Though I didn't really agree with about half of your a.ssessment, it was at least well put and you actually gave reasons for why you thought 300 was better, so I was gonna just move on and be like "Well at least this guy stated his opinion well and gave reasons for it" until I got to those end parts. You totally DESTROYED your credibility right there.
I don't like "history" as far as going to school (when I was in hs) and reading about it, but calling it BS is ridiculous. Then on top of that, you ARE aware that 300 is based off GREEK history right?!?! And that Gladiator is FICTIONAL?!?! So it's really a.ss-backward to say that Gladiator is for people who are interested in history when it's the fictional one and 300 is based off Greek history. Then to relate being eloquent to being pus*y is stupid too, especially when Maximus, though not nearly as badass as Leonidas, was FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from a pus*y.
My point is that 300 could've wasted a lot of time with the story, but instead they put most of the focus on the battle itself and selling the fact that the Spartans were warriors like no others. Gladiator wasted too much time developing the relationships between Commodus and everybody else. He was the eloquent pus*y I was referring to.
I never really thought too much into why I never thought Gladiator was a GREAT movie. But for the sake of argument, I attempted to pinpoint what is was that I didn't like. I guess if the movie had less of Commudus and his relationships I might have enjoyed it more.
I guess what it comes down to is like somebody else said. Gladiator has more drama aspects to it than you would find in your typical action flick.
Braveheart - Loads of Action w/ a slight touch of drama style story.
300 - Loads of action w/ even less touch of drama style story.
Gladiator - About 60-40 on the action to drama. Too much drama in an action movie.