Having a reserve of a few thousand other hoplites to rotate to the frontline probably rather helped with that...
Printable View
Having a reserve of a few thousand other hoplites to rotate to the frontline probably rather helped with that...
Yeah
And I read that they WERE tired out by the end of 2 days of combat.
Well,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
first of all the enemy did get tired as well, and night-battles were pretty much a big no-no in history in general. Second, until the last day there were very substantial contingents of other Greek poleis, far outnumbering the Spartans. The Spartans became famous because they volunteered themselves to cover the Greek retreat. Less well known is that they were not the only ones to do so (soldiers from one smaller polis stayed as well).
On an equal scale one could put the battle of Monte Cassino, where the Germans held out for months, despite being outnumbered, outgunned etc. etc. (there bad generalship and lack of experience/training on the allied side was a major factor, most obvious being M. Clark, though he was absolutely not the only one).
now I'm enlightened.....thanks.
speaking of which is there a mod for 480BC period? that would be great for thermopylae
Not in EB context, but AFAIK there are a number of other mods that cover the period. Although with a creative mix of various Eastern troops (eg. Syrian Archers ought to be able to stand in for Immortals reasonably well, at least with some upgrades) and some handwaving you should be able to do a decent enough custom-battle approximation in EB too.
AAhh. To be young and hold off the Germans at Thermopylae in Panzer General again. Those were the days, let me tell you, 25 pdr's shooting on a German traffic jam from the overhead hills...it's pure hex-joy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Tours-Poitiers! I love it.
In my family there's an ongoing argument between my 2 brothers about whether its actually the Battle of Tours or the Battler of Poitiers. I believe there's only 1 near contemporary account in some chronicle which indicates that the battle was between the muslims approaching Tours from Poitiers met by MC Hammer coming from the north.
If there was a running battle over several days between heavy foot and cav, then I think the footmen did well to push the cav back. If the scenario was cav seeking plunder vs foot on a plain then its a pretty decent outcome for the Franks.
Some inscriptions at the battle site and war stories reported a generation later, and a great deal of near contemporary literary evidence (eg The Persians by Aeschylus). More than for most events in ancient history, but yes, pretty skinny compared to D-Day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris1959
Yes it is loaded with myth. Maybe the myth was a contemporary understanding of the event? There's a lot less supernatural stuff in the heresay than the account of Marathon (complete with axe-weilding demi-god) and a lot of people believed the same stuff about it a short time later, so probably Herodotus is on the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris1959
It looks like the Persians literally beat their heads against a wall for a day or two rather than show respect to the tiny but well placed army.
Can't help contrasting it with Alexander's action at the Persian Gates after Gaugemela, where he was careful to suss out the out-flank before attacking. He was probably a real wake-up to the possibility of a "Persopylae".
Uhhhhhh... I'm not quite sure of how you can consider that one "evidence", at least, of the military events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Bet ya quite a lot of people firmly believed the supernatural manifestations of Marathon too...Quote:
Yes it is loaded with myth. Maybe the myth was a contemporary understanding of the event? There's a lot less supernatural stuff in the heresay than the account of Marathon (complete with axe-weilding demi-god) and a lot of people believed the same stuff about it a short time later, so probably Herodotus is on the money.
I don't think it would be too far off to replace "contemporary understanding" with "propagandistic necessity" really.
What else were they going to do, really - sit on their thumbs and start starving ? Xerxes doesn't seem to have been the hottest tactician around, but once it became clear the Persians weren't going to effect a breakthrough very soon it was just SOP to keep up the pressure on the defenders while scouts went out looking for other routes.Quote:
It looks like the Persians literally beat their heads against a wall for a day or two rather than show respect to the tiny but well placed army.
That certainly, but he was presumably in a rather better logistical situation too. Plus, IIRC it took him a lot longer to effect the flanking maneuver - the side route wasn't exactly short or conveniently placed IIRC.Quote:
Can't help contrasting it with Alexander's action at the Persian Gates after Gaugemela, where he was careful to suss out the out-flank before attacking. He was probably a real wake-up to the possibility of a "Persopylae".
[QUOTE=Watchman] Uhhhhhh... I'm not quite sure of how you can consider that one "evidence", at least, of the military events.[QUOTE=Watchman]
Yep, we don't have a lot of evidence from the battlefield, its all secondary and tertiary. What the Persians gives in a near contemporary response to the event which is evidence that it happened and it made a mighty impression on those involved. But its more like "Saving Private Ryan" than the US Army official History of D-Day.
[QUOTE=Watchman]Bet ya quite a lot of people firmly believed the supernatural manifestations of Marathon too...[QUOTE=Watchman]
Thats a question I truly wonder at. I think people believed the supernatural nonsense the way most people seem to believe in science or horoscopes, its an explanantion they can pin on an event: once its binned its not bubbling anymore. But what do I know?
I reckon there were a few skeptics around (definitely there were Skeptics a but later) who saw through the rubbish. But maybe the ancients were utterly alien to us in their thoughts.
I suspect Livy and a lot of his audience knew he was lying in his teeth about masses of details but it gave them all a good feeling, so they acted like it was true.
[QUOTE=Watchman]I don't think it would be too far off to replace "contemporary understanding" with "propagandistic necessity" really.[QUOTE=Watchman]
Herodotus does his best to give a balanced picture of all the different points of view on why Persia was evil. "We play both kinds, Country and Western!". he isn't unrelievedly chauvinistic, and puts very wise words in the mouth of Cyru in the very last page of his History. However he was working from greek sources mostly so the picture comes in those colours.
Yeah you're right, Xerxes was a crap tactician and even though it urgent and easily done that he outflank the small tough force in the pass he seems to have battered at it with his best men who then (for whatever reason) fail to appear in the critical battles of Plataea and Mycale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Of course its unfair to compare him to such a thorough yet quicksilver genius as Alexander. i suppose he thought "I'll quickly bash through" without taking into account the Spartans reputation. After all in the last 60 odd years the Persians had ruined a lot of other reputations.
I understand Napoleon had a similar episode in a pass outside Madrid in 1808/9 where he sent quite a few boys to their death in a narrow defile trying to take it in the rush, including quite a few Polish cav? IIRC he had to send in the plods to do the job right.
If one may remind, Xerxes' plan was to set the trap at Thermopylae. He waited four days for the allied Greek ground forces to collect (not disperse) there. He also waited for the Greek naval group to defend Artemisium, then he sent a large naval detachment around Euboea to land a large blocking force at the strait of Evripos. This would have cut off all the Greeks setting at Thermopylae and Artemisium and bottled them up. Sounds like a good plan on paper, however Xerxes had a little bad luck. Either that or the gods weren't on his side?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Well... not exactly. Napoleon sent few thousand of infantry who failed miserably and then at first one, and later second squadron of Polish guard cav (together some 400 men). The cavalry actually succeded in breaking through, but took heavy losses (around 1/4 in dead and heavily wounded, much more were lightly wounded).
Thanks for pointing that out, its good to be corrected when one makes a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I will certainly have to give Xerxes more credit for his tactics. I guess his basic strategy was sound too, invading with maximum force and supplying it by sea.
In hindsight the failure of elite troops can be crushing to an army's morale ("la Garde Recule!") and perhaps he shouldn't have rolled those dice that day, but he had a shot at a Spartan King so maybe it was worth the punt. Definitely the Hellenes span it their way: 4000 dead turned out to be a great victory somehow.
The kind of contempt shown for the Persians in 300 has a real Hellenistic ring to my ears, post-Alexandrian triumphalism. I think the Hellenes of the time feared and respected the Persians and thats why they rated their victory so highly.
A quick wiki search shows how right you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS
Right,
---------------------------------
Ἡροδότου Μοῦσαι
Ἱστοριῶν ἑβδόμη ἐπιγραφομένη Πολύμνια
Herodotus, The Histories
Book 7
210
ταῦτα λέγων οὐκ ἔπειθε τὸν Ξέρξην τέσσερας μὲν δὴ παρεξῆκε ἡμέρας, ἐλπίζων αἰεί σφεας ἀποδρήσεσθαι· πέμπτῃ δέ, ὡς οὐκ ἀπαλλάσσοντο ἀλλά οἱ ἐφαίνοντο ἀναιδείῃ τε καὶ ἀβουλίῃ διαχρεώμενοι μένειν, πέμπει ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς Μήδους τε καὶ Κισσίους θυμωθείς, ἐντειλάμενος σφέας ζωγρήσαντας ἄγειν ἐς ὄψιν τὴν ἑωυτοῦ. [2] ὡς δ᾽ ἐσέπεσον φερόμενοι ἐς τοὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ Μῆδοι, ἔπιπτον πολλοί, ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐπεσήισαν, καὶ οὐκ ἀπηλαύνοντο, καίπερ μεγάλως προσπταίοντες. δῆλον δ᾽ ἐποίευν παντί τεῳ καὶ οὐκ ἥκιστα αὐτῷ βασιλέι, ὅτι πολλοὶ μὲν ἄνθρωποι εἶεν, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἄνδρες. ἐγίνετο δὲ ἡ συμβολὴ δι᾽ ἡμέρης.
my rendering
210
In one respect this foul assertion persuaded upon Xerxes, as in constraint he carefully assembled nearby, all the while expecting they would melt away by the fourth day. Yet, the light of the fifth brought otherwise, as their shameless want of [good] counsel was revealed, and consistently they stirred not. Thus, aroused he sent forth the Medes and Cissians, ordered to take captive and bring them unconditionally into his presence.
[2]The Medes rushed and closed, many of whom the Greeks felled, nonetheless this host struck against as others pressed foreword to drive them out. In this instance it was made clear to everyone and least not the king himself, that amidst so much mankind, there were but so few men indeed. So, it came to pass that in this encounter their spirit was broken.
A. D. Godley version
210
He let four days go by, expecting them to run away at any minute. They did not leave, and it seemed to him that they stayed out of folly and lack of due respect. On the fifth day he became angry and sent the Medes and Cissians against them, bidding them take them prisoner and bring them into his presence.
[2] The Medes bore down upon the Hellenes and attacked. Many fell, but others attacked in turn, and they made it clear to everyone, especially to the king himself, that among so many people there were few real men. The battle lasted all day
George Rawlinson version
210
But Xerxes was not persuaded any the more. Four whole days he suffered to go by, expecting that the Greeks would run away. When, however, he found on the fifth that they were not gone, thinking that their firm stand was mere impudence and recklessness, he grew wroth, and sent against them the Medes and Cissians, with orders to take them alive and bring them into his presence.
[2] Then the Medes rushed forward and charged the Greeks, but fell in vast numbers: others however took the places of the slain, and would not be beaten off, though they suffered terrible losses. In this way it became clear to all, and especially to the king, that though he had plenty of combatants, he had but very few warriors. The struggle, however, continued during the whole day.
---------------------------
This was as close as I could get. Although Herodotus didn't say it was Xerxes' plan, he did indicate it was not smart for the Greeks to remain at Thermo Pylae. In Diodorus Siculus' The Library, there may be more details?
This goes as far as to show that the Persians had awaited for four days for the allied Greek force to surrender to the given diplomatic terms. I believe this alone contributed far much more to Themistocles' success, and the completion of evacuating Athens.
Plus...
the three days of the battle.
Thats one week.
But, the Athenian fleet was at Thermo-pylae at this time? So did most of Athen's population flee by sea (merchant fleet) or over land?
Hello to everyone
The big time of the battle was nearly at the end.
Spartans were doing most of the times
the tactics of fake route. Medians(Sakes,Lydians and other tribes) were chasing them and
at the reach of the narrow passage Spartans were
turning against them, slaughtering them easily as they were not organised and disciplined.
These tactics were until the engagement of the Immortals (Persians).
Along with the 300 Spartans were also 700 Thespieis voluntarily and a
small number of Thebians (I don't remember the exact number) who were driven into the battle obliged by the Spartans.
Also above the narrow passage was a place like a valley (narrow also)
where was the the phokian wall ( Τείχος των Φωκιέων).
As the scouts had seen the persian advance (because of Ephialtes) into the valley
the decision, which was taken, was that Phokians (nearly 7000) had to abandon the wall.
At the same time with the engagement of Immortals Leonidas is being killed.
At this time it is the peak of the battle,Spartans fighting fiercely to recover the dead body, as they did it.
The next day the persians reach the other side of the passage and advancing to battle.
Herodotus then describes the scene like cinema, saying (spartans spears(δόρεα) and they used the other bronze point(στύρακες) to stub,the shields were pierced and finally they fight using as weapons their nails and teeth.
That was a summary of some points in the battle that I didn't see in the previous posts. Herodotus who wrote the history of persian wars didn't use so scientific and reliable methods to describe. And the history was a little like an epic novel. The first who wrote a very reliable history was by far Thoukydides.
Sorry if there is any misuse of the language or any spelling mistakes
and happy to see replies and comments
Thucydides' history is actually not as "reliable" as it appears. In many ways he owes a lot more to Herodotus, both stylistically and in the manner in which he collected and arranged his material, than is immediately apparent. But his attempt at appearing more reliable is a conscious stylistic decision on his part [e.g. see I.21 (???) for his notes on how he rendered speeches] and has led to many scholars and readers of his text believing he had access to material, or manners in gaining material, that historiographers before him did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgivs Tsililivs Graecvs
orality is obviously a key topic here as well - how much his work was a performed work, and how much a topic for reading is an issue that will probably never be resolved (unless we uncover a papyrus stating "thucydides' work was orally delivered" or that kind of thing.....unlikely i know but i live in hope!!) but knowing that he might have spoken his words aloud rather than dispersed the text for private reading would also mean we must consider his stylistic choices in terms of how it sounds. Again as he notes, he wanted speeches to sound good, even if they weren't the exact words spoken....but this paragraph is somewhat off topic - apologies.
Well maybe you have a right point on the term reliability.
But Thoukydides had not just written speeches with other words like those
of Pericles, he has written the whole peloponnesian war
in which he had taken part in some battles in Chalkidike at Olynthos,Potidaia (athenian colonies).
Well another point is as we were taught in school (they teached us this history in the original text, as survived)
that there wasn't anyone who tried to write down all the events of the peloponnesian war except for him.
'Course, ole Thuc can't exactly be termed an impartial witness either...
Not to draw too fine a point, but as a Doric citizen of Caria and an erstwhile subject of the Achaemenid Empire, for as least his early years, might not Herodotus' account of the Thermo Pylae battle provide both Persian and Greek points of view? Maybe the actual words in the Herodotus account are more true to form, while some recent translations, with water under the bridge, are far less balanced and free of error.
Yes its a commonly held veiw that gossipy old Herodotus is the father of lies, not the Father of History, whereas terse proffesional sounding Thucydides is a real historian.
Unfortunately neither bloke put in a bibliography.
In Herodotus' favour he gives you a crack at some of his sources ("the Persdians say..." "the Corinthian version of events" stuff like that) which is actually more historical in its methodology than Thucydides digested speeches and single POV accounts.
For example Herodotus reports the incident of the circumnavigation of Africa, including coroborrating data about the sun's movement in the sky. Funnily enough he mentions this point as being most unlikely and openly doubts the story, but he includes it anyway. That is open-minded reporting.
To my mind Herodotus is a gossipy old tale-teller, but an historian by his method. He poses a question, identifies sources and evaluates them.
Thuycidides is smoother and sharper but he's trying to be, and its all so convincing I can't help but think of it as spin: at best he's a good journalist. He opens by saying "I'm just telling you what happened so you won't forget" I can't help thinking he means "you won't forget how the punk-ass Defeatocrats lost us the war!".
Yes you are right he was a kind of journalist...and herodotus much like a story teller - historian.
The difference is that Thoukydides tried to be like
an observer who doesn't take part in the events,being insulated from
sentimentality (right word?)
and the first who didn't give his own opinion for the incidents as Herodotus did
(which is the most significant difference between scientific method
and collecting opinions judging them by your own ability).
Cyclops, not to sound so very Junish 1940-politico but, 'punk-ass Defeatocrats lost us the war?'
A possible word to replace the phrase, 'insulated from
sentimentality' or 'objective.'
I forget where I saw that term Defeatocrat, it was on a RTW forum somewhere. It was from a commited republican backburning in case his mob lost the Presdency.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I'm trying to convey the idea of Thuycidides as a commited Athenian patriot but also a bitter and biased partisan within the Athenian politcal spectrum. There's a fair amount of Red vs Blue in the politcal landscape of Athens, and Thuycidides was of the aristocratic camp, very pro-Periclean and anti-Cleon.
He is one million miles from objective when he comments on Cleon's expedition to Sphacteria (paraphrased) "it was win-win for us, either we beat the Spartans there or Cleon got executed".
He peddles a nice line in accurate sounding analysis, and much of it can be confirmed but IIRC there are massive gaps in his history such as a 33% (or was it a doubling? I forget) increase in the annual tribute from the allies mid war which is attested by other sources.
He is much less gossipy than Herodotus but when you sort through all Mr. H's guff you notice most of the bulldust is other people's, not his own, and he's just passing it on. Mr T hides all the bulldust and its only if you look closely you see it leaking out the sides.
T does give a tighter less rambling narrative, conspicuously free of flying snakes. He does however take a mean swipe at H over the Pitane (sp?) and other perceived mistakes. Neither point makes him more of a historian than H.
Indeed, I find H's account somewhat instructive.
Book 7
211.
ἐπείτε δὲ οἱ Μῆδοι τρηχέως περιείποντο, ἐνθαῦτα οὗτοι μὲν ὑπεξήισαν, οἱ δὲ Πέρσαι ἐκδεξάμενοι ἐπήισαν, τοὺς ἀθανάτους ἐκάλεε βασιλεύς, τῶν ἦρχε Ὑδάρνης, ὡς δὴ οὗτοί γε εὐπετέως κατεργασόμενοι. [2] ὡς δὲ καὶ οὗτοι συνέμισγον τοῖσι Ἕλλησι, οὐδὲν πλέον ἐφέροντο τῆς στρατιῆς τῆς Μηδικῆς ἀλλὰ τὰ αὐτά, ἅτε ἐν στεινοπόρῳ τε χώρῳ μαχόμενοι καὶ δόρασι βραχυτέροισι χρεώμενοι ἤ περ οἱ Ἕλληνες, καὶ οὐκ ἔχοντες πλήθεϊ χρήσασθαι.
my rendering
211.
Yet after the Medes were roughly handled, and withdrew gradually, then the Persians took up a chant, for the Immortals had been summoned by the king, led by Hydarnes, [judging] that this undertaking would at any rate fall well. [2] When they clashed together with the Greeks, they could not bear to budge, the [enemy] host, than otherwise had the Medes themselves, as the battlefield and pass was too narrow and their spear shafts so short, rather for all the Greeks these favored and furnished what was needed to hold a great multitude.
A. D. Godley version
211.
When the Medes had been roughly handled, they retired, and the Persians whom the king called Immortals, led by Hydarnes, attacked in turn. It was thought that they would easily accomplish the task. [2] When they joined battle with the Hellenes, they fared neither better nor worse than the Median army, since they used shorter spears than the Hellenes and could not use their numbers fighting in a narrow space.
well there are different aspects for this argument if T was so reliable. The problem is that we do not have much of that we call "objective truths".
And onother reason which make the things more complicate is that the text we have in our hands are copies from the byzantine era around the 11th cent.
by monks. And to be more general the majority of ancient texts are byzantine reproductions and copies, so there would be a kind (maybe a smallest one) of "distortion". But don't dive in the events...the fact is that T is a normal human like everyone,like H. But the method which T had used was far more scientific.
I think you're mistaking spin for science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgivs Tsililivs Graecvs
I hear a lot of that going around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
"Its just a theory"
I wonder what Michael Moore has to say about Thermopylae?
"You have to wonder why all those guys had to die in the end. Why couldn't they all just sit down and sort it out like adults? Maybe because they would have discovered that Ephialtes was actually a consultant for Big Bronze, and less warfare meant less breastplates. And then there's a the whole issue of Themistocles' contracts with the Haliburtoi...."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Indeed...
never a more fitting name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKpzrrUnZz4
What would Big Mike say...
'yaaahhhaaaa aaaahhhh and hhhhhhhummmm ah unhaaaaaaa yaaahhhaaa well aaaaaaaaahhhh uuunnn hum?'
Got to luv that American subCulture and/or for the hearing impaired.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=306943291
lest we fore get
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=307431048
and of course...
They lay dormant for years, waiting for a chance to return...
...just when you thought it was safe, they're back, and they'll find you, no matter where you hide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlJa...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEnh...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfV-...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxrb...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igik...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGx...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iXP...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvf...eature=related
then last but by no means not least...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDPc...eature=related
of the wee specs of simple truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agi8PUmlAKU
There is a theme as all good stories have a decent spin, no?
Was that mac Saill Mor or micel moor?
and one more revisionist spin for the road...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcpf...eature=related