I Sense an Agenda
I contend that this film has been specifically timed for release and designed to consciously or subconsciously appeal to people to draw obvious parallels between Persians (Middle Easterners) vs. Spartans (Americans) during a time in our history when there is a very real conflict between the two cultures, and the very real threat of an invasion of Iran by the US. Movie producers know full well that topical, controversial films are a recipe for box office success, and that is true of the 300 which is already racking up huge profits.
In the current political environment a film which is so irresponsibly inaccurate, almost deliberately deceptive and misleading, and so readily appeals to the lowest common denominator with its slick visuals and intuitively desirable but totally incorrect underlying message is something I deplore
The Persians, depicted as sadistic, perverted, evil, blasphemous, dark and malignant, are hell-bent on invading Greece to kill innocent people and subjugate these humble Spartans
There is no doubt that this occurred, and that the Spartans in particular were brave to remain and fight in the face of overwhelming odds. But that's where the facts of the matter end. The film then renders a totally misleading account of even the most basic facts of the battle, in what might even be said to be almost a propagandistic manner. Let's look at some critical facts, starting with the Spartan's much-touted "love of freedom".
Let's be clear on this: the Spartans held slaves, the Persians generally did not. This fact alone totally shatters the underpinnings of this film. The Spartans were not fighting for a "new age of Freedom". Indeed the Spartans more often than not were fighting their fellow Greeks for Hellenic rulership. They were a Greek superpower engaged in constant power struggles. Meanwhile the entire Spartan and Greek empire was served by Greek slaves called Helots. These Helots had no personal or political freedom, toiling to provide the goods and services the Spartans enjoyed. They were ritually mistreated, often fatally, and their young were forcibly recruited into the army to fight for the Greeks. Indeed the Spartans lived in fear of the Helots as they were outnumbered by them and totally reliant on them. When a Spartan came of age, he didn't go off to hunt a wolf, he would hunt and kill unarmed helots to prove his manhood.
The Persians made a point of declaring this in Cyrus the Great's Charter of Human Rights which has been recognized by the United Nations as the first such charter:
Quote:
I prevent slavery and my governors and subordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their own ruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over.
In fact the Persians freed all the Jewish slaves upon conquering Babylon.
Whereas the Spartans and Greeks held and mistreated slaves and did so as a normal part of their economy, Persian troops came from many conquered lands, but they were paid and not enslaved to fight. Persian lands were ruled by local Governors (called Satraps) and were not enslaved nations. They were specifically allowed to retain their traditions, religions, and wealth. Persia was one of the first truly tolerant empires on Earth, attempting to bring a range of nations under an umbrella of Persian law and justice. Were the Persians saints on earth? I doubt that. But even by Greek accounts they certainly appear far more tolerant, just and good than the Spartans. The Greeks hold the main known accounts of the Persians - Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian records by burning down Persepolis. So despite their clear bias against the Persians, even the Greeks respected and revered them.
The Persians are portrayed in a horrendously inaccurate fashion.
Here is how they're portrayed in the film:
The Immortals did not wear Japanese-style armour or face masks, nor use Japanese-style Katana/Wakizashi sword combinations. They did not call themselves "Immortals" as a boast, this is a Greek name given to them. They obviously did not look like orcish man-beasts either, nor is it even clear how the Immortals fought at Thermopylae; whether they were used in full force or kept as a reserve for later battles in the Greek campaign. I'd suggest it seems unlikely that the 10,000 Immortals fought actively at Thermopylae in reality, as they were elite forces too valuable to sacrifice in a scenario involving an attack on a fortified mountain pass.
-The Persians are portrayed as perverse and blasphemous, godless people. Yet ironically it was the Greeks who had multiple gods and sacrificed offerings to them - often hundreds of animals sacrificed before battle to appease their Gods. The Persians on the other hand were Zoroastrians, a religion which only has one God and is the forerunner of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. It has as the central tenet "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds." The Persians did not engage in perverse or depraved acts - indeed unlike the Greeks, the Persians did not as a matter of common acceptance take small boys to bed for example. The Persians appear to have taken pleasure in the simpler things in life, such as the cultivation of beautiful gardens. They had a (ironically) very 'spartan', minimalist lifestyle. They were also Aryans, not dark people - the country Iran to this day retains its name meaning "Land of Aryans".
There are of course other issues, such as the fact that the Greeks were not united in opposing the Persians; some wanted to make peace with the Persians not fight them. Most importantly, there were not only 300 Spartans who came to the battle of Thermopylae, there were 700 Thespians who joined them, and indeed a range of up to 6,000 other Greeks (some of them forcibly retained by the Spartans to fight). Thus the total Greek fighting force was closer to 7,000 for most of the battle. The Spartans would alternate with the rest of the Greeks in holding the front line of the Phalanx.
The numbers for the battle are generally incredibly nonsensical. It is claimed by the Greek historian Herodotus that they were around 2 million Persians. This is almost certainly totally absurd. Read the discussion at Wikipedia to understand why. The numbers were more likely to be in the range of 200,000, some even say as low as 30,000. The Greeks are claimed to have killed up to 20,000 Persians in the first couple of days, while only losing 2 -3 Spartans. Picture for yourself how stupid this claim is. Imagine if you will that 20,000 corpses could even fit in the mouth of a narrow pass, much less at the cost of only two Spartan lives. This among other claims by Greek historians is obviously the work of a fervent imagination designed to glorify the Spartans beyond belief. It also reinforces the fact that most accounts of the battle itself are likely over-hyped and exaggerated a great deal by the Greeks.
- The Persian army was large not due to "Persian cowardice", but because the Persians were marching on the whole of Greece itself, not just against the Spartans. The Spartans intercepted the Persians on the way through Greece. Not that using large numbers in an Army could be considered cowardice, otherwise the US, Russian and Chinese armies could then be accused of much the same thing in any recent engagements they've been involved in.
They did not jump about killing hundreds of men with amazing dance-fighting techniques as the 300 would have you believe. The only thing which kept them alive for as long as it did was the strategy of using a tight-shielded Phalanx formation, maintained at the mouth of a narrow pass.
Ok, So What, It's Just a Movie Dude
The most common response to these types of allegations will be "So what, the 300 is just a movie, it's not meant to be historically accurate!". Yes, of course it's a movie.
They serve to generate or reinforce stereotypes, particularly among more impressionable, less experienced youth who are actually the target audience for this film. I even saw one discussion on the IMDB movie boards discussing whether we could live up to the ideals of the Spartans! Most people have no idea that aside from the Hollywood special effects, this film is actually way off the mark in almost every respect, particularly about the Spartans and the Persians, who they really were, and what they actually stood for.
Disturbingly, this film is clearly intended as a sort of morality tale, about "defending freedom" at all costs. The humble but militarily supreme Spartans, while heavily outnumbered, bravely fight to the end to secure freedom against tyranny. The Spartans are clearly a proxy for white western people, both in appearance and their jovial behavior. The Persians are clearly a proxy for Middle Easterners.
