Thread: 300

**Delorean** · 04-23-2007, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by sert

Movie is good but not so great. I would also rate it 8 out of 10 and I agree with a comment above that Sin City was better.. But keeping in mind that it’s based on a comic and is not a based on the historical facts, some of them are:

- 300? No way. 300 were only the native Spartans, i.e. the men born and raised/trained in Sparta. About 300 more were warriors from other Greek villages, kidnapped as teenagers or kids from their villages (or more rarely went to Spartan to become fighters on their own will) and raised and trained in Sparta. These warriors although not typically called Spartans, they were trained under the same pressure with the original Spartans and some of them became as tough and skilled as the Spartans (although never had the same rights)

- Well do you believe that they were sharing only a couple of apples after so many weeks of war and walking though mountains? They were accompanied by tens of servants, mules, cooks, chief-cooks, providing them the necessities to fight the huge Persian army. These servants actually fight next to the native Spartans the last couple of days, as the loss of Spartans was huge. I read that only a couple of servant personnel survived as well as one non-native fighter all of them extremely injured. All of them were carrying fresh provisions, stores, spares etc all the way from Sparta.

- Do you believe that the Spartans were fighting continuously 20-24 hours per day? Of course not, who can do that? They were supported by fighters from nearby villages with an estimate number of 400-700 some of them untrained (as per movie) but some of them great warriors and brave men, who fought until the last day.

- Spartans fighters with beards? No way. The movie just showed the world’s idea of ancient Greeks. However Spartans didn’t have beards.

- Efialtis, the traitor (English translation: nightmare). This has never been proved on the contrary most historians don’t believe at him (although some do). At least he couldn’t be Spartan in any way, as Spartans not accepted new borne babies with any kind of genetic anomaly, believe it or not they were killing them instantly (by throwing them of the highest mountain "keadas"). It may sounds cruel and unacceptable by today’s societies but that’s the way the best army created some thousand years back.

The question that every Spartan was asked to answer from kid, was: what is the opposite of fear?

Dhinekis said the answer was love. He was the spartan that answered to the man from Trahina we will fight in shade when the man told him that the arrows from the Persians would cover the sun. (well in the movie that was said from a Persian).

Anw I agree with your answer 100% sert.

As a movie it was really good, but in terms of history it was nothing!

However, I bet that if they could put down the facts like they were done in reality the movie would be 3-4 hours but a lot better.
A movie based on this battle can outmatch The lord of the ring's battles. The given movie didn't!

**anonymous** · 04-23-2007, 05:55 PM

It is very good movie

**TARATARA** · 04-23-2007, 06:55 PM

Great film - above all entertaining. And genuine craft from the movie makers as well. Hats off to these guys coz the industry would be dull without them. They are pushing the barriers - whats next after cgi ?

**mym_2006** · 04-24-2007, 06:35 AM

wow
thx so mush for this

**SnipeR19** · 04-24-2007, 10:55 AM

Nice Movie i like it

**Snee** · 04-24-2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by sert

Spartans fighters with beards? No way. The movie just showed the world’s idea of ancient Greeks. However Spartans didn’t have beards.

- Efialtis, the traitor (English translation: nightmare). This has never been proved on the contrary most historians don’t believe at him (although some do). At least he couldn’t be Spartan in any way, as Spartans not accepted new borne babies with any kind of genetic anomaly, believe it or not they were killing them instantly (by throwing them of the highest mountain "keadas"). It may sounds cruel and unacceptable by today’s societies but that’s the way the best army created some thousand years back.

That they didn't fight all day long and that is pretty obvious, as is them not carrying all the supplies they needed all the way and that.

That's simple logistics, and seems pretty silly to point out.

However, what's cited above seems a bit off. From what I've read they might well have had beards. That sort of thing, along with long hair probably made for some needed padding for those helmets they wore.

I don't think it's provable either way, tho'. There won't be any spartan corpses from that period preserved well enough to check that they never wore beards.

And as for the cripple, as the story goes spartans did toss deformed children off a cliff, but the father or family of that particular one went into exile taking the child with him/them, so as to save the child's life. (Which might be something that may have happened at some point for real. People were probably just the same in some respects then as they are now.)

As for history, I ran a search on t'internets just now (just looking at mentions of him in texts), and he might well have been a (not crippled) peasant, rather than a warrior, or he might not have existed at all. That specific crippled traitor in Miller's version is just Miller's interpretation of the myth, obviously, but you know that.

TBH, people pointing out how any details in the movie were historically incorrect are a bit silly, especially since there are so many on the internet by now.