Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'

[The Celt]

Mullahs want to make a movie about ancient Iran in response to '300' ! Oh No ,That's what I was always afraind of. How they can do so while they are already destroying Perspolis and Cyrus the great tomb the true father of all Iranians by opening the sivand dam ?!
300 was an annoying movie for me and anyother true iranian ,But what mullahs are doing is just horrific. Hope that this news is just a rumor.



P.S : We need world protest against opening the "Sivand Dam" which is a direct threat to one of the world's ancient treasures ,The Perspolis.

Ba dorood Kambiz, I was wondering when you were going to see this thread!

[temenid]

In the creepily aseptic parlance of modern warfare those are called "collateral damage". Anyway, at least with the Death Star (and in general void-swimming warships going "and the sky was full of stars... every one of them a dying ship...") we're spared the high-energy details of the vast crew complement's demise.

This is rather more insidious: it trains the audience to dissociate warfare and carnage, and to associate warfare with victory instead. This makes it easier for us to accept belligerent behaviour, whether on the part of our leaders or our peers.

EB is worse. It trains us to order people to their deaths, then associate that behaviour with various rewards (victory, experience chevrons, better personality traits). It's almost Pavlovian.

That said, they're both good ways of indulging our martial instincts without getting blood on the streets. Most people are smart enough to remain decent human beings afterwards.

[Gask]

never mind

[Glewas]

some thoughts...

What I find odd Mad Guitar Murphy is that you have a problem with the sensless killing portrayed in 300, yet here you are posting your feelings on a forum for a game in which you kill hundreds/thousands of "people." Moreover the game is Rome: Total War, and, considering you here, you must have some basic knowledge of Roman history... Yet you are surprised by people enjoying wating other people die... Gladitorial games/Colloseum, etc. Romans enjoying watching people die, why would modern Americans, or anyone else for that matter be any different?

I think, if I follow that conversation correctly that you are more concerned with the GRAPHIC portrayal of 300's killing of HUMAN BEINGS. That is, why you don't have any problem with all those human deaths involved with the Death Star, or orcs being killed in LOTR. Jumping to conclusions I could judge you by saying that as long as you don't see anyone die you have no problem with them being killed - and - as long as it isn't killing humans, you have no problem with the graphic display of death involving... say monkeys?

Of course it would be wrong of me to assume and to judge, so I'll just leave as a thought for you or anyone else to respond.

In response to the movie...

I found it to be somewhat entertaining, aside from the historical inaccuracies, but that doesn't mean I got off on the violence. I don't really mind television/movie/video game violence being graphic because I know it isn't real. Yeah it is all fake... no one really go their head chopped off so I don't find it a big deal. I usually stay away from, however, the random clips on the internet that supposedly show real deaths/killings... it seems weird to watch such stuff, but when curiosity gets the better of me and I find myself not entertained and not really happy that I wasted the time to view such clips.

That being said, I do find, although am not surprised, that America's (can't say much for other parts of the world), decency rules/regulations have gone far, far down the drain, ever since those Puritan allowed dancing and a flash of ankle here and there... There is a reason that the "shower scene" from Psycho is considered to be one of the great scence in America cinema. If I recally correctly that the argument is because it doesn't acutally show the murder but implys it... leaving the horrid details up to the imagination of the viewer.

Sadly, a lot of movies paint thier pictures in broad, obvious strokes, so the simpleminded movie go-ers can follow the plot... or be grossed out. 300 is one of those films... Take it or leave it...

One more thing in regards to plot and portrayl of the Persians...

15 minutes... Sparta decides to go to go to war with Persia
Next 15 minutes... Spartan warriors go to meet the Persians
90 minutes of fighting/killing/dismemberment, with a sex scene (totally not relative to the "plot"), a rape scene, and a woman scorned getting vindiction scene.

Not much to the movie at all... not even a good back story as to why the Persians were messing around with the Greeks... therefore the director needed to make the Persians look bad/evil as quickly as possible so that the audience can side with the Spartans... Displaying them as warmongering, man-god worshipping, mutants was just one (albeit not the best) way of showing that they were the antagonist. It is just a story about good vs. evil, just like most - if not all stories, movies, etc.

In fact wasn't Star Wars based off the Greek/Persian conflict?
I think I read that in a book... and yes I am sure it was a book, sure it wasn't nothing...

[Ignoramus]

If they make a movie about ancient Persia, you can be sure that there'll be mosques in the backgrounds, and nothing remotely to do with ancient Persia.

[The Celt]

In fact wasn't Star Wars based off the Greek/Persian conflict?
I think I read that in a book... and yes I am sure it was a book, sure it wasn't nothing...

No, no, no thats Battle Star Galatica. Star Wars is based on the American Revolution.

I agree with the rest of your points however Glewas.

[Aramazon]

Uh, what?

Here's a few points you can chew on.

Granted, there were 300 spartans at Thermopylae. However, there were also 4000 allies on the first two days of the battle and 1500 during the fatal last stand.

Some historians have even thought the total "greek" contingent upwards of 8000, and the last 1500 only remained because they were in essence trapped. So much for the glory of hellenic bravery.

The million man army of legend is more likely, by modern estimates, anywhere from 60,000--150,000 based on the land and amount of water availible in the campaign.

Moreso, the the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians is ridiculous. The Achaemenid empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Athens less than 14% of the population participated in democratic government, and almost half of the population were slaves. Sparta was a military monarchy, not a democracy and collectively owned an entire enslaved population

The Greeks: Yes, I'm aware of the number of greeks in the battle, however they were led by King Leonidas of Sparta, and for that reason I felt it adequate collectivelly calling them "Spartans."
300 shows that the Spartans were not alone. It has the 700 or so Thespians in it. I believe the numbers aren't so important in this case. It's enough to know that few stood against many.
I find it acceptable that movies should change small details like that for the sake of simplicity.
They said million man army, yes, but it's a simple exageration to emphasize the point. Once again, I say the point is that few stood against many.

Moving on to free men.

Here is what I know:

The Greek army was made up completely of free men, all of whom fought for their homeland.
The Persian army was made up of many men from conquered nations. Be they mercenaries or not, it is logical that they would put up less of a fight.
I believe that is the distinction the movie makes.
I don't recall anything about democracy loving, or anything said about the Persian government. I may be wrong, so do tell me if there was anything in the movie that spoke directly of that.

A historical movie, as far as I'm concerned, is a movie that follows the events in history. I haven't been swayed yet that 300 isn't so. The movie does follow the historical events, with only a few differences for the sake of the movie(the numbers).

I would argue that the central theme of the movie is quite different. I would say the best line to sum it up is, "few stood against many." I believe there were a few references to the fact that the Spartans were free men, and that the Persians had mercenaries or slaves. The thing that stood out for me most though was how brave the Spartans were. I suppose what one views as the main theme can vary.

[Zaknafien]

well actually, the spartan contingents were helots. slaves.

[Aramazon]

well actually, the spartan contingents were helots. slaves.

The 300 Spartans with Leonidas?

[mcantu]

just out of curiosity...how does modern Iran compare culturally/ethnically with ancient Persia?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Hello, I would like to make my own input to this argument.

Firstly I would like to make a few statements:

The Persians did invade Greece.

It wasn't really an invasion, more of a counterattack and an act of retribution.

The Spartans did make a stand at the pass of Thermopylae.
The Spartans killed an extremely large number of Persians compared to their number.
After 3 days of combat, the Spartans all died.
Athens by then had prepared her fleet and engaged the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis, resulting in an Athenian victory.

The Athenian navy was already at sea and battling the Persian navy while the the Greek armies fought at Thermopylae.

Xerxes returned to Persia after his fleet was destroyed, leaving command to one of his generals.
The Persian army in Greece was finally defeated by a large Greek army at the battle of Plataea.

So ended the war.


What can be said based on these events?

The Persians initiated the war by invading Greece.

Again, more of a counerattack and act of retribution. The city of Sardis had been burned to the ground by Athenians and Ionians.

The Spartans were brave and very skilled. This can be deduced from the fact that a small number of them stood against many and from the large amount of Persian losses compared to Spartan losses.

There were actually about 6,000 Greeks at Thermopylae and the Spartans were just 300 above average guys amoung them.

The Spartans made a sacrifice of their lives for the defense of their homeland.
The battle of Salamis may have depended on those 300 spartans giving Athens enough time to prepare.

The Battle of Salamis didn't really need the Spartans to give up their lives. However the Spartans did die so that the other Greeks in the 6000 at Thermopylae could retreat without being chased down. Also, the city of Athens was evacuated during this time.

The battle of Plataea may have depended on the absence of Xerxes which resulted from the Victory at Salamis. Regardless, it was made much easier by the smaller number of enemies as a result of the battle of Thermopylae.

Had it not been for the battle of Thermopylae:

The Persians might have conquered Greece.
The Persians might have then invaded Europe and they might have conquered it too.
World history would be very different from that point on.
It is for these reasons that the battle of Thermopylae is what might be called a turning point in history. It was an important battle to say the least.

I don't believe that the Persians would have conquered Greece. Their main goal was to burn down Athens and kill as many Athenians for Sardis and Marathon. After that they would have probably burned down all Athenian allies' town. Then, depending on how secure Greece was, they would have made it a protectorate or withdrawn completely. And remember, the Achaemenids usually let regions govern themselves to some degree, so Greek culture and government wouldn't be completely dead.

The Spartans at Thermopylae are an example to all of bravery and that few can triumph against many. It was in fact, what people might refer to as heroic(courageous, brave, going against the odds, and morally right.) I think most of us should be able to agree on the bravery, but morally right is probably more debatable.
As far as I know, self defense is morally right. I think it can be said for sure that it is not wrong. The debate then would be "what is self defense?". Let's deduce that seeing as how the Persians had by that time conquered many lands, they intended to conquer Greece and weren't going to be convinced otherwise by diplomacy. In this way, self defense was all the Greeks could do to defend their homeland from invaders.

True. Even though the Athenians had started the war, at this point it was self defense. It was a right and noble act to defend themselves.

I believe this is true:

The battle of Thermopylae is a worthy subject for a movie as it was a very important historical event, and it was a triumph of human values(courage).


Moving on to 300.

The movie is historical. It shows us what happened in history. Some things are probably different from how they really were. However, it does not stray from the historical events. I am sorry if you are Persian and are offended by the negative light in which the Persians were portrayed. However, I believe that being the attackers, the Persians were in the wrong.

Only the very base story is true. There was a Battle of Thermopylae that was fought between some guys called Spartans and some guys called Persians. The majority of it is wrong.

(BTW, no personal offense, I just wanted to correct a couple things then got off on a tangent.)

EDIT: Wow alot happened. That's what I get for leaving a thread open a long time then taking a while to respond.

Star Wars was based on a lot of things. George Lucas (back in the good old days) liked analogies and Star Wars is filled with analogies of many things. Mainly the Roman Empire and the American Revolution.

[Xtiaan72]

An appropriate response to a movie Iranians will never see in the theatre

Very odd. Why would they even need one in this case?

Would love to check it out though. Can't help but wonder what a homage to ancient Persia that gets past the mullahs looks like. It's probably more enlightening regarding the state of modern Iran than anything else.

[Aramazon]

@MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I suppose it was a counter-attack. Wasn't the sack of Sardis in a revolt by the greek city states under Persian rule?
I suppose looking at it like that, it could go back a long way, but I think it seems that the Persian Empire was more aggressive in conquest than the Greek.

As for the battle of Salamis, had the Persian army not been opposed at Thermopylae, could they have attacked Athens? Perhaps that might have drawn the fleet away from Salamis and the Persian fleet would not have had to fight in disadvantageous waters.
I suppose it would have made little difference.

I understand that they wanted to destroy Greece(probably worse than just conquest), but if Greece were destroyed, or forced into the Persian Empire, wouldn't some ambitious leader of Persia have pressed on.
Weren't the Persians conquerors?
Didn't they carve out an empire?
Would they just be satisfied and stop conquering lands?

I think you mean the small details in the movie. I assume that most of the costumes, the mutants, and what not were incorrect. What else is there?
I've read that the religious customs were true, that only the Spartan who lost an eye survived. Perhaps you mean the bribery of that leader in Sparta who keeps the army from going to Thermopylae?

Are there any large historical inaccuracies in the movie?

Thanks for your response by the way, I'm learning a lot.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The Athenians had already given up on Athens. They had evacuated it (except for a few diehard people who barricaded themselves on the Acropolis) and retreated to Salamis and the peloponnesis. After the Greek defeat at Thermopylae, the Persians actually did attack Athens. And they burned it to the ground and destroyed the Acropolis, killing everyone who stayed behind.

The fleet was actually defending Athenian citizens at the Battle of Salamis.

And just after the Persian invasion of Greece, the Acheamenid empire began to decline. So, I doubt that (no matter the results in Greece) the Persians would have expanded into Europe.




Large historical inaccuracies:
Leonidas didn't disobey the rest of Sparta and alone go fight the Persians. Sparta was part of a Greek alliance that had been preparing for the Persians. All of Sparta and most of Greece (not the dirty Thebians) were behind the battle of Thermopylae.

That bribery and betrayal thing.

The culture of Sparta in 300 was just wrong. There were no happy children, merchants, politicians, fine architecture, or love. That thing about Leonidas loving his wife and respecting her was way off. Spartans did one thing, fight. They probably had skills like armor repair and such but there were no artisans or craftmen in Sparta. And all of the non-war, menial tasks were done by their 'race' of slaves. Once a Spartan warrior got old, then he qualified to join politics. There were two Spartan Kings and a councel with checks and balances on eachother. There was no art in Sparta, including architecture.

The whole oracle thing was a huge pile of fantasy. Leonidas did see an oracle (at Delphi IIRC) but the message he got was (paraphase) "A Spartan King will die or Sparta will burn." But the whole oracle experience was different. (No drugged up anarexic Irish exotic dancing.)

No mention of Themistocles or the Athenian fleet and how they won the war.

You know that thing with the Persian ships sinking, that actually happened far away during the middle of the Battle of Thermopylae. They were trying to sail around the island of Euboea to land troops behind the line at Themopylae.

Spartans wore armor!

The majority of Persian bows were weak and basically useless. That is why they didn't fear the Persian arrows.

The Persians didn't use cavalry at Thermopylae. Horses were expensive and that would have been throwing them away.

It wasn't 300 Spartans with a couple Greek friends. It was 6000 Greeks, 300 of which happened to come from Sparta.

The Spartans didn't die for glory. They died because they were holding back to buy time for the other 5000 Greeks to retreat from Thermopylae. Then it was too late to retreat when they were surrounded.

I could go on...

[Kull]

You don't mind watching humans get killed by the thousands just for entertainment? I find it repulisive.

Welcome to EB - "Killing 1000's daily" could be our motto! I suppose we could change that, but this "remaining true to history" thing sorta ties our hands. I'm also guessing that a "picking petunias" RTW mod wouldn't have much of a fan base.

[Brightblade]

Ugh god, people are still hung up on this? It's a movieeeee...

I watched it and I'd watch it again, educating whoever I was with after the movie was over on the historical inaccuracies... stop getting your panties in a knot.

Watching thousands of people die? Hello you play a game that basically is about how to kill the largest amounts of people during battle in creative ways! Its a game, its a movie! Same concept.

stop being such purists!

[mAIOR]

I find odd that some of you say this movie praises killing of people and if anyone likes it shoud see a shrink. Well, let's talk about a trully hillarious movie: Commando. Where Arnold Schwarznegger (AS) kills 156 people singlehanded.
Why do I also find it amusing. 300 is one of this movies (Arnold, Steven Seagal) however, it has more quality to it. I enjoied the movie and the slaughter in it however, I didn't laugh in Polanski "The Pianist" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/) or enjoied the killings in it. Does this makes any sense to you? If it does, my point is made.

Cheers...

[hoom]

Not really wanting to get involved in this thread but when talking about the destruction of Deathstar, one should always ponder the Endor Holocaust

[Zaknafien]

Not really wanting to get involved in this thread but when talking about the destruction of Deathstar, one should always ponder the Endor Holocaust

hm wow, I'd never seen that. THose damn rebel alliance terrorists!

[Watchman]

I understand that they wanted to destroy Greece(probably worse than just conquest), but if Greece were destroyed, or forced into the Persian Empire, wouldn't some ambitious leader of Persia have pressed on.
Weren't the Persians conquerors?
Didn't they carve out an empire?
Would they just be satisfied and stop conquering lands?

Empires would usually prefer to keep conquering, if only to keep troublesome tribes beyond the border from raiding into and generally causing trouble in their new borderlands (like, say, the Greeks). One major driving force behind the way many expanded was probably just the need to subdue such troublemakers, after which they ended up with yet new subjects and territory - beyond which there were yet more troublemakers, and now their new subjects were duly entitled for imperial protection against those...

But most weren't actually asked for their opinion. Each empire had a certain maximum size dictated by the considerations of geography, politics and logistics; that of the Achaemenids was clearly constrained by the natural barriers of the Mediterranean and the Straits of Bosphorus in the west (AFAIK they never got a permanent foothold beyond the latter), the Sahara in the southwest, the Arabian desert and the Indian Ocean in the south, the Hindu Kush in the east, and the steppe in the north; they were apparently unable to carry out much more than police actions and punitive expeditions beyond these barriers, not that even those would have made much sense on several fronts, due to sheer limits imposed by considerations of logistics and the internal structure of their empire. After all, they likely spent at least as much time putting down satrapal revolts and popular uprisings as campaigning abroad, and wasn't it just such internal troubles that made Xerxes leave Greece for Mardonius to deal with ?

There were actually about 6,000 Greeks at Thermopylae and the Spartans were just 300 above average guys amoung them.

Well, those 300 were the picked royal bodyguard from a fanatical warrior society so I would think "above average" is a slight understatement.

The majority of Persian bows were weak and basically useless. That is why they didn't fear the Persian arrows.

Doubtful. We're after all talking about troops from a part of the world where composite bows were pretty much the norm, particularly for warfare. Far as I've read the Greeks worried a fair bit about Persian archery - it's not like they hadn't been on the receiving end before already in the squabbling in Asia Minor - and preferred to experience as little of it as possible before getting into hand-to-hand. I suspect the presence of a reasonable degree of protective field fortification was primarily what allowed the hoplites at Thermopylae to avoid getting turned into pincushions, armour and shields or no (the hoplite panoply had far too many gaps for a man wearing one to be really safe from extensive archery); the battle was after all essentially a short siege.

It's enough to know that few stood against many.

...which was really the norm with troops defending fortified places, nevermind strategic chokepoints, anyway. Big deal; force multiplication is the whole point of giving battle in such locations to begin with.

The Greek army was made up completely of free men, all of whom fought for their homeland.
The Persian army was made up of many men from conquered nations. Be they mercenaries or not, it is logical that they would put up less of a fight.

By that selfsame logic the professional Roman legions and their various auxiliaries should have been less spirited combatants than the early Republic citizen militia...
I think the psychological aspects involved in how huge multi-ethnic world-empires motivated their troops are a whole lot more complex, and in any case when the push comes to shove people will tend to fight fiercely enough for their own and their mates' survival. Heck, by some accounts of Plataia I've read once the spara wall broke the Persian archers put up a stubborn resistance against the hoplites with little more than daggers and their bare hands for a while...

This is rather more insidious: it trains the audience to dissociate warfare and carnage, and to associate warfare with victory instead. This makes it easier for us to accept belligerent behaviour, whether on the part of our leaders or our peers.

It is the nature of technologically advanced warfare. And nothing compared to the chilling calculativeness involved for example in the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2, or the attrition-warfare calculations of WW1...

At least we're not made to watch, in excruciating detail, the crew vaporize and get told it's all right because this is for freedom and justice.

EB is worse. It trains us to order people to their deaths, then associate that behaviour with various rewards (victory, experience chevrons, better personality traits). It's almost Pavlovian.

The perspective of RTW is that of a warlord, who is in the business of demolishing armies and conquering cities at preferably minimum expense of soldiers. As such it actually serves as a passable introduction to the somewhat creepy paradigm of thinking involved in such pursuits, but in any case it makes no judgement one way or another about the ethics of the matter. Whether to pursue routers mercilessly and massacre populations for economical and adminstrational convenience is left entirely up to the conscience of the player.

And, again, he or she is not shown the associated unpleasantness in excessively gory detail and told this is a-okay 'cuz it is for freedom and justice. Oh yeah, and democracy.

[Narhon]

Lets try to get our countries to outlaw everything offensive. That is what many are trying to do today. Remember what you find entertaining may offend someone else. If we follow that path we may get what some countries are doing, exe. in a certain European country one cannot show any outward sign of their faith because it may offend someone. In my country many are doing the same. Some confuse the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the US constitution, as one shall not pray or show their faith in a public place. So do we want to travel down that offends me road.

[keravnos]

It can't be healthy if you enjoy to see hundreds of humans getting their limbs hacked of for two houres.

Ancient battles were a human butcher's shop. You were both the butcher and meat there, trying to chop/kebab the other side, whereas keeping them from doing the same thing. That lasted for hours, from daybreak to the last light, sometimes.

Most of the guys making it out of that, of course, led perfectly normal lives, so far as we know, that is.

[MiniMe]

Empires would usually prefer to keep conquering, if only to keep troublesome tribes beyond the border from raiding into and generally causing trouble in their new borderlands (like, say, the Greeks). One major driving force behind the way many expanded was probably just the need to subdue such troublemakers, after which they ended up with yet new subjects and territory - beyond which there were yet more troublemakers, and now their new subjects were duly entitled for imperial protection against those...

IMO a fine argument, plus I'd like to add one more thing nobody speaks of:
during the whole ancient period and many many many centuries later it were
Persians who were rich while Greek were poor.

In XXI century, europe is one of the major places of the world by many means, but 500 years B.C. it wasn't. A huge forest with rocky islands to the southeast, some olives and goats, some small silvermines, that was it.
Actually, the attractive center of the ancient world was the persian empire =)
Alexander had the same idea =)

[Ardu]

As a historian ( yes I actually study history at university, lucky me ) I always look forward to these kind of films. I like history, heroism, ancient settings, historic battles and so on... However '300' must be one of the most appalling movies I've ever seen.

I, unlike others, dont even get bothered so much by the fact that there's a lot of brutal killing in it, nor even by the fact that it is not historically correct ( We also need to consider that in the instance of '300', historically correct would be correct according to ancient Greek writers and historians, so probably even then, 'historically correct' wouldnt be so correct after all ).
What did bother me however, was that the film just completely sucked. I see people all over screaming that this was the coolest film they had ever seen and on top of that, they try to defend it by saying that the basic story is correct apart form a few inaccuracies. I personally, would have a harder time naming the historical accuracies than naming the historical inaccuracies... The directors of '300' have actually made a whole lot of money with this horrible film. I felt actually robbed when I walked out of the actually and was considering asking my money back. Now let me elaborate, why I think this is such a terrible film...

It basically comes down to this: The movie has absolutely no storyline at all, everything is completely over the top and absolutely ridiculous and all you see is 2/3 hours of spartans killing millions of persians in the most ridiculous way possible.

Now lets start with the storyline. If you're making a movie about a historic event at least make sure you have any clue at all about what actually happened. If you dont, just make up a fictional story by yourself and place it in a historic setting, without pretending to base it on something that actually happened. Take 'Gladiator' for example: They made up their own story and placed it in the context of the time somewhere between emperor Marcus Aurelius and Commodus... 'Gladiator' also, unlike '300' actually had a storyline. The whole storyline in '300' besides killing a lot of persians is a few stupid scenes about the wife of Leonidas, which are neither interesting, nor have any relevance to the rest of the film.

Even if you make a fictional story, you still have to make sure it looks realistic in it's setting. For instance: LotR is fantasy with a lot of supernatural beings and magic, but in that setting it still would be upsetting if the orcs suddenly got machineguns, because that wouldn't be realistic. Now let's take a look at one error in '300' among the countless errors. Details, perhaps, but a lot of details add up to make this film suck.

The Persian arrows: In the first wave of arrows, not a single guy gets hit. All arrows stick inside the shield but none of them gets through. If arrows get shot at a bronze shield I expect them A: to bounce off ( perhaps leaving a dint) B: to pierce the shield C: to pierce it a little bit, making part of the point visible at the back of the shield. All arrows however stick with their points inside the small layer of bronze. While not a single arrow hits anyone in the first wave of arrows, everyone suddenly dies with the last wave of arrows. That's just plain stupid.

Or take this wall they're building. They are happily building a wall of corpses??? oh come on! Can it be anymore ridiculous. If the screams of men dying in agony wouldn't take the fun out of making such a wall, the horrible smell of corpses would certainly deter anyone to get even close to such a thing. I'm not an architect, but making a wall of corpses, sounds pretty silly to me in any case.

Then, they throw in a few elephants, which haven't been mentioned in any sources as to give it that 'LotR coolness'.

The motives of these 'spartans' also worry me a lot. As if the persians of today who have fled their country from islamic dictatorship haven't suffered enough, they are now being confronted with a film that depicts their highly civilized, prosperous and intellectual ancestors as stupid, bloodthirsty, misformed slaves led by a big gay rapist. Thus, they get slaughtered by the millions and its even ok to kill their negotiator because they dont like what he says. Now even the worst nazi's wouldn't go so far and have such a lack of honour, to kill a negotiator! For what!!!??? Oh, yes... For freedom!!! That is kind of bothering also. This continuous spartan rant about freedom and free Spartans. Spartans were perhaps the biggest slave drivers of all of ancient history... Their slaves were called 'helots'. Wikipedia on the number of helots and their role in the battle of Plataea following Thermopylae:

The absence of a formal census prevents us from accurately assessing their number, though some estimates are possible. According to Herodotus (IX, 28–29), the Helots were seven times as numerous as the Spartans during the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC. At the time of the conspiracy of Cinadon, at the beginning of the 4th century BC, at the agora only 40 peers or citizens could be counted in a crowd of 4000 (Xenophon, Hellenica, III, 3, 5). At that point, the total population of Helots, including women, is estimated as 170,000 – 224,000.

I could go on and on and on, about how stupid this film is. In fact I saw the southpark parody on '300'. In fact the episode wasn't anymore ridiculous than the film itself. The only difference was the southpark episode was actually fun...

[Watchman]

Then, they throw in a few elephants, which haven't been mentioned in any sources as to give it that 'LotR coolness'.

To be fair, those are present in Miller's comic too. No less stupid though. Personally I've no illusions as to what even a few war elephants would do to a hoplite phalanx that had never even heard of such animals before...

...and its even ok to kill their negotiator because they dont like what he says. Now even the worst nazi's wouldn't go so far and have such a lack of honour, to kill a negotiator! For what!!!??? Oh, yes... For freedom!!!

Well, the modern idea about diplomatic immunity and overall untouchability of accredited ambassadors (as well as the idea of a professional diplomatic corps for that matter) was only born during the Thirty Years' War in Europe. And not always respected there either, although it did become pretty normative pretty fast.

Before that it was in no way unusual for ambassadors and suchlike to gain the questionable privilege of serving as the punching bag of their hosts who didn't quite like the message they brought.

[Randarkmaan]

The Greek army was made up completely of free men, all of whom fought for their homeland.

Not quite right, the Spartans forced roughly 2000 helots to fight and die at Thermopylae (they are nearly never mentioned), there were also some Thebans present who were forced to fight, though they deserted to the Persians when the Greeks were surrounded and participated in fighting at the end. Also how do you define free? Many people did not define the citizens of the Soviet Union as free, neither did the Greeks regard the citizens of Persia as free. If you are of that belief then not even the Spartans were free in Sparta, they were basically the property of the state.

Well, the modern idea about diplomatic immunity and overall untouchability of accredited ambassadors (as well as the idea of a professional diplomatic corps for that matter) was only born during the Thirty Years' War in Europe. And not always respected there either, although it did become pretty normative pretty fast.

Before that it was in no way unusual for ambassadors and suchlike to gain the questionable privilege of serving as the punching bag of their hosts who didn't quite like the message they brought.

The Persians accused the Spartans of having violated the ... "folkeretten" (that's we call it in Norwegian, literally translating to "the right(s) of the people"), and when the Spartans sent two of their number to die so that they could redeem themselves of this crime (killing the messenger), the Persians did not accept it and said that nothing could forgive the Spartans' crime.

[Watchman]

I don't know if Sparta and Athens had quite developed their imperial ambitions by the time of the Persian Wars, but given the distinctly unequal power relations between the different poleis and the little detail the vast majority of the lot either sided with the Persians or prudently sat on the fence watching things develop "free" seems a wee bit questionable.

Personally I'm cynical enough to simply assume "freedoms" were about at the bottom rung of Greek motivators, particularly as far as the Spartans were concerned. What the hoplites were fighting for was ultimately nothing more than the preservation of their own political power as the privileged freeman-soldier class and the maintenance and hopefully bettering of the standing and power of their communities.

Which those poleis in subjugated positions in the power constellation duly tended to opt out of.

[alatar]

well i think that probably has something to do with the germans being portrayed in most western made WWII films as pathetic losers getting killed by the dozens by the grizzled, tough-as-nails yank or brit soldier who's there to save the day

Exactly, even saving privite ryan had masses of allied casulties and was good.
And the german movie stalingrad is good, the bad dubbing annoyed me, I would have prefered sub titles (like in downfall a great film).

And there flooding Cyrus tomb! Even Alexander respected it.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Doubtful. We're after all talking about troops from a part of the world where composite bows were pretty much the norm, particularly for warfare. Far as I've read the Greeks worried a fair bit about Persian archery - it's not like they hadn't been on the receiving end before already in the squabbling in Asia Minor - and preferred to experience as little of it as possible before getting into hand-to-hand. I suspect the presence of a reasonable degree of protective field fortification was primarily what allowed the hoplites at Thermopylae to avoid getting turned into pincushions, armour and shields or no (the hoplite panoply had far too many gaps for a man wearing one to be really safe from extensive archery); the battle was after all essentially a short siege.

Yes, the Immortals, elites, and any steppe conscripts probably had the composite bow, the best in the world. But ironically the vast majority of their conscripts were equipted with inferior simple bows.


Ardu:

[Watchman]

Yes, the Immortals, elites, and any steppe conscripts probably had the composite bow, the best in the world. But ironically the vast majority of their conscripts were equipted with inferior simple bows.

A bow is as good as completely useless unless its user knows his archery. Which tended to mean archers were raised from either groups specifically trained in archery (perhaps as a part of their military obligations, as in the case of the English yeomanry), or who learned the skill in their everyday lives (such as hunters and steppe nomads).

Neither groups sounds too likely to have poor bows of their own, and why their Persian masters would settle for ones is beyond me. (Self-bows may not be as good as composites, but they hurt quite enough.) They raised these formations to shoot the enemy full of arrows after all, not stand around looking stupid...