Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Really only 300 Spartans |
Post Reply 
|
Page <123> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Stephanos 
Immortal Guard 
Joined: 23-Dec-2006 Location: Macedonia Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Really only 300 SpartansPosted: 25-Dec-2006 at 19:07 |
|
|
The greeks are good story tellers , dont belive them, MYTH MYTH MYTH
|
||
 |
||
|
Patrinos
Baron 
Joined: 05-Sep-2006 Location: Moreas Online Status: Offline Posts: 473 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Dec-2006 at 19:35 |
|
Once upon a time a nation was invented... 
|
||
|
"Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God"
Kolokotronis |
||
|
||
|
unicorn
Janissary 
Joined: 12-Mar-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 20:38 |
|
|
I think we should at the first sight neglect the sizes (alleged or quite rational) of the armies and think at the situation of the time and the field tactics.
It is occurring more than once in Greek historiography (about - for an example - Epaminondas of Thebes and his 300 "sacred band" hoplites) to hear that a great general has an elite corps capable to perform wonders in battle. Epaminondas fought of course with a substantially less undersized army but in any event against armies which outnumbered him in open field. And the phalanx was particularly vulnerable to being outstretched (due to outnumbering) in open field, especially on the right flank, where shields were not protecting the fighters. Epaminonda won at least a battle with odds against him by outflanking the enemies on their right flank. The phalanx : The phalanx was formidable and dreadful. Persians relied on arrow volleys, javelins, numbers, charriots. Phalanx was a team weapon and the first one to be intelligently assemblied. If the front line was kept tight AND the phalanx could not be outflanked - and this is THE case for Thermopyle, it could resist virtually undeffinitely until either of the following happened : a) the wear and tear broke the phalanx by causing piecemeal losses which could not have replacement b) fatigue would wear and tear itself the fighters so they grow weak and the front line cannot be held c) too many spears break (the auxilliaries very often didn't even engage battle themselves, but just fed the front line with new sarissae) and the phalanx becomes short of means to keep the enemy at bay, the shields and other means of protection deteriorate (equipment in short terms becomes less manageable). The later factor is not to be neglected, the phalanx was capable to inflict tremendous damage upon any other type of infantry only that it was usually intended for short conflicts - perhaps a day long but not much more. These said, imagine the situation. What could do the Persians to force through ? - Archers : The phalanx had an interesting feature : apart being less vulnerable to missile fire, greeks used few arrows and once the Persians fired too much, there were no returning projectiles (the usual practice when two lines of archers were shooting at eachother was to reply using the enemies arrows falling in one's own line until they either were all worn out or something else happened). Once archers were in range to shoot and they started to grow short of missiles, the phalanx was starting to push and close distance and the situation could become dangerous. - To charge forward. This is what they very likely did, but the phalanx of Leonidas was reputed to be "the" elite infantry. The numerical advantage was useless at the first assaults, because the narrow space made outflanking unthinkable, and it is reckonable that Greeks had fortified a part of the pass, also placing peltastes and archers to wear and tear on the enemy's flanks. In frontal assault, the first losses of the Persians must have been terrible, and also discouraging. Inasmuch as the discipline was maintained, phalanx was "the" formation tough to break through. And there were scarcely other options for the given place. Infantry in close-quarters didn't move in phantastic battles as depicted on the movies. They engaged quickly, tried to outstrike and push back the enemy, once they did not manage, they had to withdraw AND DO IT FAST. Since allways, the most dreaded situation is not an unsuccessful assault but to suffer a counterstrike. There are even great combat psychology descriptions (www.killology.com is a good one) suggesting that the mere situation of withdrawal transforms the enemy from the status of "human facing a human" (and thus even the bravest still have "respect" for enemy and some inhibition) into predator/fleeing prey status. So the engagements were likely a wave motion, and after a serie of unsuccessful assaults the Persians could be deemed discouraged. It could also be added that : a) even if lesser in numbers their army could be underfed, tired, harrassed logistically, confused b) psychological impact of losing the first engagements was taking a toll c) the hesitations allowed the Greeks to do what they needed most : rest a bit and refresh. It is very likely that at the following engagements the Persians changed something(s). They could exerce the "wave" tactic in narrower way - one wave, short after it another etc. They of course tried their best to kill Greeks as many as possible to thin the line. And finally the inevitable happened. But in terms of numbers, it is likely that even if Persians were a quarter of a million, the conditions did not made this more useful than having much less soldiers. At the terms of the day, indeed, 40000 soldiers was an excellent logistics display if such an army assemblied and moved far away from home. But in the local circumstances, it might have been 40000 or 10X more. The Greeks did their fiersome best : they took away as many as they could before they died. It was a victory, but they made Persians fear that it was bluntly useless to continue. As it was actually proven after... Edited by unicorn - 30-Dec-2006 at 20:39 |
||
|
At corpus non terminatur cogitatione, nec cogitatio corpore (Spinoza, Etica)
|
||
|
||
|
pekau
Caliph 
Atlantean Prophet Joined: 08-Oct-2006 Location: Korea, South Online Status: Offline Posts: 3335 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 21:27 |
|
|
It should be argued that Greeks, being victorious, could say anything they want to their children. (No offense, Greeks...) After all, Greeks thought that they were the enlightened ones, the superior race compared to the barbarians from the East. Saying that 400 Greeks bravely held the attacks of unimaginable size of barbaric armies make Greeks proud of what they have accomplished. Remember, winners make the history.
|
||
Join us. |
||
|
||
|
Hellios
Arch Duke 
Joined: 25-Sep-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 1933 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Dec-2006 at 08:03 |
|
Look at other sources besides Herodotus & Hollywood. Here are some sources, and (based on them) a summary.
Suzanne, Bernard. Darius the Great. 5 Dec. 1998. Plato and his dialogues. 21 Mar 2005.
"Leonidas." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2005. Encyclopdia Britannica Premium Service 20 Mar. 2005 Flower, Michael A. "Simonides, Ephorus, and Herodotus on the Battle of Thermopylae." The Classical Quarterly, 48 (1998): 1-27. Ferrill, Arther. "Herodotus and the Strategy and Tactics of the Invasion of Xerxes." Classical Journal, 10 (1965): 102-115 Moerbeek, Martijn. The Spartan hoplite. 21 Jan. 1998. Monolith Community. 20 Mar. 2005 http://monolith.dnsalias.org/%7Emarsares/warfare/army/s_hoplit.html. Moerbeek, Martijn. The Persian cavalry. 21 Jan. 1998. Monolith Community. 20 Mar. 2005 http://monolith.dnsalias.org/%7Emarsares/warfare/army/p_cavalr.html. Moerbeek, Martijn. The Persian Immortal. 21 Jan. 1998. Monolith Community. 20 Mar. 2005. http://monolith.dnsalias.org/%7Emarsares/warfare/army/p_immort.html. Moerbeek, Martijn. The Athenian Hoplite. 21 Jan 1998. Monolith Community. 20 Mar. 2005. http://monolith.dnsalias.org/%7Emarsares/warfare/army/a_hoplit.html. Moerbeek, Martijn. The battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC. 21 Jan 1998. Monolith Community. 20 Mar. 2005. http://monolith.dnsalias.org/%7Emarsares/warfare/battle/thermo.html. Stecchini, Livio C. The Size of the Persian Army. Feb. 10 2005. Iran Chamber. 20 Mar 2005. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_wars5.php. Stecchini, Livio C. The Skythian Campaign. Feb. 10 2005. Iran Chamber. 20 Mar 2005. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_wars2.php. Lendering, Jona. Summary of and commentary on Herodotus Histories, book 7. Mar. 20 2005. Livius. 20 Mar. 2005. http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/logos7_22.html. A complete chronicle of the battle of Thermopylae is impossible because the only survivors on the Allied side were the surrendered Thebans. It was possible that Herodotus used the accounts of these Thebans for his flawed history of the battle. Although some historians sympathize with Herodotus, they do not completely agree with him nor take his word as complete fact. For example, historian Arther Ferrill comments that "Herodotus sources were the men on the street. These two factors inexperience and lack of really good sources - excuse Herodotus as far as most scholars are concerned for his "ignorance" of strategy and tactics and blunders in his narrative of military action" (Ferrill 103). In the prelude to the battle, the Persian attitude changes towards a numerically inferior Greece, the Ionic revolt occurs, a brief discussion on the battles of Marathon and Artemisium is described as well as the topographical setup and favor of Thermopylae. After describing the battle, the conclusion consists of the results of the conflict and of how we view the battle today. An appendix has been added after the conclusion as a guide for the names of Greek and Persian leaders. It is for the readers convenience, and if one gets lost, one can refer to the appendix. The last section in this paper is for the works cited. In order to truly understand why the battle of Thermopylae happened, one must trace the history of the Persians. Refraining from recalling the history of the beginning of the Persian Empire, this paper begins when the Persians began to threaten the Greeks and their colonies. Prelude to Battle By 525 B.C., the Persian Empire had grown from a small kingdom into one of the largest empires in the world. This Empire stretched from Persias western border at Troy to their eastern border in modern-day Russia. Babylon and Susa became political centers of the Empire, as Persepolis was their ceremonial center (Moerbeek 1). The Empire also had tolerance for other cultures and religions; it was normal when a Persian man would marry a woman of the culture they had just conquered. The king at the time before Thermopylae was Darius, a priest of the Median class of magicians who faked his identity by saying that he was the brother of the murdered heir (Moerbeek 1). Darius did not hold the same tolerance for other cultures, especially those of Greece. At that time, it was not unusual for conquerors to take over colonies and allow them to continue life and trade as normal. For example, the Lydians, a tribe from the western part of Asia Minor, had conquered Greeces colonies in Asia Minor by the seventh century B.C. and allowed them to live their normal lives. Trade had actually improved in those parts since coins, an ancient part of Lydian culture, was introduced. Eventually Lydia was conquered by the Persian Empire, and the Greek colonists had to pay taxes, supply manpower for their army, and had Persian-installed tyrants for leaders. As Darius began a campaign into Scythia (southern Russia) to quell rebellion, he also left a force in Thracy (modern day Thrace) which was very close to Greece (Stecchini 3). The campaign in Scythia was a disaster and could have ended in complete surrender of Darius forces if it were not for the Greek colonies and Asia Minor that remained loyal (Moerbeek 2). Both parties made wrong decisions; Darius believed that he could rely on the colonies, and the Greeks believed that the Persians could be defeated - the end result was the Ionic revolt of 499 B.C. (Moerbeek 2). However, this was an indirect revolt because the Greek citizens, always proud of the polis, believed their own colonies could become a proud city-state like they adored. Unfortunately, the pro-Persian tyrants that were installed halted their progression at every step. This happened at the colony of Milete, where the tyrant Histiaeus and his deputy Aristagoras believed that they could manipulate the colonies to believe that the two tyrants were the colonists complete and total rulers even beyond the Empire (Moerbeek 2). Messengers were sent throughout Greece to aid the revolutionaries in their actions, and the majority of their help came from Athens. Only twenty-five ships could be sent, but the revolts were spreading. Dorian colonies in the south and Aeolian colonies in the north began disposing of their tyrants. The Empire considered these actions small until the rebels burned Sardis, the old capital of the Lydians (Moerbeek 3). The Persians struck back hard, destroying the Athenian fleet at Lade and destroying Milete in 494 B.C.; the people of Milete were either killed or enslaved (Moerbeek 3). The Persians allowed the other Greek colonies to continue their daily lives unhindered, and the Persians installed a democracy. However, this did not keep the colonists in their colonies, and they began to immigrate back into Greece. Darius fleet had reached Greek borders in 493 B.C. His fleet had become so damaged during a storm at Athos that his army traveling overland had no supplies and was quickly defeated by a Thracian tribe of nomads. Darius retreated quickly to regroup and try to conquer the area with a smaller fleet which resulted in the battle at Marathon (Moerbeek 3). Militiades, a nephew of the founder at Thracy, had returned with the immigrants from the revolution. He quickly became an important person in Athens because of his family and his experiences with the Persians. In 490 B.C., he was chosen strategos, the equivalent of a brigade commander, and persuaded the Athenians to fight a land battle against the Persians (Moerbeek 3). The Persians landed their army on the plain of Marathon. There over ten thousand heavily armored infantry, hoplites, defeated the Persian army with the strength of the phalanx - a column of heavy infantry carrying long spears. Militiades was given command of the Greek fleet for leading his men into victory. In the ten years that followed, an uneasy peace had settled over the area. In Persia, Darius succumbed to his fate in 485 B.C., leaving the throne, the offensive, and a dispute in Egypt to his eldest son, Xerxes (Suzanne 1). Xerxes was an excellent organizer but a mediocre general. It is said that his presence on a battlefield demoralized his men for fear of a weak leader (Moerbeek 10). Xerxes was now required to conquer the Greeks and establish Persian influence farther throughout the known world (Moerbeek 8). In Athens, Greek nationalism had exploded after the surprise victory at Marathon, and a large vein of silver had been found at Laurium; this new flow of money had allowed for a large naval fleet (Moerbeek 8). With booming nationalism and the potential to be a powerful threat again, the Athenians looked towards Persia as their main threat. The Athenians would wait for attacks from the new and unknown threat that Xerxes was; the attacks would not come until 480 B.C.
Until this time, Xerxes massed his army. The number of this army is legendary because Herodotus claimed that the Persian army totaled around 3,400,000 soldiers and service non-combatants (Stecchini 5). Historians have guessed as small as 25,000 and as large as over a million since then. The exact number is unknown, but according to research, the force of the Persian army is estimated around 200,000 soldiers. Because Xerxes fathers large fleet was crippled at Athos, Xerxes orders his soldiers to dig out a canal and lay pontoon bridges at Hellespont (Stecchini 5). Here Xerxes had his soldiers whip the waves to show that even the gods were subservient to Xerxes will (Moerbeek 9). With a naval retreat at Artemisium in 480 B.C., Xerxes realized that victory would not be easy. For the Greeks, there were several places of defense that would force the large Persian army into a bottleneck and give the Greeks the advantage. The first was the Gorge of Tempe which was fortified by ten thousand Greeks. It was later abandoned because of tiny geographical weaknesses that could be exploited, as well as the Aleuadae, a leading family of Thessaly who could be in favor of Xerxes (Moerbeek 9). The narrow pass of Thermopylae and the Isthmus in the Peloponesse were left as the last two choices. The Spartans favored Thermopylae because if the army was beaten there, Athens would be left undefended, and Isthmus, perhaps for their bravado which left them reluctant to fight for anything but their own safety (Moerbeek 9). The final choice fell on Thermopylae. The Battle The pass at Thermopylae was to be held by one of the two Spartan kings, Leonidas. In 490 B.C., as a member of the Agiad house, he succeeded his half-brother Cleomenes I as king. Leonidas was married to Cleomenes daughter, Gorgo, and may have supported Cleomenes aggressions against other Greek cities (Brittanica Online 1). Leonidas knew the gravity of the battle, and he was selfless and very concerned with the men under his command. He knew that many would be killed, so he only accepted Spartans that had a son who could take care of the family (Moerbeek 9). After being repelled at Artemisium, Xerxes rested and consolidated his forces. He knew that his army was interdependent with his navy (Ferrill 106). The large army could not sustain itself without the supplies from the fleet. If one was defeated, the other would not survive (Ferrill 109). Herodotus attributed Xerxes four day delay to an expectation that the Greeks would run away, however, waiting for his fleet to get into position sounds more logical (Ferrill 109). When the Persian king approached the narrow pass, the sight of the pass itself must have been demeaning. Xerxes commanded an army of probably 200,000 men and around 50,000 cavalry. The Greeks knew that the Persians could defeat them in an open plain because of their superior numbers and the bow, but Thermopylae was a four-mile pass between two mountains (Ferrill 109). That is why the prior surprise victory at Marathon had such an enthusiastic effect. Xerxes troops also knew this, and were demoralized when they saw this path heavily defended by more than seven thousand Greeks. However, the Spartans were not concerned and they were seen combing their long hair and doing calisthenics outside the garrison (Lendering 1). The battle looked horrible for the Greeks, but there was a major difference that made this battle last three days. The Persians were an assimilating culture, forcing conquered peoples to add manpower to the army - for example, the addition of the Greek colonies in Asia Minor. There was a vast assortment of men from Persia, Scythia, Doria, and many other cultures that attributed to the 200,000-man army. The variety of cultures in one huge fighting force can wedge disharmony in any army, and as a result the cohesiveness of the Persian army was very low. The Greeks, on the other hand, were trained athletes; many had participated in the Olympic Games. In fact the battle raged while the Olympics were taking place and Greeks that participated in these Games were not allowed to leave and fight. This may be a reason why Leonidas received no reinforcements (Lendering 2). The Spartans, as most historians know, were the most perfectly trained forces in the history of warfare. Spartans began training at the age of seven and trained with an adult until eighteen when they became part of an "eat-group," which was a platoon of Spartan warriors eating together (Moerbeek 8). The Spartans did not put emphasis on the family, except for obvious reasons of repopulating the species (Moerbeek 11). The battle began on the morning of September 17th, 480 B.C. On one side were 200,000 Persians; while on the other side were 300 Spartans and approximately 7,000 allied Greeks. There exits a record of the superiority of the Spartan phalanx and the dominant size and strength of the Persians on plains, but neither of these were recorded in the battle. Smaller phalanxes were used, but the pass was too small for Persian cavalry to ride around a flank as well as the infantry to form a proper battle line. For the Persians, this would be severe, undisciplined melee combat. However, for the Spartans, the highest honor was to die on the field of battle because these men had trained all their lives for combat. Their hoplites wear bronze Corinthian helmets, a cuirass of bronze or several layers of fabric, a hoplon, or shield that weighed eight kilograms, a pair of bronze greaves for the legs and handled a long spear (Moerbeek 13). They were the premier fighting force of the fifth century and they prepared to fight an army more than ten times their size. The first attack came in the early morning when Xerxes sent his Median and Elamite contingents into the fray (Lendering 1). Because of the lack of detail about these forces and the slim armor of the Immortals, this first wave of Persians would be compared to light infantry. They were easily defeated by the allied Greeks holding the garrison. After retreating, Xerxes used his personal guard, the 10,000 strong force of his Immortals to return to the battle. The Immortals were scantily armored for their reputation and compared to the amount of armor seen on a Spartan/Athenian hoplite, the Immortals looked naked. An Immortal wears a corset of metal plates under his tunic for some protection. His shield, called the gerron, is made of wicker and leather. While the gerron might be able to guard an Immortal from arrows, this could not stop a well-aimed attack from a sword. Their main weapon was the bow but it was useless in this battle and they instead used a short spear (Moerbeek 20). The Immortals wore soft caps made of fabric called tiaras which was more useful in guarding his face from sand storms in a desert march than in battle. However, the Immortals were considered the elite part the Persian army; they proved themselves against the Spartans. For the majority of these two days it was believed the allied Greeks resisted each attack, predominately from the Immortals. With the best of both armies clashing, Leonidas kept the battle in his favor with feinting attacks that confused and routed the Persians (Ferrill 115). The Persian cavalry, a force that would be integral in a large battlefield, was utterly useless. Their main weapons of bows and arrows were futile against the hoplite armor. The battle would have continued for more than three days if a Greek traitor was not in their midst. The Greek historian, Diodorus, speaks of Ephialtes coming to the Persian camp at night and telling them of a mountain pass that could take the Greeks from the rear (Flower 12). Of course, there were several mountain passes around Thermopylae, but Leonidas chose what he believed would be the most vulnerable and sent one thousand men to guard it (Moerbeek 9). On the dawn of the third day, Leonidas discovered that his thousand men rear-guard had retreated into the mountains. He knew that the Persians would surround him before noon. As a result, he sent the majority of the Greeks home except for his Spartans and four hundred Thebans who were forced to stay in fear of collaboration with the Persians (Flower 9). Because the Spartans were surrounded, they were forced to fight. Spartan men flogged the Thebans that wished to retreat (Lendering 3). This did not last long, however, as Leonidas was struck down early in the stand. There was a great struggle to retrieve his body, and as they did, the remaining Spartans fell back to a small hill where they were killed by the Persian archers who had been ineffective in the first two days of the battle (Lendering 3). Conclusion With Thermopylae a Persian victory, Athens would suffer. The Persians marched freely though the bloody pass and onto the capital. Luckily, the city had been evacuated to Salamis and a small defense waited for Xerxes (Moerbeek 9). However, this small defense was quickly eliminated and Athens was then burned to the ground. The legend of Thermopylae cannot be demoted to a three-day battle in which the Persians, who are seen as villains of this battle, win. The heroic "hold to the last man" actions of the Spartans, even after Leonidas fell are remembered today. Today, at Thermopylae, there are two crude monuments of the battle; the most inspiring is of a Spartan pointing his short sword forward. Popular culture has been slow to provide such a movie-like storyline as Thermopylae. Every element which that is required in a good war movie is in it: a huge enemy force coming to enslave and conquer a culture one can support, a fearless and competent leader who will give his life for his country, horrific battles, a traitor, and one final stand when all of the heroes die for their honor and country. However, Frank Millers comic book "300" has provided a vicious but interesting look of the Spartans. For example, in the comic book, Leonidas wife, Gorgo, asks that her husband not come home without a Persian head. Ephialtes, the traitor, is portrayed as a disfigured humpback that worships the Spartans and wishes to be one. He only is refused by Leonidas and then proceeds to betray them. Historical fiction books also have been written about the battle, such as Stephen Pressfields "Gates of Fire." Thermopylae was not a battle that changed the way we look at life, nor did it save Western civilization in which other battles lay claim. This battle changed the way one looks at fighters and inherent courage. The soldiers that fought knew their limits, with the exception of the Spartans, and they fought to the death against extreme odds. If it were not for the courage of the three hundred Spartans and the Greeks that were sent home as well, history would not have this example of ultimate courage and sacrifice for ones country and beliefs. |
||
|
||
|
TheGame
Knight 
Joined: 18-Dec-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 17:38 |
|
|
Wait, I'm sorry. I must have made my posts in the wrong section.
Anyway, like I said in the thread "Thermopylae - 300", CAIS says there were 3000 spartans. |
||
|
||
|
Hellios
Arch Duke
Joined: 25-Sep-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 1933 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 19:12 |
|
Most sources mention 300 Spartans + a few thousand other (allied) Greeks.
|
||
|
||
|
Kashmiri
Samurai 
Joined: 07-Mar-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 117 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 15:55 |
|
|
the movie 300 really sucked big time, they should have shown more information about the persian empire and also greeks for the dumb movie watchers who know nothing about history, i hate movies that just show battle scenes without giving us the background of the story. i mean almost 80 to 90% dont even know anything about the persian empire and also spartens for that matter.
|
||
|
||
|
SearchAndDestroy
Caliph
Joined: 15-Aug-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2728 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 16:37 |
|
|
If you were looking for a Historical movie Kashmiri, then you went to watch the wrong movie. It was based on a comic and the Director said that when he went to choose whether to follow history or the comic, he chose the comic first.
It was probably said a hundred times in this thread, but when they first arrived, it was several thousand greeks. I believe by the third day they did a tactical withdrawal basicly and the Spartans volunteered to hold back the Persians. While the rest went back to fight another day, the Thespians, who had lost their city earlier stayed behind with the Spartans, they numbered around 700.
I believe there were also Greeks who were supposed to watch the pass, but they got nervous and left their post to defend their own city. Thus leaving the small force of Greeks left to die.
It's also said that Leonodas chose only 300 because he didn't want to leave Sparta undefended due to the Helots. So he chose the best of the Spartan Warriors and took the men who already Fathered Children so that those who didn't could still have heirs.
|
||
|
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
||
|
||
|
Gundamor
Colonel 
Joined: 21-Jun-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 568 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 16:50 |
|
|
Your better off trying to critic this version of the battle then the movie 300 and whatever its based off. This is from the history channel too so they are actually trying to say its somewhat accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6BDHGa4CEY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2IaHcshiwA&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mzmzxpsabU&mode=related&search= |
||
|
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 08:03 |
|
Lol @ History Channel 
|
||
|
||
|
Suren
Arch Duke
Chieftain Joined: 10-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1673 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 17:27 |
|
|
History documentary?! Hoow.
Edited by sirius99 - 10-Apr-2007 at 17:44 |
||
|
Anfører
|
||
|
||
|
Gundamor
Colonel
Joined: 21-Jun-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 568 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Apr-2007 at 00:14 |
|
Actually I put it there for history genuises like yourself to disprove and prove wrong with accurate sources. Since the three historians in that documentary, Steven Pressfield(Gates of Fire), Paul Cartledge(Professor of greek history, U of Cambridge) and Richard Billows(Ancient Greek Proffesor U of columbia, BA from oxford university) obviously know nothing. However you present us with 3 words of dribble..... Disappointing  Edited by Gundamor - 11-Apr-2007 at 00:17 |
||
|
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
|
||
|
||
|
sreenivasarao s
Samurai
Joined: 02-Apr-2007 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 115 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Apr-2007 at 08:46 |
|
|
[QUOTE=unicorn]
I think we should at the first sight neglect the sizes (alleged or quite rational) of the armies and think at the situation of the time and the field tactics.
[QUOTE] Please see my post "Size of the armies -how real they were?" under Academy-Thanks - Regards
|
||
|
||
|
Darius of Parsa
Colonel
King of Kings Joined: 03-Oct-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 599 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Oct-2007 at 04:50 |
|
|
7,000-7,500 Greeks held of 25,000 Persians (Casualties) Edited by Darius of Parsa - 16-Oct-2007 at 04:51 |
||
|
What is the officer problem?
|
||
|
||
|
sunnyspot
Janissary
Joined: 10-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 08:21 |
|
80,000 is not many. Let's not forget, there were about 50,000 Greeks allied to the Persians, and Gaugamela, against Alexander! So, I'm surprised there were only several thousand Greeks at the very most - its a bit fanciful to be honest. A massive Persian army invades - and only a tiny handful of Greeks fight ...?
In any case, the Spartans were decimated - how ever many there were, it was not enough.
|
||
|
||
|
conon394
Pretorian 
Joined: 08-Dec-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 165 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 15:55 |
|
|
It only appears that way by looking at |
||
|
||
|
sunnyspot
Janissary
Joined: 10-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 08:23 |
|
Hey,
Thanks. That makes alot of sense.
Have you ever seen a Spartan shield?
|
||
|
||
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1900 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 08:49 |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Justinian
Chieftain 
King of Númenor Joined: 11-Nov-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1399 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Oct-2007 at 05:07 |
|
|
My understanding is that it was indeed only 300 spartans, but also 700 thesbians. If you think about it, the greeks would not necessarily need to have had thousands of soldiers there for the story of the battle to be feasible; they were all massacred once outflanked and with the way the greeks fought a thousand men could conceivably hold out in a narrow pass for a couple of days.
I doubt any of us believes the persians really had a million man army. I would imagine it could not be higher than 250,000, I am sure the entire empire could have certainly supported that many men under arms, but would the persians have been willing to send a force that size just to conquer greece and whether they would have been able to send that many to greece and support it is another question altogether. (The army lived off the land and had the navy provisioning it, one would think it was rather larger than what the country could support because one of the main factors in forcing it to withdraw was when the navy was no longer capable of sending it supplies, anyone know what the country the persians marched through could support at that time? Perhaps we should look at other examples from history, size of various barbarian forces that invaded that area during the roman era?) We can really only guess at the size of the invading army; 40,000? 100,000? More? Edited by Justinian - 25-Oct-2007 at 05:23 |
||
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
