have sex.

Dammit. Dammit,Dammit,Dammit. why didn't they make the movie of "Gates of Fire" instead of "300". It was perhaps the most insightful work on military psychology since Sun Tzu.

Well, 300 will at least be better than standard box-offoce fare.

Lest anyone think Miller is a total lefty, check this out.

You wrote, "I hope the movie lays of the whole homo erotic themes."

Little hope of that, given Hollywood's 'Brokeback Mountain' sympathies, and history doesn't help. Sparta was a barracks society, and its culture extolled the virtues of homosexual bonding, considering it an extension of comradeship, for lack of a better term. Spartan brides, for example, had their hair shorn on their wedding night to give them a more boyish appearance and, er, make the groom feel more at home.

I'd heard he was planning to film Eisner's The Spirit. Is that still a go?

I always thought Gotham = Chicago and New York = Metropolis.

Ah! I get it. "Off" not "Of".

Hey these were Spartans. I'm sure we'll get at least a gratuitous scene of men oiling each other up before battle.

tlb and Rembrandt_fan, you are both dead Wrong, ancient Greek society did not accept and nor were they as openly "friendly" homosexual/bisexual societies as some falsely believe, those myths are raised by people who have not clue what "eros" meant in ancient Greece and for that explanation I will post a message that was posted on another messageboard by a person familiar with the subject matter:

"Philip, I don’t get what exactly your question means (I guess it is due to my poor command of the English language, even though my good friend Apro tells you otherwise ). But if you ask me if the Spartan law allowed homosexuality or encouraged it in any way, my answer is “NO”, plainly because there isn’t evidence for that, on the contrary various ancient Greek sources/writers (who are not Spartan themselves) tell us exactly the opposite. For instance: Aristotle the great philosopher, writes that the Spartans are people who don’t appreciate homosexuality and don’t practise sodomy, as opposed to some other people. Xenophon, the famous Athenian historian and philosopher, in his historical piece of writing called “Lacedaemonians’ Politeia/Country”, reports that Lycurgus (the great Spartan legislator and founder of Sparta’s law) praised as the most worthwhile form of education the admiration of a virtuous man for the soul of a child and his endeavor to shape that child/boy into a good fellow-warrior, so that he could live well in his companionship. Conversely, Lycurgus considered any kind of carnal passion for the body of a child/boy to be a great source of shame. Plutarch the biographer also confirms the aforementioned about Lycurgus and the Spartan law. Given also that the Spartans were people who deeply respected their law (it was obeying their law that they fell to the last man fighting bravely a lost battle at Thermopylae :-)), it is quite unlikely that homosexuality/pederasty was the common practice of the Spartan society, as it is claimed today by some non-Greek scholars who misinterpret the institution of “pederasty” in ancient Sparta. Is it the problem that they are not Greek themselves, or that the present-day thought is so mistrustful of customs which brought men so close to their fellow men in a very ancient, so distant society? As an aside here, let me mention what was the exact meaning of the ancient Greek word ”eros” and its derivatives, so that you be able to understand more easily what the institution of “pederasty“ was in ancient Sparta: In ancient Greece, Eros, i.e. the little winged God who was Aphrodite’s son, was the incarnation of love. According to the ancient Greeks (as in the famous work by Plato, the Symposium, it is reported) there are two kinds of love: the first has to do with the satisfying of our fleshy desires (sex), while the second aims at the good of the person that someone loves, that is at his or her moral perfection. So the ancient word “eros” has a double meaning, and when I write it without quotation marks (eros) it will denote the first kind of love whose purpose is the sensual or carnal pleasure, but when I write it with quotation marks (“eros”) it will denote the second kind of “love” mentioned above. That kind of “eros” is the one about which I’ll talk from now on. “Eros” is connected with the ancient Greek verb “ero”, which means neither “I love” nor “I’m in love”, but “I long for, I yearn”, i.e. “I’m continually seeking through my soul for whatever I’m lacking”. A psychic need was contained within this verb, which sought a deeper satisfaction. When I “ero” somebody/something, I am an “erastes” of him/it, which means I’m a “lover” of him/it but not in the sense of the “sexual partner” but in the sense of the “admirer/worshipper”. So someone can be an “erastes”/”lover” of wisdom and valor for instance, which means that he never gives up searching for these virtues because he’s an admirer of them and he longs for them. Another paradigm is that of the great philosopher Socrates, who presented himself as an “erastes”/”lover” to his students, because through the cultivation of their souls he aimed at their moral perfection, i.e. at the beauty of their souls. And “eros” always turns towards the beautiful, as the flower turns towards the sun (i.e. the human soul always longs for the beautiful). From the aforementioned it is obvious that there could be “eros” between two individuals without any bodily contact. This is also known as “Platonic eros”, and sensual or carnal pleasure is not its purpose because it can never fulfill us as individuals, and because we gain it by exploiting in some way the beloved person (“eromenos” in ancient Greek), who is thus diminished in this manner. Sorry if all the aforementioned sound scholarly and boring, but “pederasty” in ancient Sparta is directly related to the concept of “eros” which I’ve just analyzed. As I mentioned above, “eros” which has nothing to do with fleshy desires and carnal pleasure always turns to the beautiful (i.e. the human soul always longs for the beautiful). The ancient Greeks have always been “erastes”/“lovers” of measure/moderation, harmony and beauty. The beautiful was worthy of every form of admiration, respect and honor by the ancient Greeks. For instance, the beautiful, healthy and harmonious human body (as the ancient Greeks immortalized it in statues and sculptures of unique beauty), whether it belong to a man or a woman, was an object of admiration. And since the beauty is first and foremost a characteristic of youth, let us examine the so-called “pederasty” in ancient Sparta: While the word pederasty in all languages means an erotic perversion, in classical antiquity it was also used in the sense of a pedagogical institution, based on the pure and disinterested “love” of boys, i.e. on the concept of “eros” as I analyzed it above, and not on homosexual relations with them. That pedagogical institution was used not only in ancient Sparta but also in ancient (classical) Athens to some extent, only that in Sparta it was officially enacted by the city-state. From now on when I speak of that ancient pedagogical institution I’ll use the word with quotation marks (“pederasty”), in contradistinction to pederasty without quotation marks, which will mean what we all mean today by this word (i.e. a man who has sex with a boy). Back to ancient Sparta, the so-called “pederasty” was (at least from the 6th to the 4th century BC) a part of the obligatory education of all the little male Spartans, which was called ”agogH”. The suitable age for adolescents to receive this education (i.e. the “pederasty”) was thought to be from twelve to eighteen. At that age they could be assigned to an adult man as their companion, who in agreement with the customs had to be over twenty years of age. So it was very good fortune and an honor for a boy when a citizen who enjoyed general public esteem, took him under his wing. Conversely, it was shameful for a boy if he did not have the honor of such a friendship. This relationship was also marked by the consent of the boy’s father, who felt proud when a worthy man chose his son. This custom/institution of “pederasty” had its roots in Doric practices (the Spartans belonged to the Doric tribe). The Dorians, just like the Spartans, were warlike people, and they introduced the custom of “pederasty” because the men lived in army camps and by the very nature of things the older men became the teachers and guides of the future warriors/soldiers. In such a “pederastic” relationship, the adult man was the “erastes”/”lover” of the boy (“paedikon”), a “lover” not in the sense of the “sexual partner” but in the sense I have analyzed it above. That is, the “lover” felt admiration for a beautiful young boy who selected to teach/train, and that admiration for the beauty of the boy (both, the beauty of its body and its soul) was the main stimulus for the man to proceed with the selection of that boy whose inner world he wished to mould so as to make him into the proper/good (“kalos kagathos”) man. The “lover” had with the boy ceaseless discussions, which dealt with a great range of subjects. Through these discussions the man tried to inspire the youth with moral values, such as obedience to the laws, the ways of proper behavior, nobility and ethos, so that he would become a courageous and moral man. The adolescent in his turn had to respect his mentor, and deeply esteem him and to show by his behavior how obliged he was to him. Such a “pederastic” relationship was a “love” on a psychic level, a spiritual bond, “eros” without the accompaniment of Aphrodite as the ancient Greeks said, i.e. “eros” without any bodily love/sexual intercourse. In fact, as I have already mentioned, Lycurgus and the Spartan law forbade pederasty as we mean it today (i.e. the pederasty which includes sexual intercourse), considered it to be a punishable offense and the courts rigorously persecuted it. It was strictly forbidden for the adolescent to assume any posture that facilitated contact with the backside or introduction of the male member into any part of his body, and play in this way the role of a woman (i.e. the role of a carnal object). That would be humiliating, since women were reckoned to be second class/inferior than men beings back then. The young boy was destined to become a citizen, and as a future citizen should not be dishonored in that way. It would be debasing for the adolescent to find himself in the passive position of humiliation and submission. Just how disgraceful they considered this to be is shown for instance by a representation on a ancient red-figured vase. This representation depicts a Persian in a posture which is declared by the inscription underneath: “I am Evrymedon. I have submitted myself”. Behind him there can be seen an arriving Greek, gesturing with his genitals in such a way there can be no doubt as to his intentions. This vase, painted after the victory of the Greeks against the Persians, triumphantly proclaims (just like some people would do today when their team wins at football/basketball ): ”We scre*wed the Persians!” From the aforementioned it is obvious that –as opposed to what many people think today– “pederasty” in ancient Sparta was not male homosexuality, but the primary method of raising the male youth. It was considered to be an important pedagogical factor/institution, which, examined from a moral point of view, had its own special character that was maintained on an aesthetic, religious and educational basis. Its purpose was the maintenance of institutions, and the elevation of social and personal virtue with the assistance of the city-state. This ethic that was built up around “eros” in relationships between men with virtue as their aim, was the source of great valor and the secret of male friendship. As difficult as it is to understand today, this “love” had nothing humiliating, corrupting or effeminate about it. It was the force that gave rise to heroism and directed valor to remarkable heights. Because “eros” lends a divine spirit and makes men braver, and furthermore it is the best way to maintain the line of battle. And indeed, the salvation and victory of the warriors lay in their friendship which formed the line. A brilliant proof of this assertion concerning this particular form of male behavior was the so-called Sacred Band of Thebes. They were called “the company of ‘lovers’”, many times sarcastically by those who were envious of the rise of Thebes to power. Just like the Spartans, they were reckoned to be great warriors/soldiers, and they showed at the battlefield the great valor and self-sacrifice of the Spartans: in the battle of Chaeroneia, for instance, the soldiers of the Sacred Band of Thebes fell to the last man (just like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae) fighting bravely against the Macedonian king Philip B’. Deeply moved by their great valor, the victorious king Philip said: ”A curse on those who have treacherously hinted that such men could have done or accepted anything vile” Since it is not my intention to show any form of bias, let me also add that (even though there isn’t sufficient evidence for that) we can’t exclude the possibility that there were indeed some homosexual relationships between men in ancient Sparta. Sexual deviations have existed in all places and in all eras, and ancient Sparta/Greece shouldn’t be excluded from this rule. Furthermore, let me also add that anything that occurs between two people that is completely consensual is a personal matter - and respected. But if such male homosexual relationships existed indeed, they constituted by no means the rule, and they didn’t characterize the ancient Spartan society, as I have already argued. In other words, ancient Sparta (/Greece) is by no means the cradle of perversion, as many people tend to reckon her today!" ~Mvarda

As it happens, I've read both Aristotle and Xenophon at some length--although, unfortunately, not in the original Greek. I can't speak to Aristotle's views, since--offhand--I can't recall him addressing the matter, and don't feel a burning desire to look it up. Insofar as Xenophon is concerned, if one reads Xenephon's book, 'The Persian Expedition,' Xenophon refers disparagingly to a known homosexual who was a member of their company on that famous adventure--thus Xenophon's views on the matter are a matter of record, and he viewed the man's death by drowning as a sign of divine displeasure. For his part, Socrates decried the 'womanly' behavior of his weeping disciples at the time of his execution, so one might conclude that Socrates, like Xenophon, another Athenian, thought pederasty and effeminacy in men distasteful, at best. However--and this is an important however--while the practice might've been frowned upon, Athenian society did not punish homosexuals, via Athenian law or otherwise. Sparta, on the other hand, was notorious for its 'practices', and it seems to me the author of the piece you quote at such mind-numbing length is bending over backwards, so to speak, to exonerate the Spartans of such behaviors when existing records concerning 'pederasty' and older male 'lover' relationships with younger Spartan boys are plain on the matter, without the semantic twisting and turning the author of your piece seems to imply. I'm not even going to go into the clearly erotic overtones or the celebration of youthful male beauty permeating late period classical Greek art and sculpture--particularly the urns and vases, the 'commercial' art of its day--which was, I suppose, the classical equivalent of a Calvin Klein ad.

I just wonder why the author felt so driven to act as an apologist for Sparta. The brainchild of Lycurgus, Sparta was a deformed, even psychopathic society that brutally enslaved its neighbors, thrived by bloody conquest, and transformed itself into a parody of community. As was once said of Prussia: they weren't a country with an army; they were an army with a country.

So no, I don't buy it. One can extol the beauty of qualities such as courage, patriotism, and determination without holding up a bloodthirsty slave-state like Sparta as an example.

If you can not read the actual Classical Greek text I suggest you learn the language and stop relying on mistranslated material because you are not getting the full picture but a distored view. While there were Greek and Roman men engaged in relations with both women and boys, exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women and others rejecting relations with boys. But they never viewed same sex as being ok, acceptable or correct and yes it could be punishable by death and exile. I read it and understand it fluently as does the author who's piece I posted, so you not "buying" it but relying on bogus mistranslated material for your information is quite comical to say the least particularly given that there is little to no actual Spartan documention to suggest they actually participated in such material. What I find humerious from people who can't read the actual material is their blind faith on relying on someone else translated view on the material. Luckly for me, I do not fall under that category and can rely on what the actual ancient texts in Classical Greek say.

Let me tell you a little story regarding some of these non-Greek supposed psuedo "scholars" on ancient Greece who you and most people like you seem to rely on for most of your "information" and this is from a personal experience mind you. Date was October 14-18, 2002 at the the International Symposium on Ancient Macedonia in Thessaloniki; speakers some supposedly "well known" world "scholars" on Classical Greece come to talk to an auditorium full of scholars and students of the Classics. A Kate Mortensen and her collegues start "teaching" their bogus material to us when they are challenged to point out where in the original ancient Greek untranslated texts does it say what they claimed it said. Needless to say Mortensen and her crew had to admit they could not even read the untranslated texts, never mind tell us where the passages were. This admition left us all dead silent with our mouths hanging wide open and total disbelief. So these were the suppose "historian" who were teaching the world our country's History? How pathetic. Ofcouse they were all hackled straight out the country and the bulk of many jokes for months to come in the news media were of them and they also were the comic relief in every show there is in Greece. What is funny about this whole event is that the main stream English news outlets bring up the point of Mortensen and her crew being "hackled" during this event but fail to point out why they were made fun of. Very telling in my opinon, historians who are supposed to be taken as legit academics who can't even read the work they are suppose to be "experts" in? Yeah, some creditable sources they are. ;p

"I'm not even going to go into the clearly erotic overtones or the celebration of youthful male beauty permeating late period classical Greek art and sculpture--particularly the urns and vases, the 'commercial' art of its day--which was, I suppose, the classical equivalent of a Calvin Klein ad."

Wrong once more given there isn't many such depictions. Here is another food for thought for everyone out there; in K.J Dover's book, the guy who brought us the myth of what some modern academics concideres to be "the know it all" on homosexual relationships in ancient Greece, he shows us a total of 600 vases in which he says shows them depicting some sort of sexual act. Out of the 600 vases a total of about ONLY 15-25 vases can be concidered depicting sexual acts IN GENERAL. The rest 580 show nothing of the sort!! Yet from that minute samples he manages to connect ALL the sexual acts to some ridiculous assumptions of supposed "homosexual" acts, even in cases when its not warranted! This is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I said, "inaccurate interpretations."

We continue further: In Book 3 Socrates tells us the difference between homosexual relations, admiration towards beauty aka Platonic Love. It is in this book where he clearly states that platonic "physci" love and not sexual love is essential between tutor~teacher and pupil.

In Protagora Philebus And Georgias (491e -92a & 494e) we are told about a disagreement Socrates is having with Callicles. Callicles argues that a man should give full reign into his desires without worrying about the consequences and Socrates counters with "[What about] the life of kinaidon, isn't it awful and shameful and wretched? Or will you have the audacity to say that they are happy, if they have enough of the things they need?" to which Callicles exclaims, "Have you no shame!". In other words, why would a wordly man such as Callicles who was just talking about fullfilling ones passions and consequences be damned be shocked that Socrates would bring up male homosexuality during a philosophical discussion and on top of that Socrates describes the life of a kinaidon as "awful", "shameful" and "wretched". Why would Socrates describe such life styles in such a way if ancient Greece was so openly accepted of homosexual/bisexual activities; 'cause they were not.

Further yet we go: homosexual/bisexual artwork which has survived, is not much. Even Dover, the guy who brought us the myth of what some modern academics concideres to be "the know it all" on ancient Greek sexual relationships in ancient Greece, had to admit defeat in finding any such depictions and trust me he looked very long and very hard. Dover who some consider the "authority" of homosexual vase art would have been doing cartwheels if such a vase painting actually existed. The amount of ancient Greek literature which has any homosexual refrence in them is less then 5% and amount of artifact which depict such acts is even less then that figures put it between 1% - 2% and I am being generous with those figures. Here is an example, so far according to archeological records, in Attica alone, that is the region of Greece were Athens is located, there have been over 80,000 vases that have been found. Out of those 80,000 only a handful of them have any depictions of homoerotic on them, on the other hand the number of heterosexual depictions is much higher. It doesn't really tell us much but that is pretty low for a society that was supposedly openly accepted of same sex love. The point is that if it was as popular and widely accepted as some like to theorize more of it would have been found.

Oh and to prove how very knowledagable and correct the author on my original post regarding this subject matter really is, here is some more information on Sparta taken directly from mvarda who has nothing to proven other then providing legit info on ancient Greece to people not familiar with ancient Greek history other then what they read in English books ~ which isn't much, IMO:

Mvarda replying to this post: 'Spartans were opressors yah ... sparta killed spartan babies/children who were week physcilly and mentally ... killed slaves/helots who were strong--so the spartans were just as brutal to their own kind as the helots. the Nazis were about genocide, they thought they were already superior whereas the spartans trid to keep/make that superiority.'

"Unfortunately there is a myth today about ancient Sparta, which has been gradually constructed since the second half of the 17th century AC, when various totalitarian ideologies/regimes (even racist ones such as that of Hitler) claimed that they were patterned upon the Spartan way of life/principles/ideal. As a result the most people today (even historians/researchers among them) have a stereotype view of the Spartans which has nothing to do with historical actuality. A part and parcel of this myth is the alleged “unprecedented/unique” cruelty of the Spartans, who were throwing down from Kaeadas (a chasm of Taygetus mountain) deformed newborn babies, haunted by the ideal of a superior race (i.e. something like the Nazis :-)) First, it is evidenced from both, ancient sources/texts and archaeological findings too, that the Spartans threw down from Kaeadas not babies but only either adult alive convicts condemned to death or their dead bodies. This was a practice common to many other ancient Greek cities-states, too. In Athens for instance, they threw their own convicts down from the northwest side of the Acropolis. The Spartans actually exposed deformed babies in places called “Apothetes” (the verb “apotheto” in Greek means “lay/put something down in a specific place”). The Apothetes were places such as a temple, a house, a cave, a forest or a chasm. No ancient text identifies the Apothetes with Kaeadas chasm. On the contrary from the 17th century AC and on, the texts about ancient Sparta take to identifying arbitrarily the Apothetes with Kaeadas, which is a distortion of historical actuality. Second, it is also evidenced that the exposure of deformed babies wasn’t a particularity of the Spartan society but A COMMON PRACTICE all over the ancient Greek world. The monstrous baby caused the community fear (any community, not only the Spartan community) and it was undesirable by everybody, so it was abandoned/exposed. I know that this strikes us as extremely cruel in the light of our modern/Christian morality. But we should keep in mind that we talk about societies of a radically different era, during which the whole known world in general was more rough than it is today (theoretically at least ). Third, actually in other Greek cities-states (as opposed to ancient Sparta) were exposed not only deformed babies but healthy/able-bodied babies, as well. Please note that the exposure of able-bodied babies, which the father wouldn’t own as his legitimate children or wouldn’t like/couldn’t afford to bring up (due to social/financial reasons), was a custom wide spread over the Greek world and constantly increasing, until the Byzantine times that emperor Ioustinianos (527-565 AC) forbade it on the penalty of death. Back to antiquity, in the city-state of Athens for instance, a father would initially own the newborn baby as his. Then, in order to become an Athenian citizen, the baby had to be accepted as a member of the “fratria” of the father. (The city-state of Athens included 4 Ionian “fyles”, i.e. 4 tribes, and each tribe included a number of fratrias. Each fratria consisted of kindred groups of people who had a common ancestor). Thus during the Athenian feast called “Apatouria” the father would present his newborn baby to his fratria and would ask to be enrolled as a member of the fratria. If the baby was deformed it was not accepted and thus it was exposed (just like in Sparta). But even in the case that it was an able-bodied baby, if someone doubted the legitimacy of the child (i.e. if someone claimed that one of the parents was not an Athenian) and managed to persuade and the others, then the baby wasn’t accepted as an Athenian citizen and it was inevitably exposed, too. The same happened in other Greek city-states, as well. Similarly in Sparta a father would initially own the newborn baby as his. Then the father had to present the baby to his “fylH” (i.e. to his tribe) in order to be accepted as a member of the tribe, so that to be able to participate in the training called “agogH” and become someday a “homoios”, i.e. a Spartan citizen with full civic rights. If the baby was deformed it was exposed, just like in Athens and various other Greek cities-states. But in Sparta -as opposed to other Greek cities- an able-bodied baby was never exposed if someone doubted its legitimacy, because in Sparta there were enacted social classes such as the “perioikoi” and the “helotes” in which the able-bodied baby was always accepted. Thus in Sparta such children could remain members of the paternal family/house, without being intended for becoming “homoioi” someday. From the aforementioned it is obvious that the custom of exposure was actually in Sparta MILDER than it was in other Greek cities. Fourth, only after 1700 AC the Spartan practice (in relation with babies) is isolated from the widespread all over the ancient Greek world custom of exposure of babies and it is characterized as a savage and ruthless action dictated by “eugenism” (i.e. by the longing for the creation of a superior race). On the contrary ANYONE of those much later views (frequent in texts after 1700 AC) about the Spartans’ alleged particularity or savagery with regard to babies ISN’T REPORTED IN ANCIENT TEXTS. This means that the ancient Greeks didn’t reckon the attitude of the Spartans towards babies unusual, extreme or reprehensible (as we tend to reckon it today). Conclusively, the exposure of deformed (and not only deformed) babies was a common practice in the ancient Greek world, and in Sparta in particular it wasn't motivated by the creation of a superior Spartan race, as some contemporary researchers claim. The alleged “unprecedented/unique” cruelty of the Spartans towards babies is a myth constructed in our modern times (after 1700 AC) within the framework of our modern ethics. Another part and parcel of the modern Spartan myth is the maltreatment of the helotes by the homoioi, which supposedly caused the hatred of the helotes towards the homoioi and vice versa the homoioi’s fear of the helotes and had as a consequence the idiosyncratic constitution of the Spartan society. The aforementioned also belong to a great extent in the sphere of hyperbole. I could analyze that more extensively, but it would took me ages to construct a brief account of the existed evidence and translate it into English, so I'm finishing this post at this point."

~mvarda

Authoritative sourcing, apro. I'll do my homework. Thanks.

Straight Dope weighs in:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060113.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051209.html