Persians at Thermopylae

[stratego]

During the battle in Thermopylae, why did the Persian force continue for so long in using close-handed combat against the Spartans? He could've easily wiped them out with his archers and javelineers. I understand if he was initially arrogant and ordered the first charge, but after couple of hundreds died, I would think that he would switch tactics.

 

[North King]

He did, eventually, IIRC. It is also rather hard to change tactics when controlling such a large army. Hard to even give them anything past initial orders, in fact, especially with the technology of the day.

 

[stratego]

He was there in the battle. It's not like he was back in Persia. It took over a day of fighting before he switched to archers, but it shouldn't take that long to change orders even with an army his size.

 

[onejayhawk]

The terrain had been chosen with archers in mind as well. One reason archers were not utilized was likely that they had to fire up hill, which seriously degrades the effectiveness. Further the Persians expected the Greeks to, basically, lie down in the face of their vastly larger force. For both reasons, it seems clear that the intent was simply to wash over an annoying force rather than engage in true battle. It may have been well into the day before it became apparent taht the opposing force was not going to give ground, despite the fact that it was extremely small. In the end it was not the archers or other ranged weapons, it was the flanking maneuver that drove the Greeks out of the pass.

J

 

[alex994]

and another point was that he wanted to use the honorable hand to hand combat of his ancestors, but decided against it after his huge casuelties.

 

[carlosMM]

one things was the helmets fo the time - covering the ears. Add to that the clash of weapons (makes a hell of a lot of noise, you know) and the cries, screams and shouts of the wounded and you will find that it was VERY hard for a commander to actually move troops aorund once they were commited to battle.

 

[Birdjaguar]

one things was the helmets fo the time - covering the ears. Add to that the clash of weapons (makes a hell of a lot of noise, you know) and the cries, screams and shouts of the wounded and you will find that it was VERY hard for a commander to actually move troops aorund once they were commited to battle.

That's why they used trumpets and horns to send changes in orders.

 

[carlosMM]

That's why they used trumpets and horns to send changes in orders.

which limits the commander to pre-arranged manouvers which the men must also remember while fighting.


I took part in a recreation of a German-Roman battle once. The biggest lesson was that you really really want a guy on a horse to ride up and down behind the lines, SHOUTING orders - this is way more flexible. Aside from the total chaos it was really great fun!

 

[stratego]

one things was the helmets fo the time - covering the ears. Add to that the clash of weapons (makes a hell of a lot of noise, you know) and the cries, screams and shouts of the wounded and you will find that it was VERY hard for a commander to actually move troops aorund once they were commited to battle.

Actually there were several stages of close combat before he decided to use the archers.

 

[carlosMM]

Actually there were several stages of close combat before he decided to use the archers.

indeed? I never knew that... absurd then.

 

[onejayhawk]

indeed? I never knew that... absurd then.

Why absurd? The situation must have looked in hand for a considerable time, ie overwhelming force was being applied. The fact that it was not overwhelming the obstacle must have been interpreted as a technical glitch.

Also remember that the size of the army carried its own limitations. Communication lines would be shaky. Confusion and positional clashes would be normal rather than exceptional. It could have taken considerable time for it to become clear that it was not a large traffic jam. We look on this with modern notions of intel and command/control and forget that the standards of the time were vastly different.

J

 

[carlosMM]

OJH: you're right - I was making the very same mistake I just talked about last apge - assuming excellent communications when most probably they were highly troublesome.

 

[Kafka2]

Against armoured and disciplined infantry firmly planted in a strong defensive position, archers are more of a nuisance than a real threat. Additionally, just like artillery today, it would have made offensive infantry moves by the Persians trickier, or they'd be losing hundreds of their own people to friendly fire- shields aren't much use when the fire is coming from behind you. Going in with his infantry, in view of the overwhelming superiority of numbers, was the obvious tactic to use.

Thermopylae was a freak result that defied most military logic.

 

[Longasc]

Well, one could also say that the soldiers of a culture very heavily based on warfare (Sparta) had a superior position and were really determined professionals.

The Persians had their Immortals, but they must have made wrong decisions, otherwise the Spartans would not have held the pass for so long.

After they fell in their back, the superior numbers and tactical advantage shifted to the Persians, killing all or nearly all defenders, giving the battle this grandeur that made it memorable over a thousand of years.

This last stand scenarios are often portrayed in a heroic way, just imagine yourself standing there at the opening of the pass, and then notice some Persians falling into your back... now this is a real feeling of hopelessness, you know that you will die for sure.

 

[onejayhawk]

Thermopylae was a freak result that defied most military logic.

You want a freak, check out Midway. Now that result is absurd. Thermopylae was ultimately just a highly successful delaying tactic.

J

 

[zjl56]

It was the result of lightly armored troops against heavily armored troops. And a little bit of terrain change that Persians were not used to fighting in.

 

[bigmeat]

the persians were good warriors, but terrain coupled with an inadequate fighting technique, along with lack of armor was why they had so many casualties

 

[Birdjaguar]

It was an ancient Roark's Drift with a bad ending.

 

[The Ram]

Longasc. Leonades had word that he was about to be flanked and sent most of the troops south before the attack came. Only the troops willing to stay stayed: the 300 Spartan King's body guard, 800 men from Thessaly and what 1400 from Thebes? Forgot. Anyways over 1/2 the original 7000 men made it south to safety.

As for the defence. Yes the light Persians vs the heavy Greek hoplites, and ya the pass is 4 metres accross at it's narrowest point. Don't forget the Greeks rebuilt the ancient - to them too - Phocien wall or whatever the name of that wall is. So now the Persians are fighting in a narrow space they're not used to, fighting up hill, fighting a heavily armored infantry force while being lightly armored, and they have to climb a wall.

 

[Vasileius]

Longasc. Leonades had word that he was about to be flanked and sent most of the troops south before the attack came. Only the troops willing to stay stayed: the 300 Spartan King's body guard, 800 men from Thessaly and what 1400 from Thebes? Forgot. Anyways over 1/2 the original 7000 men made it south to safety.

300 Spartans and 700 Thespians (not Thessaly). The Thebans stayed at first but later they went south too .