How is movie 300 different to history?

Answer 1

Persian King Xerxes was not the barbaric king as depicted. He was a big student of art and culture and was in danger of being overthrown by his courts for being too soft as his father had been a great warrior. In the end, to write his own legacy to satisfy his courts, he reluntantly assemble the army to attack Europe.

Persian Army were made up of peasants and poor hunters. Unlike the Greeks. One of the reason why Persians were "butchered" by the 300 was because Greeks were very well armoured while the persians only had short spear, short sabre and wore only rugs or leathers.

The poorly assembled army were just not as well drilled as the professional armies of the greeks.

I would think that the greek army had more metal plates than bare torso than in the movies.

The reason why greek won was because they were a very disciplined army and their long spears grinded through those poor peasants who were force to move forward in a narrow stripe by the more equipped calvary from behind.

Answer 2

300 never claimed to be historically accurate, nor is it for the most part. You get the general idea of what happened in history, with extra imagination added in (thus the movie being based off of a graphic novel, by Frank Miller). Some say Xerxes wanted to spread his empire eastward, some also say that it is possible that Xerxes was just doing what his father could not, get retribution against Athens for their aid in a rebellion during his father's rule. Xerxes was portrayed a bit differently from what he should've looked like ( I believe he and his father had beards), though Rodrigo Santoro playing him in the movies was excellent. In reality, along with their red cloaks, Spartans wore a metallic (usually bronze) cuirass, had their hoplite shield, usually made of wood and bronze, a bronze helmet, resembling that of a corinthian helm, and bronze greaves. The hoplite usually was armed with a spear, with either side being used as a weapon, and a short swore for close combat, which was used when their spear was broken or it was thrown. The movie is pretty accurate in that aspect (the weapons, not the armor, though they did have the shield/helm). Regardless if it's parallel with history or not, its a beautiful movie.

Answer 3

There is a large mythological effect in the movie 300. It just clearly demonstrated how the people of that time thought about life, not so much what really happened. There is a difference between what really happened in history and what was perceived to have happened. This movie shows what was "perceived" to have happened, not what really happened. And, it makes for a better movie overall.

Answer 4

They have no way of knowing exactly what happened. That's pretty major, huh?

Answer 5

that strategy was really good ......... they could have fought like that for a long time but i don't think they last for that many days