....Where the hell was Themistocles?
Mar. 20th, 2007 10:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
iesikaSo, I just went to see Frank Miller's 300 and, yes yes, visually stunning and all that but really!
They made a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae (The one in 480 BC, anyway). Good. About time. But... how can you make a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae without including the Battle of Artemisium, which occurred on the same day?
Let me start with the actual battle that they did show in the movie. First, while Spartans did believe it was an honor to die in battle, they also believed in living to fight another day. It was not Spartan warrior code that made those men face such odds, but the orders of their king, Leonidas, who, after consulting the Oracle, was told, more or less, that either he died in battle, or Greece would burn. Persia was a great empire, and it wasn't just threatening one city state, it was threatening them all.
This is an important historical turning point for Greece. Thousands of Greek soldiers from different city states joined forces to hold Persia at Thermopylae while the combined navies of the Athenian league, led by Themistocles, attacked them by sea in what is known as the Battle of Artemisium. The naval battle was a draw, which is impressive considering the way Themistocles was outnumbered. The battle at Thermopylae was an utter failure. Ephialtes of Trachis showed the Persians a goat path around the blockade so that they wouldn't attack his hometown of Phocis. The Phocians deserted, and the Greeks were flanked. Most of the Greeks fled to protect their own cities, leaving 300 Spartans (+1000 Thespians, everyone forgets the Thespians), to cover their retreat. So, 1300 Spartans and Thespians stay, and get slaughtered, but hold the Persians long enough for Athens to be evacuated (as opposed to 300 Spartans dying for Sparta, which was never in much danger anyway). Thespiai burned, but the Thespians stayed and protected the rest of Greece. I think they're the real heroes, and it's not fair they get left out.
The Spartans and the Athenians did not get along, but the Spartans died for the Athenians at Thermopylae and the Athenians died for the Spartans at Artemisium. Because they were all Greek, fighting for Greece; That's a big leap from fighting each other a few years before. That leap was necessary before Greece could truly unite.
The story has a great ending, too, three days later, in the Battle of Salamis: The Oracle, again, rears her lovely vapor-addled head, and proclaims that Salamis would bring death to women's sons, but that the Greeks would be saved by a wooden wall. Themistocles interprets this to mean death to the Persians, by might of the combined Greek navies. And, by golly, turns out he was right, despite their being outnumbered more than 2 to 1, and having almost identical ships. The Greeks just fought smarter, and the Persians were sent packing. Much better story. Plus, the naval battles would have looked awesome. ^_~
I don't think I'll be going to see any more "historical" movies, any time soon. Or any based on comics. Or any movies based on "historical" comics, for that matter. The next time some preview filled with flashy eye-candy makes me long for historical drama, I think I'll reach for my volume of Herodotus.
They made a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae (The one in 480 BC, anyway). Good. About time. But... how can you make a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae without including the Battle of Artemisium, which occurred on the same day?
Let me start with the actual battle that they did show in the movie. First, while Spartans did believe it was an honor to die in battle, they also believed in living to fight another day. It was not Spartan warrior code that made those men face such odds, but the orders of their king, Leonidas, who, after consulting the Oracle, was told, more or less, that either he died in battle, or Greece would burn. Persia was a great empire, and it wasn't just threatening one city state, it was threatening them all.
This is an important historical turning point for Greece. Thousands of Greek soldiers from different city states joined forces to hold Persia at Thermopylae while the combined navies of the Athenian league, led by Themistocles, attacked them by sea in what is known as the Battle of Artemisium. The naval battle was a draw, which is impressive considering the way Themistocles was outnumbered. The battle at Thermopylae was an utter failure. Ephialtes of Trachis showed the Persians a goat path around the blockade so that they wouldn't attack his hometown of Phocis. The Phocians deserted, and the Greeks were flanked. Most of the Greeks fled to protect their own cities, leaving 300 Spartans (+1000 Thespians, everyone forgets the Thespians), to cover their retreat. So, 1300 Spartans and Thespians stay, and get slaughtered, but hold the Persians long enough for Athens to be evacuated (as opposed to 300 Spartans dying for Sparta, which was never in much danger anyway). Thespiai burned, but the Thespians stayed and protected the rest of Greece. I think they're the real heroes, and it's not fair they get left out.
The Spartans and the Athenians did not get along, but the Spartans died for the Athenians at Thermopylae and the Athenians died for the Spartans at Artemisium. Because they were all Greek, fighting for Greece; That's a big leap from fighting each other a few years before. That leap was necessary before Greece could truly unite.
The story has a great ending, too, three days later, in the Battle of Salamis: The Oracle, again, rears her lovely vapor-addled head, and proclaims that Salamis would bring death to women's sons, but that the Greeks would be saved by a wooden wall. Themistocles interprets this to mean death to the Persians, by might of the combined Greek navies. And, by golly, turns out he was right, despite their being outnumbered more than 2 to 1, and having almost identical ships. The Greeks just fought smarter, and the Persians were sent packing. Much better story. Plus, the naval battles would have looked awesome. ^_~
I don't think I'll be going to see any more "historical" movies, any time soon. Or any based on comics. Or any movies based on "historical" comics, for that matter. The next time some preview filled with flashy eye-candy makes me long for historical drama, I think I'll reach for my volume of Herodotus.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 07:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-08 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-09 02:13 pm (UTC)I'm not really familiar with your taste in movies, but I liked your review because it was specific. If someone who's tastes I don't know just says "it was great" or "it sucked" that doesn't really tell me anything, but it's a lot more meaningful if I know exactly WHY someone feels a certain way.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-11 01:38 pm (UTC)I agree with you on the (lack of) value in brief reviews. Just because I hated 300, for example, doesn't mean my brother didn't think it was great. There's a reason such a broad range of movies are made every year. With 300, I just thought the real deal was so much of a better story that I wanted to tell it.
Like when Enemy At The Gates came out. Don't know if you saw that one, about the Battle of Stalingrad. It had me similarly incensed at its lack of resemblance to War of the Rats, on which it was supposedly based .War of the Rats, on the other hand, was already a fictionalized account of the Battle, but was based on the Soviet propaganda-inspired modern folktale of Vasily Zaytsev, who was definitely a real person, and Heinz Thorvald (Erwin König in the movie), who was probably not. In the book, Zaytsev locates Thorvald by the glint on his scope and shoots down the center of his scope while he is being aimed at, which is too badass for words. Why did they change that in the movie? It makes no sense! But I digress. ^_^;
And isn't wikipedia grand?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-09 07:31 pm (UTC)I mean sheesh. War, again?