Go tell the spartans, strangers passing by, that here obedient to there laws we lie

It's probably been discussed to death, revived, and discussed to death again. but he.
-anybody tell me who's qoute it is, and what it means(sorta quiz.~;))
-will EB's spartans fight in the same style as thei thermopylan predecesors or will they be more like the Iphicraten ones?
-i know the spartans wont be CA's juggernauts(luckily) but hwo will they compare?
-since Sparta has bled to death, what number will be one unit (like: normal ones are 40..wiht how many will teh spartans be?)
-will they get two hitpoints?(wich brings me to my next topic)

i think its just the writing on a plaque written over the spartan's grave at thermopylae that celebrates the spartan's bravery in defending the path for 3 days. the "laws" just mean that sparta had a law that no man could run away in battle.

i could be rambling and completely wrong, so i apologise if i am.

indeed, i just looked it up.
i primiraly got it form Steven Pressfield. but the line is form simonides.
thanks for the bump!

300 Spartans didnt hold the path for 3 days thats a myth. It was a largish army of united Greeks most of whom retreated after holding the pass for some days. The Spartans stays behind like the strongheaded fools they were and were annihilated by skirmishers since the Persians didnt want to engage them head on (with good reason)

yup,,that's right..with their allies they held the pass for 7 days total, wasn't it? of those 7, the 300 only did the last day 'by themselves'.
didn't know they were out-skirmished tough, but a sensible strat for the persians..

Thank you for clarifying that. I have always despised the legend of the Spartans who fought for a whole day to allow their allies to retreat- no general with any common sense would send wave after wave of men to their death.

remember Cannae?

The univ. that I'm at now has a big monument with that greek phrase on it. It has to do with a lot of university students being killed in battle and honoring them. It's cool to be able to point students toward it and explain it to them - they rarely know anything about it even though it's smack-dab in the middle of campus. I'll not say what war it was...

hmm...tell me about that...
do you actually live in sparta? wich war? what is there to 'know' about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

Thank you for clarifying that. I have always despised the legend of the Spartans who fought for a whole day to allow their allies to retreat- no general with any common sense would send wave after wave of men to their death.

---

Uhhh....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Uhhh....

---

yeah..it indeed wouldn't be teh first time..

cannae..well basically every battle the Pre-marian romans lost was because of sheer arrogance an overconfidence in numbers...
Thermopyale seems to fit that row.
Gaugamela is also a nice one in this row.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

hmm...tell me about that...
do you actually live in sparta? wich war? what is there to 'know' about it?

---

Nah, in the U.S. - it's a civil war monument actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Nah, in the U.S. - it's a civil war monument actually.

---

ahh, ok..

sorry, i confused you with Idomedas...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

It's probably been discussed to death, revived, and discussed to death again. but he.
-anybody tell me who's qoute it is, and what it means(sorta quiz.~;))
-will EB's spartans fight in the same style as thei thermopylan predecesors or will they be more like the Iphicraten ones?
-i know the spartans wont be CA's juggernauts(luckily) but hwo will they compare?
-since Sparta has bled to death, what number will be one unit (like: normal ones are 40..wiht how many will teh spartans be?)
-will they get two hitpoints?(wich brings me to my next topic)

---

1) Huh?
2) They will fight with underhand spears. Spartiates will probably be the best KH unit, though not juggernauts.
3) On Large, probably 60 or 80
4) probably not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

cannae..well basically every battle the Pre-marian romans lost was because of sheer arrogance an overconfidence in numbers...
Thermopyale seems to fit that row.
Gaugamela is also a nice one in this row.

---

As I said, no general with any sense . After several days of slaughtering your men on a forest of spear-points, even the worst general will realise it's rime for a change of pace. However, what I always learned was that the tactics did not change, even when it was only the Spartans defending the pass.

As you said, Cannae was an act of arrogance. If the Roman generals had seen the trap lain before them , I doubt they would have sent their men to die en masse.

What happened at Gaugamela? I never learned that particular battle...
I know, it's sad. :embarassed:

What about the entirety of World War I up until the closing 100 days or so?

Look, forget I said anything. The only reason I commented on this thread was because I despise stories of a vastly outnumbered force overcoming the odds and defeating, or at least nearly defeating, the enemy. That's why I hate the Greeks. I think it's an obsession that began with "The Charge of the Light Brigade"- when I first read it, it struck me as a load of crap. Noone should glorify the butchering of perfectly good elite soldiers, regardless of the outcome of the battle. It's sick. That's what cannon fodder is for.

Okay, rant over. I hope you don't take this personally- it's just that I hate Alfred Lord Tennyson.

No, you guys are telling me the Spartans didnt hold it by themselves. My dream is crushed... :embarassed:

I believe the actual quote was "Go and tell the Lacodaemonians..." not Spartans. Also, there were, in fact two survivors of the 300, both of whom were disgraced and one of whom committed suicide. As far as skirmishers and whatnot, the pass at Thermopylae isn't exactly a wide open space, it's not like the Spartans had flanks to harrass at that point.

well, if it looked like i was personal, i was sorry..it was more meant of a (sarcastic)joke.
and about the glory of being butchered is, in a way, indeed dumb. but it's somehow heroic, i personally found it breathtakign to read how spartans(&allies)stood up against such a force, each man taking 10 persians with him. but at Thermopylae it was mostly a neccesity to atke that stand..dunno how futile it was in your book.

about gaugamela. it was a Victory of Alexander on Darius, on open field. alexander being outnumbered 1:2 or even 1:3 (Alex had 47.00 inf, and 7.00 cav. Darius is guessed between 100.00 and even 500.00). what actually happened isn't know. the dust was kicked up rapidly. and nobody coudl really notice what was goign on everywhere.
quite possibly Alexanders strategy of an echelon-phalanx with light cav on the left. and heavy cav+alexander on teh right.
it's not really a typical case of alex slaughtering teh Persians. Alexander didn't win, Darius just lost: Darius himself fled, and with him, a lot of his army. probably one section of darius his line refused, creating a gap in wich Alexander rushed to get to Darius. maybe soembody else can get it better..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iskandr

I believe the actual quote was "Go and tell the Lacodaemonians..." not Spartans. Also, there were, in fact two survivors of the 300, both of whom were disgraced and one of whom committed suicide. As far as skirmishers and whatnot, the pass at Thermopylae isn't exactly a wide open space, it's not like the Spartans had flanks to harrass at that point.

---

2? i only know of the squire(Xeo). and as far as i know teh spartans retreated to a 'hill' and teh persians didn't try to get to them. the just archered them to death...
i believe skirmish also means archery, and not just harrassing with javelinmen, dunno exact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

Look, forget I said anything. The only reason I commented on this thread was because I despise stories of a vastly outnumbered force overcoming the odds and defeating, or at least nearly defeating, the enemy. That's why I hate the Greeks. I think it's an obsession that began with "The Charge of the Light Brigade"- when I first read it, it struck me as a load of crap. Noone should glorify the butchering of perfectly good elite soldiers, regardless of the outcome of the battle. It's sick. That's what cannon fodder is for.

Okay, rant over. I hope you don't take this personally- it's just that I hate Alfred Lord Tennyson.

---

umm... the spartans were wiped out, they lost the battle of Thermopylae, and it was only the first day of fighting that the spartans werent right at the front. and not all 300 were killed, 1, a man named Aristodemus survived and returned to Sparta where he was shunned and dishonoured for abondoning his post. He reclaimed his honour a year later by dying in battle against the Persians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Nah, in the U.S. - it's a civil war monument actually.

---

In which case the only question is, which side. Not that I really have to ask, seeing where you live . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wishazu

umm... the spartans were wiped out, they lost the battle of Thermopylae, and it was only the first day of fighting that the spartans werent right at the front. and not all 300 were killed, 1, a man named Aristodemus survived and returned to Sparta where he was shunned and dishonoured for abondoning his post. He reclaimed his honour a year later by dying in battle against the Persians

---

True, but my point was that they were left to be slaughtered (almost) to a man. The greeks should have pulled up any auxiliaries- if they had any- and told them to hold the pass. This would have saved the lives of 300 Spartan soldiers, who could have been used at another battle, possibly eve to defend Athens.

Anyway, my main point is that the glorification of such a slaughter is a twisted military obsession with honor and glory which I despise. My hatred of Tenysson also got thown in; but that is partly because I dislike most English poets (Chaucer and Colerige are definite exceptions.)

Actually, I seem to have lost my own train of thought. Well, as long as we are on the subject, I like cottage cheese.

Well there was a military point and a "religious" point to it as well, though they might not outweigh the tactical importance of having those men available later - no one can really answer that question: their success while killing off a lot of the innumerable Persians also arguably frightened the Persian soldiers much more when at the end of the episode--did it make a difference at Plataea? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd wager the average Persian didn't know much about them before Thermopylae, but knew a lot more and didn't want to meet any more of them after it. Also, at least after the fact an oracle from Delphi was passed around that it was prophesised that a Spartan king must die for the Spartans to defeat the Persians. To us it seems like pure fantasy, and I'm not saying the omen was true, but did it inspire the Spartans and the other Greeks then at Plataea and Salamis too even? It's quite possible - they believed much much more than modern cultures that magic and omens and especially the oracular responses of Apollo did actually carry weight and affect things. Just some points to think about...

Cottage cheese is revolting.

i was under the impression that the theban band of lovers also died at thermopylae (although not at the same time or place as the spartans). weren't they guarding the pass that led around behind the greek fortifications? and didn't they all get killed in their sleep or sumthing? this is just wat my history teacher told me dunno if it is true or not.

[QUOTE=meatwad]

As you said, Cannae was an act of arrogance.

Not Hannibal genius's ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Cottage cheese is revolting.

---

I ask not how much Cottage cheese is there, just where is it! ~:cheers:
Let us be crushing this revolt! :charge: :charge: :charge:

For any here looking for information on the Battle of Thermopylae in a brief and easily digestible form then go here to the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

What the Greeks and especially the Spartans did there was incredible and is worth every bit of admiration that has been heaped on that battle.

Incidently I heard they're making a movie based off of the novel 'Gates of Fire', and it mentions it at that link.

Correction, the movie being made is based off of Frank Millers graphic novel '300'.

As an aside, how in the hell does one edit ones post?, did they remove the edit button or something because I'm pretty sure thre used to be one???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

about gaugamela. it was a Victory of Alexander on Darius, on open field. alexander being outnumbered 1:2 or even 1:3 (Alex had 47.00 inf, and 7.00 cav. Darius is guessed between 100.00 and even 500.00). what actually happened isn't know. the dust was kicked up rapidly. and nobody coudl really notice what was goign on everywhere.

---

No way could Darius forces be that big. Don't trust ancient historian's numbers or modern historians that go by their numbers. 100,000 is quite unlikely, 500,000 is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

No way could Darius forces be that big. Don't trust ancient historian's numbers or modern historians that go by their numbers. 100,000 is quite unlikely, 500,000 is impossible.

---

But why? We know the Persians had, at that time, the biggest army in the world. We know they were extremely good with logistics. We know they needed a double bridge made of ships to get the army to Europe. We know that they had problems keeping it together. We know that they conquered Thrace only to organise supplies. We know that they needed a whole fleet to supply their army. We know that they had the resources both in recruits as in gold to support it.

Coupled with quite a few ancient historians talking about numbers in the millions, wich are probably overestimated, but still; it get's pretty likely the army was unusual huge, and that 100,000 would be small, while 500,000 is topping it, but still possible. Further more, it could be that many thousands were non-combatans, getting the score even higher. Lastly, the Persians in battle used massed, but weak infantry forces, mostly archers, backed by the 10,000(!) elite immortals and powerful cavalry. With such a strategy it is not unlikely for the immortals to be 10%, most certainly less, of the total army, making 100,000 nearly a given. One could argue that the Persian army (because of the difficulty of accepting high numbers) consisted almost only of immortals and cavalry, but that seems to me to be extremely unlikely.

Just saying that ancient historians are unreliable is easy, but getting proof is nearly impossible. Neither can I proof they used such massive armies, but I can show you that it is possible and likely. If I may ask, what are the reasons modern historians have for ignoring Herodotus when he comes with numbers, and why are they so sure that the actual number is only in the tens of thousands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ellesthyan

But why? We know the Persians had, at that time, the biggest army in the world. We know they were extremely good with logistics. We know they needed a double bridge made of ships to get the army to Europe. We know that they had problems keeping it together. We know that they conquered Thrace only to organise supplies. We know that they needed a whole fleet to supply their army. We know that they had the resources both in recruits as in gold to support it.

Coupled with quite a few ancient historians talking about numbers in the millions, wich are probably overestimated, but still; it get's pretty likely the army was unusual huge, and that 100,000 would be small, while 500,000 is topping it, but still possible. Further more, it could be that many thousands were non-combatans, getting the score even higher. Lastly, the Persians in battle used massed, but weak infantry forces, mostly archers, backed by the 10,000(!) elite immortals and powerful cavalry. With such a strategy it is not unlikely for the immortals to be 10%, most certainly less, of the total army, making 100,000 nearly a given. One could argue that the Persian army (because of the difficulty of accepting high numbers) consisted almost only of immortals and cavalry, but that seems to me to be extremely unlikely.

Just saying that ancient historians are unreliable is easy, but getting proof is nearly impossible. Neither can I proof they used such massive armies, but I can show you that it is possible and likely. If I may ask, what are the reasons modern historians have for ignoring Herodotus when he comes with numbers, and why are they so sure that the actual number is only in the tens of thousands?

---

You have to understand ancient logistics. The largest army ever fielded by Rome was 80,000 men. Even this army, in home territory, was notoriously under-supplied. This is with the Roman supply system and the relatively lush terrain of italy. There is simply no way that they could have fielded such an army.

Persian infantry did not suck. It was different. They were excellent archers and skirmishers. The whole Iranian foot soldiers suck isn't true, they are just different style from Greeks and Romans.

And Urnamma explained it excellently, it is he who helped me realize how impossible large armies were.

Wow interesting i always fought that Thebans stayed with Spartans to fight to the end. And this site says it was Thespians, and Thebans defected to persians ... interesting.

I must agree with Urnamma there is no way that 500000 strong army can support itself. I mean few trains a day could do the trick but they where in short supply back then i guess.

Quote:

---

The only reason I commented on this thread was because I despise stories of a vastly outnumbered force overcoming the odds and defeating, or at least nearly defeating, the enemy.

---

Did you read about polish cavalry charge at Samosierra passage in 1808 November 30?
You would love it :)
Squadron of cavalry (supported by other cavalry units including Napoleon personal quards) routed whole Spanish army. It was much better then RTW chain routs. But yea the casualties where terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ellesthyan

Just saying that ancient historians are unreliable is easy, but getting proof is nearly impossible. Neither can I proof they used such massive armies, but I can show you that it is possible and likely. If I may ask, what are the reasons modern historians have for ignoring Herodotus when he comes with numbers, and why are they so sure that the actual number is only in the tens of thousands?

---

Just some things to keep in mind... ~:)

It's not that the ancient historians are unreliable. It is just unreliable to take anything for granted without analizying the context in which it was created.
Just like anything else, to do a good analisis of history. An historian (and every other scientist for that matter) has to always keep in mind who wrote it? Why he wronte it? What were his agendas?o whom he Twas writing...etc...etc..etc.

In this particular case, you always want to keep in mind that this was written by Greeks, for Greeks to read.

I once did a paper analysing the differences between the history of the War of Paraguay written in Brazil and the history of this same war written in Paraguay. For brazilian historians, it was a great war, full of remarkable heroes and generals, memorable battles and of course it was a war agains the tirany of enemy of freedom. In Paraguay the history of that war is very different. It was unfair, uncalled for. A total genocide.
In the end are any of those sides wrong? No, they just cannot be understood out of the context.

Not agreeing with any scientific fact doesn't mean that you are ignoring it. In fact there is no way to disagree and ignore at the same time. To disagree you have to take what you are disagreeing with into consideration.

~:)

Historians aren't scientists. ~;p

Quote:

---

You have to understand ancient logistics

---

Quote:

---

I must agree with Urnamma there is no way that 500000 strong army can support itself. I mean few trains a day could do the trick but they where in short supply back then i guess.

---

But no historian said it was. The Persian army was depending on its fleet for supply. That was the whole point of Themistocles' strategy: without the fleet Persia could not support an army large enough to defeat the size of army that the Greeks could field.

The 5th century Greeks were hardly at the forefront of ancient logistics, but managed to field a fleet the required something like 60,000 men. A million man army, or 500,000 sure exaggerations. But I don't have difficulty believing Persia, the largest, wealthiest empire on the planet could organize a 100,000 plus army. Republican Rome of circa 200 BC is simply not a good comparison, the Republic did not have the kind of administrative experience that the Persian had, or the Roman Empire would have.

[QUOTE=Urnamma] The largest army ever fielded by Rome was 80,000 men.

At a single battle !

The Romans had 28 Legions in the Augustan age -
28 * 5,500 infantry = 154,000
28 * 300 cavalry = 8,400
28 * 5,500 Allies infantry = 154,000
9 Praetorians Cohors * 1,000 - 9,000
3 Vigilum Cohors * 1,000 = 3,000
6 Urban Cohors * 1,000 = 6,000
The Classis (navy) = 10,000

Sum = 344,400 soldiers !!! at any time
In the civil wars the number was higher , so yes , if the Romans could have done it , so the Persians .

No, they couldn't have. Persia probably had more troops than most places, because of the large amount of land they owned, and the quality troops they recruited from those lands.
But they could never have all those soldiers in one place, probably not even in one satrapy. That would be impossible.

Quote:

---

But no historian said it was. The Persian army was depending on its fleet for supply. That was the whole point of Themistocles' strategy: without the fleet Persia could not support an army large enough to defeat the size of army that the Greeks could field.

---

Quote:

---

The 5th century Greeks were hardly at the forefront of ancient logistics, but managed to field a fleet the required something like 60,000 men. A million man army, or 500,000 sure exaggerations. But I don't have difficulty believing Persia, the largest, wealthiest empire on the planet could organize a 100,000 plus army. Republican Rome of circa 200 BC is simply not a good comparison, the Republic did not have the kind of administrative experience that the Persian had, or the Roman Empire would have.

---

And where did you get the army figures? From Greek historians.

Quote:

---

At a single battle !

The Romans had 28 Legions in the Augustan age -
28 * 5,500 infantry = 154,000
28 * 300 cavalry = 8,400
28 * 5,500 Allies infantry = 154,000
9 Praetorians Cohors * 1,000 - 9,000
3 Vigilum Cohors * 1,000 = 3,000
6 Urban Cohors * 1,000 = 6,000
The Classis (navy) = 10,000

Sum = 344,400 soldiers !!! at any time
In the civil wars the number was higher , so yes , if the Romans could have done it , so the Persians .

---

And where do you get those numbers? From Roman historians.

You can't believe historians. Almost all were not soldiers, and they either inflate the numbers to give props for their size for being so powerful, or inflate the enemies to make a victory more impressive, or to explain away a defeat.

From what I know of the battle of Thermopylae, holding up the Persians was a valuable thing, it wasn't as if the Spartans were needlessly used as 'cannon fodder'. Their sacrifice shouldn't be dishonoured, there are many other examples throughout history where I could draw an analogy, take the battle of britain speech 'so few' by Churchill for example to show how the actions of a small fraction of a nations armed forces can have such a deep impact.

[QUOTE=caesar44]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

As you said, Cannae was an act of arrogance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

Not Hannibal genius's ?

---

well yeah..that;s what i said, that's what meatwad agrees.
the romans didn't use any kind of strategy..just a large block of men+little cav at teh sides. Hannibals 'trap' was nice, but had the romans 'echeloned' or even a mainple, that would have bene almost enough..
versus a more capabale general hannibal would have lost a lot more men, or even lost...
sorry for getting off-topic on my own topic.

about teh numbers Ceaser stated on teh roman unit-count. It might have been teh real numbers, but of of 1 army in 1 place.. but 'all' soldiers scattered abotu Italy.

In addition, few legions or armies are ever exactly their proper strength. It's often more of a guidline, due to deaths, deserstions and lack of soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

True, but my point was that they were left to be slaughtered (almost) to a man. The greeks should have pulled up any auxiliaries- if they had any- and told them to hold the pass. This would have saved the lives of 300 Spartan soldiers, who could have been used at another battle, possibly eve to defend Athens.

Anyway, my main point is that the glorification of such a slaughter is a twisted military obsession with honor and glory which I despise. My hatred of Tenysson also got thown in; but that is partly because I dislike most English poets (Chaucer and Colerige are definite exceptions.)

Actually, I seem to have lost my own train of thought. Well, as long as we are on the subject, I like cottage cheese.

---

Well they werent really left to be slaughtered at all, they decided to stay. What the spartans achieved at Thermopylae was to slow down the persians for a short time allowing the other greek cities to prepare and also the effect those 300 had on the persians was to completely destroy their moral, They were an army used to easy victory but had been stopped in their tracks by a miniscule force. As to bringing up auxiliars etc. it would have been a senseless waste of life, once the spartans were outflanked there was no way to defeat the persians, there was simply too many of them. As to glorifying the death of the 300, why not? they died for what they believed, they were following a code of honour that had been instilled in them since birth. Remember, it was the code the produced these amazing fighters in the first place

jup, 'the code' gives, and teh code takes it away ~;)
also the 'records' state that the army of 300 killed about 5000 men (1:20 was given by one historian, 1:10 by another, i think this is a reasonable number). so make up for yourself if it was futile. maybe they could have killed more in a full army, at plateae perhaps.

it's all a mix of honor, training, codes and a prophesy "Sparta will lose a king or their city" was about it.

The Spartans and Thebans were ordered to stay as a vanguard at thermopylai by Leonidas,after the Creeks found out that the persians were encircling them.The Thespians refused to leave with other Creeks and stayed with Spartans and Thebans.
Herodotos claims that the Thebans surrendered during the battle and after that the Spartans and Thespians were surrounded on a hill and killed by javelins and arrows.Here is a link with some maps and a photograph of the supposed hill of the last stand of the Spartans.

I totally agree with Wishazu, who knows maybe if the greeks hadn't been able to muster their armies in time, and suffered a little bad luck, maybe the gateway to europe could have been smashed open by the Persians. I think we owe alot to the ancient greeks, europe could have been a very different place.

And that would have been bad, if the Persians had won?

i think it would be bad, after the greeks who could have stopped them deciding they were going to push on through the western med. World history would be totally different. Definately none of us would be here to debate the matter :)

Why not? Persians weren't in the practice of decimating local populations, and I'm not sure how large their empire could have extended without splintering off anyway.
But I digress. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

And that would have been bad, if the Persians had won?

---

No comedies. Forgetting about all the other stuff they did, just the ability to make fun of your equals and the most powerful men in your state and your religion in a sometime erudite and sometime crass way is enough for me to be thankful. ~D

greece was at a point completely conquered, by the romans. still alot of ancient greek thought were kept. how woudl this be different? empires coem and go, greece wasn't a constant...the renaissance reintroduced them to us, this woudl porbably have happened as well when teh persians conquered it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Jones

i was under the impression that the theban band of lovers also died at thermopylae (although not at the same time or place as the spartans). weren't they guarding the pass that led around behind the greek fortifications? and didn't they all get killed in their sleep or sumthing? this is just wat my history teacher told me dunno if it is true or not.

---

The Theban sacred band were destroyed at the battle of Chaeronea in august 338bc. Im not sure they were even in existence at the time of the persian wars. Anyways you have Alexander the Great and his father, Phillip the One Eye to thank for the Sacred Bands destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

greece was at a point completely conquered, by the romans. still alot of ancient greek thought were kept. how woudl this be different? empires coem and go, greece wasn't a constant...the renaissance reintroduced them to us, this woudl porbably have happened as well when teh persians conquered it.

---

thats not really a decent comparison, Persia and Rome were two completely different Cultures. The romans didnt really preserve Greek thought, they were practically Greek themselves. In fact its probably more correct to refer to Roman culture as Greaco-Roman. Anyways its all ancient history :book:

Quote:

---

Im not sure they were even in existence at the time of the persian wars

---

Nope, they were formed in the early 4th century. Thebes was in fact picking up on an ideal that the Argives had pioneered in the last quarter of the 5th century. Around that time the Argives had created a 1000 man force of professional hoplites. Like the Sacred Band they were intended to be used as a spearhead force that could defeat the Spartan Equals.

About Gaugamela, it seems, according to sources, that the things were really balanced, and even inclining to the Achemenid Persian's side, when Alexander remembered his Issos actions, and made a risky but decisive movement, again trying to behead the Persian side by directly conducting a convergent attack against Darius and his guard, who was again present at the battle in a by then exposed situation.

Remember that in Issos, Alexander's companions saved the day by managing to break thru Darius's bodyguard and even wounding his auriga, forcing the Great King to flee and leave the field in a rush. In the confusion, most Persian troops thought their king was dead or wounded, which, joined to the fact that many Persian contingents were formed by levied and demotivated yet troops, signified a huge impact on Persian morale and inclined the battle to Macedonian side, after a Persian massive rout. That's how's depicted in that Pompeia mosaique.

In Gaugamela, things seemed to happen in a rather similar way, with a Persian army trying timid and irresolutive actions, whilst Macedonians fought in a much more dinamic and agressive way.

No obstant, I also doubt the exorbitating numbers of ancient propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Nope, they were formed in the early 4th century. Thebes was in fact picking up on an ideal that the Argives had pioneered in the last quarter of the 5th century. Around that time the Argives had created a 1000 man force of professional hoplites. Like the Sacred Band they were intended to be used as a spearhead force that could defeat the Spartan Equals.

---

Thanks for clearing that up mate. The Argive Thousand were all Aristocrats that came to prominence during the Peloponnesian War where they fought alongside and sometimes against the Spartans i believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

Correction, the movie being made is based off of Frank Millers graphic novel '300'.

As an aside, how in the hell does one edit ones post?, did they remove the edit button or something because I'm pretty sure thre used to be one???

---

Do you have any warning levels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgb

Do you have any warning levels?

---

Two ~D

If thats the cause then its fairly dumb, whats the hell is the reasoning behind that? all its going to do is increase my postcount as I need to post more replies in order to correct any mistakes I may have made in earlier ones.

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

Anyway on topic as regards the size of the Persian host, Herodotus I believe estimated the size of the Persian host going by how many generals it had, one historian I've read has suggested that amongst other things Herodotus misunderstood the Persian army's divisional system i.e. how many troops were under each generals command. The Persians worked on a decimal system and so Herodotus probably unintentionally added an extra '0' for the Persian numbers, thus we should detract that zero (which leaves us with an initial Persian invasion army of around 300,000 men which is perfectly reasonable I think.

About 20,000 of these were killed at Thermopylae, leaving him with around 280,000 men. After Salamis the Persian supply train by sea was no longer safe and the bad weather season was also coming. This made Xerxes supply situation untenable in enemy territory with such a large number of troops. Also after news of the Greek victory at Salamis reached the empire the threat of unrest and revolts back in Persia neccessitated Xerxes' return with much of the army. So keeping these things in mind Xerxes withdrew to Persia taking the bulk of his troops with him (mostly levee troops in any case) and leaving the cream of his army behind under Mardonius to complete the invasion.

Mardonius probably had a bit over 30,000 men with him mostly ethnic Persians who could be relied upon, he was later joined by Artabazus with 6,000 other handpicked Persians who had just finished escorting Xerxes back to the Hellespont (and who trashed the Cheronese region on their way back). This army was still enormous as far as traditional Greek armies were concerned, but it could also be maintained in Greece with the aid of local Persian allies (Boetia and Thebes) far longer without the need for a vulnerable naval supply train.

It was this army along with the armies of Xerxes Greek allies (mainly Boetia and Thebes) who fought the Greek Alliance at Platea.

At Platea the Spartans alone managed to field an army of around 40,000, mainly Helots and subject allies but including 5,000 Spartiate citizens (seven for each Spartan). They brought so many Helots as much as to get them out of Laconia so they couldn't cause any trouble in the absence of the bulk of the Spartan army as for the help they would bring in battle ~;) The Athenians provided 8,000 hoplites (who knows how many auxillaries) the Megarans 3,000 etc. all up the Greek army including auxillaries probably reached around 100,000 men.

The Boetians and especially the Thebans can also have been expected to have provided many troops as they had made their cause strogly with the Persians and would suffer if it failed. The King of Macedon was also at the battle so Macedon too would have contributed troops as would have other northern Greek city states, Mardonius's army also probably had around if not more than 100,000 men.

So thats 200,000 men under arms in a small area of Greece with neither side recieving supplies by sea.

I think 300,000 for the initial Persian Host a Host raised by an empire of many millions with troops drawn all the way from India to Ethiopia to Thrace and which initially had naval superiority is perfectly reasonable.

Keep in mind also that Xerxes had made exhaustive preparation for the invasion years ion advance in some cases, forging alliances, making plans, cutting canals and finally building boat bridges etc. He had also established enormous supply dumps along his army's line of march to keep it fed in addition to his supply chain by sea. Once the initial host arrived in Greece it also would have recieved much aid from its Greek allies as well as from scrounging off the land.

Bah!, Thebes is the main city IN Boetia (though it doesn't consist of all of it so there would have been 'Boetians' present that weren't Thebans).

I'd edit that into my posts, except my 'edit' button has been rather stupidly stolen. Just thought I'd get that in before someone else here pointed it out~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

Two ~D

If thats the cause then its fairly dumb, whats the hell is the reasoning behind that? all its going to do is increase my postcount as I need to post more replies in order to correct any mistakes I may have made in earlier ones.

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=78

So yeah - that is the cause.

[QUOTE=Steppe Merc]
And where do you get those numbers? From Roman historians.

Are you saying that there was no 28 legions ? are you saying that 5,500 man in a legion is not common knowledge ? please explain .

"The Army of Augustus - the 'classic' legion

The army as operated from the time of Augustus can generally be referred to as the 'classic' legion......Under Julius Caesar, the army had become a highly efficient and thoroughly professional body, brilliantly led and staffed.
To Augustus fell the difficult task of retaining much that Caesar had created, but on a permanent peace-time footing. He did so by creating a standing army, made up of 28 legions, each one consisting of roughly 6000 men. Additional to these forces there was a similar number of auxiliary troops. Augustus also reformed.....As a unit, a legion was made up of ten cohorts, each of which was further divided into six centuries of eighty men, commanded by a centurion.......
1 Contubernium - 8 Men
10 Contubernia 1 Century 80 Men
2 Centuries 1 Maniple 160 Men
6 Centuries 1 Cohort 480 Men
10 Cohorts + 120 Horsemen 1 Legion 5240 Men *
*1 Legion = 9 normal cohorts (9 x 480 Men) + 1 "First Cohort" of 5 centuries (but each century at the strength of a maniple, so 5 x 160 Men) + 120 Horsemen = 5240 Men


Together with non-combatants attached to the army, a legion would count around 6000 men.
The 120 horsemen attached to each legion were used as scouts and dispatch riders. They were ranked with staff and other non-combatants and allocated to specific centuries, rather than belonging to a squadron of their own......"


This is a modern analysis , not an ancient one , you can see it on every book or net site on the subject .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

If thats the cause then its fairly dumb, whats the hell is the reasoning behind that? all its going to do is increase my postcount as I need to post more replies in order to correct any mistakes I may have made in earlier ones.

---

It is to prevent people from insulting other members and then editing their posts before the moderators see it. To prevent this, known offenders have their edit button removed so they cannot hide behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

What happened at Gaugamela? I never learned that particular battle...

---

Alexander the Great inflicted a chrusing and final defeat on Darius III. I thought it was a tribute to Darius' incompetence as well as Alex' greatness, but Kraxis recently explained that history has been rather too harsh on Darius. Both at Issos and at Gaugamela his plans were sound, but he was no match for the Macedonian Mastermind. You can find his post here.

A short summary of the battle of Gaugamela would be that Darius has chosen flat ground for his elephants and scythed chariots and to envelop the Macedonians. He then had his army stay up all night because he expected a sneak attack. Alexander's army had a good night of rest, and marched fit 'n fresh onto the battlefield to face their sleepy opponents.

Alexander used a double line and flank denial to protect himself from envelopment by the superior numbers of the Persians. He destroyed the Persian left flank cavalry with his Companions, and then flanked the Persian centre that had been pinned by his phalanx. Darius was caught between them and fled. Like Dux Corvanus said: Alexander kept the initiative during the whole battle, while Darius was reactive. That said, the quality of Darius army probably did not allow a more daring strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

It is to prevent people from insulting other members and then editing their posts before the moderators see it. To prevent this, known offenders have their edit button removed so they cannot hide behind it.

---

Aye, I started a thread about the matter in the watchtower forum so I'll not spend anymore time on it here where it risks a thread hijack, suffice to say it is incredibly silly and for the record I'm not the type to hide behind anything especially when insulting someone~D

Quote:

---

Alexander the Great inflicted a chrusing and final defeat on Darius III. I thought it was a tribute to Darius' incompetence as well as Alex' greatness, but Kraxis recently explained that history has been rather too harsh on Darius. Both at Issos and at Gaugamela his plans were sound, but he was no match for the Macedonian Mastermind. You can find his post here.

A short summary of the battle of Gaugamela would be that Darius has chosen flat ground for his elephants and scythed chariots and to envelop the Macedonians. He then had his army stay up all night because he expected a sneak attack. Alexander's army had a good night of rest, and marched fit 'n fresh onto the battlefield to face their sleepy opponents.

Alexander used a double line and flank denial to protect himself from envelopment by the superior numbers of the Persians. He destroyed the Persian left flank cavalry with his Companions, and then flanked the Persian centre that had been pinned by his phalanx. Darius was caught between them and fled. Like Dux Corvanus said: Alexander kept the initiative during the whole battle, while Darius was reactive. That said, the quality of Darius army probably did not allow a more daring strategy.

---

I've heard some Yanks calling Gaugamela the 'Battle of Arbela' for some reason, he may be used to the battle under that name and the use of its correct name of Gaugamela may have thrown him off. ~;)

[QUOTE=caesar44]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

The largest army ever fielded by Rome was 80,000 men.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Sum = 344,400 soldiers !!! at any time
In the civil wars the number was higher , so yes , if the Romans could have done it , so the Persians .

---

I don`t see your point. As mentioned before the whole imperial roman army with its ca. 400.000 soldiers was never concentrated on a single place. But spread over half of europe and the lands around the mediterenean sea. The fact that even the roman empire at its high with all the infrastructure, superior logistic and a population of 60 million++ could not field more soldiers is the best proof that single armies with several 100.000 soldiers were hardly possible.



No roman historian I`ve read yet could report the number of soldiers serving in the whole army. The number and position of all legions was the best. The figures commonly found are calculated from aercheological and literal evidence. The number of auxilia units and legions from all sources of a period is collected and than the theoretical strength of them counted. Some units did surely not have their theoretical strengh but many did not see any combat for decades and were stationed at fixed places, so they were probably mot far away from their proper strengh.

Ideal strengths have always been the basis for calculating unit size, as well as total troop strengths, but these are rarely realized. Consider:

Reasons why a force is below ideal numbers:

1. Battle casualties -- as RTW itself shows, units very often cannot/do not replace all casualties, particularly if the fight is a recent one.

2. Non Battle casualties -- Even with Roman sanitation, it was not until the time of the 2nd World War that battle casualties exceeded those inflicted by training accidents, disease, off-duty brawling, or falling down a set of stairs type accidents. RTW doesn't really reflect this, but an army of 300,000 can virtually guarantee X number of accidental deaths per week and will probably have hundreds who are ill on any given day.

3. Corruption -- throughout history, particularly when stationed in some far off corner of the faction's territory, commanders have been known to "forget to notify" central command of the death of soldiers under their command, particularly those deaths in #2 above. Central command thinks these soldiers are alive, doesn't replace them, but sends forward their pay (which is then pocketed by their commander as a "bonus"). Some garrisons, historically, were horribly understrength for such reasons. I have often wondered how much of this may have aided the Barbarian Invasion success against Rome.

4. Leaves/Temporary Duty and the like -- soldiers may be on strength, but not actually present for a number of such reasons.


It is, historically, quite rare for any unit to be fighting at optimum strength.

Seamus

Arbela might be nearer the battle site than Gaugemela. They're both in the area. One's named after a camel.

Darius' plans make sense, a mixture of luck and genius gave Alexander victory. (Not to mention a professional heavy infantry force)

[QUOTE=cunctator]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

[B]

I don`t see your point. As mentioned before the whole imperial roman army with its ca. 400.000 soldiers was never concentrated on a single place. But spread over half of europe and the lands around the mediterenean sea. The fact that even the roman empire at its high with all the infrastructure, superior logistic and a population of 60 million++ could not field more soldiers is the best proof that single armies with several 100.000 soldiers were hardly possible.



No roman historian I`ve read yet could report the number of soldiers serving in the whole army. The number and position of all legions was the best. The figures commonly found are calculated from aercheological and literal evidence. The number of auxilia units and legions from all sources of a period is collected and than the theoretical strength of them counted. Some units did surely not have their theoretical strengh but many did not see any combat for decades and were stationed at fixed places, so they were probably mot far away from their proper strengh.

---

Please read my post again , I have said before - 80,000 men in a single battle ! just look at the post . the conclusion is - 400,000 men in the Roman army , so the Persians could have 500,000 in theirs , so 100,000 to 200,000 in one battle (and the most important battle ever for the Persians) is a logical conclusion .
I hope you can see my point now .

No, it is not possible. :wall:
Iranian farmlands were good. However, even with their good lands and with supply trains, one satarpy could not support over 100,000 people in an army. That would just be impossible.

And I thought that I am stubborn...

"The Persians are harder to quantify. From Arrian we have a fairly complete order of battle, mentioning the following (mostly from 3.8.3-6 and 3.11.3-7):

On the left wing:

The Indians bordering the Bactrians, under Bessos
Bactrians under their satrap Bessos
Sogdians also under Bessos
Dahai Scythians
Arachotians under their satrap Barsantes
Indian Hillmen under Barsantes
Persian mixed foot and horse
Medes under Atropates (probably the same as the above Persians)
Persian Susians
Kadusians marshalled with the Medes

In front of the left wing:

Sakai Scythian horse archers, under Mausaces, on armoured horses
1000 more Bactrians
100 Scythed chariots

In the centre:

Greek mercenaries under Patron the Phokian
The Kinsmen under Darius
The Persian apple-bearer footguards
More Greek mercenaries under Glaukos the Aitolian
Indians
Karian deportees
Mardian archers

Behind the centre:

Various Red Sea tribes under Orontobates, Ariobarzanes and Orxines
Babylonians under Bupares
Sittakenians marshalled with the Babylonians
Uxians and Susianians under Abulites

In front of the centre:

15 (?) Elephants
50 Scythed chariots

On the right wing:

Albanians and Sakesinians 'marshalled with the Medes' next to the centre
Medes (said to be to the right of the Syrians, but it seems left is meant) - possibly the 'Persian' cavalry that attacked the baggage with some Indian cavalry
Syrians (Koile and Mesopotamians) under Mazaios
Areians under their satrap Satibarzanes
Parthian, Hykcanian and Topeirian horse under Phrataphernes
Other Sakai

In front of the right wing:

50 Scythed chariots
Armenians under Orontes and Mithraustes
Kappadokians under Ariakes

Arrian gives a total of 40 000 horse, and a grossly exaggerated 1 000 000 foot (3.8.6); other foot totals are also incredibly huge: Didoros gives 800 000 (17.53.3), Justin 400 000 (11.12.5) and Curtius 200 000 (4.12.13). Curtius gives a possible 45 000 horse, but Didoros (200 000) and Justin (100 000) figures as incredible as their foot numbers.

The levy foot marshalled behind the Persian line played no part in the battle, so their exact numbers are not really relevant - they will be graded Hd (O). The Persian foot guards were 1000 strong in Herodotos' time, and I shall assume they remained so at this time. After the battle, 2000 Greek mercenaries escaped with Darius along with a 'few' of these guards (Arrian, 3.16.2); clearly the mercenaries were much more numerous (they were posted against the Macedonian phalanx specifically to oppose it); as Curtius mentions 4000 escaped Issos with Darius (4.1.1-3) so would have been at least that strong, but probably no more - darius would have had diificulty recruiting more mercenaries now that Alexander after Issos. Mazaios had a few days earlier commanded 3000 horse and an unknown number of foot, including 2000 Greek mercenaries (Arrian, 3.7.1, Curtius instead gives 6000 horse), so this would fit in well with each of the two Greek mercenary contingents being 2000 strong.

Let us assume that Arrian's total of 40 000 horse is correct, and that the Persian foot totalled 100 000 including all the levy rabble (their exact numbers have little effect at 2000 men per ee). The Persians, at the usual 250 men per element (but 1000 per Horde), can then be conjectured as:


Bessos' command - 86 ee

4 x Irr Cv (S) - Mausaces' Scythians
4 x Irr LH (S) - 1000 Bactrians
4 x Irr Exp (O) - 100 scythed chariots
1 x Reg Cv (S) Sub-general - Bessos
5 x Irr Cv (S) - Bessos' Bactrian heavy cavalry
8 x Irr LH (S) - Bessos' other Bactrians
6 x Irr LH (O) - Parapamisadai Indians under Bessos
8 x Irr LH (F) - Bessos' native Sogdians
8 x Irr Cv (I) - other Sogdians under Bessos
8 x Irr LH (F) - Dahai
6 x Irr LH (O) - Barsantes' Arachotians
6 x Irr Ax (X) - Barsantes' Indian Hillmen
8 x Irr Cv (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian horse
4 x Irr Ax (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian takabara
4 x Irr Ps (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian supporting foot archers
20 x Irr Hd (O) - Persian Susians and Kadusians

Darius' Command - 76 ee

1 x Irr El (O) - Indian Elephants
2 x Irr Exp (O) - 50 scythed chariots
8 x Reg Sp (O) - Patron's Greek mercenaries
1 x Reg Cv (O) CinC - Darius in his chariot
2 x Reg Kn (F) - Persian Kinsmen rearmed in the Macedonian fashion
4 x Reg Sp (O) - Persian apple-bearers
8 x Reg Sp (O) - Glaukos' Greek mercenaries
8 x Reg Sp (I) - Karian deportees
4 x Irr Bw (S) - Indian mercenaries
8 x Irr Bw (I) - Mardian archers
66 x Irr Hd (O) - Babylonians, Uxians, Susianians, Sittakenians and Red Sea peoples
Mazaios' Command - 98 ee

4 x Irr Ps (O) - Sakesinians
4 x Irr Ps (S) - Albanian javelinmen
4 x Irr Ps (O) - Albanian archers
16 x Irr LH (F) - Orontes' and Mithraustes' Armenians
12 x Irr LH (O) - Ariakes' Kappadokians
2 x Irr Exp (O) - 50 scythed chariots
4 x Irr Cv (I) - Indian cavalry
11 x Irr Cv (O) - Median and Persian cavalry
1 x Reg Cv (O) Sub-general - Mazaios
16 x Irr Cv (I) - Mazaios' Syrians and Mesopotamians
8 x Irr Cv (I) - Satibarzanes' Areians
8 x Irr LH (F) - Phrataphernes' Parthians
4 x Irr Cv (I) - Phrataphernes' Topeirians
4 x Irr Cv (S) - Phrataphernes' Hyrkanians
4 x Irr LH (F) - other Sakai
This totals 250 ee and 1281 AP.

References:

Alexander of Macedon, P. Green, Uni.Cal.Press, 1991
Diodorus Siculus, esp. book 17
Plutarch's Life of Alexander
Justin 's Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Translated by J.C.Yardley, American Philological Association, Classical Resources Series, Scholars Press, Atlanta GA, 1994, ISBN 1-55540-951-2. Introduction and Notes by R.Develin.
Arrian's History of Alexander
Polyainos' Strategems and Excerpts. Translated by Peter Krentz and Everett Wheeler, Ares Publishers, 1994, ISBN 0-89005-503-3
Quintus Curtius' History of Alexander


:book:

More - http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/alexander.htm

http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Ma...laScenario.htm

http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=94&WID=46

http://history.boisestate.edu/westci...ander/09.shtml

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/BattleView.cfm?BID=94

http://www.fanice.com/articles/Battle_of_Gaugamela


The Persians had between 100,000 to 200,000 men , most of them were poor soldiers

Caesar, why would I take those numbers as anything close to fact? It's from an ancient historian who was not at the battle, nor was he a soldier. Why would we assume that the 40,000 horse is correct?
Do you have any idea how much it takes to support good horses? Even if most were derived from steppe ponies and similar breeds, it would still be incredibly difficult in a settled land.
Also, if he said they had a million infantry, why would his horse number be correct?

In addition, Persian infantry did not stink! They were just different from Greeks and Romans. Yeah, the shield and spear levies weren't great, but most were decent to good.

Besides, this reasoning is flawed:

Quote:

---

The Persians, at the usual 250 men per element (but 1000 per Horde), can then be conjectured as:

---

Almost all ancient groupings were an ideal, not exact numbers. In reality, groups could be less or even larger than their commonly accepted numbers.

Caesar, this is getting agitating... Not one single modern, credible historian believes the ancient numbers. They're vastly inflated. What's worse, you're quoting wargaming numbers as if they actually meant something.

C'mon, man. Next you're going to tell me atlantis exists because Plato eluded to it...

so steppe merc is discounting ancient historians because they werent actually at the battle and urnamma would rather go along with modern historians who are living a couple of millenia after the battle, with all the intervening mysts of time etc. wierd lol i`ll go with the 100,000 persian inf and 30,000 - 40,000 persian cav. Seem perfectly realistic to me, afterall the persian empire was fabulously wealthy and even though the persian kings werent great military strategists they were exceptional organisers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iskandr

I believe the actual quote was "Go and tell the Lacodaemonians..." not Spartans.

---

Yes, but you can't put that in iambic pentameter as easily.

Gŏ téll thĕ Spártăns, strángĕr pássĭng bý,
Thăt hére ŏbédiĕnt tó thĕir láws wĕ líe.

Of course, you have to fudge obedient as three syllables instead of four, but it still works. You'd have to recast it entirely to work in Lacedaemonians, that's an extra three feet.

Edit: From Wikipedia, the actual text was

ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
(O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti täde)
κείμεθα τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.
(keimetha tois keinon rhämasi peithomenoi.)

and a literal translation is

Oh foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians
that here we lie, obeying their words.

I doubt you could make a much more literal rhyming couplet in iambic pentameter out of those lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wishazu

so steppe merc is discounting ancient historians because they werent actually at the battle and urnamma would rather go along with modern historians who are living a couple of millenia after the battle, with all the intervening mysts of time etc. wierd lol i`ll go with the 100,000 persian inf and 30,000 - 40,000 persian cav. Seem perfectly realistic to me, afterall the persian empire was fabulously wealthy and even though the persian kings werent great military strategists they were exceptional organisers.

---

For some reason I think you and Caesar have not read my post back there. I won't repeat myself. It is not about discounting anything. It is about taking things in the context they were created. Please read my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

I've heard some Yanks calling Gaugamela the 'Battle of Arbela' for some reason, he may be used to the battle under that name and the use of its correct name of Gaugamela may have thrown him off. ~;)

---

No, I always knew it was Gaugamela, I have just spent most of my time on Hannibal. He is my personal favorite.

Arbela?! How the hell do you come up with that?