OT: Spartan show on History Channel tonight [Archive]

Chang Style Novice

09-30-2002, 12:55 PM

Leonidas was the King of Sparta who led his personal retinue to the pass at Thermypolae to fight a much larger Persian army. They were defeated, but because of their shrewd tactics and fearless battling gave the Athenian fleet enough time to outflank the forces of Xerxes and ultimately prevent a Persian conquest of Greece.

Or so the story goes. As to the actual meaning behind the name, I dunno. But I bet it has something to do with lions.

Chang Style Novice

09-30-2002, 01:15 PM

oops! It appears I've misspelled the name of the battle site. It's actually Thermopylae.

rubthebuddha

09-30-2002, 01:38 PM

spartan mainly means frrom sparta.

it's actually now an adjective. if i have a spartan room or house, it's very unadorned and plain. traditionally, spartans led very plain lives, not indulging much into excesses like their mediterranean counterparts. they simply were a good, hard-working people, and didn't really make time for nuance. also,
their women were reputed to be as tough as their men.

Leonidas

09-30-2002, 02:00 PM

Yea i knew the history behind the name (I read the picture book :D). Thats why i like it so much. The King was a genuine hero in my eyes (you have to have pretty big balls to do something like that). I think your right about it meaning lion too. I've heard someone say thats what it means in Latin or Portugese or some other language (prolly latin, maybe both) but i wasn't sure if its the same thing in greek.

Chang Style Novice

09-30-2002, 02:05 PM

by "picture book" I'm guessing you mean Frank Miller's "300" - not so bad, but I'm not digging FM as much as I did about 10-15 years ago.

The story has been told approximately eleventy jillion times in various formats, of course.

Ford Prefect

09-30-2002, 02:38 PM

Gates of Fire by Pressfield was one hell of a book too. It's all about Spartan training/life and the Battle at Thermopylae. 300 Spartans holding off 2 mill Persians for 6 days is no small feat. Anyone know how much research Pressfield did before penning the book?

Leonidas

09-30-2002, 05:08 PM

Right you are Chang.

I read a couple accounts of the "official" history about the battle too. Can't trust a comic-book for historic accurency as good as it was.......anyway, no one can agree on the actual number of Persians save for the fact that it was in the 1,000's-10's of thousands which leaves alot of room for error but everyone agrees that there were only 300 Greeks fighting the whole lot of them, needless to say..........

rogue

09-30-2002, 06:40 PM

The term laconic comes from the name Laconia in regard to the concise manner that the Spartans spoke.

David Jamieson

10-01-2002, 01:18 AM

the greatest warrior society ever to grace this good planet is the U.S.A

some motley little band of unwashed pillagers is hardly a "nation" and by todays standards they are a bunch of david koresh's.

interesting history, useless to aspire to.

anyway, don't agree on the u.s.a thing? challenge them to total war and you will learn who carries the big stick of oppression on the global battleground. Just ask the germans and the japanese. Oh and the russians, and the mexicans, and the rwandans, and the....

peace

neptunesfall

10-01-2002, 05:41 AM

greatest warrior society or greatest military technology?

Leonidas

10-01-2002, 06:13 AM

LoL...... good point neptune.

I think Ford meant before the invention of guns, but then again those Greeks had alot of competition for the title of greatest warrior scociety.

Lets see. Theres the Samurai, the Vikings, the Sikh, who could forget the Romans, the Knights of Europe, the Aztecs(can't forget the fighters in the Americas), the Chinese of course of course. Thats all i can remember now

Ford Prefect

10-01-2002, 08:31 AM

Neptune makes a valid point. I doubt Kung Lek was serious. After all, the Persians were the total world power at the time controlling far more of the known world than the USA ever did. They sent their legions that had enslaved most of asia, the middle east, etc against the Spartans and were absolutely hammerred right out of Greece.

Leonidas,

I didn't mean best by trying to measure different intangibles or one on one fighting. I'm talking about on a large battlefield. Their weapons and tactics to best use those weapons were unsurpassed. The light armor and weapons of the Chinese would bounce off Spartan shields and armor. Especially if we are talking about monks with little armor and weapons like a staff, long sword, saber, etc. They were made for battle at a distance where a Spartan phalanx would change until they are chest to chest with their first line crashing into the front line of the enemy and start thrusting their short swords while the back line try to gauge the enemy with their long spear from behind the wall of shields and armor. The Samurai's with just two handed swords would fall as well. The vikings would have the right weapons to match the Spartans, but their tactics weren't as advanced.

Those are just my opinion after becoming familiar with the different tactics and weaponry of warrior societies. I'm by no means an expert but just comparing basic weapons and tactics alone would lead one to that conclusion. Opinions are like ***holes anyway. Everybody's got one. ;)

Budokan

10-01-2002, 08:43 AM

I was only able to watch the first hour, but it was great. Hope to catch the second half on a rerun soon...

Ford Prefect

10-01-2002, 09:29 AM

I actually wasn't able to see it. :( I was in work until midnight to close out the quarter. **** you corporate America! My girlfriend taped it for me though. She'll be getting flowers.

Leonidas

10-01-2002, 09:36 AM

Yea, i have to admit. Killing 50,000+ Persians with only a couple thousand men on your side and minimal loss is pretty convincing but i dont think a full on phalanx charge is the only way to win a battle. They were really helped by the narrowness of the 'Gates'.

There are other factors that you have to take into account if you wanna call them the greatest military ever (in large scale battle). For instance, their navy couldn't compete with the one in Athens. Did they even have one? How were they gonna supplies troops in foreign countries? What about long range weapons like archers? What happened if the Phalanx was broken? You can't simply depend on one formation and heavy armor. How did they compare with the Romans or the army of Alexander the Great?

hmmmm.....

Leonidas

10-01-2002, 09:40 AM

Oh yea, it continues tonight. Parts 2 about the Peloponesian War mainly.

Ford Prefect

10-01-2002, 10:51 AM

Sweet. I'll have to make sure my gf taped that too!

I hear what you are saying, but I am talking about the battfield and not the sea. Their battle squires and second squires (helots) had the capacity to be the archers. Sparta was never concurred until around 400 AD. Yes AD! That's crazy considering how far they go back. They lost power and suffered some defeats to other Greek city-states during their long history. The Romans could have conquered Sparta, but they so respected Spartan culture that they let them leave the Achaean League and remain autonomous.

Stranger

10-01-2002, 10:52 AM

-The Samurai's with JUST two handed swords would fall as well-

The Samurai did not conduct their military campaigns this way. They had archers, riflemen, engineers/sappers, lancers, cavalry, infantry, etc.

I'm not saying they are the top warrior society, just that their battles were not an assembly of thousands of individual kenjutsu duels.

Ford Prefect

10-01-2002, 11:03 AM

Hey Stranger,

I'm aware of all that. I was speaking of the main infantry force of the samurai. I didn't think I had to go into detail about every culture mentioned.

Souljah

10-01-2002, 11:19 AM

Man how can you even claim anyone as the greatest warrior society? OK ok there are candidates, but i think its all relative to time. Although many existed and conquered at the same time (greeks,romans etc) many existed in different times like the mongol empire,
ottoman empire,
Atillas reign earlier on,
Byzantine, etc, etc (feel free to add any)
and
Though im am in no way proud of it the british had a massive empire too, although this was after the invention of guns.

There is no real answer i dont think, they all did some amazing things, and some harsh things which have shaped our world today.

Chang Style Novice

10-01-2002, 11:28 AM

In a battle between equal numbers of Klingons and Jedi, those Force ****s would get wiped the f!ck out!

Souljah

10-01-2002, 11:35 AM

very true, poor ghengis, ceasar(s), *sniff* Alexander, Ptolomy, Atilla *sniff* sniff*

I wouldnt be sorry for bush though :p :p

Ford Prefect

10-01-2002, 11:43 AM

Greetings knit-pickers,

Please read this part Opinions are like ***holes anyway. Everybody's got one. before proclaiming some higher intelligence. It is called an "opinion". Ever hear of it? I'm sure if you go to google.com, then you could find an adequate defination, so you can better understand this thread. ;)

Leonidas

10-01-2002, 12:09 PM

Point taken :D

Stranger

10-01-2002, 12:26 PM

Sorry for the confusion Ford Perfect, but one never knows at KFO what posters are aware of. The majority of KFO posters think that kendo was the sword art of the Samurai, and that the Samurai were so good at it because they did nothing other than kendo training all day long- Obviously an oversimplification. I wrongly assumed you were making the same mistake/oversimplification.
All apologies.

For those that are listing conquerors and have therefore shifted the debate to the greatest conqueror rather that the greatest warrior society....

From the Book of Lists:
10 Men Who Conquered the Most Square Miles

10. Hernando Cortes @315,000 sq. miles
9. Francisco Pizarro @480,000 sq. miles
8. Mahmud of Ghazni @680,000 sq. miles
7. Napoleon Bonaparte @720,000 sq. miles
6. Adolf Hitler @1,370,000 sq. miles
5. Attila @1,450,000 sq. miles
4. Cyrus the Great @2,090,000 sq. miles
3. Tamerlane @2,145,000 sq. miles
2. Alexander the Great @2,180,000 sq. miles
1. Genghis Khan @4,860,000 sq. miles

The above list only involves square mileage and is offered only to encourage discussion. There are, of course, more criteria in determining "The Greatest Conqueror of All-Time".

Souljah

10-01-2002, 12:51 PM

hey thanks for the figures, cool.

The show is coming on here at 2100 in the UK so im gonna watch it....hopefully, if i can prize my mums away....hehe:(

Ford Prefect

10-01-2002, 12:58 PM

No harm meant at all. I just started the thread to let people know about the show not expecting to debate any points. I'm a sarcastic ******* which I subconciously use whenever I post, so forgive me if some may seem harsh or insulting. That's just me shooting the isht, and if you were here, I'd be smiling as I say it or making jokes. :)

I'm not much of a history buff where conquerors are concerned past regular high school and university classes. I guess you'd have to take into account the land that was conquered (empty desert, fertile land) and the people conquered (small city-states, well organized armies, etc). I may be mistaken, but Ghengiz never saw the likes of the Persian cavalry or other opponents of the quality Alexander saw. My knowledge in the matter is extremely limitted though.

Stranger

10-01-2002, 01:12 PM

That is very true about the terrain conquered and the quality of opponents faced. You could also consider the technological advantage of the conqueror (ie. the conquistadores firearm advantage over Native Americans), the longevity of the conquest and the lasting institutions it created (ie. Atilla was criticized for conquering so much but creating so little), or the assistance of non-military factors such as famine, disease, and/or natural disaster in the decimation of an opponent. These consideraions and others not yet mentioned would qualify the square mileage to assist in determining the "Greatest Conqueror of All-Time".

Leonidas

10-01-2002, 01:14 PM

Yea, there is a dif'. Some warrior societies that could be considered on the top 10 atleast didn't seek out to conquer anything. Whats the criteria for conquering a new territory anyway? I dont know much about Cortez and Pizarro. I dont remember hearing about them fighting any battles. Did they just follow the popular trend in that time of simply going to a foreign country, laying down a flag and claiming it in the name of the queen. Some natives thought differently about land ownership anyway, i wouldn't consider it conquering a new country in that case. I dont recognize a couple names on the list namely Ghazni and Tamerlane? What countries are they from? I'm guessing Ghazni is Indian?

Am i right?

Leonidas

10-01-2002, 01:22 PM

Thats exactly what i was thinking Stranger. You said it better then i could have though. I doubt all the armies constantly fought or was put to the test. I know for sure that Europeans had alot of help from disease while stealing land in America. By the time the natives wisened up half the population was dead

Stranger

10-01-2002, 01:33 PM

Cortes and Pizarro had to actually fight for their conquests, they were not merely explorers planting flags. Unlike most New World explorers, they conquered territory held by what were at the time great empires by New World standards (Cortes vs. the Aztecs and Pizarro vs. the Incans).

From the Book of Lists:

Mahmud of Ghazni (971?-1030)
From 997 to 1030, Mahmud, the Muslim Sultan and Afghan King of Ghazni, conquered 680,000 sq. miles. His Near Eastern empire extended from the Indian Ocean north to Amu Darya River and from the Tigris River east to the Ganges River in India.

Tamerlane (1336?-1405)
From 1370 to 1402, the Islamic turkicized Mongol chieftain, Tamerlane conquered approximately 2,090,000 sq. miles. His empire included most ofthe Near East, from the Indus River to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Indian Ocean to the Aral Sea.

__________________________________________
A little more side info on an interesting historical figure:

Tamerlane was named Timur at birth. Later when crippled by an arrow he received the nickname Timur-i-Leng, or Timur the Lame. He is known to history by the Westernized version Tamerlane.

Tamerlane was known for making pyramids out of the skulls of his victims: 70,000 skulls at Isfahan, 90,000 skulls in Bagdhad, and 100,000 skulls at Delhi. At Sebsewar, Persia he entombed 2,000 people alive.

Chang Style Novice

10-01-2002, 01:39 PM

Pol Pot's role model!

Headline from the Onion archives: "Cambodia Switches to Skull Based Economy"

Losttrak

10-03-2002, 09:43 AM

I believe it was in that battle that Leonidas had an awesome quote:

The enemy king said that come the morning the air will be dark with arrows.

Leonidas said "Then we will fight in the shade."

It is imperative that before death.. you say at least ONE cool thing... =p

Leonidas

10-03-2002, 11:01 AM

yes i did :D

seriously, i agree

that was a sweet quote.

rogue

10-03-2002, 01:38 PM

Cortes vs. the Aztecs and Pizarro vs. the Incans

Whoa Nelly and just hold on there a second pardner. Cortez and Pizarro both walked into situations where both the Aztecs and Incans were conquerors and the other indigenous people who did not like being ruled by the Aztec looked at Cortez as a way of getting the Aztecs. The masters of war are difinatly the West.

Budokan

10-03-2002, 04:08 PM

Back to the original topic if I may: I didn't think the second night's documentary was as good as the first. What did you guys think?

Leonidas

10-04-2002, 04:48 AM

I liked both equally. I have to admit that the first war was more exciting since the second show was mainly about the fall of the Spartans, so you had to sit through an hour of hearing the narrator retell how they screwed up their citystate and everyone elses. Its was kinda odd that their strength was also their weakness. No adaptability.

Stranger

10-04-2002, 06:02 AM

rogue,

Very true that Cortes and Pizarro had help from L.I.P.'s. I think that the ability to find allies and ride political/social tides would be an invaluable skill to a conqueror. Let's face it, none of the men on the list did their conquering alone. Before it became practical to move large forces across the globe, it was common to use L.I.P. forces with a leadership cadre of your own loyal people. Napoleon marched into Russia with many non-French troops, Hitler's forces found many anti-Communist Ukranian partisans to cooperate with their Barbarosa invasion.

I don't think Cortes or Pizarro could have found a large enough ship or fleet of ships to transport enough Spanish soldiers, munitions, and supplies all the way to the New World to accomplish the conquest on their own.

Chang Style Novice

10-04-2002, 08:04 AM

To return to an earlier subject:

Vikings are superior. (http://www.rathergood.com/vikings/)

rogue

10-04-2002, 10:00 AM

I believe that the two greatest conqueror states were the Ottomans and the Romans. Not only did they conquer but also managed to hold their empires together for extended periods.

Stranger, you forgot to mention Afghanistan as a recent example of using L.I.P. No matter where the battle field you can always find someone who's P.O.'d at your enemy.

Budokan, I think the show just got a little long at 4 hours. One lesson the Spartans forgot at Hells Gate (Thermopoly) was watch your six. But they didn't have clocks back then so I guess it's understandable.

KC Elbows

10-04-2002, 10:07 AM

I don't they forgot. That's why the battle is so legendary. They were soldiers through and through. It was their duty to hold as long as they could.

Leonidas

10-04-2002, 10:33 AM

Besides a victory or death attitude you forgot that they didn't know that one of their own people betrayed them to the Persians. They wouldn't have a reason to watch their six if the secret entrance wasn't revealed. They got screwed.

Chang Style Novice

10-04-2002, 04:43 PM

Heh. The eleventy-jillionth and one retelling of the battle of Thermopylae is showing on Cartoon Network's "Samurai Jack" this weekend. The persians have been replaced by tank-treaded minotaur robots, but the essence is there. They rerun it about 6 or seven times between now and sunday. Check local listings.