did the 300 director have ever read ahistory book?

Question

1000000army in ancient war seems to be ajoke

Answer 1

Am I first to answer with, "Have you ever read a English grammer book?"

Answer 2

The modern skepticism regarding numbers on a battle filed is the same school of thinking that denied the existence of the Babylonian King Nubkadneser until extra biblical sources(archaeological) were dug up and disproved that skepticism. Those same know it all historians (Mostly atheistic English Aristocrats) said there was not Troy until a German Businessman and amateur classicist show them up. Its easy to second guess the primary source writers of an event 1000's of years after an event took place and the witnesses were all dead from a English study 1000 miles away. As Ben Franklin shows in his unfinished autobiography, "When skepticism picks up a shovel it often buries itself".
As for the Spartans (Plutarch's Biography of Lycurgus and The Peloponnese Wars "For which Thucydides was the historian", are my sources the Later being a Primary Source.)
they did die a glorious death, but the lives they lived were no so since they were as a Polis an organized gang of homosexuals who made war on those that would not be subject to them and murdered they own slaves as a right of passage. They were also wife swappers and a reading of Xenophon's Anabasis (He loved and retire to the Spartan Polis) shows how dishonorable Spartan Generals could act.

Answer 3

The real numbers of the Persian army at Thermopylae are not recorded. Educated guesses by historians range from 200,000 to 300,000, with the higher number seeming to be more popular. The 300 Spartans is a number people can agree on more readily. That's the fact.

The movie 300 is fiction. It is a fictional account of something that did really happen, but it never purports to be a documentary. It was made for entertainment. As such, the director is allowed plenty of license. If he wants to have the Persians bring an army of 1M purple painted naked women, he gets to do that. The purpose of it is entertainment, not historical accuracy.

If you want to learn history, read historians, or watch documentaries. Don't look to Hollywood for your education, as you will be sadly disappointed and led astray.

Answer 4

I'm sure he did. Except that the movie was based on Frank Miller's comic book, and it doesn't pretend to be historically accurate. You may want to watch the 1962 movie "The 300 Spartans" instead.

Answer 5

The movie is based off of a comic book. The comic book was inspired by the battle, not meant to be a perfect play by play of the actual events.

Answer 6

It's based on a comic book, which was, in turn, based on some old sword and sandals movie. I don't think you're supposed to go into it expecting a history lesson.

Answer 7

It's called fiction. You might want to look it up in a dictionary. The movie wasn't reciting history. It was recreating myth for the modern era.

Answer 8

its a movie... just like any other movie.... even if a movie is based off of actual event it doesnt mean that the director went by everything that really happend if they did people would be bored ...

Answer 9

its a movie...made to be entertaining, sold to the masses for a three hour getaway...if every movie made was historically accurate it would make for boring cinema, and movie making would be a losing proposition...

Answer 10

I walked out on this C R aP of a MOVIE . 300 homos is who they were (according to history they really were homosexuals!)