Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

anarchyintheuk

My post was a general post, not aimed at anyone specifically...just a general consensus  some people have that if something is even remotely based on an historical event, then it must be historical and, if it isn't, it's rubbish.

I see now it says in reply to anarchyintheuk but that is just what's added when you do a quick reply...it defaults to you replying to the last post...but it was aimed at you, or any other one individual. [:D]

..damn, i forgot, there's those who like padding with their history, the sort who can't even stand the BBC/C4 and the historical-accuracy-with-added-drama movies..

..shame, they probably watch ITV and Coronation Street..

..poor lonely brain-cells..

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..damn, i forgot, there's those who like padding with their history, the sort who can't even stand the BBC/C4 and the historical-accuracy-with-added-drama movies..

..shame, they probably watch ITV and Coronation Street..

..poor lonely brain-cells..

Damn, I forgot there are fluff intellectuals just waiting to show off their inability to lighten up.

Lookit me, lookit me, I know what really happened. Now where's my ribbon?[:)]

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..damn, i forgot, there's those who like padding with their history, the sort who can't even stand the BBC/C4 and the historical-accuracy-with-added-drama movies..

..shame, they probably watch ITV and Coronation Street..

..poor lonely brain-cells..

Damn, I forgot there are fluff intellectuals just waiting to show off their inability to lighten up.

Lookit me, lookit me, I know what really happened. Now where's my ribbon?[:)]

..where ever you wanna pin it..

..or..

..so we should accept Hollywood bull***** acording to you ? my obviously intellectual friend...

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

After thinking about everyone's comments I have to say I still like the movie. It was a well done fantasy. Not documentary. Fantasy. FOR SPARTA!!! [:D]

..like the movie's fine but it wasn't fantasy, it was real, they really did it and they really died..

..there's better movies on the subject..

Whatever[:D]

I've read a few books on the battle. Watched a couple of movies, too, including some mess produced in the 50s that was as bad as Flynn in Robin Hood.

The 300 is a great popcorn flick, and I'm glad I bought the DVD. See it because it's an exciting story that's well told.

If you want to knock movies based on historical battles and/or personalities, then bring up Patton.....I just threw up in my mouth.....or Hamburger Hill.....or Battle of the Bulge.

I love Zulu! But the movie represents the engineer commanding the Brits as the hero of the day, rather than what actually happened. So there's cinematic license there. Doesn't detract from the film.

There are TON of flicks out there that are based on historical events that misrepresent what actually happened just as much as 300. And with far fewer excuses to offer to justify what they did.

..there's a world of difference between Zulu, which does at least show the difference between and the bravory of the systems, and inventing some Air-Attack Harpies to help the Brits in an obviously hopeless situation..

..the latest movie influences the bulk of the minds, do you really want them to believe that there were war-rhinos etc ?

.do you care that little for the reality of history ?

..?..

You know, that must be it. [:)]

I must be out to destroy the younger generation's understanding of history.

Because without my DIRECT INTERVENTION, they're really going to believe that Xerxes was 10' tall, that he had obese executioners with lobster claws behead his generals, and that ancient Greece resided in the Matrix (it must have, because of the Spartans' innate ability to reduce combat to slow motion -- thus dodging spear thrusts and arrows).

Here's where I come from.

The movie was a MOVIE. It never once stated "sit down kids, this is what happened."

Everyone who spent 30 seconds checking into the movie knew it was based off a ffing comic book.

They enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it, because it was a fun, well done story.

And I bet more people got their interest jogged by what they saw...and actually viewed a documentary on the historical battle....than walked away and said "that Frank Miller, he is one kick ass historian."

Battle of the Bulge was utter CRAP in terms of historical accuracy. Don't tell me otherwise. But when I was 10, and I saw it on WTBS while visiting my uncle's, it sent me heading to the library to start checking out books on WW2.

To sit down and type that other people don't care about history because they enjoyed 300 hints at intellectual snobbery so staggering it gives me a nose bleed. And I don't think that's what you intend, is it? You're not really looking to insult people for having a good time watching a movie they KNOW is not an accurate depiction of what happened. Because they would rather go to the cinema, eat some popcorn and elbow their friends when something interesting pops up on the screen.

Then again, maybe you are. You've knocked another poster's intelligence because he dared to like the flick. You're making brain cell comments about other folks.

To each their own. I've said my bit. [:)]


Edited because I saw yer little "intellectual" comment.

YOU DO intend to insult others. So I'm you're "obviously intellectual friend." And you can be my socially retarded buddy........

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..like the movie's fine but it wasn't fantasy, it was real, they really did it and they really died..
..there's better movies on the subject..

Sorry, **a** white rabbit. I know I am being overly post-modern, but technically every depiction of historical events has a good dose of fiction within it, unless you were actually there. Because the human mind embellishes nearly everything that enters it, because it isn't all that great at cataloging minute detail so it fills in the gaps, even eye witness reports are notoriously fictional (this is psychologically proven).

Herodotus wrote one of the first accounts of the 300 (who actually had another 700 Thesbians and Thebans backing them up). Herodotus was born 4 years before the battle, and didn't write about it until about 50 years later. He says that 1,400 people killed 25,000, even with tactical advantage, that seems unlikely (of course he numbers the Persian army in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions (he says that there were alone 10,000 immortals). That is highly unlikely, as populations (even within Xerxes mighty empire) of the largest cities rarely ran much higher than 10,000. Ancient and Medieval numbers are notoriously bad, because there was no accurate counting system and typically the writer was not actually on the battlefield. So he usually just "guesses," saying "millions" when he really means "a lot." The entire story of the 300 is technically historical fiction from the start.

Further, just because fantastic things are added, doesn't mean that historical value is lost. The Illiad and the Odyssey are a bit fantastic (the Odyssey more so), does that make them worthless? Saints lived constantly contain dragons, serpents, demons, ghosts, etc (in the orginal texts, not added by Frank Miller [:'(]) So we should call them stupid as well?

Remember, Frank Miller wasn't rewriting Herodotus to make a Histories for the modern age. He was, like many hagiographers (saint's biographers), ancient and medieval historians (just look at Procopius's Secret History, creating entertainment based upon a real life event.

Exactly like movies such as "Saving Private Ryan," "Flags of Our Fathers," "Letters from Iwo Jima," et al. If you are going to judge on accuracy, nothing could make the cut, as every author, storyteller, historian, whatever, adds their own fictional bias to the story.

[/end of post-modern historian rant]

SoM

The Greek force at Thermopylae numbered about 8000-10,000. On the third day Leonidas ordered the allied Greeks to retreat while his Spartans fought a rearguard action. 700 Thespians refused to leave, and died along with the Spartans and roughly a thousand Helot slaves.

Xerxes most probably had between 100,000-200,000 men.

The Immortals were a force of 10,000 men. they were called Immortals, because they were always kept at that strenght - no more, no less. Casualties were replaced by the best of the men.

I liked 300. Though I was snickering at the Spartans talking about fighting for freedom.

I believe the stylistic point of the movie was to tell the tale as a Spartan film-maker would have told it, if such a thing had existed. Pretty unique concept, if you ask me, and not something intuitive from the visual style alone. But if you look at ancient works of art and look at some of the literature on the film itself, it becomes more apparent. This isn't a modern comic-book film, it's what a Spartan would have made if he had been granted access to modern technology. So in the same way that Oliver Stone viewed Vietnam through his own lens(es) in his Vietnam trilogy, so too are the events of this film viewed through a very specific lens that is not necessarily historical - though the style itself is in fact a means of conveying a sense of history, outside the facts of the story.

In other words, it's not about how many men this general or that general really had on the field of battle - it's about how the men viewed themselves, and how they would portray their spirit on film. It's the difference between Saving Private Ryan - which was a joke as far as historical accuracy goes, but spoke to millions of people, veterans included, about what it was like to be a combat infantryman in the Second World War - and Pork Chop Hill, which was accurate down to terrain and names and places, but somewhat less engaging on a personal level.

ORIGINAL: GreyFox
The Greek force at Thermopylae numbered about 8000-10,000. Xerxes most probably had between 100,000-200,000 men.

The Immortals were a force of 10,000 men. they were called Immortals, because they were always kept at that strength - no more, no less. Casualties were replaced by the best of the men.

I greatly doubt those numbers, particularly the size of the Persian Immortals forces. Apparently the Immortals do not show up anywhere but in Herodotus. Not even Persian sources mention them. Thus it seems that perhaps our good buddy invented them or greatly inflated their numbers. They show up later, as the name for a certain unit of Byzantine guards. surprise surprise, they number in 10,000 men. Looks like there were a few good Byzantine emperors who read their Herodotus and began to copy things they read in history.

Ancient numbers are just not reliable. I would venture to say that Xerxes army couldn't have been nearly that large. Ancient logistics was just not that efficient. Caesar, using more efficient Roman systems of logistics and better Roman roads was only able to field about 100,000-120,000 troops during the Gallic Wars (and this may be overestimated as well).

SoM

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis

You know, that must be it. [:)]

I must be out to destroy the younger generation's understanding of history.

Because without my DIRECT INTERVENTION, they're really going to believe that Xerxes was 10' tall, that he had obese executioners with lobster claws behead his generals, and that ancient Greece resided in the Matrix (it must have, because of the Spartans' innate ability to reduce combat to slow motion -- thus dodging spear thrusts and arrows).

Here's where I come from.

The movie was a MOVIE. It never once stated "sit down kids, this is what happened."

Everyone who spent 30 seconds checking into the movie knew it was based off a ffing comic book.

They enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it, because it was a fun, well done story.

And I bet more people got their interest jogged by what they saw...and actually viewed a documentary on the historical battle....than walked away and said "that Frank Miller, he is one kick ass historian."

Battle of the Bulge was utter CRAP in terms of historical accuracy. Don't tell me otherwise. But when I was 10, and I saw it on WTBS while visiting my uncle's, it sent me heading to the library to start checking out books on WW2.

To sit down and type that other people don't care about history because they enjoyed 300 hints at intellectual snobbery so staggering it gives me a nose bleed. And I don't think that's what you intend, is it? You're not really looking to insult people for having a good time watching a movie they KNOW is not an accurate depiction of what happened. Because they would rather go to the cinema, eat some popcorn and elbow their friends when something interesting pops up on the screen.

Then again, maybe you are. You've knocked another poster's intelligence because he dared to like the flick. You're making brain cell comments about other folks.

To each their own. I've said my bit. [:)]


Edited because I saw yer little "intellectual" comment.

YOU DO intend to insult others. So I'm you're "obviously intellectual friend." And you can be my socially retarded buddy........

Thanks! [:)] This post makes me feel a bit better! [:)]

That's Entertainment!
That is what 300 is. It was entertainment. A fictional account based on an historical event. If you want something closer to history there was an old movie done I think in the late 50's or early 60's called "The 300 Spartans". While still fictional, it was closer to the historical event than 300.
 
The fun part about this movie for me is now my 2 year old when asked "what is your profession?" responds "Ahu, Ahu!" [:D]