300

[Casualgamer]

Looks epic. Not historically accurate, but who gives a crap.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Probably not too historically accurate, but then, I'm not entirely convinced the spartans were all that human. I forget the exact numbers, but the number of persian soldiers dead to a single spartan dead...the ratio was insane. Mind you, there were still 600 or so Thespians? I think it was Thespians. They did stay behind to assist the Spartans in defending the pass. They weren't nearly as tough as the Spartans, but you've gotta credit their bravery. Still, even with that bonus, the death ratio was insane...like 100:1 or something like that, not counting the Thespians. Some of it is probably exaggerrated through, but there is no doubt in my mind that the 300 were hard as nails, they chose their battlefield well and they were arguably the best fighters of their day, so it's acceptable to show them doing some insane superhuman feats now and then for the sake of cinema and keeping up with the legend of what they achieved at Thermopylae. I don't expect it'll be realistic or historically accurate, but I do hope it's fun, as the Battle of Thermopylae is one of my favourite subjects in history.

[Don Beegles]

I also enjoy the Battle of Thermopylae and all of Greek warfare, but this is the first I've heard of any movie. Is tehre a webstie/more info?

[waspsmakejam]

If the Spartans in the film look like the ones in the graphic novel, I'll go see it ;D

[Beleriphon]

If the Spartans in the film look like the ones in the graphic novel, I'll go see it ;D


http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/hd/

That should answer that question.

Or perhaps the official trailer

http://www.gerardbutler.net/300/300_promo_trailer.htm

[Don Beegles]

That does explain it, Beleriphon, thanks.

The trailer looks interesting, though of course it always does. I've never read the Graphic Novel, but the movie seems like it might be worth watching, though I doubt it'll be very historically accurate.

[Saithis Bladewing]

The more times I watch that trailer (saw it a few days back on CAD and haven't been able to stop since)...well, the more it awakens the Spartan fangirl in me. ::)

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/SaithisBladewing/Spartans.gif
GG, YOU LOSE, BAIBAI.

[bosssmiley]

Spartan/Persian kill ratio at Thermpoylae - largely the result of the Spartans having better armour. Bronze, wood and leather tend to stop spearpoints better than the cloth and wickerwork the Persians favoured.

Superior weapons technology, a social code that deemed any man who ran from battle a pariah and over-extended Persian supply lines allowed the Spartans to act as a speedbump for two days. Don't believe the macho hype (eg: "300" ) that surrounds them.

That said, I'll be going to see the film just so I can cheer the fight scenes and wince at the howling anachronisms. ;)

[Saithis Bladewing]

Spartan/Persian kill ratio at Thermpoylae - largely the result of the Spartans having better armour. Bronze, wood and leather tend to stop spearpoints better than the cloth and wickerwork the Persians favoured.

Superior weapons technology, a social code that deemed any man who ran from battle a pariah and over-extended Persian supply lines allowed the Spartans to act as a speedbump for two days. Don't believe the macho hype (eg: "300" ) that surrounds them.

That said, I'll be going to see the film just so I can cheer the fight scenes and wince at the howling anachronisms. ;)


Yes they had significant advantages, but one does have to remember that their entire society was not just focused on any man who ran was a pariah, BUT they were a society heavily based around war. They were, without any doubt in my mind, elite soldiers, certainly the best of the best in that time, and they knew full well how to use the terrain to their advantage. They weren't the gods they were made out to be, but they were NOT pushovers in any way, shape or form. They were definitely well beyond your average, everyday man in terms of combat skill and discipline.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

I wouldn't knock the real Spartans. The stand at Thermopylae was one of the bravest deeds of all time - remember that Leonidas and his men refused to withdraw even after some of the Persians' elite troops went through another pass and boxed the Spartans in. They knew they were going to die, but they still stood and fought for something they saw as greater than themselves.

Besides, the 1000 men who stayed (300 Spartans plus 700 or so Thespians) were outnumbered, conservatively, 60:1. Certainly the pass favored small defending forces (about 5600 Athenians held off Philip II army there), the Greek force originally had about 7000 men, and the Greeks (particularly the Spartans) were much better equipped than most of their Persian foes, but still, one has to admire the audacity and bravery of soldiers who would stand up to a force so much larger than their own, even in the face of certain death.

As for the film, it looks like it will be horribly inaccurate, historically. I'm okay with that, because it also looks like it will be a great deal of fun, and doesn't look like they're even pretending they're following the real course of events all that closely.

[Beleriphon]

As for the film, it looks like it will be horribly inaccurate, historically. I'm okay with that, because it also looks like it will be a great deal of fun, and doesn't look like they're even pretending they're following the real course of events all that closely.

Especially since its based on Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name. I don't expect a historically accurate piece of fiction from Frank Miller, I do expect kick ass battle scenes a fun story.

[Don Beegles]

I have a friend who's a Spartan fanboi. I'll probably go see it with him, though I have a fairly good idea I'll regret it.

[Casualgamer]

Spartan/Persian kill ratio at Thermpoylae - largely the result of the Spartans having better armour. Bronze, wood and leather tend to stop spearpoints better than the cloth and wickerwork the Persians favoured.

Superior weapons technology, a social code that deemed any man who ran from battle a pariah and over-extended Persian supply lines allowed the Spartans to act as a speedbump for two days. Don't believe the macho hype (eg: "300" ) that surrounds them.

That said, I'll be going to see the film just so I can cheer the fight scenes and wince at the howling anachronisms. ;)
'
Umm... no?

You forgot eugenics, superior training, and higher morale in there.

Yeah, and I'm no quite sure what you mean by superior armor. Persians had scale mail. That's a good deal better than that leather crap the hoplites had to put up with.

And they were hardly speedbumps. They humiliated basically the entire Persian army, especially the so-called "Persian Immortals", and killed so many Persians (including two of Xerxes' kin) that supposedly by the end, Xerxes refused to send more men into close combat with them anymore and finished the final Spartans with flights of arrows.

Even if they HADN'T had such an AMAZING kill ratio and were simply run over, I would appauld them. Staying to die for others is nothing to laugh at.

EDIT: Back on topic of the film, I love how it's simply impossible for anyone in that movie to talk normally. Everything that comes out of their mouths has to be something really freaking EPIC, like, "SPARTANS! TONIGHT, WE DINE IN HELL!!!".

[Gorbash Kazdar]

EDIT: Back on topic of the film, I love how it's simply impossible for anyone in that movie to talk normally. Everything that comes out of their mouths has to be something really freaking EPIC, like, "SPARTANS! TONIGHT, WE DINE IN HELL!!!".
Fantastic line. I totally agree as well - but somehow, it seems to work in the previews, instead of just being corny.

Of course, some of the lines have come down as actual quotes from the Spartans who fought at Thermopylae. The line about fighting in the shade, for example.

[Beleriphon]

I still like, "Madness? THIS IS SPARTA" *kicks guy down hole*

Who else could get away with that? Could William Wallace kick a guy down a giant hole? Or Agamemnon? Nope, only Leonidas can get away with kicking guys down giant holes.

Edit:

Does anybody else just love the simplicity of the title? I saw the title and knew isntantly what the movie would be about before even seeing the preview. Maybe that's my inner classics geek talking, but other than The Art of War the Battle of Thermopylae has to be one of the most famouns pieces of military history in the world.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Does anybody else just love the simplicity of the title? I saw the title and knew isntantly what the movie would be about before even seeing the preview. Maybe that's my inner classics geek talking, but other than The Art of War the Battle of Thermopylae has to be one of the most famouns pieces of military history in the world.
I'm a big military history geek, so I'm not a good judge on whether or not everyone will get the title. However, I completely agree about it being a brilliantly simple title.

(And to prove the military history geek point, you mean the Art of War by Sun Tzu, rather than the one by Machiavelli, yes?)

[bosssmiley]

^ or the von Clausewitz version. ;)

Just to show I'm not an unremitting hater of the culturally benighted Lacedaemonians, here's my personal favourite laconic comeback.

Persian ambassador: "You refuse to submit? Then know that if the Great King's army enters Laconia we will raze Sparta to the ground."
Spartan spokesman: "If."

[Beleriphon]

(And to prove the military history geek point, you mean the Art of War by Sun Tzu, rather than the one by Machiavelli, yes?)

Yes, I mean Sun Tzu's Art of War.

I haven't found a copy of Machiavelli's works other than The Prince at my local library so I can't comment on his version.

[Beleriphon]

Just to prove I'm a classics geek I almost managed to translate this using my classical Greek text books. Then I gave up when I realized I'd gotten the tense all wrong.

Edit: well crap its all Web codes... here's a link to a bunch of Greek letters:

Wikipedia's Article on the Battle of Thermopylae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae#Poetry_and_song)

Which can be translated as:

Let honor be to those in whose life
it was set to guard Thermopylae.
Never moving away from duty;
Just and equals in all of their acts
But with sadness and compassion
Brave once they are rich and when
They are poor, again brave
Coming to aid as much as they can;
Always speaking the truth
But without hate for those who lie.

And even more honor they deserve
When its predicted (and many predict)
That Ephialtes will appear in the end
And the Medes will finally pass through

[Gorbash Kazdar]

^ or the von Clausewitz version. ;)
Vom Kriege translates better as On War, I believe.

I think one of my favorite things about the Spartans is that they mastered the art of the laconic phrase (to the point that our word for the concept actually refers to the Spartans).

[Beleriphon]

Vom Kriege translates better as On War, I believe.

I think one of my favorite things about the Spartans is that they mastered the art of the laconic phrase (to the point that our word for the concept actually refers to the Spartans).


Fancy, very fancy. I think I'm going to enjoy this movie immensely.


That does explain it, Beleriphon, thanks.

The trailer looks interesting, though of course it always does. I've never read the Graphic Novel, but the movie seems like it might be worth watching, though I doubt it'll be very historically accurate.

On the topic of historical accuracy Frank Miller has said that nearly everything he put into his work occured in the stories surrounding the people involved. How much of those stories is actually true is debatable but by all accounts the man did his research. For example my previous instance of Leonidas kicking the guy into the hole did actually happen when a foreign ambassador shows up and demands token tribute of land and water. He got both.

[waspsmakejam]

Thank you, thank you, thank you Beleriphon! Pretty, pretty trailer::)

And only slightly more clothes than the graphic. Marvellous!
Love the cute little leather underpants ;D

Definitely a "must see".

[Chappers]

A must see.

On the subject of Classic Warfare I prefer the Romans over the Spartans, Greeks etc. Suetonius slaughtering the Britons under Boudica is an example of Roman military dominance.

That being said the 300 did an amazing thing.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Odd. In some of the battle in the trailer they were like Hoplites but in the rest of it the battlefield was really sparce and didn't look right.

[Don Beegles]

I didn't quite get the title at once, but once THespians were mentioned I understood, and it is simply brilliant.

The laconic catch-phrases are going to be the best part. I mean, the battles'll be great, and all, but honestly, 'Then we'll fight in the shade' is just the best comeback in history.

@Closet_Skeleton: They're porbably spread out because they had so few people left at that point that if they were clumped together they'd be swarmed even in the mountain pass. Or it could just be because it makes it cooler. Either one works, really.

[Dhavaer]

I think the kill ratio for Greeks:Persians was 114.9:1. I remember working that out in history class.

[Beleriphon]

I think the kill ratio for Greeks:Persians was 114.9:1. I remember working that out in history class.

So the Spartans, with the Thespians, killed around 103410 Persians? Impressive.

[Dhavaer]

So the Spartans, with the Thespians, killed around 103410 Persians? Impressive.

Damn smilies.
I guess that's what it works out to. I haven't read anything about it for ages.

[Hidetora]

I don't know if anyone has seen the earlier hollywood film about the same thing, can't remember the title, that was pretty awful because it was pretending to be historically accurate and conviniently forgot about the seven thousand other greeks.

It also as i fear 300 may as well forgot aboutr the fact that the spartans and greeks were defending on a tiny pass where only a few people could fight, so the spartans simply had to sit there with their 20 foot spears and look mean wilst the enemy died on the sharp pointy ends.... of course King leonadis, or whatever, and these spartans don't need this, all hey need is there razor sharp with, a red cloak, a loincloth and a big blessed like voice

[Democratus]

Well, there is no way to really be historically accurate. After all - we have no evidence that the battle took place as described.

Herodotus, while a great writer, is hardly an accurate source.

[Beleriphon]

It also as i fear 300 may as well forgot aboutr the fact that the spartans and greeks were defending on a tiny pass where only a few people could fight, so the spartans simply had to sit there with their 20 foot spears and look mean wilst the enemy died on the sharp pointy ends.... of course King leonadis, or whatever, and these spartans don't need this, all hey need is there razor sharp with, a red cloak, a loincloth and a big blessed like voice

You seem to be fogetting that it is a movie adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name. So historical accuracy is going to take a back seat to literary license.

[McDeath]

This looks like it could be pretty awesome, especially with some good lines. That's really why I see movies, to collect quotes.

Rome > Sparta, but Sparta > Persia.

[bosssmiley]

Rome > Sparta, but Sparta > Persia.

Nope, sorry. Persia > Sparta. Athens > Persia. ::)

Sparta's cheerleaders (who include most 19th century German and British public school-educated classicists) > Persia's cheerleaders.
I see where your confusion arises. ;)

v wrong, and wrong. History *is* interpretative, and the Persians won Thermoplyae. kthxbye

[Casualgamer]

Nope, sorry. Persia > Sparta. Athens > Persia. ::)

Sparta's cheerleaders (who include most 19th century German and British public school-educated classicists) > Persia's cheerleaders.
I see where your confusion arises. ;)

There you go again.

History is, by definition, not interpretive. What happened, happened, and what happened was 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians drew a line in the sand for Greece, and Persia got their asses whupped.

[Democratus]

Persia didn't get their ass whupped. They won the battle of Thermopylae. Soundly.

The Persian army wasn't even significantly reduced during the battle.

It was at Salamis and Plataea where the Persians were finally defeated by a coalition of city states.

[Casualgamer]

Depends on what you mean by "got their asses whupped".

Yeah, it was a tactical victory, but the Persians definately got a taste of superior martial skill, what I define as ass-whupping.

Furthermore, can we say that Greece would have won the war had they NOT stood that day?

[Democratus]

Depends on what you mean by "got their asses whupped".

Yeah, it was a tactical victory, but the Persians definately got a taste of superior martial skill, what I define as ass-whupping.

Not really. They got a taste of a superior position in the terrain. Had the battle happened in open land - the Persians would have rolled over the Greeks in no time.

Not only that. But the Greeks first tried to stop the Persians at Tempe with 10,000 hoplites. After seeing the full size of the enemy they retreated and left Tempe to the enemy. Only when they found a better location (the pass at Thermopylae) did they put up a stand. So it wasn't superior soldering at all - otherwise the 10,000(!) would have easily defeated the Persian invaders - it was superior positioning.

When the final athismos came, we saw that the Persians did have their own tactical expertese - utilising arrows to counter the phalanx. In the end, the battle saw several thousand (possibly 2-3k) Greek dead and somewhere between 8-10 thousand Persian dead. Given that the invading force was well over 100,000 (possibly as much as 250,000) the losses were not crushing.

Thermopylae is a classic example of the "glorius defeat" - a combat disaster that is later transformed into a great story to justify the loss. Other such battles would be Masada, the Alamo, Little Big Horn, etc. These are all abject defeats which have been given symbolic value to make them inspiring storys for their culture.


Furthermore, can we say that Greece would have won the war had they NOT stood that day?

One could ask the same question about Perl Harbor and the US in World War II. But I would hardly say that the US "whupped Japan's ass" at Pearl Harbor.

The stand at Thermopylae is a great story about courage in the face of overwhelming odds. It is also an important object lesson in the proper use of terrain. But, historically speaking, it was a mere roadbump to the invading Persians.

[Casualgamer]

Not only that. But the Greeks first tried to stop the Persians at Tempe with 10,000 hoplites. After seeing the full size of the enemy they retreated and left Tempe to the enemy. Only when they found a better location (the pass at Thermopylae) did they put up a stand. So it wasn't superior soldering at all - otherwise the 10,000(!) would have easily defeated the Persian invaders - it was superior positioning.

Tactics....


When the final athismos came, we saw that the Persians did have their own tactical expertese - utilising arrows to counter the phalanx. In the end, the battle saw several thousand (possibly 2-3k) Greek dead and somewhere between 8-10 thousand Persian dead. Given that the invading force was well over 100,000 (possibly as much as 250,000) the losses were not crushing.

Greeks are not Spartans. And a 5-1 kill ratio is not to be sneezed at. If that's not superior martial expertise, then it's Persian stupidity in NOT using the arrows in the first place, and sending the Immortals to get their asses kicked.

One way or another, the Greek soldier won. Tactical defeat, definately, but a great example of valor, skill and tactics.

[Democratus]

Greeks are not Spartans. And a 5-1 kill ratio is not to be sneezed at.

It was most likely 3-1. And that is quite normal for any army attacking a strong defensive position.


One way or another, the Greek soldier won. Tactical defeat, definately, but a great example of valor, skill and tactics.

Um. No. They lost. The battle of Thermopylae was a loss for the Greeks.

The Persians were left in control of the field of battle with their forces intact and without significant losses. That is a victory for the Persians by any reasonable military measure.

[Casualgamer]

It was most likely 3-1. And that is quite normal for any army attacking a strong defensive position.


Um. No. They lost. The battle of Thermopylae was a loss for the Greeks.

The Persians were left in control of the field of battle with their forces intact and without significant losses. That is a victory for the Persians by any reasonable military measure.

Um, you were the one that implied the 5-1 kill ratio. And no, it's NOT normal, because according to you, they could have just finished them off with arrows.

Yeah, I said that. Whupped ass does not equal "win".

Then why was Xerxes so pissed by the end? A solid victory impies that they were singing and dancing by the end, but instead he decided to uncharacteristically mutilate Leonidas.

The Battle of Thermoplyae is the way any warrior from any culture would like to go out. The Norse, the Japanese, the Chinese, even modern day warriors. It kicks ass. Thus, because the Persians had no valor in that battle, they got their asses whupped.

I mean, seriously. When you send your "thousand Persian Immortals" to fight with the exhausted Greeks and are forced to retreat, and when you have to whip your own soldiers to get them to get NEAR the Greeks, you have lost in spirit.

I value that, thus, I call the Battle of Thermoplae an Persian ass-whupping.

[Democratus]

Um, you were the one that implied the 5-1 kill ratio. And no, it's NOT normal, because according to you, they could have just finished them off with arrows.

I gave a range of casualties according to the experts I have studied under. You chose the minimum range for the Greeks and the maximum for the Persians to come up with 5-1, when a fair comparison would be to choose the mid range. So you may have inferred a 5-1 ratio, but I did not imply it.

As for the arrows - they could not be brought to bear against the defenders until the flanking manuver was performed and the defenders moved their position to a hillock. The archers could then safely engage without risk of a Greek countercharge. I never said that the Persians could have used missile attacks all along.


Then why was Xerxes so pissed by the end? A solid victory impies that they were singing and dancing by the end, but instead he decided to uncharacteristically mutilate Leonidas.

We have no idea if Xerxes was "pissed" at the end of the battle. The stories of this - and the story of the mutilation of Leonidas are most likely completely untrue. These elements of the story are propoganda used to create the "noble defeat" legend encouraged by Greek writers. The collective ego of Greek civilization demanded that Thermopylae be rewritten into a "glorious defeat". Thus the apocryphal stories involving the attitude and actions of King Xerxes.


The Battle of Thermoplyae is the way any warrior from any culture would like to go out. The Norse, the Japanese, the Chinese, even modern day warriors. It kicks ass.

I don't know what warriors you have talked to - but every one I know (including many in the US and the UK) want to "go out" at a very old age after a lifetime lived in peace.

Take care you don't glorify the horrors of war and project those glories on the poor men who must fight them.


I mean, seriously. When you send your "thousand Persian Immortals" to fight with the exhausted Greeks and are forced to retreat, and when you have to whip your own soldiers to get them to get NEAR the Greeks, you have lost in spirit.

You're projecting a modern point of view on a battle that took place in an entirely different framework. Whips used to control troops were SOP for the Persian army - and "honor" didn't have anything to do with it. The whips weren't used as devices of fear or pain. (Ever tried to whip a man with armor on? It doesn't work.) The Persian army spoke upwards of 30 different languages, so they used horns and whips to issue commands which could be heard above the din of battle. The crack of a whip was used for signaling the movement and rallying of troops. The Greeks were wholly unfamiliar with this technique and interpreted it incorrectly.

Xerxes and his generals spent two days fighting against an enemy with superior arms in a superior position without backing down. Thousands of troops, knowing the odds against them, engaged the fearsome phalanx time and agian. They kept up the pressure until an alternative strategy presented itself. Then they exploited the opportunity to full effect. The immortals performed a daring nighttime raid against a large contingent of Greeks (1000 Pocians) and moved through harsh terrain, forming back up and ready for combat the next morning. Sounds a lot like some stories I've read about the US Rangers at the Battle of Normandy. Honorless? Hardly.

Honor the dead. But hail the victors. Both fought fiercely and bravely.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

We have no idea if Xerxes was "pissed" at the end of the battle. The stories of this - and the story of the mutilation of Leonidas are most likely completely untrue. These elements of the story are propoganda used to create the "noble defeat" legend encouraged by Greek writers. The collective ego of Greek civilization demanded that Thermopylae be rewritten into a "glorious defeat". Thus the apocryphal stories involving the attitude and actions of King Xerxes.
Mutilation of the enemy commander's corpse doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with anger or resentment from the troops doing it. It can be used to frighten the remaining enemy (like putting someone's head on a pike), or may be connected to spiritual understandings - for example, many cultures believe that someone's ghost or spirit will be in a similar condition the their body. Thus, if a force is afraid of a vengeful ghost, they may mutilate a corpse in order to render that ghost harmless (or at least weaken it). Thus, while the Greeks likely would have explaind the motivation in a way to make for good propaganda, it's quite possible that Leonidas' corpse was mutilated. It may have even been a sign o respect - "this guy was such a tough old s.o.b., we absolutely do not want him messing with us from the hereafter."


I don't know what warriors you have talked to - but every one I know (including many in the US and the UK) want to "go out" at a very old age after a lifetime lived in peace.

Take care you don't glorify the horrors of war and project those glories on the poor men who must fight them.
This does depend on the culture - certainly not every combatant would long to go out the way the Spartans did, but there are numerous where that is or was the case. In some cultures, to die gloriously in battle is the highest achievement one can attain (if they die in bed from old age, they better have been so bad ass that no one could kill them anyways). Again, can't be said to be universally one way or the other, and I certainly agree that it is universal that war is very brutal and not at all romantic.

Of course, I also make a differentiation between soldiers and warriors, so that can be a factor as well.


Xerxes and his generals spent two days fighting against an enemy with superior arms in a superior position without backing down. Thousands of troops, knowing the odds against them, engaged the fearsome phalanx time and agian. They kept up the pressure until an alternative strategy presented itself. Then they exploited the opportunity to full effect. The immortals performed a daring nighttime raid against a large contingent of Greeks (1000 Pocians) and moved through harsh terrain, forming back up and ready for combat the next morning. Sounds a lot like some stories I've read about the US Rangers at the Battle of Normandy. Honorless? Hardly.

Honor the dead. But hail the victors. Both fought fiercely and bravely.
I totally agree with this. But I also think the down-playing of the military importance of what the Spartans and other Greeks did and the professionalism and competence displayed in how they did it is very unfair. The Greeks positioned themselves perfectly and very well could have held off the Persians indefinitely had they not been betrayed. Even with a great defensive position, it takes a lot of courage and discipline to face such an overwhelming force and stand your ground. Lastly, the extra day bought by the Thespians and Spartans was important - had they withdrew with the rest of the Greek force, the first warning the city-states would have had of the Persian breakthrough would have come from the retreating force with the Persian army likely hot on their heels. The stand gave the Greeks a one day head start, which should not be underestimated.

The Spartans may have a lot of hyperbole associated with them, but they were among the originators of the Western understanding of professional soldiering, which is a very important contribution and influence, historically speaking. They weren't the greatest soldiers of all time - their tactics and indoctrination had several flaws other forces exploited - but those enemies had to learn how to be a professional army in order to do it.

Anyways, IMHO, both sides at Thermopylae represent courageous, capable soldiers who displayed a great deal of tactical expertise, and both deserve respect for that.

[Casualgamer]

I gave a range of casualties according to the experts I have studied under. You chose the minimum range for the Greeks and the maximum for the Persians to come up with 5-1, when a fair comparison would be to choose the mid range. So you may have inferred a 5-1 ratio, but I did not imply it.

As for the arrows - they could not be brought to bear against the defenders until the flanking manuver was performed and the defenders moved their position to a hillock. The archers could then safely engage without risk of a Greek countercharge. I never said that the Persians could have used missile attacks all along.


And you did the opposite. You did, however, give me that option, and thus implied it.

The Greeks were holed up in a pass. They could not maneuver, lest they be drawn out into a position where they could be surrounded and cut to pieces. And the Persians had mounted archers. Fearing a charge is ridiculous.


We have no idea if Xerxes was "pissed" at the end of the battle. The stories of this - and the story of the mutilation of Leonidas are most likely completely untrue. These elements of the story are propoganda used to create the "noble defeat" legend encouraged by Greek writers. The collective ego of Greek civilization demanded that Thermopylae be rewritten into a "glorious defeat". Thus the apocryphal stories involving the attitude and actions of King Xerxes.


Yes, yes we do know he was pissed. Did you miss the part where he mutilated Leonidas's body? Or the part where two of his kin were killed in battle?


I don't know what warriors you have talked to - but every one I know (including many in the US and the UK) want to "go out" at a very old age after a lifetime lived in peace.

Take care you don't glorify the horrors of war and project those glories on the poor men who must fight them.


The Norse believed that those who died of old age were doomed to have their souls sent to Hel (yes, one "l") where they wade in a river of blood and have only goat's urine to quench their thrist.

The most honorable death for a samrai was to die in battle, hence, kamikaze.

I could keep going. A glorious death is quite desirable.

I am NOT a proponent of war. I am very careful, however, to separate the warrior from the war. To give your life is nothing to laugh about.


You're projecting a modern point of view on a battle that took place in an entirely different framework. Whips used to control troops were SOP for the Persian army - and "honor" didn't have anything to do with it. The whips weren't used as devices of fear or pain. (Ever tried to whip a man with armor on? It doesn't work.) The Persian army spoke upwards of 30 different languages, so they used horns and whips to issue commands which could be heard above the din of battle. The crack of a whip was used for signaling the movement and rallying of troops. The Greeks were wholly unfamiliar with this technique and interpreted it incorrectly.

Xerxes and his generals spent two days fighting against an enemy with superior arms in a superior position without backing down. Thousands of troops, knowing the odds against them, engaged the fearsome phalanx time and agian. They kept up the pressure until an alternative strategy presented itself. Then they exploited the opportunity to full effect. The immortals performed a daring nighttime raid against a large contingent of Greeks (1000 Pocians) and moved through harsh terrain, forming back up and ready for combat the next morning. Sounds a lot like some stories I've read about the US Rangers at the Battle of Normandy. Honorless? Hardly.


I don't know about the historic inaccuracy about that, but I'll take your word for it.

You still, however, have failed to address the failure and humiliation of the Persian Immortals.

Xerxe's victory at Thermoplyae was assured. There was little valor in it's win, other than the obvious bravery needed to be a soldier in the first place. But both sides had that, so you don't need to mention that.

Relating guerilla tactics then, to guerilla tactics now is a little ridiculous. But, you are right, I suppose in that. The Persians had a little valor.


BUT, the Greeks had more, because they KNEW they were going to die, and putting up that much of a fight, given the numbers, is valorous, and thus an ass-whupping.

[Casualgamer]

Mutilation of the enemy commander's corpse doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with anger or resentment from the troops doing it. It can be used to frighten the remaining enemy (like putting someone's head on a pike), or may be connected to spiritual understandings - for example, many cultures believe that someone's ghost or spirit will be in a similar condition the their body. Thus, if a force is afraid of a vengeful ghost, they may mutilate a corpse in order to render that ghost harmless (or at least weaken it). Thus, while the Greeks likely would have explaind the motivation in a way to make for good propaganda, it's quite possible that Leonidas' corpse was mutilated. It may have even been a sign o respect - "this guy was such a tough old s.o.b., we absolutely do not want him messing with us from the hereafter."

Sorry for the double post, but I got to talk about this.

It was definately anger. The Persians had a special stigma AGAINST, post-mortem mutilation. The possibility that he did it out of respect, or as intimidation are immediately cut out.

Also, considering the loss of kin, he probably was quite pissed.

[Democratus]

Sorry for the double post, but I got to talk about this.

It was definately anger. The Persians had a special stigma AGAINST, post-mortem mutilation. The possibility that he did it out of respect, or as intimidation are immediately cut out.

Except this didn't happen. He didn't mutilate the Spartan King. This was propaganda added after the fact to make the story better. So it doesn't apply at all.

[Beleriphon]

Except this didn't happen. He didn't mutilate the Spartan King. This was propaganda added after the fact to make the story better. So it doesn't apply at all.



You know that he didn't then? Cite your source, or are you going off of memories from the day in question oh ancient one? :P

[Casualgamer]

Agreed. The Greeks sure know it, because they got hes body back... In rather nasty condition.

[Mattaeu]

Agreed. The Greeks sure know it, because they got hes body back... In rather nasty condition.Please cite source. ::)

I'm inclined to believe the propaganda viewpoint. It's not like it's impossible and I'm not just taking wikipedia's word for history. :-/

[Saithis Bladewing]

I'm inclined to believe the propaganda viewpoint simply because, given the amount of training the Spartans went through and given the superior tactics they used (longer and better weapons, heavily armoured, constantly swapping out phalanxes to ensure the front lines were always fresh, etc.) that very high kill ratios were more than possible.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

I think both sides need to find citations and evidence here.* Now, the traditional view found in the work of Herodotus is that Xerxes cut the head off of Leonidas and had his body crucified in anger over having so many of his soldiers (and some of his relatives) killed by the Spartans.

I should note here that, to me, if this motivation is true, it sounds less like Xerxes was mad at being slowed or that his larger force had been stalled by a smaller one, but rather at the loss of life inflicted by the Spartans and their refusal (in his eyes) to act reasonably.

Herodotus also reports that Leonidas' body was returned to Sparta some 40 years later, as Xerxes regretted the act of desecration.

The question is whether or not Herodotus' account is accurate. Herodotus was Greek, so it is likely most of his sources would also be Greek, and inclined to support the version of events most beneficial to the Greeks. However, I do not know of a Persian account that might propose a different course of events. If anyone knows of one, I would be very interested in looking into it.

The problem with historical events, even well documented ones, is that one is still often relying on eye witness accounts, which are notoriously unreliable. While occasionally people have knowingly lied to achieve some end, more often people are telling their version in good faith, but the complexity and chaos found in many important historical events (especially battles), the unreliablity of human memory, and subconcious psychological effects can all combine to create multiple versions from different reliable sources, all of whom firmly believe they are telling the truth.

*The alternate explanation for mutilating Leonidas' body was a generalized one to point out that one can dismiss a specific motivation for the act without dismissing the act itself.

[Democratus]

All the sources that cite the mutilation of Leonidas are Greek. However, there were no Greek survivors at Thermopylae - thus there were no eyewitnesses to interview. So all Greek writing of what took place there is purely fiction.

The story as told by Herodotus also has actual transcripts of conversations happening within the Persian camp. Are we really to believe that they had an 'embedded reporter' taking dictation in the tent of Xerxes? Of course not. Most schollars agree that these conversations are a construction of Herodotus in order to give the reader information that would not otherwise be obvious.

In much the same way, Herodotus numbers the Persian army at 1.7 million infantry and 80,000 cavalry (Book 7:185) - a number which is clearly impossible. But one that serves to inflate the glory of the defending Greeks.

At the time of Herodotus's writing, the city of Thebes was very much out of favor in Attica. Thus his story has the contingent of Theban soldiers staying in the pass against their will. (Book 7:222) Again this is very unlikely, as it is tactical folly to have your troops stand with armed hostages in your ranks. We therefore know that the truth is that the Thebans stayed and fought out of the same bravery that kept the Thespians and Spartans in the pass. Again we see political influence dictating the words of Herodotus - rather than historical accuracy.

There are several earmarks of "propagandizing" in this telling of the story of Thermopolae: the mutilation, the whiping of troops, the conversation between Xerxes and Demaratus regarding the true strength of Sparta (Book 7:235). Taken all together, these elements transform a clear Persian victory into a "glorious defeat" by the Greeks.

Sources*: Herodotus "The Histories", Dr. John Marincola's articles on Herodotus, Prof. Garret G. Feagan "Great Battles of the Acnient World: The Battle of Thermopylae", Prof. Misel (Univ. of Texas) lectures on ancient & classical history 1989-1991, Prof. Philpot (UT) lectures on classics 1987-1989

*No wikipedias were used in the making of this post.