Elf Sternberg

Sorry about the formatting error above. This should be better.

>First...Bah! politics and history quibbles. Also it had some problems with
>realism (how does an army feed itself when all they carry are capes,
>shields, lances and swords?).

How does the army feed itself? Well, historical sources
such as Xenophon's _March of the Ten Thousand_
imply that a 'baggage train' with beasts of burden, carts,
and people caring for them could carry various supplies.
So the soldiers wouldn't have to carry all that crap themselves.

>Of *course* it wasn't historically accurate but, I can tell you, the
>fighting was. The stunt men had to create the martial arts of the movie,
>based on no history what so ever. We don't know the details of how the
>Spartans fought but, we know how the human body moves and what it is
>capable of. I thought the movements were akin to deadly dancers. I thought
>the carriage and fighting of the men was spectacular.

Huh? The fighting *was* historically accurate, or was accurate?

Some facts about how the Greek soldiers fought are recorded in history;
for example, we can know some facts about Greek use of spears and
shield walls and how these techniques were effective against Persians.

Other questions can even be approached indirectly--for example,
Xenophon wrote books on hunting and horsemanship from which we can
learn some things and make educated guesses about others.

But only political and historical quibblers would be likely
to know about these things. :-)

In _Wired_ magazine I read that "wire work" was used in some fight scenes,
and saw a still photo of an implausible leap by a Spartan soldier,
so I don't expect realism.

As for political commentary, thoughtful reading of Greek history can
tell us some rather ugly facts about what winning a war can sometimes
involve and how warmaking can go bad. And unthoughtful reading of
Greek history has inspired morons to charge in the wrong directions,
even prominently in the current president's administration.