"I was neither at the hot gates, nor fought in the warm rain"

[Adso de Fimnu]

According to Wikipedia, 11 August marks the anniversary of the 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!

 

[jonatas]

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

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

 

[Gelion]

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

 

[Vasileius]

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

 

[Stefan Haertel]

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.

 

[Arminius]

@ 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.

 

[Longasc]

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.

 

[Stapel]

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!

 

[Longasc]

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.

 

[Xen]

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

 

[privatehudson]

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

 

[King Alexander]

@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?

 

[Stefan Haertel]

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.

 

[Dragonlord]

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!

 

[Vasileius]

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]

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[Stefan Haertel]

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?

 

[North King]

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.

 

[Vasileius]

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

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 ...

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 ...

 

[Stefan Haertel]

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.