MovieChat Forums > The 300 Spartans Discussion > Oppression? Fighting for Democracy?

Oppression? Fighting for Democracy?

posted 17 years ago by slh_j
42 replies | jump to latest

Why is it that the Greeks are represented as the oppressed and the Persians the oppressors? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Greeks instigate the war? The Greeks encouraged the Ionians, semi-independent-Persian vassals of Greek decent, to revolt against the Persians. After putting down the revolt, the Persians then decided it might be a good idea to punish the foriegn Greeks who instigated a rebellion. No oppresion, just bad foriegn policy on the Greeks part and a understandable response from an empire.

Also, how is this represented as fighting for democracy? Although the Athenians might have been a democracy (as long as you weren't a woman, a non-Greek or a slave), the Spartans were an elistist military oligarchy that made slaves of other Greeks (Greeks having slaves was considered ok, but not Greek slaves. This was a point of contention with all of Sparta's neighbors). I don't want to discount that the seeds of democracy were in Greece, but the Greeks were not fighting for democracy. If someone were to say they were fighting for home rule, that would be more accurate than to say they were fighting for democracy.

I understand the military significance of the Battle of Thermopylae; I will never understand how this continues to be propped up as an example of standing up to oppression or fighting for democracy.

[–] Z-al 17 years ago

same with me, its total bs.

[–] qdfqdf 17 years ago

ur bs dude, u fell out a bulls butt

jealous retard lol

[–] smartwentcrazy10 17 years ago

They Ionian Greek were forced to join the Persian empire. They tried to revolt many times, some with the help from mainland Greece, some not. So the Persian king decided to get rid of the annoying little city states.

So it is fighting for freedom.

[–] kinetica 17 years ago

1421? oR MAYBE yURI gELLER HAVING "MENTAL POWERS"?

Ticks Ticks thousands of ticks, and not one blessed TOCK among them!

[–] eichenlaub1 17 years ago

Athens was a democracy, the Persians were not a democracy. Democracy good, monarchy bad. Greeks good. Persians bad.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eichenlaub1 17 years ago

its still a democracy, just like uhmerica

[–] rockeymallavia 17 years ago

Yup. 1/4 of Americans today have the right to vote.

Idiot.

[–] eichenlaub1 17 years ago

What percentage of the U.S. population has the right to vote?
Take a guess, I dare you.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jwiles1 17 years ago

Anyone above the age of 18 has the right to vote, as long as they are American citizens.

[–] weirdozmedia 17 years ago

Not if they're a felon.

[–] yella_fella 17 years ago

or if you don't have the paperwork to establish legal citezenship, eg. guest workers and their family-members.

"Give me the strength never to disown the poor or bend my knees before insolent might." -R. Tagore

[–] assadnaeem 17 years ago

Why is democracy good, look how long ago it was invented and it led to the eventual collapse of Athens(because they put their best admirals to death). Being outdated is usal critique of governmental systems but democracy has to be what 2 and a half thousand years old.

[–] ContinentalOp 7 years ago

Why is democracy good, look how long ago it was invented and it led to the eventual collapse of Athens(because they put their best admirals to death). Being outdated is usal critique of governmental systems but democracy has to be what 2 and a half thousand years old.

Democracy has its faults, indeed, especially when it descends into ochlocracy. The execution of six strategoi for failing to rescue drowning sailors after the battle of Arginusae, was a travesty of justice; something that the people of Athens did actually realise. Unfortunately this realisation came after the executions! However, despite the faults of democracy, democracy is far better than all of the alternatives (such as oligarchy, autocracy or plutarchy). Democracy guarantees political power and more equality for the majority, rather than political power resting only in the hands of a narrow minority (oligarchy, plutarchy) or one leader (autocracy).

I think I read somewhere that Sparta was like a communist state.

Almost the opposite. The Spartans were an oligarchic-monarchy, a slave state, believing in ethnic superiority and with a rigid class system.

This damned burg's getting me. If I don't get away soon I'll be going blood-simply like the natives.

[–] matthew-leon-nichols 10 years ago

You're wrong, if you don't know something you should keep your trap shut. More than half of ancient Greece at the time of the war was a monarchy. A good quarter where Oligarchies and a little less than a quarter was actually democracies (but only for a small portion of the actual population). Let's look at who was fighting at Thermopylae and what their governing style was.

300 Spartans- Not a democracy, they are dual monarchy which consisted of mostly slaves with free men at the top. Not a democracy. Not only are they not a democracy, Spartans despise democracy and everything it stands for. Sparta is the opposite of "freedom". Sparta is literally a slave state and Sparta is built around slavery. Spartans don't care about "freedom".

900 Perioeci- Tribal vassals of Sparta. They probably don't even know what a democracy is.

1600 Arcadians (some from Arcadian vassal cities)- Monarchy.

400 Corinthians - Monarchy.

200 Phlians - Think.... church based democracy where the rulers and voters are the religious leaders. Not really concerned with freedom for anyone other than the "elite" religious class.

80 Mycenaeans - Monarchy.

400 Thebans - Monarchy at the time, later became a democracy... sorta.

700 Thespians - Ohhhh..... look a democracy! Well a Democracy for 8% of the populace anyways.

1000 Malians - Dang... an Oligarchy!

1000 Phocians - No one is sure... but guess what it probably wasn't?

1000 Opuntian Locrians - A mixture of a bunch of small towns with various types of government, no democracies.

[–] ContinentalOp 7 years ago

Athens was a democracy, the Persians were not a democracy. Democracy good, monarchy bad. Greeks good. Persians bad.

Well, I agree with that statement but...

It was actually as simple as that, Athens was indeed a democracy as were a few other states (mostly Ionian states and Mantinea, an Arcadian Greek polis) but states like the Doric Sparta and Boeotian Thebes were very inequitable oligarchies. In fact, though Iran had a political system similar to Feudalism (which it inspired), the Iranic empire was actually a lot more free and just than Sparta (especially) and many of the Doric states.

This damned burg's getting me. If I don't get away soon I'll be going blood-simply like the natives.

[–] qdfqdf 17 years ago

ur a jealous retard, thats why u dont understand

[–] Bajsnisse 17 years ago

Responses like these don't count as arguments. I could say the same thing about you, you're jelous of the persians and don't want to hear about the greeks being the bad guys in the war. Responding like this doesn't really make you less of a retard.

[–] elkieleenen 17 years ago

I don't remember who said it, but someone (I think he might have been from Athens) had a lot of critisism to democracy and still defended it. When questioned about it, he said something anlong the lines of: "Democracy isn't a good government method, but the other options are even worse." So even though it can be inefficient and can lead to stupid actions, it's seen as the least bad option. Probably because the fair conduction of it rules out oppression and secures more civil freedom than the other ones.

[–] euchrid-1 17 years ago

You may be thinking of Winston Churchill's comment that 'democracy is the worst system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried.'

[–] kh154390 8 years ago

If I remember correctly, I believe that Aristotle said that democracy was one of the worst forms of government.

[–] lukaslukas 17 years ago

It was Spartans' fight for freedom and self preservation.

And good or bad are relative terms.

My vote history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21237198

[–] freetobreathe 17 years ago

The Ionian vassal states were not content to be oppressed by the Persian empire. I'll try to make it simple---Here is an analogy: the Eastern European satellites of the Soviet Communist Empire were not "content". The people were miserable and escaped at every chance.

Given that fact, your whole premise sinks like a lead weight.

[–] joecam-1 17 years ago

I personally think the reason the spartan/thespian sacrifice resonates through histroy isn't because it was a battle to save democracy. It was battle that helped save the greek civilization and therefore western civilization. That is what the spartans and thespians were fighting for. Their way of life. And arguably their sacrifice along with the athenian sailors who fought and died in the naval battle near Thermopalye is why we have our way life.

[–] Bardyllis 17 years ago

I think you should be very glad our culture is not based on the spartans way of life. very, very glad.

Some people make it sound like the greeks invented freedom or something, noone did that.

[–] freetobreathe 17 years ago

"or something? "

Greeks did invent democracy..and individualism rather than being pawns of the mighty.

Do yourself a favor before making ridiculous comments: Try reading some ancient tragedies or read the speaches of ancient Greeks.

[–] ntsci 17 years ago

Yeah, but Spartans were slave masters over the Hellots and even tyranical over themselves. No freedom what so ever for master or servant.

Persia was the first nation in history to recognize human rights and they guaranteed autonomy to their satalite states showing a great deal of respoect for the local langauge, culture and religion. They were not tyrants. This is in marked contrast to the Roman who imposed assimilation on their provinces.

In many respects the world might be a much better place if the Persians had won instead of the Greeks.

The reason the fight resonates with us is that the Greeks wrote the history.

[–] bradwenner 16 years ago

IMO it's actually quite a bit simpler than all that. Quite simply, people love the underdog. People like to see triumph in the face of overwhelming odds (you'd be hard pressed to not call thermopylae a triumph for the greeks, considering).

The story of the 300 Spartans embodies all of that and more, ideals that we'd like to see in ourselves such as honor, courage, strength, and a willingness to sacrifice for what you believe in.

These are qualties that are mostly lost to the average person these days, driving thier luxury SUVs to boring cubicle jobs and back. Or at least, when those qualities do exsist, they are in a subtler form.

The story of the 300 reminds of those qualties, and how they were the backbone of that "army" that led to the historical battle at Thermopalye

[–] austendw 16 years ago

the Roman who imposed assimilation on their provinces.

Really? How did they do that? The notion that "Romanness" was a clearcut cultural phenomenon that was then simply imposed on colonial territories ("Romanization") - whether viewed positively, as it tended to be in the previous century, or negatively in our more culturally sensitive times - has recently been challenged as a less than entirely accurate model of what was going on at that time. "Romanness" was itself in flux, and itself developed as it colonised, through the diffusion of those colonial cultural influences throughout the Empire. Obvious examples are the way that Rome became "Egyptianised" - the cult of Isis, Egyptianising fashions etc.- or the way Romans were attracted to eastern religions (so that legislation was enacted to prevent some conversions/defections). Cultural influence was by no means a simple one-way thing.

The notion of enforced Romanization is as simplistic as that of Persian tyranny.

Call me Ishmael...

[–] turinturambar30 15 years ago

I'm glad you brought this up. Cultural Romanization was never policy, and not everyone Romanized. Some did, and the reason for some doing so but others not seemed to confuse even the Romans at times.

[–] tmf_scipio 16 years ago

"This is in marked contrast to the Roman who imposed assimilation on their provinces. "

I disagree with this comment.
Rome didn't start expanding until after their city was sacked by the Gauls in 390BC. In order for this not to happen again, the Romans began a series of Alliances with the neighboring tribes. This would give them a buffer zone against future attacks. What the Romans brought to this alliance, aside from Military Strength, was an Economic/Trade Relationship. The Romans didn't care what religion the ally followed, or other cultural differences, it was an alliance built upon trade. They would actually go to great lengths not to offend their allies religious beliefs. You can read this in Josephus (Some might call him a Pro-Roman writer, but, I believe that to be a more modern interpretation, mainly brought forth by Judean apologists.)

One important aspect of this alliance was that the benefiting City-State would soon realize the advantages to the Roman system, so they would begin a process of Romanization. So, from this Rome's influence would grow incrementally as they would foster new alliances. With this in place, Rome fell into her Empire. After several devastating wars against Carthage, the Roman Character began to change. This culminated in the fall of the Republic and the start of the Empire. The idea of not offending the different tribes in the Roman Empire continued through the empire. Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD. 60 some odd years after the founding of the Empire. Also, this explains why Pontius Pilate was unable to get Jesus out of Judaea, because it would have been counter to Roman law, regarding influence on internal affairs in the province.

So, in response to your "...imposed assimilation...," they didn't impose assimilation, Roman rule was accepted by the provinces. Yes, there were instances of revolt which were put down brutally, but, that was the nature of the time.

You might say History is written by the Winners, but sometimes it's written by the survivors, many years after the fact, with an apologists approach to their own heritage.

Now, to be fair, I consider myself a Roman apologist, to some degree.

There, did I offend enough people?

Better sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.

[–] matthew-leon-nichols 10 years ago

The Spartans where not fighting for democracy. Sparta was not a democracy. Sparta is the opposite of democracy... Sparta was a Diarchy and powered by slavery.

You talk all fine and dandy about Athenian democracy... but guess who wasn't at the battle? Athens!!! Guess who was? A bunch of city states who didn't give a d##$ about democracy.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matthew-leon-nichols 10 years ago

I personally think the reason the spartan/thespian sacrifice resonates through histroy isn't because it was a battle to save democracy.

Sparta wasn't a democracy.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 16 years ago

As fun as it is the argue about Geek Politics it's really very complicated.

Fact is our Founding Fathers preferred Sparta's System to Athens.

RonPaulMarch.com
The Battle may be over, But the War has only Just Begun.

[–] b_spiken 16 years ago

Agreed, Geek politics be though, D&D or Warhammer? :D

Seriously though, you can not say that Spartans stood for democracy and all the good "modern" things we have to day, thats utter rubbish.

On the other hand, Greek policies are well studied and aptly understood by modern schoolars, so no trouble there.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 16 years ago

America is a Republic not a Democracy, Real Democracy is actualy the worst form of government there is, but it is often way to loosely used to describe any state that has any voting at all.

"Introduce a little Anarchy

Upset the Established order

And everything becomes Chaos"

[–] dergeier117 16 years ago

Because the movie was made in 1961 at the height of the Cold War by an American studio.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

[–] turinturambar30 15 years ago

We based our education system off the Spartan agoge.

[–] lakesrussell 10 years ago

I think I read somewhere that Sparta was like a communist state.

>>>Only he is lost who gives himself up for lost.