300 movie

[lilelvis2000]

Saw this last night, and really enjoyed it in a 'beating chest, heads flying' type way...

Why didn't the 200,000 Persians all pile into the Spartans in one big mash?

Why were those mega-elephants so ineffective? They just did a bit of trumpeting then fell off the cliff?

Xerxes? What a faggot.

Still, enjoyable 2 hours

I preferred the original movie.

[wendigo100]

Well at the end there really were 300 Spartans, but also about 1000 Helots and a maybe similar but smaller number of Thespians.

I thought they were all Thespians, even the Persians. Except for the Seejee-eyes of course.

[threaded]

I thought they were all Thespians, even the Persians. Except for the Seejee-eyes of course.

That was really very good. ROFLMAO.

[Gibbon]

A less famous before infinitely more important battle was the battle of Marathon in the which the Athenians completely trounced the Persians despite being overwhelmingly out numbered. Even the Spartans, visiting after the battle had to concede the Athenians had won a great victory and all by themselves. This was the battle that stopped the Persian advance into the rest of Greece. Without this victory there would have probalbly being no Greek golden age and it's influence on western culture.
If your interested read Tom Hollands Persian Fire, a very good if a little lightweight introduction into this area.

[Troll]

More commonly known today as the "Battle of Snickers"

[wendigo100]

Anyone running the London Snickers today?

Ah, you wouldn't be on here then, would you.

[threaded]

A less famous before infinitely more important battle was the battle of Marathon...

This is true, but the Battle of Thermopylae was quite a cock-up, and as is the nature of politics/warfare the cock-ups get glamorized and made to appear more glorious than they were. Examples off the top of my head from WW2 are Dunkirk and Operation Market Garden aka A Bridge Too Far.

[Xerxes]

Please stop taking my name in vain, otherwise a few Immortals will pop 'round for a chat.

[TheOmegaMan]

How terrible to be named after an XML parser - your parents must have hated you.

[EternalOptimist]

The Spartans were not alone at the battle but they formed the core of the defence. The elephants were not much use because the Greeks formed a spear hedge , or phalanx, and did not have a flank for cavalry, elephants, chariots or light troops to operate on. It was a perfect set up for the defenders.

The greek phalanx, or block of spearmen was a formidible fighting machine but it had severe limitations, at this battle the limitations were never exposed until the Persians found a way around the position. In addition to the narrow pass the Greeks also had a low wall to stand behind, which was a further obstacle to elephants or chariots.

The best way to defeat the phalanx was the Roman short swordsman. The Roman units were smaller, more flexible, could operate more independantly and had a method of recycling tired and wounded from the front ranks to the rear.

The main way that casualties were inflicted in the ancient world was when one side broke and ran, this was why the Persians could not afford to try to wear the Greeks down by attrition, their poor morale units would break after a few minute, assuming they even made contact, they would then be slaughtered.

In warfare there is a scissors, paper, stone principle. Spearmen are good against cavalry, swordsmen are good against spearmen, cavalry are good against swordsmen etc etc.