Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

thehistoryblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 274 posts

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#251

Post by latexr »

brudgers wrote: post #232
latexr wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand on this: It started as “RTFA”, which is a riff on RTFM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM#List_of_similar_initialis... Doesn’t really work as OP used it, though, as it gets confusing. They wrote “the TFA mummy” every time, so it becomes “the the fucking article mummy”. Like saying you’re a fan of the The Beatles.

They wrote “the TFA mummy” every time I had it both ways when it was first posted, about twenty minutes later after reading the “what is TFA?” comment I edited it to be consistent. Only first line was the only “TFA” without the article…or with only one article? or is that two articles? Anyway, the three article phrase “the TFA mummy” is equivalent to the three article phrase “the mummy in TFA” which is what I started…

> “the mummy in TFA”

Personally, I would’ve found that clearer. I know what TFA means but still found “the TFA mummy” awkward to read and parse every time. But maybe “TFA” itself was the biggest problem there. Since you were editing anyway, “the article’s mummy” was an option too. Sometimes we all forget how acronyms aren’t universal and can impede rather than assist communication.

> my poetic license removes “the TFA mummy” from grammar police jurisdiction.

It was a lighthearted comment on how I personally found the phrasing awkward to read, I haven’t insulted your mother. We’re writing random inconsequential comments on an internet forum about a subject which has no practical effect on any of our lives, not redefining dramaturgy. There’s no poetry to your comment and no one is “policing” your words. The comment wasn’t even directed at you. You can relax.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#252

Post by xdennis »

tsimionescu wrote: post #206
xdennis wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have a 1.55m woman play the greatest Greek hero of all time. It's an insult to Greek culture. If Sydney Sweeney played Martin Luther King it would be equally insulting.

A big part of Achilles' story in the Illiad is that he was hidden among a group of princesses, and that Odysseus had to use a trick to figure out which of the princesses he was. So, even though in other places he is described as quite manly, it also makes sense to portray him as having more feminine features if referencing this part of the canon. I'd also note that Elliott Page is, of course, not a woman.

> I'd also note that Elliott Page is, of course, not a woman.

Scientists can tell that Lucy the hominid was a female even though only a few of her bones have survived since 3.2 million years ago when she died yet leftists think that Page is no longer a women just because she excised her breasts and changed her government papers.

If her bones get fossilized, 100 million years from now you'd still be able to figure out she's a woman.

> A big part of Achilles' story in the Iliad

Not only is it not a big part, but it's not even in the Iliad. You're clearly just regurgitating talking points.

That's a later invention. And it doesn't make him a transsexual. He marries a woman there.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#253

Post by protocolture »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #215
protocolture wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks pretty shonky. I dont care about the casting. But the costumes look like ass (One of the extras was saying he had fit into the same armor for a low budget sword and sandal film), they are using a viking longboat as a greek ship (have already seen half a dozen experts spitting chips over the difference in boat design). I just cant bring myself to care about the film. "Oh its a fantasy film" its set in a histo…

For someone who purports not to care about the film, you seem very familiar with the discourse about it. (I have seen zero experts, or anyone really, discussing boat design.)

I said I dont care about the casting. Not the other discourse.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#254

Post by protocolture »

ourmandave wrote: post #214
protocolture wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks pretty shonky. I dont care about the casting. But the costumes look like ass (One of the extras was saying he had fit into the same armor for a low budget sword and sandal film), they are using a viking longboat as a greek ship (have already seen half a dozen experts spitting chips over the difference in boat design). I just cant bring myself to care about the film. "Oh its a fantasy film" its set in a histo…

Would you watch a 1965 WW2 "historical" movie if the Nazis were driving M47 Patton tanks? https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/the-battle-of-...

I get pretty cranky at WW2 films that dress up modern tanks as WW2 ones. Particularly the tiger in Kellys Heroes that is definitely not a Tiger.

Also A Bridge too Far had this issue too.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#255

Post by protocolture »

verisimi wrote: post #185
protocolture wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I legitimately don't care about those things. They could cast the smurfs if they had a cool period boat and nice period armor. You are the one who has some weird race based conditioning where you are hyper-vigilant where it comes to race and need to act offended about it. Seek medical assistance.

You care about the historical detail of the boats and armour, but don't care about the person (sex or colour)? And people who disagree with you need medical help? Do you realise all the contradictions in your position? And then to suggest that the other person needs medical help for stating the obvious, indicates your malign intent. This is gas lighting, ie abusive behaviour. Your own conditioning is making you unabl…

>Do you realise all the contradictions in your position? And then to suggest that the other person needs medical help for stating the obvious, indicates your malign intent. This is gas lighting, ie abusive behaviour. Your own conditioning is making you unable to see the obvious.

Its not gas lighting and you diminish the term by suggesting it is.

If you demand arbitrary whiteness for a film thats about people who were considered black until the 60s or so, when you arent also demanding greekness of the whites, you are just here to grind your culture war axe.

I was accused of being conditioned, all I did was point out that its the culture war practitioners who have been conditioned like pavlovs dog to bark every time they see a person of colour on film. And yeah, that requires medical attention.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#256

Post by protocolture »

jimnotgym wrote: post #175
protocolture wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks pretty shonky. I dont care about the casting. But the costumes look like ass (One of the extras was saying he had fit into the same armor for a low budget sword and sandal film), they are using a viking longboat as a greek ship (have already seen half a dozen experts spitting chips over the difference in boat design). I just cant bring myself to care about the film. "Oh its a fantasy film" its set in a histo…

Would you choose the weapons, armour and tactics as described in the Iliad? Even though it is thought they are inaccurate for the time period that they think the Iliad is set? Not so easy I would say. And the extra you describe, where does he appear on screen? Front and centre, or in the fourth rank behind the people in better costumes? And the longboat, does it appear on screen in its original form, or with addition…

>Would you choose the weapons, armour and tactics as described in the Iliad?

Thats fine but my ultimate preference would be fully period.

Theres an old painting of jesus getting stabbed by Longinus kicking around, and Longinus and the other romans are wearing modern (at the time of painting) Italian plate harness with sallet helms.

The reason we dont depict romans like this painting, or wearing modern army fatigues and carrying rifles, is that we know better.

>And the extra you describe, where does he appear on screen? Front and centre, or in the fourth rank behind the people in better costumes?

The gist here is that most of the costumes are rentals with a few exceptions. The extra himself is barely on screen, but he is one of apparently a large number of people in the same outfit. YMMV.

The costumes they have created for the film are no better in accuracy, the batmanesque helmet for Agamemnon has been thoroughly ridiculed online and I wont bother going over it again here.

>And the longboat, does it appear on screen in its original form, or with additions to make it look more period accurate?

They took the dragon head prow down at least. Not much more than that has been done.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#257

Post by verisimi »

protocolture wrote: post #255
verisimi wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You care about the historical detail of the boats and armour, but don't care about the person (sex or colour)? And people who disagree with you need medical help? Do you realise all the contradictions in your position? And then to suggest that the other person needs medical help for stating the obvious, indicates your malign intent. This is gas lighting, ie abusive behaviour. Your own conditioning is making you unabl…

>Do you realise all the contradictions in your position? And then to suggest that the other person needs medical help for stating the obvious, indicates your malign intent. This is gas lighting, ie abusive behaviour. Your own conditioning is making you unable to see the obvious. Its not gas lighting and you diminish the term by suggesting it is. If you demand arbitrary whiteness for a film thats about people who were…

> If you demand arbitrary whiteness for a film thats about people who were considered black until the 60s or so, when you arent also demanding greekness of the whites, you are just here to grind your culture war axe.

You think greeks were considered black in the 1960s?

Perhaps you have just received a very poor education. Perhaps the colours of people really have shifted a lot in your understanding.

> Its not gas lighting and you diminish the term by suggesting it is.

If the colours of different people have NOT shifted in your understanding, saying someone needs medical help for stating the obvious, common understanding is pretty close to the text book definition of gas lighting. It's just that you think it is for a good cause.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#258

Post by protocolture »

Ladioss wrote: post #221
RobotToaster wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The costumes are completely wrong. At least they bothered to CGI out the stirrups, but it's incredibly obvious from how he's sitting on the horse in the trailer.

I would do unfathomable things for a movie with period-accurate Bronze Age armor sets.

Yeah same. I would book a full row to myself.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#259

Post by dmos62 »

brudgers wrote: post #239
dmos62 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pyramids aren't actually datable, because it's rock. Maybe if you were to find something with carbon that's provably from the time of construction, that could be used, but I don't think that happened. The popular datings for the older pyramids are educated guesses. Edit: the Sphynx dating is even more controversial, because it seems to have rain erosion on it.

To the degree that is a scientific argument, the scientific research and scholarship underpinning it is a subset of the scientific research and scholarship underpinning the dates the contemporary Egyptology community ascribes to the pyramids. Egyptologists can access science and have access to cultural artifacts and those artifacts include writing and that writing can be read and what can be read includes dates.

Thanks for the explanation.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#260

Post by defrost »

dyauspitr wrote: post #159
defrost wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would be weird to have a non macho dude play Achilles. Odd. Remind me, wasn't it Achilles who spent a couple of years cross dressing as a girl while hiding out to avoid a fight? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_on_Skyros Buenos noches Senores y Senoras Bienvenidos La primera pregunta es: Que es mas macho, pineapple o knife? Well, let's see My guess is that a pineapple is more macho than a knife Si! Corre…

I hate these gotchas but I can’t resist and it’s on a flagged comment so no one is really going to see this. Are you saying trans people are just cross-dressers?

No, just observing that some 2,000+ years of story telling portray Achilles as a short (by modern standards - average by ancient Greek standards) cross dressing bisexual.

That's not really a gotcha.

Given that I'd say there's a lot of latitude for directors to portray the character .. as has been done in a few opera's over the past century or so.

Post reply on HN