Are Frank miller and Zack Snyder 100% to blame for why the average person thinks the Acheamedian empire is evil or were they just going with the flow of pop history?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Are Frank miller and Zack Snyder 100% to blame for why the average person thinks the Acheamedian empire is evil or were they just going with the flow ...
Devil's advocate: the Achaemenid Empire still conquered a lot in the first place, "progressive" or not, yes? Not exactly shining bastions of morality themselves.
Isn't that an unfair metric, since basically every civilization until recently was based on conquest?
>until recently
Are there any nations that exist today that did not annex their land from someone else?
Iceland
United Kingdom. They owned everyone elses land, but the land they have now was always theirs.
>the land they now have was always theirs
Was it?
Genuinely curious about the history there.
Right, so During the Roman period Britain wasn't actually as populated as you think, with many tribes of britons living in very specific areas, all ruled under the Romans.
Once the Romans literally left the country, the Britons split back up into Tribal kingdoms. Enter the Anglo-Saxons, the Modern English, who settled in the eastern lands of England, which were mostly abandoned due to being former Roman-majority territories.
Eventually the Anglo-Saxons overtook the Native Britons and did eventually take all the land and establish the period of the Heptarchy, or the 7 kingdoms period of the Anglo-Saxons.
The Britonic celts still existed though, even during this period as the states of Gwent ( yes that is where the Witcher gets the name of it's card game from ), Gwynedd, powys, Dyfed which all make up Wales, and Dumnonia which makes up Cornwall and finally Strathclyde which was northern celts pushed into scotlands, NOT the picts.
Scotland has an even more hilarious history, because they are unironically more of a mixed history than the English.
Again, just me being a pleb smooth brain that I am, that does sound a bit like conquest was involved from the get go.
Sort of, the Native Population never died out, they simply mingled in with the rest of the country and were not much of a large population to begin with.
It's actually fairly interesting how a distinct LACK of Celtic artifacts appears on the eastern coast of the UK, which is why it's mostly agreed that the Anglo-Saxon migration only came to blows when they expanded into Celtic territory much later.
Exactly, also unlike the Natives there is no real evidence of mass slaughter, it's more the Anglo-Saxons merely outnumbered the Britons in most of the Island, but eventually they intermingled.
The Genetic layout of the UK is hilarious because for all intents and purposes, it is absolutely stagnant and has been for over 1500 years, Celtic peoples are still in the celtic places and the Anglo-Saxons are still in the Anglo-Saxon places, people really do not disperse as much as people think.
So King Arthur is a lie
No, Just mythological embelishment of a historical figure.
The Saxons DID war with many Kingdoms of the Britons, specifically around Wales, which they failed to fully intergrate. There just lacks alot of evidence of titanic battles between invading hordes of Saxons against desperate Britonic kingdoms. If they did happen, we'd have WAY more saxon AND Britonic finds.
The Arthur legend supposedly is based on a Britonic Warrior king labeled by the Romans as Artorias, who ruled in Wales.
Fun fact, the Symbol of the Welsh is a Red Dragon Because of a prophecy told to by Merlin to Vortigern about a Red and White Dragon locked in combat beneath a mountain, when unearthed the Dragon's fought but the White Dragon fled eastward, and was used a portent for the coming of the Saxons. Which is probably more of a politcal piece, because the Saxons DID use a White Dragon on a red background, the exact opposite of the Welsh/britons
Nobody connected the name Artorius or anyone by that (family) name to Arthur until the 20th century
True, but considering the name Arthur in turn comes from the celt word Artos, and Artorias comes from the rootword Artas, both meaning bear, it makes sense Romans would call Arthur Artorius.
But in the British Latin texts mentioning Arthur he's not called Artorius, by the time they wrote of him they might have forgotten what his proper Latin name was or he might not have had one, as you said the name Arthur can also have a purely Celtic origin
So it's similar to America in that most of the land was empty/undeveloped so it couldn't really have been considered conquest?
I'm not sure given the way many native Americans were displaced and moved to reservations under threat of force it would be accurate to say conquest of some type wasn't involved. Particularly when more than a few tribes were completely wiped out during the development and expansion of the nation. Not that I feel anyone's responsible for any sort of guilt here. And then there's the American revolution that was the birth of the nation here in the states which was an armed revolt against the British back when the united states were just colonies of the UK.
The British Colonies actually had very strick policies about not causing shit with the Natives, because 90% of all british Colonies were set up as trading posts to trade WITH natives.
Hell, one of the things that sparked the independence was a constant levy on those who illegally encroached on Native Land.
The BBC also ran a documentary trying to De-Anglo the UK by claiming they only contributed 3% of the genetic code of the modern English, despite the majority of the English being R1b genetic grouping, which is North-Central European aka Dutch, west German and lower Danish, aka the lands the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes came from.
Angles, not Anglos.
>The British Colonies actually had very strick policies about not causing shit with the Natives, because 90% of all british Colonies were set up as trading posts to trade WITH natives.
>Hell, one of the things that sparked the independence was a constant levy on those who illegally encroached on Native Land.
True, but nevertheless what happened in the United States and how it was started was with blood. And that's not a judgement of the US or even Great Britain. I think what I'm getting at is on some level conquest was involved. That's not to say that's the way most nations operate today, but it's a part of history nonetheless.
I think a nuanced take also needs to understand the Natives were also very expansionistic as well.
Definitely. A lot of people romanticize the indigenous people of the Americas but that view is largely formed by Hollywood fiction rather than reality.
Still, trade relations between the natives and the colonies as well as the french is really a fascinating subject to me, since a lot of America's oldest towns are just built up trade posts.
I am tired of this modern lens people constantly project back into history, sure it was a time of slavery, conquest and violence... but everyone was like that, people were all murderous buttholes out to shoot, stab and slice up the world for their tribe or kingdom.
Don't forget the Norman conquest of the Anglo-Saxons after that, too.
The Norman conquest did very VERY little to the genetic history of the English, I think around 1% of all English can trace Norman heritage, which is smaller than the around 3% of the Norse ( Which doubles if you go into northern England, and can reach around 15% )
The Normans mostly introduced cultual changes, usually by force and what basically created a two tiered system in the UK of the lower, more English cultural class and the upper Foreign Class.
according to BBC I shit you not Africans were there first.
What about Northern Ireland?
Denmark. Most of Sweden and Norway.
I would say Poland, but its exact location has changed so fricking much that it's hard to say what is "rightfully" theirs.
They were a bunch of sandBlack folk not noble whitemen that built western civilization.
You mean noble israeli men because whitoids can't achieve anything without the Chad israelites
spartans were the Black folk of greece
Their places aren't that sandy.
>be the USA
>invent the cure for the cancer but nuke 100,000 children in the process
>"anon, you can't say the americans are bad, yes they nuked like 100K children but also invented the cure for the cancer!"
>Children
Not the arabinos we’ve been at war with for a thousand years
The USA didn't invent the cure for cancer, though. How can they? They don't even believe vaccines are real.
same with julius caesar and napoleon really, it's American education
Ah yes, Caesar.
>Ravage Gaul, killing even Rome's allies with impunity
>Head into north Europe, meet a group of Germanic settlers
>They advise Caesar there is a large German Army waiting on the other side of the rhine
>Murder the settlers who warned you
>Try and cross the rhine
>Get ass-slapped
>pretend you were not a massive wienerend and try and memoryhole your failed invasion of Germania
And who could forget Napoleon
>Promote your cousins to the thrones of states in southern italy
>Turns out they're all useless and their states rot away
>Take the strongest empire in the world and drive it into the ground because you know frickall about statecraft
Yes but consider Napoleon
>made the Anglo seethe
>made the Anglo Seethe
>Kickstarted the improvement of the British Military so they became an empire.
if it wasn't for Napoleon the British Army would have remained just an attachment to the Navy, instead in fighting Napoleon they became one of the best trained militaries in Europe and put that to fantastic use in Expeditionary forces.
Historical strongmen are still weirdly appealing either way. I bet hundreds of years from now, Hitler will be admired in a similar way
The poos like him.
I feel like demonizing Hitler is dumb because he's been dead for a long ass time now and there's people NOW who commit horrible crimes and get away with it. I know it sounds like moving the goalpost but you'd think we'd be more "enlightened" and take even the smallest infractions more seriously.
Because Genocide is a big no-go. I bet if he convinced the UK to give the israelites Jerusalem and forced them all there he'd be seen more in the same light as Francisco Franco.
>weirdly appealing
People love confidence and decisiveness. Not that strange.
Just a lil friendly bullying to shape up your bro, nothingbad about it. Notice they become bros after and divvied up Africa and the middle east afterwards.
I wish they'd word filter American so that smug Black folk like you would stop using this site.
We're not Brits. Napoleon is pretty well liked, I don't know where you got the idea that Americans have a negative opinion about him. Why the hell would we? The US had a cordial relationship with Napoleonic France. Stop pulling shit out of your ass just to whine about America for the hundredth time in your sad week.
It's all relative. All ancient societies were brutal and not really progressive even relative to, say, the 1800s. Pretty much all ancient empires were slave states.
No, they just tapped into a long tradition of orientalism, think despotic rulers, decadence, luxiurious women, eunuchs etc etc
This all comes out of a) Herodotus and b)Herodotus' reception in places like Britain in the 1800s
>No, they just tapped into a long tradition of orientalism, think despotic rulers, decadence, luxiurious women, eunuchs etc etc
All of those things were real, but I must've skipped that history class about the crab people
The average person doesn't know what the Acheamedian Empire is.
what so progressive about them?
t.sorry im historylet
No. If the Greeks lost we wouldn't have democracy today. Most academics recognize this as one of the five major events in western history. You'd know this if you paid attention in junior high.
What were the other four?
You do know modern Democracy isn't based on the Greek model at all, and is mostly based on the Moot System from the English right?
The idea the Greeks invented western Democracy was invented in the Renaissance, where a bunch of Aristocrats wanked off the classics right down to outright ignoring their own history like in the UK.
This wankery of the classics is what inspired Tolkien, as he was enraged that most of his peers in the academic circles seemed to care more about the classics than the English language.
>the Moot System
Who the FRICK is Moot?
NEVER FORGET
But seriously though, which sounds more like modern western democratic systems.
>Local elections followed by a total election as a head of the system
Or
>Everyone who can votes all at once for the one guy you want
America DOES have both of those systems I guess, but the President is supposed to be the less important one.
He was the man in the village who most wanted to be the little girl. The system was that these moots would discuss matters of importance (Asuka vs Rei, especially), gather together the views of the populace, then share these with other moots until a consensus everyone could live with was reached. Some historians believe snacks were important to this process, but this is disputed.
Legends tell of the Moot from the shire of Vea, who was told to discuss the nature of games played in the shire, but there was none, neither discussion nor games.
There are fragments in the court rolls of the time that speak of this. The most cited goes as follows:
>Be it so declared, itte hath butte the simplest of rules bigod: speak nawt but abawt Veedeo Gaymes
This is especially puzzling, given that we cannot find precious little evidence that there were any games played in the region (the scholarship on "þe Péessthree hath no game" alone rivals that on the "Loss" annals and pictograms) . In fact, merrimaking of any kind appears to have been frowned upon. A peculiarly hostile era indeed.
Trying to link back to the classical era and mythology wasn't new even in the renaissance. Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of England (which also invented/established a lot if Arthurian lore) has Britain founded by Brutus the Trojan and he took that idea from a 7th century work.
>Most academics recognize this as one of the five major events in western history.
watchmojo.com's top 5 most important events in western history is not a valid source of information
Hebes not pedos
Terrible Reddit take. "Progressive" really just meant that they gave slaves and puppet states more freedom and rights. Even the Greeks had a lot of reverence for the Persians. Herodotus was surprisingly fair to the Persians when he wrote Histories in the middle of the Greco-Persian Wars.
Furthermore it makes perfect sense that Frank Miller wrote the Persians as the bad guys since 300 is taken from the perspective of the soldiers who were fighting off the Persian invasion of their land. It makes sense just in the same why that it made sense for Miller to make Xerxes sympathetic in the 300 sequel he wrote since that story is centered around the Persians.
Oh yeah, how dare I share a bit of history I know, I should be raging about twitter shitposts I guess right?
Shut the frick up you useless c**t, the history of a peasant's shithouse is more important than you.
That demonization is older that dirt
Also
>persians fought romans for centuries straight
Their reputation is bad in the Western world since forever
You talkin shit about ingerland lore?
why are you guys pretending that slavery and murder do not exist anymore?
It only has gotten worse
No, the fact they're the Ur-Example of Oriental Invaders against what's memed as the birthplace of Western Civilization is.
Reminder Cyrus freed the israelites from their Babylonian captivity.
A condemnation? That’s up to you.
they are obviously not to blame. They just surfed an old narrative