A Brief History
This weekend, two epic films set during Greco-Roman history vie for box office dominance: 300: Rise of an Empire (total worldwide gross as of March 10, 2014: $132,850,000) set during the Greco-Persian Wars and Pompeii (total worldwide gross as of March 10, 2014: $78,168,000) set during the height of the Roman Empire, but how accurate are they historically speaking?
Digging Deeper: 300: Rise of an Empire
Quite a bit of well put together articles have addressed the factual accuracy and inaccuracy of 300 (see for example here and here), but less has been written about the prequel/sidequel/sequel currently in theaters (a notable exception is the article found here). So, then, what does the current film get wrong?
Well, the most obvious is the depiction of Xerxes, the Great King of Persia. No ancient sources depict him as a beardless god-man around 9 feet tall! Nor did he undertake an expedition to a special site to transform into some kind demigod due to the death of his father, because…
Unlike in the film, Xerxes’s dad, Darius I the Great, did not die at the Battle of Marathon at the hands of a Greek in 490 B.C., but rather some four years later in 486 B.C. of more natural causes.
As for Xerxes’s right hand woman, Artemisia, there is no evidence that she had “violent sex” with her nemesis Themistocles of Athens during the Greco-Persian Wars and nor did she die during the Battle of Salamis. How exactly she died is a bit of a mystery, but it is clearly not what the film depicts. Also, according to Paul Cartledge, professor of Greek culture at Cambridge University, she also was not the commander of the Persian fleet, but rather a commander.
Speaking of inaccurate depictions of women, Sparta’s Queen Gorgo (played by Cersei Lannister…no just kidding, I mean Sarah Connor…okay, seriously, Lena Headey) did not show up to turn the tide of the Battle of Salamis leading a Spartan fleet.
Those are some of the most glaring factual errors beyond the stylistic choices, but imagine the article we would have to write if they ever make the proposed sequel set during the American Revolution…
Digging Deeper: Pompeii
Set nearly 500 years after the events of 300: Rise of an Empire, Pompeii concerns not an epic battle, but an epic natural disaster, namely a devastating volcanic eruption.
The film actually does a decent job recreating in stunning 3D visuals what ancient historian Pliny the Younger described occurred: “You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.” Moreover, according to this article, Rosaly Lopes, a volcanologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Califronia, supports the film’s recreation of a volcanic eruption, noting that the movie “realistically captured the earthquakes that preceded the eruption, the explosions and the pyroclastic flows of hot ash and gas that buried the city and its residents.” Furthermore, in another article, Sarah Yeomans, an archaeologist at the University of Southern California, offers praise for the movie’s accuracy in showing raised paving stones in the streets, political graffiti on the buildings, and a realistic amphitheatre in which gladiatorial combat takes place.
Nevertheless, the film does invent many of the main characters rather than focus on the lives of real Romans who actually lived through the catastrophe, which means that the main plot (beyond the eruption) and dialogue are generally the inventions of the film’s writers. What is more, Yeomans disapproves of inaccurate portrayal of Roman women as more independent both in terms of actions and clothing than would have been acceptable at that time in Roman history. As such, the scenery and terror does capture what occurred with regards to the disastrous volcanic eruption, but some of the costumes and characters are not directly drawn from history.
If you would like to see a concise historically accurate summary of the events that occurred, please watch the following video:
Question for students (and subscribers): Despite their factual inaccuracies, do you think either of these films are still useful for learning about Ancient History? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
While I do strongly urge our readers to see both movies in 3D if possible, for those wanting even more on these events, please check out all of the following:
300: March to Glory. Warner Bros. Games, 2007. Video Game.
Bonnard, Mario, dir. Last Days of Pompeii. Allied Artists, 2016. DVD.
Herodotus, John M. Marincola, et al. Herodotus: The Histories (Penguin Classics). Penguin Classics, 1996.
Maté, Rudolph, dir. 300 Spartans, The Blu-ray. 20th Century Fox, 2014. Blu-ray.
Miller, Frank. 300. Dark Horse Books, 2008.
Padrusch, David, dir. Last Stand of the 300: The Legendary Battle at Thermopylae. A&E Home Video, 2007. DVD.
Snyder, Zack, dir. 300 (The Complete Experience Blu-ray Book Packaging + BD-Live). WarnerBrothers, 2009. Blu-ray.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="1509 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=1509">67 Comments
I think most movies that depict anything in history will have things exaggerated or made up. For Pompeii I don’t see a problem with creating characters if if the volcano and other effects are factual.
Most historical movies, with a few exceptions, definitely depict exaggerated plot lines and character development. I don’t think they would get the pull from the box offices that they do now if it weren’t for Hollywood exaggerating everything. I saw Pompeii in theaters and could tell that most of the character relations were unrealistic.
I think most of the historical movies are exaggerated because Hollywood wants to create more of a pull of people. The more people there is– more money it makes.
I agree with BY because even with book that get made into movies are changed for the big screen. I understand that there is no way to put everything from a book or history into a movie but they do not need to add things that did not happen in the book or in our history either.
It is simple as this, exaggeration sells. It always has and always will and thus these production companies tend to add more to historical stories when creating the films than they necessarily should.
Most action films are exagerated because they want to get people into the theatres to watch them. It was hard to get the real story behind Pompeii because there was very little left. 300 was a good story plot that helped the cinematographers create a horrible world and add some excitement. Would people want to see it if it was not portrayed in this way?
It is not a documentary which I believe implies there will be exaggerations added to the actual story. To depict Pompeii, considered there was not much left, would require imagination. Also, people tend to be interested in sex, death and violence. The movies make things that will sell.
Films may be based of a historical event, but more often then not, the film is romanticized to get more viewers. Stories are added to the plot because it makes it more interesting and draws more people in. Unless it is a legit documentary, it will most likely be exaggerated.
This doesn’t surprise me at all; I feel like there is always controversy surrounding any movie even remotely based on historical events. Directors and producers will do whatever it takes to make money. If that means adding a “violent sex scene” or creating characters, they’ll do it. Most people wouldn’t even know what is true and what isn’t in these films because the history isn’t as recent. They shouldn’t make things up, but they will do whatever necessary to please the public. Seems like it worked, too, considering the amount of money both films have already brought in.
Films and books are always exaggerated to make the story more appealing and interesting to the public. Even though the book or film says “based on a true story,” there is still some sort of twist to the plot, opposed to what happened in real life.
I think all movies are exaggerated because all Hollywood wants to do is make money. What they say is based on a true story, may not even be anywhere close to the truth. Directors do anything to make the movie a big seller.
It’s not that surprising when the movie isn’t exactly what happened in real life. But then again, we don’t really know what REALLY happened during that battle. We weren’t there. How would we know? And of course, Hollywood does always exaggerate all their scenes.
The movies are never exactly the same as what really happened in history. The reason is because Hollywood always puts their spin on things to make it more interesting for the viewing audience.
I figured that the films were not going to be very accurate in conveying what really happened during those events in history. I would still like to see the movies though they seem somewhat entertaining.
This article will be helpful if I do see the movies to distinguish between what actually happened historically and what was added by the creators of the films.
We are talking about Hollywood here not an informed historical society. Holoywood, unfortunately does not know the truth from fiction in many cases.
Since Hollywood doesn’t really have an obligation to tell the facts, but to sell stories, I’m not surprised by the embellishments.
Hollywood makes movies, they aren’t historians. It is interesting to learn the facts behind the movies, even if they aren’t all right.
I actually want to see these movies even if they are not perfectly accurate. Plus they want to sell a great movie not a documentary.
Most movies stretch the truth and put a little extra in it to spice it up. But they’re movies and I don’t expect them to give me facts on what actually happened, just entertainment.
It always makes me angry when cinema strays away from history to try and create something “more entertaining” than what happened. It would be so simple to include real, factual history into these movies to create a teachable moment even in the theater.
It doesn’t surprise me that Hollywood doesn’t have all the facts right. They are obviously more concerned with entertaining people and making money.
Its Hollywood, pretty much enough said. Its like when you read the book and watch the movie; you hate the movie cause they don’t include enough or direct details of what really happened. But to people that haven’t read the book and only watch the movie they actually think that’s really how it was and they may even like the movie.
This is what happens when movies are made to depict famous events or people in history. The movie tends to not care about the importance of events and actually happenings but really care about making a good movie and making it so people come to watch the movie and like the movie. I personally have seen both movies and liked them both but were definately off on accuracy.
The fact is that 300 was taken from a graphic novel written by comic artist, Frank Miller(Sin City). His reflection was not to make the historically accurate story, but a historical army, thus the Spartans. The book is worth checking out. I happen to own and would glad to bring it to class. As for Pompeii, yeah explosions galore, and Hollywood’s take that I have yet to see, I would agree there is not much accuracy of historical fact.
It’s very often that we see Hollywood exaggerate or even lie about the history in order to make it more entertaining. However, people should realize that a movie’s job is to entertain. They should be able to make up stories and make them more exciting, but people need to be smart enough to be able to watch these movies and then recognize they aren’t 100% accurate. It’s sad that people can’t realize this and believe anything they hear when it has a “based on true events” label smacked onto it.
Hollywood always exaggerates and “develop” stories that are based on true events. Ideally, if you want to know what exactly happened, plop down on a sofa and read a book. Watching news, TV, movies, or even internet sites are not as accurate as the book.
Movies are rarely accurate with historical events & this is just another example of that. I’ve seen the first 300 movie & although it wasn’t very accurate it was still a good film.
They have to grab your attention somehow, most of the time that means taking a turn away from reality.
What a surprise Hollywood twisting and changing more historical events. The thing is that if they just showed what really happened it would make a good movie but instead it is all twisted and changed like 9 ft’ tall men….
It is Hollywood… do I need to say anything more? — DAVID WARDLE
I felt the 300 movies were almost comical in their depictions. Hollywood tends to go out of their way to stretch the truth and make movies flashy and action packed when the real history of the events are already interesting enough as is.
I think Hollywood adds some of their own ideas into any movie, so even the ones that are based on true stories- are not completely accurate in their depictions. Knowing this going in, leaves you much less disappointed and able to just enjoy the movie for it’s entertainment, and special effects.
I definitely agree that Hollywood loves to dramatize events and make them something they are not to be, the point of hollywood movies is to not so much get facts straight just to make money to entertain us
Hollywood doesn’t care if they get all the facts right, they are just trying to make it more interesting so more people will go see it and make more money.
Jake B. I agree with you! Hollywood doesn’t care.
They should probably do a little more research before making a movie about a historical event.
These are just your typical historic film. Hollywood doesn’t care if the facts are correct, they only care about you paying money to watch how they thought it happened.
I would expect no less accuracy from “300” due to the fact that it is an adaptation of a graphic novel and not of actual history, at least to my understanding of the movie’s premise. As for “Pompeii”, I have still yet to see the movie in its entirety.
I honestly did not expect Hollywood to be completely honest with 300 because many people would not have been as interested. Also, it would be nice if the tried harder to be accurate. Although I have not seen Pompeii so I cannot put judgement on that film.
I felt Hollywood would not be into the history facts just more into just making money since a lot people would not really like true story of 300. so as in Pompeii I felt Hollywood did a better job in staying with the true story and not just trying to enterain us to make money, so I feel when Hollywood does a movie they should do more research on there facts.
i though that hollywood wouldnt really include the facts because they care more about making money than the facts put into the movie
I am not surprised at all that Hollywood would add more sex and violence to the depiction of historical events. Gotta make the story more interesting and twisted.
Gotta love Hollywood, huh?
Hollywood will always only care about the facts if they feel the facts will bring in revenue. If all the facts will not do that they will stretch the truth and they will add what they believe will bring in the big bucks. Like adding more sex and violence, all major companies do this though not just Hollywood.
I personally enjoy films based on historical events. Although they are interpreted and mostly false for dramatic effect, they convey to the public of today something that actually happened. For some it may spark more interest in the actual historical event. I personally liked that both 300 and Pompeii had inaccuracies regarding the status of woman. I think it added to both films and also by contrast portray the societies we idolize as more free than they actually are.
I love films based on historical events!
Having just watched this in class there was a lot of stuff that made me just go “Yeah, that didn’t happen.” Good movie but some of the stuff they showed was just ridiculous.
Whatever brings in more profit, That’s really all that matters in today’s society, even in the film industry.
At the end of the day the film industry is just in it for the money., They should however remember that their viewing audience is most likely going to be people that are interested in history and should try to make their films as historically accurate as possible.
With the film industry they don’t care about the facts. They just want to make a profit anyway they can so they can get money. So in films there may not be anything that is accurate.
What’s the point of making a film about history if the history isn’t correct?
I agree with how people would be upset about the accuracy of movies based on historical moments but then again this isn’t a documentary this is solely for entertainment.
I would enjoy watching history movies much more if they were more accurate. Some for sure are, but there are a fair share of them that are obviously heavily dramatized and inaccurate.
I cannot believe with all of resources and money that these movies could be so factually wrong. I want to watch what really happens in order to understand things better and get a better understanding of history. I do not like how Hollywood makes things up a lot.
Films created for entertainment purposes shouldn’t be given the same kind of truth expectation as films created for actual educational purposes. Too much his edited in or out for the sake of story and drama.
It’s sad that movies about such interesting things, no matter how old, have to be fabricated in order for people to want to watch and learn about them.
What an incredible difference!
Hollywood almost always skews the factual parts of history just to throw in more romance and battles someone that both women and men enjoy watching for entertainment. Movies are usually not for historical facts, that is more for documentaries.
Most of the scenes that are mentioned as inaccurate, I could very well see the movie producers pushing for more action in these scenes, rather then what really happened. Action is probably more important to a good portion of viewers rather than accuracy of what really happened.
Hollywood is here to make money and shape public opinions, they have no interest in facts or teaching most the time it seems.
Again I think that people need to realize the difference between a movie and a documentary.
movie producers twist the story to make it interesting. They care more about the money than the exact story line
Hollywood doesn’t always care about facts, most the time they twist the facts for dramatic effect.
Hollywood doesn’t always include all the facts, but thats the difference between a documentary and a hollywood film.
This just shows how stories are made up now a days in hollywood. hopefully in the future its not the only things left and then people believe the made up hollywood movies!
Movies have a target audience. You can’t really expect them to keep all of the facts in line in place of what the viewers want to see