The movie “300”, written by Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon, with assistance from frank miller, and directed by Zack Snyder, is a Hollywood interpretation of the battle of Thermopylae.

The battle of Thermopylae took place on Greek territory, in 480BC; just pass east central Greece along the coast of Locris facing northern Euboea[1], which was commonly referred to as the “hot gates” Because of the hot spring that flowed through the area. The battle was a result of a revolt from Greece, whom came to aid to the Ionians who tried to colonize on Persian territory, when the Persians found out that the Ionians where receiving food from Athens the Persian demanded that they trade with Persia instead or at least pay them, the Athenians continued trade and the Persians did not like this, so the Persians invaded Greece in 490 B.C under control of king darius, this is known as the battle of marathon, the Athenians held off the coast line and defeated the Persians and the Persians return home for some while, (10 years) until Xerxes son of king darius came back to invade Thermopylae in 480BC with numbers so large they “apparently” shook the earth when they were on the move, this is when the alliance between SOME of the Greek states formed and the battle of Thermopylae started here, Under the control of the Spartan King Leonidas the Greeks assembled into a small mountain pass called Thermopylae, this area was chosen very thoughtfully, as the Greeks had a very small army, so in order to stand a chance an area that was very narrow and with very little chance of being flanked was chosen, which meant that the massive numbers of Xerxes army stood for nothing as they would be filtered through unit by unit, which is all the Greek army would of been able to sustain, given their relatively small size. However aspects from this movie are not historically accurate and somewhat actually offensive to some races, due to the put forward ideas of the interpretations of some races i.e. the Persians made out to be gay and lesbians with body piercings, perpetuated in the movie, which brings into question the historical accuracy of the interpretation of the movie, on aspects like, army size for both sides, dress code, geography, sexuality of Persians, use of helots by Spartans,   Actual age of Leonidas, and also bring into question factors that where ignored, i.e. the Spartans did not fight alone, and many other issues regarding incidents from the war, however there are also a few segments from the movie, that the Hollywood has got spot on, like the Spartan law forbidding them to flee from battle, the strict laws on which Sparta base their society around regarding military, and the one-liners actually said at war which will all be brought up in the essay.

The credit to the outcome of the battle of Thermopylae is so easy to give to the Spartans based on the movie, because it is so easy to buy into the story perpetuated in the movie; 300 Spartan warriors sacrifice their lives to save the Democracy of their states and home and the world from the evil clutches of Persia, whom were out to enslave the world under their mighty army size, forcing nation by nation into slavery. The fact of the matter is that the movie has too much emphasis on the glorification of the Spartans and has left out anything and everything else associated with them. The truth is the Spartans did not fight alone, however where accompanied by close to 15 other states, Sparta went to war as part of an alliance with other states to keep Persia out, the alliance was made in the Autumn of 481 BC, when Sparta in co-operation with Athens called a congress in the temple of Poseidon on the isthmus of Corinth.[2] Every Greek city state that had not fallen to the Persians was called except Massalia who where long time enemies with Sparta, due to recent conflicts between the two involving a recent defeat by the Spartans to the Massalians on their home soil.[3]

The Spartan King was given charge over all the other Greek states as they went to war; all up the total number of troops he went to war with under his command was roughly 5200+[4]

The Actual area of the war is correct, it was a pass that consisted of a track along the shore of the Gulf of Malis, on the southern side of the track stood the cliffs, while on the northern side was the gulf, and however, today the pass is located about several miles inland due to infilling of the Gulf of Malis.(fn)(5)

Throughout history, and even still today, debate has sparked over the actual number of men Xerxes army numbered, because of the lack of realism and level of reality behind the figure given from Herodotus, it is so hard to believe that a force so large could have been held off by a force so minute, It is said by Herodotus of Halicarnassus, who wrote the first history of this war, the size of Xerxes army numbered 2,641,610 of which 517,610 where of the fleet crew, 1,700,000 infantry, 80,000 Calvary, 20,000 Arabs and Libyans, 324,000 Greek troops allied with Persia[5], numbers so large, would have been impossible to move, however, Herodotus also tells us that this figure nearly doubles when you account for support troops and thus reports of a Persian force numbering 5,283,220 men, a figure that seemed out of this world by modern estimations, the poet Simonides, talks of about 4,000,000, and Cnidus and Artaxerxes the 2^nd  wrote a history of Persia about a century later which had not survived, but gave estimations of about 800,000 as Xerxes total army after crossing the Hellespont.[6]

Furthering on Modern scholars have given different estimates based on knowledge of the Persian military systems, and some estimations tend to consider that the figures given in the ancient texts as miscalculations or exaggerations on the part of the victors, modern estimations however, range from 100,000 to 400,000 which seem more realistic, however, based on the movie, which gave an idea of the amount of men, numbering in the millions, just seems to far fetched and impossible/high unlikely based on a number of aspects, like shelter, food, moving a number so large over such a vast area of land, which are all highly probable factors, that where not portrayed in the movie.

Aspects the movie failed to show, that would of played a crucial role in the understanding of Spartan pre-war traditions was the way the Spartans conducted themselves before war, combing their hairs and conducting in athletic combats, It is said by Herodotus that Xerxes sent out a scout before that battle who reported back that he saw the Greeks having a little athletic competition and casually sitting around combing and dressing their long hair[7], It is said by Plutarch that in the times of battle the officers in command relaxed the harshest aspects of their discipline and did not stop the men from beautifying their hair and their armour and their clothing, as it was common practice for the Spartans to fix their hair when they were about to risk their lives before battle, but neither the scout nor his king could comprehend such apparent vanity.[8] It was believed that the Spartans also partook in this progress before war remembering the saying of Lykourgos about the care of hair, that it makes the handsome better looking and the ugly more frightening, during this time period they also had less rigorous exercises, and they Spartan commanders allowed the young men a little more freedom in other words less restriction and supervision, so that for them alone war was a rest from the preparation for war.[9]

In addition to the topic of attitude to war, commemoration must be given to Hollywood for what they have got right in their interpretation of the battle that is the Spartans law!,

for which the Spartans live by, which was accurately narrated about at the start of the movie and shown through movie segments, throughout the movie, these one-liners and actions that where re-enacted in the movie; did take place in real life in accordance to Herodotus, like when the Spartans where offered earth and water, for surrender, and the Spartan king kicked the messengers down into a well and told them to find their earth and water there, and on other occasion when confronted with a Persian army general at the beginning of the war, whom asked them to lower/drop their weapons and surrender one last chance, and in reply received from the Spartans to “come and get them” all these and more are perfect re-enactments that accurately show the true story behind the war at Thermopylae, thus highlighting the Spartans attitudes towards war, which are accurately portrayed in the movie, however not all aspects have been added to the movie, like the pre-war preparations that was mentioned earlier.

To further elaborate the point on how Hollywood has made false portrayals, mention must be bought to the portrayal of the Persians whom were made out to look like half naked savages, and their leader king Xerxes made to look like a Body piercing punk rocker.[10]

However these interpretations are incorrect, and somewhat offensive to some races, the truth to what Xerxes really looked like can be seen in stone carvings located in Persepolis, along the ruins which lie 56km north east of the city of Shiraz.[11] In the movie Xerxes was portrayed as a black man, if anything Xerxes was Semite, that is white; skin coloured which was his real skin colour, and as for his army, they where mixed, however the Persian where defiantly not gay and lesbian, and lesbian be mentioned because some of Xerxes army was female; one of his wives was part of the immortals, his personal body guard, and best elite fighting force, he had.

Also another inaccurate portrayal of the movie, was the actual age of King Leonidas, whom according to professor Paul Cartledge who is the leading authority on matters relative to Sparta, king Leonidas was probably born in around 540BC, this would mean that the Spartan King would of been in his late fifties of possibly even sixties when we died at war, in 480BC at Thermopylae[12] Therefore it is proven that the actual age of Leonidas is incorrect in the movie and Hollywood has perpetuated the king to be in his thirties to forties, most likely for the audience and what they wanted to see, or for popularity reasons, regarding who would sell tickets, whatever it be, it was inaccurate.

During the war, the Spartan military tactics where shown very well, and seemed to be very accurate, however, some of their tactics would of needed a driving force behind themselves, by this, you clearly see that in the movie, the Spartans would wait for the Persian to clash with themselves, hold, hold ,hold and then push back and attack, however, based on size, do you truly and honestly think that the Spartans would have been strong enough to push back an army of such enormity?

The answer behind that was with a wall that was constructed by the Greeks; who hastily erected before war, to aid their defence and stop Persian further advance.

When assessing the historical accuracy of an event or in this case a movie, question must be asked on if it was a bias interpretation, or not, one can only assume that it is given the amount of changes to history made by the movie, whether it was a deliberate attempt or not, leaving out such important aspects of the time of battle when trying to show the world the events that took place back then, is not right.

However, the movie 300 was actually based on the comic book 300, written by frank miller, whom actually assisted in directing the movie 300, so, the movie was based on a comic that was a fictional retelling of the battel of Thermopylae, however bias must still be considered, given that help, that was given to the Spartan would have perhaps taken away from the courageousness of the 300 Spartans to go to war by themselves, like the use of helots 900[13] of them to be sure, whom also stayed till the last battle and died, the helots where the Spartans serfs, and assisted the Spartans throughout the duration of the war, this was a major factor left out from the movie, but presumably left out because of what status it may of taken from the Spartans, which probably answers why none of the other Greek city stated where incorporated in the movie.

Based on the above it is fairly evident that the Portrayal of the war, is not a reliable source to go off, and incorrect, it faces many inaccuracies and seems to have been filmed from a bias stand point whereas to Glorify the Spartans and make the whole war seem as though it was all from the Spartans own effort, even though it has been proven that the Spartan army did not fight alone, the use of helots enhanced their preparation, so not all credit should go to them, when these factors are added into a movie, that did not have this, it completely changes everything around, because know it is not about glorification, it is about the facts; something Hollywood failed to get right, It is not a reliable source of information and only made for enjoyment purposes, the actual age of a crucial key figure in the movie was perpetuated to be in an age bracket 20-30 years younger than what it was supposed to be, however, the movie did manage to get right the Spartan warrior code, and the laws on which they live by, but overall, it is clearly visible, that through the facts conveys the movie 300 does not have the historical accuracy to be considered reliable.

By: Jabour Joseph

Teacher: Mr. Hendry

Class: 11.1 Ancient History

(fn) (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

INFORMATION

Bias in the battle of Thermopylae, and misconceptions.

Okay, well according to professor Paul Cartledge who is the leading authority on matters relative to Sparta, ‘king Leonidas was probably born in about 540 BC. This would mean that the Spartan king would have of been in his fifties or perhaps even as old as 60 when he died at Thermopylae in 480 BC, which may seem hard for everyone to come to terms with based on his age, and physical ability, but we need to remember that the way of a Spartan was to train, and fight, thus the health of the king Leonidas at 60 would have been at good as a healthy man today in his forties.

Therefore, if the aforementioned age of Leonidas is correct Hollywood has perpetuated the “myth that king Leonidas was in his late thirties to forties.

The historical record of the battle of Thermopylae in pretty much based around the work by Herodotus, in book seven.

There is much controversy towards the movies historical accuracy, one major point that was left out by the film makers of the movie 300 was that the Spartans did not fight the Persians alone, but rather as the head of a Greek alliance that included most importantly Athens. Sparta was the greatest Greek military power on land, and Athens by sea, therefore the decision was made that the resistance to the massive Persian army would have to be an amphibious one, Sparta by land and Athens by sea, including the other 30 or so states that joined the alliance, so in mentioning that, it is fair to mention how the filmmakers missed out that Leonidas and his Spartans were attempting to hold the Thermopylae pass by land in conjunction with the allied Greek fleet led by Athens just up the coast.

Also the Greek alliance was very small, it actually only had about 30 Greek cities out of 700 or so…

And another interesting fact is that apparently far more Greeks fought n the Persian side than on the loyal Greek side.

And how can we miss what the movie adds in, like the scary monsters and fantasy fiction creatures, which was all partly to take advantage of the latest computer techno – wizardry, ALSO all scenes where shot indoors against a blue screen with background effects added on digitally like Mountains Sea, etc… Only one scene was shot outdoors, weirdly enough the whole movie is based outdoors.

However strong mention to what the movie has right is the Spartans heroic code, and the key role played by women in backing up, the male martial code of heroic honour.

MORE!!!!

The battle of Thermopylae was of course written by a classical Greek author, Herodotus, who lived in the Persian city of Halicarnassus.

His book ‘The histories’ Became part of western folklore only recently.

It was not until 1850 that America recognized Herodotus as the leading Authority on Persian history.

Before 1850, however, the West had a very favourable impression of the Persian Empire. That’s because the West’s main source for Persian history was the Bible and the ‘Cyropaedia,’ written by another Greek author named Xenophon.

But the Cyropaedia glorified the monarchy of Cyrus the Great, and in the wake of two bloody revolutions fought by America and France to liberate themselves from their own monarchies, a major campaign began, around the mid 19th century, to promote democracy throughout the rest of Europe, and Herodotus was the perfect propaganda tool.

Herodotus was a democratic groupie and was quickly ushered in as the “Father Of History.” Around 1850, his ‘Battle Of Thermopylae’ came to symbolize the West’s struggle for democracy against the powerful forces of Persia’s monarchy.

The story is easy to buy into: 300 brave Spartans saved Western democracy from 2.7 million evil Persians. But aside from the fanciful numbers which need decimal-point adjustments, this whimsical tale has far graver consequences than a mere biased account of history.

The ‘Battle Of Thermopylae’ has been the single most powerful wedge, which has divided East and West for over 2 millennia. In a time when East and West should be reconciling their differences, along comes the movie ’300′ to drive that wedge even deeper.

What is most disturbing about this movie is not that it lacks historical accuracy. It is not that Xerxes, the Grandson of Cyrus The Great and loving husband of Esther, is shown as an oversized drag queen. It is not even the outdated racist cliché of casting the Persians as Africans and the Spartans as white, blue-eyed ‘Chippendale dancers,’ when in reality the roles may well have been reversed.

What is so distressing about this movie is the realization of the tremendous power Hollywood wields in determining a people’s identity. It is the same nightmare Native Americans endured during the whole ‘cowboy-movie’ genre.

But for those who are quick to dismiss ’300′ as a fleeting fantasy flick aimed at the insignificant, 17 to 24 year-old male video-gamer, think again. First there was Alexander, now ’300,’ next could well be the ‘Battle Of Marathon,’ another one of Herodotus’ glowing accounts of ancient Persia.

Herodotus is accepted blindly by virtually all Western demographics. Even the New York Times is not immune. Here is how it described the Persians in its April 20, 2004 issue about the Battle Of Marathon:

“the defeat of a ruthless state (Persia) that had enslaved much of the known world from the Balkans to the Himalayas.”

http://www.spentaproductions.com/300themovie_the_truth_behind_300.htm

However provides me with a more vast array of possibilities as to who may have been with the Persians. And what they where armed with.

Xerxes spent more than four years gathering soldiers and stockpiling supplies from every corner of his empire. The resulting host amounted to a colossal cosmopolitan army of armies. In it were Persians, Medes and Hyrcanians, all wearing felt caps, tunics, mail and trousers, and armed with short spears, light wicker shields and deadly, powerful composite bows. Assyrians joined them, protected by bronze helmets and shields, and bearing spears, daggers and iron-studded wooden clubs. Bactrians, Parthians and Chorasmians added short bows and spears. The Scythian Sacae, in their tall pointed hats, bristled with bows, daggers and axes. Cotton-wearing Indian auxiliaries were armed with bows that shot iron-tipped arrows. There were Paricanians, Pactyans, Arabs, Ethiopians, Libyans, Paphlagonians, Ligyans, Matieni, Mariandynians, Syrians, Phrygians, Lydians, Thracians, Pysidians, Cabalians, Moschians, Tibareni, Macrone and Mossynoeci. The list, even in abbreviated form, reads like a catalog of lost peoples. Together, they formed an army that the Greek historian Herodotus estimated at 1.7 million, excluding the navy. When he added ship-borne fighters and European allies to the total, he came to a sum 2.6 million, a figure that he reckoned would have to be doubled to account for servants, crews and camp followers.

This gives me an insight to some more of the Greek states that joined the alliance to resist Persia

The Greek force that now raced to Thermopylae was ridiculously small for the challenge that awaited it: 300 Spartans, 80 Myceneans, 500 Tegeans, 700 Thespians and so forth, totaling about 4,900. The Athenians voted to evacuate their city. Their men of military age embarked on ships, while women and children were sent to the safer territory of the Peloponnesus. As Xerxes’ army drew closer, a Persian scout rode to survey the Greek camp. What he saw astonished him the Spartans, many of them naked and exercising, the rest calmly combing their hair. It was common practice for the Spartans to fix their hair when they were about to risk their lives, but neither the scout nor his king could comprehend such apparent vanity.

When the Persians annexe Ionia in about 545, acquiring a foothold on the Aegean, the strongest city state in mainland Greece is Sparta. None of the Greek states risk an armed excursion in defence of the Ionians, but the Spartans do send a message to the Persian emperor, Cyrus, warning him to keep away from Greece. His reply, as reported, suggests genuine bewilderment. ‘Who are the Spartans?’, he asks.

Far from keeping away, an expedition of 514 approaches alarmingly close to Greece from the north, conquering Thrace and Macedonia to bring the northern coast of the Aegean under Persian control. But it is on the coast of Anatolia that the crisis intensifies.

In 499 BC the cities of Ionia rebel against their Persian satrap. They are supported to a limited extent by Athens. The rebellion continues fitfully until finally put down in 493. But this region is now established as an area of friction between Persia and Greece. Geographically Ionia seems a natural extension of Persia’s great land empire. But culturally the Ionians are linked to all the other Greek-speaking peoples round the Aegean Sea.

Athens becomes the main target of the Persian emperor’s hostility – partly because of her support for the Ionian rebels, but also because the tyrant Hippias, expelled from Athens, is at the Persian court offering treacherous encouragement. In 490 Darius launches his attack.

A Persian fleet sails along the southern coast of Anatolia. According to Herodotus, it numbers 600 ships. The horses of the famous Persian cavalry are in transport vessels; the troops are carried in triremes.

From Ionia this armada sets a course straight across the Aegean, pausing only at Naxos and other islands to take hostages and press recruits into the army. The destination is Marathon, a plain to the north of Athens on which the cavalry will have room to manoeuvre. The army lands on the island of Euboea, conquers the small city of Eretria, makes the short crossing to the mainland at Marathon, and waits.

MARATHON 490 BC

In Athens the decision is taken to send an army to confront the Persians, rather than concentrate on defence of the city. A runner, whom Herodotus names as Pheidippides, is sent to seek help from Sparta. He completes the journey of about 150 miles (240 km) in two days. The Spartans agree to cooperate. But a religious ceremony prevents them from setting off until the next full moon, in six days’ time.

At Marathon 10,000 Greek hoplites confront perhaps 25,000 Persians. The Persians wait for the Greeks to attack across the plain, exposing themselves to the cavalry. The Greeks creep forward,   night after night, with a ruse to frustrate the Persian horsemen.

They fell trees to create a barricade against the cavalry, and they move them gradually forward under cover of darkness. The plain has been considerably reduced in this way, when word comes one night that the Persian cavalry has moved temporarily elsewhere (the reason is unknown).

At dawn the Greek hoplites charge in an extended line across the open ground. Their bronze armour and long spears prove too much for the lightly armed Persian infantry. Even so the Persian advantage in numbers means that the battle is hard fought, making Herodotus’ account of the casualties (192 Athenian dead to 6400 Persians) somewhat hard to believe.

The Persian survivors are rescued from the beaches by the fleet, which then moves south to threaten Athens. The Athenian army marches rapidly home to defend the city, and the Persians decide against an assault. They withdraw across the Aegean.

A day or two after the event, 2000 Spartans arrive. They visit the battlefield as admiring tourists, to inspect the Persian dead. The fallen Athenians are buried beneath a great memorial mound (even today it stands 9 metres high). The survivors are acclaimed as heroes.Aeschylus, the great tragedian, fought that day. He will have much in his life to be proud of. But nothing, he says, can compare with being a veteran of Marathon.

Themistocles and the Athenian fleet: 490-480 BC

Nobody doubts that the Persians will be back, but the death of Darius in 486 extends the lull before the storm. Three years later a rich new vein of silver is discovered in the mining district of Laureion, which is owned and run by the Athenian state.

Themistocles persuades his fellow citizens to apply their windfall to a collective cause – the building of a navy stronger than any other in Greece. By 480 there are 200 triremes in the Athenian fleet.

Thermopylae: 480 BC

A vast Persian force led by Xerxes I, the son of Darius, is making its way along the northern coast of the Aegean. The troops are described in mesmerizing detail by Herodotus, writing only half a century later. He lists 1,700,000 soldiers (counted by a novel form of roll call), including 80,000 cavalry. They are accompanied by a fleet of 1207 triremes, each with 200 men on board. Adding in subsidiary troops, Herodotus arrives at a grand total of 5,283,320 – not including eunuchs and female cooks.

These wildly improbable figures suggest the scale of the renewed threat as perceived in Greece. The only difference this time is that such a juggernaut moves slowly. There is time to plan.

At a central point of mainland Greece, the Isthmus of Corinth, thirty-one city-states meet – in the autumn of 481 and again in the spring of 480 – to devise a strategy. It is agreed that all will combine their resources, both military and naval, in a common force under the command of Sparta.

The immediate question is where to make a stand against the advancing Persians. The chosen site is Thermopylae, a long narrow valley through which any army must pass if moving down the coast towards Athens.

Leonidas, one of the two Spartan kings, is in command of the Greek army when the confrontation comes. His Spartan contingent is as yet only an advance guard of 300 men. He stations them under his immediate command at the narrowest part of the pass.

The glittering Persian army has at its head the emperor himself, Xerxes, son of Darius. On two successive days he orders his best troops into the narrow defile. But as at Marathon, ten years earlier, the Persians suffer heavy losses from the longer spears of the Greek hoplites. The situation appears to be an impasse, almost literally – until it is resolved by treachery.

All the Spartans die, selling their lives at a high price – Herodotus writes that the terrified enemy soldiers had to be whipped by their commanders into confronting these Greeks. Their fate becomes the enduring monument to Spartan discipline and valour, captured in a famous epitaph inscribed on a column in the pass: ‘Stranger, go tell the Spartans that we lie here – obedient to their laws.’

Now it is the Athenians who are in the front line against the victorious invaders. As the Persian army moves south towards Attica, the debate in Athens is whether to defend the city or make a strategic withdrawal.

Salamis: 480 BC

Themistocles, who has already persuaded his fellow citizen to invest in a navy, urges withdrawal. According to a story told by Herodotus, he makes good use of the oracle at Delphi which has told them to put their trust in a ‘wooden wall’. What the oracle clearly has in mind, he argues, is a ship.

His advice is accepted. Athens is evacuated, apart from a few stalwarts who interpret the ‘wooden wall’ differently; they retreat to the sacred precinct of the acropolis and build round it a wooden palisade. The rest of the inhabitants are taken by ship across the narrow strait separating Athens from the island of Salamis.

Reaching Athens, the Persians fire blazing arrows into the wooden barricade. Then, with some difficulty, they assault the steep acropolis. After slaughtering those sheltering in the temple, they seize the treasures and demolish the buildings. Athens, so recently given a new grandeur in the reign of Peisistratus, is reduced to rubble. But the destruction will make possible the rebuilding of Athens and an even more glorious city.

Meanwhile the Greek fleet is gathered in the narrow stretch of water between Salamis and the mainland. Themistocles persuades his allies to make a stand here, prevailing over those Peloponnesian states who would prefer to abandon Attica and draw the line at the more defensible Isthmus of Corinth.

The Greek fleet is smaller than the Persian. It numbers only 380 triremes (of which about half are Athenian), and the Greek ships are slower. Themistocles argues that these disadvantages will be irrelevant in a restricted space, where Greek fighting skills can tip the balance (as in the narrow pass at Thermopylae).

His plan depends on the Persian fleet being enticed into the strait at the eastern end of the island of Salamis. Prompted by some deliberately misleading diplomacy, the Persians fall into the trap. As the Greek triremes begin to ram and sink them, panic spreads among the constricted Persian ships – making them ever more vulnerable. The Greek victory is overwhelming.

Plataea and Mykale: 479 BC

The Persians are still occupying and the Athenians cannot hope to dislodge them without Spartan assistance.

This is provided in 479, when a large Greek army marches north from the Peloponnese.

It meets the Persians at Platea, where the Spartan commander, Pausanias, wins a victory against considerable odds.

Meanwhile the Persian navy has retreated across the Aegean. The Greek fleet confronts them again at Mykale, where the Persians make discretion the better part of the valour. They abandon their ships rather than face the Greek Triremes, but they are then defeated by the Greeks in a battle on shore. The westward expansion by Xerxes has been bought to a conclusive end

The Greek colonies in Asia Minor remain under Persian control, and the attempt to recover them will continue for many years. An early success is the liberation of Byzantium, at the mouth of the Black Sea, in 478.

Sparta is not interested in naval expeditions against the Persians in Asia, so the leadership of the Greek forces passes to Athens and the Delian League. By 448 BC the Persians have been cleared from all the Greek territories. There is some evidence that in that year a formal agreement is reached – known as the Peace of Kallias – which excludes the Persian fleet from the Aegean and guarantees the independence of the Greek states of Asia Minor.

Mr. hendry please dont assume i am posting this to make it look like i have done work, i actually read it, adnd i am not lieing!! Promise to G.o.d.

Topic: Greco persian war. – battle of thermopylae.

My topic: out of a possible of two outcomes:

1. Comparison between accuracy of the movie 300 in comparison to historical sources.

or

2. Discusion on the glorification of spartans in the battle of thermopylae, which inevitably resulted in a loss.

possible questions:

1. trying to determine whether there is any factors that may of influenced the writers of 300 to convey bias, or show there understanding/view of the war.

2. Well to evaluate is to make an informed  decision using collected data, to make judgment and appraisals using established evidence. ( comparing a number of views about an issue or problem and weigh up their relative importance.

3. to Examine to to look really deep into a topic or an issue for a deeper understading, to break it down to come up with a more detailed understanding.

4. to asses is to break down in to componants and essential features, and come up with an understanding of what you have obtained

5. To analize is to break down into componants and evaluate the relation ship them, then draw out and relate implications. (2–5)

6. Is to contrast, which is to show how things are different or opposite.

7. Is to discuss, which is to identify issues and provide points for and /or against.

8. predict is to suggest what may happen based on available infomation.

9. extract is to choose relevant and/or appropriate details.

10. distinguish is to recognise or note/indicate as being distinct or different from; to note differences.

I have been thinking of after comming up with my question adding it

Today boys you should be able to FILL IN THESE BLANKS:

TOPIC:

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS (with key ‘verb’):

SOURCES IDENTIFIED:

Primary

Secondary

and..

 IN MY OWN WORDS!!

The anceint romans where very materialistic people, that use their knowledge as an advantage to capitalise on useful monuments and systems to  better their lifestyles,, everything done was usually for a given purpose, that would enable them to capitalise on its use, like the Aqueducts, which where usen to deliver water, to the city from the Tiber River, the local springs, next to the city, which again was very materialistic to have a city built in such a conveiniant location.

Waste was Frequently Emptied Into Street-Side Openings to the Roman Sewers. The sewers carried off sewage, urban runoff, and drainage water together (based on Macaulay).

ancient structures, and techniques used to counter land geographical issues.

Of Early Rome:

• Aventine Hill
• Caelian Hill
• Capitoline Hill
• Esquiline Hill                                    Of Later Rome:
• Palatine Hill
• Quirinal Hill
• Viminal Hill

]]> http://jabourjoseph.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/seven-hills-of-rome-from-wikipedia/feed/ 0 jabourjoseph Seven Hills of Rome.svg http://jabourjoseph.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/fact-and-opinion/ http://jabourjoseph.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/fact-and-opinion/#comments Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:39:44 +0000 jabourjoseph http://jabourjoseph.wordpress.com/?p=8 ]]> Discussing the difference between fact and opinion.

 A fact is is a statement that is objectively true and can be verified, that is; proven right, however where it differenctiates from opinion is; opinion is a person’s ideas and thoughts towards something, It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable(capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation), or the opinion has not been proven or yet verified, therefore being a hypothisis, a presumtion.

What factors affect the objectivity of authors of written sources?

What is objectivity you may ask, well objectivity is the ability to observe or reason without personal bias; while objectivity is virtually impossible to attain in all aspects of research, it is an ideal scientists strive to achieve.

Personal allegiance – where the views of a person is slanted to  one side, there fore being bais, because of a connection in some way to a topic.

Exposure to standing point – This is where the views of a person are from experience, i.e. the views of ajournalists in the middle of a war, are going to be different from a journalist reporting on the war from australia.

Motivation to writting – This is where someone is writting for a reason, the have an alteria motive to write about something, which in most cases is becasue of the feel to express there own opinions.

What is gender bias? How has it manifested itself in the reporting of history over the millenia? Give three examples of gender bias? Is it still a problem today in historiography?

Gender bias is essentially when a writer’s objectivity is truncated by gender-fuelled attitudes or beliefs. With most ancient sources in history being reported from a male perspective because of the composition of the social world at the time, we as an audience get a strongly male definition of all that exists and anything that makes reference to the few women who came to assert a position of power (i.e. Hatshepsut) is often relayed in a negative light, and so we never quite get the full picture. in other words refereing to ancient terms, we have to take into consideration that the roles of men andd women in theose times where veery stereotyped, in the sence that men had muscle and knowlegde and woman, where only good for cooking and cleanign, therefore the views adn accounts on war, where always from a males perspective.