Replies

While the reference to the Iraqi war is BS, I don't blame the Greeks for being upset. This was a real event with real people. It was a very heroic act by the Spartans, they knew they were cannon fodder and that their sole purpose was to hold the enemy long enough for the rest of the Greeks to prepare for battle. To make it into some fantasy type of movie or book, and there are some good books about this, is a desecretion of history IMO. As for persians, they were asshats at the time this happened, they were invading Greece simply for the conquest, they had the tails whipped by the Spartans and their allies, one million Persians against 300 Spartans and about 6000 assorted other Greeks. The Persians became so terrified of the Spartans that the mere sight of them later on caused the persians to run from the battle field.

I haven't seen it yet. Seems to me from what I've seen of the story that it is servicably accurate. The basic details of the situation, that a small force of Spartans on what was assumed to be a suicide mission effectively held the pass at Thermopylae for some few days, giving time for defenders of Athens to prepare to face the invading Persians.

Isn't that basically it? If that's the case, what's the criticism for historocity?

This was a real event with real people. It was a very heroic act by the Spartans, they knew they were cannon fodder and that their sole purpose was to hold the enemy long enough for the rest of the Greeks to prepare for battle.

Taking nothing away from Leonidas & the 300, but Sparta itself was engaging in a lot of half-measures & foot dragging. Persia considered Greece to be an unruly vassal that had to be disciplined. Look at a map. Sparta is way down south & there are narrow isthmuses that could be defended. So the question must have been, "What are the intentions of the Great King?" Will he stop at Athens or will he continue South?

My guess is that the Spartans wanted to play both sides against the middle. Essentially they sent a sacrificial force north to buy time for the Greeks. A force small enough as to not offend the Great King overmuch, but large enough to give a bloody nose & demonstrate 'resolve'. As it eventually turned out, the Greeks were collectively victorious, but what if they hadn't been?

I think the Spartans would have sought a deal with the Persians, and if that was not successful then by their previous limited actions they would have preserved the bulk of their forces for further resistance.

My 2 Cents.

But what people don't seem to get is that the movie IS NOT INTENDED AS A DOCUMENTARY. Victor Davis Hanson argues that the film corresponds to the traditions of classical Greek art and theater.

Your argument is like getting mad at Sophocles because the real Oedipus didn't have a chorus of people walking around behind him in real life.

To make it into some fantasy type of movie or book, and there are some good books about this, is a desecretion of history IMO.

So retelling the event in the style of exaggerated oral myths and legends, like they did back in Ancient Greece, is to desecrate the actual event?

Lighten up.