[Thompson_NCL]

A movie about a hero needs to have bad guys, simple.

[Beren]

You haven't watched many historical movies, have you?

Or I've just missed some of the good ones.

[fuser]

All the examples cited are considered to be classics, I can give more examples but I don't think it would be necessary. Your point that a nation can't make good cinema based on history of any other nation is just wrong as shown by these examples.

[Corporatios]

Persia have always been shown as the bad guys which represent the 'tyrannical hordes of asia'. Yet they had a grand civilization.

Persia was occupying by use of brutal force other previously prosperous nations, like the Greek colonies of Asia minor and Lydia. They were as bad as the guys can be.

[Americanroyalty]

Would you guys complain as much about Shakespeare's King Lear or Julius Caesar? Those are both historical drama's of non-english figures.

[Igor Antunov]

Persia was occupying by use of brutal force other previously prosperous nations, like the Greek colonies of Asia minor and Lydia. They were as bad as the guys can be.

Persia had a more developed society than the regions it conquered, therefore like Rome it can be seen as the bringer of civilisation to uncouth tribes. It was a beacon surrounded by barbarian tribes. Greece could have been as great if only it wasn't infighting all the time. As a result it kept being raped from abroad; persia, macedon then rome all popped that cherry.

You could aruge the US is the same-except for the fact that it promotes absolutism, tribalism, authoritarianism and islamism -whatever works- in the regions it attempts to conquer, it has no real civilisation to nail into its victims. The stated brand of democratic liberalism is merely symbolic and thats what makes so many despise it-an empire without identity-akin to a gang of pirates.

The mongol empire can truly be called the most regressive in human history - as the guiding principle was wholesale extermination.

[noemon]

Macedon is no more abroad than Sparta beating Athens and there is no comparison in terms of advanced society between Persia and the Greek city states and that is why it was beaten by the Greek city-states and that is why Rome was beaten as well. The Roman empire changed its language to Greek officially. Greece was never beaten by anybody it lasted so long as the center of the world(more than 20 centuries in a row) that it decayed. Greece was the wealthiest and most educated place on earth well into the 14th century AD since the 6th BC. By the time Rome conquered Greece, there were Greek states as far as India and China untouched by Rome and by the time these fell, Rome had changed into Greece herself. There has never been a time when Greeks have not had a polity in the global domain and from the civilized aeons, only a little bit has not been dominated completely by them.

[Igor Antunov]

According to the greeks themselves the macedonians were an uncivilised tribe of savages, aka barbarians - this means they did not consider it part of their civilisation at the time of phillips conquest of greece. Which is why so many greeks fought for the persians during alexanders later campaign against darius's empire. Sure they consider it part of greece now-because the ancient macedonians were eventually absorbed into later greek culture - but that came later.

Greece was the wealthiest and most educated place on earth well into the 14th century AD since the 6th BC.

Utter nonsense.

there were Greek states as far as India and China untouched by Rome and by the time these fell, Rome had changed into Greece herself.

Now you're reaching. These would be a western inlfuenced civilisation group, not greek. When greek rulers inherited egypt, it did not make egypt greece, they had to uphold the local culture and laws to solidfy their power, thus it was a continuation of egyptian civilisation with new rulers. LAter the romans did the same-simply left an egyptian in charge and only demanded levies and taxes.

Similarly when the greeks inherited the eastern roman empire, they followed roman ways. Later the arabs and islam completely supplanted ancient egyptian ways wiping the continuous civilisation from existence. And after that the turks did the same to the byzantines -therefore greece is not the successor state to byzantium. Byzantium was eradicated, greece emerged as a completely separate entity-a continuation of greek civilisation.

The yuan dynasty, the qing etc are both considered chinese dynasties. Likewise the seleucid dynasty had to adopt persian customs and laws to rule over its portion. Foreign rulers always get absorbed into the local culture in order to rule it. Or if the invaders are purous and persistent enough the old civ is utterly wiped from existence. Greeks did not practice this because they did not have the settlers or influence to do so.

The Us for example may be a western civilisation speaking the english language with roman derived laws, but it sure as hell isn't britain/germany. Byzantium was a unique western/eastern civilisation borned out of roman conquest and greek leadership (depending on your religious views) and superseeded greece herself until its destruction. Today istanbul is more turkish (a central asian civilisation) than it is greek/roman. That is an example of civilisation being displaced by another.

Civilisation is fluid and not fixed in stone. Let's stay contextual please. This is why Israel (the modern state) is an implant - it does not present a continuation of anything. It is akin to the turks showing up and settling byzantine lands permanently. In this case it is a western civilisation state.

[Doomhammer]

Greece was the wealthiest and most educated place on earth well into the 14th century AD since the 6th BC.

I would challange the wealth argument simply because of the never ending series of wars that lasted until the Pax Romana. I would also challange the education argument because of the Andalus Emirate and, more significantly, China, which was a far more advanced civilization than anything the Mediterranean could ever come up with.

[noemon]

According to the greeks themselves the macedonians were an uncivilised tribe of savages, aka barbarians - this means they did not consider it part of their civilisation at the time of phillips conquest of greece. Which is why so many greeks fought for the persians during alexanders later campaign against darius's empire. Sure they consider it part of greece now-because the ancient macedonians were eventually absorbed into later greek culture - but that came later.

False, Macedon spoke Greek since ever, and it was descended from the Argive dynasty, you are supposedly referring to after Alexander III but ever since Alexander I, Macedonians participated in the Olympic Games, an honor reserved only for Greeks. Athenians called the Spartans barbarians as well more times than they called the Macedonians, in fact Athenians called any Greek state that tried to beat it, a "barbarian". Ofc we wouldn't be having this conversation if there were no Skopjans.

In so far as the Greek mercenaries of Persia, they always existed before and after Alexander. There were always some Greek cities who placed their bets with Persia in exchange of gold.

These would be a western inlfuenced civilisation group, not greek. When greek rulers inherited egypt, it did not make egypt greece, they had to uphold the local culture and laws to solidfy their power, thus it was a continuation of egyptian civilisation with new rulers. LAter the romans did the same-simply left an egyptian in charge and only demanded levies and taxes.

Similarly when the greeks inherited the eastern roman empire, they followed roman ways. Later the arabs and islam completely supplanted ancient egyptian ways wiping the continuous civilisation from existence. And after that the turks did the same to the byzantines -therefore greece is not the successor state to byzantium. Byzantium was eradicated, greece emerged as a completely separate entity-a continuation of greek civilisation.

None of these examples follow any similar pattern to their development. They are all different. Alexandria was not an Egyptian city ruled by a Greek, it was purely a Greek city. The Ottomans did not conquer all of Greece, they never took Mani in the Peloponnese for example, nor did they take Crete up until the late 17th ce which they kept as a vassal state for very few years. As for Byzantium it has been called for centuries by both Byzantines and foreigners, a Greek Empire. Similarly the Pelopponesians led by the Acheans fought on the side of Romans in the Greek wars and remained independent. The Koinon of Free Lakonians lasted until the establishment of Byzantium.

Israel reappeared on the map more than 20 centuries after it died. Greek states however large or small never seized to exist.

As for wealth and education, barring China and India for whom I don't know much, the statement I made is correct. 6th BC-14th AD.

[Doomhammer]

The Ottomans did not conquer all of Greece, they never took Mani in the Peloponnese for example

Haha, I remember you talking about that before. It's like something out of an Asterix comic. You vie for continental hegemony, you fight and win successive wars against Habsburgs, Safavids, Spaniards; against grand coalitions and so on... and you can't subdue a piss-ant little town on some godforsaken rock (no offense but that's how any Ottoman decision-maker ought to have felt).

Mountains are the bane of empires.

barring China and India

Fair enough.

Alexandria was not an Egyptian city ruled by a Greek, it was purely a Greek city.

I think Igor's point is that although Egypt's elites were Greek (and in the case of Alexandria, it literally was founded by Greeks), Egyptian society/population maintained its customs and religion and therefore it would be problematic to call it a Greek state. But I agree with you. I tend to think elites matter so it would be best to say that Egypt was a Hellenistic 'state' (in the administrative sense) whose elites also identified themselves with the pharos to increase their legitimacy.

Similarly when the greeks inherited the eastern roman empire, they followed roman ways. Later the arabs and islam completely supplanted ancient egyptian ways wiping the continuous civilisation from existence. And after that the turks did the same to the byzantines -therefore greece is not the successor state to byzantium. Byzantium was eradicated, greece emerged as a completely separate entity-a continuation of greek civilisation.

I think we discussed this at some point. I argued that the Ottoman Empire was the legitimate successor of the Byzantine Empire for the following reasons:
1) Right of conquest.
2) Mehmet the Conqueror crowning himself "Caesar of the Roman Emprie" (Kayser-i Rum) and thus acknowledging/embracing the identity.
3) Adoption of cosmopolitanism and ecumenical imperialism (the idea of universal empire, that is).
4) Inheretance of legal-administrative institutions - "the Ottoman Empire is a Byzantium that worked" as some historians have said.
5) A considerable portion of the elites were Greek and/or were from states formerly under the Byzantine Empire.
6) A overlap in the imperial possessions of both Empires (at their greates extent) which suggesst a great continuity in strategic concerns/calculations and responses to threats. i.e. The Byzantines and Ottomans faced similar geoeconomic and geostrategic opportunities and challanges (I would say the Ottoman situation became decidedly worse after the discovery of America and the rise of Muscovy though).

The counterarguments were:

1) The Ottoman Empire was not Greek nor Christian.
2) The Ottoman Empire practiced Sharia Law (which is true but I have to say that secular law existed and often took precedence over religious law - especially decrees by the Sultan or "ferman"s).
3) (A) Greek state(s) of particular size(s) continued to exist.

[Social_Critic]

I'm just getting over the fact that many movies and stories throw liberal ideals and views in ancient stories like Spartacus, Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, etc. In a way it paints a picture on a civilization which simplifies them to a 'Goodie and Baddy' dichotomy.

Ie, the Greek States have always been shown as the beacons of light and defenders of democracy.....When will they stop this shit? :/

Don't worry. I'm working on a movie script showing the real truth. Moses will be shown as a religious nut leading a horde of pillaging invaders, the Greeks will be highlighted as slave owners and effete homosexuals whose main interest was scraping their skin with stones...I'll skip over Espartacus and show Nero as a great musician. And I'll show Mohammed as the greatest intellectual thinker in history.

This may be a bit controversial but I think it'll sell very well in Hollywood.

[pikachu]

Is there any Russian movie about the American Civil War? It would be a must watch.

I imagine it would be hardly different from Unionist propaganda, except that it would focus on the "decisive role" Russia supposedly played in preventing Anglo-French intervention.

When will they stop this shit? :/

When America stops being a liberal state? Every nation-state seeks to re-write history in order to give itself a sense of continuity, this includes its territorial claims but ideology too of course. Because the more you present all your ancestors as proto-[insert current ideology here], the more the [insert current ideology here] becomes seen as a natural and inevitable historical progression, not as some weird aberration that can come and go. So you go through history and pick and choose which sides you want to paint as proto-yourself and their opponents as proto-yourrecentenemies, so that it seems like your struggle against evil is almost an eternal battle fought by many many generations of people like yourself.

[Far-Right Sage]

Persia was occupying by use of brutal force other previously prosperous nations, like the Greek colonies of Asia minor and Lydia. They were as bad as the guys can be.

Well, I think the point is that ancient Greek Macedonia under Philip II and Alexander the Great was doing the same with its wars of conquest and expansion, such as in Asia Minor, yet their reputation is interpreted differently. I could see a Western film epic portraying the Islamic conquest of Persia and the downfall of indigenous Zoroastrian civilization in that country portrayed extremely sympathetically if Iran were not such an opponent targeted for demonization.

Of course, the Western establishment doesn't give a damn about modern Greece or Greek welfare, but it has built a political legacy and narrative of some mythic democratic continuity by distorting and fetishizing aspects of Greek history for all the wrong reasons and then re-appropriating them as their own. This should anger the Greek population, in my view.

The mongol empire can truly be called the most regressive in human history - as the guiding principle was wholesale extermination.

That wasn't a principle, just its methodology, which was effective. It could be called a destructive force however, owing to its ravaging of rather culturally and scientifically advanced societies which opposed it, from Song Dynasty China to the Rashidun Caliphate (Iraq) in its Golden Age. Savitri Devi aptly refers to Genghis Khan as the "Man in Time". Someone else would probably have arose from the east if not Temudjin.

[layman]

The Huns were an example of a truly regressive empire.

They had no real culture or identity of their own that we know if. While some came from the east, the majority were just in it for some quick cash and the looting lifestyle.

They were a parasitic empire that contributed nothing – a gang of thieves.

The Mongols slaughtered on a mass scale never to be matched til the 20th century. They did however help unify china and linked east to west for trade. They had some purpose.

[Doomhammer]

The Mongols slaughtered on a mass scale never to be matched til the 20th century. They did however help unify china and linked east to west for trade. They had some purpose.

They also weakened the Islamic worl (fuck those guys), laid the foundations of Russia by uniting the various princedoms against them, and temporarily lowered global temperatures by reducing CO2 emissions (by killing off 40+ million people). They carved out one of the biggest empires ever in the space of a few generations and their way of war could not be matched for a long time. Mongols were badasses. Give credit where credit is due.

Of course, the Western establishment doesn't give a damn about modern Greece or Greek welfare, but it has built a political legacy and narrative of some mythic democratic continuity by distorting and fetishizing aspects of Greek history for all the wrong reasons and then re-appropriating them as their own. This should anger the Greek population, in my view.

Wow. Masterfully said.* I don't know if you would agree but it is most ironic that Germans of all people, who were so fascinated in all things Greek in the 19th century, would be pursuing such harmful policies towards Greece today.




* Needs to be published somewhere... on Twitter at the very least.

[Istanbuller]

They also weakened the Islamic worl

And Mongols themselves had become Muslims after that. Then they called themselves as Turkic.

[layman]

Or mughals or Timurids etc ...

[fuser]

Mughal is basically Indianized version of the word Mongol.

[Potemkin]

In English, any powerful leader, for example in Hollywood or in big business, is still sometimes called a 'mogul'. Yep, you guessed it....