Well, I will take this chance to reiterate my objections; firstly, that we cannot judge the term 'democracy' by modern standards for historical accuracy (historical democracies are still called democracies regardless of the proportion of voters), second, the definition of slavery is applied in the economic sense, rather than the correct political rights sense, and, lastly, Sparta in this period was not a 'military monarchy' (if you cast your eyes endlessly upwards, you will see why the term is inapplicable outside Archaic and Classical tyrannies) and that there is a consensus by historians that Sparta was, by 480, a state in which 'sovereignty' was held by the (popularly elected by enfranchised citizenry) 'ephorate alone.' I am aware that the citations that I have made are not specifically in regard to the film, but that seems, at least to myself, irrelevant. As, so I am informed, exclusion should occur if 'demonstration that it is insignificant or represents a "tiny minority" (i.e. fringe' were to occur. As I have demonstrated, the position of all published works is that the (essentially democratic) ephorate is sovereign at this stage, and I am yet to see any actual evidence to the contrary (other than Daryaee of course). Even if it is concluded that his remaining criticisms are valid, it is utterly irresponsible to include his statements on Spartan sovereign rule. I know that other users do not like to respond to 'all points' but would love to see a modern perspective supporting of Daryaee, which can be the only reason for keeping him in without edit. Notthemanbehindthecurtain