Now, this is not made because of 300 (movie), but rather to discuss him, son of Darius. Xerxes was a tyrant, yes. But can anyone help me out with how he treated his soldiers after a loss?
Discuss things like:
Strategies used
Punishments
Personality
How he treated his army as a whole
Etc.
Never knew much about him except for some reading i did on him after watching the movie due to curiosity.
But in regards to your post (and the movie) I do remember Xerxes saying something about he would have his men perish so that he would see victory and King Leonidas said "And I'd die for mine." while they were on that beach.
So that meant he quite frankly didn't give a fcuk about his soldiers. So imagine what he did do to them when they failed him..Unimaginable stuff, i wager.
__________________ "The darkside, Sidious, is an illness no true Sith wishes to be cured of, my young apprentice .."
Actually, Quiero, Xerxes WAS a tyrant, it is just that pretty much everybody was to an extent in that period of time. The number one reasons Xerxes and Co are vilified is simple: They lost.
Not only against the Greek Alliance, but also against the Greco-Macedonian Empire of Alexander. And history is written by the victors, and this is nowhere more true than the case of Western Civilization VS the Persians.
I normally hate moral equivalence, but in some cases, it is justified. By most accounts, Xerxes was a capable ruler of Persia, and this is shown in even several Greek accounts, where he strengthened the already-impressive hand of Persia through improvements to the state's technology and procedures, and the quelling of Nationalist dissent in the Empire.
Yes, 300 did villify him. However, while indisputably inaccurate and made as an action movie above all, it is rather accurate in more than a few ways. Yes, it takes the "Xerxs wants to conquer teh world!!!" line. However, given the fact that, by the LOWER estimates that can be deemed realistic, had dispatched roughly 300,000 men in the Greek campaign, three times the size used for "normal" campaigns, and it strains the mind to think that it was "merely" a small expedition to torch Athens for torching Sardis with no expansion whatsoever.
In addition, it actually gets something that the mighty History Channel missed on their (rather excellent, I must add) documentary of the battle: there was indeed one Greek survivor of Thermopylae that would fight at Platea later. Technically, there were two, but one hanged himself in shame following the battle.
But, my point is that, YES Xerxes was a tyrant. The thing is that EVERYONE was a tyrant in that era (and yes, even Athenian democracy was very riged and state-dominated by several standards). He likely did have costly tastes, yes, but probably not as much as he is frequently portrayed to be.
Yes, 300 is inaccurate. For instance, the non-Spartan Greeks were ORDERED by Leonidas to fall back, not routed from the field, and there were in fact the Thespians, who were citizen soldiers, but refused to leave and did in fact die to a man at Thermopylae. The Greeks did indeed toss Persian diplomats down wells when relations soured, and those wet diplomats did indeed demand earth and water as tribute from subjugated peoples, and tried to do so to the Greeks.
However, Xerxes did not exactly go to war over this (indeed, some Persian and Greek sources indicated that, during his reign, Xerxes' father Darius equipped his diplomats with oil to rub on their bodies before being tossed into the well), and that happened over the Ionian revolt.
Yes, Xerxes is maligned, frequently unfairly, in the West. However, for many exaggerations, there is likely more than a few grains of truth.
The Persians were among the nicer empires in history. The Persians allowed all their subjects to keep their language, religion and culture as long as they paid a tax (a first). They also gave a gracious bonus to the family of every soldier who fought for them (another first). People tend to lump Xerxes with the likes of Stalin and Genghis Kahn just because he was a powerful monarch who led a cross-continent campaign.
Not only did 300 make him out to be a blood-thirsty murderer, they made him look like a cross-between a pharaoh and Dhalsim from Street Fighter who was eight feet tall.
This part interested me, I would like to know where you got this from, it is odd, I learned much about him and yet this never came up, that is quite a lot of bonuses he must have given out. A book name or link would be a nice accompaniment to this.
I have heard quite the contrary, from the book, "Lion at the Gates" or "Lion in the Gateway" by something Renault I believe it was. Where it states actually, this soldier was asking that his son be taken out of the army to look after the farm, this book was made well before 300...
"this shall be your punishment: he [soldiers’ son] shall die, and the two halves of his body shall be nailed to either side of the city gate when my army marches through it"
And nice proving of Xerxes being a tyrant, he definately was.
Number Two: What's your definition of a tyrant? Is a tyrant to you just someone who happens to be a powerful king who owns a lot of land, or are you actually saying that Xerxes is on the same level as Hitler?
The episode of Lost Worlds that covered Ancient Persia. Also some from Last Stand of the 300, but that show concentrated more on the battle than individuals.
In those days kings truly owned everything in their borders, but I wouldn't equate Xerxes with Stalin or Hitler.
That sucks, I must have missed that, I heard of the series though.
Yes, they did own everything in their border, but there is no way you can say he was more like a Winston Churchill, using him because many use him as a good leader.
now you see...that opinion really annoys me (not you personally but that belief) because it was based on the graphic novel almost exactly and that was written over 10 years ago...
which was the purpose of the films narrative...anyone with common sense knows that the persians didn't really have hideous fanged 8 feet tall monsters or fat disfigured men with the skin taken off their arms and blades bolted to their bones...
but the film was from the point of view of a spartan soldier telling other spartans what happened...its a visual metaphor...the spartans saw the persians as invading monsters and so were portrayed as monsters...its just the way stories among the spartans were told
Why are we discussing a movie that was made from a graphic novel who also made Sin City.
I can understand when people complain about a movie that tries to say its true but 300 clearly isnt the case. I guess the big ogres and dudes with blades for handswas actual history....
EDIT: Didnt notice Jaden said the exact same thing.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 19th, 2007 10:43 PM
