There is a movie coming out that I will see…“The 300”. I know it will probably not be very historically accurate which in some aspects I find a little sad. Maybe it is just me but when a movie is made about a historical event I think it should be as accurate as possible…but in many cases that will not sell tickets and I understand that and it does not mean I have to like the idea. I will watch it anyway because I think it will be a very good movie and I know the history that surrounds the event.
“The 300”…that title is not exactly accurate. In the end (after other soldiers were ordered to pull back)…there were about 300 Spartans that stayed behind but there were also around 1,000 to 1,500 other Greeks that also stayed behind to face death.
Lets back up a little to get a better picture of just what was taking place. Here is just an overview of what had been taking place.
Around 490 BC. King Darius of Persia had attempted to conquer the Greek city states but his expedition met with defeat upon the fields of Marathon by the Athenians and a few allies from other city states…the Spartans arrived just a little to late for the battle but there would be others. Odd…by some estimates the Spartans arrived at Marathon on September 11, 490 BC. if you don’t believe it…take a cosmology lesson or two…and throw a little astronomy in as well…I will leave it open for discussion if you wish…by the way the battle at Thermopylae also took place in September not August as many once believed and some still do.
Now lets move forward to around 480 BC.
Darius is no longer the King of Persia…but his son Xerxes is and he wants all of Greece because he is tired of there meddling. His empire, at that time, is the largest the world has ever seen and he wants more.
Xerxes has assembled the largest army to ever enter Europe. By modern estimates Xerxes’ land army consisted of 200 to 400 thousand soldiers. I know that is a wide range but ask any historian and they will say…”we don’t know the exact answer but it was huge” at least that is the answer I got. This number for the Persian land army is based on the vastness of the Persian Empire…and it was huge. It is believed that Xerxes took between 5 and 10 thousand soldiers from each area of his empire which was broken down into over forty sections so that would put his army at between 200 and 400 thousand. Herodotus estimated the strength of the Persian army to be over five million (I think he should have paid more attention to mathematics). Now the actual number in my opinion is somewhere in between. If you read and study the time period and the various accounts of Xerxes’ invasion of Greece and piece it all together you will find that the Persian military force being brought to bear upon Greece was on the low end close to one million give or take a couple of hundred thousand and as many as two million…give or take. There is no way to know just how large the Persian army was and there never will be but for a point of fact…it was enormous especially for that time period. Now you will wonder how can you go from 200 thousand to over 1 million. Well lets not forget the Persian navy…over 1300 ships (about 2/3 of the ships were warships and the rest transport ships carrying supplies and soldiers). These ships were manned by about 400 thousand men. With each city along the way soldiers would have to be left behind so by the time the Persians reached Thermopylae they still had hundreds of thousands of soldiers therefore in my opinion when they started out from Persia their strength was indeed in the hundreds of thousands if not over 1 million. Oh by the way…there were also a couple of hundred thousand Greeks that it is said were on their side.
The Greek forces at Thermopylae is also debatable. The initial numbers range from 4,000 to 8,000 with the most accepted number being 7,000. An oracle had foretold that either Sparta would fall or it’s King would die.
The Persian army has been on the march for months and Greece is now beneath their feet. Cities have already fell into Persian hands either by force or they simply surrendered to the Persians. They would travel a route that would take them through a narrow pass that was the only route between Thessaly and the central part of Greece. The narrowest part of this coastline pass (cliffs on the coast side and steep mountains on the land side) was only about three metres wide (it looks different now…time has its affects you know). At this place, Thermopylae, the joint Greek forces would hold the Persians for as long as they could. It is a debatable point as to just why such a small force was to hold the Persians at Thermopylae. Some believe they were to hold the Persians to give the Athenians time to ready their ships and others will say there were holding them while the rest of the Greek army assembled and others think they were suppose to win…but whatever the reasons the combined contingent of the Greek city states held the Persians at bay for nearly a week. Well…about 3 days in all truth because for the first 4 days…there was no fighting. The Greeks could have held out much longer if not for a traitor being in the midst.
On the last day of fighting at Thermopylae many of the Greeks withdrew. Those that remained behind were assured to die. Almost all of the references I looked at agree that about 1,400 to 1,800 Greeks fought on the last day of the battle at Thermopylae and 298 of them were Spartans (2 Spartans were sent back as messengers earlier in the fighting). All but about 300 of them would die on that day…the Thebans that were still alive at Thermopylae surrendered and it is estimated there were about 300 of them still alive.
The place were the Persians finally defeated the Greeks at Thermopylae was found and documented by archeologist Spyridon Nikolaou Marinatos by the large number of Persian arrowheads that were found.
While the Spartans were very courageous and well trained warriors they were also honorable and had promised to hold the pass unto death…of which they did. However when honoring those who die so that others may live let us not forget that on that day they were not all Spartans but they died like Spartans.
While the small contingent of Greek land forces at Thermopylae, lead by the Spartan King Leonidas held the Persians for a short time the Greeks had better thank their Gods for storms at sea and be thankful the full force of the Persian navy was not in play. They should also be thankful that Athens joined the war with Persia because without the Athenian navy Xerxes would have had full run of the coastline and could have easily moved his army anywhere he wanted along the Grecian coast. Now what happened cannot be changed…the storms came and many of the Persian ships were damaged and others lost to the sea and what was left would ultimately be defeated by the Athenian navy at Salamis. The Persian land forces would meet their defeat at Plataea by the combined Greek forces lead by the Spartan Regent Pausanias.
There have been many books and papers written about the Greek/Persian wars all contain many of the same details of the battles with the main differences being in the strength of the military forces involved. There is however no doubt and no debate that the Persians outnumbered the Greeks in every documented battle that took place on land and sea. There is also no doubt that those who died at Thermopylae knew what their fate would be.
For further reading on this subject check out the following…
Thermopylae written by Paul Cartledge
I should note that this books title is a little off…there is only one chapter of the book devoted to the actual battle but it is a wonderful book to read if you love Greek history and it does describe the battle very well.
Herodotus The Histories written by Herodotus
Edited by Carolyn Dewald
Translated by Robin Waterfield
All I can say is…if you love history then you should have already read this book.
Polymnia (Book 7 or chapter 7) deals with the discussion here.
Thermopylae, The Battle for the West by Ernle Bradford
This will tell you just how important the Greeks winning this war with Persia was.
There are other wonderful books out there to read for your historical interests on this subject and if you have any you would like to share…by all means post it. _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Last edited by Eiregirl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:15 am
Cavewoman
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby
THANK YOU! for the synopsis...
am looking forward to the film...
no, i haven't read the books but am interested in the history - i think most of my interest in Greek history stems from an avid fascination with Xena (sorry, but its true!)...
_________________ " The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews
quote:Originally posted by Cavewoman:
THANK YOU! for the synopsis...
am looking forward to the film...
no, i haven't read the books but am interested in the history - i think most of my interest in Greek history stems from an avid fascination with Xena (sorry, but its true!)...
Cave...nothing wrong with being interested in Xena although my prefernce is Gabrielle but would not mind slipping between the sheets with both
Thank you very very much for the reply
Hugs,
Eiregirl _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:52 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
Dismissing from my mind all thoughts of Xena and Gabrielle (honest!)...
I wonder if, when historians and chroniclers estimate the size of armies, they take into account the huge commissariat, the camp-followers, the slaves, and so on, which would have been necessary to support an army?
Were the armies of Leonidas' and Xerxes' days like the later Roman Legions - trained to perform their own engineering, catering, medical, and support work? Or did they need separate support?
(Incidentally - and quite tangentally to this interesting thread - it can be argued that the militant state of Sparta not only supported but institutionalised and normalised male and female homosexuality, to the point that reproduction was seen as a chore to be performed as a duty. How about that as a subject for serious study, Eire?)
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:44 pm
Cavewoman
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby
COOL suggestion Mb! _________________ " The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews
Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:04 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
quote:Originally posted by Cavewoman:
COOL suggestion Mb!
I once enraged a group of my friends with this argument, who were sagely agreeing between themselves that homosexuality couldn't be "nurtured". I like to take contrary points of view from time to time, as it encourages people to question their own attitudes. In this case I wanted to throw a wrench into the machinery of the boring old "nurture versus nature" debate. It kinda worked, but I had to do some quick footwork!
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
quote:Originally posted by Mairi bheag:
Dismissing from my mind all thoughts of Xena and Gabrielle (honest!)...
I wonder if, when historians and chroniclers estimate the size of armies, they take into account the huge commissariat, the camp-followers, the slaves, and so on, which would have been necessary to support an army?
Were the armies of Leonidas' and Xerxes' days like the later Roman Legions - trained to perform their own engineering, catering, medical, and support work? Or did they need separate support?
(Incidentally - and quite tangentally to this interesting thread - it can be argued that the militant state of Sparta not only supported but institutionalised and normalised male and female homosexuality, to the point that reproduction was seen as a chore to be performed as a duty. How about that as a subject for serious study, Eire?)
Mb
xx
“I wonder if, when historians and chroniclers estimate the size of armies, they take into account the huge commissariat, the camp-followers, the slaves, and so on, which would have been necessary to support an army?”
Well…some do and some don’t.
Most historians of the past upon making reference to the size of an army of ancient times they most often quoted or made reference to what has been handed down through history and sometimes that includes everyone...slaves, cooks…everyone. In some cases you can find very detailed descriptions of an armies size…this many foot soldiers, this many cavalry, this many whores, this many whatever but the farther you go back in history the fewer solid details you will find. Many historians of today will analyze everything and question everything. They will read everything they can find and dig for every little detail until they come to their own conclusion and most often what they conclude is very plausible. Lets use Thermopylae for example.
Herodotus (the man from the time) estimated the Persian army to be over 5 million.
Some historians today say it was around 100 thousand but most believe it was somewhere between 1 and 2 million and I believe it was at least close to 1 million when they entered Greece and at the very least 250 thousand of those were at Thermopylae. Now lets remember this is not just a single battlefield…there is also a battle at sea where another 3 to 4 hundred thousand Persians are about to face a smaller but still very large Athenian navy.
Do any of these numbers take into account the number of camp followers…some do and some don’t.
There is no doubt that Herodotus over estimated the size of the Persian army…I am sure he did not count them one by one but from his estimation you can be certain it was huge and most likely he took into account everyone from the king to the lowliest slave which is one of several reasons the size of the Persian army has been downgraded to a mere million give or take and this includes the navy.
In point of fact…there is no way to know just how large either army was but two things are for certain. One…the Persian army (fighting soldiers) was huge by any standards. Two they greatly outnumbered the Greek army that was at Thermopylae.
“Were the armies of Leonidas' and Xerxes' days like the later Roman Legions - trained to perform their own engineering, catering, medical, and support work? Or did they need separate support?” This is a somewhat easier question to answer because when the Persians walked across the Hellespont…they did not walk on water…they walked across an engineered pontoon bridge about 1.5 kilometers long. Was it built by engineers, soldiers or slaves? It was designed by Xerxes’ engineers and built by soldiers and slaves. As far as catering…well I don’t think they called a caterer. They did carry supplies with them and also took what they needed from locals along the way. When they needed medical attention they got it. They got it either from themselves, their comrades or if needed from a “doctor”. It all follows along the same lines for the Greeks.
To answer this question I will say…Yes the Roman Legions were somewhat like the Persian and Greek armies with improvements.
Suggested reading,
From Sumer to Rome by Richard Gabriel and Karen Metz
If you are interested in military history and the capabilities of ancient armies then you must read this book.
Hugs,
Eiregirl _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:33 pm
Cavewoman
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby
Scout's point of view, handed down through through the years..... one campfire = 10.... period. _________________ " The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews
Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:22 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
Interesting work, Eire. And an interesting comment, Cavey.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
quote:Originally posted by Mairi bheag:
Interesting work, Eire. And an interesting comment, Cavey.
Mb
xx
_________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:35 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
quote:Originally posted by Cavewoman:
Scout's point of view, handed down through through the years..... one campfire = 10.... period.
Generals point of view...prepare for ten and find one then kick there asses _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:34 am
Cavewoman
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby
corporal's reality.... plan on ten... figure more... find one... threaten their family... capture 10.....!
don't wanna cooperate? OK! one down.
not to belittle the reality of warfare because its much more complicated than numbers...but really, waaaaay back, a campfire = 10.... along that line of thought, it doesn't really matter if its ten soldiers, or ten loved ones (which can be both, i understand).... the truth is, the support teams count as part of the "army"... without support, an army is nothing....dunno who said it, but somebody said something along the line of an army crawls on its stomach.... still true........ _________________ " The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews
Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:37 am
realwoman
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 1040
Location: under our tree in Africa
~chuckling @ Cave
It was Napoleon who said an army marches on its stomach, and he found that out the hard way trying to get to Russia...
...and u are right, of course, cave... the British would never have taken South Africa in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 if they did not start rounding up the woman and children on the farms and chuck them into concentration camps...
This thread is great, Eire!!
~real _________________ .
.
light is to darkness as love is to fear...
Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:01 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
quote:Originally posted by realwoman:
... the British would never have taken South Africa in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 if they did not start rounding up the woman and children on the farms and chuck them into concentration camps...
And what a fiasco that turned out to be! One of the saddest parts came when certain influential people on the British side tried eventually to make life more tolerable for the inmates of the camps. By then, no Boer trusted them, so any food or medicine went unused.
The camps (which should not be confused with the extermination camps of the Nazis) were set up in an attempt to neutralise the Boer army's "support", by concentrating people in one place. The suffering this caused showed the policy to be a miserable failure, and the British Empire never made that particular mistake again.
Sadly we are forced to the conclusion that there is no civilised way, no noble way to wage a war, even if we see a particular war as being justifiable. In every war the "rules" dictate that non-combatants should not be harmed, and in every war non-combatants die in their thousands, whether they "follow the camp" or not.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Gallery
FAQ
Profile PM's 
