'300' Movie Slammed by Liberal Reviewer (Bush Reference)

And now I need to go find the DVD of Phantom of the Opera to tide me over. LOL

Heh, speaking of eye candy, have you seen Reign of Fire? Not only is Gerard Butler in it, but also Christian Bale and Matthew MacConaughey. Another good one with Gerard Butler is Timeline.

We just saw The Prestige over the weekend. That one has Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine, and it was very interesting!

Sparta was never a democracy --- not even close

I was thinking that this as well when that line was said in the movie. In terms of the way the movie presented the Spartans it would seem that they considered themselves free men -- at least as compared to the slave-soldiers of the Persians.

As far as the over all symbolism of the movie I took it to mean that the Spartans were the equivalent of our armed forces. While not really democratic themselves they provided the protective blanket that allowed democracy to survive (although I am not sure it would have been evident to them at the time).

I just got back from watching it about an hour ago. There were a couple of things I would have changed (mostly concerning the scene with the queen and the scumbag politician), but the actual combat sequences were outstanding.

The Spartans all knew that there was only the slightest chance that they would survive the battle, but they went willingly to defend their homes, their families, and their way of life.

Movie critic quote of the day:

"I feel comfortable enough in my masculinity to say that if I had to stand in the presence of these men for more than ten seconds, I’d spontaneously grow a pair of ovaries."

Peter Vonder Haar over at Film Threat.

As to why liberal and MSM critics hate the film? Simple.
The speech by the Queen to the Council had them squirming in their seats.

"I am here for all those voices that cannot be heard. Mothers, daughters, fathers, sons. Three hundred families that bleed for our rights, and the very principles this very room was built upon. We are at war, gentlemen. We must send the entire Spartan army to aid our king in the preservance of not just ourselves, but of our children. Send the army for the preservance of liberty, send it for justice, send it for law and order, send it for reason. But most importantly send our army for hope....."

They don't like to be reminded that we are at war with a foe that wants us too to knell and submit, and that only by force of arms by others better than themselves will the freedoms they enjoy be preserved.

Well done!

I can't say for sure what historical liberties might have been taken in the movie, because I haven't seen it yet (but I will). From what I've read here though, the basic gist of the historical battle seems to come through. It looks like a few nits could be picked, although I doubt any of these will interfere with my enjoyment of the movie:

1) There was no Greek nation at the time of the movie, just a bunch of city-states with shifting alliances. Sparta and Athens were the leaders of the two main alliances, and were rivals who joined together to fight the Persians.

2) Athens may have had ground troops at Thermopalae, but I don't remember reading about that. Even though they were more known as a sea power, they did beat the Persians on the ground at the Battle of Marathon, 10 years prior to the battle of Thermopylae. Even if they weren't at Thermopylae, they shed a lot of blood fighting the Persians elsewhere.

3)Someone else has already pointed out on this thread that more Thespians (AKA Thebans) died at Thermopylae than Spartans. When Leonidas dismissed all the troops except 300 of his Spartans, the commander of the soldiers from Thebes also stayed behind with 700 of his men. His men unfortunately evidently weren't all as honorable as their leader, and many of them them ended up deserting Leonidas. In the end, I believe it really was mostly just the 300 Spartans.

4) Athens was the big democracy back then, not Sparta, and the Athenians fostered democracy in their allied city states. I'm not sure if you could call what they had in Sparta a democracy at all. The soldier-citizens of Sparta got to vote on a lot of things and had it pretty good, but 75%-80% of the population were flat out slaves (helots). 50 years after Thermopylae, Sparta and Thebes (and Corinth and a lot of of other city states)got together and put the kibosh on real democracy at Athens big time (Peloponnesian War).

But really, so what? This is a movie and I expect to really enjoy it. When I want to learn more commonly accepted history, I read a history book.

".......And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

Or, to avoid feeling accursed, author film critiques that demonize honor,duty, loyality and sacrifice.

300 is submerged in style over substance.

It is great to see the influence Rush has had on our society, especially when it's reflected by a lefty.

It was the Spartans stand at Thermopylae that saved Athens and democracy.

Could be, but the Spartans didn't give a damn about either. IIRC, they were fighting for their own reasons.

Anti-Bush references pop up in the darndest places...even the sports pages.

I'll withhold judgment until I see it, though.

I think you might still enjoy it. I am bit of a history buff myself and was ready to not enjoy it...but I did.

I think if you go in and realize that the movie is highly stylized (like "Sin City" - if you happened to see that) and doesn't pretend to make everything look "real" you will enjoy it more. It was as if they were telling an impression of the "legend" of Leonidas and his 300 as opposed to potraying the actual event.

Saw it this weekend with the Mrs. We both loved it. Of course, I had to wear the hat to the theatre:

Thanks for your response.

1) There was no Greek nation at the time of the movie, just a bunch of city-states with shifting alliances.

One of the things I've read about this is that while there was no particular confederation of the city-states before Thermopylae, it is said that this event was crucial to the ultimate formation of Greece as a nation instead of a loose association of city-states. This suggests Thermopylae as a central event leading to the development of western civilization writ large. Interesting, that.

2) Athens may have had ground troops at Thermopalae,

I said that, but I misspoke. I was thinking of the Thespians but wrote Athenians in error. nevermind...

"4) Athens was the big democracy back then, not Sparta, and the Athenians fostered democracy in their allied city states. I'm not sure if you could call what they had in Sparta a democracy at all. The soldier-citizens of Sparta got to vote on a lot of things and had it pretty good, but 75%-80% of the population were flat out slaves (helots). 50 years after Thermopylae, Sparta and Thebes (and Corinth and a lot of of other city states)got together and put the kibosh on real democracy at Athens big time (Peloponnesian War). "

Falling for the Athenian propaganda I see.

Did you know:

Sparta was the first known functioning democracy—roughly 150 years before the introduction of democracy in Athens.

Sparta had first known constitution that vested the supreme power in the hands of an Assembly composed of all citizens.

The key values that dominated Spartan society were Liberty, Equality and Fraternity

Only Sparta introduced land reform, dividing property equally among its citizens.

Only in Sparta did girls receive public education—in other city-states, most women were completely illiterate.

Only in Sparta were girls allowed to engage in sports.

Only in Sparta did women possess economic power and influence.

Only in Sparta did slaves (helots) have rights.

Democracy

Ancient historians had no convenient system for marking the dates of events—which makes it even more difficult for modern historians to try to apply dates to the events described. We therefore have no way of dating the Spartan Revolution with certainty. Ancient sources agree, however, that following a period of "unrest"—possibly even a rebellion of some kind—new, revolutionary laws were introduced. These laws were submitted to the Oracle at Delphi, which advised the Spartans that they would live better under these laws than any others. Thereafter, this radical new form of government was copied and modified in other Greek city-states.

As is typical of early, innovative institutions, later innovations in the other cities made the Spartan democracy appear "conservative" as time went by. Thus, Sparta never entirely freed itself of its kings. Two jointly-ruling hereditary kings from different families held restricted and mostly ceremonial functions throughout Sparta's history as an independent state—very much as the English monarchy functions today.

Another notoriously "conservative" aspect of the Spartan constitution was the "Council of Elders." Although this body was elected, as were similar institutions in other cities, the Elders had to be over 60 years of age and were elected for life. In consequence, they were not subject to the most effective of democratic censures: re-election.

In addition to the Kings and Council, however, Sparta had the distinctly democratic institutions of "Ephors" and the Assembly itself.

The "Ephors" were five officials or executives responsible for carrying out the day-to-day running of the city, including the receiving and sending of ambassadors. They were elected for only one year and could not be re-elected.

The Assembly, which is believed to have met on a monthly basis, was composed of all adult males. Although it could only vote on the bills presented by the Council/Ephors, the common misconception that the Assembly could only vote "yes" or "no" is belied by accounts of lively (not to say rowdy) debates. The Spartan Assembly was powerful and was even known to have exiled kings. Nevertheless, the Spartan Assembly never attained the absolute tyranny of the Athenian Assembly—a point praised widely by ancient writers, who saw in Sparta's more balanced (two-chambered) democracy a means of controlling the fickleness of the mob.

The most radical feature of Sparta's constitution, however, was the introduction of land reform. Although this event, too, is lost in the mists of undated ancient history, all ancient historians agree that at some time (probably in the late 8th or early 7th century BC, by our reckoning) Spartan society underwent a severe crisis. A rebellion or civil war so threatened the continued existence of the city-state that the citizens were prepared to accept extensive reforms, effectively a new Constitution. This Constitution, reputedly developed by Lycurgus, included a redistribution of the land. The land was divided into equal plots of sufficient size to support a man and his family, and each citizen was given a plot, or estate, a "kleros." Henceforth, the Spartans called themselves "Equals"—because they were equal not only in rights but also in wealth.

There is no question that with time this equality of wealth was eroded. Whether by inheritance, marriage, or the acquisition of new lands through conquest after the land reform, by the second half of the 5th century BC wealth had become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer families. Spartan citizens were no longer equally wealthy. Yet even so, the myth of equality remained powerful, and laws prohibited the hoarding of wealth, even the ownership of gold and silver coins (possibly all gold and silver). The ostentatious display of wealth was frowned upon socially. This set Sparta apart from the other Greek city-states, where the landed aristocracy, wealthy merchants and manufacturers engaged in extravagant displays of wealth and competed for the honour of donating the most generous gifts to their respective cities. Spartan dress, tastes, and style were notoriously modest. On the negative side, this custom reduced the magnificence of Spartan buildings and hence the archaeological heritage that could be passed on. On the positive side, the apparent disparity of wealth among citizens was greatly reduced. Whereas in other cities, citizens could be reduced to beggary and it was not uncommon for the slaves of wealthy men to enjoy more material well-being than poor citizens, every Spartan citizen had at least a small "kleros" to support himself and his family.

Economy:

To understand the Spartan economy, it is necessary to go back to the origins of the city. The Spartan citizens were, in fact, the descendants of 9th century BC Doric invaders to the Peloponnese. Rather than exterminating or enslaving the native population, the Spartans had—for whatever reason—managed to come to a unique arrangement with the conquered inhabitants. These continued to live and work in Laconia, enjoying distinctly different status and privileges from the Spartan citizens, or Spartiates, but far better than that of chattel slaves. These peoples were divided into two broad categories: the residents of the pre-Doric towns, who enjoyed a free but dependent status as "Perioikoi," and the peasants, who enjoyed a far more restricted status as "helots."

The Perioikoi had their own laws and customs, could pursue any profession or trade they liked, and had their own local officials and dignitaries. They were restricted only with regard to foreign and military policy, being subject to the government of the entire territory or city-state, Lacedaemon, which was run by Spartans. They were also required to provide troops for the Lacedaemonian army and support Sparta in time of war. Because the Spartan citizens were themselves prohibited by their laws from engaging in any profession except that of arms, the Perioikoi were the professionals, merchants, and craftsmen of Lacedaemon. They were not restricted by the Spartan laws and traditions to an austere lifestyle nor were they prohibited from hoarding gold and silver. In short, they had a monopoly on all lucrative businesses and professions. The "helots," or rural population, had a significantly worse status. These "helots" were tied to the land and were officially the property of the Lacedaemonian government. The Spartan helots—if compared to slaves in other Greek city-states—were very privileged indeed. Helots were not chattels. Helots could not be bought and sold by their "masters." They could marry who and when they willed. They even legally had parents and children. (In other Greek states, a slave was not allowed to marry, and offspring of sexual intercourse, regardless of the partner, "belonged" to the owner of the slave; parenthood was not recognized.) They could keep half the produce of their labor—and presumably sell it on the market for a profit (in other Greek city-states slaves surrendered everything they produced for their masters). They could accumulate wealth and spend it as they pleased. Many acquired not inconsiderable fortunes, and when given the opportunity to purchase their freedom from the government, many could afford to do so.

Education:

Spartanpublic education was the subject of extensive—and controversial—discussion even in the ancient world. No other contemporary state provided for, and in fact required, its citizens to go through the same "upbringing" or agoge. Unfortunately, because we must rely on descriptions of the system provided by outsiders, we have a kind of "mirror image" of the Spartan agoge. Observers reported that which struck them as unique or different from education in their own cities, rather than reporting systematically about Sparta's system of education. Equally distorting for the modern historian interested in archaic Sparta is the fact that all our existing ancient sources in fact describe a Spartan educational system that was reinstituted in the Hellenistic period after what may have been nearly a century in abeyance. It is often very difficult to distinguish "traditional" from "innovative" features of the described schooling.

Nevertheless, a number of characteristics of this education can be surmised.

First, it is important to note that collective education was considered so important that the agoge was not only a compulsory prerequisite for citizenship, but all adult males bore an equal responsibility for rearing good citizens. This was manifest in the laws that required boys in school to address all older men as "father," and gave any citizen the right to discipline a boy or youth under age. All citizens were directly involved in the education of the next generation in another respect as well: at the age of 20, before being awarded citizenship at 21 and serving in the army, young Spartans acted as instructors in the agoge for their younger classmates. Last but not least, despite the emphasis on public education, it would be absurd to think that parents did not take a very personal and intense interest in the education of their own offspring. Numerous quotes demonstrate the pride and sense of personal accomplishment that Spartan mothers felt with regard to their sons. Human nature, which has changed very little in 3000 years, suggests that fathers would not have been less proud.

Second, all sources agree that the principal goal of public education was to raise good future citizens. One aspect of this goal is obvious: future citizens were by definition professional soldiers, and so the educational system very clearly sought to create physically hardened men, capable of enduring hardship, pain and deprivation. The emphasis of the education was thus on athletic activities and military skills. Many anecdotes are told about the hardships the boys endured, and that they were allowed to steal. Despite a common misconception found even in ancient commentary, careful research indicates that the boys in the agoge were not encouraged to steal throughout their training—only during a specified segment. Most likely, this was a form of "survival training" intended to teach the youths how to survive on their own so that they would be able, for example, to operate behind enemy lines. Throughout their public education, they were evidently subjected to harsh discipline, which apparently included flogging—a punishment reserved almost exclusively for slaves in other Greek cities.

Less obvious and often overlooked by modern observers is the fact that the goal of producing good future citizens was not fulfilled by producing good soldiers alone. Ideal future citizens were democratic, self-sufficient and independent. Thus, despite the harsh discipline, Sparta did not seek to break her youth or make them subservient. Instead, they were taught democracy from the very start of their schooling—not in theory but in practice. On starting school at the age of seven, the boys were organized into units, teams, or "herds"—and elected their own leaders. Some sources suggest that they also "elected" their instructors from among the eligible 20-year-olds.

Furthermore, although the emphasis of Spartan education may have been on physical education, this training could not have been exclusive. The fact that no contemporary source mentions that the boys learned to read and write has been taken mistakenly to mean they did not. This is absurd. There is abundant evidence that the Spartans were every bit as well-educated as other Greeks. Anything less would have put Sparta at a disadvantage in foreign affairs, and would have made it inconceivable that Spartans were repeatedly requested to assume positions of leadership. Furthermore, the percentage of Spartans who were literate clearly exceeded that of any other city-state because—in contrast to the other cities—Spartan women were literate. The fact that learning to read and write it is not mentioned in the descriptions of the Spartan agoge is a function of the fact that all Greeks learned these skills while in school, and so this was not deemed worthy of comment. Worthy of comment, however, was the excellence of Spartan education in music, poetry and dance. The boys and youths of the agoge were famed for their proficiency at all three skills. It must be assumed that these activities were nearly as important as physical education.

Another area in which Spartans excelled was in brevity and clarity of expression. Rhetoric in ancient Greece was highly valued. Men are known to have paid large sums to improve their speaking skills, and in democratic Athens power rested with those men who could sway the assembly with their rhetoric. This skill with words alone accounts for Pericles' or Alcibiades' power in their time. If Athenians collected Spartan sayings and "laconic" forms of expression were admired, this is clear testimony of the quality of Spartan education in this regard.

Lastly, the manners of Spartan youth were universally admired in the ancient world, and comparisons were often drawn to the rude, impudent youth of other cities. One anecdote describes an old man looking for a seat at the Olympic games. As he stumbled about from one section to the other, the spectators laughed at him. But when he came to the Spartan section, all the Spartans stood to offer him their places—and there was universal applause. The moral drawn by the commentator was: you see, all Greeks know how we ought to behave, but only the Spartans act on it.

It would nevertheless be imprudent to conclude that Spartan youth was as virtuous as its reputation. As the stories of theft suggest, it is far more likely that Spartan youth learned to appear obedient and respectful in public, and also learned just how to do whatever it liked when it was "out of sight."

The Rights of Women:

The freedom and greater respect for Spartan women began at birth with laws that required female infants and children to be given the same care and food as their brothers—in contrast to other Greek cities, where girls were frequently given less and lower-quality food. Like their brothers, Spartan girls were expected or required to attend the public school, although for a shorter period of time than the boys. At school they were allowed and encouraged to engage in sports. (And it was, incidentally, a Spartan who became the first woman to ever have an Olympic victory—by entering a chariot at the races.)

When girls reached sexual maturity they were not rushed—as were their sisters throughout the rest of the contemporary world—into marriage and childbed. On the contrary, the Spartan laws explicitly advocated marrying girls only after they had reached an age to "enjoy sex." The reasoning was simple: for young girls not yet psychologically ready for sexual intimacy, sex was an "act of violence." Nor were Spartan girls married to much older men as was usual in other Greek cities. It is estimated that most Spartan wives were only 4 to 5 years younger than their husbands.

With their husbands confined to barracks and on active service until the age of 31 and frequently called up for campaigns or engaged in political and civic duties thereafter, it was left to Sparta's matrons to run the estates. These meant that Spartan wives controlled the family wealth—and in effect the entire Spartan agricultural economy. A Spartan citizen was dependent on his wife's efficiency to pay his "dues" to his dining club. This economic power is in particularly sharp contrast to cities such as Athens, where it was illegal for a woman to control more money than she needed to buy a bushel of grain. What was more, Spartan women could inherit and so transfer wealth. Athenian women, by contrast, were never heiresses; all property passed to the next male kinsman, who might at most be required to marry the heiress in order to claim the inheritance. Economic power has always had the concomitant effect of increasing status. This is clearly evidenced by contemporary descriptions of Spartan women. They were "notorious" for having opinions ("even on political matters!") and—what was clearly worse from the perspective of other Greek men—"their husbands listened to them." Aristotle claimed that Spartan men were "ruled by their wives"—and cited the freedom of Spartan women as one of two reasons why the Spartan Constitution was reprehensible.

In a frequently quoted incident, the wife of King Leonidas was allegedly asked why Spartan women were the only women in Greece who "ruled" their husbands. Gorgo replied, "because we are the only women who give birth to men." In other words, only men with the self-confidence to accept women as equals were men at all.

Spartan women did not have a voice in the Assembly, nor were they required to spend 40 years in the army.

Last but not least, it is a frequent misconception that Spartan society was also blatantly homosexual. Curiously, no contemporary source and no archaeological evidence supports this widespread assumption. The best ancient source on Sparta, Xenophon, explicitly denies the already common rumors about widespread pederasty. Aristotle noted that the power of women in Sparta was typical of all militaristic and warlike societies without a strong emphasis on male homosexuality—arguing that in Sparta this "positive" moderating factor on the role of women in society was absent. There is no Spartan/Laconian pottery with explicitly homosexual motifs—as there is from Athens and Corinth and other cities. The first recorded heterosexual love poem was written by a Spartan poet for Spartan maidens. The very fact that Spartan men tended to marry young by ancient Greek standards (in their early to mid-twenties) suggests they had less time for the homosexual love affairs that characterized early manhood in the rest of Greece. Certainly the state considered bachelorhood a disgrace, and a citizen who did not marry and produce future citizens enjoyed less status than a man who had fathered children. In no other ancient Greek city were women so well integrated into society. All this speaks against a society in which homosexuality was exceptionally common.

SPARTA RULES!

If you want to know more:

http://elysiumgates.com/~helena/index.html

The persians built a bridge of ships roped together across the straits of Maramar to avoid having to round the Black sea. It was one the greatest feats of engineering for the period. It saved the army a 2 year march.

The battle of thermopoly was larger than the story you might get in a general history class. It also was a great navel battle, that prevented xerzies armys from completeing a navel flanking manuveur.

Had the warriors of the city state that was supposed hold the rear pass not fled they may have been able to hold the termopoly pass indefinatly.

Another victim of Athenian propaganda. Sparta was the FIRST democracy. See post #114 for more.

Are you single?...(sigh)...

the older movie was directed in a 'dignified' pace.
I haven't seen the new version, but I think I know what you're referring to.
Today's TV shows, movies and especially commercials, trailers, etc., present so many scenes in such a short time, watching the screen causes epileptic seizures.

Thanks for the link!

Well, I do have to admit most of what I learned years ago about Sparta is based on the writings of Thucydides, who was from - wait for it - Athens.

So even though I still think what they had in Athens in the 5th century B.C. is closer to what we would today call democracy than what they had in Sparta, I concede that my point of view is based on Athenian writings. When Thucydides says words to the effect that "most helot slaves would gladly eat their Spartan masters raw", I don't have any quotes from a Spartan writer to balance that out.

In spite of that, if I had my choice in ancestors, I would actually rather be able to trace back to Sparta than to Athens. They said what they meant, and lived by their word, which was as rare then as it is now.