I am a raging heterosexual male over the age of 35, but I am sure I will "get" the movie.

Perhaps I will go an see it now that you have written about it.

I find it interesting that we side with the authoritarian racist Spartans over the authoritarian, tolerant Persians. All because a bunch of authoritarian racist Victorians decided that Classical Greece exemplifies the best in democratic thought. Almost as risible as some Christians claiming that Tom Jefferson was their kind of Christian.

Looking forward to The Battle of Salamis, the Sequel.

It doesn't sound like my kind of film, but I'll probably see it (when it opens in the UK) because it features (as the Spartan Queen) Lena Headey, one of my favourite actresses. I've only become aware of her in the last year or so, but she has been around for ages, see here: http://imdb.com/name/nm0372176/

I think she has been neglected because she usually either has small parts in big films (e.g. as a flirtatious maid in 'Remains of the Day') or big parts in small-budget arthouse films, which not many people see. I don't think she has ever given a bad performance, but the best are probably in 'Waterland', 'Aberdeen', and the lesbian rom-com 'Imagine Me and You'. She is also good in 'The Brothers Grimm', but the film itself is tiresome.

It was surreal, and I'm not sure I mean that in a good way. After the Persian rhinoceros charge failed, I kept waiting for Xerxes to dispatch his elite team of unicorn riders, but I left the theater disappointed.

we side with authoritarian racist Spartans over the authoritarian, tolerant Persians.

Maybe that's because the tolerant Persians were invaders in this case? I know, when compared with the "tolerance" trump, it's only a minor fault...

Aside from historical inaccuracies, I wouldn't be able to get into it due to the British King and Queen of Sparta -- part of the appeal of these kinds of films should be allowing us to peer into the exotic world of the past. Obviously, modern-day Britons and Greeks don't look like they did 2000 years ago. Still, it would make it difficult to feel like I was watching an ancient Near Eastern battle scene if I were constantly reminded that the King and Queen look like Britons in Halloween costumes.

It's even more frustrating since, according to the IMDB entry for the movie, Silvia Colloca was passed up for the role of Queen Gorgo. Now, her in ancient garb, I could easily imagine being Greek. I don't insist that the actress be from the exact village that Gorgo came from, but there are obvious group differences for physical appearance between northern and southern Europeans. Just being brunette isn't convincing enough.

On the IMDB's cast listing, there are apparently lots of concubines in the movie, mostly Quebecois French. Not as bad of a decision, but given that the movie was shot almost entirely in Montreal, couldn't they have easily found some hot Persian girls to include? It's not like these roles required first-rate acting skills (and the same seems true for the lead roles, based on what others have said, though I can't comment on that).

why the assumptiont the spartans were racist? to my knowledge the ancient spartans were no more racist than any other people, and in the film there wasn't any racism, just cultural prejudice.

assman, it isn't that bad. i see your point, but at least the cast was mostly dark haired a tanned. i, claudius was 10 X worse.

Eh, I'll pass. Am I the only one who dislikes computer generated moves? I think they look cheesy & fake. Give me Cecil B. DeMille epics any day. The backgrounds were fake but the people were real and he handled crowds like a painter.

The Larison post struck me as a review of a review. Very post-modern, although he would probably hate me for saying that.

Actually, I'd amend that last sentence to indicate that gay men may be among the biggest fans of a movie that consists mostly of greased up, half-naked men running around in loincloths. One of the things that struck me watching 300 (which was mentioned in most of the film reviews I've read as well) is how hilariously, over-the-top homoerotic this movie is.

The trailer was very good, the most testosterone-packed two minutes I've ever seen. Little wonder that the 18-35 year old male demographic are flooding the theatres in record-breaking numbers. (Drudge has just declared a "Boxoffice bloodbath")

Not expecting a new Gladiator (this is a comic-book movie, not a pretty-close-to-history affair.), but I will certainly go see it when it opens in these parts. After all, I'm part of the target demographic, and I imagine this is kind of what Gray's Anatomy is for chicas.

Am I right in inferring from Agnostic's use of the subjunctive that he hasn't actually seen the film? Neither have I, but then I am not saying what is or isn't 'convincing' in it.

Here's Roderick Long on the virtues of cosmopolitan empires vs provincial backwaters.

Am I right in inferring from Agnostic's use of the subjunctive that he hasn't actually seen the film?

Correct. I've seen lots of films that have the same nuisance, and I can't get into them -- other aspects may be convincing or not, but for me it's very distracting.

is how hilariously, over-the-top homoerotic this movie is.

if you swing that way, sure. but if you don't, it isn't a big issue at all. there is more female than male nudity in the movie by an order of magnitude, FWIW.

I find it interesting that we side with the authoritarian racist Spartans over the authoritarian, tolerant Persians. - Alan Kellogg

... being that the "graphic novel" / comic book that the movie is based upon is itself based upon the writings of Herodotus, who was obviously extremely biased in favor of the Greeks, I don't see how you can level this criticism. Besides, most writings from back then would be considered "racist" by today's standards... haven't you ever read the Anabasis by Xenophon?

Alan Kellogg—

I find it interesting that we side with the authoritarian racist Spartans over the authoritarian, tolerant Persians.

Rationalism was much more important for human progress than diminished amounts of “racism” are. That could and did come later. (Don’t forget that there are many forms of ingroup glorification and outgroup denigration beyond racism. Racism may in some ways be the nastiest, but they’re all potentially pretty nasty.) No science and slow progress in technology without rationalism, which the Greeks were the first to systematize (though it’s true far more in Athens and various colonies etc. influenced by Athens than in Sparta). As well, I didn’t think the Greeks were particularly racist. Rather they were cultural supremacists. Quite a different thing (despite the blurring of the two things by the left in the last 5 to 10 years.)

Besides the current taboos against “racism” in their extreme present form are simply absurd. Groups do differ and significantly so, through some combination of culture (their history and influences etc.) and yes genetics, and at any given moment in history this can have very real effects. Sure some people and groups historically have vastly overestimated there differences, and miscalculated their nature – but today the tendency is to vastly UNDERESTIMATE them for PC ideological reasons.

As well the Spartans weren’t simply “authoritarian”. They were highly egalitarian (with large degrees of status and freedom for their women) within the Spartans themselves. However, they did consider themselves wholly superior to their fellow Greek (though different tribe) conquered Helots of their homeland, who constituted their ensurfed peasant class. Sparta was not a simple highly hierarchical despotism, the way that Persia (and the rest of the Middle East) was at the time.

Razib--

Why do you put an upper bound for the hetro male target audience at 35?

I can see that in (dumb) car chase or comic book movies, but historical and war films don't generally leave older males cold.

Sparta also gets bonus credit for kickstarting democracy in Athens (not intentionally, but hey...)

Why do you put an upper bound for the hetro male target audience at 35?

I can see that in (dumb) car chase or comic book movies, but historical and war films don't generally leave older males cold.

1) 18-35 is a marketing bracket, that's all. i was just repeating that arbitrary range.

2) this was a comic movie ;-) this wasn't a historical film in anything but the most notional sense.

Critics say: It rates 62 on a scale from 1 to 100.

Viewers say: It ranks 7 on a list of thousands.

This essay may explain come of the disconnect between critics and viewers.

This essay may explain come of the disconnect between critics and viewers.

perhaps. but honestly, this was a great action film. the ideas were a garnish.

I think some of y'all need to hand in your man cards, or be driven over the cliff. I'm 40, with 4 kids and I'm trying to figure out how old they need to be (currently 12, 9, and two 3 year olds) before they can see this.

As for criticisms of the Spartans/Greeks in general, there is fair reason to believe that had the Persians conquered Greece, the history of the Western world and civilization may have been very different.
Athens may never have flourished and such things as democracy, drama, literature, philosophical inquiry, rationalism, and the like might not have developed (or would have done so in truncated fashion).
The nascent Roman republic might have been snuffed out next. Our concepts of law, our language, many of these words, et cetera, may never have been passed on.
Others such as VDH can do a better job defining what was defended/at risk. I personally feel that we are better off today because the Persians were defeated, as were the Muslims in France in the 700's and at Vienna more recently.

Amazon now places the top ranked translation of Herodotus at 2,284. What are the odds that this rank will climb by this time next week?

As for criticisms of the Spartans/Greeks in general, there is fair reason to believe that had the Persians conquered Greece, the history of the Western world and civilization may have been very different.
Athens may never have flourished and such things as democracy, drama, literature, philosophical inquiry, rationalism, and the like might not have developed (or would have done so in truncated fashion).
The nascent Roman republic might have been snuffed out next. Our concepts of law, our language, many of these words, et cetera, may never have been passed on.
Others such as VDH can do a better job defining what was defended/at risk. I personally feel that we are better off today because the Persians were defeated, as were the Muslims in France in the 700's and at Vienna more recently.,

1) history is likely contingent, so yeah, a lot would have changed or been different.

2) but, i don't think that we should overemphasize the extent to which greek cultural creativity was dependent upon a particular political order, or, the nature of persian despotism. ancient states were not totalitarian, because they couldn't be, and that surely explains why many greeks (e.g., the thessalians, thebes) sided with the persians (out of self-interest of course). much was at stake, but not everything. after all, the ionian philosophers lived in the shadow of asian despots, and they were the first of the greeks to be fired by reason and rationality.

3) on a pedantic note, the victory of charles martel, from what i have read, is more an illustration of the general trend of the muslims reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than a turning of the tide. that is, it seems unlikely that a muslim victory at tours would have resulted in the conquest of francia seeing as how it was more a raid than anything else, and muslim raids would continue into the provence and thoroughout italy for decades.

Compare the critical reations to 300 (62% positive) with the critical reactions to Memoirs of a Geisha (35% positive), two examples of eye candy that are a little short on brain candy. Perhaps The Critics are about right - or even a little generous to a young male aesthetic.

Judging by the top picks (Star Wars, LOTR) by BoxOffice Mojo "Readers", the database skews heavily toward fanboys (where is Titanic?). Gross return is a better measure of mass popularity. When people vote with their money, they are more likely to reveal their true preference.

Not to go to much off tangent, but numerous scholars, ancient and modern, attribute the numerous achievements of Athens (the architecture, development of tragedy and comedy, etc) specifically to their democratic way of life. Rome, too, made numerous advances under the Republic, as well, where a fair degree of freedom was available to many (though not all).
Slightly later in the West, our Renaissance began in the Italian city states where a degree of freedom was possible for merchants, scholars, and the like (as opposed to the contemporaneous feudal societies elsewhere in Western Europe). Likewise, the spread from Italy into Europe occurred initially in the free cities of the Netherlands and Germany, as well as in relatively free England.
On the other hand, many ancient states/cities were indeed totalitarian, ruled by tyrants, despots, and oligarchies.

Not to go to much off tangent, but numerous scholars, ancient and modern, attribute the numerous achievements of Athens (the architecture, development of tragedy and comedy, etc) specifically to their democratic way of life.

name them (i'm not being sarcastic, i want to check this out. robin lane fox leans in this direction obviously).

Rome, too, made numerous advances under the Republic, as well, where a fair degree of freedom was available to many (though not all).

when the roman republic was vital (i.e., before the sullan dictatorship) it wasn't very impressive culturally. so this is really dodging the issue at hand. the great thinkers during the republican period, like cicero, basically lived during the tail end when the republic was a very corrupt oligarchy. roman creativity was probably at its peak during the early principate, though it depends on your measure of cultural greatness.

Slightly later in the West, our Renaissance began in the Italian city states where a degree of freedom was possible for merchants, scholars, and the like (as opposed to the contemporaneous feudal societies elsewhere in Western Europe). Likewise, the spread from Italy into Europe occurred initially in the free cities of the Netherlands and Germany, as well as in relatively free England.

what scholars are you citing here? again, i'm curious. i take history seriously, and though i'm libertarianish in orientation i think the strong narrative that freedom & cultural creativity go hand & hand is too clever by a half. also, how freedom is defined must be clarified. an oligarchic republic can be very free for those with means, but rather unfree for the majority. there is evidence that the mass of romans supported augustus' takeover of the roman state because they felt safer & free under his strong hand as opposed to the battle between the aristocrats. similarly, france during the 17th century witnessed a descent into extreme absolutism, but i think it can be argued that the change for the average french peasants was minimal (rather, it was the nobility whose privileges and independence were constrained).

p.s. bill, this is not to deny the overall point. i think that the last few hundred years in particular shows the correlation between freedom & cultural creativity most strongly. but, the pre-modern era is more difficult to gauge IMO. the greatness of classical athens seems, to me, to have been prefigured by the ionian flowering of the pre-socratics, which wasn't built upon a radical political foundation. similarly, all was not darkness before the renaissance, and feudal arrangements were actually ones where power was devolved to local elites and persons, a process reversed with the rise of absolute monarchs during the early modern age (and note, by my reckoning the cultural prominence of france and its intellectuals continued to rise even with the growing power of monarchy and curtailment of traditional freedoms. similarly, the efflorescence of german intellectuals which rose in the 19th century was accompanied by the expansion of centralizing and autocratic prussia).

i think that the last few hundred years in particular shows the correlation between freedom & cultural creativity most strongly. but, the pre-modern era is more difficult to gauge IMO.

Compared to Athens, name one world class mathematician from Sparta. Compared to Greece, name one world class mathematician from Rome.

all was not darkness before the renaissance, and feudal arrangements were actually ones where power was devolved to local elites and persons, a process reversed with the rise of absolute monarchs during the early modern age

And with the rise of absolute monarchy, the flowering of technology that started in the Middle Ages largely came to an end.

by my reckoning the cultural prominence of france and its intellectuals continued to rise even with the growing power of monarchy and curtailment of traditional freedoms.

France had the advantage of population. There was more creativity in the Italian city-states during the same period. And the Dutch Republic had a greater density of accomplishment with a smaller population.

similarly, the efflorescence of german intellectuals which rose in the 19th century was accompanied by the expansion of centralizing and autocratic prussia).

Arguably this was spillover from the federal period. Murray crunches the number in Human Accomplishment. The density of cultural creativity among Germans is inversely proportional to distance from the federal period. Compare cultural creativity in the Italian peninsula before and after the Risorgimento.

And yes, I would rather live in one of the French, German, or Italian cantons of Switzerland than in either France, Germany, or Italy.

Compared to Athens, name one world class mathematician from Sparta. Compared to Greece, name one world class mathematician from Rome.

dude, seriously, you didn't name names yourself. who were the great mathematicians of athens during the classical age? and was euclid's ptolemaic alexandria one of bountiful freedom? or archimedes' monarchial syracuse. don't play this shit with me unless you bring some game, seriously dude. don't fucking disrespect me in my own house, i don't stand for that bullshit. this isn't about showing how smart you are as i don't give a shit about that. this isn't about winning an argument, that's a waste of time and i don't like my fucking time wasted. so name the mathematicians and push the discussion forward, don't try and play rhetorical tricks.

And with the rise of absolute monarchy, the flowering of technology that started in the Middle Ages largely came to an end.

your opinion. what are your sources? i'm skeptical that tech innovation decreased after the middle ages, but i'm willing to be convinced.


Arguably this was spillover from the federal period. Murray crunches the number in Human Accomplishment. The density of cultural creativity among Germans is inversely proportional to distance from the federal period. Compare cultural creativity in the Italian peninsula before and after the Risorgimento.

i'll double check HA.

With so many "War" films after BraveHeart, someone had to up the ante sometime...

name names yourself

Can't prove a negative. Hence the formulation of the challenge. The Academy of Athens was math friendly. There is no Spartan analog. Theaetetus was both a mathematician and an Athenian. Again no Spartan analog.

jesus. you dodged. your nature is duly noted. i don't forget.

on a pedantic note, the victory of charles martel, from what i have read, is more an illustration of the general trend of the muslims reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than a turning of the tide. that is, it seems unlikely that a muslim victory at tours would have resulted in the conquest of francia seeing as how it was more a raid than anything else, and muslim raids would continue into the provence and thoroughout italy for decades.

This is sort of like saying that the victory of the United States at Midway is more of an illustration of a general trend of the Japanese reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than the turning of the tide... it's just as unlikely that a Japanese victory at Midway would have resulted in the conquest of the United States...

And for all you folks who think the Athenians were so cultured and noble, I suggest you read the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. In fact, the Athenians eventually became so brutal that Sparta was looked upon kindly by most of the Greek city-states. And it is to Sparta's everlasting credit that it, in such a great anti-democratic manner, rejected the opinions of the majority of the Greek city-states and didn't destroy Athens. If it were up to them, Athens would have been turned to rubble.

...the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves.

... real nice guys, those Athenians. What can I say? For the poor Melians, neutrality's a bitch.

If the story were about heroic resistance fighters battling a Panzer division, or if there were derogatory references to “goose-stepping,” Ms. Stevens would probably be enthralled. “Race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth” are great for most left-liberals, provided that the “race” being baited is German and the nationalist myth being promoted is that of FDR’s America. It all depends on whose gigantic rhinoceros is being gored.

I especially like this comment Larison... lots of "progressives" went nuts about Lord of the Rings in the same way they're going nuts about 300. It demonstrates beautifully just how shallow so many of them are.

This is sort of like saying that the victory of the United States at Midway is more of an illustration of a general trend of the Japanese reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than the turning of the tide... it's just as unlikely that a Japanese victory at Midway would have resulted in the conquest of the United States...

I agree with Arcane on this statement, in reference to the Muslim expansion being halted in 732. After seeing Syria, the Holy Land, Egypt, N. Africa, and Iberia all fall in 100 years, there's no reason to believe that the Franks weren't next. It still took over 750 years to drive them back out the Iberian peninsula.

the greatness of classical athens seems, to me, to have been prefigured by the ionian flowering of the pre-socratics, which wasn't built upon a radical political foundation.
That may be so, but Athens itself seemed to have the elements (free assembly, payment to attend the law courts, publicly and privately funded festivals and architecture, true democracy, albeit very arbitrary to the point that later intellectuals feared mob rule) that allowed for the actual flourishing to occur (very small area, no more than 50k male citizens, yet produced Sophocles, Aristophanes, Euripides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, the Parthenon, et al in a tiny span of time that's never been matched anywhere at any time).
Certainly other Greeks (Pythagoras in Syracuse, those in Hellenistic Alexandria) also produced great works/ideas, but there wasn't the same concentration in time/space.

by my reckoning the cultural prominence of france and its intellectuals continued to rise even with the growing power of monarchy and curtailment of traditional freedoms
The Church and monarchy were opposed to these (the Church moreso). Both were essentially destroyed (but eventually made comebacks because of the widespread disillusionment/destruction) by the ideas of the Enlightenment, which led to the Revolution (the apex of prominence of intellectuals).

similarly, the efflorescence of german intellectuals which rose in the 19th century was accompanied by the expansion of centralizing and autocratic prussia).
The great German intellectuals and artists (the mathematicians, poets, composers,philosophers) almost all predated the rise of the strong Prussian state in the mid to late 1800's. Certainly the patronage was important, but the smaller Prussian state of the 1700's and early 1800's, fighting against French militarism, was very different from the Prussia of the Kaisers and Bismarck.

How the Spartans treated each other is one thing, how they treated their subjects is quite another. No society exists in a vacuum.

I agree with Arcane on this statement, in reference to the Muslim expansion being halted in 732. After seeing Syria, the Holy Land, Egypt, N. Africa, and Iberia all fall in 100 years, there's no reason to believe that the Franks weren't next. It still took over 750 years to drive them back out the Iberian peninsula.

yes there is. muslims were repeatedly stopped in particular climates. e.g., they were pushed back from khazaria, just like their traction in the provence never took. they couldn't conquer the duchies of northern spain. and it's not like midway arcane, there were raids before, and raids after. both of you may disagree, and i'm certainly no expert, but there has been a trend to deemphasize tours over the past generation. i simply want readers to make sure that they know what the debate is about. gibbon wasn't the last word. whatever the impact of tours, the battle of midway is a really bad analogy. it wasn't that significant, like the seiges of constantinople were,* or the battle of yarmuk.

wikipedia summarizes the debate.

p.s. and just for the record, i'm no expert, but i'm interested enough in the topic enough to have read several biographies of charles martel.

* if constantinople fell it seems plausible that much of the balkans would have fallen to the arabs because constantinople was the center of byzantine power. in contrast, the frankish state was decentralized, so one battle probably wouldn't have made such a difference (and francia didn't have cities on the scale of constantinople in any case).

The Church and monarchy were opposed to these (the Church moreso). Both were essentially destroyed (but eventually made comebacks because of the widespread disillusionment/destruction) by the ideas of the Enlightenment, which led to the Revolution (the apex of prominence of intellectuals).


i'm not a revisionist who says that the middle ages were all great, but the idea that the church or monarchy were opposed to culture per se is too simple and self-congratulatory. the decline is 'culture' during the late classical period and passing into the dark ages seems more clearly related to the general chaos and militarization of society (e.g., look at the taxation which had to be increased to support the late roman army, and the decline in the importance of literate civilian nobles in positions of powers). to give an example, there was a relative poverty of byzantine cultural production between 650-850, after which there was a 'rebirth.' if one posits that the main causative factor was the church and state power, then one might assume that the renaissance between 850-1050 was due to the decline of church and state, but that is not so. rather, the byzantine state was ascendent and the arab caliphate was in decline, so its tax base increased as it expanded into the middle east (e.g., reconquered antioch) and recaptured the balkans from barbarians. 650-850 was a time when arabs were on the march and the byzantine empire was expending all its resources to survive. this is not to say that i ignore endogenous factors in the generation of culture, i do acknowledge the singular magnificance of 5th century athens, but context matters too. the greeks are probably one of the better cases for cultural as opposed to situational variables because so many of their polises were manufactured with particular organizing principles during the 7th and 6th centuries during the transition from the dark age to tyrannies to various other governmental arrangements. but that does not mean that cultural axioms can explain all (or most) of the variation in cultural production (vic hanson comes close to asserting this, in contrast to others focus purel on materialist constraints and variables).

Herodotus wrote in the time when the Persians effectively kept a lid on Greece by playing the Greeks against themselves. Herodotus is said to have been inspired to write the Histories, and the story of Thermopylae, by the Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and allies (Persia included) against Athens and allies. Herodotus himself was an Athenian partisan. The Spartans were backed by Persia. As an Athenian on the losing side of the war, he would have an interest in playing up the Spartan heroism against the Persians to drive a wedge between Sparta and its sponsor Persia. It failed. Sparta and its Persian sponsors won the Peloponnesian War and Greece was a non-threat until Philip of Macedon unified Greece (you may know of his son Alexander).

i believe that the spartans took persian subsidies toward the end though. just to be clear....

(from wiki: Following the destruction of the Sicilian Expedition, Lacedaemon encouraged the revolt of Athens's tributary allies, and indeed, much of Ionia rose in revolt against Athens. The Syracusans sent their fleet to the Peloponnesians, and the Persians decided to support the Spartans with money and ships.)

[also, i believe sparta later attacked persia again, before going back on subsidies...the importance of self-interested and mixed strategies gets lost in he grand narratives]

Incidentally, coming back to Agnostic's point, did the ancient Greeks look like modern Greeks? Their statues, vase paintings, etc, are so idealised that they don't look much like anyone!

Razib wrote:

on a pedantic note, the victory of charles martel, from what i have read, is more an illustration of the general trend of the muslims reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than a turning of the tide. that is, it seems unlikely that a muslim victory at tours would have resulted in the conquest of francia seeing as how it was more a raid than anything else, and muslim raids would continue into the provence and thoroughout italy for decades.

The Persian expedition under Xerxes was similarly a raid - a punitive one at that in response to Mainland Greek city-states supporting anti-Persian Ionian Greek rebels.

Razib also wrote:

I believe sparta later attacked persia again, before going back on subsidies...the importance of self-interested and mixed strategies gets lost in he grand narratives

Nonetheless, there is circumstantial evidence to support my thesis that the Herodotian history was, in many ways, a reflection of Greek politics during the Peloponnesian War era. The Athenians didn't want Sparta to invite the support of Persia. As to the technicalities of when the Spartans got it, that's immaterial.

Incidentally, coming back to Agnostic's point, did the ancient Greeks look like modern Greeks? Their statues, vase paintings, etc, are so idealised that they don't look much like anyone!

come now, can't one look past the idealizations? a lot of depictions do look something like melina kanakaredes. same with the roman busts, they look like italian americans i've known personally. we'll have more data when more archeodna is recovered, but i'd be willing to bet lot more money that more than half the genome content is identical by descent from the ancient days, and a fair amt. that at least 80% exhibit general continuity.

The Persian expedition under Xerxes was similarly a raid - a punitive one at that in response to Mainland Greek city-states supporting anti-Persian Ionian Greek rebels.

this is an argument. the main difference between tours and platea/marathon/salamis is that though both for the muslims and persians the invasion/raid was not world shattering (i think the persian invasion was a more thorough and serious affair, seeing as xerxes, for example, came to greece proper), ancient greece was a small land compared to the frankish domains, which included the low countries & western & southern germany as well as modern france. so, i would say

a) the invasion was less serious in the case of the muslim raids into southern/central france

b) and, the targeted lands were more expansive and the political superstructure roughly equivalent to that of muslim spain


Nonetheless, there is circumstantial evidence to support my thesis that the Herodotian history was, in many ways, a reflection of Greek politics during the Peloponnesian War era. The Athenians didn't want Sparta to invite the support of Persia. As to the technicalities of when the Spartans got it, that's immaterial.

yes. there is a lot of truth in that.

Razib—

i take history seriously, and though i'm libertarianish in orientation i think the strong narrative that freedom & cultural creativity go hand & hand is too clever by a half.

I think political freedom is often over emphasized and misunderstood, but that overall freedom is indeed crucial. I think economic and various varieties of personal freedom tend to be even more important.

What am I talking about? A large degree of freedom for elites can occur when there are many competing political and/or economic spheres where they can flee if things become too hot for them at home. Thus Voltaire could flee for a while to Germany or Switzerland. It was always a possibility that Galileo might flee to the Netherlands, though he ended up not doing so. European life, especially once the single Catholic Church lost much power through the fragmentatary effects of the Protestant Reformation, has been repleat with places for creative elites to flee to, or sell the services to a higher extra territorial bidder. Thus Leonardo was lured from one Italian city state to another to dream up war machines, or artistically and intellectually adorn his new patron.

What I’m saying is that the political label we give to a particular polity is far to simplistic to capture even the range of political choices the creative elite has available. As well there are degrees of economic freedom.

Along the Baltic in the 12th and 13th century and continuing for a time thereafter a Hanseatic League of trade oriented city states arose that created dynamic and shifting alternatives for the highly skilled. A bit later Flanders became a major center of early town and city trade and industry based capitalism. Art thrived in this precursor to Belgium, and then many of the most able in both commerce, the trades and arts moved north for the greater freedom of the Protestant towns there, and to be north (and somewhat protected by wetlands) from the endemic warring of the Catholic Hapsburgs of Spain and Austria-Hungary against their breakaway Lowlands Protestants – who ended up becoming Dutch. Vast amounts of creativity of all kinds in these times and places. The Dutch Golden Age of the 17th century. Flanders, and all its gorgeous tapestries and early capitalism, before that. These were the places the wool industry began, importing from England and elsewhere, which became the beginning of what everyone recognizes as the earliest phase of the Industrial Revolution.

Razib—

I realize many consider China the great exception to the notion that greater freedom => greater creativity of all kinds.

I wish I knew more about Chinese history. I know a bit, but I’d like to know a lot more. I need to take the time to learn more, but there are so many areas to learn more in. (And most of us lose at least SOME of our urgent and ravenous hunger and boundless energy for new knowledge as we grow older, not to mention time issues, though I’m certainly still pretty hungry!)

First it’s my impression that some of the most creative periods in Chinese history were during periods of disunification and intra-Chinese warfare. The Warring States period for example, when Confucianism and Taoism and several other Chinese meta philosophies and schools of learning were born.

As well, creativity can indeed flourish under the right sort of nourish “benevolent dictatorship” – benevolent that is to creative elites. (As an aside before I return to the train of thought, I personally have come to think it’s pretty damn clear than how the lower half of a civilization are treated is pretty much the least important thing about any civilization or it’s influence on others down through the ages. That is other than from a purely parochial religious-ideological point of view, such as that of modern interpretation Christianity or the post Christian socialist or quasi-socialist ideologies prevalent in the West today. Not completely unimportant from an objective influence point of view, but pretty far down the list of factors. It the elites that matter by far the most. Not just tiny governing elites, but rather broad elites.)

But totalitarian or highly authoritarian single hierarchy rule is quite an unstable and unreliable environment for creativity to flourish. There tend to be far more unsupportive than supportive rulers. What’s needed is an environment where “what works” can always (or nearly always) find a patron to support the creating elites, because they are competing with other patrons – whether they be other capitalists, or other governments easy for the creative to move to, or other semi-independent nobles or city states within the polity, or whatever.

As well, while preparation for warfare or limited warfare can be a great spur for technological and engineering creativity, massive destruction (particularly of the most creative societies) is ruinous. So that’s another balancing act. Economic completion restrained from the total victory of monopoly, and largely cold war restrained from annihilation, are pretty good modalities here.

That’s the kind of “freedom” that matters for human creativity, seems to me.

Democracy per se isn’t that important at all – I’ve come to believe. Pluralism (man competing nodes of power and influence) IS crucially important though, and liberal democracy is a good, perhaps the best, way to ensuring enduring pluralism.

Capitalism (market economics) is much more important than democracy however, I’ve come finally to believe. Sure wasn’t what I thought for quite a long time. Sure isn’t what we’re all propagandized to believe virtually everywhere (education, news, entertainment) in Western society.

Razib--

Speaking about learning more about Chinese history -- particularly intellectual/scientific/cultural history correlated with political arrangements but not endless details on political intrigue -- I've seen many references at this site and elsewhere to a few good single volume treatments for much or some of this history. They don't come immediately to mind, but I can pretty easily run them back to ground.

Indian history however is something I know far less about, and I definitely DON't have any such sense that I can readily find the best volumes to read.

I've even gotten rather the impression that they pretty much don't exist. Though I'm not sure about that.


There seems to be lots of highly unreliable Hindu chavanist type treatments that have arisen lately with some of the defects of many of the Afrocentric tracts that have been recently written. I also get something of a sense that Western scholars have sort of retired from this field for a while.

But these are just all impressions. I figure you'll probably know what's good in this area. That is learning the state of the art on pre British Indian cultural, scientific and intellectual history correlated with an overview of India political and social forms (but not much dynastic and political intrigue detail) from the dawning agricultural age to the arrival of the British or maybe even a bit post arrival before British political control was largely complete.

Or even from just the dawning of historical India, that is literate India.

dougjin,

your ideas are prefigured by diamonds' work in GGS. there is obviously something to it.


But totalitarian or highly authoritarian single hierarchy rule is quite an unstable and unreliable environment for creativity to flourish.

just to be clear, i am skeptical that pre-modern polities could be 'totalitarian' because they lacked communication technologies and what not to generate the hypercentralism which this implies. a possible exception could be the chin dynasty which unified china, but, a lot of the perception might have to do with the fact than the history of the chin was written by their successors would likely exaggerated the the effect of their despotism on everyday life.

and yes, the period between the decline of the zhou and the rise of the chin basically was the formative epoch of intellectual creativity which crystalized the general direction of chinese culture. the main subsequent course correction was the introduction of buddhism...which initially flowered during the second interregnum after the fall of the han and before the rise of the sui-tang. buddhism's impact was not purely through the religion itself, but its influence on organized daoism as well as the counter-reaction that produced neo-confucianism.

I'd love to know about a not-too-long, good, trustworthy intro to Indian history too. Does such a thing exist? (And, btw, if not, why not?)

if you want a non-nuts intro to brown history, check out romila thapar's work. pre-muslim brown history is like the history of the jewish diaspora: one of cultural evolution via religion and philosophy, but little political awareness or consciousness.

Ah, hit the "post" button at the same moment. Tks for the suggestion. I see on Wikipedia that she's controversial. Indian history seems very disputed, and all the disputes seem political.

Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300

India: A History

A New History of India

(in order of scholarly heft)

I see on Wikipedia that she's controversial.

read her book and you'll ask yourself why :-) though seriously, there is a strong afro-centrist like tinge to brown historiography right now (more from the hindutva movement at the grass roots). this is a backlash against colonialist interpretations, but i think thapar hits the moderate middle road. e.g., there is a lot of talk about the 'aryan invasion' on brown message boards, but, from all the data i've surveyed the reality seems to be

a) less than 10%, if that, if india's genetic ancestry can be attributed to aryans (with a northwest to southeast cline)

b) the preponderance of its cultural orientation is probably non-aryan

c) but, the indo-aryan languages are almost certainly exogenous to the subcontinent, just as indo-european languages are exogenous to western europe

the brownz though (some) are fighting a war that goes back to the early to mid-20th century which offered a stark dichotomy between

a) aryan invasion and mass slaughter of natives and cultural replacement by an exogenous element

b) aryans as indigenous to the indian subcontinent

the dichotomy is false. the controversy is in part a reflection of the lack of maturity of the brown intellectual world, or at least the non-english speaking petite bourgieous who form the heart of the hindutva movement.

p.s. i have wasted a lot of time at SM talkign about the 'aryan invasion.' in the end i realized that no matter the science my antagonists were just wanting a chance to gripe about 19th and early to mid 20th century western scholars and engage in some "payback." total waste of time.

Razib—

pre-muslim brown history is like the history of the jewish diaspora: one of cultural evolution via religion and philosophy, but little political awareness or consciousness.

Why?

I’ve had a sense this was true for a long, long time, but not enough knowledge or study in the area to be at all sure. Lots of glancing suggestions for readings.

One way of putting it is that it seems that it was LONG after India became literate that it became AT ALL historical in it’s recordings.

Isn’t this almost unique? (I'm talking about the dearth of political/social recording source material here, if that is indeed the case, not the relatively high current level of bias or agenda of most Indian historians at the moment.)

You compare to the Jewish diaspora, but after all that was a people subsumed within other culture’s polities. They maintained their identity by emphasizing their religion and culture. Their politics was necessarily of limited scope and import. How does this map to India’s lack of literate historical texts for a long, long time – from what I gather. Or anyway texts which talk about politics at least as SOME level, and social organization.

Isn’t this just about unique in higher civilizations around the world?

Razib said—

a) less than 10%, if that, if india's genetic ancestry can be attributed to aryans (with a northwest to southeast cline)

Ok.

But wasn’t the Roman genetic “contribution” to Gaul/France, Hispania/Spain and Britannia/Britain even less than that? And wasn’t the cultural transformative impact nonetheless immense? Similarly the Anglo Saxon and Norman invasions of England? And so on.

Razib--

Thanks for the Romila Thapar suggestion re: sensible Indian history. Will order and in the near future I hope read.

But wasn’t the Roman genetic “contribution” to Gaul/France, Hispania/Spain and Britannia/Britain even less than that? And wasn’t the cultural transformative impact nonetheless immense? Similarly the Anglo Saxon and Norman invasions of England? And so on.

the norman invasion prolly wasn't as impactful as the anglo-saxon invasion or romanization of spain and gaul. in any case, these are all different scenarios with different dynamics. e.g., in the roman case you have a "high culture" that is a commanding presence on all fronts, militarily, scientifically and culturally. civilization qua civilization was the roman gift to the spaniards and gauls (let us ignore outliers such as tartessos, or the punic & greek colonies in these two regions). the situation in south asia is not analogous because the indo-europeans ("aryans") did not, it seems likely, bring a "higher" civilization. they brought their legends, they brought their language, and they brought their chariots (if you go with the likely majority view that the aryans came sometime between 2000 and 1500 BCE, though they might have been on the fringes of south asia like the visigoths before that period). they seem to have imposed themselves upon the local populace, but, a good analogy might be the magyars. the hungarian language is peculiar, but their god is from the local substrate, as are most of their genes and many aspects of their culture. they resemble far more their slavic and german neighbors than their nearest linguistic relatives in the uralic-volga region of russia. the situation with india is not as extreme, but later hinduism seems to owe more to indigenous cultural traditions and motifs than exogenous (as in aryan) ones.

Razib said--

the situation in south asia is not analogous because the indo-europeans ("aryans") did not, it seems likely, bring a "higher" civilization. they brought their legends, they brought their language, and they brought their chariots (if you go with the likely majority view that the aryans came sometime between 2000 and 1500 BCE, though they might have been on the fringes of south asia like the visigoths before that period). they seem to have imposed themselves upon the local populace, but, a good analogy might be the magyars. the hungarian language is peculiar, but their god is from the local substrate, as are most of their genes and many aspects of their culture. they resemble far more their slavic and german neighbors than their nearest linguistic relatives in the uralic-volga region of russia. the situation with india is not as extreme, but later hinduism seems to owe more to indigenous cultural traditions and motifs than exogenous (as in aryan) ones.

Thank you SO MUCH!!!

That is the single best short précis of the Aryan invasion of India that I have ever in my life read. Meaning the most information rich and convincing in the light of all the (fragmentary) rest I know.

I wish you’d write MUCH more here about the basics of Indian history (rather than quirks about Bangladeshi ethnicity that I realize have more familial resonance for you). India was after all a major (rather female sort of) luring wonderland for the rest of the Eurasian continent throughout recorded history. Whenever they got advanced enough to look that far, that is.

european and chinese sensibilities are far more appealing to me than south asian ones, so that is why i don't talk of south asia much.

I have read (from Dumezil) that there is a non-Indo-European substrate among the Greeks (not genetically, the hasn't been tested to my knowledge, but at the deepest cultural levels -- I don't mean recent Turkish influence). The recent genetic studies find a pretty big pre-IE substrate among the British. In the Middle East the IE Persians were also originally a relatively small conquest population -- Aramaic (a Semitic language) was their empire's lingua franca.

The power and significance of the IE peoples is still unquestioned, I think, but the simple narratives and explanations we've inherited from the last five or six generations have all been weakened, without being replaced with another simple narrative.

As expected, I believe that the IE difference was forms of organization, military innovations, and probably agricultural innovations.

Razib--

I understand. No really. I think I do. You're a Western man, fervently, by conviction leading to conversion (forget religion). And what's universal for you is a sorta Calvinist/Confucian sensibility, leave aside the religious (or any other) dogmas. I can identify, without the conversion, but rather as a sorta reaffirmation, following a wandering.

But god, you're SO well placed (by sensibility, intellect and yes to a degree ethnicity), and it's SUCH an underserved area.

Perhaps a SMALL posting minor in this area? Would LOVE it. As I’m sure would many others.

Homoeroticism aside 300 might be the first "man's" war movie produced by Hollywood in decades. I don't remember any recent war film using phrases like, "Prepare for Glory" on their posters. The fact that it is so different on so many levels must be a large part of its appeal.

Forgot one thing, the fact that 300 is ticking off Iran probably isn't hurting its box office either.

http://english.people.com.cn/200703/12/ eng20070312_356565.html

without being replaced with another simple narrative.


we won't really find a simple narrative...there isn't a one-size-fits-all. the 'quest for the indo-european allele' is prett dumb, as dumb as grafting physical anthropology onto historical linguistics in the 19th and 20th century. that doesn't mean that rough global correspondences aren't there, cavalli-sforza's phylogenetic trees comparing language & genes in history and geography of human genes is rightfully famous, but, that doesn't give people the granularity than they want.

re: non-IE substratum in greece: the nth that you see in many place names seems to be evidence of this (e.g., corinth). the ancient world was a complex world, and the bronze age is more akin to modern day africa in linguistic diversity than anything else we know of, so the attempts to shoehorn all these peoples into a few basic clusters is pretty laughable. consider the time wasted in attempting to place the sumerians into some language group...these are one of the most important peoples of the ancient world, but they're 'linguistic isolates.'

Perhaps a SMALL posting minor in this area? Would LOVE it. As I’m sure would many others.

duly noted.