3 ms·

Of what movie are you talking about? Did I ever reference a movie? If you want to watch anything watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppGCbh8ggUs https:

• FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  The movie "300". In the US most people's knowledge of Sparta comes from the movie "300". It's part of the romantic mythos, the underdogs that saved western civilization against amazing odds. You had a particular reaction to the contradiction of that version, I had just assumed that was the background. So I'm not really following your argument. I thought you were arguing that the submitted article was wrong. It was really the corrupt Elites that were the problem, not soldiers. I posted something about elites and soldiers being in the same class. You replied with link to Ephors, I thought to argue that Ephors were the 'elite's that were corrupt and lead to the downfall of Sparta. I quoted about Ephors being generally elected and frequently from the poor, and soldiers. And also agreeing that they were corrupt, but not purely a class of 'elite's. Then you sent video that seems to praise the 'ephor's. Not only were they not elites, they were actually trying to do the right thing, fighting for the people. (so I thought opposite of your original post, original post implied Ephors were bad, but this video makes them out as good). But, the video does point out who the elites were. They "Gerousia" which was a council of elders that were actually the more typical 'elites'. Old, entrenched, not elected, and had power over the Ephors. So the "Gerousia" are the 'elites' to blame, not the honest fighting soldiers. But generally, the Video makes clear that we don't know much about this time period, and that by the time Rome was moving in, Sparta was a small village that couldn't form an army. So was it 'corruption' of the elites? Or stagnation? Still, nothing really contradicts the posted article.
  • 29athrowaway 3y ago
    The Ephorate did have power, which ultimately corrupts them to some degree, but they were not required to be wealthy and their term lasted for only one year. My initial comment was about the "deep state" (non-electable de-facto powers with vast influence) in Sparta, which were the rich families run by the πατρούχοι that had an immense influence over the diarchy and Sparta at large. They used their wealth to influence most of the Spartan institutions, resulting in more wealth which ultimately tipped the balance of power to their side. You are just incredibly confused, thinking that I am talking about the movie/visual novel 300, and then turning this into some kind of movie review. Let me save you the public shame and let's cut this exchange short. Have a good life and enjoy learning about history.
    • FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Not that confused. This entire thread makes reference to the movie at some point, since the article was dealing with modern popular views compared to history. Typically when someone comments as you did, as if offended when someone dare criticize Spartan soldiers, it is someone that only watched the movie. Your original post did not provide any details as you did later, it was simply : >"When that happens, they will realize that the low merit ideas of authors such as this guy are useless. " But then, you later did provide more detail. And your views seem to align with the article. So, movie aside, not really sure what you find wrong with the article, except maybe you think it disrespects soldiers in general. I agree power corrupts, money corrupts, and most human institution tend to become corrupted by money. Money seems to continue to accrue to a few and they buy everyone. The article seems to agree with this. Public Shame. Who cares? (Lol, maybe the deep state is watching us)
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]