maddogdrivethru.net

300 is by all accounts following the Greek oratory - it's how the Greeks would have told the story. Not as objective and post-modern apologetic tone of trying to assert if the Persians felt themselves victims or so and were somehow forced to invade due to Greeks themselves, no, it makes no apologies in painting the people protecting their fatherland as heroes fighting the weird alien invaders while also touching on the subject of traitors - and how the obsession to perfection and following rejection of the willing could turn people into treason out of spite.

If you didn't catch the self critical undertone then you should watch it again.

As for homosexuality, it was a non-issue in many places until Christianity. Suddenly the exact ways people were enjoying each other became a hot topic with A Bunch Of Guys (TM) telling everyone how to do it and with whom lest you'd be heretic and go to hell but only after a divine beating from the congregation.

The rest of your own obsession with trying to find ways to make fun of warrior elites reeks of the Marxist historians who are always focusing solely on asserting that all warrior elites that weren't socialist were essentially 1) crap at war and 2) all faggots who couldn't get it up with women. While with everyone else it's about seeing them in the context of their own cultures and whatnot somehow warrior societies are always little more than subject of ridicule.

As for myself I don't care who they slept with or if they were into celibacy or if they fucked goats. My primary interest is in sociological dynamics of any given socioeconomic system, it's relation between inputs and outputs and ability to defend itself and potentially for projection of force. From military aspect I am interested in the organization, training etc. and the combat value and systems.

In other words I don't give a damn if for example one of history's greatest generals slept with his wife, his adjutant or with goats or if he didn't have anything down there. It is non-sequential trivia that is primarily promoted by dilettantes who feel a necessity to disparage historic figures and symbols to make their own lack of masculinity seem like less of an issue.

Never mind the Greek oratory, but giving a movie a name that tells how many historical errors are in it is a novel idea. Thóugh this case clearly an understatement.

Take this Ephialtes thing, and do you really think that Spartans fought nekked, without body armor?

More: THE HISTORICAL INACCURACIES IN 300.

I have watched a part of the movie, bought from the box of five movies for 10€.

No force in the universe, no ultra violence can force me to watch it all.

Hence my rating:



So it goes.

As Jwilk says, "train like you expect to fight:" off balance at the outset.

Not enough Nazis for you in it? If it had Nazis in it you'd have watched it 50+ times already and made gif animations out of it that you'd post here as insults.

You fucking moron, it's based on a Cartoon Novel and you went in for a dry history lesson with socialist leanings and quit when you realized that this movie was not going to have the mandatory Hollywood gay-scene.

Yes, 300 is a movie based on cartoon novel, not history. That is what I have been saying all the time.

And clean up your language, drop ad hominems and behave like a moderator is supposed to behave.

The Greek legends themselves are largely Historical Fantasy.

Unless some boy lover actually thought that there was an island filled with dumb cyclops and so forth.



Why don't you grow some skin you commie apologist piece of shit?

Alternatively you can go cry in a safe space, whatever works for you.

It is only you to confuse history and myths. And there are some degree of truth in myths like Troy.

But your lack of knowledge about history makes everything a mystical to you.

And your ad hominems do not bother me at all, I take them as a sign of your loss of argument(s).

Loser.

Kinda like when you run out of things to say, don't feel confident enough to challenge my sources and then sputter out the necessary "..nazi..." retort?

Niin metsä vastaa kun sinne huutaa, eikö?

There is nothing mystic about second hand legends being questionable at best. If you yourself knew any history then you understood the meaning of source criticism.

For instance that there may have been a major flood sometime in the past near Black Sea region does not mean that Noah Myth is suddenly reasonably accurate second hand description of historical events.

Same here. While some elements of hearsay that may or may not have at some point in some way been based on some historical event have been woven into a fantastical heroic epic it does not mean that the story in any way or form acts as a good source for historical information. We can look at what is said there but can we for instance take measurements for weapons from the source?

That's quite the tricky question because it's not the same thing to change weapons and their characteristics in a story as it is to add fantastic monsters. In other words, you could have a legend where they slay a minotaur but to add 'credibility' they could be referencing real weapons unless they wanted to exaggerate the hero by having him wield a 1,500kg sword.

Even then such assumptions as that a weapon described in a fantastical legend would be real are based on very weak evidence. The mere presence of fantastical things in a story does immediately reduce the worth of everything said in it. Even when the story is supposedly non-fantastical oratory history or even written accounts we always have the problem that people may exaggerate, misunderstand, have different measures, they may mishear things and so forth and not least a common thing in past sources was to for instance replace any past equipment with contemporary equipment for the author. For instance we have pictures of biblical stories where they wield 14th century French equipment.


You have this compelling need to see me as someone I am not and when I don't fit your image you dismiss any contrary evidence and keep calling me a nazi.

Hence I have adopted a hostility towards you, you condescending piece of shit. I'd rather eat a broken bottle of tabasco sauce than share a drink with a cunt like you.

I have now crafted a model out of metal wire that clearly demonstrates my loathing towards you in a way that it cannot be mistaken.

You are little more than a sad troll.

Watching a fight in the matrix!