What is MOAON AABE?


PDA






Electrified
February 27, 2007, 02:38 PM
Ok I know I don't have the greek right, but just what is MOAON AABE? I see it all over but just don't know what it means. You scholars step up to the plate....
Bob

If you enjoyed reading about "What is MOAON AABE?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vis--vis
February 27, 2007, 02:38 PM
Greek for "come and take them" I think.

Hoppy590
February 27, 2007, 02:47 PM
http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/molon_labe.htm

stems from King Leonidas, King( general?) of the Spartans, in response to a Persian demand that the 300 spartans and 1000 thebians to surrender in the face of whats legend to be a million men. the Spartans were making a stand to buy time for the rest of the greeks to amass forces... spartans held on for 3 days, and fought to the last man

this was the Battle of Thermopylae

creitzel
February 27, 2007, 02:49 PM
See Here: http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/molon_labe.htm :)

Chris

Edited to add: DOH, Hoppy beat me to it :)

Shane333
February 27, 2007, 02:54 PM
Yes it means, "come and take them."

It was said by the Spatans at Thermopylae (sp?) when the Persians demanded that the defending Greeks hand over their weapons.

There were between 7,000 and 10,000 Greeks (including 300 Spartans) defending against between 700,000 and 1,000,000 Persians. The Greeks absolutely stomped the Persians for two days, inflicting massive casualties on the Persians (like 20,000 or more a day) with only a dozen or so losses on the Greek side. The fight took place on a narrow beach with rocky mountains on one side. The Persians needed to fight through this beach to get to the Greek states.

Then the Persians found an alternate route to get around the Greeks and encircle them towards the third day. Seeing the inevitable, the Spartans told the other Greeks to go back and warn and prepare those back home. The Spartans volunteered to stay behind and hold the Persians so the rest could escape. 700 Thebians (who were weekend warrior types and not professional soldiers like the Spartans) volunteered to stay with the Spartans.

So 1000 Spartans and Thebians fought to the end to buy the rest time to escape. It is said that they fought with their spears till they broke, then their swords till those broke too, then their fists, teeth, and nails until they were finally hewn down. Even surrounded and outnumbered, the Spartans are rumored to have inflicted casualties at a ratio greater than 20:1.

Fly320s
February 27, 2007, 03:03 PM
Molon Labe: The Drink

1 part Blood of Tyrants
1 crushed Tree of Liberty leaf
2 parts Sam Adam's beer
Dash of Hoppe's to taste

Shake it until the Tree of Liberty leaf has absorbed the blood.

Serve ice cold, like revenge.

rc135
February 27, 2007, 03:13 PM
The upcoming film, "300" appears to be about just this incident 'tween the Greeks and the Persians. There's a sneak preview next week at the local USMC base (MCAS MIramar). I'll post here after I watch it.

Shane333
February 27, 2007, 03:24 PM
I worry that the film "300" is going to be the equivalent of "The Battle of Thermopylae meets the Matrix".:scrutiny:

If it does it will detract from how significant the real event really was.

Leanwolf
February 27, 2007, 04:18 PM
SHANE333- "Then the Persians found an alternate route to get around the Greeks and encircle them towards the third day."

Actually, the Persians did NOT FIND an alternate route.

The Spartans were betrayed from within by an act of treachery on the part of a disgruntled, native Greek, Ephialtes, by name.

Ephialtes went to the Persians and convinced Xerxes he could lead the Persian soldiers through a tiny mountain pass which would bring them in behind the Spartans.

Once Leonidas learned the Persians were coming in behind him in great force, he released the other Greek armies from their obligation to stay and fight. All left but the 700 Thesbians, who stayed and died to the last man, fighting alongside the Spartans.

The battle at Thermopylae (480 B.C.), actually enabled the Greeks by giving them time to marshall their forces against Xerxes and his Persians, in the naval battle of Salamis, just off the coast of Atticus. Themistocles, the leader of the Greeks, managed to deceive Xerxes, causing Xerxes to order his fleet to attack the Greeks at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Greek navy was under the supreme command of another Spartan, Eurybiades. He and his navy, practically obliterated Xerxes' navy, sinking more than 200 ships. The blow was decisive.

Xerxes, realizing his cause was hopeless, along
with his Persians, then made an ignominious retreat into Asia.

Historians believe without a doubt that had Xerxes and his Persians managed to destroy Greece, there would not have been any "western European Civilization," as we know it. Today, we would be more of an "asian" civilization, rather than what we know of as our culture. Afterall, it was Greek culture and civilization, which led to Roman civilization and culture, which eventually led to ... us.

Due to Leonidas and his Spartans, the 700 Thesbians, and Eurybiades and his sailor warrors, we today enjoy what became a western european culture.

There is an ancient monument in the pass at Thermopylae commemorating Spartan law, valor, and honor. It reads, "Stranger, go tell the Lacedaemononians [Spartans] that we lie here in obedience to their commands."

L.W.

Shane333
February 27, 2007, 05:25 PM
You are absolutely correct, Leanwolf, about the betrayal. I didn't go into specifics about how the Persians found out about the trail for the sake of brevity.

Without the mountain trail to get around and encircle the Greeks, it is quite possible that the Greeks could have held the Persians indefinately at Thermopylae. If I remember my history correctly, the Greeks had a system set up where new replacements could be brought in to replace the daily casualties because the number was so small. Not to mention the fact that the Greeks were closer to their supply line and the logistics for feeding them were much easier than it was for the Persians. I imagine that after another week of failure and a couple hundred thousand casualties more, the Persians would probably have abandoned their invasion right there.

Goes to show how one traitor can make the difference between victory and defeat.

Oh, I also seem to remember that the Greeks killed two of Xerxes' brothers at Thermopylae. I bet that left an impression. ;)

dpote
February 27, 2007, 05:48 PM
Molon Labe: The Drink

1 part Blood of Tyrants
1 crushed Tree of Liberty leaf
2 parts Sam Adam's beer
Dash of Hoppe's to taste

Shake it until the Tree of Liberty leaf has absorbed the blood.

Serve ice cold, like revenge.


Best post ever!

Dave

Leanwolf
February 27, 2007, 06:06 PM
Shane333, you're correct. Although I am not positive of this, I believe that one of Xerxes' brothers was killed at Thermopylae, and the other was killed in the Salamis naval battle off the coast of Atticus. But I'm not sure...(?)

As you said, how interesting that one traitor, Ephialtes, changed the course of an extremely important battle. He almost changed the culture of the western world.

L.W.

MrPeter
February 27, 2007, 07:06 PM
I am so looking forward to seeing 300. I'm sure they're going to hollywoodize the crap out of it, but from what I have seen and read, this movie is going to be a work of art, while sticking to the original comic book scene by scene, which I haven't seen done properly yet.

davhina
February 27, 2007, 07:39 PM
Mo-lone lah-veh
Come and get them
We have adopted this defiant utterance as a battle cry in our war against oppression because it says so clearly and simply towards those who would take our arms
That about covers it!
Molon Labe! Ancient Greek, but still applies today:)

Jerry1949
February 27, 2007, 08:03 PM
Someone who can translate ancient Greek correct me if I'm wrong, but the literal translation is simply

*COME GET!!*.......

PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2007, 12:35 AM
What is MOAON AABE?

It's a cliche; worn out and overused.

Cesiumsponge
February 28, 2007, 12:43 AM
"300" is more like a fantasy take on the historical event. I saw creatures and weird stuff in the preview, but I will watch just for the classical lines themselves. It was also based off another Frank Miller graphic novel I believe, which was of course based off the actual event. Sin City was done great and the previews looked good for what it is but I am not sure if it is the same director. I don't expect a 100% transcript (the graphic novel itself wasn't) but it should be a good action flick at the very minimum.

moredes
February 28, 2007, 01:53 AM
Actually, Thermopylae isn't on a beach; it's a mountain pass linking an area/city-state (whose name) I can't remember, to Thessaly. But the pass leads out of the mountains to the sea. That's why control of it was so critical. Herodotus claimed it was only wide enough to permit wagons to travel through it single-file. Some well-regarded historians believe it may have been twice that wide at the time of the battle.

"Stretching", in total the 'Greek' army only numbered ~ 6,000 - 7,000. Most modern historians 'begrudgingly' accept Herodotus' account for this number. By the second (and last) day, this number had dwindled to ~1500, as the majority of the Greek forces had withdrawn.

Xerxes' attack forces at Thermopylae was not much larger than 10,000 (ten thousand) men at any one time. His entire army may have been larger-- more "realistic" numbers claim Xerxes' total army to be as little as ~200,000 men--but the numbers he committed to this battle were in the thousands only, this attack force never even approached 'hundreds' of thousands, much less a milliion. A million men wouldn't fit into the present-day pass. Two centuries later the powerhouse city-state of Carthage would only number ~300,000.

Modern historians doubt very much if Herodotus was anywhere near accurate in his claim that the Greeks faced a Persian army of 1- 2,000,000 (million) men. One of the biggest reasons most moderns disbelieve his account is supply and movement problems, the least of which would be potable water for such a force. (Consider the political favor a Greek storyteller like Herodotus would curry for inflating the account of such a last stand. Today he is regarded as a historical source, but by any and all accounts, his "history" was written ~50 years after the battle--and he started out as an teller of tales.)

In any case, Xerxes sent two forces against the Greek forces at separate times in a frontal assault; By both Herodotus' own account (and that of another Greek 'historian' Diodorus), each of the forces Xerxes' committed couldn't have been much more than 10,000 men--Herodotus says that after the Persians were repulsed in the first wave, Xerxes sent his best, 'The Immortals', against the Greeks as the second attack force. (Legend claims that this force functioned in more peaceful times as Xerxes' palace guard--his bodyguards, if you will.) They were called 'Immortal' because any casualty was replaced so that the number, 10,000, remained intact.

No offense to any whom I may have critiqued; this battle fascinated me enough to research it heavily with a couple Ancient Historians who can read the original Greek and Latin. I think the skewed numbers come from Hollywood (and of course, Herodotus).

PinnedandRecessed,

I'm with you.

aaronrkelly
February 28, 2007, 01:59 AM
Its a state of mind....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/aaronrkelly/legtattoo.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/aaronrkelly/Handguns/molonkimber.jpg

razorburn
February 28, 2007, 02:01 AM
The Jefferson recipe called for the blood of patriots as well.

Cosmoline
February 28, 2007, 02:17 AM
An actual mixed drink sounds like an interesting project. I'm thinking some mix of ouzo, honey mead and grappa.

Nematocyst
February 28, 2007, 03:49 AM
...some mix of ouzo, honey mead and grappa.Skoal.

Dr. Dickie
February 28, 2007, 06:43 AM
There was also another great line from that battle wasn't there? (whether actually said or not is irrelevant).
The Persians said that they would fill the sky with so many arrows that it would blot out the sun. To which the Spartans replied, "Then we will fight in the shade!"
As I said, whether true or not, you just gotta admire that kind of attitude.
Like General Anthony C. McAuliffe relpy to the Germans when asked to surrender during the Ardennes Offensive, "Nuts."
Now that is class:D

pacodelahoya
February 28, 2007, 06:50 AM
It's a cliche; worn out and overused.

Sort of like "Land of the free and home of the brave" eh.;)

Sodbuster
February 28, 2007, 07:22 AM
Molon Labe. Whatever it is, however it is marginalized, it is one hell of a powerful idea. Joseph Stalin was afraid of ideas. I'm with you, pacodelahoya.

CajunBass
February 28, 2007, 07:58 AM
It's a cliche; worn out and overused.

Well, perhaps you've grown bored with the struggle, but not all of us have.

CNYCacher
February 28, 2007, 08:38 AM
Someone who can translate ancient Greek correct me if I'm wrong, but the literal translation is simply

*COME GET!!*.......

Someone who actually can translate it was on the board not too long ago, asking what Molon Labe meant, and offering his best translation. The best he could come up with was "Having come, do take" with a defiant or challenging tone. From that he pretty much determined what it meant to the gun culture, and was just checking if he was right.

I can't find the post or I would link it for you, THR search engine threw out "having", "do" and "take" as "too common".

svtruth
February 28, 2007, 08:57 AM
the Texians had a cannon, and a flag that said "come and get it"

Full Clip
February 28, 2007, 09:47 AM
I've seen "300," and it is far more "Lord of the Rings" and "Matrix"-like than historical drama, but the core theme of "few standing against many" comes through loud and clear. Excellent battle scenes for those who like that stuff. I do wish the film was more accurate/realistic, but creativity is okay too... Maybe is will be a hit and somebody will do a film entitled "300 Spartans: The True Story." I'm sure The History Channel might do some programming to tie-in with the film's release...

BigG
February 28, 2007, 10:02 AM
According to this book (http://www.epinions.com/content_222194142852), the hidden path the Persians used was not narrow and tortuous but a broad and smooth path travelling along the crest of the mountain. It was known to all who lived in the area as "the beautiful running track" (kallidromos). ;)

benEzra
February 28, 2007, 11:46 AM
.

benEzra
February 28, 2007, 11:48 AM
Пάλιν δ̀ὲ̀ του̑ Ξέρξου γράψαντος 'πέψον τὰ ὅπλα' ἀντέγραψε 'ολὼν λαβέ'

To Xerxes' demand, "Hand over your arms," [Leonidas] retorted,"come and get them."

(Plutarch, Moralia, III, Apophthegmata Laconica, "Sayings of Spartans")

PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2007, 01:13 PM
Well, perhaps you've grown bored with the struggle, but not all of us have.


Spoken like a true patriot. Not. (Read below.)

Sort of like "Land of the free and home of the brave" eh.

Nothing of the sort. Your logic is flawed. But I'm not going to waste time educating you in syllogistic reasoning.

I'll merely say that the above Greek quote has been used by armchair commandos so much that it is nothing more than a cliche.

Tattoos used to be distinctive. Now even fat, middle aged mothers have them and they've become mundane, at best.

Likewise with the topic under discussion, which, by the way, has nothing to do with our 2nd amendment struggle.

I do not challenge the govt to "try and take my guns." I send money and votes to protect my rights.

But if they outlaw private ownership of guns, make no mistake, you lose. You will, like the rest, turn them over. Reluctantly, but you will surrender.

And if you think that you are going to repel the black mask LEO/military troops, you're delusional.

(Edited to add)

Just so I'm not misunderstood. We cherish our 2A rights. But by the time you come into the situation of having to make good your boast, "come and get them", we've lost. It's over.

That's why the mere phrase is no more than a cliche. It's message is only valid after we've lost the fight.

You really want to protect your 2A rights? Join the NRA. I don't care whether you agree with every point they make, or not. They are still the big dog in the meat house. And they make congress fear. But don't just join. Send $$$ for the legal fights.

Write your elected reps. Do not email. It doesn't carry the same weight. And when you write, try to make it look presentable. A letter that is full of spelling/grammatical/syntax errors won't carry much weight.

And get involved supporting pro 2A candidates.

Merely having some obscure tattoo on your backside doesn't do the cause much good.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Cosmoline
February 28, 2007, 01:29 PM
But if they outlaw private ownership of guns, make no mistake, you lose. You will, like the rest, turn them over. Reluctantly, but you will surrender.

And if you think that you are going to repel the black mask LEO/military troops, you're delusional.

P&R, I've heard the exact same arguments from hundreds of antis over the years. They use these claims to support their theory that in the modern world, small arms are absolutely useless against the power of the state. If you people were correct, how do you explain the many examples in the modern world of armed rebels and insurgents driving out vastly superior forces? Moreover, on what basis do you conclude that we would all surrender? Why do you challenge us to say things on line that must never be spelled out? What is your goal here?

PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2007, 04:28 PM
What is your goal here?

To get us involved in a meaningful way. If many of us, if any of us, simply console ourselves re the future of the 2A with cliches like, "I'll give up my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers" or "Come and get them", then we're not accomplishing anything.

In fact, the above sounds fanatical and irrational, and does our cause harm. I'd rather such drama queens didn't own firearms in the first place.

I could care less whether you are offended. It matters nothing to me. But if you think a populace armed with conventional firearms can repel modern govt combat troops, you're delusional. You say otherwise? References, please.

The fight is now. But to sit back and spout these platitudes over the net, meanwhile doing nothing else, is useless.

You want the above slogans as tattoos? Fine. You want to sound tough over the net. That's fine, too.

But while you're playing these games, do some serious good by sending a generous contribution to the NRA. They're the only game in town.

Anything else is purely academic.

Cosmoline
February 28, 2007, 04:43 PM
I see what you're trying to get at, and I agree the effort should be at changing things here and now rather than day dreaming about some future civil war.

But to challenge people by claiming they are full of hot air and really would comply with some Australian style gun ban is both something you can't really know and extremely dangerous. This is not the time nor place to be spelling out how the black flag would be raised.

Moreover, while the threat of revolt may seem purile and will probably never come to pass, it serves an important purpose. Our enemy must be kept in fear of such a potential. Our fellow shooters in the UK and down under really were a completely harmless minority. They always made a point of stressing how law abiding they were, and never threatened anything like civil unrest. And look what happened to them. The vague threat of horrible things can be a useful political tool, and that's what molon labe is all about. It raises the potential costs of a sweeping federal gun ban, both in dollars and manpower.

Put another way, King needed his Malcom X and Ghandi would never have had his way if millions of his compatriots weren't ready to start lining Brits against the nearest wall. Contrary to the touchy-feely version of civil protest, it's only ever the threat of something far worse that forces the enemy to back down and accept compromise. Lord knows the antis do it to us all the time.

As far as what exactly anyone would do, none of us can answer. Least of all those who would actually pose a serious danger to the state. So it's not too fruitful to go challenging the notion.

PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2007, 05:02 PM
So it's not too fruitful to go challenging the notion.


Even less so to wait until the troops are at the door before we act.

I heard this same rhetoric when I was living in ********** prior to their own AWB. At the gun stores, the range, the survivalist meetings, et al, they voiced a similarly militant mentality.

They were as meek as lambs when the law passed. Gave up their rights, too. At least one of them gave up his guns trying to fight.

It's human nature. If, when the chips are down, you take up arms to fight, figure on pretty much standing alone. Modern man doesn't have the stomach for a duel.

That's why I say fanaticism before the fact is critical. Money and votes are the only thing we can depend upon.

BTW, I'm still waiting for some references where a modern populace, in a western country, has successfully repelled a well armed govt force.

Re the above, particularly in America. Our military has conquered two countries, destroyed the Taliban and brought down a well fortified dictator. You honestly think you and your friends could withstand such a force?

Hoppy590
February 28, 2007, 05:14 PM
You honestly think you and your friends could withstand such a force?

theres a differance here. The Iraqi's, the Taliban. they are "the others" they are strange, differant, unpredictable and refuse to fall into the classification we give them. we see what they do and use our differances as an excuse to allow conflict ( emotionaly and mentaly) I dont feel many Officers or Soldiers will be as willing to launch operations against thier brothers and sisters. we are now begining to see Officers refuse orders. we are begining to see officers refuse to fight.

we civilians could never defeat the US Military in a traditional conventional war. but so long as we can stand the initial wave. and so long as we stand tall enough that the government will stumble as they try to walk over us, i have a feeling support among both the population and those in the field.


its like i always say. when your right. you dont have to win, you just have to survive
(oh, and im not one of the people who believes there will be a second civil war.)

well thats my one serious contribution to THR this year. im gunna go back to making arguements and pointless questions

PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2007, 05:24 PM
I dont feel many Officers or Soldiers will be as willing to launch operations against thier brothers and sisters

You're willing to risk the future of the second amendment on "your feelings?"

I'm not.

Get involved now. Don't hope that, if such laws pass, the LEOs/soldiers will simply choose to not enforce said laws.

Again. Send $$$ to the NRA. If you're not a member, join. And contact your political candidates. This is the only strategy that's going to save us.

murphyslaw84
February 28, 2007, 05:51 PM
I do not challenge the govt to "try and take my guns." I send money and votes to protect my rights.

But if they outlaw private ownership of guns, make no mistake, you lose. You will, like the rest, turn them over. Reluctantly, but you will surrender.

And if you think that you are going to repel the black mask LEO/military troops, you're delusional.



From what I have seen history show so far, confiscation of guns is a major step in absolute ruling of a people. I do vote, write letters, give money to the NRA. But I don't think all of that will matter in the end. The government is not about rule of the people anymore. It has turned into an elitist government where those who have money to throw weight around and launch huge campaigns have the advantage. TV, radio etc. are out of reach for the common man. We are backed into a corner where we would rather not vote for anyone running, but try to pick the lesser of evils.

YOU may hand over your firearms reluctantly, but as far as I am concerned, some things are worth dying for.

Cliched as the phrase may be, it stirs something inside of me when I think of those 300 who, facing certain death, still defiantly stood.



Live free or die.

PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2007, 05:55 PM
Well, we'll just pray it never comes to that.

Tinker2
February 28, 2007, 06:06 PM
(oh, and im not one of the people who believes there will be a second civil war.)

Was not the American revolution a civil war?
We were the British at the time.

Tinker2

Hoppy590
February 28, 2007, 06:09 PM
You're willing to risk the future of the second amendment on "your feelings?"

I'm not.

Get involved now. Don't hope that, if such laws pass, the LEOs/soldiers will simply choose to not enforce said laws.

Again. Send $$$ to the NRA. If you're not a member, join. And contact your political candidates. This is the only strategy that's going to save us.

i didnt say that we have nothing to worry about. im saying that i dont believe there will be any "uprising" or civil war that so many empty cans on THR rattle about.

scout26
February 28, 2007, 07:10 PM
But if you think a populace armed with conventional firearms can repel modern govt combat troops, you're delusional. You say otherwise? References, please.

The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto started out with just 6 firearms, 4 were pistols, IIRC. When the Poles took on the German Army in '44 they were much better armed. (Plus they were hopeful the Soviets would cross the Vistula and lend them a hand.)

While they didn't win, they initially repel them and hold out for almost a month and give the Germans one helluva fight. They lost only because the Germans systematically burned the ghetto.

While I normally don't care for Wikipedia, this is a pretty good summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

The first, in the Ghetto, was a choice to die fighting - with a slight hope of escape, rather than a sure death in an extermination camp, with the moment to fight being chosen as the last moment when the strength to fight was still available.


The US Holocaust Musuem is another good source:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005188

Delta608
February 28, 2007, 07:45 PM
To get us involved in a meaningful way. If many of us, if any of us, simply console ourselves re the future of the 2A with cliches like, "I'll give up my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers" or "Come and get them", then we're not accomplishing anything.

In fact, the above sounds fanatical and irrational, and does our cause harm. I'd rather such drama queens didn't own firearms in the first place.

I could care less whether you are offended. It matters nothing to me. But if you think a populace armed with conventional firearms can repel modern govt combat troops, you're delusional. You say otherwise? References, please.

The fight is now. But to sit back and spout these platitudes over the net, meanwhile doing nothing else, is useless.

You want the above slogans as tattoos? Fine. You want to sound tough over the net. That's fine, too.

But while you're playing these games, do some serious good by sending a generous contribution to the NRA. They're the only game in town.

Anything else is purely academic



Right on the money !!!!!!!:D :D :D

Cosmoline
February 28, 2007, 07:49 PM
References, please.

See Iraq

See Afghanistan

See Lebanon

See West Bank & Gaza Strip

See Chechnya

See Sudan

See Niger Delta

See South Vietnam

See Nicaragua

Etc. etc.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is MOAON AABE?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!