I’m not sure I agree with cousin_it’s premise but lack any good knowledge to justify a strong disagreement. However, I would note that the 300 Spartans story might be read both ways, and perhaps at the same time. If 300 Spartans can fight off the entire Persian army seems to also suggest they are incredibly strong fighters with strong strategy and tactics.
I think one can make both cases and neither necessarily refutes the other.
The point of an underdog story is that the underdogs do ultimately win (in some sense) at the end. Socrates spreads reason, the Spartans defend Greece, and the poor go to heaven. So the question should be whether the story as presented by Greeks claims that the Spartans winning was surprising. Otherwise, we’ve just completely dissolved what an “underdog story” could possibly mean.
Thermopylae is not a good example here. They started with ~70,000 troops and absolutely expected to win due to the overwhelming advantage of their defended position.
The rearguard, who stayed behind to cover the retreat are where “the 300” comes from, (but there were actually over 1,200 of them) were wiped out except for about 400 who surrendered on the first day.
I was making a claim about how the story was typically presented by greeks to greeks. It could be an underdog story or not in reality, but in fact them making their position seem more dire in their rhetoric I think actually supports my point more.
This conversation uses “underdog” in different ways, giving rise to confusion. Yes, the point of an underdog story is indeed that the underdog wins, but this just makes the heros of the story just more awesome. Ultimately, you emphasize with somebody who is super strong.
The OP, however, describes a phenomenon where the groups see themselves as weaker and in fact unlikely to win. cousin_it attributes this to weakness being desirable due to Christianity. Socrates is a good counterexample, but the 300 are less so.
I’m not sure I agree with cousin_it’s premise but lack any good knowledge to justify a strong disagreement. However, I would note that the 300 Spartans story might be read both ways, and perhaps at the same time. If 300 Spartans can fight off the entire Persian army seems to also suggest they are incredibly strong fighters with strong strategy and tactics.
I think one can make both cases and neither necessarily refutes the other.
The point of an underdog story is that the underdogs do ultimately win (in some sense) at the end. Socrates spreads reason, the Spartans defend Greece, and the poor go to heaven. So the question should be whether the story as presented by Greeks claims that the Spartans winning was surprising. Otherwise, we’ve just completely dissolved what an “underdog story” could possibly mean.
Thermopylae is not a good example here. They started with ~70,000 troops and absolutely expected to win due to the overwhelming advantage of their defended position.
The rearguard, who stayed behind to cover the retreat are where “the 300” comes from, (but there were actually over 1,200 of them) were wiped out except for about 400 who surrendered on the first day.
So not underdogs and didn’t win.
I was making a claim about how the story was typically presented by greeks to greeks. It could be an underdog story or not in reality, but in fact them making their position seem more dire in their rhetoric I think actually supports my point more.
This conversation uses “underdog” in different ways, giving rise to confusion. Yes, the point of an underdog story is indeed that the underdog wins, but this just makes the heros of the story just more awesome. Ultimately, you emphasize with somebody who is super strong.
The OP, however, describes a phenomenon where the groups see themselves as weaker and in fact unlikely to win. cousin_it attributes this to weakness being desirable due to Christianity. Socrates is a good counterexample, but the 300 are less so.
The ancient Greeks had many tragic stories too then, for example, Prometheus Bound.