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).
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.
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 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
[B]However, I didn't think there was that much wrong with the way persians were portrayed in the film.[B]
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!).
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.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
King Xerxes is potrayed as incarnation of Satan (with the weird slow deep voice and over self glorification),
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.
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.