|
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
Maybe they're EA Vans?
Whatever they are, they've got an A9 bless as well. |
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
It got me jazzed.... Sorry my buildup disappointed you guys. The graphic novel was great, and the movie looks really cool to me.
I have to admit I am a sucker for lost causes, last stands, heroic idiocy. David Gemmel's books hook me in just like this did (Legend, Druss The Axe, etc.). |
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
I am sure you know that no respectable historian today believes the million men-plus number Herodotus gives for Xerxes' invasion force! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It probably numbered no more than 200,000 at most.
To my knowledge, the largest army ever assembled in antiquity was the "million-men" army that the Sui tyrant Yangdi fetched against Koguryo, a powerful Korean-Manchurian kingdom. In this case, while contemporary historians do not accept the one-million number, they do assume that this army may have perhaps number over half a million--which makes it around the size of Napoleon's army when he invaded Russia. The Sui numbers are far more reliable than the Persian numbers, because 1) the Sui number was given by firsthand (that is, Chinese) sources, while the Persian number was given by the Greeks; and 2) the Sui kept a far more detailed and therefore credible record of the composition and organization of their massive army than the Greeks writing about the Persians. |
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
Quote:
|
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
Epaminondas--check the wikipedia link in my earlier post. Different historians believe different things. I had always heard it was 150,000. The subject of my post refers to the movie though--and in the movie there are supposed to be a million persians.... It will be interesting to see the Immortals, how they are depicted, etc. Endoperez--Gemmel does too have ridiculous stupidity in his books! The difference is that the idiot dies young and fast and is nevermore mentioned.... Yeah, I get your meaning. However, the comic book/graphic novel was a dramatization of thermopylae, and the movie was based on the graphic novel and further dramatized. Personally, I don't look for that much realism in a fantasy movie. I don't want to know that half the people are going nuts due to the nervous system damage of syphilis and gonnorrhea, that the beautiful women had mouths full of crooked and rotten teath, that complexions were the opposite of creamy and smooth, that lice and fleas were the norm, and that people routinely drank the clear water out of sewer ditches, becaus as long as it was fairly clear it must be healthy. Diarrhea was common. Tooth aches caused more fights than slights to honor. Etc. ad nauseum. I'd rather a Homer's or Herodotus' view of these times/men/heroes--tough, strong men of cunning and skill. Tall and handsome and full of vigor and vitality. Heroes, who answer the call and fight the day through. Strong armed and gods blessed, swift of foot, sure of sight. I classify this movie as a fantasy, and I look forward to it (now watch it turn out to be the worst movie of the new year.) |
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
The trailer was awesome. But I doubt they made a full movie this stunning
|
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
Quote:
I did briefly glance through the Wikipedia article but you have to understand that Wikipedia articles are not always to be taken seriously. They are seldom written by experts in the field, and in fact any Joe Shmoe can enter his 5 cents. |
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
Normally written by fanatics. Definatly take them with the grain of salt. Give me a scholarly source any day of the week.
|
Re: Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C\'Tisians
Quote:
Aside from that, it pretty much says what you said--except it shows several different perspectives: i.e. this historian believes this (citation), this other historian believes something different (citation), etc. It also shows the history of the history: e.g. Herodotus believed it was about 5.3 million men including logistics personnel; Simonides gave a figure of ~4 million; Ctesias, a Persian historian, reported ~800,000; the list goes on into contemporary times giving schools of thought. Here are a small sampling of excerpts. Note that they are all accompanied by citations in the article. "One school of thought rejects the figures given in ancient texts as exaggerations on the part of the victors" "A second school contends that ancient sources do give realistic numbers. " "Dr. Manousos Kampouris argues that Herodotus' 1,700,000 for the infantry plus 80,000 cavalry (including support) is realistic for various reasons" "On the other hand, Christos Romas believes that the Persian troops accompanying Xerxes were a little over 400,000." I've written/edited/contributed to several articles on wikipedia (cars, japanese archery, various authors, literature) so I know what you say is true: any dork can write anything they want. That is backed by the Colbert-mania elephant extravaganza and etc. However, if the article says something that you disagree with you can check the citations and read the discussions in the meta-article to see if there is any disagreement or controversy. To me, and many others, this lends/gives/assures credence/quality to the system. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.