Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Battle of Thermopylae - Persian View

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Battle of Thermopylae - Persian View
    Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 17:58
Uknown tactics and arms can make a difference. I dont know why you doubt in the possibility that 300 men who were from childhood trained to fight and never did anything else but fight, who could have ignored pain, could also inflict heavy casualites in enemy army.
 
There were many such examples in the history. If in 1605 AD, 3000 Polish elite cavalry could have attacked 12.000 well equipped and trained Swedes, slaughtered 6000 of them and lost only 100 soldiers, i see no reason why the Spartans who were the best soldiers of their times couldnt hold great army for a few days and kill 20.000 enemies. And as someone here said before, Spartans were not alone (700 Thespians, probably also armed helotes, many says it was 1000 Spartans, 300 Spartiates and 700 helotes). Greek hoplite was like a tank and on such terrain the lightly armored Persians were like butter.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 15:52
Penelope, the logistics for 200,000 in that day and age would be nearly impossible.

Sparten, why, only a token force of 20,000?  Remember, this is an amphibious campaign.  Deep in foreign territory.  Highly dependent on your navy for logistics, supplies, communication, etc...   The king of kings is in this army of only 20,000?  20,000?  A show of force?

Penelope brings up a good point.  It takes 4 years to prepare an invasion into Greece with 20,000 troops?  Sparten?  Don't be a Persian Party Pooper.  Get over it.
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 15:43
Originally posted by Sparten

Originally posted by Penelope

Originally posted by Sparten

And you doubt that because?
 
 
Xerxes took 4 yrs to prepare for this event, becuase he had to gather resources/money/soldiers/. It took him so long becuase of the simple fact that he had to raise a huge army. And by "huge army", i mean an army of around 300,000 to 500,000 soldiers. Think about it, Persia was a gigantic empire. So, knowing what happened at the Battle Of Marathon under Darius The Great, why would Xerxes take 4 yrs to just send an army of only 20,000 soldiers to march deep inside of Greece, only to barely be able to win at Thermopylea, and then march on to Sack the city of Athens, and leave a very large occupation force before returning to Babylon? Wouldn't that be too much of a gamble?
Kindly explain how Xerxes could have logistically suppported  an army of 500,000 on an expedition into unfriendly territory.


Exactly, there is no real argument for saying that Xerxes could have both supported, and lost, with 250,000 men. Is it not odd that at every battle the Greeks beat the Persians, the Persians always "have" 250,000 men?

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 13:09
Originally posted by Penelope

Originally posted by Sparten

And you doubt that because?
 
 
Xerxes took 4 yrs to prepare for this event, becuase he had to gather resources/money/soldiers/. It took him so long becuase of the simple fact that he had to raise a huge army. And by "huge army", i mean an army of around 300,000 to 500,000 soldiers. Think about it, Persia was a gigantic empire. So, knowing what happened at the Battle Of Marathon under Darius The Great, why would Xerxes take 4 yrs to just send an army of only 20,000 soldiers to march deep inside of Greece, only to barely be able to win at Thermopylea, and then march on to Sack the city of Athens, and leave a very large occupation force before returning to Babylon? Wouldn't that be too much of a gamble?
Kindly explain how Xerxes could have logistically suppported  an army of 500,000 on an expedition into unfriendly territory.
Back to Top
Giannis View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
  Quote Giannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 09:38
Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

Originally posted by Afghanan

 
First picture of Xerxes from Frank Miller's 300.
 
No!! You have got to be kidding Afghanan. It's horrible enough what they do to twist history. But What the HELL is that??? NOT XERXES
 
That resembles a modern day punk more than an ancient Persian ruler in physical attire.
 
 
I agree that's not a way to describe the ''King of kings'',  I prefere David Farrer as Xerxes from the movie ''The 300 spartans'' or something like this
 
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 09:07
Originally posted by Sparten

And you doubt that because?
 
 
Xerxes took 4 yrs to prepare for this event, becuase he had to gather resources/money/soldiers/. It took him so long becuase of the simple fact that he had to raise a huge army. And by "huge army", i mean an army of around 300,000 to 500,000 soldiers. Think about it, Persia was a gigantic empire. So, knowing what happened at the Battle Of Marathon under Darius The Great, why would Xerxes take 4 yrs to just send an army of only 20,000 soldiers to march deep inside of Greece, only to barely be able to win at Thermopylea, and then march on to Sack the city of Athens, and leave a very large occupation force before returning to Babylon? Wouldn't that be too much of a gamble?


Edited by Penelope - 01-Sep-2006 at 09:08
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 05:56
And you doubt that because?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 05:47
Originally posted by Odin

There wrn't just 300 Greeks at the battle, since the Spartans brought a few thousand soldiers from thier satelite states.Greek writers also greatly exaggerated the number of Persian troops. I'd sat it was around ~5,000 Greeks against ~20,000 Persians.
 
I seriously doubt that it was merely 20,000 Persians.
Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote PrznKonectoid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 03:17
Originally posted by Afghanan

 
First picture of Xerxes from Frank Miller's 300.
 
No!! You have got to be kidding Afghanan. It's horrible enough what they do to twist history. But What the HELL is that??? NOT XERXES
 
That resembles a modern day punk more than an ancient Persian ruler in physical attire.


Edited by PrznKonectoid - 01-Sep-2006 at 03:18
Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
  Quote Laelius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2006 at 22:10

Athens and Sparta and Corinth had very good armies due to the fact that they were free.

 

Sparta... free... right... 35,000 of the hellenic troops at Plataea were helot slaves.

 

If you remember, in 2003 when US invaded Iraq US forces were held back for a little while in Nasiriyah by a few of Saddams Fedayeen . Thermopylae may just be the exaggerated version of the same thing which happened a few thousands years a go.

 

No!  The problem in Nasiriyah occurred when a US reserve company got lost and bumbled through the city and then decided to mosy on back through it towards their lines.  When a number of vehicles were disabled and American reservists missing the Marines were forced to launch their attack before they were ready and the battle proved needlessly bloody as a result.  This battle also did not have any impact upon the US Army offensive in the West.

 

There wrn't just 300 Greeks at the battle, since the Spartans brought a few thousand soldiers from thier satelite states.Greek writers also greatly exaggerated the number of Persian troops. I'd sat it was around ~5,000 Greeks against ~20,000 Persians.

 

Actually there were 7,000 Greeks and the Persians likely had around 200,000 given the nature of the Persian empire this number is not unlikely.  Especially since many of these troops are poorly equipped and with almost no training.  Consider the accounts of Cstesias who described portions of the Persian force as being armed with no more than daggers.  As for the Greeks we know that they were on average far more heavily armed and typically much better trained.  Furthermore the numerical disadvantage was nullified by two very important factors.  First the narrowness of the pass which negated the numberical advantage of the Persian army.  Second the numerical disparity was not as great as it seems on account that Leonidas had set up a relay system with nearby cities in order to rotate his troops and maintain fresh troops at his front.  Its possible that while the Greek army present might have never exceeded 7k that perhaps as many as 12 might have fought at thermo over the course of the battle.  Now asides from the factors just mentioned I would argue that the vast majority of Persians killed at Thermopylae found their end not at the tips and blades of the spears and swords of Greece but by the fearsome feet of their compatriots.

Back to Top
Afghanan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Durr e Durran

Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1098
  Quote Afghanan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 14:00
 
First picture of Xerxes from Frank Miller's 300.
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
  Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 13:21

There was no such thing as technological gap 2500 years ago. Persians could not sit in their high flying planes and drop bombs. Anyone could have caused casualties to anyone in hand to hand combat

And not to worry there is a guarantee that the movie is going to have a very anti Iranian theme and that is where most people learn about history. It has more to do with todays political environment and Irans current unbalanced approach toward Israel than with the ancient history
 
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 12:39
Miller: "If you remember, in 2003 when US invaded Iraq US forces were held back for a little while in Nasiriyah by a few of Saddams Fedayeen."
============================
Minus the amount of casualties, of course.  Tongue

I smell an awful lot of Persian Party Poopers.

If the troop amount was 'only' 20,000.  The logistics wouldn't be such a burden as it was.  Xerxes may have had (supposively) an enormous army, but he definitely brought a large fleet with his 'tiny' army.

The Persian economy and population-base could easily provide 80,000 troops.  Why, then, only 20,000?  Would you go on amphibious campaign into relatively unknown territory with a token force?  A token force to show value of strength of the Persian Empire?  Hardly.

If you answer is yes, well then, your answer in itself is 'exaggerated'.

Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
  Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 22:41

If you remember, in 2003 when US invaded Iraq US forces were held back for a little while in Nasiriyah by a few of Saddams Fedayeen . Thermopylae may just be the exaggerated version of the same thing which happened a few thousands years a go.

Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:07
Before the Persians invaded mainland Greece, they had already conquered all the Greek states of Asia minor,
 
The Hellenic city-States of Asia Minor were in fact much weaker than those of the Hellenic mainland.And sth that people continuasly ignore:the fiighting capabilities of Ancient Hellenswere closely connected  with their city's freedom.Athens and Sparta and Corinth had very good armies due to the fact that they were free.
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 14:01

First of all,they were 1.000 Hellens in the battle:700 Thespians and 300 Spartans.There were more Hellens before the  battle but they were told to leave by Leonidas.The number of the Spartans is in fact very reasonable if we consider the fact that Spartans never had many troops in the battlefield due too their  low population.For example ,3.000 Spartans were a very big force for the Ancient Hellenic data warfare.Moreover ,Spartans never sent huge forces far from their homeland and generally Peloponessus because such an action would weaken homeland defence ,thus permitting the helotes to uprise .And Spartans did not want a possible uprising  of the helotes.The whole Spartiatic System was built in order to create a powerfull war machine,thus preventing the helotes and the perioikoi from a possible uprising.The Thespian numbers are also very reasonable,if we consider the fact that their population was also small.For example the Athenians,with a population of more than 100.000,could have in the battlefield 10 to 15.000 men.How many troops could the Thespians have if their population was much smaller than the Athenian one?Simply ,very few.

Concerning the issue of whether it was a battle or a skirmish,the differences in the size  and the data warfare of both armies does not allow to clarify whether it was really a battle or a skirmish.For Ancient Hellenic  data warfare ,10.000 men were in fact a very big military force,but for the Persians ,who could have more than 200.000 men in the battlefield, was only a small guard.For a Persian maybe was a skirmish due to fact that he didn't consider the  gathered Hellens in Thermopylae as an actual force ,,due to their tiny size.But for the Thespians it was  a tough battle sinced  every Thespian that could carry a weapon,the entire Thespian army was sent to to defend  it's homeland.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 04:09

I really think that the Greek side is really, obviously bias. There were probably far more Spartan Hoplites at the battle; there is no way that 300 of them could have held that pass as long as they were supposed to have done.

Athens was still Persian.
 
Athens was, at the time of Theropyle, a major player in the anti-Persian alliance. For example, Cimon, one of the later Athenian statesmen and Generals under Aristides, almost pressed the Persians out of Egypt. It is fair to say that Athenian military expidtions were one of the key factors against the Persians. Had the other city states actually given more men and ships to the league rather than simple currency, the Athenians could have given the Persians a more crushing blow, and if Cimon had not been exiled for pro-Spartan sympathies, they would not have lost such a fine general
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 14:18
Sonce the wrong side won.
And please the Persians did not lose any land battle in 480/479 BC. Even Platrea was a draw. Athens was still Persian.
 
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 00:30
Well, actually I was thinking of possible similar battles/skirmishes in the Persian conquest. Before the Persians invaded mainland Greece, they had already conquered all the Greek states of Asia minor, but popular history has very little coverage for those battles.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 00:13
Yes, Kohima in Burma deuing WWII. And this time the defending party actually won.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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.