According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), 11 August marks the anniversary of the Battle of Thermopylae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae). Herodotus estimated the size of the Persian force at over five million, and says the army drank entire rivers and ate the food supplies of entire cities. This is clearly an exaggeration, but the point is that army was big. My question: how big was it, really? What was the largest possible force that could be supported in 480 BCE?

PS: Kudos to anyone who knows the source for the thread title!

i love the ts eliot quote by the way!!!

from "Gerontion".. i could probably quote you it from memory haha

Historians say between 400000 and 500000 men.... don't ask me how I remember.

Actually the Persians with the size of their Empire , could support 1-1,5 million troopers ...

According to recent estimations, it was about 250,000 men. Vasileius is right in saying that the Persians could support such a vast army, but it is nonesense that they would have thrown the entire number of soldiers at Greece. There had to be a standing army in the empire at all times. The northern frontier was far from being secure, the various Sacan people continued to pose a threat. There was also always the risk of a revolt in the empire, so the army was needed to keep peace and order.
Needless to say, the bulk of the Persian army was conscripts from the entire Persian empire, and likely poorly trained, and would have been used in support roles. Also, a not unimportant fraction was used in the fleet.

I'm also sick of the glorification of Leonidas and the handful of Spartans who stood at Thermopylae. It was obvious they would get defeated. Had Leonidas retreated or called upon the entire army to stand at Thermopylae, it might have turned out different. I just don't have any understanding for these 'Alamo' stands, because they are not much more than the suicide of machos who want to go down in history as heroes.

@ Stefan Haertel: It's about being willing to sacrifice yourself for something more than yourself. If the entire army tried to stand at Thermopylae it would have been a defeat for the Greeks. Likewise, if the whole army marched south to prepare another battle site, the Persians would have caught them before they were ready. Someone had to stay behind. Being that Spartan life was based on combat, the Spartans under Leonidas had a better chance to hold the Persians for longer with fewer men than any others. So they stayed for the good of Sparta (and Greece), and for their honor.

War isn't pretty, and sometimes people have to be sacrificed. Respect is just lavished on leaders who are willing to sacrifice themselves as well. The greatest honor for a soldier is to give his (or her) life for something he (or she) believes in.

Or maybe I'm a hopeless romantic who has a morbid twist.

I think poor Leonidas had no other choice than to delay the Persians.

He was also born in a warrior culture, and he had to buy the Greeks some time.

This really deserves some respect, but I share the view that the glorification of "last stands" is often going too far.

Why 250.000? Why not 10.000? What reasons do we have to think it was 250.000?

There is nothing as unreliable as self-written history!

Educated guesses, Stapel. But we just have to assume how many really fought there. There are versions were not 10.000 but 1.000 Spartans hold their ground against 1.000.000 (if not 1.000.000.000) Persians. :)

But well, I think beating the crap out of 250.000 Persians is good enough, at least for me. :)

Why 250.000? Why not 10.000? What reasons do we have to think it was 250.000?

There is nothing as unreliable as self-written history!


because, the immortal guard alone was 10,000 men ;)

theres also the fact that the united armies of greece could have feileded some where around 30,000-40,000 men, and if itr was the case of being invaded by around 10,000 troops, you wouldnt even see half the panic that was expressed by the actual Persian invasion

I'd personally be inclined towards the 250,000 figure, anything else seems like an exaggeration.

@Also de Fimmu: is this quote taken by "Gates of Fire",S.Pressfield?

because, the immortal guard alone was 10,000 men
Correct. From what I've read, I'd say that it was at least 1-20, Greek-Persian troops.


I'm also sick of the glorification of Leonidas and the handful of Spartans who stood at Thermopylae.

So, they don't deserve it? They knew that they'd die, eventually, no matter how hard they'd defend. The glorification you talk about, isn't only for the Greeks. If they'd had passed Greece, nobody could stop them from qonquering Europe. We own too much to those who fell there.

I just don't have any understanding for these 'Alamo' stands, because they are not much more than the suicide of machos who want to go down in history as heroes.

You cannot understand someone who dies for the freedom of his country?

There are no survivng direct Persian records about the war against Greece (at least none that I know of, and I have good sources), so almost everything that is known about the Greek-Persian wars of the 5th century is from Greek sources. Scholars try to interpret the description of the Persian army given by Herodotus by comparing them to the information about the Persian amy which on the other hand is available en masse in Persian sources. That's how the 250,000 men number came to existance. I need to re-check my sources about that though. It sounds pretty unreasonable to me why the Persians would send such a huge force against Greece, but on the other hand, Xerxes himself lead it.
Note that only a third of this army was actually engaged in combat after the battle of Thermopylae. After Salamis, the biggest part of it was retreated to Asia.

I'm also sick of the glorification of Leonidas and the handful of Spartans who stood at Thermopylae. It was obvious they would get defeated. Had Leonidas retreated or called upon the entire army to stand at Thermopylae, it might have turned out different. I just don't have any understanding for these 'Alamo' stands, because they are not much more than the suicide of machos who want to go down in history as heroes.

I really can't understand your thinking on this one, STEFAN.

Do you really believe believe that Leonidas and his men - or the men at the Alamo for that matter - WANTED to die and thus committed suicide for glory?

IMO, one has to respect someone - anyone - who dies to defend others, knowingly sacrificing himself. With hindsight, one can always argue about whether the last stand was necessary, but those who are there obviously thought it was necessary - and stood rather than run.
I'm far from glorifying war, but that kind of courage should be respected, IMO.

Note I make the distinction of only admiring defenders, not just anyone who 'sacrifices' himself - my admiration definitely stops at suicidal terrorists who kill innocent people!

I aggree with Arminius and most of the other guys on this topic ...

The last stand in Thermopylae , after Efialtes's betrayal lead to Greek victories in Salamis and Plataies , and "razed" the Persian plans to occupy both Asia and Europe ...
150 years later , Alexander defeated the 2 million (oh,yes they were) defending Persians ending the Persian domination of Asia ...

Anyway , Thermopylae's anniversary is at 20 August not 11 . Bad for Wikipedia ...

P.S. Yay !!! My 100th Post ! [dance] [party] :banana: :bounce:

Leonidas and his few Greek soldiers (not only Spartans fought at Thermopylae) fought to stop the Persians. They couldn´t win and they knew it. So they willingly stood there and fought to buy time- time enough to beat the Persians. So indeed Thermopylae was a massacre but due to the lost time a much more glorious victory of the Greek than a victory for the Persians.
Also I can´t understand you, Stefan. They gave their life for their country, for their homes, families. Glory they earned but that wasn´t it what they wanted. Freedom. I have the deepest respect of the Greeks.

Adler

Guys, what I mean to say is that Leonidas would have been of more value had he retreated from Thermopylae and faced the Persians in an open field battle, together with more Greek troops. But what he did was sending the bulk of his army away and face the Persians with only a handful of soldiers. The Persian army was inferior to the Greek one in open field battles, especially on Greek terrain. What he did was pointless.

So, they don't deserve it? They knew that they'd die, eventually, no matter how hard they'd defend. The glorification you talk about, isn't only for the Greeks. If they'd had passed Greece, nobody could stop them from qonquering Europe. We own too much to those who fell there.

The Greeks started the war.
As for the glorification, look, I'm not saying that Leonidas and his soldiers don't deserve to be remembered or honoured, but it's being overdone.

The last stand in Thermopylae , after Efialtes's betrayal lead to Greek victories in Salamis and Plataies , and "razed" the Persian plans to occupy both Asia and Europe .

Er... razed the Persian plans to occupy Asia?

150 years later , Alexander defeated the 2 million (oh,yes they were) defending Persians ending the Persian domination of Asia ...

And your reliable and trustworthy sources on that 2 million are?

There were 250,000, as others have said, by any reasonable estimation. Persia could indeed have supported a million, there was just one problem: according to the patterns of marches of the days, and Persian marching style, if they had tried to march a million men, their vanguard would have been in Greece while their baggage train would have been in Susa! (I read that somewhere)

Thremopylae was a very brave stand for those spartans (some, including me, would say that it was a very stupid, stubborn, and foolish stand, like the Spartans were apt to do)... but it did not decide the war. Salamis decided the war, as it was salamis that destroyed the Persian fleet, sent Xerxes back to Persia in shame and disgust. Salimis that set the stage for the great Greek victory of Plaetea.

The Persian army was inferior to the Greek one in open field battles, especially on Greek terrain. What he did was pointless.

:confused: The Persian army was much more superior in open field , as they were MORE ...
The Greeks started the war.

What are you talking about ?
The Ionian revolution was an indepedence war of the Greeks of Minor Asia . The only help of the mainland Greeks was 11 Athenian and Eretrian ships .
That's why the Greeks were only defending in the Persian Wars ...

Er... razed the Persian plans to occupy Asia?
BOTH ...
Asia (already conquered) + Europe = World ... :rolleyes:

And your reliable and trustworthy sources on that 2 million are?
The German Archaeological Institute department of Athens . The most reliable and trustworthy archeological university of the world ... ;)
PLUS , take a look at a map and you will see why the Persians needed so many troops to keep such an empire ... And their actual population was much bigger ...

Thremopylae was a very brave stand for those spartans (some, including me, would say that it was a very stupid, stubborn, and foolish stand, like the Spartans were apt to do)... but it did not decide the war. Salamis decided the war, as it was salamis that destroyed the Persian fleet, sent Xerxes back to Persia in shame and disgust. Salimis that set the stage for the great Greek victory of Plaetea.

You're right in what you write there. I admit Thermopylae was brave, but it did not change very much. It was unecessary and reasonable thought would have made victory easier for the Greeks.

The Persian army was much more superior in open field , as they were MORE ...

And what about Marathon?

The Ionian revolution was an indepedence war of the Greeks of Minor Asia . The only help of the mainland Greeks was 11 Athenian and Eretrian ships .
That's why the Greeks were only defending in the Persian Wars ...

Athens broke it's alliance with Persia by sending these ships.

The German Archaeological Institute department of Athens . The most reliable and trustworthy archeological university of the world ...

Well, what is the evidence?

And what about Marathon?


marathon was after the majority of the Persians got on to their ships and set sail for Athens.

marathon was after the majority of the Persians got on to their ships and set sail for Athens.

Not quite, Marathon was the defeat of a small, exploratory Persian expedition that had its cavalry out on a foraging mission.

And what about Marathon?
The first campaign of the Persians , 10 years before Thermopylae and Salamis , was much smaller than the second ... The Persians underestimated the Athenians .
Of course Miltiades's contribution to this victory was very big ...

Athens broke it's alliance with Persia by sending these ships.
Alliance ? Sounds stupid to be allied with a monarch and foreign enemy ...
Name me the alliance ... As you might know the Greeks were naming the treaties with the names of the diplomats ...

Well, what is the evidence?
I have a History Channel DVD with a very good documentary about Alexander's campaign ... unfortunately I'm not a streamloader to send it to you ... :) Greek and Persian reports about the campaign and scientific estimations are some of the evidence that the documentary analyzes ...

Anyway , I don't want to argue with you anymore , you have the right to believe whatever you want . If your country has to be defended you can act however you want . But if you fall back , I think that noone will speak in forums about you after 2,500 years ... ;)

Alliance ? Sounds stupid to be allied with a monarch and foreign enemy ...
Name me the alliance ... As you might know the Greeks were naming the treaties with the names of the diplomats ...

I can't find any name. All I know is that it was made in 507/06 BC. At that time, Athens and Persia were no enemies. They had good relations; Athens had supported the Persian campaign in Scythia less than ten years before.
Anyway, I can't find very much information about that alliance either. All I know comes from the books of J. Wiesehöfer, but he is a very competent scholar on the field of ancient Persia and I see no reason why I should not believe him.

Anyway , I don't want to argue with you anymore , you have the right to believe whatever you want . If your country has to be defended you can act however you want . But if you fall back , I think that noone will speak in forums about you after 2,500 years ... ;)

Right. I'm not very keen on arguing either :)

BTW, as for the number of Persian soldiers in the Alexander campaign, the total soldiers in action or enlisted beteen 334 and 331 BC may well be 2 million, but remember Alexander didn't face them all at once ;)

Thermophylae was indeed decisive as Leonidas gained time for Themistokles to get ready for Salamis. And defending a narrow street in the mountains is easier to do as a battle in the plain against THAT huge supremacy. Leonidas knew he had to give Themistokles every soldier he could give. That´s why he sent parts of his troops away. Nevertheless he had enough to gain time. He also knew he was doomed. But he stayed although he could join Themistokles (IIRC he was told to do so).

Adler

i love the ts eliot quote by the way!!!
from "Gerontion".. i could probably quote you it from memory haha
Ah, delightful! I'm happy to see someone else reads Eliot. Kudos, again.
@Also de Fimmu: is this quote taken by "Gates of Fire",S.Pressfield?
If it is, I didn't know that. Pressfield stole it from T.S. Eliot, if it's in there. By the way, my name is "Adso de Fimnu", not "Also de Fimmu". Perhaps I should change it... ;)
Anyway , Thermopylae's anniversary is at 20 August not 11 . Bad for Wikipedia ...
You mean Wikipedia can be wrong? :eek:

WIkipedia is often wrong mainlyl because anyone can go in and add somthing to it; or change an entry, a lot of the time mistaken information gets included in the articles. Thats why i forone never use it unless there are absoulutelyl no other sources for some information on a topic.

Guys, what I mean to say is that Leonidas would have been of more value had he retreated from Thermopylae and faced the Persians in an open field battle, together with more Greek troops.

More of value for whom? I doubt, you're reffering for the modern world. Leonidas and his men, as well as the troops that stayed there, would have preffered to kill themselves than to retreat.

More value for Sparta? Sparta would be so furious, that it would send another 300 men, just to hang Leonidas and his men, if they had cowarded.
Even the wifes of those Warriors would willingly kill them.

You know, Spartan warriors had a phrase: "We'll return(from combat) standing(on our own feets), or they'll bring us back dead". There's no way they could return back(and they actually preffered to die than dishonor themselves, their families, and their City). It was worst even of treason.
In a combat, a Spartan mother heard that all of her sons(3), had died in that battle: Her only reply was "did we won?"

P.S.: sorry for the wrong spelling, Adso de Fimnu ;)

You know, Spartan warriors had a phrase: "We'll return(from combat) standing(on our own feets), or they'll bring us back dead".

I thought it was an exhortation from the Spartan women, something like: "Come back on your feet (=victorious) or on your shield (=dead)!"

It's true that in the Spartan warrior culture cowardice was unthinkable, but I don't think that was the main motive for the stand at Thermopylae. Otherwise Leonidas could not have sent part of his army away.

It seems obvious to me that the true reason was as stated by others here already: he wanted to buy time for the main Greek army, and he did so at a tactically sound location where a small number could hold out for quite a while against overwhelming hordes.

Debating about whether the stand was necessary strategically from hindsight is rather pointless when talking about his fame and glory - it seemed necessary to him at the time and the victory of the Greeks afterward proved him right..

I thought it was an exhortation from the Spartan women, something like: "Come back on your feet (=victorious) or on your shield (=dead)!"

Yes, you're correct. Sometimes I have a hard time to intepret in English, I just "black out". I was thinking of the ancient words and how to intepret them, silly me!

It's true that in the Spartan warrior culture cowardice was unthinkable, but I don't think that was the main motive for the stand at Thermopylae. Otherwise Leonidas could not have sent part of his army away.

It seems obvious to me that the true reason was as stated by others here already: he wanted to buy time for the main Greek army, and he did so at a tactically sound location where a small number could hold out for quite a while against overwhelming hordes.

Yes, that's right. Leonidas and the allied troops remained there because of 2 reasons mainly:
1) They should hold the Persians as long as possible, while the allied Greek forces could gather together.
2) By staying there, he knew that the Greeks would gain courage to face the much superior number of forces the Persians had. Especially, if he could hold long enough against such an unbelievable force from the Persians, he must have been sure that the allied Greeks would be encouraged and believe that the Persians could be defeated.

Debating about whether the stand was necessary strategically from hindsight is rather pointless when talking about his fame and glory - it seemed necessary to him at the time and the victory of the Greeks afterward proved him right..
It wasn't only strategically necessary, but by staying there, it was what decided the winner(Greeks). Had they not stayed there, the Greeks would never have gathered their forces together to face the Persians, nor they would have believed that they could actually win(although every battle needed a brilliant strategy/battle plan).

Courage plays the biggest part in these kind of battles. When your forces are superior less against the enemy and every single hoplite should only die after having killed many enemies, you can see what courage does. One cannot simply die soon: he must kill as many as he can, before, even if he has to fight with his hands.

Here's a pretty good online encyclopedia entry for the Battle of Thermopylae:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Battle_of_Thermopylae

Also, if you haven't read "Gates of Fire", by Steven Pressfield, you're missing out! It's a really excellent novel, recounting the battle of Thermopylae from the point of view of a Spartan helot, captured in the last part of the fighting.

Thermopylae, literally translated, means "hot gates"...there was a hot spring there, and rugged cliffs on one side, and sea on the other made Thermopylae a very narrow pass (hence "gates").

According to the novel, Leonidas understood several years before the Persian invasion that he had to unite the Greek city states or else they'd fall piecemeal to the Persians, either through conquest or subversion. When the Persian army did invade, Leonidas had to hold out to the end, in order to serve as example to the rest of the Greeks, so they would continue to fight even after the defeat at Thermopylae.

The Persian troops were lightly armed and armored, compared to the Greek Phalanxes, and also were (mostly) conscripts pressed into service from lands already conquered by Xerxes. The Spartan and Greek force was able to kill many thousands in the constricted terrain, using close in fighting tactics.

Anyway, the book is highly entertaining and educational.

DogmaDog

"Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by
that here, obedient to their laws we lie.

--Spartan epitaph at Thermopylae.

I thought it may look stupid for some but i think many poeple got inspiration for that last stand.
btw i thought the persian army was with 400.000

It was 250,000...just saw this on the history channel.