Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Never has a battle been such the defining characteristic of a people (the Spartans).

Does this battle interest anyone else, and if so why?

It interests me a lot because it shows a bunch of courageous warriors doing what they do best not giving a f*ck about the fact that they were outnumbered. (I'd say they got WTF PWNED!!!1! in the end tho, but still!)

I can't wait until they come out with a movie-adaptation of Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire".

Yes, it is definately one of the most memorable, and influential battles in ALL history. And i can say this with all honesty...i wouldve loved to have been a hoplite soldier. The "soldier" of today doesnt even come close to the soldiers of ancient times.

I wouldn't dissmiss today's "soldiers" as you put them.

Originally posted by Neo_Version 7
I can't wait until they come out with a movie-adaptation of Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire".

They'd probably screw it up. But I doubt it will happen as they are making a film based on Frank Miller's graphic novel '300'.

http://300themovie.warnerbros.com/

Originally posted by Alliance
I wouldn't dissmiss today's "soldiers" as you put them.

Well, that is your opinion. But i would rather be a real soldier. A soldier who trains every single day of his life, from the age of 10, until the day he dies, is what i wish i was.

IMO, anyone who enters into nationalistic combat is a soldier.

People in modern militaries should be respected as well, thier combat form a tactical standpoint is far advanced beyond anything the Greeks put forth. Todays soldiers are more intelligent than the greek footsoldiers. Training is a part of the everday lives of modern soldiers too. Just because you dont fight hand to hand all the time doesnt make them any less "real."

Originally posted by Alliance
IMO, anyone who enters into nationalistic combat is a soldier.

People in modern militaries should be respected as well, thier combat form a tactical standpoint is far advanced beyond anything the Greeks put forth. Todays soldiers are more intelligent than the greek footsoldiers. Training is a part of the everday lives of modern soldiers too. Just because you dont fight hand to hand all the time doesnt make them any less "real."

You are absolutely correct, except for the fact that the so-called "soldiers" of today, can kill a person miles away from them, by simply.."Shooting Them With A Gun Of Anysort".

Originally posted by Philip_ll
i wouldve loved to have been a hoplite soldier


Originally posted by Philip_ll
But i would rather be a real soldier. A soldier who trains every single day of his life, from the age of 10, until the day he dies, is what i wish i was.

Unfortunately I feel that you either have studied little about hoplite training/life, are not mature enough to grasp what you are wishing for, or you are a hopeless romantic who doesn't acknowledge the drudgery, extreme difficulties, harsh realities and brief lives punctuated by moments of sheer terror that were the norm for a hoplite soldier. It was even worse if you were a Spartan.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
You are absolutely correct, except for the fact that the so-called "soldiers" of today, can kill a person miles away from them, by simply.."Shooting Them With A Gun Of Anysort".

Your disrespect for modern soldiers is unwarranted and naive, your idealism of ancient soldiers is unrealistic and romanticised.

And if you so want to live the life of a soldier, in all it's nobility and hardships. If it is years of training, guarantee of close combat and hardship that you desire, then I suggest you join your countries military and work to be a part of their special forces.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Unfortunately I feel that you either have studied little about hoplite training/life, are not mature enough to grasp what you are wishing for, or you are a hopeless romantic who doesn't acknowledge the drudgery, extreme difficulties, harsh realities and brief lives punctuated by moments of sheer terror that were the norm for a hoplite soldier. It was even worse if you were a Spartan.



Your disrespect for modern soldiers is unwarranted and naive, your idealism of ancient soldiers is unrealistic and romanticised.

And if you so want to live the life of a soldier, in all it's nobility and hardships. If it is years of training, guarantee of close combat and hardship that you desire, then I suggest you join your countries military and work to be a part of their special forces.

lol thats funny, since i did join my country's so-called "military". And i have also studied ancient history, which is what i'm in college for at the moment. And yes, i would rather be a hoplite soldier, than anything else. Unlike you wussies who would rather shoot guns from a distance.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
lol thats funny, since i did join my country's so-called "military". And i have also studied ancient history, which is what i'm in college for at the moment. And yes, i would rather be a hoplite soldier, than anything else. Unlike you wussies who would rather shoot guns from a distance.

Tell em bro!!

The Spartian lifestyle was vicious and brutal and while Thermopylae was an incredible stand of courage...I use a quote from Conan.
"I've never prayed to you before, I have no tongue for it. Noone, but even you will remember why we fought, if we were good men or bad. All that matters is few stood against many."
I think that sums up Thermopylae: A story of courage, and a stand that saved all of Greece, but it wasn't simple whatsoever...I doubt many got past the itnense training or even made it to their forties

Well, it was kinda dumb from at tactical point of view.
Leonidas was a dumbass, they were unprotected in the back.

They only held 3 days against the persians, without athens Greece would have been lost 2 Persia, that would have changed the course of history DRAMATICALLY.

Kinda romantic and courageous tho, but I prefer the battle of Waterloo.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
lol thats funny, since i did join my country's so-called "military". And i have also studied ancient history, which is what i'm in college for at the moment.

You are 19 years old and already served in the military and are now going to college? That pretty good. I have never heard of someone completing their tour of duty and then getting into university within one year.

Generally you don't study specific history your first year of university either, mostly just survey courses.

I have studied much history myself, particularly anciant greek and ancient roman. I find that anyone who has also studied these subjects knows enough that they would never want to be a roman legionary or greek hoplite. It isn't a matter of cowardice, but simply a matter of common sense.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
And yes, i would rather be a hoplite soldier, than anything else. Unlike you wussies who would rather shoot guns from a distance.

You say that your educated, but you act very immature and show great signs of stupidity. You acuse the rest of the forum for being wussies for not wanting to die an early and most painful death after living a tortuos and hard life? That is immature and stupid. Second, you presuppose that we would rather shoot people from a distance, this would mean that we had any desire to kill at all. Grow up, you are making a fool out of yourself. I would much prefer an intelligent conversation about this subject.


Originally posted by Da preacher
Well, it was kinda dumb from at tactical point of view.
Leonidas was a dumbass, they were unprotected in the back.

There was little need for protection in the rear as the pass was so narrow and Leonidas gave little thought to a greek betraying his own people. Also, Leonidas gave little thought to a rear attack as it was a suicide mission anyway.

Originally posted by Da preacher
They only held 3 days against the persians, without athens Greece would have been lost 2 Persia, that would have changed the course of history DRAMATICALLY.

3 days was long enough for the city states of Greece to begin to unite and organize. That was what Thermopylae was all about.

Originally posted by Da preacher
Kinda romantic and courageous tho,

I agree, it is a battle that defines what a Spartan strived to be.

Leonidas was a great king...And a great warrior....I even mentioned him in the "Greatest Leaders thread".


Although the Spartans were brave and fought till their death, they are not the ones people should be looking at. They were trained to do that. That was their way of life. The true heroes are the Thespians. It takes more courage to look death in the eye when you're not trained then to look death in the eye when your a warrior at heart.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Leonidas was a great king...And a great warrior....I even mentioned him in the "Greatest Leaders thread".


Although the Spartans were brave and fought till their death, they are not the ones people should be looking at. They were trained to do that. That was their way of life. The true heroes are the Thespians. It takes more courage to look death in the eye when you're not trained then to look death in the eye when your a warrior at heart.


While I will disagree and say that the Spartans were heroic, I will agress that the Thespians (and others who contributed) should be recognizd for not only their valour, but also for the courage that they mustered whereas it seemed to be a natural commodity among the Spartan ranks.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
While I will disagree and say that the Spartans were heroic, I will agress that the Thespians (and others who contributed) should be recognizd for not only their valour, but also for the courage that they mustered whereas it seemed to be a natural commodity among the Spartan ranks.

I said the Spartans had courage...But the Thespians opted to stay behind, and fight to the death. The Spartans knew it was a suicide mission before going into battle, and they were prepared for it. The Thespians however, stayed behind and fought with their fellow Greeks when they could have gone ahead.

For you to say that i accused the rest of the forum of being wussies, is a total lie. Secondly, i never stated that i completed a tour of duty. Read before you type please. And yes, i am a full-time student. As far you not wanting to engage in a discussion, there is an option called "ignore".


King Leonidas knew exactly what he was doing. He didnt go into battle thinking that he would be victorious. Keep in mind that the Spartans were kinda discourged by the fact that they werent able to contribute at Marathon and share in the glory of victory. They vowed to never let that happen again, under any circumstances.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
For you to say that i accused the rest of the forum of being wussies, is a total lie.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
Unlike you wussies who would rather shoot guns from a distance.

The general application of the words "you wussies" categorizes everyone (other than you) partaking of this discussion. Even if you were directing that comment to one person it is ridiculous because no one has made a statement that would expose such a characteristic of their personality.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
Secondly, i never stated that i completed a tour of duty. Read before you type please.

Or communicate in a more clear manner. Are you still in active service? Did you flunk out? Was it just a casdet program that you were involved with?

Originally posted by Philip_ll
And yes, i am a full-time student. As far you not wanting to engage in a discussion, there is an option called "ignore"./B]

To ignore you would not progress the discussion any further, by not behaving like a child you would further the discussion.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
King Leonidas knew exactly what he was doing. He didnt go into battle thinking that he would be victorious. Keep in mind that the Spartans were kinda discourged by the fact that they werent able to contribute at Marathon and share in the glory of victory. They vowed to never let that happen again, under any circumstances.

Excellent point.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You say that your educated, but you act very immature and show great signs of stupidity. You acuse the rest of the forum for being wussies for not wanting to die an early and most painful death after living a tortuos and hard life? That is immature and stupid. Second, you presuppose that we would rather shoot people from a distance, this would mean that we had any desire to kill at all. Grow up, you are making a fool out of yourself. I would much prefer an intelligent conversation about this subject.
Thank you for writing that.

Originally posted by Alliance
Thank you for writing that.

I'm surprised this thread didn't get the sh*t bumped out of it after 300 came out...

You know, now that everyone thinks they're an expert.

Originally posted by Funkadelic
Well, it was kinda dumb from at tactical point of view.
Leonidas was a dumbass, they were unprotected in the back.

That's not entirely true. There was a large force of Phoecians (correct me if I'm wrong on the nation) that were originally deployed to guard the pass that could be used to flank Leonidas and the other Greeks. However, the Phoecians misjudged what the Persians were using the pass for, and withdrew to protect their own cities thinking the Persian army was after their homeland, rather than just trying to flank Leonidas.

So he was unprotected, but it wasn't his fault. The sizable force he'd ordered to take up position there went AWOL :/

Also, the one thing that most people fail to grasp, is that the battle was not just Spartans vs Persians. It was 300 Spartans, and thousands of other Greek soldiers fighting at Thermopylae. In fact, when they were defeated on the third day, the 300 Spartans were fighting with a force of about 1000 Thespian and Theban soldiers alongside them. Meanwhile, an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 additional Greek soldiers from different city-states had been sent on the retreat, with the combined forces of the 300 Spartans and the 1000 Thespians and Thebans held off the Persians as long as possible.

Also, the naval battle was just as remarkable, as the Greek ships were horribly outnumbered. In the battle itself, it was estimated to be outnumbered as much as 7 to 1, and that was with tens of thousands of additional Persian ships still in port and not participating in the battle. And on both days, the Greek force won. After the land forces were defeated by the Persians on the third day, the navy retreated back to Athens and evactuated most of the city via the ships. Which meant Athens was burned by the Persians, but almost nobody was there (a few took shelter in the Parthenon, and were burned alive).

There were many other Greeks at Thermopylae...and many more than 300 Spartans.

Besides...Herotodus is the only soruce for this battle...and hes notably unreliable on many issues, especially on numbers. And there are no Persian sources, so its really hard to know.

Originally posted by Alliance
There were many other Greeks at Thermopylae...and many more than 300 Spartans.

It has already been observed by a few in this thread (including me) that the greek contingent was made up of more than just Spartans, but from where did you get the information that there was more than 300 Spartans?

I ask that because I have never heard of that being stated as a fact.

It's on Wikipedia. It also says in Gates of Fire that it wasn't just Spartans gaurding the pass.

Originally posted by Council#13
It's on Wikipedia.

Need another source than that, Wiki is not the most reliable source.


Originally posted by Council#13
It also says in Gates of Fire that it wasn't just Spartans gaurding the pass.

Great book, but don't go there for your knowledge of history. And I, among others, have already stated that the spartans weren't alone at the hot gates.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Need another source than that, Wiki is not the most reliable source.




Great book, but don't go there for your knowledge of history. And I, among others, have already stated that the spartans weren't alone at the hot gates.

Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source (there might be small bits missing), but it is edited often and revised by people who do know the stuff. It can give you a brief outline of things.

Well then.... no argument here with someone who's agreeing with me. dodgy

I think the confusion may have come from reading your post as saying there were more Spartans present than just the 300 :/

Is that what it looked like? If so, then I am sorry.

I also agree that Leonidas the LionLike knew exactly what he had gotten himself into. He knew that he, and the rest of his men, would never return to Sparta before they set off.

Keep in mind that Everyone knew that the War itself would be talked about for centuries to come. Sparta didnt participate at Marathon, and the fame and praise that other Greeks recieved came with Marathon made them feel a bit "left out". This would be a good opportinuty for them to create a "legacy" or "legend".

That's not exactly accurate. They didn't participate for glory or to gain fame, or a LOT more than 300 Spartans would be given to Leonidas to command. They only participated because Leonidas convinced them that after consulting with the oracle of Delphi, that it was his fate to save Sparta (but, as with every other prophesy, this one was incredibly vague and open to individual interpretation).

Despite their reluctance to participate in any sort of war that would be fought to defend Athens (as the two hated each other, and were frequently at war), a minimal force of 300 Spartans were given to Leonidas to command, in addition to the land forces that were mustered by various other Greek nations. Each of course, offering up considerably more than just 300 warriors apiece.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
That's not exactly accurate. They didn't participate for glory or to gain fame, or a LOT more than 300 Spartans would be given to Leonidas to command. They only participated because Leonidas convinced them that after consulting with the oracle of Delphi, that it was his fate to save Sparta (but, as with every other prophesy, this one was incredibly vague and open to individual interpretation).

Despite their reluctance to participate in any sort of war that would be fought to defend Athens (as the two hated each other, and were frequently at war), a minimal force of 300 Spartans were given to Leonidas to command, in addition to the land forces that were mustered by various other Greek nations. Each of course, offering up considerably more than just 300 warriors apiece.

You are absolutly correct, which also makes me correct. Becuase Leonidas still knew that the present situation could also represent "something else".

Originally posted by KharmaDog
It has already been observed by a few in this thread (including me) that the greek contingent was made up of more than just Spartans, but from where did you get the information that there was more than 300 Spartans?

I ask that because I have never heard of that being stated as a fact.

Well, I gues it depends on how you use the definition.

A Greek city state could not survive with all males serving a warrior class. Women cannot be blackmiths, potters, artists, farmers, and raise the family.

How did the Spartans solve this? They enslaved all the neighboring populations. Leonidas and his 300 did go (and yes, that was the actual size of the Royal bodygaurd, not a ploy), but they also brought along many, I forget the numbers, (maybe about 1000?) of thier enslaved neighbors to carry supplies, armor, etc. These are also considered Spartans and were part of the non-army Spartan contingency.

Of course these people are often neglected in secondary sources. I don't remeber if Herotodus (the only real souce for the Persian wars and a horrible military historian) directly mentions these support troops or if it is implied through Spartan military policy.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well, I gues it depends on how you use the definition.

A Greek city state could not survive with all males serving a warrior class. Women cannot be blackmiths, potters, artists, farmers, and raise the family.

How did the Spartans solve this? They enslaved all the neighboring populations. Leonidas and his 300 did go (and yes, that was the actual size of the Royal bodygaurd, not a ploy), but they also brought along many, I forget the numbers, (maybe about 1000?) of thier enslaved neighbors to carry supplies, armor, etc. These are also considered Spartans and were part of the non-army Spartan contingency.

I believe that you are talking about slaves and Helots (which were conquered messanians that were enslaved by the Spartan citizens in order that the Spartan population could focus on war).

Other classes than the Spartite citizenry that made up Sparta were:

Helots -already described

Perioikoi - translated loosely as "outdwellers" the Perioikoi were freemen of Sparta who were mostly farmers and merchants. They lacked full citizenship of the Sparta and though allowed to enter the city they were not allowed to live in Sparta, but dwelled in the communities around Sparta.

Neodamodes - Helots rewarded with freedmen status for their military service

Mothones (or mothakes) - Neither citizen nor helot but most likely children of Spartiate fathers and helot mothers.

These people were never considered Spartans by themselves, by the Spartans, or by any other greek. Even if allowed to fight in the Spartan army, they fought in separate units as Spartans could only be defended by the shields of other Spartans.

I don't believe it was the GREATEST or most interesting battle ever, however it is legendary.

I do have a huge contempt for the way Persians were potrayed in the movie. Of course 300 was not a historic movie (just like Troy had very little to do with Homer's Illiad), it non the less bothers me somewhat, because ti implies that Xerxes was attempting to enslave Greece under Persian tyranny.

The war was initially sparked by what was viewed by the Persians as an unprovoked attack against the empire, perpetrated by the Athenians.

Its interesting, but the interests are overinflated due to the movie.
Has anyone seen the animation Samurai Jack and the battle of Thermopylae?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

The war was initially sparked by what was viewed by the Persians as an unprovoked attack against the empire, perpetrated by the Athenians.

Its interesting, but the interests are overinflated due to the movie.
Has anyone seen the animation Samurai Jack and the battle of Thermopylae?

Damned Athenians... sparking another war with the Persians... disgust

Just kidding. No offense, anyone out there.

Nah, I haven't seen it. But judging by what I've seen from some Samurai Jack episodes, it'll be the same slash-hack-one-hit-kill things as in 300. No actual duels. ermm

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe it was the GREATEST or most interesting battle ever, however it is legendary.

I do have a huge contempt for the way Persians were potrayed in the movie. Of course 300 was not a historic movie (just like Troy had very little to do with Homer's Illiad), it non the less bothers me somewhat, because ti implies that Xerxes was attempting to enslave Greece under Persian tyranny.

The war was initially sparked by what was viewed by the Persians as an unprovoked attack against the empire, perpetrated by the Athenians.

Its interesting, but the interests are overinflated due to the movie.
Has anyone seen the animation Samurai Jack and the battle of Thermopylae?

Maybe if we had Persian sources on the war we could get a better idea of what went on. However, I didn't think there was that much wrong with the way persians were portrayed in the film.

Honestly, the "war" really started when The Persians conquered and overtaxed the Greek city states in Anatolia when all the mainland Greeks were deposing their tyrants.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
These people were never considered Spartans by themselves, by the Spartans, or by any other greek. Even if allowed to fight in the Spartan army, they fought in separate units as Spartans could only be defended by the shields of other Spartans.

Of course they weren't considered Spartans by the Spartans, but they served Sparta, not any other city state and were a critical pillar in both the Spartan Army and the city state itself.

Originally posted by Alliance
However, I didn't think there was that much wrong with the way persians were portrayed in the film.

That in itself is perversly ridiculous, not to mention ignorant. Persians, from simple apperances, (discarding the weird mutated part) to the behaviour, and especially the king Xerxes were potrayed so factually incorrect to the point of being downright offencive.

Persians were Aryans, not dark people and Iran to this day retains its name meaning "Land of Aryans".
We also see hint of Islamic extrimism in the movie when "Persian" (African) herald tells King Leonidas' wife to be quiet while the men are speaking.
Iran was invaded by Arabs and converted to Islam roughly 1,000 years after this tale is set. Ironically, as well, Persians fought the Arabs viciously, and amongst the first in battle were women. Something Spartans never allowed.


The Spartans are clearly a proxy for white western people, both in appearance and their jovial behavior.
The Persians are clearly a proxy for Middle Easterners.
Utterly humorless, totally sadistic and evil and perverse, the Persians are shown as people who don't value freedom or justice. (ironically!)

They are portrayed as a horde marching towards the Spartans to take away their freedom and impose horrible values upon them. King Xerxes is potrayed as incarnation of Satan (with the weird slow deep voice and over self glorification), very obviously designed to allow people to draw parallels with the evil threat of terrorism; of those who are coming to take our freedoms away.

It has been perfectly designed to consciously or subconsciously appeal to people to draw obvious parallels between Persians (Middle Easterners) vs. Spartans (Americans) during the time (now) when there is a very reallistic conflict between the two cultures, and the very real threat of an invasion of Iran by the US.

So, yeah. There are number of problems with the ways Persians are potrayed in the movie.
Disturbingly, the movie continues to be constantly refered to as being "reasonably accurate" by many who know no better. Cringing.

On a side point...as far as "mutations"...Frank Miller, maybe you've seen Sin City...presents characters who are morally corrupt as physically corrupt.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Persians were Aryans, not dark people and Iran to this day retains its name meaning "Land of Aryans".
We also see hint of Islamic extrimism in the movie when "Persian" (African) herald tells King Leonidas' wife to be quiet while the men are speaking. Iran was invaded by Arabs and converted to Islam roughly 1,000 years after this tale is set. Ironically, as well, Persians fought the Arabs viciously, and amongst the first in battle were women. Something Spartans never allowed.

Can't go in without bashing Muslims can ya. Most of the main Persians were Aryan in the move. Xerxes was played by a Latino...OMG THEY'RE PERVERTING HISTORY!!!!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The Spartans are clearly a proxy for white western people, both in appearance and their jovial behavior.

Really, because I was really unaware that the West identified with Greece and not Persia.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The Persians are clearly a proxy for Middle Easterners.
Utterly humorless, totally sadistic and evil and perverse, the Persians are shown as people who don't value freedom or justice. (ironically!).
Would you like to make other stupid statements about the west?

If you had actually READ sources, of which I have Herotodus, you would know that Herotodus and the Greeks culture than Persia and interpreted many Persian customs toward the kings as signs of slavery. Of course, these details are only for people that actually have an intellectual and historical understanding of Thermopylae and the sources from which we learn about it.

I was unaware that either Herotodus or Frank Miller were required to present modern PC versions of their art.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They are portrayed as a horde marching towards the Spartans to take away their freedom and impose horrible values upon them.
If you understood the Persian actions in Turkey and the Ionian revolts, the Greeks were very frightened, after just having thrown out their tyrants (some of which directly aided the Persians) that they would be reinstalled, just like in Ionia.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
King Xerxes is potrayed as incarnation of Satan (with the weird slow deep voice and over self glorification),
Or a god....which ironically he was. Can you actually view anything objectively or is anything from the US magically portraying everyone else as the devil?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
very obviously designed to allow people to draw parallels with the evil threat of terrorism; of those who are coming to take our freedoms away.
Ahh yes...the evil terrorists.

Here's a nice exercise for you. Reexamine the movie as Xerxes was George Bush and the Spartans were a group of citizens. Might be healthily for you.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It has been perfectly designed to consciously or subconsciously appeal to people to draw obvious parallels between Persians (Middle Easterners) vs. Spartans (Americans) during the time (now) when there is a very reallistic conflict between the two cultures, and the very real threat of an invasion of Iran by the US.

Then you should clearly love the anti-Muslim antics....oh thats right, its coming from the "US." I'm sorry that you forgot that this is a comic book and that not only is the account of the battle already one sided because Herotodus its only source (there are no Persian sources) and then Frank Miller added more messages about "democracy" etc, on top of that. If you are watching a movie for history, co watch the History Channel.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So, yeah. There are number of problems with the ways Persians are potrayed in the movie.
Disturbingly, the movie continues to be constantly refered to as being "reasonably accurate" by many who know no better. Cringing.

It is historically accurate, to the Greeks (ironically also the protagonists in the film) ... Imagine that! "reasonably accurate" does not mean "historically accurate" or "accurate"...distinctions that someone with an intellectual background can appreciate.

Honestly, you're too busy trying to bash the US to actually focus on what the movie as saying or to appreciate subtlety. You're too busy trying to mold the movie into an attack onto an Empire that both you and I like, but at the same time, keep prejudices of your own. You lack a grasp of both history and art, unable to interpret the sources and subjects of the history and the fears of the time they were written in, and the nature of art's purpose as a dramatization.

Originally posted by Alliance
On a side point...as far as "mutations"...Frank Miller, maybe you've seen Sin City...presents characters who are morally corrupt as physically corrupt.


I'm not sure whether or not you're bashing the Persians here or not. I don't think that you are. I think that what you're trying to say is that the movie, just like the cartoon book, is looking at the Persians through the Spartan point of view, and that is why the Persians look like that. Am I right?

I'm not bashing Persians. I think the Persians are one of the most interesting cultures in history.

I'm saying, from Herotodus'/the Greek perspective, which Miller was writing from, the Persians were morally corrupt. Therefore, Miller interprets the Greek interpretation into physical corruption, similar to the guys that run the oracle.

The movie is clearly taking the Spartans point of view, and the story is based entirely on Greek history.

It would be fascinating to hear the Persian side of the battle, and the War actually. However, we don't have those sources and even if we did, Miller has the artistic licence to choose any side he wants to.

Its easy to read xenophobia into the movie...because its there. The issue is that its the GREEKS xenophobia and the interpretation that is made clear in the historical sources. Miller stylistically presents the the Persians as the Spartan's see them.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm not bashing Persians. I think the Persians are one of the most interesting cultures in history.

I'm saying, from Herotodus'/the Greek perspective, which Miller was writing from, the Persians were morally corrupt. Therefore, Miller interprets the Greek interpretation into physical corruption, similar to the guys that run the oracle.

The movie is clearly taking the Spartans point of view, and the story is based entirely on Greek history.

It would be fascinating to hear the Persian side of the battle, and the War actually. However, we don't have those sources and even if we did, Miller has the artistic licence to choose any side he wants to.

Its easy to read xenophobia into the movie...because its there. The issue is that its the GREEKS xenophobia and the interpretation that is made clear in the historical sources. Miller stylistically presents the the Persians as the Spartan's see them.

Not only do they have an interesting culture, but they also have fine rugs.

Okay, so I was right in what I thought you were saying. So proud of myself.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe it was the GREATEST or most interesting battle ever, however it is legendary.

I do have a huge contempt for the way Persians were potrayed in the movie. Of course 300 was not a historic movie (just like Troy had very little to do with Homer's Illiad), it non the less bothers me somewhat, because ti implies that Xerxes was attempting to enslave Greece under Persian tyranny.

The war was initially sparked by what was viewed by the Persians as an unprovoked attack against the empire, perpetrated by the Athenians.

Its interesting, but the interests are overinflated due to the movie.
Has anyone seen the animation Samurai Jack and the battle of Thermopylae?

Good points.

...then read how they're crap.

What was Xerxes true intention? Was it to completely Conquer Greece? Or was it to just simply Punish the Greeks by sacking Athens?

Originally posted by Penelope
What was Xerxes true intention? Was it to completely Conquer Greece? Or was it to just simply Punish the Greeks by sacking Athens?

As I said, I don't think we have sources that say this.


The Persian army was certianly wandering around a lot to try to directly attack Athens. The Athenian fleet did engage the Persian fleet at Salamis. Remeber, both Athens and Eretria helped the Ionian Greeks revolt against the Persian conquerers. So you would imagine they would have gone for both cities. Neither city was directly attacked.

Originally posted by Alliance
As I said, I don't think we have sources that say this.


The Persian army was certianly wandering around a lot to try to directly attack Athens. The Athenian fleet did engage the Persian fleet at Salamis. Remeber, both Athens and Eretria helped the Ionian Greeks revolt against the Persian conquerers. So you would imagine they would have gone for both cities. Neither city was directly attacked.

Thats true, i thought that myself. But then i also remembered that the city of Athens itself, as well as many other major Greek cities, were built in strategic locations, the Persians thinking this, may have felt the need to find a different "tactic".

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Never has a battle been such the defining characteristic of a people (the Spartans).

Does this battle interest anyone else, and if so why?

Its a battle I wouldve loved to see. I wanna see it for the fact that literally sounds like something from fantasy/legend: 7,100 Greeks held back 250,000 Persians for 3 days. And 20,000 Persian troops were slaughtered in only 3 days time! Now thats just a level of carnage I just cant picture.

I was watching a documentary on the Battle of Thermopylae a little while ago, and the narrator said that by the second day, the ground infront of the Greek line had been turned into a muddy slush from all the spilled blood. That is a lot of blood!

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are 19 years old and already served in the military and are now going to college? That pretty good. I have never heard of someone completing their tour of duty and then getting into university within one year.

Generally you don't study specific history your first year of university either, mostly just survey courses.

I have studied much history myself, particularly anciant greek and ancient roman. I find that anyone who has also studied these subjects knows enough that they would never want to be a roman legionary or greek hoplite. It isn't a matter of cowardice, but simply a matter of common sense.

In all actuality, being a Roman Legionary is better than anything for 1500 years before and after.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
In all actuality, being a Roman Legionary is better than anything for 1500 years before and after.

Maybe but you still wouldn't want to be one... But you are right it's probably better then fighting during the start of the gunpowder age or in less organized army's... Still it would suck compared to how you can fight now.

No one will Ever be able to truely "imagine" how intense the fighting was, nor the scene itself. With the dead bodys laying all over the place, you had to fight while balancing on top of carcasses, people screaming, so much blood that you could easily slip, and fall, pouring off of the cliff. A scene from Hell.

without the battle at salamis (a miracle victory in itself) thermopylae wouldn't have meant anything. that's one area i wish would have been expounded on in the movie.

as for leonidas -- he has become heavily romanticized during the course of history. do some research on him and you'll find WIDELY dissenting opinions on both his ability as a king AND as a warrior. regardless, i find him a fascinating character, and there can be no doubt that the stand they made (though it is often believed that there were JUST 300 spartans . . . ) was a great one and something worth remembering.

.

300 ruled