The Truth Behind '300' [Persian view]

The Battle of Thermopylae was of course written by the classical Greek author, Herodotus, who lived in the Persian city of Halicarnassus. His book, 'The Histories' became part of Western folklore only recently. It was not until about 1850 that America embraced Herodotus as the leading authority on Persian history.

Before 1850, however, the West had a very favorable impression of the Persian Empire. That's because the West's main source for Persian history was the Bible and the 'Cyropaedia,' written by another Greek author named Xenophon.

But the Cyropaedia glorified the monarchy of Cyrus The Great, and in the wake of two bloody revolutions fought by America and France to liberate themselves from their own monarchies, a major campaign began, around the mid 19th century, to promote democracy throughout the rest of Europe, and Herodotus was the perfect propaganda tool.

Herodotus was a democratic groupie and was quickly ushered in as the "Father Of History." Around 1850, his 'Battle Of Thermopylae' came to symbolize the West's struggle for democracy against the powerful forces of Persia's monarchy.

The story is easy to buy into: 300 brave Spartans saved Western democracy from 2.7 million evil Persians. But aside from the fanciful numbers which need decimal-point adjustments, this whimsical tale has far graver consequences than a mere biased account of history.

The 'Battle Of Thermopylae' has been the single most powerful wedge, which has divided East and West for over 2 millennia. In a time when East and West should be reconciling their differences, along comes the movie '300' to drive that wedge even deeper.

What is most disturbing about this movie is not that it lacks historical accuracy. It is not that Xerxes, the Grandson of Cyrus The Great and loving husband of Esther, is shown as an oversized drag queen. It is not even the outdated racist cliché of casting the Persians as Africans and the Spartans as white, blue-eyed 'Chippendale dancers,' when in reality the roles may well have been reversed.

What is so distressing about this movie is the realization of the tremendous power Hollywood wields in determining a people's identity. It is the same nightmare Native Americans endured during the whole 'cowboy-movie' genre.

But for those who are quick to dismiss '300' as a fleeting fantasy flick aimed at the insignificant, 17 to 24 year-old male video-gamer, think again. First there was Alexander, now '300,' next could well be the 'Battle Of Marathon,' another one of Herodotus's glowing accounts of ancient Persia.

Herodotus is accepted blindly by virtually all Western demographics. Even the New York Times is not immune. Here is how it described the Persians in its April 20, 2004 issue about the Battle Of Marathon:

"the defeat of a ruthless state (Persia) that had enslaved much of the known world from the Balkans to the Himalayas."

"the ancient Greeks defeated the Asian invaders (Persia) and saved Europe in what scholars call one of the first great victories of freedom over tyranny" - William J. Broad, (NY Times)

What stretches the limits of hypocrisy is that there isn't a single shred of archeological evidence that the Persians ever owned slaves. Yet we know that slavery was an integral cornerstone of Greek society. Aristotle's manifesto even sanctions it. Persia, which was once a haven for runaway slaves from Egypt, Greece, and later Rome, is today branded as a slave-hungry empire by cultures which were built on slavery!

What makes Herodotus's propaganda so difficult to refute is that it is peppered with facts. But in reality, it is a desperate diatribe. Perhaps his biggest ploy is his attempt to equate democracy with freedom. These two words are used virtually interchangeably throughout his book. And the West has swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker.

But America's founding fathers knew better. They were not swayed by Herodotus. They implemented many safeguards to protect freedom from the pitfalls that mired Athenian democracy. Even Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried."

Democracy may well be the best form of government. But what makes America great is not so much democracy as it is its Bill Of Rights. And this is exactly what made Persia Great. Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote.

In monarchic Persia, however, women enjoyed a level of gender equality unmatched even to this day, and slavery was not practiced. The fact is, Persia's monarchy was more free than Athens' democracy, all because of Persia's Bill Of Rights.

No one exemplifies Persia's freedom better than Herodotus himself. He describes Athens as the bastion of freedom, yet he chose to live in Persia. Xenophon, on the other hand, who actually lived in Athens, reminisces enviably about the monarchy of Cyrus The Great?

Herodotus claims Persia had enslaved most of the known world, yet we know Herodotus was not a slave. He traveled freely throughout the empire, openly criticizing it.

Why did Herodotus not live in Greece? Because Persia - the empire he is so quick to demonize - afforded him the very freedom to publish his scathing report of it. People want to live where their god-given rights are protected, regardless of whether its democratic or monarchic.

These god-given rights were first drafted into law by the founder of the Persian empire, Cyrus The Great. In fact, ancient Persia may well have served as the blue print for America's Bill Of Rights. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the architects of America's Constitution, were great admirers and owned several copies of Xenophon's Cyropaedia.

Today, no other country resembles ancient Persia as closely as does the United States. If any country should sympathize with, rather than celebrate, Persia's quagmire in Greece it is the United States. Few events in history mirror America's war on terror as closely as Persia's war on Greece.

The Greeks had been carrying out terrorist attacks on Persian holdings for years. They had attacked Persian cities, set fire to Persian temples, disrupted key trade routes, and pirated merchant ships crossing the Bosphorus. They incited rebellions inside Persian provinces, but perhaps most abhorrent to the Persians was the ease by which the Greeks broke their treaties and betrayed Persia's trust.

Rather than resort to violence, however, Persia tried to keep the Greeks in check by financially supporting Greek politicians who were "pro-Persian," much the same way America fights its proxy wars. But what finally triggered Persia's wrath was an act rarely mentioned in the West, though well documented, even by Herodotus (7:11).

In 498 BCE, Athens carried out a terrorist attack on Sardis, a major Persian city, which made 9/11 seem like child's play. Aristagoras, an Athenian, set fire to the "outlying parts" of Sardis trapping most of its population "in a ring of fire." (Herodotus 5:101)

More innocent civilians died at the hands of Aristagoras than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to kill. And just as most of the world supported America's retaliation against Al Qaeda, so did it rally in support of Persia's attack on Athens.

The Spartans were not even targets of Persia's attack, until they violated a universal protocol by killing a Persian messenger who Herodotus claims was asking for Sparta's submission but in reality was probably sent by Persia's king, Xerxes to convey the same message America sent to the entire world after 9/11: "you're either with us, or against us."

The Spartans were Greek Jihadists who lived only to die. They were by all accounts ruthless savages who murdered Greek slaves known as "Helots" just for sport, cultivated a culture of thievery and rape, and practiced infanticide, as the movie '300' rightly points out in its opening scenes. Sparta was not even democratic. It was an oligarchy at best. Despite knowing all this, the West continues to hail the Spartans as the saviors of Western democracy.

Yes, the Spartans died fighting a foreign invader. But so do countless terrorists, yet few would consider them "good guys." Those who do are then not much different from Westerners who cheer for the Spartans.

Persia was drawn into a protracted war against terror, much the same way the U.S. was. Cheering for the Spartans merely because they were underdogs, is like cheering for Osama bin Laden today.

History is no longer written by the victors, it is written by filmmakers. When will the children of Persia rise up and fight back using the same weapon Hollywood has used for decades to denigrate the legacy of their ancestors? When will we abandon our defensive posture and begin to write our own history again?

Perhaps the movie '300' was a necessary wake up call. But Persia bashing will never disappear on its own. It is the main villain in the Western saga. The only way it will change is through the power of film.

Alex Jovy's epic movie about Cyrus The Great could have done wonders for the Iranian image. Most minority groups in America understand the power of film and are quick to finance films that communicate their stories to the rest of the world. But Alex Jovy's movie today sits idle due lack of money. My documentary film about Cyrus The Great (www.spentaproductions.com) has languished for a mere want of $400,000.

Iranians are the most affluent and educated minority group in America. If we set our minds to it, we could literally change the world. This Norooz, I hope all Iranians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, resolve to finally unite in an effort to redeem the reputation of our ancestors.

Watch the history channel special on the Spartans.

I think then you will understand why the fascination.

Simply put... We had a dog in that fight.

If the Persian empire had been successful then....

Democracy and the western world as we know it today would not exist at all.

Democracy was a small seed then, but it would have been trampled if not for the peoples like the Spartans that pulled together with other peoples to resist the Persians.

Instead that seed was protected and allowed to germinate spawning western civlization as we know it today.

All this today as we know it, would very likely not exist.

The symbolism of the 300 inspires today.
And rightly so.

"Democracy may well be the best form of government. But what makes America great is not so much democracy as it is its Bill Of Rights."

First we have never lived in or had a Democracy. Our government is based, as are all the European Governments on the Republic of Rome. We live in a representative Republic, which does not give its power to the majority. That was tried by Athens and failed big time and I do not think it was ever tried again. The original Constitution gave the people one House as did ancient Rome and the state one house, the Senate which was changed with the 17th Amendment which should be repealed as it is helping to destroy the country, and the President as leader was a representative of the states and not the people, his duty is to protect and defend the Constitution and be the Commander in Chief.

Our individual freedom given us by the Bill Of Rights, in our Constitution, has been, as you said, the instrument that has allowed our country to prosper and become great. With a diversity of peoples, as was the same as Rome, we became the icon of freedom for the world. But that individual freedom is being eroded by the left who want to crown another King or whatever they call the dictator of the Communist government that the left wants to place upon our heads.

Thank goodness we have never had a Democracy or we would not be living in a free country today. The people did not want to fight the Civil War and would have voted against it. As a matter of fact it would be hard to find any war that the majority of the people would have voted for.

Figuring 30 years per generation, going back over 2800 years, I'm sure most of us have ancestors from both sides of any war. Sure, a larger percentage of them will come from one culture or another. Yes, there are a lot of spots on every family tree that include many fewer branches than there should be. I don't think anyone has over a million unique grandparents in their 20th generation. Generation 21 won't consist of 2 million unique individuals, but we're talking about 90 generations here. One slave dragged off, one woman raped by a marauder & part of your ancestor pool can easily come from an "exotic" culture.

Society advances when we learn from the past, everyone's past & if you go by the Hollywood version of any of it, you're not learning.

I saw an interview of one of the history consultants used to make the Movie "Alexander" & he talked about getting approached by someone who wanted to do a project on Hannibal versus Rome. At one point, someone involved in the project asked him if there was any way they could make it so that Hannibal won in the end, cuz they thought it would make for a better movie.

The people did not want to fight the Civil War and would have voted against it. As a matter of fact it would be hard to find any war that the majority of the people would have voted for.

Untrue. In the early days of the war neither the CSA nor USA had the governmental machinery that would have allowed them to force their peoples into the war against their will. Hundreds of thousands of of men quickly volunteered to fight. State governors on both sides scrambled to provide men and supplies. The war was wildly popular.

After three years of fighting, would the people have felt differently? Perhaps, but by that time both sides did have the governmental machinery to force people to participate.

Lincoln was re-elected, indicating that the people still supported the war on the Union side.

Other extremely popular American Wars included the War of 1812 (outside New England), the Spanish-American War, and the First and Second World Wars. Prior to Korea and Vietnam, the only war unpopular with large numbers of people was the Mexican War.

Even Vietnam had a majority of the people in favor of continuing the fight long after the elite had given up.

I'll go one better. The rumblings of empire began with Wilson's interventionism. Your post is absolutely true. It may not be in the mercantilistic version of Great Britain but history will see it as a version of empire.

The world is a better place because of the British Empire. It spread the values of the English-speaking peoples and their language around the world.

Actually the US adventure into empire started a few years before Wilson with the Spanish-American War (1898). After winning that war the US took control of the Spanish possessions of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines.

Great Britain passed the hegemeny of the empire to the US during WWII. But the Special Relationship between Britain and the US is still strong. May it have a long life.

My local Fox news affiliate has been including "300" quotes as part of its news updates (when they give the weekend box office winners). It's great to hear Gerard Butler screaming "Spartans, prepare for glory!" and "This is where we fight; this is where they die!"

I really must go see that film for the second time.

For those who enjoyed the graphic novel-anime aspects of "300", I highly recommend a similar project on Alexander the Great, "Reign the Conqueror" by Tokyo Pop, 13 episodes broadcast by the Cartoon Channel in 2003, available on amazon and ebay and possibly in your local video outlet.

"eah, yeah, yeah, I know. You all are going to insult me with insinuations that I am "disloyal to our country/troops" or are "un-American" but, hey, the truth hurts."

No, you're just ignorant of American history and it's relative place in relation to international and world history. Don't give yourself too much credit.

...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I think maybe the the Low Countries declaration, in our guys' minds, was a model for the exercise of respectful assertion of natural rights and liberty. I detect no plagiarism. Simply decent respect for the form. Two writers describing a giraffe will say it has a long neck. It's a self evident truth.

I saw 300.

IT IS A TOUR DE FORCE.

I also know the history of Thermopylae. Even went to the Leonidas monument.

There is NO WAY to be offended by this movie unless you are an illiterate delusional moron. It is a comic adaptation turned into a movie. That said, it is true to the BROAD facts. They nail the attitude of "duty, honor, and character". They nail the duplicitous politicians. They nail the battle carnage which demoralized the persians.

It is a the victory for the west which has the west light years ahead of arabic world and they are STILL fighting the same battle 2500 years ago. (meanwhile we landed on the moon and satelites beyond)

In 498 BCE, Athens carried out a terrorist attack on Sardis, a major Persian city, which made 9/11 seem like child's play.

Bull. This was a wartime act (the Ionian Revolt) carried out by a standing army against a Persian satrapy. The only way the actions of an army (and its allies) revolting against its conquerors can be considered "terrorism" is if you are purposefully distorting the meaning of the word...

"Our individual freedom given us by the Bill Of Rights, in our Constitution, has been, as you said, the instrument that has allowed our country to prosper and become great."

I'm surprised no one else has called you on this, but you're wrong. The Bill of Rights does not give us our rights, it merely enumerates them, and even then only the most basic of our rights. Our rights are God-given, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Several of the founding fathers thought that specifically enumerating them would limit them to what was written. Seems they may have been right. Others thought they must be enumerated to prevent arguments later as to what were really rights. Seems they may have been right, too.

The world is a better place because of the British Empire. It spread the values of the English-speaking peoples and their language around the world.

I know a few people personally from former British colonies. They would disagree with you. And considering your screenname, I'm suprised you would say that as most of the Framers (monarchists like Hamilton aside) would disagree with you. If it was so 'grand' we should have stayed with it eh?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.