The Battle of Thermopylae - Persian View
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13962
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 16:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Battle of Thermopylae - Persian View
Posted By: Afghanan
Subject: The Battle of Thermopylae - Persian View
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 12:39
|
In leau of the new upcoming movie (Titled '300') by the comic adaptation of the battle at Thermopylae, is there any Persian sources of the battle? ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Replies:
Posted By: Ave1
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 13:21
|
I know one thing is for sure, the Greek sources is completly exagerrated, indicating that they were vastly outnumbered. Hopefully we can get some more accurate and neutral sources.
------------- "Not one American Christian in a hundred realizes that if he lived in Israel, he would be the victim of official discrimination forced...to carry an identification card" - Joseph Sobran |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 13:47
|
For Iranians it was not a battle but just a minor skirmish. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 22:55
|
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. ------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 02:32
|
It was the terrain. Me thinks this movie is going to show them in open field.
------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 11:16
|
Yes, it was very easy for the Spartans to defend a little alley with a phalanx. If they had been on the open field, they would have been flanked and slaughtered with much less Persian casualties.
------------- 
|
Posted By: YusakuJon3
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 20:00
------------- "There you go again!" -- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s) |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 08:55
| In fact I have always thought Leonidas and the Spartans as fools. They died for nothing, there is no honour in that. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 09:32
They DID get flanked and slaughtered after a greek traitor showed the Persians a way around the pass through the mountain. But that 300 spartans killed 20000 persians is a little unlikely. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 10:34
|
I mean that they would have been flanked immediately, vulkan02, and would have not caused as many casualties. I doubt the Spartans killed 20,000 Persians, but they may have killed 5,000-10,000.
-------------
|
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 23:26
| If not for the unusual amount of "coverage" from Greek sources that inflate the battle to epic proportions, even Western histories would have viewed it as a skirmish. There were probably dozens of similar battles not well known today. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 00:13
|
Yes, Kohima in Burma deuing WWII. And this time the defending party actually won.
------------- |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date 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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date 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, 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 ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Miller
Date 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. |
Posted By: Travis Congleton
Date 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.  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'. |
Posted By: Miller
Date 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
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date 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 |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2006 at 22:10
|
No! The problem in Nasiriyah occurred when a
Actually there were 7,000 Greeks and the Persians likely had around 200,000 given the nature of the |
Posted By: PrznKonectoid
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 03:17
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. ------------- Want to know more on ancient Iran? http://www.parsaworld.com - http://www.parsaworld.com or join our forums FORUM |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 05:47
I seriously doubt that it was merely 20,000 Persians.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 05:56
|
And you doubt that because? ------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 09:07
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?
|
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 09:38
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.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 13:09
Kindly explain how Xerxes could have logistically suppported an army of 500,000 on an expedition into unfriendly territory. ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 15:43
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? -------------
|
Posted By: Travis Congleton
Date 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. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date 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 |
Posted By: Penelope
Date 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.
|
Posted By: akritas
Date 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.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 08:30
I could not agree more. -------------
|
Posted By: Behzad
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 10:07
|
This really makes me want to cry. How they depict Xerxes is quite disrespectful to Iranian history. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date 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. -------------
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date 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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Travis Congleton
Date 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!  |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 23:45
I really had my hopes up high for this movie, now i feel crushed, especially if what you say about the soldiers is true.
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 08:08
|
I agree, I heard the last 300 Spartans was awesome, but this one looks like a punk rock remake of the other one.
-------------
|
Posted By: Behzad
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 10:06
|
Stupid thing is however, that some people will actually think it's entirely true and believe Xerxes and Persians actually looked like that... -------------
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 13:25
|
Yes, which is exactly what happened with Braveheart.
-------------
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 05:40
Just because a State has slaves doesn't mean that it is not independent.Hellow,Sparta had it's own independent goverment and army to defend it's independent people! Helotes were not Spartans!
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 06:57
| But why would Sparta teach its "slaves" to fight? |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 15:34
Sparta had independence yes, but freedom hardly. It was an oligarchy with an emphasis on military service by all male citizens which derived its muscle from its subject peoples. You're attempting to understand a culture far different from your own with a sense of modern day romanticism. A Spartan would have placed far more emphasis on honor and service than freedom, well alright the Spartan kings frequently expressed opinions similar to your own but thats an exception. As to your last statement, Sparta never would have become great without the Helots to till the land and provide food and sustenance to its armies.
I suppose you know better than Cstesias and Herrodutos who placed the Greek force between 5-7K, and acknowledged Leonidas continous replacement and rotation of non Spartiate soldiers...
Which reminds me I still need to respond to the nonsense you posted in that thread
In all honesty guys settle down, even if this film does create the wrong impression who is going to remember it 100 years from now?
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 11:35
|
Sparta had a very complex govermental system ,with elements from oligarchy,monarchy and democracy:the 2 kings-monarchy,the Apella and the 5 ephors-democracy,the Senet-Oligarchy.It relied on slaves,yes,but it would be foolish to say that in order to accuse them.In the Ancient World ,slaves were a standard class,on the very bottom of Ancient societes.There were no civilizations in the known Ancient World without any kind of slavery,physical or mental.
And i am not talking about standard things.I am talking about the freedom of the Ancient Hellen citizens .All Ancient Hellen citizens,Spartans,Athenians etc who llived in a city-State with free and independent goverment enjoyed the freedom and the rights their city provided as well as their obligations towards their city-State and fellow citizens.
Sparta's greatness allways lied in it's tought militaristic life and it's courageous land armed forces, which were the best of their time in the whole Ancient Hellenic World.And nobody can deprive that from them.
Concerning Herodotus ,he made mistakes.The main Spartan army was it's hoplites.Of course there were auxilliary men,but they were responsible for the supplies and generally the suppport of the main Spartan Army,the Spartan hoplites.The biggest army Spartans gathered during the Persian wars was the 5.000 Spartan hoplites in the battle of Plataia.The biggest army they ever gathered were the 8.000 Spartan hoplites in the battle of Mantineia much later,during the Peloponessian War.Their small population as well as the fear of a possible uprising from the much more helots never allowed them to send big forces outside of Peloponessus.That's why they created the Peloponnesian alliance in the first place,in order to create a defensive wall by allied States so they can protect their land ,since they weren't able to send great forces to fight far from home for a great period of time.In fact,even the death of 200 Spartan hoplites was considered a tragic loss from Spartan citizens and goverment.
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 18:56
I got overzealous in attacking Wallace, but he never had a major victory, and his only notable battle was a horrific loss. -------------
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 23:06
|
Spartakus, when King Bardylis of Illyria invaded and subjigated Epirus, it is said that the Spartans then invaded Epirus, defeated Bardylis, and pushed him back to Illyria in 385 bc.
Now if im not mistaken, Bardylis conquered Epirus with a large army. I was just wondering if you are anyone else could tell me approximately how many soldiers did Sparta use in order to accomplish the victory.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 15:44
I don't think they died for nothing, after all we are still talking about it today. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 23:23
I couldnt have said it better.
|
Posted By: Ey_Iran
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 02:33
Well there is persia... The first charter of human rights. Syrus the founder of persia made laws, no slaves allowed. Women have equal power et c. Persepolis was built by payed workers and some female supervisors! PErsia had no slaves ever and it existed. As soon as Alexander the god of War died the greek army was crushed. ------------- =) |
Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 05:13
-------------
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 15:39
How naive can people be!!!!!!!
 |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 15:59
|
"Well there is persia... The first charter of human rights. Syrus the founder of persia made laws, no slaves allowed. Women have equal power et c. Persepolis was built by payed workers and some female supervisors! PErsia had no slaves ever and it existed. As soon as Alexander the god of War died the greek army was crushed."
Actually they had slaves... ------------- They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this. Abdul Rahman Qassemlou |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 16:00
|
Ey_Iran, where did you read all this? ------------- They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this. Abdul Rahman Qassemlou |
Posted By: Ey_Iran
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 20:21
|
Wath the f**k you people didnt know? Its till in the france national museum. They didnt have slaves cause Iran, not persia it was wath the greeks called us. Iran have been called Iran for 7000 years. Anyway Iran was the land of the free. The First Charter Of Human Rights Written By The Iranian / Persian Emperor, Kourosh The Great, 2,500 Years Ago I
Am Kourosh The Great King... Now That I Put The Crown Of The Kingdom
Of Persia.., Babylon.., And The Nations Of The Four Directions On
The Head With The Help Of Ahura.., I Announce That I Will Respect
The Traditions.., Customs And Religions Of The Nations Of My Empire
And Never Let Any Of My Governors And Subordinates Look Down On
Or Insult Them While I Am Alive... I Will Impose My Monarchy On
No Nation... Each Is Free To Accept It, And If Any One Of Them Rejects
It.., I Never Resolve On War To Reign... While I Am The King...
I Will Never Let Anyone Oppress Others... I Will Never Let Anyone
Take Possession Of Movable And Landed Properties Of The Others By
Force Or Without Compensation... While I Am Alive.., I Will Prevent
Unpaid.., Forced Labor... Today.., I Announce That Everyone Is Free
To Choose A Religion... No One Could Be Penalized For His Or Her
Relatives' Faults... Kourosh The Great http://www.venusproject.com/Great_Persian_Empire/kourosh_the_great.html ------------- =) |
Posted By: Ey_Iran
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 20:24
|
Then Alexander the evil came and made slaves and killed all in persepolis. Raped and took away women their democratic rights. Forcing greek tyrannic undemocratic rule.
------------- =) |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 22:45
Fair enough.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 05:44
|
Ey_Iran, I have previously asked you to look at the rules before you post again, obviously you have not.
Warning's in the post. ------------- |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 22:43
No. All we know about this war comes from the Greek. Most of that comes from Herodotus. Getting corroberation for just about anything Herorotus had to say about Persian history from roughly contemporary Persian sources can't really be done. And Herodotus had a pretty clear agenda in making the Greek look good as free men ruled by the laws, as opposed to the Persians who are not bad or lacking in virtue, but handicapped by being under a despotic rule. Modern Iranians can feel free to disagree of course. This was the ancient Greek view of things. Making the Ionian cities tributaries cheesed off at least the Athenians no end it seems. And the effect of this war was in fact that the Greek liberated the Ionian cities and then took the offensive against the Persian empire. That much is evident. It established a Greek hegemony in all military matters, including the fact that the Persian rulers started recruiting Greek mercenaries by the thousands. As for slavery, the ancient Greek response would have been that of course the Great King abolished slavery. Everyone of his subjects was a slave of his. For the Greek one of the points of being a free man was to be able to own slaves. That was how you could tell. If the Persians didn't have any, it was because the only free man in Persia was the Great King/the despot himself. And I'm not writing this to piss anyone off, but in order to try to explain what kind of society the Greek had and how the viewed Persia. And I think that's what Frank Miller picked up from Herodotus. Of course, in comparison Herodotus also has a lot of quite positive things to say about the Persians, which Frank Miller unfortunately didn't see fit to try to include. Instead he went down the road of playing up the Persians as some kind of barbaric, servile slaves, a kind of stereotype of the greasy "Oriental". The Greek never really did that. But be that as it may, the situation is still that the best source for Persian history of the period is what the Greek wrote about them, though that has to be treated with considerable caution. There are official inscriptions, a number of decrees etc. made by the Persian rulers themselves, but in order to get narrative, a story that gives us an outline for making sense of it all, it's Greek writers all the way, with the mentions in the Bible thrown in for good measure. It's unfortunately not quite possible to understand Persian society in the detail we can work things out about the Greek. The discrepancy in their itch to write and comment was just too huge. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 00:13
Yes, it is true, Alexander did sack Persepolis after a party in which he was drunken as hell.
|
Posted By: Shiroyeh
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 18:16
|
So this film is basically going to ridicule Persians/Iranians a lot more than 'Alexander' did... I think for the most part people with some inteligance know that hollywood will never roll a film out which is historically accurate. ...oh well, atleast we have 'Cyrus' to look forward to ------------- ' How shall a man escape from that which is written; How shall he flee from his destiny? ' Ferdowsi |
Posted By: kingofmazanderan
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 20:48
| So have they started making this Cyrus movie yet? I think i heard a few people talking about it before. What can you guys tell me about it? |
Posted By: Shiroyeh
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 21:41
|
^ Last thing I heard was a couple of months ago.. Alex Jovy was in an interview and he said that they have finally got all of the funding for the film (~80,000,000USD). Its being done by a British studio so it wont be hollywood rubbish.
------------- ' How shall a man escape from that which is written; How shall he flee from his destiny? ' Ferdowsi |
Posted By: Khashayarshah
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 18:10
| the battle of thermanopoly was a pathetic resistance for the spartans. it wasnt a real part of the war. it was a slaughter. |
Posted By: Xshayathiya
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 02:52
|
If you guys think that the picture of Xerxes is bad, dont even attempt to watch the trailer. I did, and well I thought I'd share a couple screenshots with those who dont have a broadband connection and cant download the HD trailer:
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6736/3001nb0.png - http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6736/3001nb0.png http://img180.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3001vx5.png -
Spartans shoving Persians off a cliff
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/5547/3002me2.png - http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/5547/3002me2.png
Xerxes....Bald and Mostly Naked
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4319/3003rg7.png - http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4319/3003rg7.png
Persian Emissary coming to warn Spartans not to resist
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4186/3004ou7.png - http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4186/3004ou7.png
Persian Emissary up close
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5212/3005yh6.png - http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5212/3005yh6.png
Umm....I dont even want to guess, but if I had to, I would guess these are the Immortals
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1122/3006ic9.png - http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1122/3006ic9.png
Persian Army, running http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5471/30011tv6.png - http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5471/30011tv6.png
Persian, saying to spartans "our arrows will blott out the sun" to which the spartan replies "then we'll have to fight in the shade"
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5778/3007cq0.png - http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5778/3007cq0.png
As promised, the Persian Arrows blotting out the sun
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9553/30010kv0.png - http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9553/30010kv0.png
Close-up of Persian Arrows
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9254/3008mr8.png - http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9254/3008mr8.png
Xerxes again
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6374/3009bt9.png - http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6374/3009bt9.png
Greek Battle-Rhino masscring Persians.....buhh?
yeah, i'm going to leave you to think about the battle rhino. At least like it was mentioned, we have Cyrus to look forward to, and hopefully Prince of Persia doesnt get massacred by Disney. ------------- "I like rice. Rice is great if you are hungry and want 2000 of something." - Mitch Hedberg |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 12:21
|
As I have mentioned on another place within this site;
The Greeks had about; 300 Spartans and thier attendants; about 700 Thesbians and their attendants; and about 400 Thebans and their attendants, who were forced to stay and fight! Plus, 1000 Phocians who were supposed to have guarded the secret path(s)! Thus the grand total was approximately 2,500 knights, plus any attendants who were required to remain. So, the total may well have been nearer 8,000 total! And, the above totals may well be also exaggerated as is the number of Persians and their allies! Logistics are hell, and as far as I am concerned, the world only had the ability to move 30,000 or 60,000 troops along with their supporting elements, in the times of Napoleon! And, those wars did nothing but decimate the entirety of Europe! Even in WWII, the movement of more than 50,000 fighting men was an immense effort! Supplies, supplies, etc.! Can you imagine an army in the times of Cyrus, with a size of 200,000 + moving over land by day? Even if the narrow trails that probably existed then could not allow a line of more than 5 or 6 troops side by side! If the beginning line of 5 could make a march at the rate of 4 miles per hour, how many lines of 5 would you have to make to accomodate 200,000 fighting men? Lets see" Oh, yeah, there would be 40,000 lines of five! And, if that line was spaced but six feet between the line in front, then that entire line would extend for 240,000 feet! Lets see? That line of troops would have stretched for over 40 miles! Unless my math is horrible? So, if your 200000 troops were expected to march for 10 hours, they would have covered, at 4 miles per hour, exactly 40 miles! Thus, when they were making camp for the night, the last line was just beginning the march! And men would continue to come into contact with the rear of those in front of them for the next ten hours at the least! But, just where could you find enough open land for them? It seems then, that they would then just walk until space allowed them no further space to go forward. Assuming that 40 men could be given resting space along the pathway every 40 feet (one linear foot per soldier), then the first line and those close behind,lets say, make their claim to sleeping and eating ground, whilst behind them another 40 men, who also have to stop and make their on space etc. Suddenly, all of those thousands of men behind them, if they were able to keep good order, were also forced to stop, as if on a dime, and make their own quarters for the night, while others continued to run into them! But the night was all those last in line had? (remember they had to wait at least ten hours just to began the march! Thus whilst the first few hundred lines might well have marched 40 miles, those behind might only march 20 miles, etc., or most, even less! Do you see why it is irresponsible to assume such large figures? The figures found during reports of the Crusades, which reportedly happened about 1400 years later, are more reasonable, with numbers like 300 knights, 500 knights, and 100 light cavalry, and some 200 archers, being a good fighting force! Were these men any less supermen than those supposedly ancient Greeks or Persians? I think not! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 12:32
It is an interesting topic and in undergrad school I did a research paper about the battle of Thermopylae. If I can ever find it I will reread and add to this thread. I thought that the movie 300 was such revision history that it insulted history itself. The Xerxes in 300 looked more like a crack head from the 21st century. The real Xerxes was nothing like what 300 showed and after slaying the messenger sent by Xerxes it was the Spartan who sent emissaries to apologize for killing their messenger. The great Historian Will Durant has a whole chapter about this in "The Light of Greece." For the educated people like us we knew it was revision history but for the kids or uneducated who knows!!! ? I know most sources about this battle are Greek but are there any Persian sources? name them please ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 13:16
İts impossible the raise 300.000/500.000 people 2500 years ago. İts impossible the feed and control them at this ages. Raise a army and make a campaign is not easy as you think. And yuo must know population of world is not high at this ages. Look this link. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html Campaing with 500.000 man there are no campaing at first age and middle age. only last 200 years we see armies at this size. Before that armies are much lesser. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 13:43
|
Well, yes there are figures that might approximate the Persian version, but you would not like them since they are really Frankish! Sorry, but I am a "revisionist!"
Thus I support Waltier / Gaultier / Gautier de Brienne was a middle ages substitution for Xerxes, etc.! And I support Jean / John / Jacques de la Roche, the Duc de Athena / Athens, as the counterpart for Leonaidas! These events actually happened in or about 1275 CE! Gregrovius, a great German historian even saw the connection. That is the words both said by Xeres and those by de Brienne! Please search for "300 knights, de la Roche, 1275 AD", etc.? You might well find this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I_de_la_Roche And more if you are dilligent? Also see: "the account of the “First Sacred War (595-586 BC)”; The Thessalians retaliated with a massive invasion of Phokia. A reconnaisance force of 300 Phokians under Gelon was destroyed to the man, prompting a panic among the Phokians. All their women, children and goods were collected and placed under the charge of 30 men with orders to kill them and burn the goods if the Thessalians should prevail in the coming battle (a.k.a. "The Phocian Despair")." Did you know this? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |