Actual Accounts of Thermopylae?

Which actual ancient writers wrote accounts of the battle?

And I mean within 50years of the war?

I understand Herodotus was born 4 years after the event so may have had access to survivors etc, but who else was contemperary?

I take it there are no Persian accounts.

I ask because I saw a really cheesy programme about 300 Spartans inspired I think by the film "300" and I just feel Xerxes and the Persians gets a really bad press.

Outflanking the Greeks with a very tricky night march and then wiping them out plus a King seems very smart, plus I understand Greek losses were nearer 2300, wouldn't suprise me if they suffered heavier losses than the Persians and it's later myth and propoganda that twist things.

there is a contemporary poet, named Simonides (he also wrote the epitaph to the spartians), and a historian Ctesias of Cnidos , but he lived a century later. I know of no persian sources, and there is a byzantine by the name of Photios in the 10th century. others include Diodoros sicilus, and Pausanias.

as for the losses, I don't know-you might be right. but remember that the battle lasted 3 days, 2 of which had no outflanking in a very narrow pass. this isn't to say the persians are dumb, just that Iphialtes didn't sing till the 3rd day.

so the answer to your question is sadly a no for contemporaries-just Herodotos.
Maybe the EB greek team knows more...

did you watch this on the history channel by any means?

Herodotus indeed questioned people who fought the war but i don't know if he questioned survivors of the battle.

An as far as persian casualties goes, most sources insist on the fact they were horrible" until they finally found a way to outflank the greek position. Even the immortals were butchered.

It's the miltary doctrine of the strong point. A force of small numbers fortifies a position and hopes to survive the onslaught of a far superior enemy (or cause as much damage as possible and then retreat (or is crushed). It is not surprising, in such a context, to record the death of a great amount of enemy soldiers.

Thermopylai is of course the most famous example in antiquity. There were many others througout history. Here is a short list, for your enjoyment.

Antiquity

Teutoburg forest
The destruction of several legions by the franks around 370 AD, in an unknown location north of modern day Köln


Middle ages

Bannockburn
Crécy
Poitiers
Azincourt
Any battle fought by the hussites gainst the Holy Roman Empire

19th century

Camerone (french (around 100) against mexicans (around 2000))

WW2

Bir-Akeim (3000 french from the free french forces stop and break the Afrika Korps onslaught, preventing the allied army to be pursued)
Bastogne (Marvelous defence of a small town by a handfull of US troops - the germans, having learned from their blunder at Bir-Akeim, just prevented the defenders from sallying forth and harassing their lines)

This topic has indeed been posted before, but for the life of me I can not remember where in the forum it may have gone/been/is.
Fenrhyl brings up a good point, i.e. the military doctrine of the strong point. Also give your men bronze armor, big shields, great discipline, and make them all warriors. Take farmers with little armor, little training and throw them together. I think you are bound to get one-sided results. How one-sided is up for debate. Which may be your point.
"The Gates of Fire" is a great read by an author who has done a lot of research on the subject of Thermopylae. He explains the dusty, grinding, bloody battles in detail. I can't remember the author right now, but I am sure it will come to me soon or someone else will post it.
And if you have time, just set that battle up in the custom battles section. It should be good fun.

There is actually a "Persian" source, in the sense of it being Achaemenid-hired propaganda; This would be the "Persica" of Ctesias (Of Cnidus), who was the court physician of Artaxerxes II Mnemon. Now, the story behind Persica is almost divine comedy, because for what it is worth as a propaganda piece and as a "refutation" of Herodotus' "Histories", it is one of the most hilarious piece of literati ever written by mankind, and it just happens to be so botched, the reader may sometimes wonder if the Achaemenids shot themselves in their feet by purpose. Words can't describe how terrible its historical value is, but it has one redeeming quality to it, and it describes how poorly received Herodotus' work was amongst the Persians; In other words, they were not strangers to keeping records, to the contrary, they knew when it suited their agenda and they knew when, and... Well, how to refute certain things, or rather how not to refute things. So Artaxerxes, hires a Greek, to refute another Greek. Except he hired his personal quack to do the job ~:joker:

The only surviving "Persian sources" we have for this event, are actually the Babylonian astronomical chronicles, and there's not a lot (A lot of lacunae actually), in fact, they don't really mention the events. My own personal theory on this is that the "Cultural Greek Threat" was more imminent in western Asia Minor, especially in Hellespontine Phrygia (Under Pharnabazus) and Lydia-Caria (Tissaphernes) where the two rival satraps held their own show of political puppetry, and as such needed a popular written legend for the benefit of the crown. In the East, the political milieu was different, which is emphasized by the chronicles. These are underrated as a source, and have been crucial in giving a completely different interpretation to the battle of Gaugamela, especially the surmised retreat of Darius III Codomannus, so they should never be dismissed.

The Persians do indeed get a bad press, but that is because these documentaries rarely if ever let Iranologists on-board to provide their academical point-of-view, because for some reason, the ancient Iranians bear on a wretched epithet; There are many misconceptions and absurd doomsday-theories about "slaying of democracy in its cradle" and "loss of Western Philosophy", and the convenient dismissal of the Persians demanding reparations to the Ionian arson (Which was backed by Athens and Eretrea) of Sardis. The Achaemenids, with all the factors taken into account, had not only a pretext for waging a war against Athens, but were expected to carry out the retribution, by ethos, as inaction would have emboldened the Athenians. The Persians sent two emissaries, either to Athens and either to Sparta, and at both instances, an ancient pact had been violated; The emissaries were killed. It's ridiculous how scholars manage to sweep so many things under the rug.

But, the Persians get a bad press, also because Xerxes, easily the most incompetent of all Achaemenid King of Kings had botched a carefully planned invasion, and ruined his father's excellent military record. The significant lack of cavalry in the engagements against the Greeks in Greece proper, would prove to be to Persian detriment. Once Xerxes had reached Athens (Evacuated), he could have been the better man, by not molesting even a deserted city, just to make a point. Instead, he desecrated the city, only to again reveal his weak character by expressing regret and "will of compensation". He deserves the bad press. I just can't stand that idiot.

You know who gets really bad press unfairly? Darius III Codomannus. Those who jerk off to Edward Creasy's work would basically fantasize about an effete, incompetent, ineffective and cowardly tyrant of an empire of slaves. They would never dream about calling him "unfortunate". The Parthians are not exempt from their fair share of the slurs either; Nomads who live their lives on their horses, and even hold banquets on horse-back, when they are otherwise accredited to the engineering of some of the most impressive fortifications in worldly history. Let's take the great Hyrcanian defense wall, second only to the great Chinese Wall, and name it "Alexander's Wall". This is bad press. Let's take the Sassanian fortress at Derbent (Lit. "The Gate"), and name it "Gates of Alexander". That's bad press. You know what's worst? Scholars of anything even pertaining to historiography all have to abide by the mistake of an ancient Greek historian, causing the great headache-inducing mess we all know as "Persia". Subsequently "Parthia" is another such term. What a bummer :smash:

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!!! Sorry guys, I couldn't resist...lol

Whoa

Persian Cataphract! That's so interesting! So much I didn't know!
Must do more research...

This is why I started History at University: to find new sources that shed a different light on stories we take for granted. Thanks for that, TPC!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disciple of Tacitus

Also give your men bronze armor, big shields, great discipline, and make them all warriors. Take farmers with little armor, little training and throw them together. I think you are bound to get one-sided results.

---

...methinks someone needs to :book: a little more on the respective militaries...

Quote:

---

Fenrhyl brings up a good point, i.e. the military doctrine of the strong point.

---

I believe the relevant terms are "chokepoint" and "force multiplier". I also believe most of the other 'examples' Fenrhyl mentions were anything but - eg. Teutoburger Wald was an enveloping ambush of a marching column in a forest, virtually the exact opposite of a chokepoint defense...

...I think I'll stop now before I start writing short essays on Grecy, Poitiers and Agincourt... :sweatdrop:

I always love seeing a post from TPC, you are guaranteed to learn something. I do usually take a deep breath before wading in though! I'm reading Herodotus right now so I understood more of that post than usual. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disciple of Tacitus

"The Gates of Fire" is a great read by an author who has done a lot of research on the subject of Thermopylae. He explains the dusty, grinding, bloody battles in detail. I can't remember the author right now, but I am sure it will come to me soon or someone else will post it.

---

Steven Pressfield is the author. He's written quite a few good historical novels, including one on Alcibiades and another on Alexander. He does indeed get into the nitty gritty of hand to hand combat, focussing on infantry in Gates of Fire (Thermopylae), marine combat in Tides of War (Alcibiades), and quite a bit of cavalry in the Alexander one. I can highly recommend all of these.

On the downside, he also wrote The Legend of Bagger Vance, which I feel contained some glaring historical errors...

Quote:

---

teutoburg forest
The destruction of several legions by the franks around 370 AD, in an unknown location north of modern day Köln

---

Fenrhyl,

Err, the battle of teutoburg forest did not happen around 370 AD but 9 AD...
The Cheruski and not the Franks where the winners in this battle.
They (the franks) didn't even exist in this time period...
The battle took also place not close at modern day Köln but close to the City of Osnabruck...

Pretty sure he's referring to two different events there, although the formulation could certainly be clearer about that.

Those are put on different lines because they are diffrent events.

I have the book now. The other event happened in frank territory, 2 days from the Neuss fortress in 388. Quentin, a roman general, lost is entire army (and his life) including comitatenses and palatinate legions after running after a strong party of franks who lured them into a wood that was fortified (the roman account says there was wooden walls deep within the wood). The romans ran into it, head first, only to be shot with poisonned arrows. A rout quickly occured, and the franks pushed them into a marsh where the roman army was slaughtered.

About Teutoburg :

I've read and seen documents explaining that the battle happened in two phases. Firt phase is an ambush, second phase is a chokepoint, complete with defensive walls. Too bad i can't find the references. It suggested the first phase goal was to push the romans into the chokepoint. 2 thumbs up for Arminius !


Crecy : i am not sure about this one. The use of wooden pikes and terrain preparation is not sure so i may be wrong.


Still, i am no military expert, so my references and vocabulary might be a bit messed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenrhyl

About Teutoburg :

I've read and seen documents explaining that the battle happened in two phases. Firt phase is an ambush, second phase is a chokepoint, complete with defensive walls. Too bad i can't find the references. It suggested the first phase goal was to push the romans into the chokepoint. 2 thumbs up for Arminius !

---

The wall was merely a means of ensuring the remnants of the Roman column would not be able to effect a breakthrough from the trap; hardly a particularly central part of the proceedings, as the main damage had already been done in the forest ambushes.

Quote:

---

Crecy : i am not sure about this one. The use of wooden pikes and terrain preparation is not sure so i may be wrong.

---

The English just mostly just parked their asses on high ground, took some elementary countermeasures against the archers getting overrun by cavalry, and let the French come against this very strong position. Nothing "chokepoint" about it, beyond the general tendency of Medieval European battlefields to be framed by forests and rivers and so on and the tendency of the archers to "herd" approaching troops obliquely away from their position.

I love this forum. Always a learning experience. Not sure how we went from accounts of Thermopylae to the disaster (in Roman eyes) in Tuetoburg Wald (sp?).
Thanks Apgad. Yes *smacks forehead* Steven Pressfield. Could have just got off my lazy arse and went through the in-house library. Haven't read the others by him yet. Currently plodding my way through Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations". So it may be a while.

Watchman, you seem to be a stickler for details - I mean that in a good way. And I don't want to take the conversaton in another direction, but could you give me a once over in the battle that the Franks turned back the Moors. (Battle of Tours?!?) I understand that it was quite complicated - politics-wise. But a quick synopsis of the battle and why it went the Franks way - it would be greatly appreciated.
cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

there is a contemporary poet, named Simonides (he also wrote the epitaph to the spartians) ...

---

IIRC he wrote one but not the famous one?

228. The men were buried were they fell; and for these, as well as for those who were slain before being sent away by Leonidas, there is an inscription which runs thus:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh7220.htm

"Here once, facing in fight three hundred myriads of foemen,
Thousands four did contend, men of the Peloponnese."

This is the inscription for the whole body; and for the Spartans separately there is this:


"Stranger, report this word, we pray, to the Spartans, that lying
Here in this spot we remain, faithfully keeping their laws."

This, I say, for the Lacedemonians; and for the soothsayer as follows:


"This is the tomb of Megistias renowned, whom the Median foemen,
Where Sperchios doth flow, slew when they forded the stream;
Soothsayer he, who then knowing clearly the fates that were coming,
Did not endure in the fray Sparta's good leaders to leave."

The Amphictyons it was who honoured them with inscriptions and memorial pillars, excepting only in the case of the inscription to the soothsayer; but that of the soothsayer Megistias was inscribed by Simonides the son of Leoprepes on account of guest-friendship.

@ Cyclops - Thanks a lot for pointing out to the sacred-texts.com. Another great fulltext database I that have had no idea it exists. :book:

If only I have more time to read...:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Nothing "chokepoint" about it, beyond the general tendency of Medieval European battlefields to be framed by forests and rivers and so on and the tendency of the archers to "herd" approaching troops obliquely away from their position.

---

Do you mean that they attempted (and succeeded) in directing the advance of an enemy body of men by shooting at one flank? If the defensive plan had been worked out well, that could be a battle winning idea. Did it really happen?

Not that it would ever work in M2TW. Although it would be sweet if it did.

AFAIK they just drew up the heavy infantry in the center and put the archers onto the wings behind some field fortifications. Long story short, the net effect was the French assault ended up channeled against the heavies in the center in rather distrupted condition.

And yes, it was a battle-winning idea. Entrenching on high ground with good missile support is rarely a bad move. ~;) Mutatis mutandis the English tried to replicate it whenever they could for the whole Hundred Years' War - and since the French weren't bloody fools they promptly set to experimenting with diverse ways of undermining it. (Flank cavalry attacks on the archers, when correctly done, seemed to work fairly well.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disciple of Tacitus

And I don't want to take the conversaton in another direction, but could you give me a once over in the battle that the Franks turned back the Moors. (Battle of Tours?!?) I understand that it was quite complicated - politics-wise. But a quick synopsis of the battle and why it went the Franks way - it would be greatly appreciated.

---

You're quite correct on the politics by what I know of it. But then those are rarely simple in any case, no ? :beam: Here is one article I know of that discusses the matter.

AFAIK the main reason the Franks won was really pretty simple military arithmetic. They had an army of mostly close-order infantry, which rooted itself in a hedgehog defense in a suitable spot. The Moors were working with an army of mainly rather light cavalry, and faced with the unenviable task of trying to break that position.
Not surprising they ended up leaving with a bloody nose really.

Excellent article.

Just for the record, it should be noted that some claim that the moors were crippled after the battle of toulouse in 721, where Eudo Cornered and slaughtered the best soldiers the muslims from Al-Andalus could muster (including many vetarans of the Rio Barbate).

Very good article. Except the background wallpaper - made me dizzy. No more port whilst reading up.
Anyone else read William Rosen's book "Justanian's Flea" about the plaque ripping through the Mediterranean? He cites it as some evidence for why the Islamic Conquest rolled over vast stretches of land in so little time. But he never really develops the idea - in my mind. But I do know that plaque will do that sort of thing.
Just wondering.

And Cyclops - great link to the sacred texts website. A great resource.

Like I don't have enough to read!

So getting back to my origional question, there is very little real evidence of what happened at Thermopylae.

And as for "chokepoints" etc, looks like the Persians rather skilfully manouvred their way past in a couple of days and wiped out those Greeks that didn't retreat. The rest as they say is heresay and myth. It's like us Brits talking the debacle of Dunkirk in 1940 into a major victory that was almost planned!

In a sense, Thermopylae as a battle was nothing special...

Trying to find a position that would protect one's flanks and forcing the enemy to attack you strongest position is probably as old a srategic and tactical principle as warfare...

The Greeks knew they were outnumbered, and sought a battleground that would negate the Persian advantage in numbers as much as possible. Few sites could match the pass at Thermopylae in that respect. If you (as a defender) would hold the high ground itwould only make things easier.

Other famous battles using the same principles:

Granicus
Issus
Teutoburger forest
Watling street (to a lesser extent)
Ad Frigidus
Hastings
Poitiers (to a lesser extent)
Monte Cassino

Few other battles were realy choke-point battles, in the sens that one side was forced to take on the enemy at that position in order to advance.

Many others were battles in hemmed in terrain, but there were ways for the enemy to outmaneuver the position.

...most of those don't really have anything to do with the same principles though, beyond the very generic moniker "utilising terrain to your advantage".

Anyway, Thermopylae seems to have been the geographical chokepoint at which to block enemies approaching from the north. Pretty popular.

Having seen all the wiki articles on the battles of thermopylae you showed...is it just me or does it seem that almost all the defenders of the pass met defeat? Spartans, koine greeks in 279BC, Seleukids, and modern greeks in 1940-41...all were on the defensive, and all lost horribly:skull: :skull: :skull:

that pass must be cursed or something:no: :no:

Probably just inconveniently easy to outflank by the mountain path. :sweatdrop:

I still think it's cursed:laugh4:

I can understand it being easy to outflank in the more recent battles, since the pass is no longer really a pass...the coast has silted up in the 2500 years sice the battle (check the livius article on thermopylae for modern battlefield)

but in ancient times? if you weren't local (persians, Romans, amd Gauls) you need to be a war "god" (gauls) or have an Iphialtes (the other 2)

I'd imagine some decent scouting revealed the path sooner or later tho'. Asking the locals just sped things up. :beam:

you convinced me.....:yes:

(I still think it's cursed):laugh4: :laugh4:

Still, the Battle of 480 BC at thermopylae was unbelievable; how did the spartans last so long? you'd figure that even in the ideal world, they would get tired and cramp out, even with all the training and not being flanked..:hmg: