ancient essay

•September 4, 2008 • Leave a Comment

 

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 2nd  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

 

Posted in Uncategorized

very valuable infomation regarding the numbers, causes and ups and dows of the war.

•August 18, 2008 • Leave a Comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

Failure of the frontal assault

Xerxes I  sent in the Medes who had been only recently conquered by the Persians, perhaps, as Diodorus Siculus suggested, because he wanted them to bear the brunt of the fighting.[30] The Medes soon found themselves in a frontal assault. The Greeks had camped on either side of the rebuilt Phocian wall. That the wall was guarded shows that the Greeks were using it to establish a reference line for the battle, but they fought in front of it.[31]

Details of the tactics are scant. The Greeks probably deployed in a phalanx), a wall of overlapping shields and layered spearpoints, spanning the width of the pass. Herodotus says that the units for each state were kept together.[32]) The Persians, armed with arrows and short spears, could not break through the long spears of the Greek phalanx, nor were their lightly armoured men a match for the superior armour, weaponry, and discipline of the Greek hoplites.

Glotz has argued that three Persian Empire soldiers were necessary to put down one hoplite.

Yet there are some indications the Greeks did not fight entirely in close formation. They made use of the feint to draw in the Medes, pretending to retreat in disorder only to turn suddenly and attack the pursuing Medes. In this way they killed so many Medes that Xerxes is said to have started up off the seat from which he was watching the battle three times.

 
According to Herodotus and Diodorus, the Persian emperor, having taken the measure of the enemy, threw his best troops into a second assault: the Immortals  an elite corps of 10,000 men.[36] However, according to Ctesias, the Immortals did not attack until the second day. Ctesias tells that Xerxes sent another 20,000 troops against the Greeks, after the first 10,000 were defeated, who also failed to open the pass even though they were flogged by their leaders to keep on attacking.[29]

On his side, Leonidas had arranged a system of relays between the hoplites of the various cities so as to constantly have fresh troops on the front line. In the heat of the battle, however, the units did not get a chance to rotate. Able to approach the Greek line only in such numbers as the space allowed, the Immortals fared no better than the Medes, and Xerxes had to withdraw them as well. The first day of battle probably ended there.[37]

On the second day Xerxes sent, according to Ctesias, another 50,000 to assault the pass. Again they failed. The account of the slain gives some indication why: the wall of bodies must have broken up the Persian line and detracted from their morale. Climbing over the bodies, they could see that they had stepped into a killing machine but the officers behind prevented them from withdrawing. Xerxes at last stopped the assault and withdrew to his camp, totally perplexed. By now he concluded that a head-on confrontation against Spartan-led troops in a narrow place was the wrong approach.[29]

Encirclement of the Greeks

Late on the second day of battle, as the Persian king was pondering what to do next, he received a windfall: a Malian  Greek traitor named Ephialtes  informed him of a path around Thermopylae and offered to guide the Persian army through the pass. Ephialtes was motivated by the desire of a reward. For this act, the name of Ephialtes received a lasting stigma, coming to mean “nightmare” and becoming the archetypal term for a “traitor” in Greek.[38]

Xerxes I sent his commander Hydarnes through the pass with the Immortals and other troops (a force of about 40,000), according to Ctesias.[29] The path led from east of the Persian camp along the ridge of Mt. Anopaea behind the cliffs that flanked the pass. It branched with one path leading to Phocis and the other down to the Gulf of Malis at Alpenus, first town of Locris. Leonidas had stationed 1,000 Phocian volunteers on the heights to guard that path.[39]

Despite their indignation in not being on the front lines and their determination to defend Thermopylae, the Phocians were not expecting an attack on the rear guard: there were no advance positions, sentinels, or patrols. Their first warning of the approach of the Immortals under Hydarnes was the rustling of oak leaves at first light on the third day of the battle. Herodotus says that they “jumped up” (suggesting that the Greek force was still asleep) and were “greatly amazed” (which no alert unit should have been).[40] Hydarnes was perhaps as amazed to see them hastily arming themselves as they were to see him and the Persian forces. He feared that they were Spartans, but was enlightened by Ephialtes and proceeded by firing “showers of arrows” at them. The Phocians retreated to the crest of the mountain to make their stand, not realizing that this strategy would allow the Persians to take the left branch of the pass to Alpenus and hence circle behind the main Greek force.[40])

Final stand of the Spartans and Thespians

Before first light, Leonidas learned that the Phocians had not held and he called a council of war at dawn. During the council some Greeks argued for withdrawal in the face of the overwhelming Persian advance, while others pledged to stay. After the council, many of the Greek forces did choose to withdraw. Herodotus believed that Leonidas blessed their departure with an order, but he also offered the alternate point of view that those retreating forces departed without orders.[41] The Spartans had pledged themselves to fight to the death, while the Thebans were held as hostage against their will. However, a contingent of about 700 Thespians, led by general Demophilus, the son of Diadromes, refused to leave with the other Greeks, but cast their lot with the Spartans.[42]) Unknown and unremembered by most, 900 Helots died fighting alongside their masters in the last stand.[1]

Ostensibly, the Spartans were obeying their oath and following the oracle of Delphi (see below). However, it might also have been a calculated strategy to delay the advance of the Persians and cover the retreat of the Greek army. Once the pass was cleared the Persians could use their cavalry to pursue and stop the retreat of the Greek infantry in the more open terrain. Infantry cannot outrun cavalry; once halted in the open, the Greeks could be overwhelmed by superior numbers. In fact, with the Persians so close at hand, the decision to stand and fight was probably a tactical requirement only made more palatable by the oracle.[15])
At dawn Xerxes made libations. He paused to allow the Immortals sufficient time to descend the mountain, and then began his advance.[43]

Size of the Greek army

According to Herodotus,[67] the Greek army included the following forces:
Units Numbers

Spartans 300, Mantineans 500, Tegeans  500, Arcadian Orchomenos  120, Other Arcadians  1,000, Corinthians  400, Phlians  200, Mycenaeans 80, Thespians 700, Thebans 400, Phocians 1,000, Opuntian Locrians 13, Total 5,200+

To this number must be added 1,000 other Lacedemonians mentioned by Diodorus Siculus  and perhaps 800 auxiliary troops from other Greek cities, bringing the total up to 7,000. Diodorus gives 4,000 as the total of Greek troops, and Pausanias.

Modern historians, who usually consider Herodotus more reliable, prefer his claim of 7,000 men. This changed later on in the battle as, under orders, the entire army, save the Spartans, Helots, Thespians, and Thebans, retreated.

Size of the Persian army
Fleet crew 517,610 Infantry 1,700,000, Cavalry 80,000, Arabs and Libyans 20,000, Greek troops allied with Persians 324,000 Total 2,641,610

Primary sources
Xerxes I, king of Persia, had been preparing for years to continue the Greco-Persian Wars started by his father King Darius. In 481 BC, after four years of preparation, the Persian army and navy arrived in Asia Minor.

A bridge of ships had been made at Abydos. This allowed the land forces to cross the Hellespont.

Herodotus of Halicarnassus, who wrote the first history of this war, gave the size of Xerxes’s army as follows:

Units Numbers Fleet crew 517,610 Infantry 1,700,000, Cavalry 80,000,      Arabs and Libyans 20,000, Greek troops allied with Persians 324,000 Total 2,641,610

This is the account for the land armies present at Thermopylae. Regarding the total number of forces Xerxes I  assembled to invade Greece (land army, fleet crew, etc.), this number is nearly doubled in order to account for support troops and thus Herodotus reports that the total Persian force numbered 5,283,220 men,[59] a figure which is regarded as erroneous by modern estimations. The poet Simonides, who was a near-contemporary, talks of four million. Ctesias of Cnidus, Artaxerxes II of Persia‘s personal physician, wrote a history of Persia according to Persian sources one century later that unfortunately has not survived, and gives 800,000 as the total number of the original army that met in Doriskos, Thrace after crossing the Hellespont.

Modern estimates

Modern scholars have given different estimates based on knowledge of the Persian military systems, their logistical capabilities, the Greek countryside, and supplies available along the army’s route. Some modern estimations tend to consider the figures given in ancient texts as miscalculations or exaggerations on the part of the victors.

Grote, Mitchell Cary and Cartledge assume that if Herodotus’ 300,000 estimate at Plataea were to be accepted, then the land army at Thermopylae may not have surpassed 500,000, which accounts for one fifth of Herodotus’ record.[60] Others give an upper limit of 250,000 total land forces and 500,000 for the expedition. One of the main reasons often given for these values is a lack of water. Sir Frederick Maurice,[61] was among the first to propose that the army could not have surpassed 175,000 due to this reason, at a time when hydrological data on Greek rivers was unavailable. Another reason he suggested was that it may have been impossible for an army of 210,500 (150,500 combatants and 60,000 non-combatants) to camp in an area of a few square miles.[61] A widely supported view holds that Herodotus may have confused the Persian terms for chiliarchy and myriarchy (one thousand, and ten thousand) The topic has been controversial but modern consensus suggests a range of 60,000 to 300,000 for the land force figures according to Thomas Kelly,[2] though higher and lower estimates have been suggested by several scholars,[63] but more popular views support ranges between 100,000-150,000 or 150,000-200,000.[64] The topic has been hotly debated but the consensus among Western historians revolves around the figure of 200,000 according to Philip De Souza.[64] All these estimates concern the land forces alone, whereas the entire Persian presence in Greece, including support troops and fleet crew, would almost double the number.
Some historians have suggested numbers higher and lower than the modern consensus. At the higher end of modern estimates, some historians begin with the assumption that Herodotus is accurate in claiming that Mardonius led a remnant of 300,000 Persians the next year in the battle of Plataea and thus Xerxes led a larger army at Thermopylae. Kampouris claims that Ctesias’ 800,000 figure was accurate [65] as does Stecchini while Despotopoulos and Romas believe that the army numbered little more than 400,000. At the lower end of modern estimates, some historians have suggested numbers lower than 60,000
The numbers given by Herodotus on the Persian fleet are considered largely realistic. It is generally maintained that Herodotus or his sources had access to official Persian Empire records of the forces involved in the expedition, and it is more likely the numbers on the fleet were given precisely, whereas the contingent of the army may have been listed in general terms rather than exact figures.

Whatever the real numbers were, it is clear that Xerxes I was anxious to ensure a successful expedition by mustering an overwhelming numerical superiority by land and by sea.
I found this interesting little bit of info, really quite amazing of how monuments were also put up of Leonidas and for Thespians for their last stand in the Battle of Thermopylae.

 

More info, one person’s perspective.

 

Many inaccurate historical events found in 300.

1. Immortals were mounted medium calvery, and they fought the 1000 phociens from the south mountains.

2.Spartans had body armor, and didn’t wear sandols, they were on bare foot.

3.Spartans had to resort in biting and punching as their weapons broke in the battle.

4. Leonardos fell in battle, so they fought over his body.

5. Persion fleet never arrived ar coast, they were busy from Athenian navy.

6. There is a gross exageration over the number of Persians.

7. Shield (hoplon, dispus) was chin to knee, not that big.

8. Persians shown great bravery in battle aswell as Spartans.

9. Spartans never threw their spears, as Leonardoes did.

10. The helmet design is wrong I THINK, isn’t the cresent side ways in Spartan tradition.

11. Xerxes didn’t look like that.

12. They never formed a bubble, a circle at the end i think.

13. Thermoylae was a loss for Greece, then the persians advanced to Athens to conquer it. ( in the end of the movie didn’t they claim they fought them again with reinforcements and won?).

14. Persians not that weak.

15. Spartans had LOTS of helots with them for light infantry.

16. Immortals barely killed much Phocians in battle maybe a few.

17. Spartans didn’t handle the battle as skillfully they did in the battle.

18. There weren’t any mutants or freaks = ).

19.The battle was poorly renacted.

The movie is biased on Greeks side. I seems that the producer is a Greek who has a grudge or enmity on the Persians, as the Persians did kill many Greeks in the invasian of Athens.

There are many more inaccuracies, but if im wrong please correct me or share your opinions too.

 

PERSON ABOVE’S VIEWS IS VERY DEBATABLE!!

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805193/posts

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized

Most used infomation on this asesment keep refering..!

•August 8, 2008 • 1 Comment

MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION SO FAR…CONTAINS MISCONCEPTIONS AND REASONS TO SUPPORT THE HISTORICAL INACCURACY OIF THE MOVIE 300, in relation to historical texts..

 

 

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

Posted in Uncategorized

Infomation from a website taht contains an insight to the numbers and allies of each army.

•August 8, 2008 • Leave a Comment

This information is very contradictive of other sites, and vice versa.

 

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.

Posted in Uncategorized

background on battle of thermopelae

•July 31, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Ionia and the Ionian rebellion: 545-494 BC

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.

Posted in Uncategorized

infomation for historical investigation.

•July 25, 2008 • Leave a Comment

 

The site of the battle today.

Date

480 BC[1]

Location

Thermopylae, Greece

Result

Persian victory.

Territorial
changes

Persians gain control of the Thermopylae pass.

 

Belligerents

Greek city-states

Achaemenid Empire

Commanders

Leonidas †

Xerxes I of Persia,
Mardonius,
Artapanus

Strength

300 Spartans
700 Thespians[2]
6,000 other Greek allies*

80,000 (Ctesias)[3]
(Modern Consensus)
(See below)

Casualties and losses

300 Spartans
900 Helots
1,000 Phocians?
700 Thespians[2]
400 Thebans
Unknown others[4]

20,000 (Herodotus

 

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

Posted in Uncategorized

historical investigation guidelines.

•July 25, 2008 • Leave a Comment

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

TOPIC:

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS (with key ‘verb’):

SOURCES IDENTIFIED:

Primary

Secondary

 

 

 

and..

 

 

Boys, today we begin our investigation.

 

The historical investigation is designed to provide opportunities for all students to further develop relevant investigative, research and presentation skills that are the core of the historical inquiry process. The outcomes addressed in the investigation build on those in the Years 7–10 History syllabus. Ancient History students will access the Preliminary Stage 6 outcomes at different levels depending on their abilities and previous experience. The investigation also provides the context for a practical application of the key competencies on page 13.

 

The investigation should extend a particular area of individual student or group interest.  The investigation can be integrated into any aspect of the Preliminary course and need not be completed as one project. Students should be encouraged to choose a topic and presentation style that reflects their individual interests and abilities.

 

Possible historical investigations include:

·         a case study

·         aspects of a case study

·         significant individuals or groups

·         significant events

·         a thematic study

·         aspects of everyday life

·         specific sites and buildings

·         aspects of an ancient society

·         historical debates

·         myths and legends

·         historical debates

·         constructions of the ancient past in various media.

 

The process of historical investigation involves:

·         planning and conducting historical investigations

·         comprehending archaeological and written sources

·         locating, selecting and organizing relevant information from a variety of sources

·         using a variety of sources to develop a view about historical issues

·         analysing sources for their usefulness and reliability

·         identifying different historical perspectives and interpretations evident in sources

·         formulating historical questions and hypotheses relevant to the investigation

·         using historical terms and concepts appropriately

·         synthesising information from a range or sources to develop and support an historical argument

·         presenting and communicating the findings of a historical investigation using appropriate and well-structured oral, written and/or multimedia forms, including ICT

 

This excerpt is taken from the Ancient History Stage 6 Syllabus 2006. Click on the link so you can follow your progress in this course!

Posted in Uncategorized

The Roman Water System

•April 30, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Romans, at first, turned to the Tiber River, local springs, and shallow wells for their drinking water; but water obtained from these sources grew polluted and became inadequate for the city’s growing population. It was this necessity that lead to the development of aqueduct technology. The first aqueduct is dated bacck to the year 312 B.C.

 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.

Aqueduct Date Constructed Length (meters) Altitude�of Source�Above Sea-Level Level�in Rome
Appia 312�B.C. 16,445 30 20
Anio�Vetus 272-269 63,705 280 48
Marcia 144-140 91,424 318 59
Tepula 125 17,745 151 61
Julia 33 22,854 350 64
Virgo 19 20,697 24 20
Alsientina ? 32,848 209 17
Claudia 38-52�A.D. 68,751 320 67
Anio�Novus 38-52 86,964 400 70
TOTAL � 421,431 � �

 

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.

 

Posted in Uncategorized

Seven hills of Rome from wikipedia.

•April 28, 2008 • Leave a Comment

The seven hills of Rome are:

  • Aventine Hill (Aventinus)
  • Caelian Hill (Caelius)
  • Capitoline Hill (Capitolinus)
  • Esquiline Hill (Esquilinus)
  • Palatine Hill (Palatinus)
  • Quirinal Hill (Quirinalis)
  • Viminal Hill (Viminalis)

    • Seven Hills of Rome.svg

     

     

    Of Early Rome:

    Cermalus                                 
    Cispius                                    
    Fagutal                                    
    Oppius                         OF OLD ROME   
    Palatium                                  
    Sucusa                                    
    Velia                                        

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

    Posted in Uncategorized

    Fact and Opinion

    •March 24, 2008 • Leave a Comment

    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.

    Posted in Uncategorized

    « Previous Entries