300 (Spartans, that is)

I don't know how many of you have read Frank Miller's 300, but it's a really great piece of work. Very pro-Spartan, very rah-rah bronze age fascism, but a lot of fun.

I guess Sin City inspired the wonks in L.A. to try again, 'cause they're doing 300 this time. Here's a link to their site, including, most interestingly, a video diary.

What does this forum of history buffs think? Will it be good? Interesting? Even vaguely historically accurate? Will they make any attempt at all to show what a phalanx looked like?

if you need history buffs go to the monastary.

I didn't mean to impugn your honor, Puppet, by implying you are a history buff. Mods, in the interest of preventing any other misunderstandings, could you move this to the Monastary?

personally i hope it will be killing, and thats the movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

personally i hope it will be killing, and thats the movie.

---

Well there's a deep dark Christmas sentiment to share. S'matter, get a lump of coal in your stocking? :san_undecided:

Moved. Ever so gently to the Monastery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

I don't know how many of you have read Frank Miller's 300, but it's a really great piece of work. Very pro-Spartan, very rah-rah bronze age fascism, but a lot of fun.

I guess Sin City inspired the wonks in L.A. to try again, 'cause they're doing 300 this time. Here's a link to their site, including, most interestingly, a video diary.

What does this forum of history buffs think? Will it be good? Interesting? Even vaguely historically accurate? Will they make any attempt at all to show what a phalanx looked like?

---

Merry Boxing Day, Brother Lemur!

I trust that most of your guests have departed by now, bar a few who will stay for the rest of the week and who are now out walking in the woods or feeding the ducks with the kids. This is a time for Dads all over the world to retire into their studies and disappear into virtual limbo for the rest of the afternoon.

And what a lovely study in fascism it brings! :san_cool:

My idiocy detector with regard to Sparta is always the oldest source, Hedorotos, particularly the passage where he states that Spartan warriors wore red cloaks and long hair which they combed before going into battle. In the words of Plutarch: 'They would take particular care in arranging their hair, which was long because Lycurgus said that long hair adds beauty to a good face, and terror to an ugly one.'

The cloaks are there on the gentlemen in the video, but their curly wurly hair-do's (which seem to have been taken from Athenian sculpture and vases) are not authentic. Spartans wore skirts as well, not those perky little tanga's from the video which, I trust, will go down a riot with a certain audience in San Francisco.

I suppose there will be another audience for it as well, mainly youths who like to imagine themselves as cold-hearted avengers in a black and white world (the actors certainly look as if they are unable to read or write, as were most Spartan warriors). A world where women know their place (there seems to be one female character in the movie who symbolises womenhood, always a sure sign of fascism). Also, if I may venture fore a moment beyond my own habitat, I imagine some Americans long for the sort of warriors depicted here, men without political doubts or nagging consciences, without any other emotion than the patriotism and sense of duty that they were indoctrinated with since early youth.

I have not read the book, so maybe you can correct any mistaken impressions on my part. But at first sight, Brother Lemur, I have to say this looks like total cr@p to me. So, um..

.. enjoy! :san_cheesy:

No - I do not think it will be remotely accurate. I even think the movie will show that the 300 defeated the persians... :san_rolleyes:

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I imagine that America longs for the sort of warriors depicted here, men without political doubts or nagging consciences, without any other emotion than the patriotism and sense of duty that they were indoctrinated with since early youth.

---

We have a full caste of them in this country. I wish they took them away for themselves and we would have some life here.

OK, OK... No more backroomishness.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.

We have a full caste of them in this country. I wish they took them away for themselves and we would have some life here.

OK, OK... No more backroomishness.
.

---

If you just give us the historical background to the phenomenon, it wouldn't be out of place in the Monastery at all, Brother Mouzafphaerre. There is a whole strain of fiction (film, literature, comics, video games) that idealises this sort of warrior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

A world where women know their place (there seems to be one female character in the movie who symbolises womenhood, always a sure sign of fascism).

---

its true that a the movie might historicly depict the women as outgoing because Lakadaemeon (spelling?) was one of the few city states where women were almost equals to men, though they were housemakers they could divorce, argue, and sometimes override there husbands, they could vote and it was not uncommon for them to have a voice in polotics. they prided themselves in there physical fitness and beauty despite not using any makeup. to look at spartan womeen as you would any other greek woman as weak, voicless and simply a object is an extreme error, the spartan womenm were much respected.

Lacedaemon was not a city, rather a group of villages on the Spartan plain. They weren't a builder civilization, and didn't leave much ruins for archeological research as Athens for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

To look at Spartan women as you would any other Greek woman as weak, voiceless and simply an object is an extreme error, the Spartan women were much respected.

---

That seems to have been the case, but I get the impression this woman is being depicted as simply a child-rearing asset as in so many B movies.

Everything I've heard and read of this movie absolutely stinks of the sort of regressive "narcissistic projection" that was once so succintly embodied in the fearsomely jut-jawed, muscle-bound heros "who always look about to go beat someone up" characteristic of the art condoned by a certain political movement ascendant in the Thirties and since then a *literally* four-letter word...

That by all accounts the Persian High King Whatshisname in the movie mostly resembles an unholy offspring of Jabba the Hutt and Baron Vladimir Harkonnen does not help my impression one bit.

I also find the thought that there might actually be "social demand" for this kind of manure fairly disturbing, but not particularly surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

If you just give us the historical background to the phenomenon, it wouldn't be out of place in the Monastery at all, Brother Mouzafphaerre. There is a whole strain of fiction (film, literature, comics, video games) that idealises this sort of warrior.

---

Some how a film about acinet greece turns into an America=facism +bashing =a disapointed SFTS becuase Adrian was his favorite communist/socalist. For shame For Shame

For what it's worth, in the book Frank Miller drew the Spartans as being naked with the exception of their cloaks. So don't blame him for the leather thongs thingies. That's Hollywood and its irrational fear of male genitalia.

As to the whole issue of whether or not the film's going to be all rah-rah fascist Sparta, well, it's hard to tell from a production diary. I'm not sure it's so completely inappropriate to field a big-muscles fantasy every now and then. Even Robert E. Howard's much-maligned hero has his place.

Anyway, based on the posts so far, it seeems that opinion is squarely against 300. Oh well. I'm going to cling to some small shred of hope.

Well, I've been singularly unimpressed by the latest run of pseudo-historical spectacle movies that've been crowding the theatres as of late; I've yet to see any hints that 300 would be any better (indeed quite to the contrary), and to boot there's a really suspicious scent lingering about it that makes my neck hairs bristle.

"First impressions: oiled muscleman with machinegun... cut to pastel bears, valentine hearts. Juxtaposition of wish fulfilment, violence and infantile imagery, desire to regress, be free of responsibility...
This all says 'war'. We should buy accordingly."
- media analysis à la Adrian Veidt, Watchmen

I think it's somehting like that which bugs me about the whole equation.

Well I think this movie looks great.
The half-naked spartans did raise a eyebrown but since they are naked in the book I was ok with it.
And judging by the reaction from the americans it seems he really pushing the limits:san_laugh: .
Part of me wish that he would actually make them naked just so that we could see the reactions from the american audience:san_laugh:
But Zack Snyder impressed me with the Dawn of the dead remake even tho it had running zombies which I hated so I think he can do a great movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

For what it's worth, in the book Frank Miller drew the Spartans as being naked with the exception of their cloaks. So don't blame him for the leather thongs thingies. That's Hollywood and its irrational fear of male genitalia.

As to the whole issue of whether or not the film's going to be all rah-rah fascist Sparta, well, it's hard to tell from a production diary. I'm not sure it's so completely inappropriate to field a big-muscles fantasy every now and then. Even Robert E. Howard's much-maligned hero has his place.

Anyway, based on the posts so far, it seeems that opinion is squarely against 300. Oh well. I'm going to cling to some small shred of hope.

---

Not to mention the Afrocentrism that the comic soaks off...
We all know the discracefoul abomination that is the Black Athena theory according to which the Ancients Hellene were BLACK...
Miller is aligning to the Politically Correct trends by portraying the Spartans and Xerxes as SubSaharan Africans...

Hellenes

What, it almost sounds like you have ...issues with the idea...? :san_tongue:
Any particular reason, or just the usual nationalist kind ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

Some how a film about acinet greece turns into an America=facism +bashing =a disapointed SFTS becuase Adrian was his favorite communist/socalist. For shame For Shame

---

Brother Strike, that was not a judgment about America, it was my first impression of the movie. Some audiences will like the movie for various reasons, I suppose. The simplistic Good versus Evil theme is not surprising in a country at war. Nor are we unfamiliar with the erotic connotations of violence. There is something really smelly about it, I couldn't help pointing that out.
And the Spartans did wear long hair. :san_tongue:

Good and no more political issues ok?:ave:

So, it seems to be a movie that will just be pure action more or less. Screw over history to make it edible for the cartoon masses. And I think that is wrong for people are not that stupid. They will take things to heart, and sadly this is just the wrong thing, but had it been right that would not have been a problem.

Short hair, close cropped beards, 'flimsy' metal shields, no formation, open fighting, no bodyarmour ect ect... Too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Good and no more political issues ok?:ave:

So, it seems to be a movie that will just be pure action more or less. Screw over history to make it edible for the cartoon masses. And I think that is wrong for people are not that stupid. They will take things to heart, and sadly this is just the wrong thing, but had it been right that would not have been a problem.

Short hair, close cropped beards, 'flimsy' metal shields, no formation, open fighting, no bodyarmour ect ect... Too much.

---

Hmmm....

I checked the website of 300 and I was not left with the above impression at all.

It will be a stylistic re-telling of the battle to be sure...

But I will wait until the film is out before I pass judgement on it.

If nothing else, I hope the film will get people interested in history and at least get them to read up on the battle/Spartans to see what actually happened.

Take a look at the little flick... Basically the director says that he wants to capture the comic feel.

I always thought hoplites were mildly armoured...From the looks at the clip the movie seems way off. I can almost gurentee theres not going to be a single hoplite formation in there (Thats historically accurate). Why is everyone dressed in thongs?

*sighs*
This movie isn't about being accurate. It is based on a comic.
And in the comic all the spartans are actually buttnaked except for their red cape.
So the director is following the comic book and is not aiming to make a historical accurate movie.

As someone else so nicely put it on another forum:

Quote:

---

Firstly this isnt the 'fault' of the film makers, theyre basing it off the graphic novel (a cartoon), so why are you surprised about a cartoony interpretation? This isnt a interpreatation of thermopylae, its an interpretation of '300'

Secondly, being half naked is well represented in Greek art, this is based on a graphic novel based on that

Thirdly, if you were actualy from ancient Sparta you'd probably be happy with this interpretation as it makes them seem more hardcore with no need to armour

---

AFAIK the Spartans A) never wore their distinctive scarlet capes into battle (they'd just have gotten in the way, anyway) and B) were into at least scale cuirasses, full helmets and greaves around the time of the Persian Wars; far as I know superior weight of arms was one of the advantages the Greeks had in hand-to-hand against most Persian troops (not counting the sparabara spearmen and the Immortals, and some other armoured types).

It's a kinda lousy defence for the historical inaccuracies of a movie centred around a real historic battle to cite it being a movie of a comic book take on said battle; blithely lifting the faults of the latter into the former is a very bad habit IMO.

Maybe or the director is a Frank miller fan and decided to portrait it accuratelly according to his story.
Not doing it accurately he would get criticism from not following the book he is suppose to follow.
So in order to make Frank Miller's 300 he need to follow it.

I think we should all follow Treebeard's injunction of "Don't be hasty..."

I saw the little flick.

Let's realize that this film is being done by a young director. The fact that he even wants to make a movie about an historical event is surprise enough...

Also:

1) the film is based on the graphic novel "300" and NOT on history books.

2) many of the actors in this film DO have long hair.

3) at the historical battle there was no real formation, since the Spartans were defending a narrow pass and were therefore in line formation to the Persians.

4) many Spartans DID fight naked. And what they're wearing in the film are NOT thongs, but what appears to be what ancient Greek warriors DID wear...

5) it looks like certain liberties are taken in the film, but from what I have seen, the acting and action look far better than what I had expected. I am looking forward to this movie...

6) do I want more armour? Yes. Do I want more authenticity? Yes. BUT... what IS there I like. Remember... this film is BASED on a graphic novel... The director wants to capture the look and feel of the novel...

7) I will wait until the movie is actually finished and in the theatres before I pass judgement on the film's merits as both entertainment and as history...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

AFAIK the Spartans A) never wore their distinctive scarlet capes into battle (they'd just have gotten in the way, anyway) and B) were into at least scale cuirasses, full helmets and greaves around the time of the Persian Wars; far as I know superior weight of arms was one of the advantages the Greeks had in hand-to-hand against most Persian troops (not counting the sparabara spearmen and the Immortals, and some other armoured types).

It's a kinda lousy defence for the historical inaccuracies of a movie centred around a real historic battle to cite it being a movie of a comic book take on said battle; blithely lifting the faults of the latter into the former is a very bad habit IMO.

---

Well, your earlier opinions in this thread where you mixed your thoughts of the pre-production phase of this movie with speudo concepts about certain modern political states, clearly identifies your personal bias against this film.

btw, Spartans did wear their red cloaks into battle (so no Spartan blood would be visible to the enemy)... (Xenophon, Constitution of the Spartans, 11, 3)

.
Frank Miller... Frank Miller...
:thinking2:

Wasn't he the bad guy in High Noon? :rifle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tex Ritter

...
The noon day train will bring Frank Miller
If I'm a man I must be brave
Do not forsake me oh my darling
...
:guitarist:

---

.

Thongs... oh the butt spreading version (still appropriate for Spartans) ...in Aus, thongs normally refers to beach sandals... I was thinking why all the fuss over Greeks wearing sandals?... different countries different definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

What, it almost sounds like you have ...issues with the idea...? :san_tongue:
Any particular reason, or just the usual nationalist kind ?

---

If being bothered by the twisted representation of history and the promotion of false beliefs constitutes nationalism then Im nationalist...
The political agenda behind Black Athena in the US is wll known and as the mods said I wont go into it...

Hellenes

I own the "original" 300 Spartans and it's pretty good. A bit more romanticism and less gay sex and slavery (and gay sex slaves) which made it less historically accurate but more...agreeable(?). It was made in the '60's I believe but has some good lines and decent action. It seemed a bit hypocritical saying the fight was for democracy and freedom when it was really more "Kill the Barbarians!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I own the "original" 300 Spartans and it's pretty good. A bit more romanticism and less gay sex and slavery (and gay sex slaves) which made it less historically accurate but more...agreeable(?). It was made in the '60's I believe but has some good lines and decent action. It seemed a bit hypocritical saying the fight was for democracy and freedom when it was really more "Kill the Barbarians!"

---

http://www.elysiumgates.com/~helena/Revolution.html
And one shouldnt make the mistake to view and interprent the ancient text in the modern context and even in modern "politically correct" agenda...

Hellinas

Well, the Greeks and the Persians at least agreed in despising each other as barbarians...

But what about interpreting ancient texts in modern politically incorrect agendas, then ?

So the Spartans didn't enslave the majority of their island? Democracy and freedom only go so far in militaristic societies. I know of the 'old world' Persian slave state but I'm sure the old Spartan state was a bit far from what we would consider democratic. For it's time yes, but for our time (the time when the movie was made), no.

C'mon ladies, all this happened 2500 years ago and you know that was a rather different world altogether... applieng modern morals and interpretation is rather silly and counterproductive.

P.S. There was no "homosexuality" in the ancient Greek world, there was a kind of bisexuality. It was incomprehensibly loathed to abstain from sexual practice with women and one would have a very serious issue of social decline if engaged in such activity (exept... if one was a king of sorts? hint, hint ~D). But having a relationship with men too was not as much unnatural and such as it seems today.

300 is to Greece what Batman is to New York, or what LOTR is to England.

So don't get your knickers in a twist over its non-dedication to history. At least with this style of movie it is not pretending to be historic... Braveheart anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Miller is aligning to the Politically Correct trends by portraying the Spartans and Xerxes as SubSaharan Africans...

Hellenes

---

This isn't true. In the book Xerxes is black while the Spartans look more or less Caucasian. At least not SubSaharan.
Apart from that Miller's work is hardly about Political correctness. He also is not a historian and doesn't wite non-fiction but fiction.
The book is excellent, has earned prices and I enjoyed it very much.
What they make of it when it is turned into film is to be seen.
"Sin City" was excellent but it won't be Rodriguez directing 300, so I don't have any high hopes.
Miller originally didn't want to sell his stuff to Hollywood because he never saw
that they could make it right. With "Sin City" he got more confident and I hope he won't be disappointed.
http://images.darkhorse.com/common/s...001/3001p4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

This isn't true. In the book Xerxes is black while the Spartans look more or less Caucasian. At least not SubSaharan.
Apart from that Miller's work is hardly about Political correctness. He also is not a historian and doesn't wite non-fiction but fiction.
The book is excellent, has earned prices and I enjoyed it very much.
What they make of it when it is turned into film is to be seen.
"Sin City" was excellent but it won't be Rodriguez directing 300, so I don't have any high hopes.
Miller originally didn't want to sell his stuff to Hollywood because he never saw
that they could make it right. With "Sin City" he got more confident and I hope he won't be disappointed.
http://images.darkhorse.com/common/s...001/3001p4.jpg

---

Sorry if my eyes are special or smth but these "Spartans" look like 100% subsaharan Africans, I dont want to go into detail about the nostrils and facial details its just the guy on the left has blue eyes but hes not white and has clear african charachteristics...
If you read about the Black Athena theory youll know what I mean about Political Correctness...

Hellenes

Considering the tan that most Greeks I know get hanging about on the beaches... these guys are actually a little bit too light as far as skin tone is concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Sorry if my eyes are special or smth but these "Spartans" look like 100% subsaharan Africans, I dont want to go into detail about the nostrils and facial details its just the guy on the left has blue eyes but hes not white and has clear african charachteristics...
If you read about the Black Athena theory youll know what I mean about Political Correctness...

Hellenes

---

I think we have to agree to disagree. SubSaharan means south of the Sahara to me. The people I have seen from this region are black. The ones in the pics aren't black, neither do they have any facial details that I would call black or African or SubSaharan. Every artist has a certain drawing style. Miller's Greeks could easily appear in "Dark Knight returns" or "Sin City". In fact, the guy on the right looks very similar to the hero in "Sin City 9: Hell and Back". I suppose it's just creator's creativity.
I think I do know what you do mean about PC. You, as a historian, are opposed to the Black Athena theory and you see its agenda represented in the oncoming movie.
I don't offer an opinion about the BA theory. I even admit that Miller has created several black heroes and he might even be in favour of the BA theory.
But, he also said several times that he always thought it strange that there weren't any (almost none) black Superheroes in the US. His motivation to change that could be confused with supporting the BA theory but most of his works are controversial and "Sin City" i.e. has been attacked numerous times for not being political correct. A fact that Miller couldn't care less about. (he replied to these charges in the letter section of the single issues of SC).
So, my motivation to post here was to tell you that Frank Miller has nothing to do with political correctness. (Also, the pic I posted is not the best possible example but the best I could get without scanning in my copy of 300.) What the movie will offer is a totally different story and it may well be that all of your charges come true. Take a look at the book if you have the chance, you may even come to like it.

Quote:

---

Considering the tan that most Greeks I know get hanging about on the beaches... these guys are actually a little bit too light as far as skin tone is concerned.

---

I agree.

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Considering the tan that most Greeks I know get hanging about on the beaches... these guys are actually a little bit too light as far as skin tone is concerned.

---

Im Greek and I can tell you without any doubt that even at the end of the summer my lips dont get fatter, my hair doesnt change into curly springs and neither Ι look like mulatto...
Its not my problem that some people are desperate to create history while laking theirs, the historical plagiarism is the most disgusting form of human behaviour...

Hellenes

No offense, but given how much time has passed between then and now and more to the point how many "foreigners" have been living there in the meantime, I strongly suspect you have ethnically speaking only marginally more in common with the ancient Greeks than present-day Italians have with the Romans...

The peninsula hasn't exactly been isolated over the millenia, you know ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

No offense, but given how much time has passed between then and now and more to the point how many "foreigners" have been living there in the meantime, I strongly suspect you have ethnically speaking only marginally more in common with the ancient Greeks than present-day Italians have with the Romans...

The peninsula hasn't exactly been isolated over the millenia, you know ?

---

whats the point of this post really ??? :dizzy2:

I believe it has been proven that Modern Hellenes are very similar to ancient ones.

And yes, if Miller deos support this BA bull that Black racists spew out then he's a sad man.

One of my lecturers has written a book on Greek literature in which he mentions Black Athena, which he refuses to debate. What I find interesting about the whole theory is that early Mykenaean artwork, as well as Mynoan artwork depicts quite pale figures, not to mention the fact that the Arcadians were supposed to be the "original" Greeks and they seem to have been the same as everyone else. Then there's the Indo-European Religion, not to mention the features of the facial Mycenaeans found in grave circle A and B. Besides I thought the people in North Africa at the time were swathy rather than black.

Yet despite all this some hack can perpetuate a racist theory just because he doesn't like the idea that Western Europeans could have developed all this on their own.

Rant over, on to the film, looks worse than Troy.

The Spartans definately wore a bronze curaius, and greeves, and red cloaks. The film basically looks like an infantry battle with no phalanx.

One of the things Herodotus says is that the Persians were unarmed, unarmoured and did not know how to fight, this is at a time when the Greeks fought as heavy infantry. What he meant was that the Persians were light cavalry and did not understand the use of heavy infantry and the atending dicipline and resolve. The film also seems to believe that the rest of the Greeks, including the Spartans, were sitting on their hands doing nothing.

What I hate about these things is how they director/producer always say how this is what happened and it meant this when they're basically lying. It gives the general public the idea that these things are history. A whole generation is going to think Augustus was doing his sister because they saw it on Rome.

Quote:

---

I believe it has been proven that Modern Hellenes are very similar to ancient ones

---

I find that surprising, how? Which ancient Greeks? Mycenaean, Classical, Byzantine.


Wigferth Ironwall

Quote:

---

A whole generation is going to think Augustus was doing his sister because they saw it on Rome

---

Well considering what a hypocritical jerk Octavian was, I don't see how his reputation suffers any real harm...

Quote:

---

The film also seems to believe that the rest of the Greeks, including the Spartans, were sitting on their hands doing nothing.

---

Good point they were in fact doing worse than nothing - busily fortifying the isthmus wall and ignoring the fact that without the navies Athens, Aegina and Megara (states who had the misfortune of being on the wrong side of the wall) their effort was a complete waste of time.

:stare:

why dont you close it? use that power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

conon394, faced with the entire Persian Army what would you have done?

There were two paases through to Thessaly so they couldn't defend there. The Spartans were flanked at Thermopylae when Xerxes found another pass. It wasn't only Spartans there either, Leonides told his Allies to leave because the Spartans would hold the pass to the death.

the Greeks were not there in force because of the Olympic Festival. The Isthumus was not fortified until before the battle of Platea. I suggest you get your facts straight.

Augustus was not a jerk, yes he may have been a hypocrite but others would say he made an effort to set a good example. Regardless he was not guilty of incest, that is not history and it should not be promoted as such.

.
Yea, Rome sucks! :stare: That much revisionism makes me sick. :no:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

why dont you close it? use that power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

No need for that.

My smilie merely indicades that I'm keeping taps on what is going on here, which in turn means that people should beware their actions.

Call it a reminder if you will.

For some reason I found its beady stare quite amusing, though. That smilie has a sort of "what the...?!?" look about it...

Uhh, Rome was only slightly better than King Arthur and the best that can be said there is that the basic ingrediants of the plot might have happened. Of course they didn't like the idea that Ceaser effectivly commited suicide so they changed that. That said I thought the guy playing Markus Antonius was pretty good, he had the right air about him. Brutus seemed well, like a wimp.

If that wasn't bad enough the Legionaries look like they are modelled of Trajan's collum and Ceaser still had hair, and it wasn't curly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Im Greek and I can tell you without any doubt that even at the end of the summer my lips dont get fatter, my hair doesnt change into curly springs and neither Ι look like mulatto...
Its not my problem that some people are desperate to create history while laking theirs, the historical plagiarism is the most disgusting form of human behaviour...

Hellenes

---

For starters all I mentioned was tan. But in comparison greeks have much more curlier hair compared with northern europeans.

It is a comic book. It is like saying "Oh my god the Hulk is green, the comic book writers think all physicists are green hulking brutes after doing a summer internship." :laugh4:

"Why didn't I get Spidey powers when I was bitten by a spider?"

I think some people have a bigger problem when they get upset over comic books and perceive them as historical works of note. 300 is not about recreating history, it is about telling a story.

"Oh look how Batman depicts New York in the form of Gotham, it is like totally not like that. :furious3: Stupid writers thinking that a man in a cape protects New York"

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You mean he does'nt!:wall:

Honestly Pape, you can't compare wholly fictional characters to plausible characters.
One is considered an important part of European history, the others are just good stories invented by comicwriters.

It is a line that should be threaded very very lightly. When you mix fiction with history it tends to get too blurry for the public.

What would be a fair comparison would be if in India (Bollywood) they made a big shot movie/comic about George Washington and that he was portrayed by an eskimo alongside all his buddies shooting with bow and arrow instead of muskets and cannon. While Bollywood does not have a reputation for modesty in Hollywood it is currently considered good form to be correct about stuff or at least try to make it appear to be so (though most of us know that is just not right).

It would not seem important for you, or even me. But I take it would be considered quite bad form if it was a major European company that did it.

We can't just misuse history in he name of artistical licence, some sort of moderation has to step in.

Hollywood has always went with the authors right... that is a good story above historical accuracy.

Braveheart: Battle of Stirling Bridge... not even a bridge in the movie.
And any other Mel Gibson movie that is based on history has highly slanted characters... ie the English are typically villans.

U-571 Americans capture an Engima decoder... real life the British did this before the Americans entered the war.

And there are plenty of movies based on historical figures that well and truly bend the lines in the name of entertainment.

Yeah well U-571 sucked big time. Braveheart? Yes it did villanise the English and make Wallace out to be a common man but a lot of things were right, they got the idea right. I doubt 300 will have the Greek disgust with the Persians, nor will it have the other states that took part in the battle. There were a couple of thousand Greeks fighting for several days. The Phocians were the first to face the Immortals after they took the second pass.

Gladiator is another one that got the idea right. The film has a hero that Romans could have related too and a story about self sacrifice for the good of Rome.

Gladiator lost me in the opening scenes with that huge firefight against the Germans, so perhaps I can't be fair to it. But...

Marcus Aurelius wanted to restore the Republic? I guess he should have started on that a bit earlier. Preferably before he made Commodus co-emperor in 176 or 177 AD.

I doubt the Romans would have considered a gladiator a suitable leader. In fact Commodus himself appeared in the arena. Gibbon says 735 times, and claims "the meanest of the populace were affected with shame and indignation when they beheld their sovereign enter the lists as a gladiator". Gibbon gives his sources here as Dio Cassius, Herodian, and Lipsius.

Well yes its massivly inaccurate, Commodus died in his bath, although he was strangled by a Gladiator.

That said large parts of it are quite accurate, with the exception of the pirotechnics the opening battle isn't too bad, they detail for the period is quite good and it has little details like Republican Scuta for the Pretorians which has some basis in fact.

Also Maximus wasn't a Gladiator he was a great general who was made a slave. Its certainly far closer to anything real than any of the copycats

Quote:

---

There were two paases through to Thessaly so they couldn't defend there. The Spartans were flanked at Thermopylae when Xerxes found another pass. It wasn't only Spartans there either, Leonides told his Allies to leave because the Spartans would hold the pass to the death.

the Greeks were not there in force because of the Olympic Festival. The Isthumus was not fortified until before the battle of Platea. I suggest you get your facts straight.

---

True the position at Tempe was untenable, but not so with Thermopylae. If Leonidas had been given a sufficient force of Peloponnesian troops he could have held both passes. I don’t buy and excuse about the Olympic festival, it did not stop Athens from supplying a total of around 36,000 soldiers and sailors to the combined Thermopylae - Artemisium line, nor stop Corinth from supplying roughly twice the number of troops that Sparta did. Athens was also in the process of evacuating the entirety of Attica, and against that commitment (navy and evacuation combined) the Spartans mange only a king’s bodyguard…

I would also disagree about the isthmus defense. I think the combined weight of Herodotus 7.139, 7.207, and 8.40 all argue that the Spartan/Peloponnesian position was from the beginning one of holding the isthmus no matter if that sacrificed the bulk of the Greeks naval allies to the Persians. The fact is that when only Leonidas and his bodyguard went to Thermopylae, Sparta was sending an obvious signal to the Peloponnesian allies; they almost certainly inferred that the majority of Ephors did not support an extra-Peloponnesian force and reacted accordingly. So while I may have compressed the time frame for the isthmus wall a bit, I do think is accurate to suggest the Spartans had largely failed to show much commitment to any extra Peloponnesian defense in general and particularly so after Tempe.

Bloody politics, I say. Up until Thermopylae - and after the failed attempt at Tembe - it was a "wait and see" affair, and the attempt at Thermopylae was half-cooked, at best. Despite his pro-Athenian attitude, Herodotus is extremely vague in his assertion of the "whys" - some would assume it would be a great opportunity for a nail or two towards the Spartan side.

The fact that he doesn't, can only mean that it wasn't solely Sparta's fault - after all, they've sent some of their best men and one of their kings on a suicide mission. But it makes sense if Sparta was trying to convince more Peloponessians to commit to the north of Isthmus, no?

Rosacrux redux

I rather disagree about bias in Herodotus; I don't think you can really say he was significantly biased toward either state (unlike say Xenophon and his very strong bias toward Sparta and anti-Thebes). Herodotus displays rather a lot of sympathy for Sparta, and in contrast tends to often put the actions of the Athenian democracy in a rather poor light.

Quote:

---

after all, they've sent some of their best men and one of their kings on a suicide mission. But it makes sense if Sparta was trying to convince more Peloponessians to commit to the north of Isthmus, no?

---

A king and his bodyguard is hardly the typical force Sparta sent north of the isthmus on major campaigns, compare it to the kind of force Cleomenes brought north in the late 6th century. No it looks to rather like the majority of Ephores were opposed, leaving the best Leonidas could manage was a face saving gesture involving himself and his bodyguard and what looks like a just the Peloponnesian troops that responded to a voluntary appeal.

Quote:

---

attempt at Thermopylae was half-cooked

---

How so except for a lack of commitment form the Spartans, it was a very good plan. The Persian fleet was stalled at a bad anchorage, while the Greeks were in a strong position, where they could rotate ships and crews between ‘the front’ and Athens (or Aegina, etc). All the land army had to do was hold the various passes. It was simply Leonidas’ failure to stiffen the Phocians with a more reliable contingent (Tegeans or Thespians perhaps) that caused the position to be lost.

According to Herodotus Leonides did not know about the second pass, being a Peleponisian that is entirely possible. It is however odd that the Phocians idn't know either. As to Phocian reliability, when they were later forced to switch sides they stood their ground against the entire Persian cavalry when the Persians "tested" them.

As far as a pro Athenian bias I would strongly dissagree, the key Athenian character Themistocles is in many ways dispicable, especially from a Greek point of view. Then there is the slight about the stories Athens spread about the Corinthian Fleet. If anything Herodotus portrays the Spartans in a posative light. If he seems pro Athenian it is likely because many of his sources were Athenian. The Idea of a posative Athenian bias in the author has largely been discredited.

As to the Spartans being unwilling to commit North of the Isthumus I would agree but they did and at any rate the may have expected the Athenians and others to take to their ships, which they did. According to Herodotus Xerxes army was around 3,000,000 all told. At Platea the Greeks could only field 98,200 fighting men, of which 65,000 were "light troops."

If I were the Greek commander I would have let Xerxes advance to the Isthumus and fight him there, where his massive nummerical advantage would mean diddly squat.

Wigferth Ironwall

Hmm, but once you have decided to wait at the isthmus, what is going to stop the Persian fleet from simply landing troops anywhere they choose, say in Argos thus the Persians now have Theban and Argive hoplites... Without Athens Aegina and Megara the Peloponnesians could muster what 80 or 90 or so (and none of them the best of the Greeks), not very likely to command the seas...

Quote:

---

According to Herodotus Leonides did not know about the second pass, being a Peloponnesian that is entirely possible. It is however odd that the Phocians idn't know either. As to Phocian reliability, when they were later forced to switch sides they stood their ground against the entire Persian cavalry when the Persians "tested" them.

---

Perhaps not when he marched, but he learned about when he arrived and was content to let the Phocians hold it alone.

The Phocians did show fortitude during Mardonius' test, but by the same token Mardonius did not actually carry through with his test, and at Thermopylae they did show the same metal, period. The Greeks should have had the moral advantage they had been handling everything the Persians could muster for 2 days. I wonder what the reaction of Leonidas and the Greeks would have been if the message they received was ‘Attacking the Persians, please send reinforcements’, rather than ‘your buggered we just watched the Immortals go by…’

I would have evacuated the rest of Greece on the grounds that not only could I not defeat Xerxes I couldn't even slow him down. An army that large would just flow around the Greeks and sack whatever city was behind them.

As far as the Phocians at Thermopylae, when I read the passage last night it sounded like the Phocians weren't guarding the second pass, they were guarding the hights, according to Herodotus it seems they would have been easily overrun which suggests they weren't filling whatever part of the pass they were in, they certainly weren't at the second pass as Herodotus states the Immortals encountered no opposition until they were behind the Greeks.

As it was the Greeks never defeated the entire army. Regardless none of this will be shown in the film.

Back to the topic of the movie. The site has a production video up. It shows king Lionides (SP) and his men in battle. With their helemts that are look exactly like the one Maximus wears in his first gladiator battle in Rome with plumes on them. Thier red cloaks red-brown leather briefs and their hoplons.

See pic.
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...h/journal1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

...large parts of it are quite accurate, with the exception of the pirotechnics the opening battle isn't too bad, they detail for the period is quite good and it has little details like Republican Scuta for the Pretorians which has some basis in fact.

---

I'll agree that the look was good, excepting the opening fireworks display.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Also Maximus wasn't a Gladiator he was a great general who was made a slave.

---

Right, but the crowds attending the ahhh, sanguinary sporting events wouldn't have known he was anything other than a gladiator.

Well Gladiators were idolised, we know that from Pompei, its just something not fitting for the Emperor, plus his opponents fought with no armour and wooden swords.

As to them not knowing who he was I beg to differ:

"I am Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, servent to the true Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife and I will have my vengance, in this life or the next."

Its my favourite "Oh s***!" momment ever in a film. Seems fairly explicit, no?

Also, fun factiod: Many of the Cavalry and Legionaries are wearing the "Cavalry E" helmet," quite appropriate for both at the time.

Just to balance with that accuracy the Legionaries don't throw their pila before charging. Not that they always did, Ceaser sometimes had them used as thrusting spears.

hijacking this a bit more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

As far as the Phocians at Thermopylae, when I read the passage last night it sounded like the Phocians weren't guarding the second pass, they were guarding the hights, according to Herodotus it seems they would have been easily overrun which suggests they weren't filling whatever part of the pass they were in, they certainly weren't at the second pass as Herodotus states the Immortals encountered no opposition until they were behind the Greeks

---

The passage specifically insists that the Phoceans were guarding the pass "assigned by Leonidas" and they were pushed back by the Persian force. Herodotus goes as far as to describe the (rather short) battle between the Phocians and the Persians, by saying how the former were pushed back and prepared to make a last stand, when they saw the Persian just get past them, once they were out of the way.


Konon

Alright, not biased, but predisposed in favor of the Athenian perhaps? Don't compare him with Xenophon, who was "Spartan by choice" and as such held a huge admiration for Sparta.

Quote:

---

A king and his bodyguard is hardly the typical force Sparta sent north of the isthmus on major campaigns, compare it to the kind of force Cleomenes brought north in the late 6th century. No it looks to rather like the majority of Ephores were opposed, leaving the best Leonidas could manage was a face saving gesture involving himself and his bodyguard and what looks like a just the Peloponnesian troops that responded to a voluntary appeal.

---

Hmm... Sparta tried to take Asia Minor with just her king (Agesilaus) and 30 men, in Amphipolis they've send a king and 20, in Sicily 5 ships in all... the Spartans, having a great manpower problem (in the times of the Persian war they had less than 4.000 homoioi) was rather stingy in handing out help, and they always had the Isthmus option (although they too figured out pretty much that it was a lost case if the Persian fleet was dominant in sea).

Quote:

---

How so except for a lack of commitment form the Spartans, it was a very good plan. The Persian fleet was stalled at a bad anchorage, while the Greeks were in a strong position, where they could rotate ships and crews between ‘the front’ and Athens (or Aegina, etc). All the land army had to do was hold the various passes. It was simply Leonidas’ failure to stiffen the Phocians with a more reliable contingent (Tegeans or Thespians perhaps) that caused the position to be lost.

---

A good plan indeed but... to be executed by a mere 7.000 men force? With even more cities under Persian occupation, the Greeks managed to put together a 34.000 hoplites force (and twice that number - if we believe Herodotus - in psiloi) to send at Platea, if they produced such numbers in Thermopylae they could hold the Persians indefinitely - provided that the fleet held its position too.

I still think it was a half-cooked attempt. Not just by the Spartans, but also by the Peloponesian in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

As to them not knowing who he was I beg to differ:

"I am Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, servent to the true Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife and I will have my vengance, in this life or the next."

Its my favourite "Oh s***!" momment ever in a film. Seems fairly explicit, no?

---

I suffered a lapse of consciousness during the film. Must have been during this speech. I concede the point, sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Just to balance with that accuracy the Legionaries don't throw their pila before charging. Not that they always did, Ceaser sometimes had them used as thrusting spears.

---

I've always wondered how well the pila stood up to this usage since the socketed heads were designed to bend with relative ease.

Having wandered a bit from the subject of this thread, perhaps I should pay homage to it:

Quote:

---

Stranger, tell the people of Lacedaemon
That we who lie here obeyed their commands.

---

I think using Pila as thrusting spears was a fairly desperate measure really, Ceaser used them at Pharsallus to stab at the horses eyes but I expect in reality you could only get in one or two thrusts before it went all bendy.

I don't think I'll bother seeing this it doesn't actually look very good on any level. I wish they'd just make it like history, that was dramatic enough.