how historically accurate is the movie '300'?

Question

where can i get more information about the story of the 300 spartans?

Answer 1

the movie ( according to my history professor) is not very accuarate.

Answer 2

It is pretty accurate. Here are the things I know of:

1. The battle itself between Spartans and the Persians.
2. The fact that the Persian army didn't send their army of arrows to kill everyone until the end of the battle. It was thought to be not very honorable to win a battle with arrows....although there was that one scene where they blocked everything (which I think isn't as accurate).
3. The traitor who lead the Persians through that small road. I don't know if he was all deformed though.
4. 300 spartans 7,000 of those other guys.
5. The victory 1 year later when all the greeks assembled togehter.
6. Some quotes, such as "Then we'll fight in the shade" and "tonight we ...something...(I forgot)"
7. The Spartan king being killed by arrows.
8. Having many Spartans return while some of them left to fight.
9. The fact that the Spartans were totally killing the Persian army. This was becuase the Spartans were heavily armed while the Persians were not....also the Spartans are born to fight.
10. The fact that Spartans whole society was around fighting. Children started to train I think around 7.
11. The "Immortals" as they call it were real. These were the Persian armies best fighters.

I'm sure there is more, but that is all I can think of right now.

Answer 3

1. The historical "facts" were written mostly by the victors.

2. Check out the link my source list.

3. There were many inaccuracies:
* not the least being the omission of the efforts of the Athenian navy
* the sheer brutality of Spartan culture was played down for less than X ratings. For example, they probably could not show an 8 year old boy running the gauntlet where they had to run up a long temple stair lined by Spartans beating them with whips, clubs, and switches. If they failed and fell, they were beaten to death.
* Spartan equipment included a spear, sword, shield, and cloak. Other than that, they fought naked.
* Homosexual behavior was completely omitted.
* The fact that the Spartans owned slaves that they kept in communities that would train as practice armies... Naturally, these armies would be killed to maximize realistic battle conditions and ensure the slaves would fight as fiercely as possible (let alone what the Spartans would do to their women and children - you see, they knew what the Persians would do from their own experience of doing it to others).

* The Oracle at Delphi and the Spartan priests were separate entities and organizations.

* Part of the "festival" probably included ritual warfare with the slave communities, whose populations may have needed to be thinned lest rebellion happen while a Spartan army was away.

* The part of freedom not being free and paid in blood was more likely in reference to an individual's PERSONAL freedom based on ability to kill others, not personal sacrifice. Of course, the lines are more likely based on the political agendas of the author and the director than any historical fact.

* If Efialtis was a Spartan at all, he would have only had a problem with his shoulder, not his entire body. The point would then be to show how picky Spartans were about who they would or would not throw off a cliff as a baby. A lamed man didn't stand much of a chance in Spartan society. As it were, the character probably only exists for Athenian tragic sentiment or at least was a local man that would have known about the pass due to personal familiarity with the local landscape. Also, 250,000 troops is probably more than enough to have scouts to search and find a goat pass without help.

Answer 4

The movie "300" Is NOT historically accurate.

You need to check out the movie called "300 spartans".
I heard from one of my coworkers that is more historically accurate than the movie entitled "300".

Answer 5

The movie 300 is not historically accurate. #1, it's based on a historical fact that's been turned into a legend so the original story is already probably inaccurate in many ways. #2, the legend was made into a graphic novel (e.g. comic book for adults) so that added even more distortion. #3, the movie is told from the viewpoint of a survivor, who starts out narrating the story and, in the end, leads the 2nd wave of attack, the guy who lost an eye. That explains him describing the rhino and stuff as kind of "bigger than life."

I'm sure there's tons of websites with more info.

Answer 6

I'd give it a 5 on a scale of 10. On 2ND thought make it a 2. Do you think Xerxes would have risked exposing himself to danger, not likely. Why do all the Spartans talk like professional orators? Most of them were illiterate brutes. They loved to preach 20th century values of freedom, fighting evil, patriotism etc???????? What were the Spartans really like? I'm not sure exactly. I might research this myself. How did they treat their women? I don't know that either. But one must not blindly except the movie explanations. Look of Thermopylae and Sparta. It sure is an interesting subject. The Greeks fought the Persian invasions over and over again. And a couple hundred years afterward, Alexander the Great more than paid Persia back by invading and "creaming" them.

Answer 7

thinking the certainty which you're asking concerning the historic accuracy of a movie in keeping with a comedian, how precise do you think of this is meant to be? 3 hundred is Frank Miller's fictional and inventive interpretation of one of his favourite historic memories. A Hollywood studio offered the rights and became the comedian e book right into a movie for entertainment applications. this isn't any longer a documentary. the only factor you're meant to "take as certainty" is that the conflict happened. You do comprehend that the characters of Jack and Rose in great have been fictional, do no longer you?

Answer 8

OK, first of all the movie is not meant to be historically accurate. Its not based on the actual event, in fact its based on the graphic novel. Much in the same way of Sin City. So of course inaccuracies will be almost countless. People get too hung up on things like that to see the movie for what it really is. If there were never a historical battle to base it on, then people would have a different view of the movie entirely. So stop judging how accurate it is. No one cares. It is meant to entertain. Are you not entertained?

Answer 9

First of all, you can look up in many books. If you go to the librairy, there are plenty of books there that you can see about the true story. if you have seen the movie, the only thing I'll tell you is that it has some good real things about what had happened, but the director and writer put some things from his head because as far as i know, there weren't any monsters or creatures and Efialtis wasn't a monster but just a man who was a little bit out of normal. But these things don't matter if the movie was the greatest movie i have seen in months and maybe years. I hope you think the same thing.
(weren't the bodies great?)

Answer 10

don't look for historical truth in 300 cuz the only part of 300 is that there was 300 spartans

Answer 11

Among others historically lies ,the truth is that they were 301 persons back then ...
Leonidas , as
the general , and his 300 Spartans !