They've never been black so what's the deal, plus what's up with their dress-code?
Here's a comparison of how they looked, and how they where portrayed in the movie:
1.http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2162/2persianshv5.png (Persians)
2.http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9122/1xerxesespe6.png (Xerxes)
3.http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2760/3immortalswn4.png (The immortals)
I know this is a film and all, but how wrong can you get.
They aren't. Some of the lands the Persians conquered were black. The people of any land that belonged to the Persian Empire were considered Persian.
Xerxes isn't black in the movie either. He's "brown" as are most Iranians. Iran of course being modern day Persia.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/300-movie-image-rodrigo-santoro .jpg
You can't seriously say that that is "brown" and not black. Plus no Persian is that dark.
How do the skin of these people look like the picture of Xerxes skin tone?
https://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&biw=1429&bih=692&; amp;tbm=isch&oq=persian+people+&aq=f&aqi=g5g-S5&gs_l=i mg.3..0l5j0i24l5.5983.5983.0.6208.1.1.0.0.0.0.83.83.1.1.0...0.0.dTfSGS 6_Zp8&q=persian%20people
The darkest people the Persians conquered were Egyptians, Xerxes was not an Egyptian though. The land may have been Persian but that does not make the people Persian as it is an ethnicity.
Are you saying east Indians are black? Because he's no more black than they are.
How do the skin of these people look like the picture of Xerxes skin tone?
The darkest people the Persians conquered were Egyptians, Xerxes was not an Egyptian though. The land may have been Persian but that does not make the people Persian as it is an ethnicity.
That is an Indian not a Persian.
Actually no. Persians did not call the Medes, Babylonians etc. for Persian
Of course he is. His image only showed up in YOUR search for Persian people and the photo itself labels him as Persian, but you must be right. I mean, lord knows, there can't be any color variation between the people living in Iran.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
No, he is Indian and it is painfully obvious. Google's search is based on search-terms and shows your inability to judge the results for yourself.
Here is a search page for "Parthian":
https://www.google.se/search?q=gorgonzola&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=sv&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=tfLAT4KoKovP4QShp8n6CQ&biw=1920&bih=974&sei=t_LAT9KsKJDE4gS0mpTbCQ#um=1&hl=sv&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=parthian&oq=parthian&aq=f&aqi=g1g-S9&aql=&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l9.38395.39755.4.40035.8.8.0.0.0.0.92.517.8.8.0...0.0.scR2jAa17S4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a80021228baabed9&biw=1920&bih=974
This picture of a Sassanian King of Kings was featured in this same search:
http://www.google.se/imgres?um=1&hl=sv&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&biw=1920&bih=974&tbm=isch&tbnid=7wIB1eGydQ97aM:&imgrefurl=http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/westasia/history/sassanids.htm&docid=iWRu9CFHWsidHM&imgurl=http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/westasia/art/pictures/parthianhead.jpg&w=665&h=929&ei=IPPAT4LXL6Xe4QTK4qXLCQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=194&sig=102411765624912655346&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=105&start=0&ndsp=46&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:86&tx=101&ty=109
Now why is that? The web-page says it's about the Sassanians, but the file name itself says "parthian". Therefore Google indexes this file into the search term, irrespective of relevance. Which means if I took a picture of you, renamed it to "dunce" and uploaded it, your face will be shown every time one searches for an idiot on the Internet. According to this idiotic logic of yours, you put your own foot into your mouth, even though the relevance of your picture showing up would be a most correct thing.
Conclusion: Saba is correct, and you are a huge idiot who can't seemingly differentiate between an Iranian and someone clearly from southern India. You probably can't hear the difference between Tamil and Farsi either.
Your ignorance is painfully ridiculous. Obama and Hilary Clinton showed up in the search results as well - does that mean that they are Persian too?
Are you saying east Indians are black? Because he's no more black than they are.
Quite a few when you consider that there was a dark tone to the movie. In fact, some are darker. This guy for example: http://www.twrcanada.org/images/persian%20ministry.jpg
Incorrect.
At the time, Persian referred to all the people under Persian rule.
Just like Roman referred to all the people under the rule of the Roman empire, not just people from Rome.
I never said they were ethnically Persian, I said they were part of the Persian empire, thus considered people of the Persian empire.
At no point in the Achaemenid era, did the Persians ever annex any land in "East India". The furthest to the east that the Achaemenids consolidated their conquests was on the Punjab. That's in today's Pakistan, and people there look absolutely nothing like the "Xerxes" of the film.
That man isn't even Iranian.
Strange, seeing as that the Persians constantly make references to the diversity of peoples in the empire, something that is not only corroborated by Herodotus' similar enumeration of peoples (Something that clearly was done with the help of Achaemenid records), but reflected upon in Achaemenid era epigraphica, particularly in Persepolis.
You will not get away with this.
I didn't say they did get as far as India.
I said his skin tone is similar to that of someone of Indian descent.
Brown, not black.
Okay, what is he then?
And why did the above poster attempt to use that picture to prove that Iranian people are fair skinned?
Granted they did a google search and obviously didn't actually look at the result.
Regardless, they would still be considered part of the Persian empire, and as such, subjects of Persia. Hence they would be "Persian."
And get away with what exactly?
And those lands were which ones exactly? Enumerate them and locate them for me, please. You know, I have a feeling you have not even the slightest idea of what you are even talking about.
The people of any land that belonged to the Persian Empire were considered Persian.
Xerxes isn't black in the movie either. He's "brown" as are most Iranians. Iran of course being modern day Persia.
Herodotus, the Carian Greek, of whom our entire understanding of the battle of Thermopylae is derived, would be according to your logic a Persian. He wasn't. He was a Persian subject who would later migrate, but rather more correctly, a satrapal subject of the satrapy of Caria.
Mega...Re: Herodotus and Thermopylae. The sources do indicate that he was probably one of the few early ancient historians who's writing survived the centuries. On the other hand I'm intrigued with the possibility that someone in Xerxes contingent, a "scribe" perhaps, would have jotted some things down about the battle but unfortunately they did not survive. What do you think of Persian sources of the battle?
because it's a damn movie, not a documentary!
sharePeter Bradshaw of Guardian: "Please, the Persians aren´t made to look that bad - if they were, they would be played by Brits".
See? It´s all okay.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
The answer is simple.
They tried to get the Spartans and Greeks to look very Mediterranean. They did a good job at it considering that some other movies don't even bother to remember that Mediterranean is NOT the same as white.
Realistically, Persians were/are also Mediterranean but the filmmakers knew that the general audience would not be able to differentiate so they made the Persians darker than Mediterranean. They aren't black, they are Arab/Middle Eastern looking which the Persian Empire did occupy.
Today, someone who is Persian or Iranian or from anywhere else where original Persia was would look like the in between of a Mediterranean (Greek, Italian, etc)and an Arab or darker Middle Eastern (Saudi, UAE, etc)
You are correct there.
Might I add, if I were the filmmakers I would get typical white actors for Spartans (Anglo/Irish actors or whatever) - what most of American actors look like. And the actors for Persians should've been Mediterranean in appearance. Remember, most films portraying ancient Greece and Rome have Anglo-looking characters, when Greece and Rome typically have darker, olive folks.
Seriously, Nubian-looking Persians was immensely wrong and ridiculous. That's no different to getting George Clooney (a bit dark) to play some African tribal leader.
Light travels faster than sound. That's why people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Regarding race,I am surprised no one mentioned that the current name of Persia, Iran is derived from the term Aryan,the description of which is something like "fair skinned people migrating from Central Asia (or some other place),with sharp facial features and taller than other indigenous population. What is more interesting is the fact that the same racial heritage is claimed over a wide geographical region, from North India to Germany. Greek itself is belongs to the group of Indo-European languages, so for appearance sake,Persians and Greeks wouldn't have appeared so diverse.
Having said that,Spartan resistance at the hot gates, is perhaps the bravest last stands ever and it wouldn't have been entertaining if they all looked the same. Besides, by including soldiers of different races (not just blacks), Frank Miller and Snyder were really trying to portray Xerxes commanding a hundred nations as claimed by his envoy earlier so as to make the the stand really heroic. But by portraying, Xerxes as a giant androgynous freak and other Giants in his force, Miller and Snyder actually made a very clear statement of this being a fantasy based on a historical event.
Wow!!! It's great to know that many of you were in persia back then during the real war. You guys must be really old.
”Deh Deh Deh, DA Dabacco”-Puert Rican dude from the ”I aint your Papi” episode of COPS.
Wow!!! It's great to know that many of you were in persia back then during the real war. You guys must be really old.
[deleted]
Because Asian people dont look "exotic" enough on the screen. You have to use black people and pass them off as Asian. Same reason why Rosario Dawson played a Bactrian princess in Alexander.
shareWhat do you expect , This is an American movie and this not the first anti-Persian movie that we have seen ,This film was worse than blowing up a nuke in Iran ,I hate when some people keep saying ;this is just a film based on a novel but I have to say this not just a film , this is a war a cultural war that US waged against Iran
*beep*ing up a country's history and culture , just in order to make money ?! or amusing people ??!!,this film was seen by the entire world
and unfortunately its sequel is being made
Achaemenid Persian dynasty was one the most peaceful empires of all time
Cyrus the great captured Babylon without shedding one drop of blood and he freed Jews from Babylonian savage king who imprisoned all of the Jews and he intended to execute all of them he freed them then he rebuilt Jews temple
and also He made the first declaration of human rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder
Darius the great ordered to build the Suez canal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Great%27s_Suez_Inscriptions
This is a story told from the point of view of Delios who's rallying for battle. Of course he's going to paint his own king/men as shining oiled up perfection and the persians as monsters. It wasn't supposed to be accurate, it wasn't trying to be accurate. Stop looking or racism where it doesn't exist. Ever heard of an unreliable narrator?
shareThe unreliable narrator is an injection. In the actual history he never existed. It's an excuse to inject racism into the film. There are even parts of the film where the narrator was not even present. No other perspective is provided and therefore the entire film is racist.
sharethe narrator was a fvcking storyteller rallying people to war. The only racism here is an illusory one you hold on to because you like to have your knicker in a twist.
shareListen, assface.
The narrator never existed.
The narrator was an injection.
An injection into a film that cost 70 million dollars to make.
A film that made over half a billion dollars in box office profits.
The film shows the Persians to be a sub-human lot.
Therefore if the narrator was racist, especially in scenes where the narrator wasn't present.
Then the narrator is a reflection of the film's makers.
Therefore would also mean that the makers of this movie were racist.
It's not a very difficult equation to make.
Now, what you are regurgitating is an excuse.
But to this excuse you attach the following motive: "Rallying people to war".
Rallying who? Greeks are not at war with the Iranians.
Unless you talk about the ancient Persians and the ancient Greeks.
But wouldn't that completely abrogate your initial argument saying it was all fiction?
Yes, it would.
Therefore you are not convincing me. This film is racist and I'm sorry that it offends your fanboy sentiments, but it's true. You may come to that realization when you grow older sometimes in the next ten years.
Listen, assface.
You may come to that realization when you grow older sometimes in the next ten years.Is your self-awareness really that lacking, or are you genuinely 12 years old?
Why, are you feeling struck by chance?
share<Listen, assface.>
A true scholar in the making! Is the rest of your malarkey going to be on the same level of this asinine remark?
<The narrator never existed.>
historically? Well yeah, so what?
<The narrator was an injection.>
No, it was the whole point. It persisted from the graphicn novel to the movie.
<An injection into a film that cost 70 million dollars to make.
A film that made over half a billion dollars in box office profits.
The film shows the Persians to be a sub-human lot.>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUFxKUsW0nE
it's called an unreliable narrator. The fact that he is telling the story in a CLEARLY propaganda fashion changes the ENTIRE bent from an objective telling to a clearly SKEWED portrayal of his own side- the Spartans as heroic figures like you'd see on Grecian urns, while the Persians are portrayed as monsters. Ephialtes, a Spartan by birth is similarly portrayed as thus.
<Therefore if the narrator was racist, especially in scenes where the narrator wasn't present.>
The narrator is omniprescent because HE'S TELLING THE STORY. Did you even watch the movie? The entire battle is told BY Dillios TO the Spartan army before a battle. What about this do you not get? Are you fvcking retarded? Were you the ball in a game of football as a kid?
<Rallying who? Greeks are not at war with the Iranians.
Unless you talk about the ancient Persians and the ancient Greeks. >
Spartans vs. Persian Empire. Duh. Did you even watch the movie?
<But wouldn't that completely abrogate your initial argument saying it was all fiction? >
Not at all, because ONCE AGAIN it was a WAR RALLY told by a storyteller giving a jingoistic tale and hence CLEARLY biased and distorted.
The only reason why I wouldn't be convincing you is because you've the comprehension of a sniveling tot.
A true scholar in the making!
Is the rest of your malarkey going to be on the same level of this asinine remark?
historically? Well yeah, so what?
No, it was the whole point. It persisted from the graphicn novel to the movie.
it's called an unreliable narrator.
he fact that he is telling the story in a CLEARLY propaganda fashion
changes the ENTIRE bent from an objective telling to a clearly SKEWED portrayal of his own side-
the Spartans as heroic figures like you'd see on Grecian urns, while the Persians are portrayed as monsters.
Ephialtes, a Spartan by birth is similarly portrayed as thus.
The narrator is omniprescent because HE'S TELLING THE STORY.
The entire battle is told BY Dillios
What about this do you not get?
Are you fvcking retarded?
Were you the ball in a game of football as a kid?
Spartans vs. Persian Empire. Duh.
Did you even watch the movie?
Not at all, because ONCE AGAIN it was a WAR RALLY told by a storyteller giving a jingoistic tale and hence CLEARLY biased and distorted.
The only reason why I wouldn't be convincing you is because you've the comprehension of a sniveling tot.
<Just observing the obvious. >
You aren't very good at that.
<<historically? Well yeah, so what?>
So you concede on a major flaw of your reasoning? Excellent.>
Not at all. genius, for the reason I stated afterwords.
<<No, it was the whole point. It persisted from the graphicn novel to the movie.>
And by this you say that the final product or the producers were not racist? This is a non sequitur if I ever saw one. One thing that the graphic novel did not do was to explicitly show the Persians to be a sub-human horde of monsters. That's an injection the film made. Your argument again collapses on itself.>
Persians were depicted as monsters BECAUSE they were told from the point of view of a biased, unreliable narrator in the entire work. That's kind of the POINT of the character Dillios. It's a fictionalized take on a real historical event. Are you so dense as to not get the whole thing? Are you so interested in finding something to hate that you're willing to invent things to do that? Yeesh! The only one collapsing is you on the fact that it's essentially "because it's not an objective historical documentary it's propaganda against iranians!".
<The narrator never existed in history so this "omni-present story-telling" is the produce of racists who fabricate events, portray ancient cultures as monstrosities and peddle it all as "fictional story-telling" without taking any responsibility for the damage it has inflicted upon the inalienable rights of human beings.>
HAHAH Oh now it's infringing upon the rights of human beings??? It's a dumb action movie with preening machismo! Persians being portrayed as monsters is no different than you telling a tale at a bar of some a$shole you took out who was evil manifest because he stole your girlfriend.
<<The entire battle is told BY Dillios>
Dilios never existed. There was never a narrator with basis in history. That's the entire point I'm making. This Dilios is an injection served as the entire basis of justifying racism.>
THERE IS NO RACISM! The SPARTANS in the FICTIONALIZED TAKE on history are portraying the Persians as MONSTERS because they're about to go to BATTLE. What's with you and looking so far into a fvcking movie with half naked men violently posing in slo mo? If you seriously think the movie has more substance than that you are mistaken. It's shallow, but enjoyable and entertaining flick with testosterone fueled by CGI and camera speed changes.
<You are being blind to the obvious. You say the film is shown itself to present a propagandistic view of the battle, but I am saying it is propaganda altogether.>
And you're wrong. Because it has no actual message other than "we spartans rule!" Persians being enemy are clearly deeply seated in the context of the story. Only an idiot would think this somehow translates to Persians actually ARE monsters, especially as depicted in the damn comic book movie. Get real here.
Also, no I'm not obsessed. I thought it was enjoyable but okay. I just find the idea of someone taking this damn popcorn fluff WAY too seriously and foam at the mouth at windmill giants.
You aren't very good at that.
Not at all. genius, for the reason I stated afterwords.
Persians were depicted as monsters BECAUSE they were told from the point of view of a biased, unreliable narrator in the entire work.
That's kind of the POINT of the character Dillios.
It's a fictionalized take on a real historical event.
Are you so dense as to not get the whole thing?
Are you so interested in finding something to hate that you're willing to invent things to do that?
Yeesh! The only one collapsing is you on the fact that it's essentially "because it's not an objective historical documentary it's propaganda against iranians!".
HAHAH Oh now it's infringing upon the rights of human beings???
It's a dumb action movie with preening machismo!
Persians being portrayed as monsters is no different than you telling a tale at a bar of some a$shole you took out who was evil manifest because he stole your girlfriend.
THERE IS NO RACISM!
The SPARTANS in the FICTIONALIZED TAKE on history are portraying the Persians as MONSTERS because they're about to go to BATTLE.
What's with you and looking so far into a fvcking movie with half naked men violently posing in slo mo?
If you seriously think the movie has more substance than that you are mistaken.
It's shallow, but enjoyable and entertaining flick with testosterone fueled by CGI and camera speed changes.
And you're wrong. Because it has no actual message other than "we spartans rule!" Persians being enemy are clearly deeply seated in the context of the story. Only an idiot would think this somehow translates to Persians actually ARE monsters, especially as depicted in the damn comic book movie. Get real here.
Lol u mad bro?
Go find something real to crusade for you scrub. You're just trying to look like a keyboard warrior on some *beep* that has absolutely no *beep* meaning in the real world. Get real, kid.
[deleted]
Thank you Megatherion for standing up for Greeks and Iranians. The world lacks dignity and honor, filled with fools that cling onto the world for it's materialistic and physical pleasures. When people like you are no more - those who remain will wonder why the world is as is.
share[deleted]
[deleted]