facts that are wrong -
1. There are 6000 to 7000 soldiers defending the Hot Gates (including 300)
2. Xerxes was neither bald, clean shaved nor did he wear only an underwear.
3. Also Xerxes was not pierced.
4. ...
anyone?
"Friends are dangerous things" ~ John Cavil
4. Persians weren't evil. Just imperialistic invaders.
5. Greeks didn't use phalanx or testudo like formations at that time. Also, heavy infantry wasn't the only Greek, not even the only unit from Sparta that fought at Thermopylae.
6. Thermopylae, including the place where Greeks made their stand, wasn't a passage between two mountains, but the passage between the mountains and the sea. Also, it wasn't a deserted wasteland but a well known hot spring so to speak.
7. Full citizen Spartans, as other richer Greek soldiers, were heavy infantry - hoplites, men in bronze armor, which even in 480's BC form could cover up to...well, most of the body outside shield.But usually covered vital areas like torso,head nad legs. No naked strippers.
8. Spartan king would not walk to Thermopylae. Spartans were famous horse breeders, and even the name of elite 300 corps is hippeis - horsemen. He, same as most other more prominent Spartans, would use horse for transportation.
9. Cloaks in battle - no.
10. Greek traitor Ephialtes, wasn't a Spartan wannabe, but a local from Malis.
11. Spartan ephors weren't old evil perverts.
12. Everything concerning Persian army.
13. Everything concerning how the Spartan, or any other Greek state for that matter, functioned.
14. Spartan women, though enjoying larger freedom than the rest of the Greek, could never enjoy role Gorgo in the movie has.
15. No helots in Spartan contingent...they were the logistics, like and oil for a machine.
16. No Greeks on Persian side. Many Greeks fought against defending Greeks.
17. Lambda on Spartan shields came in use only in 418 BC, some 60 years after Thermopylae.
18. Names. There are more known names from the battle than the cast of this movie required, yet we have some strange ones - Dilios, Stelios, some other XXXos etc...
19. Opening scene is false fact. Children were never killed in Sparta no matter how deformed they were. Very sick ones would be left in sacred places for Gods to decide their faith. The only pit Spartans had, Kaiadas, which also had those bones at the bottom (excavated), were for criminals, POWs etc...grown men in any way.
20. Naked in the snow. Hm.No.Even if you come from ancient Sparta.
21. Army uniformity in 480 BC. No.
22. ''Come and get them'', a common misconception, old Victorian age euphemism. Molon Lave in ancient Greek was actually a swear word, in the context of inviting enemy to perform felacio on you. Like s.m.d. today!
23. King Leonidas wasn't the last or among the last Spartans to die at Thermopylae. What is more, he fell relatively early on the last day of battle, which resulted in spectacular fight for his body where Spartans fanatically claimed and reclaimed the body of their king (on of the most emotional and impressive feats in Thermopylae of course didn't make it to this cartoon).
24. No face to face contact with Leonidas and Xerxes.
25. Xerxes wasn't wounded at Thermopylae, he didn't come even close to be hit by any projectile.
26. Children weren't taken from homes in front of mothers that had to be restrained, like paedomazoma. They were rather sent to agoge, as kids are today sent to school (parents would see them often anyway), and parents would be happy (though would miss the kids certainly) that their kid would become full Spartan citizen, and thereby ensure his future and place in society.
I will have to see the movie, that is fast forward it more precisely to remind myself of more...I think movie made the battle a lot shorter than it was.
You haven't watched the movie before making claims about it's inaccuracies? That doesn't surprise me considering other posts of your I have read.
In any case, some of what you said is correct. "Cloaks in battle...no." is incorrect. Crimson red cloaks and burnished bronze shields were prescribed by Lycurgus. Leather underwear- not so much.
Since you didn't see the movie, let me help you out with other much more obvious issues:
1) No elephants the size of the Olyphonts from Lord of the Rings.
2) No rhinoceros' were decorated and sent rampaging into battle.
3) ninja Immortals? Nope. Immortals were Persian nobility and dressed as such. They were the cream of the crop in Persia. When one died, he was immediately replaced which is why they were "the immortals" and there was always 10,000 of them.
4) no mention of the other king of Sparta (name slips my mind) since it was law that there must be 2 kings.
You haven't watched the movie before making claims about it's inaccuracies? That doesn't surprise me considering other posts of your I have read.
Hey there little buddy, notice the first statement of the last paragraph- "I will have to see the movie". Your wording implies that you havent seen it. Some of the conclusions you have drawn could've easily been taken from the preview. In conclusion, you're still an arrogant prick who insists on talking out of his ass while claiming to be more enlightened than every human.
.
5. Greeks didn't use phalanx or testudo like formations at that time.
15. No helots in Spartan contingent...they were the logistics, like and oil for a machine.
18. Names. There are more known names from the battle than the cast of this movie required, yet we have some strange ones - Dilios, Stelios, some other XXXos etc...
22. ''Come and get them'', a common misconception, old Victorian age euphemism. Molon Lave in ancient Greek was actually a swear word, in the context of inviting enemy to perform felacio on you. Like s.m.d. today!
5. This may be something that I would not completely blame on the movie, since it only recently (past 30ish or so years) that even historians started questioning typical phalanx existence before Alexander. But it is true 480 is decades, if not dozen of them too early for such formation, and that typical phalanx formation appears only with huge military reforms and inventions of Philip II and Alexander.
15. I mean you can only see 300 guys with a flute player in 300, nobody else. In reality Spartan hoplite/knight relied heavily on his helot squires on campagin, before the battle, and possibly during the battle...not to mention a great number of other personell, religious, medical, logistical etc. Actual Spartan hoplites were, like medieval knights, very small % of the entire Lakedaimonian army, let alone the continget that left Sparta on any campagin.
18. Wasn't Michael Fassbender's character named Stelios? Regadrless, too many modern inspired names.
22. Haha...You aren't wrong with translation, but I wasn't talking about translation, but the meaning. Those aren't always the same.
Yes, the concept of almost suicidal struggle for the body of a fallen king is both epic and very emotional.
You are right in almost all of your points, except:
5. The phalanx formation WAS the way Greeks fought at that time. They fought wars this way among them. They won battles by pushing the opponent using their shield which formed a moving wall, each man protecting the man in their left. Macedonian phalanx worked in a similar way, though they used the very long spear called "sarissa" and smaller or no shields.
8. They were indeed named "hippeis" but they were not actually cavalrymen. They were regular infantry. Spartans developed horsemanship later, during the Peloponesean Wars (431-404 B.C.)
9. They wore their cloacks in battle, this was a feature that made them different from other Greek soldiers.
22. "Molon lave" means exactly this: "having come, take (them)". Not a swear word.
However, the film presents some facts that actually happened, or at least are mentioned by ancient historians, like the Well scene (but it wasn't Leonidas who did it) and the "We shall fight in the shade" quote (which again was said by a different person). Also the scene in which the Queen hand Leonidas his shield and the words she says were actually told, but from the mothers of soldiers.
Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy. And ideas are bulletproof.
Thank you for your effort, but I will have to disagree, and of course, present reasons why I do so. You are working with very anecdotal version of the story, which isn't very accurate itself...
I will try to answer you as concisely as I can.
8. They were indeed named "hippeis" but they were not actually cavalrymen. ...
9. They wore their cloacks in battle, this was a feature that made them different from other Greek soldiers.
22. "Molon lave" means exactly this: "having come, take (them)". Not a swear word.
5. The phalanx formation WAS the way Greeks fought at that time. They fought wars this way among them. They won battles by pushing the opponent using their shield which formed a moving wall, each man protecting the man in their left. Macedonian phalanx worked in a similar way, though they used the very long spear called "sarissa" and smaller or no shields.
Well scene (but it wasn't Leonidas who did it)
Also the scene in which the Queen hand Leonidas his shield and the words she says were actually told, but from the mothers of soldiers
"We shall fight in the shade" quote
I haven't read any works of the authors you mention, so maybe I'm wrong. However I read several other books and articles, also watched documentaries about the military of ancient Spartans and it wasn't even a decado ago. If new theories emerged during these last 10 years, I am incorrect then. Even in wikipedia the way they fought is still mentioned.
About the cloaks though, which were not cloacks actually, were called "chiton" (χιτών) and I think they wore them even during battle. They were of red color and gave them a distinct feature among other Greek hoplites. Again, if recent studies proved the opposite, I am wrong.
But about "Molon Lave", I have never heard that it was a swear word... I am Greek and I know what the exact words mean. And even in school they never told us it was used as a swear word. I would like to research it more though.
As for the mentioned scenes, of course they were inaccurate, but I give him (Frank Miller) credit for at least searching a little bit before writing the novel.
Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy. And ideas are bulletproof.
Χιτών, or κιτών in Doric Greek (used in Sparta) would rather be a short tunic, a man's ''shirt'', not a cloak. The only Spartan figurine shown wearing a cloak, the Cloaked or Draped warrior from the end of 6th BC, shows him covered in ἱμάτιον, impossible to fight in as we can all see.
It is of course quite reasonable to conclude χλαμύς, as well known ''military cloak'' was used as well, as elswhere in Greece, but for anyone who has ever been in a hoplite armor, even Gerard Butler in this movie (his own words), it is a huge imparement.
You had shield blazons for recognition, place in battlefield, group, especially since you would rarely be in the need for group recognition, as not many wars were clashes between allied forces...They would know who are they fighting full well.
As for Molon Labe, being Greek, I am sure you will encounter the ''alternative'' meaning, sooner or later. I know what those words mean, that isn't the issue, you are spot on of course...But the context is the issue. Not being Greek, I can only say what I have been told by those Greek archaeologists. I gave you the ''nuts'' example from English.
Nuts are originaly hard shelled fruits, as we all know. But, not in a way US paratrooper Gen. Harry W.O. Kinnard used them in his answer to the Nazi ultimatum during the Battle of the Bulge. In that case, nuts was a swear word.
Well if Leonidas made a gesture while saying these two words, pointing with his hand his genitalia, then I totally understand how this was a swear. We use something like this today. Example:
"Oh man, can I have your bike for a ride?"
(Pointing genitalia) "Take it" or "Come, take it".
Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy. And ideas are bulletproof.
That's what the Greeks whom I learned that from said exactly..The gesture and everything :)
How about the artwork on vases n such showing Hoplite dressed for battle. So the Greeks just had their soldiers carry 9ft long spears and a sword n shield just so they could fight at will? Of what use is the long spear w out the phallanx? Scholars are always trying to think up n write new *beep* just to get published.
shareOf what use is the long spear w out the phallanx? Scholars are always trying to think up n write new *beep* just to get published.
How about the artwork on vases n such showing Hoplite dressed for battle.
So the Greeks just had their soldiers carry 9ft long spears and a sword n shield just so they could fight at will?
Impressive knowledge sir. Touché.
share7. Heroadus says that the Persian spy watched the Spartans coming their hair and doing stretches naked. no way did they fight naked like the gladiators at time, but they were rumored to be naked while hyping themselves up for the battle
shareBasically the entire movie was wrong factually, so what is the point of listing things?
shareProbably to nitpick a film for not being entirely historically accurate even though the film makers never once claimed it would be historically accurate.
shareWell, first of all the thread was started as a fun game. So, why not?
We can all use some learning, since we all share the interest in this topic, and few have enough knowledge.
Second of all, I don't think people realize EVERY SINGLE thing is wrong. Most of what I had heard was along the line of stylistic approach to appearance of Greeks/Persians...everything. And in fact, that is only the part of the problem...
What is more, opening scene and what was supposed to be ''facts'' about Spartans is full of misinterpretations and very common misconceptions that you can find even in school books.
So, every historical movie, even though this can hardly be called a historical movie, should have fact vs fiction thread.
What I find interesting is all the movie critics that actually praised it for being so accurate. Not sure what they looked at to decide that but I'm guessing it was... nothing. They didn't even get the size of the Persian Army right. One million sounds impressive, but the real number from what I've read is 250-350 thousand.
Oh, and Vojkan, can you give me a source that says the phalanx wasn't in use at that time? From what I understand it was around and in use in Greece long before that time.
It IS a shocker...what is more shocking is that they couldn't even get right the ancient (obviously exaggerated number). Herodotus, our best and earliest source says 5 million, half of it being combatants.
So, it wasn't even 1mil, it was 2.5.
Oh, and Vojkan, can you give me a source that says the phalanx wasn't in use at that time? From what I understand it was around and in use in Greece long before that time.
From what I read the phallanx was used at marathon too. Saying it wasn't used at the hot gates makes no sense. It's exactly what they'd use, a solid limited mobility wall/line of soldiers. It is the reason they held for long as they did. They didn't just stand in a row and fight at will. Lol. History is a fable agreed upon.
shareIf you look at the size of the Persian empire, 2.5million doesn't seem at all impossible. Not to mention the fact that the empire ran up to the Greek borders pretty much so their supply lines would already be in place. Also, considering Xerxes father attempted to conquer Greece and failed, Xerxes probably wanted to make a show of force greater than his father. I'm not saying he had 2.5million soldiers; I'm saying it is possible if he could feed them.
Also, as far as the phalanx is concerned. Cambridge historians say that is how the Spartans fought- shield to shield. Vkjan is pushing the idea that this is incorrect on several boards. Basically, most historians say the shield to shield fighting style is accurate. Books such as The Spartans by Paul Cartledge and Persian Fire by Tom Holland are good reads, but can be somewhat boring in certain parts. Both described the Spartan fighting style as "a wall of crimson and burnished (shiny) bronze... The key to the phalanx is to create a solid wall of armor where a single sustained opening would cause the phalanx to fail". Obviously, if they weren't fighting shield to shield, as Vkjan claims, a gap would be no big deal.
Many historians follow the late 19th century idea without questioning or reinterpreting them.
Problem is there is no single clear evidence from ancient times (until father Alexander the Great who ancient say ''tightened the phalanx'') that mentions shield wall (unless spontaneous, because of terrain etc...) as a formation, nor a neat row and column formation. What is more, all evidence from archaic and classical Greece mention activities that are impossible in such tight formations like mixing missle and heavy troops and going in and out of the first ranks, fighting for wounded or dead compatriots, showing individual feats of strength and courage, fighting on ships as well (hoplites on ships had the same equipment), storming cities etc..
The ''tight phalanx'' theory is basically always using the same arguments:
- Hoplite revolution that made new warriors instantly get together in a phalanx (concept proven false by A.Snodgrass in The Hoplite reform and History)
- Idea of pusnihg or othismos to explain how those two blocks of men fought (challenged by so many, but nicely called ''wildest folly'' by Oxford prof. G.Cawkwell)
- (Mis)interpretation of late Classical and Hellenistic texts and attempt to project them into past (most notably explained and properly interpreted in P.Krentz The Nature of Hoplite Combat)
- (Mis)interpretation of archaic pottery figures (again most recently in Krentz)
- Modern analogies as arguments?! (using modern military logics and practice in ancient context is an absolute delight for the leading ''pushing/phalanx warfare''historian - V.D.Hanson)
And what those historians you mention never do is give an actually possible reconstruction of combat that isn't laughable nor do they ever adress the gaping holes of inconsistency with ancient record and evidence.
Btw, your P.Cartledge of Cambridge, actually a great historian on ancient Sparta, sometimes clings to these outdated ideas like infanticide in Sparta (recently prooven wrong by archeological finds), and institutionalized homosexuality in Sparta (proven wrong by original, ancient sources who openly claim otherwise).
Are you following Cartledge in it too?
So ,you quoting some historian saying ''a key to the phalanx is a solid wall'' doesn't make it a fact unless it was originally established on bases of ancient evidence not just repeated because some other historian said so, so on and so on (and it doesn't have a base in ancient evidence, since such evidence doesn't exist, as masterfully shown in Hans Wan Wees's Greek Warfare: Myth and Realities from 2004).
Yes, I am ''pushing'' it since this isn't a 19th century, and there is an article or a book that comes out every year that successfully destroys outdated interpretations of such important things as ancient warfare.
The last decade was revolutionary for an understanding of ancient warfare since historians finally decided not to be lazy and reinterpreted all original evidence available.
What it showed, old school historians were completely wrong. As archeology (in 2004) showed old school historians were wrong with Spartan infanticide. as archeology proved in 2012 old school historians were wrong whey they say Herodotus lied about lost Cambyses army in the desert.
Btw questioning and reinterpretation of evidence isn't that recent, it started in late 1960's.
You use the same old tired, verbose response to everything. Save everyone time by simply stating what is wrong followed by "my hand-picked historians are better than yours". Christ, I just rwas you arguing with a Greek person bout what Molon Lave means. You're not Greek, but that doesn't matter. Molon Lave is "come and get them". You said it isn't in the first reply saying that molon lave meant suck my dick. then in following posts you argue about it and say that while it is interpreted as "come and get them" it still means suck my dick. Inconsistent just like as you are in every single post.
Also, again, it was lycurgus who made it a law that a crimson "cape" was to be worn. If they wore one to battle (I'll have to look into it again), you can be damn sure they practiced with it on and it would become part of their fighting style. To think that isn't the case is absolutely stupid. If I've got to run a race while holding a bucket full of rocks or carrying a bag of sand on my shoulder (Spartan Race I did in October), the best way to get use to it is to practice. It's not a new concept, but maybe you can reinterpret it for us- can't wait!
If you hadn't challenged known facts with your own facts, mostly product of your feelings towards me and several movies, it would have saved us all much more time.
If you had ever put so much effort in updating your knowledge as you did opposing me, this would have been much more interesting debate.
There is a difference between your "known facts" and the actual facts. Again, your hand-picked historians are the only ones that are correct even though they aren't. You're so arrogant to believe that you're the sole decision maker of what is fact and what isn't, and you reinterpret everything from facts to fiction to fit your argument. So, no, I don't like you and your constant dickish behavior.
You're not always correct and Troy is still a terrible movie. Just because someone handmade 8,000 costumes doesn't make it a good movie just because you said it does.
If you ever managed to have a consistent argument, a discussion would be fun.if you were capable of learning or just discussing in general, it would actually be fun. You can do neither. Everyone else on this board and the troy board can discuss things just fine, but you feel the need to dive into a post ass first spamming the boards with "I'm right and everyone is wrong".
You're so arrogant
You should check your stuff before posting such stupidity.
There is a difference between your "known facts" and the actual facts. Again, your hand-picked historians are the only ones that are correct even though they aren't.
if you were capable of learning or just discussing in general, it would actually be fun. You can do neither. Everyone else on this board and the troy board can discuss things just fine
You are unbelievable.
You're a dick.
I think you don't like anything other than yourself and the movie Troy
Why don't you enlighten us...
You should check your stuff before posting such stupidity.
I just reinvented history myself.
Why? Because the almighty vk guy says so.
Blah blah blah blah.
I'm going to dumb this down so even the most arrogant of pricks (you) can understand
Damn dude, do you ever not write a condescending post? I have not seen a post of yours where you did not know more than the accumulative knowledge of every person to have existed throughout history.
Said the man whose first answer to another poster is...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should check your stuff before posting such stupidity
You are always welcome to give an argument why the dozen or so historians (hand picked wtf?!!) are wrong according to chrislwmn3, that doesn't include a personal insult since that doesn't qualify as an argument.
Said a guy whose idea of ''just fine'' discussion is just agreeing with any ridiculous thing he says, or else...>
That is what you get for trying to discuss someting with you. And no, I certainly don't know it all, I know what my job is to know. But you work with very modest knowledge, hardly elementary knowledge, and should not be that arrogant, and should definitely stop following me on every topic just to try to pick a fight.
And no, I certainly don't know it all, I know what my job is to know.
Did you post their post? No, you didn't. As usual, you pick out what you want to.
Myself, and others, have given you arguments
Telling someone they're wrong because only your sources are correct is not discussing
I'd hardly call that stalking you "just to try to pick a fight".
I gave you quotes straight from history books and you dismiss them because you aren't a fan of the source.
You say that Troy is fantastic (10 out of 10 according to you)
Yet, you criticize 300 because the director took creative liberties with the battle and made it more of a fantasy.
You also clearly missed the point that the majority of the battle was propaganda told by the only surviving Spartan in an effort to boost moral.
I only used your own words to show your hypocrisy.
You gave one argument, and when faced with a counter argument from someone far deeper into the subject than yourself, you ended a discussion, escaping into self-pity and the ''you are an arrogant know it all 3-4 historians prick'' terrain.
Not at all. I just tend to consider facts and rational examination of evidence superior to personal inventions, political agenda and chronic lack of source criticism.
There aren't only those few history books that you had read. It isn't a matter of being fan of the source, there are other, more recent, scholary works that
give arguments as to why those particular sources are obsolete, imprecise and full of misinterpretations and personal bias and agenda (the last one goes mostly to V.D.Hanson's work).
I say Troy is 10 because it is by far the most serious attempt at doing justice to both history and Homer in the last few centuries or so. And basically the only
ancient Greek themed movie that shows an actual research has been made.
Maybe it wouldn't be a 10 if there wasn't for all those Clashes of Titans, Herculeses, 300's...I welcome any future take on the story, I hope it will be better than Troy.
We presume there was a Trojan war, Homer gave a fantastic version of it, Petersen tried to show what Homer was inspired with in the first place, the real story, without a 10 year siege, golden armor, enormous spears and shields and gods. I applaud that.
We know there was a Persian war. Herodotus gave a real version of it, Miller reshaped it completely in some quasi metaphorical manner to make the story fit the modern political situation and Miller's perception of East/West antagonism...Zack Snyder made a slowmo version of it and made it even cheesier. I don't know what part of me hating it you have toruble with.
Moral would have never been boosted in such manner in ancient Greece, since it would go against both ethical and religious practice of the time and place.
It is how Allies boosted their moral against Nazi Germans, and vice versa. As a matter of fact, most of the relationship between East/West in 300 is purely modern invention. And that is why the movie is bad, and damaging, not just because its ridiculous appereance. There were in fact certain aspects of Persian empire, including military prowess, that were highly praised in Greece. As a fan of Greek history you should know that.
You just chose to focus on P. Cartledge because he had some crazy idea about 9/11
You have been completely close-minded throughout all discussions concerning history considering the information on events that happened over 2500 years ago do not constantly have a stream of new information as you (and your litter of authors) would suggest.
I hate Troy for the same reason you hate 300- because it did not follow source material.
You're going to tell me that everyone in Greece was excited about being vastly outnumbered?Hardly, not everyone needed a moral boost, but those that didn't share the same beliefs certainly would.
I also don't know how anyone could watch the movie and think it is a historical account of the battle.
It's a tall tale, told by Dilios to rally the men before their clash with the Persian army. A tale he would have told many, many times and each time it likely got taller and grander. It's propaganda, of course it's not going to be accurate, that's why the elite Persian's look like monsters, the traitor is an ugly hunchback, and Xerxes is impossibly tall; all flourishes of the storyteller.
shareYeah, everybody gets that. Problem is, demonizing an enemy and making it (Persians) into monsters is so 1941, and so not 480 BC Greece. Backward projection at its worst.
It is ridiculous to those who know something about the time period, and is misleading to those who don't.
Maybe someone can buy that kind of ''art''. Fortunately, many didn't.
If I recall herodotus said that once Leonidas decideD to stay and fight ( his name Is pronounceD wrong in the movie, it's Lee Odd e Nis, not Leo nigh dus) he brought the fight forward toward the Persians to open up the battle field and have more space for his men to fight. This would lead to the phallax not being utilized, but I don't understand what formation they used when fighting at the pass, they had to be tight toether, so a phalanx set up would be used. They didn't just stand side to side. That wouldn't stop thr advance of xerces
shareLets start with the slavery issue.
There was no slavery in Persia, it was outlawed.
Sparta on the other hand, was financed by slavery. The reason spartan warriors was so well trained was to quell potential slave uprisings.
Why did the conflict arise? Because the Greeks (rightfully, i think) declined to pay tax to the Persians.
About the numbers....it was more like 4.000 vs. 50.000-200.000, the Spartans where outnumbered badly, that much is true.
The immortals. They existed, they where the finest 10,000 soldiers in all of Persia. Every time one of them was killed, the next best soldier stepped up to become part of the immortals. Thus the name, always 10,000 of the best.
They where just elite soldiers however, not inhuman or anything.
The most glaring historical issue is the glorification of the Greeks and the vilification of the Persians.
If i had to pick a good guy here, i would claim it to be the Persians.
The Greek form of democracy that existed in Athens was nothing like that which exists in western countries today. Only wealthy land owners where allowed to vote, and only men where allowed to vote.
[deleted]
Please don't take this personally, since I've fought the initial urge to ridicule you for such an exceptional display of complete ignorance (on the subject that is).
What bothers me the most is how you, and you are by no means the only one, never take a time to think. Just for a minute.
For example, not even knowing any of Xenophon's quotes about actual laws forbidding any kind of physical/sexual contact between tutors (without quotes) and young Spartans in the Agoge (and he would know since he had first hand experience), do you really find this:
Also it was encouraged in the army as to create stronger bonds
The entire cast of the movie wasn't Greek
shareThere were no Greek monsters.
shareYeah isn't it obvious that historical accuracy is NOT what was intended here? It's not a period piece it's pointless to list off all the things that weren't true to real life that takes all the enjoyment out of a movie like this. It's about the style and action sequences and so forth learn the difference
shareNobody came to hear a history lesson in 300, but when you have title of a historical battle, historical dates, historical figures and names, groups and nations, it is inevitable to ask yourself 'how much of this is history'. Opening narration is certainly and intentionally based on history (although one from late antiquity and inaccurate one).
So you really can't sell 'they absolutely didn't care about history' because they (or he if we talk about source material) obviously did. They/he just did a lousy job.
[deleted]