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
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 Topic: The Battle of Thermopylae - Persian View
    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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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 23:40
Sparten, i will take that part back by quoting what travis_congleton stated : Penelope, the logistics for 200,000 in that day and age would be nearly impossible.
 
Now, i would first like to comment on the "punkrock" picture of Xerxes. If that is truely going to be the way they will make Xerxes look in the movie, i dont think i should waist my money on it.
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote akritas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 06:43
Xerxes lost because drove his army-navy in an naval battle.The feauters and the bulk of his fleet was not proper for that.
Below the narrows Salamis
 
 
 
 
 
Thermopeles just delayed the Persian army.


Edited by akritas - 02-Sep-2006 at 06:46
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: 02-Sep-2006 at 08:30
Originally posted by Penelope

Now, i would first like to comment on the "punkrock" picture of Xerxes. If that is truely going to be the way they will make Xerxes look in the movie, i dont think i should waist my money on it.

I could not agree more.

Back to Top
Behzad View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Behzad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 10:07
This really makes me want to cry. How they depict Xerxes is quite disrespectful to Iranian history.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 12:01
I'm sure the whole population of Persia was less than 500,000 in those days, even in the modern era the population of this mountainous region of Iran is not too many more than this number, in the other hand, I don't think that Xerxes could gather a large force of his subjected nations because as he himself mentioned in one of his inscriptions at Persepolis, he didn't respect the beliefs (especially religious beliefs) of other nations so there was no reason that non-Persians wanted to support him.
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: 02-Sep-2006 at 13:10

It is a travesty as to how they portray Persians in this movie.   Spartans are portrayed as they appeared historically while the Persians almost look like they came from another dimension.  If you think Xerxes is bad, wait until you see the Persian troops.

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
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 13:40
Show them please.
Anyway Xerxes appearence is keeping with history, the way the Persians are portrayed generally in west anyhow.
 
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: 02-Sep-2006 at 15:01
Will you Persian 'Phreaks' calm down.  Don't get so...   'Islamic Extreme' on me now. 

Looke the artwork is an interpretation of a 'comic book' writing/artist/whatever.  As you know, Hollywood isn't an acroymn for history and neither is Frank Miller.

Take a look at his artwork of the Spartans as they march to battle...  Now, I could easily get offended by this simply because of his protrait, which appears to me as some cavemen coming out for a hunt.

Again get over your Persian Rug!



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: 02-Sep-2006 at 23:45
Originally posted by Afghanan

It is a travesty as to how they portray Persians in this movie.   Spartans are portrayed as they appeared historically while the Persians almost look like they came from another dimension.  If you think Xerxes is bad, wait until you see the Persian troops.

 
I really had my hopes up high for this movie, now i feel crushed, especially if what you say about the soldiers is true.
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 0.064 seconds.