Where did you learn 300 was historically accurate? I remember reading about how Iranians were quite angry at how inaccurately and barbarically their people were portrayed in the movie, to say nothing of the mythological beasts in the movie and the ridiculous appearance of Xerxes.

To answer your question, historically accurate non-documentary films are few and far between really, mostly due to the fact that there has to be some dramatization to make a film commercially viable. Schindler's List, while it undoubtedly has some dramatization, is a decent telling of a true story with actual historical figures.

Well, get everything out of your head about anything looking historically accurate, Spartans did not fight semi naked and the Persian army at Thermopylae did not incorporate rhinoceros, gigantic (as in bigger than usual) elephants, bombthrowers, slaves (slaves weren't allowed by their religion), trolls, orcs and ninjas.

One thing that I did notice that was ok-ish was the use of Othismos, or "push" in the first battle scenes.

Some quotes really were said but not in the right time and place. The Spartan government wasn't against war with the Persians and those seers(?) Leonidas met at the top of the mountain probably weren't like that.

300 is more based on the graphic novel than the actual events.

This submission has been removed because it violates the rule on poll-type questions. These poll-type questions do not lend themselves to answers with a firm foundation in sources and research, and the resulting threads usually turn into monsters with enormous speculation and little focussed discussion. “Most”, “least”, "best" and "worst" questions usually lead to vague, subjective, and speculative answers.