Modern films tackling historical events can be a double edge sword. On the one hand a popular film can bring the past to the attention to those who wouldn’t normally venture near a history book. On the other hand , the elements go into making a good film are not the same as those that give an accurate portrayal of the incident in question. Films should be seen as no more that a colourful advert for something that will require exploration through the dusty tomes of the library and what is to be found there is often far more interesting and complex than first meets the eye. The battle of Thermopylae and the recent film, 300, is a classic example of this. In taking the angle of focusing in on the actions of the 300 hundred Spartans present in the campaign, it in many ways diminishes what would have been and even more epic tale.
Although the film focuses very much on a polarised us and them, Greeks versus Persians, view of the situation, this is an extremely simplified view of things. When the Persian war machine hoved into view in 480 BC , it would have found a far from unified enemy. The whole of the Mediterranean world was a complex mix of Greek, Persian, Phoenician, Etruscan culture as well as a host of smaller tyrant domains. Greece itself was made up of many independent city states and unity and co-operation was never a strong point for them. Whilst the films rivals, Persia and Sparta, represent the extremes of the Oriental power and Hellenised culture, the reality is that most of the states and cities that lay in between were a mix of the two, constantly evolving and swinging one way or the other with the political climate.
In response to the advance of the Persian Army, those regions not prepared to “medize” (modern jargon for capitulate to the Persian culture) put up a response, though the numbers suggest that the campaign, that resulted in Thermopylae, was only ever a advanced force whose aims were no more than a holding action, the real fight envisaged once the Persians were deeper into the Isthmus rather that having to maintain long supply lines to fight far from home. Alongside the eponymous 300 Spartans were 2120 Arcadians and 400 Corinthians, with the numbers swelled to around 4000 with the addition of Helot slaves. Of the non Peloponnesians there were 1100 Boetians and 100 Phocians (guarding the infamous path that was used to gain Persian victory). Although the “Hot Gates” were the perfect defensive position the ultimate reason for the Persian victory was clearly that the numbers committed by the defenders were nowhere near enough. The reasons behind this fact are varied and debated, lack of unity, political allegiances and religious traditions all played a part but in general it was probable that each city was more concerned with keeping its troops back to defend itself. Also a large Peloponnesian Navy, possibly three quarters of the total force available, was preparing for battle at Artemisium, possibly fighting on the very same day as Thermopylae. It was possible that this was perceived as the main contest whilst Persian land forces were bottled up in this northern mountain pass.
What ever the reasons, Leonidas heroism saved the cause of Greek unity. After direct assaults failed, a Greek traitor told the Persians of the mountain path that would undermine Leonidas position. When he heard that his 1000 strong force no longer held the mountain path, he knew the position was lost, he dismissed the allies and with his 300 countrymen and the 1100 Boetians who refused to leave, made the ultimate sacrifice and died a heroes death.
“Tell them in Lacedaemon, passer by, obedient to their orders, here we lie.”
It’s a great story which ever way you look at it and proves that underneath these popular modern screen adaptations, there is often an even bigger story waiting to be told, but as I said in the introduction, what makes a good film is not always the same thing that makes a good narrative. I’m sure the story of the battle of Thermopylae was in many ways the Hollywood epic of its day. I like to imagine children in the first century B.C. sitting around the hearth listening to tales and uttering lines like “not your old war stories again father, we want to here about Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae”.
Although the film focuses very much on a polarised us and them, Greeks versus Persians, view of the situation, this is an extremely simplified view of things. When the Persian war machine hoved into view in 480 BC , it would have found a far from unified enemy. The whole of the Mediterranean world was a complex mix of Greek, Persian, Phoenician, Etruscan culture as well as a host of smaller tyrant domains. Greece itself was made up of many independent city states and unity and co-operation was never a strong point for them. Whilst the films rivals, Persia and Sparta, represent the extremes of the Oriental power and Hellenised culture, the reality is that most of the states and cities that lay in between were a mix of the two, constantly evolving and swinging one way or the other with the political climate.
In response to the advance of the Persian Army, those regions not prepared to “medize” (modern jargon for capitulate to the Persian culture) put up a response, though the numbers suggest that the campaign, that resulted in Thermopylae, was only ever a advanced force whose aims were no more than a holding action, the real fight envisaged once the Persians were deeper into the Isthmus rather that having to maintain long supply lines to fight far from home. Alongside the eponymous 300 Spartans were 2120 Arcadians and 400 Corinthians, with the numbers swelled to around 4000 with the addition of Helot slaves. Of the non Peloponnesians there were 1100 Boetians and 100 Phocians (guarding the infamous path that was used to gain Persian victory). Although the “Hot Gates” were the perfect defensive position the ultimate reason for the Persian victory was clearly that the numbers committed by the defenders were nowhere near enough. The reasons behind this fact are varied and debated, lack of unity, political allegiances and religious traditions all played a part but in general it was probable that each city was more concerned with keeping its troops back to defend itself. Also a large Peloponnesian Navy, possibly three quarters of the total force available, was preparing for battle at Artemisium, possibly fighting on the very same day as Thermopylae. It was possible that this was perceived as the main contest whilst Persian land forces were bottled up in this northern mountain pass.
What ever the reasons, Leonidas heroism saved the cause of Greek unity. After direct assaults failed, a Greek traitor told the Persians of the mountain path that would undermine Leonidas position. When he heard that his 1000 strong force no longer held the mountain path, he knew the position was lost, he dismissed the allies and with his 300 countrymen and the 1100 Boetians who refused to leave, made the ultimate sacrifice and died a heroes death.
“Tell them in Lacedaemon, passer by, obedient to their orders, here we lie.”
It’s a great story which ever way you look at it and proves that underneath these popular modern screen adaptations, there is often an even bigger story waiting to be told, but as I said in the introduction, what makes a good film is not always the same thing that makes a good narrative. I’m sure the story of the battle of Thermopylae was in many ways the Hollywood epic of its day. I like to imagine children in the first century B.C. sitting around the hearth listening to tales and uttering lines like “not your old war stories again father, we want to here about Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment