And a call to arms...
I went to see "300" for the second time this afternoon. It is a beautiful film to watch despite its testosterone rating-- it's strictly a guy film, evidenced by the fact that on both occasions the audience was made up of less that 30 percent female; each accompanied by men. Apparently, just as there are 'Chick-Flicks' so too are there 'Man-Flicks'.
Because of the 'historicity' issue brought up in my previous post, I thought I'd look at the Battle of Thermopylae. Wikipedia doesn't have much to say, so I delved into James Ussher's 'The Annals of the World' (Only recently translated into English from its original Latin, and definitely one of the greatest books on my bookshelf).
Here is what Ussher had to say about the Battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC:
1118. Xerxes marched from Doriscus into Greece. As he came to any county, he conscripted all who were fit for fighting {*Herodotus, l.7.c.108. 3:413} He added a hundred and twenty ships to his navy and added two hundred more troops per ship, so increasing the naval forces by a total of twenty-four thousand men in all. Herodotus thought that his army increased by three hundred thousand. Diodorus though the increase was less than two hundred thousand. {*Diod. Sic., l.11.c.4.s.5. 4:135} [E124] So the total of Xerxes' army in European and Asiatic soldiers amounted to 2,641,610 men. [L177] Diodorus believed that the number of boys keeping the horses, the servants and sailors in the cargo ships and others, was larger than the number of soldiers. This means that even if that former sum were only doubled, the number of those which Xerxes carried by sea to Sepias and by land to Thermopylae would come to 5,283,220 men. This did not include the women cooks and the eunuchs, for no man can tell the exact number of them. Neither could he give the exact number of the horses and other beasts of burden, and the Indian dogs with their keepers, that followed the nobles in the camp for their pleasure. Hence, it was no wonder that so many rivers were exhausted from the thirst of so many people {*Herodotus, l.7.c. 185-187. 3:501-505} Junenal stated: {Juvenal, Satire, 10.}
We now believe that many rivers deep,
Did fail the Persian army, at a dinner.
1119. Therefore, it was less of a wonder that both Isocrates and Plutarch claimed that Xerxes took over five million men into Greece. {*Isocrates, Panathenaicus, l.1. (49) 2:403} {*Plutarch, Parallel Stories, l.1.c.2. 4:259}
1120. Yet in this large host, there was not a man as handsome as Xerxes or one that might seem more worthy of that great empire than he. {*Herodotus, l.1.c.187. 3:505} Like Saul among the children of Israel, so Xerxes might well seem to have been worthy of a crown. {1 Sa 10:23,24} Yet, stated Justin, when you spoke of this king, you would find cause to commend his wealth, mentioned before in Daniel, {Da 11:2} rather than his character, of which he said: {Justin, Trogus}
"There was such infinite abundance in his kingdom, that when whole rivers failed the multitude of his army, yet his wealth could never be exhausted. As for himself, he was always seen last in the fight and first in the flight. He was fearful when any danger was, but puffed up with pride when there was none."
1121. Leonidas, king of Sparta, with an army of four thousand Greeks, interposed himself against him and his whole army of three hundred thousand troops at the pass of Thermopylae in Thessaly. It was called this after the hot springs which were there. In this epitaph by Herodotus, we read: {*Herodotus, l.7.c.228. 3:545}
Here against three hundred thousand Persians,
Four thousand Spartans fought it out and died.
1122. Thirty myriads is three hundred thousand, which was the total given by Theodoret as the size of the whole army. {Theodoret, l.10.} Diodorus in the Greek and Latin edition of his work when commenting on the epitaph in Herodotus, wrote twenty myriads, which was two hundred thousand, instead of thirty myriads. {*Diod. Sic., l.11.c.4.s.5. 4:135} Yet in another place he said that the whole army consisted of a little less than a hundred myriads, or a million troops. In referring to this battle at Thermopylae, he said that five hundred men held off a hundred myriads, or a million troops. {*Diod. Sic., l.11.c.11.s.2. 4:151} Justin related the same story, and stated that six hundred men broke into the camp of half a million or, as in Orosius, six hundred thousand men. {Justin, Trogus, l.2.c.11.} Isocrates said that a thousand of them went against seven hundred thousand Persians. {*Isocrates, Archidamus, l.1. (99, 100) 1:405,407} Instead of the thousand mentioned by Isocrates, Justin and Orosius said it was six hundred, while Diodorus said five hundred. These were those men who were left when the rest of the Greeks were sent away. [L178] They held out against the Persians to the last man, including their Spartan king, Leonidas. Of this number, three hundred were Spartans, the rest were Thespians and Thebans. {*Herodotus, l.7.c.222,224. 3:539,541} They killed twenty thousand of the enemy. {*Herodotus, l.8.c.24. 4:25}
----
What the exact number of Spartans may have been is not particularly relevant. What IS relevant is the fact that a vastly smaller force of men held off a vastly superior force in a bottleneck roughly 14 yards wide. That historians disagree on the exact number of Spartans and the exact number of Persians doesn't take away from the obvious fact that a few held off many; giving better than they got, and dying to the man. On the face of it, that is exactly what happened... That much we can know.
Historians can likewise disagree about the Jefferson Bible, but what can't be argued is what the original publication's were titled, and the impact those titles have on the intent behind their compilation. It is at best 'flawed logic' to declare what was in the mind of any author in the writing of any work, but how a man labels his own work speaks volumes about what the author thought of his own work... to include what Jefferson's contemporaries thought of his work... This post is no different.
Liberals can choose to believe as they wish-- that is the nature of this beast we call America. What I and others strenuously object to is their insistence that their view be taught to the exclusion of dissent... as in Evolution, Sex Education, and other issues of personal morality that directly impact cultural morality. To deny criticism its lawful voice is to lie each time the protected view is presented as established truth. They may sneer all they wish, but to deny opposition its rightful voice speaks to their own petty fears and hypocrisy, and their 'Truth' can only be viewed as a usurper. Our duty then is to drag it from its throne, kicking and screaming if need be, and put it to the test. If it pass, well and Good! But if it fail, we will kick it to the street.
For now, it may seem that Conservatism is vastly outnumbered, but Liberalism has grown soft and vainglorious, all we need do is hold the pass; Shields up, thigh to shoulder, protect the man to your left, and give no ground-- Spartans do not retreat... Spartans do not surrender. Why then should we?
Great film... I will definitely add it to my DVD collection.
10 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And, I love the title of your blog.
The title comes from an old Simon & Garfunkle tune, "The Boxer"
Good post, EL.
Not evolution OR not. Not sex education OR not. Not conservative OR liberal. Most things really are relative. It really does depend. And in government, in this country, which includes the public schools, we really must compromise. Teach evolution as the latest scholarly science has to ofer. Teach 6-day Creation as one Christian perspective on Creation, in a religion class where it belongs. :-) And teach all the other dang religious perspectives on life origins, as well.
Its not that there is no Ultimate Truth, or Ultimate Right or Wrong. It's that no human being is capable of seeing things that clearly. No, not one.
Triumph Of The Vile
___________
ELAshley took the liberty of reposting TStockmann's post so's others wouldn't have to copy and paste his URL...
As for Gary Brecher himself, reader beware: the above article is laced with coarse and unsavory language... and that's being generous.
Mr. Brecher considers Victor Davis Hanson, in his own words, a "sad, thrashed whore..." a "NeoCon tool" and "Cheney-sucking". His article is humorous despite the filth you have to wade through to read it. But I might point out that simply because a man claims superior learning, intellect, understanding, doesn't make it so. Victor Davis Hanson has creds, Brecher is a self-avowed "War Nerd", and an armchair general.
I found an interesting bio at Wikipedia-- [Which should never be relied upon for untainted and accurate information... good for a quick brush up if you're already familiar with the subject matter, but definitely NOT a good FIRST source of information]...
"Gary Brecher is the author of The War Nerd, a twice-monthly column discussing current wars and other military conflicts, published in the the eXile.
"Brecher analyzes military strategy, tactics, and contexts of ongoing and past conflicts. While Brecher lacks military experience or formal training in war, he has credited himself as self-educated out of a personal, life-long obsession with warfare. He has also described himself as fat slob who spends approximately 8 hours a day on the internet searching for war news. Brecher describes himself as a "war nerd".
"It is still strongly debated whether Brecher is real or simply a pseudonym of his writer, as he has never been contacted in person..."
"To date all evidence for or against Brecher's existence as a real person remains circumstantial and unverifiable. The only non-eXile source of these details is an email interview with Brecher conducted by Steve Sailer and published by United Press International. The image at the top of each War Nerd column supposedly representing Brecher is actually that of Roger Edvardsen of the Norwegian rhythm & blues band Ehem."
Answers.com has the exact same entry for Brecher as Wiki, so not much help there...
It appears as well that Mr. Brecher was suspended without pay for suspicion of torching V.D. Hanson's property...
This guy is a bonafide nutbag.
I think I'll take V.D. Hanson over this guy any day of the week.
This is the classic example of an ad hominem attack. You attack Gary Brecher personally, rather than his specific arguments against the movie 300.
You do this a lot EL when someone challenges your beliefs. If you want to be credible as a representative for your beliefs you need to learn how to legitimately defend them in a debate. These personal attacks do not further your causes.
The fact that-- assuming you read his piece --you can call MY credibility into question over his is laughable.
Getting back to the subject I have to agree. I thought the movie 300 was ham-handed. I also didn't like the glorification of the spartans. I mean how much courage does it take for a professional soldier to go to war? The athenians, which are much under represented in this movie, I thought showed a lot more gumption.