The Battle of Thermopylae

[old_pop2000]

Well, here's an interesting and significant historical event, especially for democracy; the Battle of Thermopylae in around 480 BC. King Leonidas and his band of 300 Spartan's held the pass for three days, before the Persian King Xerxes found a way around the pass and outflanked Leonidas.

I think it would interesting to discuss the battle, Greek warfare and its effects on history.

[Kyle Holgate]

I will bow out on this one. When virtually the sum total of my knowledge on a subject is a movie - mest keep my fingers off the keyboard (mouth shut in other words!). :o

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, here's an interesting and significant historical event, especially for democracy; the Battle of Thermopylae in around 480 BC. King Leonidas and his band of 300 Spartan's held the pass for three days, before the Persian King Xerxes found a way around the pass and outflanked Leonidas.

I think it would interesting to discuss the battle, Greek warfare and its effects on history.

Dennis:

Do think it is possible that the eventual defeat of the Persians after Thermopylae may have influenced Alexander the Great to take them on and conquer them? Perhaps he felt that Greek/Macedonian combat tactics had proven superior enough to topple the most powerful empire in the world at that time?

[paladin5]

I will bow out on this one. When virtually the sum total of my knowledge on a subject is a movie - mest keep my fingers off the keyboard (mouth shut in other words!). :o


same here, however i will leave with this:

THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Do think it is possible that the eventual defeat of the Persians after Thermopylae may have influenced Alexander the Great to take them on and conquer them? Perhaps he felt that Greek/Macedonian combat tactics had proven superior enough to topple the most powerful empire in the world at that time?
Actually, the destruction of the Persian fleet at Salamis, and the terrible losses at Thermopylae did great damage to the Persian kings and the view by their subjects of invincibility. However, the destruction of the fleet was ended any possibility of Persian encursions into Greece. The Greeks pursued Xerxes, and destroyed the pontoon bridge across the Hellespont, which essentially ended the matter.

[Citadelvette]

Dennis:

Do think it is possible that the eventual defeat of the Persians after Thermopylae may have influenced Alexander the Great to take them on and conquer them? Perhaps he felt that Greek/Macedonian combat tactics had proven superior enough to topple the most powerful empire in the world at that time?

Considering how the Greeks inflicted massive casualties on the Persians with few of their own in almost every encounter and with an ego like Alexander's this would seem to make sense. Below I have some modern estiamtes of casulaties, reflected by historical evidence and not the ludicrous period writings (the Greeks had some number issues) at Marathon, 490 BC- 6,400/30,000 Persians 192/10,000 Greeks lost.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Considering how the Greeks inflicted massive casualties on the Persians with few of their own in almost every encounter and with an ego like Alexander's this would seem to make sense. Below I have some modern estiamtes of casulaties, reflected by historical evidence and not the ludicrous period writings (the Greeks had some number issues) at Marathon, 490 BC- 6,400/30,000 Persians 192/10,000 Greeks lost.

Thanks, you obviously know more about this time period than I could hope to!

[old_pop2000]

Considering how the Greeks inflicted massive casualties on the Persians with few of their own in almost every encounter and with an ego like Alexander's this would seem to make sense. Below I have some modern estiamtes of casulaties, reflected by historical evidence and not the ludicrous period writings (the Greeks had some number issues) at Marathon, 490 BC- 6,400/30,000 Persians 192/10,000 Greeks lost.
Based on the terrain and the polyglot of nations contributing to the Persian army, I would say that it should be expected that the defense would have the advantage especially with the Spartan's in the mix with the Theban's, and Athenian's. What is the basis of the numbers, you have presented. What was the force ratio involved? Terrain can be a force multiplier, so if it was 30,000 Persian's versus 1500 Greeks at Thermopylae with the terrain a force multiplier, and the expertise of the Greeks being another force multiplier, it might have been closer. In most offensive situations, the attacker must have a force ratio of 3:1. If the Greeks managed to get an equivalent force of over 10,000 due to the force multipliers, then, in fact, it probably was a little closer than the Greek writer's have depicted.

I agree we should use archeology and facts, not Herodutus.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Based on the terrain and the polyglot of nations contributing to the Persian army, I would say that it should be expected that the defense would have the advantage especially with the Spartan's in the mix with the Theban's, and Athenian's. What is the basis of the numbers, you have presented. What was the force ratio involved? Terrain can be a force multiplier, so if it was 30,000 Persian's versus 1500 Greeks at Thermopylae with the terrain a force multiplier, and the expertise of the Greeks being another force multiplier, it might have been closer. In most offensive situations, the attacker must have a force ratio of 3:1. If the Greeks managed to get an equivalent force of over 10,000 due to the force multipliers, then, in fact, it probably was a little closer than the Greek writer's have depicted.

I agree we should use archeology and facts, not Herodutus.

Dennis:

I think it is important to keep in mind that we are also dealing with two different styles of warfare here. The Greeks were heavy infantry utilizing a pike phalanx with light skirmishers throwing javelins and slinging stones. The Persians favored a lot missiles in the form of archery plus a mixture of foot soldiers and more cavalry than the Greeks did at that time period. A phalanx is a good formation for keeping footsoldiers or cavalry at bay even if outnumbered. It's not so good against missile weapons. It would be interesting to study how the Persians coordinated their various troops versus how the Greeks even from different city-states coordinated theirs. At least they shared a common language and heritage compared to the Persian army.

[Citadelvette]

Most of my knowledge and info comes from lecture/text/notes from my Ancient-Pre-Mpdern warfare class last semester. The book is The Patterns of War Through the Eighteenth Century by Dr. Larry Addington. The Greeks normally used terrain to aid them however some of Alexander's batteles and some earlier Greek offenses into Persian territory during the Delian Leauge War in 478 B.C. The Greeks also were not leeder oriented and thus could continue fighting should their democraticly elected leader/s be killed. The persian on the other hand tended to break apart and run if their commander was killed in battle or fled. The Greeks noticed this weakness and often tried to exploit it (like Alexander at Guagamela or at Marathon) while the Persians never seemed to get that killing leaders didn't stop Greeks (Xenophon's Anabasis is a good primary source here).

[old_pop2000]

The Persian's also had a propensity for rushing out of formation to impress the king, probably not a good idea against the Greek phalanx.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Most of my knowledge and info comes from lecture/text/notes from my Ancient-Pre-Mpdern warfare class last semester. The book is The Patterns of War Through the Eighteenth Century by Dr. Larry Addington. The Greeks normally used terrain to aid them however some of Alexander's batteles and some earlier Greek offenses into Persian territory during the Delian Leauge War in 478 B.C. The Greeks also were not leeder oriented and thus could continue fighting should their democraticly elected leader/s be killed. The persian on the other hand tended to break apart and run if their commander was killed in battle or fled. The Greeks noticed this weakness and often tried to exploit it (like Alexander at Guagamela or at Marathon) while the Persians never seemed to get that killing leaders didn't stop Greeks (Xenophon's Anabasis is a good primary source here).

Hi:

Where are you attending school and what is your planned major?

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Persian's also had a propensity for rushing out of formation to impress the king, probably not a good idea against the Greek phalanx.

Dennis:

Sounds like a good way to skewered! At least horses knew better than to charge a wall of pikes.

[Citadelvette]

Hi:

Where are you attending school and what is your planned major?

I'm a senior at The Citadel and I'm a history major with a concentration in military history.

[old_pop2000]

I'm a senior at The Citadel and I'm a history major with a concentration in military history.
Great! Now we have a real expert in our midst, not a bunch of old guys like me.

The interesting aspect of the Persian problem at Thermopylae is the fact that they couldd have just sailed down the coast and landed behind the pass. This would have allowed them to bypass the Greeks. I am afraid that Herodutus is far in my past. Why didn't they think about that. You know, the old strategy of the indirect approach by Liddell Hart.

[old_pop2000]

What 300 Spartans? There seems to have been a few extra's, thrown in by Herodutus:


The Greeks who at this spot awaited the coming of Xerxes were the following:- From Sparta, three hundred men-at-arms; from Arcadia, a thousand Tegeans and Mantineans, five hundred of each people; a hundred and twenty Orchomenians, from the Arcadian Orchomenus; and a thousand from other cities: from Corinth, four hundred men; from Phlius, two hundred; and from Mycenae eighty. Such was the number from the Peloponnese. There were also present, from Boeotia, seven hundred Thespians and four hundred Thebans.
Besides these troops, the Locrians of Opus and the Phocians had obeyed the call of their countrymen, and sent, the former all the force they had, the latter a thousand men. For envoys had gone from the Greeks at Thermopylae among the Locrians and Phocians, to call on them for assistance, and to say- "They were themselves but the vanguard of the host, sent to precede the main body, which might every day be expected to follow them. The sea was in good keeping, watched by the Athenians, the Eginetans, and the rest of the fleet. There was no cause why they should fear; for after all the invader was not a god but a man; and there never had been, and never would be, a man who was not liable to misfortunes from the very day of his birth, and those misfortunes greater in proportion to his own greatness. The assailant therefore, being only a mortal, must needs fall from his glory." Thus urged, the Locrians and the Phocians had come with their troops to Trachis.

And all we hear about are the three hundred who did not leave?:confused: Correct my math, but that is 4700 men to hold that small pass. Now, if we give the Greeks a force multiplier of 10:1 for terrain, that's an equivalent of 47,000 men in that narrow pass. Now, most sources give the Persian's an army of 210000 men. That's a force ratio of only 4.4:1 against the Greeks, on their own territory. Other sources, just as reputable as Herodutus give the Greeks 7000 men. With a 10:1 force ratio, the odds get even better.

Am I missing something, or is this an instance where the victor of the war gets to tell the story.

[Citadelvette]

[QUOTE=old_pop2000;1438]Great! Now we have a real expert in our midst, not a bunch of old guys like me.QUOTE]

Not really, just lucky to get in a popular class. But thanks anyway, we'll see after a few years of grad school.;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm a senior at The Citadel and I'm a history major with a concentration in military history.

Hi:

I should have figured that from your handle LOL! Good luck with your studies. Will you be commissioned an officer upon your graduation? You're living my dream.;)

[Citadelvette]

Hi:

I should have figured that from your handle LOL! Good luck with your studies. Will you be commissioned an officer upon your graduation? You're living my dream.;)

I was gonna commision Navy until I wrecked my knees up bad and became disqualified, now it's academia and/or some other govt work. Yeah its disappointing, but as long as I've got my history I'll be happy. :p

[Ed Rotondaro]

What 300 Spartans? There seems to have been a few extra's, thrown in by Herodutus:



And all we hear about are the three hundred who did not leave?:confused: Correct my math, but that is 4700 men to hold that small pass. Now, if we give the Greeks a force multiplier of 10:1 for terrain, that's an equivalent of 47,000 men in that narrow pass. Now, most sources give the Persian's an army of 210000 men. That's a force ratio of only 4.4:1 against the Greeks, on their own territory. Other sources, just as reputable as Herodutus give the Greeks 7000 men. With a 10:1 force ratio, the odds get even better.

Am I missing something, or is this an instance where the victor of the war gets to tell the story.

Dennis:

As you state, the sources for ancient history can be very questionable. Oh for what it's worth guys I saw "10,000 BC" tonight. You want to see historical and geological nonsense go see that movie. They got cavemen with dreadlocks living in the Alps and then journeying fairly easily to what looks like Africa and the Nile valley LOL! And a sabertooth that looks like a Bengal tiger with large fangs.

[old_pop2000]

The ancient sources have to be viewed with skepticism and archeology has to contribute real live data to assist historians in interpretation. I doubt there were more than 200000 Persians and I would have doubts about that number.

I don't believe that the fight was that uneven, simply a matter of the Persians were used to fighting on the open plains, and not in mountainous terrain. This hampered their tactics of using chariots and heavy cavalry. They were out of their element.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was gonna commision Navy until I wrecked my knees up bad and became disqualified, now it's academia and/or some other govt work. Yeah its disappointing, but as long as I've got my history I'll be happy. :p

Citadel:

Sorry to hear about the knees. If history is your passion get the graduate degree and get an internship/fellowship with one of the US military historical centers. To badly paraphrase an old '80s song, "Don't trade your passion for glory". You can make fulfilling career in history. I wish that I had. Respectfully,

[Citadelvette]

Citadel:

Sorry to hear about the knees. If history is your passion get the graduate degree and get an internship/fellowship with one of the US military historical centers. To badly paraphrase an old '80s song, "Don't trade your passion for glory". You can make fulfilling career in history. I wish that I had. Respectfully,

Thanks to all. Back to the Greeks. I would say 200,000 is probably right for the Persians as most of their army was commited to the campaign, I've sen up to the 300,000 estimate but I think thats a little high. I would agree that the Persians were out of their element here and that in the long run they failed to learn the lessons of their battles, which were the inherent weakness of their army's multi-ethic makup with each group fighting in their own style based around a top-down leader oriented system of discipline through the lash. Combine this with continual underestimation of the Greeks and you have a recipe for disaster. The Greeks learned and took the fight to the Persians, liberating Ionia for a time then conquering Persia under Alexander. Speaking of Alexander, I think I should start a new thread.;)

[Mike Malanaphy]

The ancient sources have to be viewed with skepticism and archeology has to contribute real live data to assist historians in interpretation. I doubt there were more than 200000 Persians and I would have doubts about that number.

I don't believe that the fight was that uneven, simply a matter of the Persians were used to fighting on the open plains, and not in mountainous terrain. This hampered their tactics of using chariots and heavy cavalry. They were out of their element.

Hi,

I have studied ancient battles a little, but was always sceptical of the numbers shown as in the field. It' s hard to imagine an army of 200,000 Persians supported in the field. Especially considering they brought families and other mouthes to feed along. Could the land support those numbers in the ancient world?

[Mike Malanaphy]

I was gonna commision Navy until I wrecked my knees up bad and became disqualified, now it's academia and/or some other govt work. Yeah its disappointing, but as long as I've got my history I'll be happy. :p

Hi,

So sorry to hear about that. I was able to get an alternate appointment to USNA in 68, but failed due to my vision. The army was less picky. : ) Would have loved serving at sea. But live the dream here. : ) I'm sure a lot of doors will open up for you.

Oh, and for Dennis, tht was 1968, not 1868. : )

[old_pop2000]

What are we talking about? Where did I say, 1868? Sounds like me though.

[Mike Malanaphy]

What are we talking about? Where did I say, 1868? Sounds like me though.

Hi Denis,

Just teasing.....didn't want you to feel like the only geezer here. : )

[old_pop2000]

Hi Denis,

Just teasing.....didn't want you to feel like the only geezer here. : )
Careful, Malanaphy, I'm sensitive!!;):D

I am not that old. Sixty one is a good age, trust me.

Yuch!!! You're right, I am old. AcHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH:eek:

[Ed Rotondaro]

Careful, Malanaphy, I'm sensitive!!;):D

I am not that old. Sixty one is a good age, trust me.

Yuch!!! You're right, I am old. AcHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH:eek:

Dennis:

You can still shoot, cruise, read, eat good food and drink good wine and do other things we won't go into (this is a family forum after all and Kyle's a bit young). Stay forever young and don't let your passion write a check that your body can't cash!

[Citadelvette]

Hi,

I have studied ancient battles a little, but was always sceptical of the numbers shown as in the field. It' s hard to imagine an army of 200,000 Persians supported in the field. Especially considering they brought families and other mouthes to feed along. Could the land support those numbers in the ancient world?

No, the land in Thrace and Greece could not support the needs of the Persian army which moved depending on the sources 2/3, 3/4, or all of its force plus as you mentioned the camp followers. Xerxes had to resort to a two pronged supply train with an overland route crossing the straits near Byzantium following the army and a sea route supplying the army at the coast along its march explaining why the Persians stayed so close to the cost for a great period of time. Anyone with some basic concept of logistics can see the problems here. Xerxes is releying on three sources to fuel his army, off the land, overland supply train in the rear, an oversea route. The army's use of resources is leaving the land barren (the Greeks won't be happy). An overland supply train hundreds of miles long through enemy territory, yeah no one's going to try to raid that! An oversea route that ties you to the coast too much that is vulnerable to the stormy weather at the time of the campaign plus the Greek navies.

[old_pop2000]

Actually the Persian's were innovative in their use of sea borne transport for logistics. Xerxes used 3000 ships built by coast peoples in their realm to maintain the army. Used in conjunction with horse drawn wagons, this allowed the Persian Army to stay abroad for months.

The Persian Army was 20% Cavalry and 80% infantry. Cavalry played a large role in its campaigns. Of course, this became a logistical issue for feeding and replacement.