FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


300





Coclus
I think the Greek history is incredibly interesting. I saw the movie "300" and researched a little about the battle, and although the movie mixed everything together I discovered it basically followed the real events.
Vrythramax
Coclus wrote:
I think the Greek history is incredibly interesting. I saw the movie "300" and researched a little about the battle, and although the movie mixed everything together I discovered it basically followed the real events.


Could you provide a bit more info on this topic, I think I know the battle you speak of, but I have never even heard of the movie....I mostly watch an LCD monitor Sad
Fright Knight
I just saw the movie yesterday and it was good. Brave spartans defended the passage for three days. The movie was indeed based on true events with Leonidas I was portrait as the lead character.Although not jut the Akedians helped them but some other Greeks helped them.
Vrythramax
Fright Knight wrote:
I just saw the movie yesterday and it was good. Brave spartans defended the passage for three days. The movie was indeed based on true events with Leonidas I was portrait as the lead character.Although not jut the Akedians helped them but some other Greeks helped them.


Thank you, it was the battle I was thinking of....did the movie also say that they were all gay??

Just guessing....was it Thermopolai (spelling?)?
Fright Knight
Vrythramax wrote:

Thank you, it was the battle I was thinking of....did the movie also say that they were all gay??

Just guessing....was it Thermopolai (spelling?)?


Battle of Thermopylae. Well the movie never said that they were gay. Except that they all dress like superman without the blue thing. If you watched the movie, you'll end up looking at half naked bodies almost the entire movie. The movie was great. I admire the courage of those spartans and Leonidas I and also the other Greeks who fought the battle. Thanks to 300 and I became aware of that event that will never be forgotten by the Spartans.---- no perhaps the Greeks, no perhaps the world.
poly
Not all the ancient Greeks were gay, and in Sparta it was rather the women who showed bisexuality... The battle was definitely decisive, as shortly aftr followed by the destruction of the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis. It is great r-that they even showed the storm that destroyed a huge amount of the Persian ships, one reason for their final defeat.
LostOverThere
poly wrote:
Not all the ancient Greeks were gay, and in Sparta it was rather the women who showed bisexuality... The battle was definitely decisive, as shortly aftr followed by the destruction of the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis. It is great r-that they even showed the storm that destroyed a huge amount of the Persian ships, one reason for their final defeat.


Yes, but most were, but, there's nothing wrong with being gay.
And I personally think its great they were open about it.
poiko123
My sister went to watch the movie 300 on an iMAX screen, which, IMO, would be very cool. From how she described the movie, it was quite accurate to the actual Battle of Thermopylae. Xerxes sounds like a cool guy...
arakavaz
Font colour: #583
iNs@nE
I read about the story of 300 long long time ago when I was reading this novel called the "Spartan" by Valerio Massimo Manfredi..

That novel is amazing..he is also the author of the alexander trilogy on which the movie "Alexander" was based..the guy is amazing..

I was afraid that the director of the movie wont be able to put up 300 exactly as the way it was in history...but I gotta say - He did an awesome job..

The movie is simply mind blowing.. Loved it from every angle possible..

A few glitches though..

but all that can be forgotten when he says "Tonight, we shall dine in Hell"
palavra
i didn't see the movie yet
but i eager to see it

but i don't think it based on real historical events

probably filmmakers was encouraged by CIA to defame iraninan people.

and in history greeks has only one real success
alexander time.

and

he was a macedonian not a greek.
Manntis
I wanna see this so bad. I've heard nothing but good things Wink
Moonspider
palavra wrote:
i didn't see the movie yet
but i eager to see it

but i don't think it based on real historical events


The Battle of Thermopylae occurred in 480 BC. And yes, 300 soldiers from the Greek city-state of Sparta (a city-state which did indeed have a warrior cult), along with other Greek allies (the total according to the link I provided below was about 4,900 Greeks when the battle first began), fought against a much greater force of a plethora of nationalities from the Persian Empire (which did include an elite Persian unit known as "The Immortals," although they did not dress as portrayed in the film, but then neither did the Spartans). It is an historical fact and arguably one of the most profound events in Western history. On the final day of the Battle of Thermopylae, 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians stood their ground knowing they were surrounded (having been betrayed by a Spartan exile) and could not hold Thermopylae, but fought hoping to buy some time for the other retreating Greeks.

King Darius of Persia lead the First Greco-Persian War, the climax of which was the Persian defeat at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC.

His son Xerxes spent years amassing an army and a navy (the film barely touched on the tremendous size of the Persian fleet and said nothing of possibly the greatest Greek commander during the Greco-Persian Wars, Themistocles).

There is no disputing the historical fact that these events occurred. The film of course is simply an artistic vision based upon it.

I say it is arguably one of the most important events in Western history (certainly the Greek victory over the Persians as a whole was) because had the Persians conquered the Hellenistic world, democracy itself may never have occurred. There may have been no such thing as "Western Civilization."

palavra wrote:
probably filmmakers was encouraged by CIA to defame iraninan people.


Whatever. Yeah, Hollywood is commonly known here in the United States as nothing more than mouth pieces of the government and tools of her spy agencies. Laughing

palavra wrote:
and in history greeks has only one real success
alexander time.

and

he was a macedonian not a greek.


If you narrowly define a civilization's "success" only in terms of its ability to conquer, so be it. However the successes of Greek thinking and culture are innumerable.

And by the way, the ancient kingdom of Macedon is actually in Greece. Ancient Macedonia is northern Greece today. (Which is why modern Greece is offended by the name "Macedonia" being used by the modern Republic of Macedonia to its north.)

So, yes, Alexander was as Greek as any native Grecian today.

Respectfully,
M

http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3038411.html?page=1&c=y
palavra
i meant a particular meaning of success( a war victory)

i have a lots of macedonian friends they don't accept either they or alexander is greek.

once upon a time Istanbul was also a greek city
now we live in istanbul.
missdixy
The movie was amazing. I was thrilled that this story was coming to the big screen because I've loved this story for years!
Holy
I heard the movie rocked. Very Happy My friend went and saw it twice. Laughing
Moonspider
palavra wrote:
i meant a particular meaning of success( a war victory)

i have a lots of macedonian friends they don't accept either they or alexander is greek.

once upon a time Istanbul was also a greek city
now we live in istanbul.


If they are from modern Macedonia (i.e. The Republic of Macedonia) than they are not from the same area known in ancient times as Macedonia.

Alexander's birth place (Pella) is in Northern Greece.

If you take a look at the history of the modern Republic of Macedonia, you'll find that the nation of Greece was very upset that they adopted that name since it historically (aside from its name as a state in Yugoslavia) has no relevance to the Macedonia of ancient Greece.

CIA World Factbook wrote:
Macedonia gained its independence peacefully from Yugoslavia in 1991, but Greece's objection to the new state's use of what it considered a Hellenic name and symbols delayed international recognition, which occurred under the provisional designation of "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." In 1995, Greece lifted a 20-month trade embargo and the two countries agreed to normalize relations. The United States began referring to Macedonia by its constitutional name, Republic of Macedonia, in 2004 and negotiations continue between Greece and Macedonia to resolve the name issue. Some ethnic Albanians, angered by perceived political and economic inequities, launched an insurgency in 2001 that eventually won the support of the majority of Macedonia's Albanian population and led to the internationally-brokered Framework Agreement, which ended the fighting by establishing a set of new laws enhancing the rights of minorities. The undetermined status of neighboring Kosovo, implementation of the Framework Agreement, and a weak economy continue to be challenges for Macedonia.


Respctfully,
M
Fright Knight
palavra wrote:
i didn't see the movie yet
but i eager to see it

but i don't think it based on real historical events

probably filmmakers was encouraged by CIA to defame iraninan people.

and in history greeks has only one real success
alexander time.

and

he was a macedonian not a greek.


The movie was based in the event called Battle of Thermopylae. King Leonidas I indeed existed and the so called 300 men of an all-sire unit did defended the pass of Thermopylae against the massive persian army for three days. Of course help also was given by some 700 allies.

Also the betrayal of a Malian Ephialtes who led persian army to reer the greeks indeed happened. Well maybe not everything in the movie indeed happened. I also believe that but the movie was based in true events. Indeed the spartans and the Greeks stood their ground against a massive invading machine.
palavra
Moonspider wrote:
[
If they are from modern Macedonia (i.e. The Republic of Macedonia) than they are not from the same area known in ancient times as Macedonia.

Alexander's birth place (Pella) is in Northern Greece.


[M


they are from modern Macedonia and they insist they are the real descendants of the ancient macedonians and alexander.
Daisie
Just seen the movie, it was trully remarquable.
I loved the way it has been artisticly done ( and men with big muscles running around in knikers what more can I say? Very Happy ) , same as I loved Sin City (same guy done both). I highly recommande it (maybe there is a thread for it in movie? i ll have a look in a mo)

Now thank to you all I know a bit more about the story behind it. (the only Leonidas that I knew of make very good chocolates.. sad hey ?)
Moonspider
palavra wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
[
If they are from modern Macedonia (i.e. The Republic of Macedonia) than they are not from the same area known in ancient times as Macedonia.

Alexander's birth place (Pella) is in Northern Greece.


[M


they are from modern Macedonia and they insist they are the real descendants of the ancient macedonians and alexander.


I suppose its possible, so I won't argue with them. I'm certainly no expert on European ethnicities! Smile All I do know is that Greece does not believe they are and that Alexander's birth place and the capital of ancient Macedonia (Pella) is in Greece.

While doing more research on the subject, I did see that modern Macedonians fiercely contend that Philip II and Alexander were not Greek. While the Greeks fiercely claim the opposite.

Likewise, a Macedonian website argues that Alexander never referred to his men as Greek, but Macedonians. In speeches to his army he would call them by their separate groups (Thracians, Macedonians, Greeks, Illyrians). Perhaps this is no different than states being called out by name on battle fields during the War Between the States during a period when states were held in higher esteem and had far greater indepence than they do today in the United States.

All that being said, the fact remains that Philip was a man of Greek culture, having become so while a hostage in Thebes. (Hostages were treated like royalty in that period, not as we would think of the term today. His only role as hostage was to be executed if war broke out between Greece and Macedon.)

His son Alexander was raised Greek. Alexander's tutor was Arisotle. And it was Greek culture and language that Alexander stamped upon the face of civilization when he conquered the world. Arguably no man (aside from religious figures) in history ever affected the world so much. And it was a Hellenic empire he created.

Like I said though, as far as ethnicity, I don't know. If he was of the same ethnicity as the people of modern Macedonia, I'd compare the situation to someone like Sam Houston. Was Houston a Tennessean or a Texan? Wink

Respectfully,
M
bond4154
Yes, the Battle of the Thermopylae was one of the greatest battles ever in Western history. And, yes, 300 was an artistic view on it. It still amuses me, however, that people would choose to believe that 300 was based off some Marvel comic. Honestly, do people never read history? =P
palavra
long but interesting
Quote:
If it is crucial for a movie to have blood splattered at angles that defy physics, exaggerate the muscles of the arm and abdomen of the characters to a shocking degree, to give King Leonidas a strange haircut and to give the Persian King Zerhes a glamorous look thanks to piercings and a bangle, then yes, "300" deserves a "bravo" for its visual effects and graphics However the craftsmanship of writing a letter is insufficient to conceal its quality, especially when the letter is bad.

It should be the task of historians to discuss what kind of historical mistakes "300" contains. Let us look at the way the foundation on which the movie's theme is based contradicts what it shows. What is the synopsis? The courage 300 Spartan soldiers showed in the war of Thermopylae against the Persian army -- a war that led to the unification Greece.

What is the thesis? The thesis is that the West started its fight for freedom and democracy even in 480 B.C., whereas the East was, just like today, a slave, and was enslaving. On the path that the 300 Spartans followed was laid the foundations of a free future to save the world from mysticism as well as from tyranny. There is no exaggeration in my words; there is really an expression in the movie like "goddamn mysticism"; however the "mystics" here refers to the Spartan mystics, called Ephor, and the tyrants are, of course, the Persians and the accompanying Asians.

The Spartan King Leonidas is not fighting a war only against the Persians but also against religious rulings, considered "holy" by the council of Ephors, described to be ugly creatures. It is as if the only way to have fully equipped freedom is to have secularism. However it is neither likely there was such a developed conception of "freedom" at that age, nor is it possible to say that the characters in the movie are absolutely unaware of the term.

Let us assume that we can understand the idea behind the Spartan boys receiving "agage" training from early on in their childhood, the most basic principle of which is "no mercy, no clemency." But this is not the end of it. The movie -- depicting the Persian king as a tyrant; an enslaving king of an enslaved community -- is audacious enough to show us newborn babies thrown into a large hole in the ground, filled with baby skeletons, if they are found to be too weak; and loutish enough to present this phenomenon as something good that reinforces the myth of "heroism."

Nobody should be offended, but an irony of Western civilization emerges from all this information available. Taking this scene further to make it into an epic legend is an American version of imbecility. Leaving aside the fact that it was once alive in the womb of its mother, after its birth the human child gains an absolute right to live, and it would be wrong to call those killing the children because of their frailty freedom fighters since they deserved to be called savages. Even in this case, can the arts and the artist remain untouchable? I think not: What we have is only deception with the arts and sleight of hand.

It is common knowledge that the past is rewritten all the time. The aim of this rewriting is to beautify the past in a way to affirm the current political positions of the winners and to turn it into an argument that the defeated were ontologically wrong or imperfect.

"300" is trying to do this. Don't be fooled by words of the producers, who say a movie should not be looked at this way and if the audience likens the Persian king to Bush then it depends on their point of view. You will do anything to twist the thesis of the clash of civilizations, and then you think you will get away with a moral supremacy by relying on "a difference in perception" because two stupid viewers had a difference in perceiving the same movie. It doesn't work.

We don't have a movie like Tarkovsky's "Mirror" to interpret from a thousand angles. I would like to remind you of a sentence from the movie: "Sebastio, show our guest the way!" This is the agreed-on cinematographic translation of "slave." What is more, can it be possible that those who worked on this movie have not seen Steven Spielberg's "Amistad," produced by the man who took upon the post as a cultural ambassador to the neo-cons? Those who sell freedom must have forgotten how much we have seen their movies, which is gradually making our situation ironic, but we had better overlook this.


http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=106236
varon
arakavaz wrote:
That's such an amazing movie. It makes me want to be a spartan. They're so hardcore, it's ridiculous.


This wins quote of the year award. Very Happy Can I give you a trophy? LOL It sums up my thoughts about the politics of the movie so perfectly. You rock. Very Happy

Despite all the attacks about the movie, I still it's pretty great. I think the other main issue -- aside from the way the nation is built and how lives were shed for the sake of the state (let's forget the gender and psychosexual issues for a bit now, and the silliness about how people look, and how this movie was nothing more than a mechanism to install the dominance of the West and to propagate Western values of logic, governance, and freedom) -- is how this movie questions the very narratology of history. Because it is told in a first-person account (the narrator Dilios -- David Wenham was so gorgeous in this role, I must say), you are always questioning whether the story he told is true, in the "objective" sense, precisely because he's the one telling it. I think the movie is wonderful for showing (and for allowing us to interrogate) how even the storyteller is in a political position -- and just how powerful the storytelling really is. Smile
peaceninja
I saw this movie at the IMAX, the cinematography was awesome. If the Iranians are angry about Hollywood changing history, I cannot imagine why they would hold a conference last year arguing that the Holocaust never took place.
frozenhead
CGI Effects? Awesome..

Saw the making of the movie, I guess most of the scenes are made in studios. I am amaze how 3D modeling and rendering nowadays are that really advance.. Anyway.. must see movie.. Idea
palavra
i saw the movie
it is not better than the cartoons that i used to read when i was in primary school.

-the scene that king kill the persian envoy is very barbaric
only a barbarian can do this.

- the bribed politician- the queen scene shows the real place of woman in greece society.
arakavaz
The comics were the very best. I highly doubt that any movie can surpass its counterpart book, novel, comic, series, etc. Usually, sequels of things are also often subpar. The comics were one of the best series I've ever read. I used to be a big collector too. I've those things sitting in my garage. The movie was nice, yeah, but I still feel like the comic was so great.
Azmo
sure is a great movie.. i downloaded it (legaly ofc) and have watched it 3 times already
Ekvator
I have just watch it. If we think about historical facts,it is a bad film.It is so exaggerated.And i also think that it is a weapon of US-psychological war against Iran.
leirbag
For a movie that cost $60M to produce. Dont u think its a too expesive way to try and get at Iran?
Coclus
Ekvator wrote:
I have just watch it. If we think about historical facts,it is a bad film.It is so exaggerated.And i also think that it is a weapon of US-psychological war against Iran.

lol you are funny... I don't think so, really. Of course it supports war somehow, but most people don't even know that Iran was Persia once Wink and it is just an action movie...
assee
The movie, I admit, looks remarkably and extraordinarily awesome. However, I have a problem with the way the Persians seem to be portrayed.They're portrayed literally like monsters, and the Spartans like righteous Gods, when infact it was quite the opposite. Yes, I am already aware that the Spartans win this battle, duh. I am only saying that Persians should be portrayed in this movie a little more accurate. ESPECIALLY compared to such horrible people such as the Spartans. For example.

Sparta was, above all, a military state, and emphasis on military fitness began virtually at birth. Shortly after birth, the mother of the child bathed it in wine to see whether the child was strong. If the child survived it was brought before the elders of the tribe, by the child's father, who decided whether it was to be reared or not. If found defective or weak,the baby was left on the wild slopes of Mt Taygetos.......

Bisexual relations were commonplace among Spartan women, and it was considered acceptable for married Spartan women to have affairs with unmarried girls in their prime. This custom paralleled the mentoring
relations between Spartan males and adolescent boys. Women, being more independent than in other Greek societies, were able to negotiate with their husbands to bring their lovers into their homes. According to
Plutarch in his Life of Lycurgus, men both allowed and encouraged their wives to bear the children of other men, due to the general communal ethos which made it more important to bear many progeny for the good of
the city, than to be jealously concerned with one's own family unit......
assee
the actualy history of war is as follows.

Xerxes, with a large fleet and army (Herodotus the Greek historian claimed that there were over 2,000,000 soldiers), set out in the spring of 480 BC from Sardis. Xerxes was victorious during the initial battles. At the Battle of Thermopylae, a small force of warriors, led by King Leonidas, resisted the much larger Persian forces, but were ultimately defeated. After Thermopylae, Athens was conquered, and the Athenians and Spartans were driven back to their last line of defense at the Isthmus of Corinth and in the Saronic Gulf. At Artemisium, the battle was indecisive as large storms had destroyed ships from the Greek side. The battle was also stopped prematurely as the Greeks learned news of the defeat at Thermopylae and retreated. But Xerxes was induced by the message of Themistocles (against the advice of Artemisia of Halicarnassus) to attack the Greek fleet under unfavourable conditions, rather than sending a part of his ships to the Peloponnesus and awaiting the dissolution of the Greek armies. The Battle of Salamis (September 29, 480 BC) was won by the Athenians. Having lost his communication by sea with Asia, Xerxes was forced to retire to Sardis; the army he left in Greece under Mardonius was defeated in 479 BC at Plataea*. The defeat of the Persians at Mycale roused the Greek cities of Asia.
* platea is th battle which is shown at the end of the movie!!

PS--King Leonidas went to Thermopylae with 300 of his finest soldiers and he was joined by a 7000-strong Greek force

so the men who fought werent just 300!!

also
when Ephialtes led the Persians by a mountain track to the rear of the Greeks, Leonidas divided his army. The King himself remained in the pass with his 300 Spartans and 400 Thebans, along with 700 Thespians who refused to leave.
so the movie is completely different from historic facts.
it should be enjoyed as a film and not be mistakes as the real history!!!!!
gducnguyen
Coclus wrote:
I think the Greek history is incredibly interesting. I saw the movie "300" and researched a little about the battle, and although the movie mixed everything together I discovered it basically followed the real events.

Can you post link movie "300" ? Thanks!
Nerdlings
Even if it wasn't all that historically aucurate, 300 was the best movei I've seen in a long time. The action and suspense was just so much!
assee
ye no doubt as a movie its the best .. best sword action after a long time. But You cant see it as a history..
Coclus
The suprising thing, too, is that they made it for just 6 million dollars and all in like one production hall.. it s incredible what's all possible with computer animation nowadays.
qebab
Before you start discussing how historically accurate it is, you might want to keep in mind that it is based on the comic by Frank Miller, not on the battle of Thermopylae itself.
assee
but they tried to show the same battle .... right?
zichlone
The spartans normaly came to battles naked as to protect themselves from infection(Piece of dirty cloth in wound= infection). in the movie they gave the clothes because no one wants to see 300 wangs in slow motion(weird!!)

The movie was amazing!!!!!

already have it on my ipod

I like the physics defying blood too

Basicaly its one the best movies i have seen of all time and one of the most historicaly accurate too
qebab
zichlone wrote:
The spartans normaly came to battles naked as to protect themselves from infection(Piece of dirty cloth in wound= infection). in the movie they gave the clothes because no one wants to see 300 wangs in slow motion(weird!!)


What on earth do you base this on? They did in fact wear heavy armour. We're speaking heavy as in more than 25 kilograms of metal.

zichlone wrote:
The movie was amazing!!!!!

already have it on my ipod

I like the physics defying blood too

Basicaly its one the best movies i have seen of all time and one of the most historicaly accurate too


First you say that the movie is historically inaccurate by stating that the spartan hoplites really went into battle naked, and then you go on to state that it is one of the most historically accurate movies you have ever seen. Do I have to point out the obvious lack of logic here?

assee wrote:
but they tried to show the same battle .... right?


They are both products of industries intended to entertain people. Not industries intended to educate people. There is a certain difference, but yes, they are both based around the events surrounding the battle of Thermopylae. Neither is very accurate, and I don't think they are meant to be.
assee
Quote:
one of the most historicaly accurate too



thats what i was trying to say. They made it for entertainment but audience is taking it as a history which is not goood.
turbowolf
Yeah, I remember that historicans already confirmed that there are thousands of Greeks took part in this battle. Maybe the Spartans are the last companies who held the battle field. So it's not these 300 men who blocked Persian for three days.

Fright Knight wrote:
I just saw the movie yesterday and it was good. Brave spartans defended the passage for three days. The movie was indeed based on true events with Leonidas I was portrait as the lead character.Although not jut the Akedians helped them but some other Greeks helped them.
suntzu3500
poly wrote:
Not all the ancient Greeks were gay, and in Sparta it was rather the women who showed bisexuality... The battle was definitely decisive, as shortly aftr followed by the destruction of the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis. It is great r-that they even showed the storm that destroyed a huge amount of the Persian ships, one reason for their final defeat.


Well, as they continued to have kids, and tended to have issues with raping people when they attacked cities, then i'd say that most of them wern't. Razz
zichlone
qebab wrote:
zichlone wrote:
The spartans normaly came to battles naked as to protect themselves from infection(Piece of dirty cloth in wound= infection). in the movie they gave the clothes because no one wants to see 300 wangs in slow motion(weird!!)


What on earth do you base this on? They did in fact wear heavy armour. We're speaking heavy as in more than 25 kilograms of metal.

zichlone wrote:
The movie was amazing!!!!!

already have it on my ipod

I like the physics defying blood too

Basicaly its one the best movies i have seen of all time and one of the most historicaly accurate too


First you say that the movie is historically inaccurate by stating that the spartan hoplites really went into battle naked, and then you go on to state that it is one of the most historically accurate movies you have ever seen. Do I have to point out the obvious lack of logic here?

assee wrote:
but they tried to show the same battle .... right?


They are both products of industries intended to entertain people. Not industries intended to educate people. There is a certain difference, but yes, they are both based around the events surrounding the battle of Thermopylae. Neither is very accurate, and I don't think they are meant to be.



Holy crap did i actually type that damn i was uhh a little out of it then igf you know what i mean now im mixing up my history it was actually barbarians ahaha damn that was retarded
chris20
I thought that the movie was ok. Those random parts with those goats and naked people. WTF. Oh, and there is this really funny 300 Pg version video on College Humor. Its a good time.
anime
"300" its a nice movie for sure but if you noticed that the things they used in the movie are 75% not real the story is 100% real but still what is magicians old times there no magicians they were called preist and they were following the leader in his wars and i searched about black darkness knights or something they are not even excist so it got some things isnt real i hoped to be fully 100% real and beleived story that i can imagine it was possiple to do it 300 vs 10k solider:D
Shin
I don't know much about the history of this movie. But it sounds like a good film I think I'm going to watch it later this week. Smile
et-configs
Yes, its a fact 300 soldiers did face that many. There was only 1 entrance into sparta but the enemies didn't know the backway in untill there was a traitor.


Thats y the 300 died. Its almost all true story yes.. Remember that monster i doubt that was real lol..
Slash
I dunno, I dislike a lot of movies being made lately that allegedly reflect history.

300 is based off of Frank Miller's comics by the way more than history. His adaption of the history is there, but the movie is an adaptation of an adaptation...
LukeZone
I also watched the movie and really liked it. I think its one of the best movies since Gladiator.

But the problem is here, that we really cant see it as a pure historical documentation. It could have some historical backgrounds but in first line its a comic movie. And so we have to see it.

What do you think?
emad4u
Battle of Thermopylae. Well the movie never said that they were gay. Except that they all dress like superman without the blue thing. If you watched the movie, you'll end up looking at half naked bodies almost the entire movie. The movie was great. I admire the courage of those spartans and Leonidas I and also the other Greeks who fought the battle. Thanks to 300 and I became aware of that event that will never be forgotten by the Spartans.---- no perhaps the Greeks, no perhaps the world.
rafifaisal
Are these 300 the same as Brad Pitts bunch in Troy ? ?
LumberJack
Why does North America insist on looking to Hollywood for lessons in history... Rolling Eyes
lightsout
rafifaisal wrote:
Are these 300 the same as Brad Pitts bunch in Troy ? ?


No not at all, two different groups of people. 300 was about the Spartans, and Troy was about the Trojans.
lightsout
LumberJack wrote:
Why does North America insist on looking to Hollywood for lessons in history... Rolling Eyes

Unfortunately in this day and age, a majority of society is too lazy to go out and learn stuff on their own, and need the media to feed it to them Rolling Eyes
khunia
the movie is great with awesome fight scenes, great cinematography, brilliant acting and some really good directing, it is an excellant action movie. However after reading a few posts a felt like adding a few things: the battle of thermopylae was a joint land and sea battle, without the sea battle lead by the athenians then there would have been no "300", also that the spartans were betrayed by one of there own is also not a proven historical fact, not disproved either.[q
MoonSpider Wrote:
Quote:
If you narrowly define a civilization's "success" only in terms of its ability to conquer, so be it. However the successes of Greek thinking and culture are innumerable.

That is exactly how civilization is defined, the Roman empire, the greek empire, the british empire, the persian empire, The USA, they all have 1 thing in common military might.
All civilisation is built upon the ashes of war, without war there would be no civilisation, even today countries are still trying to force their "civilisation" upon others, yet the tools that are used are different and much more deadly.
Oh and No Alexander was not a "greek" I'm sure that if you had walked up to him and called him that he would have cut your head off, he was macedonian, greece had not yet been forged.
The BBC has a really good doco on the 300, if you can get a hold of it then everyone should watch it.
{name here}
qebab wrote:
zichlone wrote:
The spartans normaly came to battles naked as to protect themselves from infection(Piece of dirty cloth in wound= infection). in the movie they gave the clothes because no one wants to see 300 wangs in slow motion(weird!!)


What on earth do you base this on? They did in fact wear heavy armour. We're speaking heavy as in more than 25 kilograms of metal.

I remember being taught in school that the Spartans would fight battle naked, but not to protect themselves from infection, but as a scare tactic. Some spartans would dress in armor, however.
Moonspider
{name here} wrote:
qebab wrote:
zichlone wrote:
The spartans normaly came to battles naked as to protect themselves from infection(Piece of dirty cloth in wound= infection). in the movie they gave the clothes because no one wants to see 300 wangs in slow motion(weird!!)


What on earth do you base this on? They did in fact wear heavy armour. We're speaking heavy as in more than 25 kilograms of metal.

I remember being taught in school that the Spartans would fight battle naked, but not to protect themselves from infection, but as a scare tactic. Some spartans would dress in armor, however.


Although relatively lightly armored, they did wear armor. In fact far more than is shown in the film or the graphic novels. Spartan hoplite armor was basically the same as other Greek hoplites.

qebab is right. It weighed more than 25 kilos.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Army#Arms_and_Armour
http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/History/European%5CSpartan_Warfare-32543.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite

Respectfully,
M
Related topics
ya vienen discos holográficos de 300 GB y 1.6 tb
300 FREE Backlinks - Climb The Ranks!
[var]300.000 libros gratis en la red
Seven Serial Blasts Rock Mumbai, Over 300 Feared Dead
HELP with installing 300 GB HDD
Banners,avatars needed Paying 300 FRIH$.
Giving out 300 FRIH$ for somone to help me.
Digital Camcorder. Have $300 to spend. Which one.
~*~*~300 FRIH$ for a logo~*~*~
"300"
need CODE TWEAKING on my PAGE & GRAPHIC ... 300+FRIH$'S
Who can make a webpage.. yes JUST 1 PAGE!! Design for 300+
Movie: 300 beyond belief horrible
shrinehp.com - Exchange links with PR2/Alexa ~300,000 domain
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> History

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.