Thermopylae

[Ianofsmeg16]

So i'm writing a Story for English coursework and I decided to write a story on the battle of Thermopylae as it interests me alot. A useful piece of information would be where the battle took place, so where did it take place all those years ago?

[matteus the inbred]

Good subject, I assume you mean the mean the Greek/Persian clash in 480 BC? (although all three of the battles fought at Thermopylae took place in and around the pass)

Thermopylae, to quote the Wiki article -
'is a mountain pass in Greece. The name means roughly "hot gateway", named for several natural hot water springs there.
The pass runs from Locris into Thessaly between Mount Oeta and the sea (Maliac Gulf).'

The map here gives the location of Thessaly. It's in central Greece on the Aegean coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaly

The main article is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

Good luck with the story, there are many interesting legends and stories associated with Thermopylae!

[Duke Malcolm]

You should watch the 300 Spartans. That was a fantastic movie...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Then you should ignore it a buy a copy of The Histories By Herodotus, Oxford do a good English translation which I use. Make sure you get a scholarly edition, then we can point you to important passages.

[spmetla]

Herodotus is the way to go. I recommend you skip to the Persian war in it, read the whole thing so you know why only 300 Spartans and their allies went there and what they accomplished on the strategic level, then go back and read it all when you're done with the report because it is a must read of history books, it's the first history book ever you know!

[Rosacrux redux]

Just don't take literally the reference about 5.3 million Persians invading Hellas, because then you'll start to have serious issues with Herodotus' sanity :)

Herodotus' Istoria is available online (in English, of course) at the Gutenberg project site and maybe the Perseus project as well (I am not sure) but I'd strongly suggest a hard copy of a good translation. It contains - despite it's problems... you see, it is the first history book - a wealth of data regarding all the cultures the Greeks have encountered and it also provides a vivid image of the world at that point of time.

If you want to know any particulars regarding the battle that are not in the book (or you can't find them) ask away. I have finished a month ago a huge (12 magazine pages) article on the Thermopylae battle so I have several things in my mind. Just ask specific questions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rosacrux redux, how many Persians do you think it was? The way Herodotus writes later about Madonius' contingant suggest he hads the greater part of the army with him and just sent the idiots home.

I'm rather tired at the moment and I can't be bothered to look it up, but you know what I mean.

[Sjakihata]

I believe the army including ALL (slaves, carries, women etc) was around 1.5 mio. That is also my professors guess.

[Spino]

1.5 million is a grossly exaggerated number, even if it includes soldiers, camp followers, slaves, etc. That kind of invasion force would have easily consumed all available food and resources between the Hellespont and Attica in a ridiculously short period of time. Food and fresh water aside an invasion force of that magnitude would have also been highly vulnerable to disease and the attrition rates would have been horrendous. It's true that Xerxes' invasion force was dependent on his Egyptian fleet and its ability to resupply them but if 1.5 million is the actual number I find it hard to believe that the fleet had time to do anything other than ferrying supplies back and forth between Greece and ports in Asia and Egypt, let alone mount an offensive against the Athenian navy.

Let's look at it from the Persian perspective. Why would Xerxes, Lord of Asia, king of kings and all that, believe he would require such a massive army needed to subdue a collection of uncooperative city states? Such an invasion force would have stripped the Persian empire's territories of much of its troops and left them vulnerable to attack and raiding by barbarians and neighboring kingdoms. The lessons learned by the Persians with the Greek victory at Marathon told them that Greek infantry was extremely effective but they must have realized that it was their lack of cavalry on the field that day which cost them the battle. Several hundred thousand seems to be a much more reasonable figure with the actual army coming in around a hundred thousand or so, two at the most. To the average uneducated peasant or anyone uninitiated with the ways of war bearing witness to the march of a few hundred thousand troops and camp followers it's easy to see how one could invoke the term 'millions'.

[Rosacrux redux]

Although I hold Herodotus quite high, I completely disregard his numbers when he talks about the Persian army. We do know that the Empire demographics could sustain such an army, but the - superb for the timeframe, mind you - logistics system of the Persian army could not. Not any number in the millions, I fear.

I have done some extensive research and read references, evaluations and estimations by about 30 writers from the early 19th century up to today, and I've tried to read everything available from the Persian side, and I have come myself to a conclusion that the invasion army minus the shipcrews (the rowers, as the epivatae were part of the army) but including all slaves, baggage train, followers, squires, prostitutes, merchants and the rest of the multitude that followed every army in that timeframe, should be around 600 to 700 men. I'd say the fighting force was about 360.000 (that would be a full imperial army btw.) to 500.000.

My estimation goes closer to the lower number (360K). It makes sense from many, many sides and aspects, mirrors the organisational structure of the Achaemenid military, still is a huge force and one that would terrify to submission even the seasoned, hardy Thracians and Northern Greeks, and would make the rest of the Greeks reluctant to face such a force in a pitched battle.

The force left with Mardonis in the same line of thought, cannot exceed the 120.000 at most, but shouldn't be smaller than 80.000.

Perhaps tommorow I can give a more concise reasoning on those numbers.

[conon394]

Spino

What lack of Cavalry at Marathon?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There were not cav at Marathon at all, neither Athenian of Persian.

redux, I assume you mean 600,000-700,000, yes? Personnally I find commas less confusing that full stops. Personnally I think 500,000 soldiers or there abouts seems more than big enough, Herodotus tells us that there were 98,200 Greek soldiers, including light troops but not, I think, cavalry. Given that neither side was willing to attack I would think the Persian Force was towards your upper limit.

[Ianofsmeg16]

This info is fantastic guys, thanks a bunch!

Maybe this thread can get turned into a hitorical discussion about the battle?

[conon394]

Wigferth Ironwall

Really what makes you so confidant?

Herodotus clearly notes that the Persians brought cavalry, they chose Marathon as the most suitable place for cavalry, and he never suggests the Persian cavalry was absent. In fact Herodotus specifically notes the Persians thought the Athenians were mad for advancing without cavalry or archers (6.112)… Cornelius Nepos certainly states the Persians had cavalry (Miltides). Pausanias suggests that cavalry was present. Justin’s Epitome of Trogus offers not evidence either way.

[Papewaio]

So someone added an extra naught to the number they were facing?

I wonder if there is a relationship between how long after a battle is written up and the inflation on the numbers involved...

[orangat]

If Herodotus erred in his account of the Persian numbers, other historians like Arrian have equally fantastic numbers - 1million infantry at Arbela.

A popular assumption about Themopylae is that only 300 Spartans held the pass when there was at least 5000 other Greeks.

[Rosacrux redux]

Wigferth-Conon

The presence of cavalry within the Persian expedition force that landed at Marathon is fairly well documented by a multitude of sources suggesting even that the Persians had specific ships for ferrying the mounts (ippagoga). But what is also fairly well documented is that the cavalry did not take part in the battle. According to most writers, they were absent either trying to cut off the escape route of the Athenians, or looting the countryside or moving to Athens. I really have not made up my mind on this, but I am collecting extensive data on Marathon for an upcoming article, so I'll be able to offer more on this in a brief time.

On Platea, Wigferth, the Greeks had some cavalry - Herodotus gives an account of the deeds of the Athenian contigent facing the Thebans during the battle. I do believe that the size of the army left with Mardonius was about 120,000 and that includes only the fighting force.

Yes, vast exaggeration of the numbers of a "huge" enemy was quite common, but in the case of the Persian wars goes into a new dimension. If we are talking about a multitude of 700,000 people moving slowly through Greece, I can surely understand how everybody could mistake those for "millions" - when people are used to count in the houndreds and few thousands and suddenly a crowd they cannot possibly count appears, they might as well start talking about "millions"... it's only human.

Orangat, logistics-wise, 1 million at Arbela makes perfect sense. The Persian empire had a superb logistic system for the time and their demographics could sustain a huge army (even with modern standards, we are talking about a 40+ million population here). So, in the heart of their country, the imperial army could very well amass 1 million people and support them for a finite period of time. Although I do believe the real number must be closer to 500K, I don't think the exaggeration here is so gross as that of Herodotus.

Regarding Thermopylae, it's quite widely known that a number around 7,500 to 8,000 Greeks guarded the pass initially, but when overrun by the Persians, only (what was left after three days of fighting of the) 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans (the Thebans served mostly as hostages and they surrendered to the Persians the moment they made contact) stayed willingly behind to cover the retreat of the full force.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rosacrux redux, I am aware the Persian Cavalry were in the vicinity but they were absent from battle, as you said. I didn't say the Greeks had no Cavalry at Platea, I said that Herodotus' numbers do not account for them, he specifies which types of troops were facing the Persians and Cavalry were not mentioned.

[orangat]

....
Orangat, logistics-wise, 1 million at Arbela makes perfect sense. The Persian empire had a superb logistic system for the time and their demographics could sustain a huge army (even with modern standards, we are talking about a 40+ million population here). So, in the heart of their country, the imperial army could very well amass 1 million people and support them for a finite period of time. Although I do believe the real number must be closer to 500K, I don't think the exaggeration here is so gross as that of Herodotus.
.....

Not to me. And if its makes perfect sense why it be closer to 500k? Arrians figures in every of Alexanders major battles with Darius are commonly thought to be inflated. Curtius own estimate is only 1/4 or 1/5 that of Arrian. The Persian empire was crumbling and on the decline with frequent revolts.

My comment about the myth of the 300 is not with historical accounting but with popular thinking.

[nokhor]

i've heard [but not read] that the famous german historian, hans delbruck debunks the whole hundreds of thousands or millions of men army stats quite nicely due to logisitics.

example:
say you have a million man force that eat a million pounds of wheat a day, you would need an wagon train of 100,000 oxen to feed them. and the wagon train itself would need to consume 1 million pounds of wheat, just for it to be able to transport the million pounds of wheat for the army. so we're talking about 60 million pounds of wheat for that army for one month. and for that army to be able to actually move, they would need to have depots of 60 million pounds of wheat spaced out a month apart, and there is no way the persians had anywhere near that kind of food surplus. otherwise any army that assembled of that magnitude, would starve within 3 days. delbruck reputedly did the stats work of what an army like that would need and concluded that in no way could herodetus' numbers be close to the truth. again, i have not read delbruck, but that is my understanding of his work.

[conon394]

nokhor

The logic of that argument while half correct is also half sophism. The Persian army depended on the fleet for supply. Since Persia controlled the greatest bread basket in the Mediterranean (Egypt), it could float its grain from the Nile all the way to Greece or depots in between. The amount of land transport never needed to be some kind of wagon train to Persepolis.

Rosacrux redux (and Wigferth Ironwall)


But what is also fairly well documented is that the cavalry did not take part in the battle

I did not mean to suggest just that the Persians brought cavalry and that they were absent from the battle; rather I meant that I see no really good reason for the common assumption that the Persian cavalry was not involved in the battle of Marathon.

The only actually ancient evidence that states the cavalry were absent is the Suda (via the overly famous ‘cavalry away’ entry). As I already noted Nepos (Militades 5) is both explicit and clear that the Persians had cavalry and it was at the battle. Pausanius (1.32.3) alludes to horses at the battlefield. The Suda is late (circ 1000 AD) and while a valuable source I can’t see that it trumps Nepos and Pausanius. All the other potential ancient sources are apparently silent (although as I noted above I think Herodotus is implicitly suggesting the Persian’s have cavalry at 6.112).

Accepting the ‘cavalry away’ also requires ignoring the testimony of the Painted Stoa’s Marathon battle scene which appears to have depicted Persian cavalry at the battle. This is based on the fairly widely accepted interpretations of the Brescia Sarcophagus and the Frieze from the temple of Athena Nike are based on the Stoa’s painting of Marathon.

Rosacrux, you are quite right that many (modern) authors have found any numerous places to put the Persian cavalry but at the battle. I think the problem with that is that they are making the false assumption that the Persian cavalry would have somehow prevented the Athenian attack. That Alexander-like the Persian cavalry would have swung around the Athenian line, slammed into the Phalanx’s flank, and rolled up the Athenian line while dealing out slaughter to the left and right… Unfortunately (for the Persians) they were not the Companions, nor even their Theban allies of the Plataean campaign; they were not operating with the same expectations or tactics. The Persian cavalry never shows itself to be shock orientated anywhere during the Persians wars. When attacking unless the Persians think the enemy is routed it used skirmish tactics (and even then they only use shock tactics when the enemy is utterly disorganized or surprised).

Plateae offers a useful comparison:

Mardonius thinks the Greeks are fleeing and so launches and attack. Notice Mardonius is supported by picked cavalry force of around a thousand. Yet the fact is no Persians, neither infantry nor cavalry actual press home a charge against the isolated Spartan/Tegean division rather the Persians stop and pelt the Greeks with arrows. It is the Greeks who eventually charge and overwhelm the Persians. Herodotus does note the Persian cavalry attack the Spartan position before the infantry (9.60), but significantly Pausanias is particularly keen to have the Athenians send their archers even if no hoplites can come. Pausanias was worried about missile barrages not Persian cavalry assaults. When Maridonias and his cavalry are overwhelmed in appears to me that they are in the midst of the Persian position, not detached at on flank or the other. At least to me the fact that Maridonias is mentioned in the context of the Spartan/Tegean assault on the Persian shield barrier, suggests to me that the Persian cavalry was not operating seperatly but within the Persian infantry line.

My conclusion: The Persian’s did not use hammer and anvil tactics, they were not going to pin the Greeks with infantry while the cavalry circled for a crushing blow not at Plataea and not at Marathon. At Plataea I think one can really make a case for incompetence by the Persians, they had Marathon to think about, and allies like the Thebans (who clearly did know how to use cavalry to attack a phalanx). At Marathon however, I suspect the Persians were simply caught completely by surprise. As far as I can tell the Persian faced no great hoplite battle during the Ionian revolt, and Herodotus is explicit that no Greek force had withstood the Persians before. Beyond that the Persians key informant, the exiled Hippias would have been utterly unaware that Cleisthenes and his democracy had catapulted Athens from military weakling to first rate hoplite power. Altogether I think Herodotus means us to understand the center of the Persian line, its best troops were in fact the cavalry, who must have felt supremely confidant that day some 2500 years ago watching mad fools rush toward them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're citing sources that come after Herodotus, cite a source which is contempory or earlier. Nepos and Pausanius would likely have done little original research, if original research was even possible, and will simply be expanding on Herodotus' work and filling in the gaps.

If you will excuse me I will now go back and read the relevant passages, again.

[conon394]

You're citing sources that come after Herodotus, cite a source which is contempory or earlier. Nepos and Pausanius would likely have done little original research, if original research was even possible, and will simply be expanding on Herodotus' work and filling in the gaps.

I would argue Pausanius has proven himself to be a rather accurate author, and he did travel to Greece and do his own research.

But in any case if you exclude later sources, you also exclude the only source that suggests the cavalry were absent from Marathon. So we are left with Herodotus and his nominal silence and the Temple of Athena Nike which places cavalry at the battle.

If also reject the evidence from art, you are left with silence from every other surviving period or near period historian. The absence of cavalry then becomes merely an argument from silence, no more or less defensible than an argument that the Persian cavalry attacked the Athenian center and was marginally successful but not enough to overcome the Athenian victory on both the left and right…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not saying Pausanius isn't reliable I'm saying that it would have been very difficult for him to know. Herodotus is the source that a lot of later material is based on. Pausanius may have read Herodotus and seen the freezes and come to the same conclusion you have. The problem is that he couldn't be much more sure of the fact that we can.

[conon394]

Wigferth Ironwall


Pausanius may have read Herodotus and seen the freezes and come to the same conclusion you have. The problem is that he couldn't be much more sure of the fact that we can.

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding me. The conclusion that the plastic evidence from the Brescia Sarcophagus and the Temple of Athena Nike represent the Marathon scene that was depicted at the Painted Stoa is the conclusion of modern scholarship (see below) not Pausanius (at least not directly). Pausanius could of course see the original himself, and I can think no particular reason to doubt his description or the Stoa’s paintings. The nice thing about Pausanius is that he was not writing a history but a travel guide, he had no particular need to jazz up a rival account to Herodotus (essentially this is what is often charged against Ephorus-Diodorus that they added made-up details to differentiate themselves from Herodotus or Thucydides). Pausanius on the other hand was just reporting what he saw.

In any case, the citation I noted from Pausanius had to do with his trip to Marathon and the local legends about he place, not the Stoa.



------------------------------------------------------------------------


The South Frieze of the Nike Temple and the Marathon Painting in the Painted Stoa
Evelyn B. Harrison
American Journal of Archaeology > Vol. 76, No. 4 (Oct., 1972), pp. 353-378

A Monument to the Battle of Marathon
Eugene Vanderpool
Hesperia > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1966), pp. 93-106

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I beg your pardon I misunderstood your last post. I shall reconsider my opinion on the issue.

[Ianofsmeg16]

I have yet another question for you history buffs :D

Is it possible at all that any Spartan survived? An Integral part of my story is that two men survived, A Greek and a Briton slave brought over by trading ships, is this so terrible of me to put this in that I should be banished from the History forum? If it is I can always re-write it so that they die, it's just that i ended my story with them travelling to Salamis with the Athenian navy (the story ends there, no battle)

[Idomeneas]

I have yet another question for you history buffs :D

Is it possible at all that any Spartan survived? An Integral part of my story is that two men survived, A Greek and a Briton slave brought over by trading ships, is this so terrible of me to put this in that I should be banished from the History forum? If it is I can always re-write it so that they die, it's just that i ended my story with them travelling to Salamis with the Athenian navy (the story ends there, no battle)

Briton slave.... why not a slave from Crypton?:help: Actually Aristodimos was one survivor. He was missing in an assigned duty by Leonidas so he missed the final battle. Spartans accused him of cowardice. Nobody would give fire or speak to him anymore. He proved them wrong by fighting without any care for his life in Platea breaking the Persian ranks and dying bravely. At the end of the battle when they were deciding who would get an aristeio (the ''medal'' of the time) for bravery although Aristodimos was the bravest they didnt gave him one cause he fought without any care for his life while a true brave man would be one who wanted to live but yet fought anyway.

That teaches us something about actual values...