American Revolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY

(embedding was disabled, but watch it)

sargentbilco wrote:

Death no more wrote:

sargentbilco wrote:colonies should of won...

They did.....

never said they didnt thick shit

Only should've implies that they didn't.

Rotaretilbo wrote: The French were...blue, I think? Hell if I remember.

French wore white uniforms.

TYFIGHTER wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY

(embedding was disabled, but watch it)

Ironically, 300 was relatively accurate, only really being wrong in the Spartan fighting style and a few other areas.

TNine wrote:

TYFIGHTER wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY

(embedding was disabled, but watch it)

Ironically, 300 was relatively accurate, only really being wrong in the Spartan fighting style and a few other areas.

TNine...WTH ARE YOU SMOKING?

TNine wrote:

TYFIGHTER wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY

(embedding was disabled, but watch it)

Ironically, 300 was relatively accurate, only really being wrong in the Spartan fighting style and a few other areas.

300 was based off of a comic book based off of that battle.... not even close to being historically accurate

Im still not sure why "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" isn't an option

Guy with the wolf as his pic. What are you retarded or somethin? The colonies were the americans!

KrAzY wrote:

TNine wrote:

TYFIGHTER wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY

(embedding was disabled, but watch it)

Ironically, 300 was relatively accurate, only really being wrong in the Spartan fighting style and a few other areas.

300 was based off of a comic book based off of that battle.... not even close to being historically accurate

Considering how innaccurate it was built up to be, it was actually fairly within the limits. They got the dress mostly right (while Spartans did wear a bit of other armor, their only real armour was their helmet and shield) and gave tribute to their fighting style (while they broke from it for the sake of the super cool fighting scenes), and also hinted at other signifigant parts (such as the storm that sank many Persian ships). Sure, the Persians were hardly bringing in Elephants and Rhinos while the Spartans danced about their lines killing everything, but it is far more accurate than people give it credit for.

TNine wrote:

KrAzY wrote:

TNine wrote:

TYFIGHTER wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY

(embedding was disabled, but watch it)

Ironically, 300 was relatively accurate, only really being wrong in the Spartan fighting style and a few other areas.

300 was based off of a comic book based off of that battle.... not even close to being historically accurate

Considering how innaccurate it was built up to be, it was actually fairly within the limits. They got the dress mostly right (while Spartans did wear a bit of other armor, their only real armour was their helmet and shield) and gave tribute to their fighting style (while they broke from it for the sake of the super cool fighting scenes), and also hinted at other signifigant parts (such as the storm that sank many Persian ships). Sure, the Persians were hardly bringing in Elephants and Rhinos while the Spartans danced about their lines killing everything, but it is far more accurate than people give it credit for.

But it is also far less accurate than you are saying it is.

You're right TNine, because we ALL know the Persians had Nurgle demons and used Cavalry and hand grenades at Thermoplyae. And xerxes was DEFINITLY 7 feet tall with enough jewelry to fill a fucking Kay's. And that the Greeks were betrayed by a hunch-backed reject. and that the Spartans fought practiclly alone. Let's not forget how the Persians used Ninjas as well!

Read a fucking history book dumbass.

And of course, the Spartans breaking the solid formation that made them last that long, and just running wild, alone, and still not taking any casualties, or a bare minimum! And let us not forget, they only had like, a few hundred Arcadians helping them at Thermopylae too...

Pancakes are amazing! wrote:Guy with the wolf as his pic. What are you retarded or somethin? The colonies were the americans!

Ummm... what?

Gold Spartan5 wrote:You're right TNine, because we ALL know the Persians had Nurgle demons

WTH is a Nurgle Demon?

and used Cavalry

I though they did use Calvary, but it was very unsuccesful due to the total lack of room to manuever.

and hand grenades at Thermoplyae.

Well, obviously not. Hand grenades weren't invented until the Chinese in what, the 1200s?

And xerxes was DEFINITLY 7 feet tall

Probably not.

with enough jewelry to fill a fucking Kay's.

He would. Kings, especially persian kings, dressed unnecessarily ornately.

And that the Greeks were betrayed by a hunch-backed reject.

They were...

and that the Spartans fought practiclly alone.

They didn't in the movie either. The movie glorified the Spartans, but they did include the other Greeks.

Let's not forget how the Persians used Ninjas as well!

You mean the immortals? They were the 10,000 personal bodyguard to the king, and were named so not only because of their seeming impossibility to kill, but also the fact that when one dies, another immediatly takes his place. Unfortunately, these elite that were so effective against civil unrest and normal countries got their asses handed to them, quite literally, by the trained Spartan soldiers.

Read a fucking history book dumbass.

I have read Gates of Fire, the real 300 (history channel), and the several page summary in my history textbook of the battle of Thermoplyae. I'm no history scholar, but i do know what i am talking about.

Nurgle? wth nurgle? what about Slaanesh?

TNine, they were betrayed by a mechant looking to curry favor with the Persians, PLUS you ignored most of my statements and inserted bullshit I already knew. No they did NOT use cavalry because of the passes, and a lot of that was FUCKING SARCASM!!!! NOBODY wore THAT much fucking gold! NOBODY!

Gold Spartan5 wrote:NOBODY wore THAT much fucking gold! NOBODY!

Mr. T does.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Ascendant Justice wrote:.....Wasn't this the war where the British were wearing those bright red outfits with the white X on their chest, while fighting in a jungle?

Marching down sunny, visible roads, singing the British National Anthem, which went something like
"Shoot me, shoot me, I'm standing here right now."

For more information, please consult Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species".

KrAzY wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:um, world war 2


stupid krazy

oh yes... because the country who was dumb enough to start wars on both of its fronts and take tactical descisions from a charismatic person with the tactical sense of a monkey deserved to win their part of the war

No...
Because the country strong enough to beat Britannia into a pulp, overrun Africa, and come within a hair's breadth of beating Moscow ought to have won. Unfortunately, bad timing, poor materials/research allocation, military infighting, and the worst Russian winter in 134 years were working against them.

Not to mention that Hitler was driven to paranoiac insanity by the ceaseless plotting against him.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I actually did my History research paper on the subject. The title was "An Unjust War" or something like that. Essentially, the colonists were a bunch of bitches, whining and complaining about every little thing, and then they started a stupid war, lots of people died, and Britain eventually decided that it wasn't worth their time. Am I happy we won? Well, yes, I like America. Should we have won? Definitely not. The justifications for the war were complete bullshit.

Sigh...
You do understand the concepts of Colonialism, right?

The Seven Years war benefited nobody on this continent, and we had to pay, even though we did the bulk of the fighting.
The British saw fit to levy unjust taxes on us, to keep a company afloat when it was going to die anyways. We had no say in the matter, even though we were descended from loyal British citizens and were loyal British subjects to begin with.

Not to mention that we sought peace. Remember the Olive Branch Petition?
Mad King George wanted war, and he got more than he could stomach. Personally, I think that if Britain wasn't lead by a possibly porphyritic king, then the war wouldn't have happened.

sound somewhat familiar...
*cough cough*USA*cough cough*
<_<
>_>

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Nurgle? wth nurgle? what about Slaanesh?

Cant forget about Khorne

TNine wrote:

TYFIGHTER wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY

(embedding was disabled, but watch it)

Ironically, 300 was relatively accurate, only really being wrong in the Spartan fighting style and a few other areas.

No.

Sparta had two kings. Kings did not go through the Agoge, one of their many priveledges. 300 makes out like there is only one king.

The "council" is entirely wrong. Sparta had a gerousia of 30, 28 elders over 60 and the two kings. The young guy who abuses gorgo is entirely wrong. All army and ex-army were formed into an assembly which could vote yes or no on decisions brought forth by the gerousia, and in the event of a "crooked" decision, this could be over turned, effectly making it so the gerousia held all the power (And thus, why we call the spartan system an oligarchy)

The 5 ephors are likewise wrong, ephors had nothing to do with oracles, they were simply a counter-balance to the power of the kings, and could put them on trial infront of the Gerousia if needed. The oracle was based in delphi, miles away from sparta. They were also not hideous wart covered goblins.

The persian messengers and the kicking down the well incident happened years before Thermoplyae, in the first persian invasion under Darius.

The spartans were accompanied by the majority of the Peloponnesian league and other greek states, adding up to roughly 5000-7000 hoplites. Thermoplyae was not the original intended site of defence as the film makes out, rather the greeks intended to make a defence further north, but withdrew when it was pretty clear that the locals were friendly to the persians (As was most of northern greece). They held out for two days, at which point they were betrayed by Ephialtes who was a local who was pro-persian, not a rejected hump back spartan who got a bit pissy that he couldn't hold a shield right. On that last day, Leonidas told the rest of the greeks to leave, but 700 thespians and 400 thebans offered to stay behind and make the final stand with the spartans, allowing the other greek forces to retreat, only the spartan sacrifice is remembered.

Leonidas was in the front ranks of the spartan phalanx and was not the last to die, the spartans fought for, and lost his body quite a few times.

Then there's all the normal stuff. Hoplites never broke ranks (The greeks honoured a spartan the next year for his performance at plataea, the spartans wouldn't acknowledge it as he had broken ranks, even if he had killed scores of persians.). Spartans wore more armour than ANY other greeks, only later during the Peloponnesian war would they fight naked because it was cheaper and they were on their last legs. Their helmet crests are wrong, in that they don't have them in the movie. The fact that they throw their spears like javelins is wrong. Everything about the persians is wrong pretty much. Xerxes was not a 12 foot bald headed dude who was into wierd piercings. Immortals were only immortals because they were always kept at a number of 10,000, after every battle the ranks would be refilled, leading to a mirage that they never died. Women wouldn't be allowed into the council/assembly/what ever at all. The only accurate thing possibly is that the persians would have accepted a hunch backed wierdo because they were very, very open when it came to religion/ethnicity, blah blah.

I accept the movie's a stylised representation, based on a comic, but it's not accurate. There's FAR more wrong with it than "the spartan fighting style and a few other areas".

Vel:
None of those are very big issues all things considered. I never, ever said 300 was accurate, but it is far more accurate than people give it credit for. And for the most part, the Persian peons (the ones that died a lot) weren't horribly misrepresented, many badass quotes from the movie actually took place ("Our arrows will block out the sun" "Then we shall fight in the shade") and while certain aspects were misrepresented, many were at least touched upon if then totally ignored (there were other Greeks in the movie, Leonidas did say that the Phalanx was the key even if it was hardly used, they had the well scene if it was horribly out of date, the attire was correct if for the wrong part of the war. And government? Really?

I'm not saying that 300 is accurate, that would be ridiculous. I'm saying its relatively accurate considering how bad it is considered. Also, historical innaccuracy is not always a bad thing, Inglorious Basterds was great partially because it was so ridiculously over-the-top inaccurate:

Spoiler:

Basically, don't take 300 as a historical document but give it credit when it is due.

Tnine: was Inglorious Bastards a good movie? I was thinking about renting it.

I thought this thread was about the American Revolution?

TNine wrote:Vel:
None of those are very big issues all things considered. I never, ever said 300 was accurate, but it is far more accurate than people give it credit for. And for the most part, the Persian peons (the ones that died a lot) weren't horribly misrepresented, many badass quotes from the movie actually took place ("Our arrows will block out the sun" "Then we shall fight in the shade") and while certain aspects were misrepresented, many were at least touched upon if then totally ignored (there were other Greeks in the movie, Leonidas did say that the Phalanx was the key even if it was hardly used, they had the well scene if it was horribly out of date, the attire was correct if for the wrong part of the war. And government? Really?

I'm not saying that 300 is accurate, that would be ridiculous. I'm saying its relatively accurate considering how bad it is considered. Also, historical innaccuracy is not always a bad thing, Inglorious Basterds was great partially because it was so ridiculously over-the-top inaccurate:

Spoiler:

Basically, don't take 300 as a historical document but give it credit when it is due.

It's a good movie, but it can't be given credit for being accurate past the fact that the battle happened, where it happened, and that they were killing persians. It's like a movie showing Haig won the battle of the somme single-handedly with a revolver and nothing more than his mustache to help him.