HBO's ROME is supported by a wide variety of contemporary and well-supported sources. Very few things in the show are directly contradicted by evidence that we have.

300 is based loosely on the "histories" of Herodotus, who is universally known to be unreliable. This is an understatement of epic proportions. This is the historian who references enormous gold-digging ants (Histories 3.102-105).

And even so, there are countless contradictions between the movie and history. The concept of Spartans fighting for freedom. The disdain of Spartans for "boy-loving" Athenians (they called them boy-lovers, yes, but fellatio was a rite of passage for a Spartan youth). The depiction of the ephors, who were in reality elected officials (that you can call this even remotely close to a source text is laughable). The depiction of Ephialtes. The depiction of the Persian army. The depiction of damned near everything. The Spartans aren't wearing proper armor, by the way. Those helmets are Corinthian. They should be wearing bronze cuirasses.

Xerxes. Everything about Xerxes. You do not have to be a classicist to realize this. Go to a museum. Look at a picture of a Persian king. Speaking of kings... there were two Spartan kings at a time. Poor Leotychidas didn't even get a cameo.

The list goes on. It doesn't snow in the southern Peloponnese. 7000 Greeks fought at the battle, among which were included Ionian slaves. You hold a spear above your head, not at your side. The phalanx held a line formation, not a wedge, and never breaks formation. There was an ongoing sea battle at the time. Grenades generally do not figure in ancient warfare (read: never). The rhinoceros has never been domesticated. The story of Aristodemus--I'm sorry, "Dilios"--who was exiled from society and shamed, not given command at Platea. That whole bit about Leonidas hurting Xerxes? Not so much. The "tortoise" formation was a Roman invention, several centuries later.


I don't particularly enjoy movies that end with people telling me that Spartans mocking Athenians for pederasty is anything close to historically accurate, no.

If you think that historical accuracy is irrelevant, fine. But don't attempt to equate a brilliantly researched and produced show with mind candy.

EDIT: While I say ROME is rarely contradicted by sources, I am not saying that everything in it is true. However, I am fine with embellishment when sources are weak, which is why all of the complaints above are in direct opposition to actual historical evidence.