Besides, the purpose of the movie was to show the Iliad as a believable historical event (at least more believable than the original Iliad), which is why they removed all the bits with gods intervening and saving their favorite heros - a large part of the original Iliad. Contrast this with the highly stylized portrayal of the Spartans in 300.50 Myrmidons stormed a beachhead fully occupied by the Trojan Army. And against those odds they win. No bottlenecks there, just open beach.
Was 300's portrayal of the battle heavily stylized? Yes. But it was a real event. The Spartans actually existed and actually held off a Persian army that vastly outnumbered them for 3 full days. And the Spartan army then led the Greeks to defeat another Persian army that heavily outnumbered them in the Battle of Platea. It wasn't a bottleneck situation there and the Spartans still led the Greeks to victory.
Read history on Sparta, the Pelopponesian War, Greek culture (you'll get a kick out of erastês and erômenos) and Greek Mythology and you'll find that I actually tried to use historical backing for my arguments. I tried to base my arguments on these facts despite the fact that the Myrmidons are almost wholly legends. That being said, I know that we're basing our arguments only on the movies but knowing a little history never hurt anyone. Also, as much as I tried to align my arguments with real history, since we are basing the bulk of our evidence on the movies (as the real Battle of Thermopylae and the real Trojan War is very different from the stylized movies) I realize that my arguments are, at most, speculation. So is everyone else's. The main difference I see between my speculation and the speculation of the other posts is that I tried to base my speculation on facts and evidence. I did not merely say that the Myrmidons would beat the crap out of the Spartans. I cited history and how the Iliad itself said the Myrmidons were better.
Yes but you completely ignore relevant facts such as centuries of time difference. You don't bother to actual look at the dates when things occurred. The simple fact that the events portrayed in the Iliad and the movie 300 took place many centuries apart is a huge difference. The Spartans would have had the advantage of learning from all the great warrior cultures of their Greek ancestors when developing their own fighting techniques. Plus they would have had many centuries to develop better weaponry than those the Myrmidon's used. They probably looked roughly the same but any developments that improved the weapons, armor and shields would have been used by the Spartans and unavailable to the Myrmidons.
In conclusion, if you want to talk about history then its important to actually read and understand history. Casually defecating facts you stumble across out of context doesn't make your argument stronger.