Tehran Condemns "anti-Iranian" Movie 300

playfuls.com ^ | 12 March 2006 | playfuls team

[RedStateRocker]

"One thing, in those days, a massive army would have been 20K - 50K men, and not a million. The logistics for doing anything with a million-man army in those days did not exist."

Perhaps, but I have yet to see a reputable scholar estimate less than several hundred thousand. Rufus J Fears, a great scholar and lecturer estimated 300,000, IIRC. All ancient sources are above this number. I. too am skeptical about an army of over a million in those days but I shall not argue with Herodotus

[Cronos]

Forget Xerxes, think of Cyrus the Great! He was the man who essentially GAVE Alexander an Empire. Cyrus' Empire stretched from what is now Pakistan (then part of India), right to Egypt and Turkey. This was a benevolent Empire, and all Alex did was knock out the Shahenshah and take his throne. BUt don't discount the Iranians. After Alexander left, his generals tried to keep Iran, but they were tossed out by the Parthians (people from what is now Balochistan, Central Asia) and after THEY were defeated by Trajan, they were replaced by the Sassanids. Iran was great right until the time they were over-run by the orc-hordes.

and when Iran turns, it'll be great again.

[Frapster]

I had considered taking my 11 yo son but after seeing it first I will not. The violence is particularly graphic and the sex is particularly ... graphic? lol

[Cronos]

Yeah, but the Persians were really nice to the Jooos, don't forget that. In FACT, most likely, the Persian army included JOOOS (and Assyrians, Egyptians, Lydians, Ethiopians, Indians, Persians, Sogdians, Scyths, proto-slavs, proto-germans etc. etc., pretty much the ancestors of all of us who ain't Greek)

[Cronos]

Also, why are the Iranians so offended about someone insulting their days of kufirdom? They should be happy to see their unbelieving Zoroastrian ancestors defeated and humiliated just like they enjoy seeing unbelieving Jews and Christians defeated and humiliated.

because most Iranians REVERE their days of Kufirdom. They hear how they were and how their ancestors were great (and they WERE right until the time thy were yoked toarabbia) and they ask themselves WHY? When they finally get fed up, it will destroy the cult of death

[archy]

If Hollywood was deliberately creating pro-US, pro-military propaganda it could not have done a finer job. ... .
We were totally bowled over by it. Must see for Freeps.

Teaser example here. You can see why the leftys and loons are not pleased.

[Cronos]

What is pretty funny is that many of those we now consider Greeks were actually either supporters of the Persians (like the Thebians, or Greeks descended from Slavs/Scythians) or Persian-leaning neutrals like the Macedonians.

[Cronos]

I also seem to recall a visit to the then-Persian capital city of Baghdad by the Mongols under Hulegu Khan around 1257-1258,
Ryou're wrong about that:

In 1255, Hulagu, the child of Tolui and Sorghaghtani Beki, a Christian woman, was sent by his brother Mongke (who was Great Khan from 1251-1258) to conquer or destroy the remaining Muslim states in southwestern Asia. His mother was a passionate Nestorian Christian, as was his wife, Dotuz Khatun, and his closest friend and general, Kitbuqa. Their influence was said to have instilled in him a deep animosity against Muslims — unusual for the generally tolerant Mongol Empire — along with a contrasting desire to assist Christians. He was also passionate with Persia and its culture, the reason why he became the Khan of Persia under Ilkhanate dynasty. The Persian influence was another factor that encouraged Hulagu to attack the Arabs. Hulagu always had many Persian chancellors, whom wished to take revenge from Arabs for their conquest of Persia centuries ago and also because Persia was long time enemy of Abassid caliphate. [1]

[Cronos]

What if the Eastern Empire had managed to hang on, and what if the Western Empire didn't fall?

Well, we wouldn't have had a Catholic Church, we'd be all part of one Orthodox Church (as the Eastern Empire was always more stronger economically than the West).

[archy]

I also seem to recall a visit to the then-Persian capital city of Baghdad by the Mongols under Hulegu Khan around 1257-1258,

Ryou're wrong about that:

It was a top-of-the head recollection, but I recall the Siege of Baghdad as happening around that time [1258 was the last four digits of my old phone number, and it was my mnemonic recall helper]

Accordingly, a search for Siege of Baghdad, 1258 turns up the following info from Wiki

The Abbasid caliphate had been in existence for over 500 years, since the accession of the first caliph in Baghdad 751 CE. The Abbasids were the second of the Islamic dynasties; they had defeated the Umayyads, who had ruled since the death of Ali in 661.

Once mighty, the Abbasid caliphate had lost control over much of the former Islamic empire and had declined into a minor state. The caliph had become a figurehead, controlled by Mamluk or Turkic warlords. However, the caliphate still had great symbolic significance, and Baghdad was still a rich and cultured city.

The battle

The Mongol army, led by Hulagu (or Hulegu) Khan and the Chinese commander, Guo Kan as in vice-command set out for Baghdad in November of 1257. Hulagu marched with what was probably the largest army ever fielded by the Mongols. By order of Mongke Khan, one in ten fighting men in the entire empire were gathered for Hulagu's army (Saunders 1971).

Hulagu demanded surrender; the caliph refused, warning the Mongols that they faced the wrath of Allah if they attacked the caliph. Many accounts say that the caliph failed to prepare for the onslaught; he neither gathered armies nor strengthened the walls of Baghdad. David Nicolle states flatly that the Caliph not only failed to prepare, even worse, he greatly offended Hulagu Khan by his threats, and thus assured his destruction. (Monke Khan had ordered his brother to spare the Caliphate if it submitted to the authority of the Mongol Khanate.)

Prior to laying siege to Baghdad, Hulagu easily destroyed the Lurs, and his reputation so frightened the Assassins (also known as the Hashshashin) that they surrendered their impregnable fortress of Alamut to him without a fight in 1256. He then advanced on Baghdad.

Once near the city, Hulagu divided his forces, so that they threatened both sides of the city, on the east and west banks of the Tigris. The caliph's army repulsed some of the forces attacking from the west, but were defeated in the next battle. The attacking Mongols broke some dikes and flooded the ground behind the caliph’s army, trapping them. Much of the army was slaughtered or drowned.

Under Guo Kan's order, the Chinese counterparts in the Mongolian army then laid siege to the city, constructing a palisade and ditch, wheeling up siege engines and catapults. The siege started on January 29. The battle was swift, by siege standards. By February 5 the Mongols controlled a stretch of the wall. Al-Musta'sim tried to negotiate, but was refused.

On February 10 Baghdad surrendered. The Mongols swept into the city on February 13 and began a week of massacre, looting, rape, and destruction.

[rbosque]

True. Funny how things turn out. I bet if they worked on their problems they might have, considering the distance.
Maybe a measure of civility would have prevailed in that part of the world.

[Quick or Dead]

The troll-man and the Immortals were over the top, that's what made them interesting. They were the Persian equivalent of super-soldiers. If you pay attention in the first wave, you'll one of the Immortals hit a Spartan with a flying dropkick. Nice.

[Quick or Dead]

because most Iranians REVERE their days of Kufirdom. They hear how they were and how their ancestors were great (and they WERE right until the time thy were yoked toarabbia) and they ask themselves WHY? When they finally get fed up, it will destroy the cult of death

It is interesting how the Persians haven't made a connection between the decline of their civilization and their conquest/conversion by the forces of Islam.

[voltaires_zit]

A great quote showing the Iranians are completely out of touch with reality:

Javad Shamqadri, an art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was quoted as saying "following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the U.S...."

LOL! We have "cultural authorities"? Can anyone imagine David Geffen and President Bush working together on **anything**?

[NoDRodee]

Think they don't like 300, wait till they meet our Marines then they will have something to complain about.

[PzLdr]

The Spartans, leading the largest Greek Phalanx Army ever fielded up to that time[ and maybe after], of some 40,000 Greeks, routed, and annihilated the army Xerxes left behind after he went back to Persia. That battle was at Platea.

[PzLdr]

The Persian Army that invaded Greece was believed to have been in excess of 100,000 men, and may have numbered 300,000. The Persians spent several years, before the invasion purchasing and placing [at forward bases] suppliers for the campaign. That was one of the two reasons the Persian fleet was key. Not only did it protect the seaward flank on Xerxes' march south, it was the principal method of the army's resupply.

That's why Salamis was so important. By defeating the Persian fleet, Themistocles made it almost impossible for Xerxes to continue operations on the scale he was, and forced the withdrawal of a sizable portion of the Persian Army back to Asia Minor. Mardonius and a still large Persian Army were left in the open area northwest of Athens in anticipation of renewed operations in the Spring. Platea put paid to that idea.

[PzLdr]

Iranaians still celbrate a festival in the Spring involving bonfires. Goes back to the old days.

[Dave Elias]

"The Spartans, leading the largest Greek Phalanx Army ever fielded up to that time[ and maybe after], of some 40,000 Greeks, routed, and annihilated the army Xerxes left behind after he went back to Persia. That battle was at Platea."

Exactly, it certainly wasn't at Salamis as stated. However even at Platea the Spartans were a minority making up about one third of the total force.

[design engineer]

I agree with most of those viewer comments. What I dont like is the way they depicted Persians. During my experience of meeting diverse people from different cultures, Persians came out to be on the close top near the Germans. Very well educated, affable and beautiful people. Have several friends of Persian ancestry who are very fine gentlemen and ladies.

Plus, there is a huge PARSEE population in Bombay, India from where I hail. One of my best childhood friends is a Parsee as well and dont think he looked like a monster.

Depicting them as sub-human monsters is not an insult to them but to the people who make that ridiculous comparison. Only shows their ignorance.