Printable View
Ok guys as you can tell I went and saw this movie the other day and thought it was interesting and I've heard several different stories on how this battle actually went. Any one know the truer facts of it because I highly doubt there were 10,000 spartans since spartans can only be from sparta and the baby has to be perfect so i just wanna know.
:help: Please fill me in on all this :help:
There were 300 spartans. The rest was men from other greek cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkarinen
They were hand picked by Leonidas, all having children already so their loss would not be so significant. This was a kamikaze and glory squad if you like, to hold the Persians back.
Themopylae was a small pass, so they held on there for days, I think, before giving way due to a Greek traitor who revealed a pass that enabled a pincer type assault.
It's said that they ended up fighting even if they lost their weapons, with their teeth and so on. Probably rubbish though, as they all died so the only people to record it would be persians (this source is greek iirc).
I also think there were some Thespians there, and perhaps some Perioikoi and Helots. But I can't be sure.
Indeed, there were 6000 Greeks fighting a lot less than 250 000 Persians.
On a side note, it has got to suck to fight and die for your country, providing the bulk of the defense of your homeland, and then be forgotten in the mists of time in favor of a bunch of neighborhood jocks, just because they enjoyed the post-mortem patronage of some old bearded geezer with a big mouth.
My interest in history has had me knowing quite a bit more than my peers who loved it at school, but I still am going to do some research. :book:
Not all Spartans died. One of them (injured) survived because he hid into bush. He was accused of being coward and public pression on him was so big that later he died unded Plateje battle when charging alone on whole Persians army.
I've heard a new rumor going around that the spartan killed so many of the enemy troops that they lost the will to fight and so on
Traitor is a harsh word. Consider the farmers who would have been in the neighborhood, who are suddenly the victim of a huge army using up whatever harvests they have. If showing the Persians a back route means saviour from certain starvation, then so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avicenna
Not to mention that most people living in Sparta (that is their whole country, not just the city) hated the Spartans, though naturally the Spartans themselves did not hate the Spartans. Also, and a little related to what I just said, many people talk about the 700 Thespians who stayed behind and fought against the Persians, what many forget or seem not to know is that there was also Thebans (I'm not sure how many, at least 100 I think) there. However, unlike the Thespians, the Thebans were not their of their own free will, they were in fact kept their as hostages of sorts, or just prisoners, by the Spartans, when Ephialtes and the Immortals were drawing near the Thebans deserted to the Persians and fought the Spartans.
I've heard/read that the battle of Salamis (a sea battle) was what truly broke the back of the Persians and not Thermopylae, because after Salamis Xerxes went back across the sea together with a large portion of his army, which enabled the Greeks to defeat the Persians at PlataeaQuote:
I've heard a new rumor going around that the spartan killed so many of the enemy troops that they lost the will to fight and so on
As I said, there were Thebans there, and they survived as they joined the Persians near the end... but I don't think this fighting with their teeth and such is very accurate, if they lost their weapons it seems more likely they would grab a weapon from some dead guy, seeing as the Spartans were so über-l33t there must have been a carpet of dead Persians on the ground.Quote:
It's said that they ended up fighting even if they lost their weapons, with their teeth and so on. Probably rubbish though, as they all died so the only people to record it would be persians (this source is greek iirc).
That is a fact. The real question is just how much time greeks bought with Thermopylae. If the battle hadn't happened, would that have changed something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
Well, we wouldn't be talking about this movie for starters...Quote:
That is a fact. The real question is just how much time greeks bought with Thermopylae. If the battle hadn't happened, would that have changed something?
Thermopylae is just a propaganda story. What in reality was nothing but the brushing aside of an insignificant but annoying rear guard of the Greeks by the victorious Persian army was blown up by the extremely pro-Greek Herodotus (who had political motives to do so) a century or so later to the status of epic struggle for freedom by all Greeks together. None of which is true in any way.
Really?
The fact that it has been mystified in history and used as propaganda, is a testiment to it's importance. Greeks standing side by side, at a small pass, halt for a few days the largest force ever to invade Greece is no small feet, even if it was not a unifying force.
"Greeks" standing "side-by-side"? First off, we were talking, mostly, Spartans and their vassals. Secondly, there was no such thing as "Greek" at the time. There were 1300 city-states in Ancient Greece, a lot of them with their own little dialect making mutual intelligibility low -- and only 30 of them took part in the Greco-Persian War.
Lastly -- and most importantly -- please explain to me how this battle was important in any form, way, or shape. A couple hundred Greeks taking a stand against a superior foe. Honorable and stuff, but when it comes down to it, it was utterly useless and they got crushed by a foe superior in numbers and, obviously, tactics, as well. A foe that, to boot, didn't like to fight the old melee and preferred to engage from a distance with bow and arrow -- so the story about "hordes of Persians charging" is also a load of lies.
No, Thermopylae was an insignificant little skirmish with a foregone conclusion that was later picked up by the world's first historian, who needed to create a common identity (and enemy!) amongst Greek intellectuals -- just when there was a ceasefire in the Peloponnesian War which was ripping up Greece.
I beg to differ in many points here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
First off, even if the Greeks Evolved in a City-State fashion they were nevertheless all part of one Culture, the hellenic culture.
Yes greek may have been spoken a bit differently between a thessalian Shepherd and an Athenian Philosopher, they both did speak a common Hellenic Language never theless.
Even today in Greece how people speak in big cities and small remote villages is different the pronounciation of many words differs, but that is a phaenomenon hapening in most Counties, and does not support the classification of these various people in their own little boxes as to say that they were not, by todays definition, a same nation with a same culture.
Saying what you are saying is the same as saying that there is no Scotish Culture because they were but a bunch of unrelated Clans...and we very well know that is not the case. Even if the Scots fought eachother, they were never the less all Scots. Same goes with the Greeks of that time. And pleae dont even get me started on the sourounding cultures of the Thracians.
How was the battle significant? I suggest you read more about the meaning of "sacrifice".
Independently of their own motives, and independently of how much damage they really did to the Persian Invading Army, they did give their lives for a set of values, that gave not only the incentive of Greek people of all around the place to Unite but also demonstarated that one Greek City State, independently of its own Traditions and Laws as well as Philosophy of the World, was nevertheless willing to sacrifice its own people for something that was common to all, if nothing else, their ancestral lands and their independent and sovereign lives (yes each different with their own version of it).
If Herodotus chose to take these acts as an exemple later on, well he pcked something that had probably been forgotten by many in their own pursuit of their own agenda during the inter City-State wars that followed.
His argument was that of, it really does not matter who's values and religeous beliefs to this or that god or even political systems is better or not, because let us remember that when foreign barbarian invaded our soil, all that did not matter and a bunch of people chose to give their lives in order to preserve a whole, and that whole is our common identity, we are greeks in all our different colors and ways of looking at life, beliefs and actions, we do have nevertheless a common hellenistic identity.
back in those times, all citizens of a city-state partouk in the political decision making. The athenians did not have representative democracy, they simply had Democracy, all 40,000 Athenian citisens met at the eclesia and debated and listened to one another during the debates.
Propaganda was not as much as possible as it is it today, because everyone was there, everyone was part of the process and most importantly everyone was Informed.
@Jikarinen
These are some links to Historical accounts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_I_of_Persia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas
Additional Documentation for Context.
Places
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thespiae
Related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themistocles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe
Subsequent Battles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea
Happy reading! :)
@Baba Ga'on
These are for you :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language
This is all info at hand easelly accessible, for more, please look more in to your Local or national Library, as well as Read books from the respective countries.
Learning Greek and/or Persian can also help.
While I wouldn't go as far as Baba Ga'on, I do agree with him that the battle is overrated and shamelesly glorified by Herodotus. What were his motives, I don't want to guess, but we all know that Herodotus isn't very "reliable" as a historian.
True, BUT...Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Those 30 states represented what portion of the population?
Consider Athens and Sparta had similar parity.
Athens had slaves and a smaller portion of the city was citizens. That smaller portion is quoted as being 40,000.
Sparta is said to have had around 10,000 warrior citizens.
Now lets assume each city-state had 10,000 warrior citizens (smaller then athens, but as large as Sparta) would mean that the city-states had a combined population of 13 million (of just citizens who were adult males). Now if you factor in females, slaves, children you get a massive number of more then 50 million.
I suspect that the vast majority of city-states were tiny. Sparta and Athens were to Greece what China and USA are to the world... rather larger then average.
So the 30 states fighting quite possibly accounted for 60 to 80 percent of the population.
So, you have sources...Quote:
so the story about "hordes of Persians charging" is also a load of lies.
The Athenian democracy was sort of representative actually. First of all society was divided into 4 echelons (or whatever you want to call it), with the richest on the top and the poorest on the bottom, the 3 richest echelons served as hoplites in war, while the poor were light infantry and sailors. Through the reforms of Solon, right of voting was extended to every free male citizen, the citizens voted for who was to sit in a sort of council thing (don't remember the name), however people from the lowest echelon could not be elected, though they could vote.Quote:
back in those times, all citizens of a city-state partouk in the political decision making. The athenians did not have representative democracy, they simply had Democracy, all 40,000 Athenian citisens met at the eclesia and debated and listened to one another during the debates.
Propaganda was not as much as possible as it is it today, because everyone was there, everyone was part of the process and most importantly everyone was Informed.
Democracy sooned gained popularity throughout the Greek world, but "tyrants" (a greek equivalient to the way the modern term dictator is used) often got to power, even in Athens.
However this (democracy) did never happen in Sparta, and it came to be that Sparta was the only remaining kingdom in Greece, though true power was held by an appointed council of nobles.
Anyway what I'm unsure of is wether the Greek victory in the Greco-Persian war saved democracy, what it saved was Greece at the time and it allowed Greek culture and thinking to continue to flourish because they were not put under foreign domination. We have to remember that from the point Greece was conquered by Rome to modern times they have not been a democracy, just monarchies (except when the Romans were a republic, but only the people of Rome had voting privileges I think).
I don't really think this is what we were discussing here in this topic, but I just felt like continuing writing when I first started.
There's a very good reason why the battle of Thermopylae has been held in such high esteem by historians...
True, the physical and material impact of Thermopylae on the war was quite small. The losses suffered by the Persian army were considerable but not enough to keep it from sweeping through the rest of Greece and beyond. The stand at Thermopylae was simply a delaying action meant to buy time for the city states beyond the pass so that they could prepare their defenses or in Athens' case, prepare for evacuation. The successful delaying action at Thermopylae also coincided with the successful blockade of the Persian fleet just off the coast, proving that the Hellenic efforts on both land and sea were mutually dependent. Add to the mix a little help from mother nature in the form of a massive storm that claimed a large number of Persian ships and suddenly Xerxes' unstoppable Persian juggernaut found itself stumbling in the face of a relatively small amount of resistance.
On the other hand the psychological significance of Thermopylae was positively enormous. The idea that such a relatively small number of men could hold off a vastly numerically superior enemy for three days seems quite reasonable to us but back then there were few armchair generals around with several thousand years of military history on their bookshelves to provide Leonidas or Xerxes with some historical references. Clearly the qualititative differences between an army of professional and citizen soldiers and that of conscripts and slaves had never really been put to the test prior to Thermopylae (Marathon excepted). Propaganda or historical revisionism aside Xerxes must have been fuming with rage over the inability of his Persian host to break through the pass at Thermopylae and the Athenian navy off the coast. Xerxes lost several relatives and a good portion of his best troops at Thermopylae and his subsequent dessecration of Leonidas' body, a fellow monarch who died honorably in combat, was a shockingly disrespectful act and wholly uncharacteristic of a Persian emperor. Victory or not Xerxes was obviously beside himself over the losses he suffered during the battle.
Looking beyond the act of defiance in the face of overwhelming odds you must also consider that the ancient Greeks took death alot more seriously than those of us living in the monotheistic dominated present where the idea that an immortal soul can be granted eternal peace in a place called Heaven. The ancient Greeks believed the after-life was a dark and dreadful place where the souls of both the decent and the wicked wandered aimlessly in Hades. The idea that the Greeks who fought at Thermopylae to the bitter end would willingly sacrifice their bodies and send their souls to such a place makes their sacrifice even more impressive.
Above all the notion that a Spartan king, a few hundred hand picked Spartans, several hundred Thespians and other Greeks, all free men who in the past hated each other almost as much as they hated foreigners, would choose to lay down their lives in a seemingly futile act of defiance is simply astonishing. From the Persian perspective this collective act of self-sacrifice must have been mind boggling. Who knows what the average Persian soldier thought of the Greeks after that battle? Prior to Thermopylae one could chalk up Darius' loss at Marathon to bad luck or chance but three days at Thermopylae were awfully hard to dismiss. Persian morale must have taken a serious dive after Thermopylae, just imagine the rumors and expressions of wild imagination that spread amongst Xerxes' decidedly superstitious and uneducated army after the battle.
Similarly, we can look to the Japanese bushido code and the advent of the kamikaze pilot during WW2 as being equally dubious in terms of their military value but their combined impact upon Allied morale cannot be stressed enough. In light of the incredible tenacity with which the Japanese fought the US on Iwo Jima and Okinawa the US government was desperately looking to end the conflict prior to an actual invasion of the Japanese home islands.
Never underestimate the value of morale in warfare.
Really now? I guess you read the wrong article, for Ancient Greek (as opposed to the modern Greek language) was divided into several main dialect groups which had a very different form of pronunciation and even writing. Attic is the one that most Western students learn today, but there were Doric, Aeolic, Thessalian and Northwestern dialects to deal with, as well. All of which had their own subdivisions which were also often very hard to understand for the different speakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
We are also talking of a period of over twenty-five hundred years ago. Even (a much smaller period of) five hundred years ago, the people that now inhabit the country that is the Netherlands could not understand each other if they crossed a provincial border, and if you go back another three hundred years you'd find instances of people not being able to understand jack of what was being said if they travelled to the next bloody village.
The chance, therefore, that the so-called "Greeks" (a modern term rooted in the 18th-century ideology of nationalism) could understand each other -- even if most of them spoke Doric (some spoke Thessalian) -- was pretty damn small, indeed.
Simple answer: no.Quote:
How was the battle significant? I suggest you read more about the meaning of "sacrifice".
Independently of their own motives, and independently of how much damage they really did to the Persian Invading Army, they did give their lives for a set of values, that gave not only the incentive of Greek people of all around the place to Unite but also demonstarated that one Greek City State, independently of its own Traditions and Laws as well as Philosophy of the World, was nevertheless willing to sacrifice its own people for something that was common to all, if nothing else, their ancestral lands and their independent and sovereign lives (yes each different with their own version of it).
If Herodotus chose to take these acts as an exemple later on, well he pcked something that had probably been forgotten by many in their own pursuit of their own agenda during the inter City-State wars that followed.
Less simple answer: no. You see, this entire idea of sacrifice for freedom and all that was an invention of later generations, something pioneered by Herodotus and carried on strongly by the proponents of Hellenism (not to mention future Greek nationalists). It's a propaganda story that you're telling here, friend, something that I just debunked.
Inspiring, honorable, glorious, dulce et decorum est etc., etc., yada yada... but all values superimposed upon the event by centuries upon centuries of misinformation and propaganda, all based on that one piece of work delivered by our good friend Herodotus.Quote:
His argument was that of, it really does not matter who's values and religeous beliefs to this or that god or even political systems is better or not, because let us remember that when foreign barbarian invaded our soil, all that did not matter and a bunch of people chose to give their lives in order to preserve a whole, and that whole is our common identity, we are greeks in all our different colors and ways of looking at life, beliefs and actions, we do have nevertheless a common hellenistic identity.
Thermopylae was an act of Spartan honor (e tan epi tas and all that) and Thespian bravery... and general stupidity. A small rear guard action that didn't effect anything in the long term.
This is meaningful to the debate in what way?Quote:
back in those times, all citizens of a city-state partouk in the political decision making. The athenians did not have representative democracy, they simply had Democracy, all 40,000 Athenian citisens met at the eclesia and debated and listened to one another during the debates.
Of course... Herodotus was extremely well-informed -- one hundred years later, without any kind of way (not to forget motivation!) to carry out empirical research of any kind.Quote:
Propaganda was not as much as possible as it is it today, because everyone was there, everyone was part of the process and most importantly everyone was Informed.
The man wrote down fairy tales with real cores, my friend -- not facts. A quarter of a million men from a place which at the time likely had only a couple million inhabitants in the first place, Amazons, a tribe of men with one leg... everything except elves, wizards and aliens.
EDIT: Reading the additional posts in this thread, I see that many, many people base themselves on Herodotus to comment. As I've already explained the political motivations the man had to create the image of self-sacrifice for a Hellas united against a common foe (unity was a scarce commodity in the sectarian Greece of the Peloponnesian War), I'll instead concentrate on the rest of the man's commentary.
Herodotus may have been the world's first real historian (or at least the West's) but the science which all of us hold such an interest in has, with him, a very, very crappy, sensationalist, and blatantly ignorant base which is rooted, basically, in hearsay. He was no Thucydides, friends. Amongst the ranks of the already rather hard-to-trust ancient historians (certainly when compared to the modern science), Herodotus is one of the worst when it comes to accuracy. His way of describing Persian warfare alone is enough proof -- not to mention the enormous volume in information of how he incorrectly described wars, foreign practices, and other cultures.
You obviously have a bone or two to pick over this subject matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
First and foremost Greek nationalism and patriotism as a unifying force was virtually unknown at the time Herodotus was alive. Loyalties to the Greek 'race' was somewhat of a factor, especially given the widespread dislike of non-Greeks and the outright hatred of Sparta for its enslavement of fellow Greeks. However the argument that Herodotus wrote to inflate the achievements of Hellenic culture as a whole seems weak. He can certainly be taken to task over his figures and some of his claims but much of what he wrote was given to him either orally or through letters or other written documents.
Herodutus never quoted the Persian army at around 250,000 men, his quotes encompassed the entirety of Xerxes' expeditionary force and were much higher and even more spectacular, with estimates into the millions. 250,000 is an extraordinary number even for 481 B.C. but it is a number that modern historians believe to be quite credible, albeit it is at the top end of the credibility range (150-250,000 being the general average). One needs to take into account the contribution in manpower from Persia's various subject kingdoms as well as the necessary support personnel required to supply and maintain such an army and navy. Furthermore roughly 150 years later the armies that Darius II raised to face Alexander were, when taken alone or in combination, extraordinarily large for their day as well, especially the ones he fielded at Issus and Gaugamela. The combined manpower of Egypt, Asia Minor and the Middle East was obviously capable of fielding and maintaining a large army & navy back back in those days.
It's a matter of perspective and reading between the lines or in this case, the numbers...
Napoleon's Grand Army marched into Russia with over half a million men, an extraordinary number for a single unified force during the 19th century (as was the Russian army assembled to beat him). To the average person this has been accepted as being an entirely French force however we all know that Grand Army which marched into Russia also consisted of a huge number of troops from Prussia, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Westphalia, Saxony, Bavaria, Italy, etc., allied troops that accounted for more than half the total number.
Read the wrong article? Not really, its all part of a life-long study ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
So let me see where I shall begin... Ahh yes the Dialects.
Your assumption of the Ancient greeks not being able to communicate eachother and then the conjecture of the battle of thermopilae not being as we know it is in itself a logical fallacy.
Yes the greek language is characterised by various dialects as a result of Historical events, and the factors which contributed to its devellopment in to a City State system. You would have a chance of being right if you displaced your assumptions another 3 centuries to the past of the period in question here.
A major factor in what contributed to a system of City States in Greece was the difficult terrain, and lack of communication, indeed various Greeks of various regions had very little contact in the begining with eachother which after a couple of centuries contributed to the vocalic dialectisation of the Language.
Greeks speaking various dialects could actually comprehend one another in various degrees of difficulty which were directly linked to the geographical distance amongst them. meaning that tw dialects of neigboring regions were actually very easy to understand and comprehend by two people each comming from one or the other.
So in essence, your argument may apply here for the Greek Dark Age period or the begining of the classical perriod of Greece, 8th, 7th and with some reserve 6th centuries BC. (We shall not go beyond that period and the differences between Mycenaic Period and Dorian expansion/invasion).
However, by the 5th Century (The period of the Battle of thermopilae) Greek Civilisation had already made tremendeous sociological & cultural evolution, aswell as Greeks had become more cosmopolitan exchanging and being more in contact with one another as well as with other cultures. The greek language became more uniform.
Crucial to this uniformity was also the devellopments in Literature, song and theatrical plays (tragodies).
In the wake of Alexander the Great, all greeks including macedonian greeks spoke the "Koine" Greek, aka Common Greek, Althought some dialects were kept for Literature such as Attic, people spoke Koine amongst them. And Koine Greek is what evolved today to Modern Greek.
Corinth a know city of the Ancient world, only 49 miles from Athens, and a major Trade Center on the 6th Century, spoke a Doric Dialect while Athens, spoke the Attic-Ionic Dialect of greek.
Are you saying that the inhabitants of these two important City-States, Trade and Economic Centers ...could not understand eachother? If you do...good for you, nice opinion...but the Historical fact is agaist you, unless you can provide your own (which I very much doubt).
This is best Explained by Spino, which I agree with in his own analysis.Quote:
Simple answer: no.
Less simple answer: no. You see, this entire idea of sacrifice for freedom and all that was an invention of later generations, something pioneered by Herodotus and carried on strongly by the proponents of Hellenism (not to mention future Greek nationalists). It's a propaganda story that you're telling here, friend, something that I just debunked.
However, here is my own reply on the matter, since you accuse me of spreading propaganda, friend.
You see, the intire Idea of Propaganda, is a modern 20th Century Invention. While the terminology dates back to the 16th-17th century in the Catholic Church, the meaning of the term changed during the 20th century.
Knowing this fact, renders your whole argument about Herodotus trying to propagate nationalistic messages through his work, virtually moot. :P
I am a studdent of Human History, promoting propaganda goes against all the principles that render History a science in itself.
Here we have a fellow forumer that posts a thread asking to know more facts about what he saw in a movie, and here we have you Sir, jumping in Propagating the message that its all false and propaganda instead of helping the OP find his answers. And on top of it, debate the intervention in response to your own propagandist actions.
You seem to be very biassed against Herodotus, but again, your statements are just that, biassed propaganda, unless you can put forth valid sources and basis of your accusations. Your statements are what is actually Propaganda.Quote:
Inspiring, honorable, glorious, dulce et decorum est etc., etc., yada yada... but all values superimposed upon the event by centuries upon centuries of misinformation and propaganda, all based on that one piece of work delivered by our good friend Herodotus.
Thermopylae was a willing sacrifice in an attempt to boost morale and incite Unity. It succeeded at that 100 fold. if you fail to recognise this, I must question your capacity to evaluate information and rationalise a conclusion friend.Quote:
Thermopylae was an act of Spartan honor (e tan epi tas and all that) and Thespian bravery... and general stupidity. A small rear guard action that didn't effect anything in the long term.
This is very meaningfull in order to establish context and a basis upon which to refute your accusation of propaganda. Propaganda not only was not a possible Idea back then (as we saw above), but even if it were, it could not have been as effective as it is today.Quote:
This is meaningful to the debate in what way?
Since propaganda does nothing but appeal to the uninformed minds.
Spino replyed to this one very well. I need not add anything else except that you are again using modern terminology and methodology to discredit the work of a person more than 2000 years ago. How empirical is that of you?Quote:
Of course... Herodotus was extremely well-informed -- one hundred years later, without any kind of way (not to forget motivation!) to carry out empirical research of any kind.
Again, your bias of herodotus...Quote:
Herodotus may have been the world's first real historian (or at least the West's) but the science which all of us hold such an interest in has, with him, a very, very crappy, sensationalist, and blatantly ignorant base which is rooted, basically, in hearsay. He was no Thucydides, friends. Amongst the ranks of the already rather hard-to-trust ancient historians (certainly when compared to the modern science), Herodotus is one of the worst when it comes to accuracy. His way of describing Persian warfare alone is enough proof -- not to mention the enormous volume in information of how he incorrectly described wars, foreign practices, and other cultures.
If you have proof of the validity of all that which you say is propaganda, tangible verifiable and credible proof please come forth with it. If not what we are left with is the facts and the facts come from those that wrote them and we uncovered.
Now if you wish to express your own personal opinions on a certain subject, please take care of specifying to the one seeking answers that these are indeed your own conclusions and opinions, and dont present them in an assertive manner which missinforms rather than informs.
In all due respect your original reply is what is Propaganda.
As for your various and unfounded accusations of the reason Herodotus chose to bring forth Historical facts of his world and time. Have you considered the context before comming to these conclusions?
herodotus was from Halicarnassus, his work is written in Ancient Doric, not the Attic-Ionic that was spoken in his City State.
Have you ever wondered why?
Have you even considered the possibility that he may have tryed to appeal not only to the warring Spartans and Athenians but also to his fellow Halicarnassians since, they, during the Persian Wars were sided with persia and not the Greeks?
Have you considered the possibility that he may have simply wanted to appeal to them by conveying a simple message?
"here we are bowing to persia when across the sea, other greeks are ready to give their lives and the life of their king to preserve greek autonomy"
I am guessing not, but it is ok. You have the right to your opinion and your analysis, as much as I have to my own, which I just stated above about Herodotus. let us debate plausibility now.
What is missing from your assertions is context friend, and that can be very detrimental in any serious studdy of history.
From what a documentary I watched about the Greco-Persian wars (hyping 300) asserted that Xerxes was notourious for his temper. And that he tended to give orders in his fits of rage that he normally wouldn't. The dessecration of Leonidas' body and the burning of Athens are two examples. He even ordered Athens rebuilt as soon as the fire was out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
That was Mardonius. Xerxes had given him pretty much a free hand in Greece.Quote:
He even ordered Athens rebuilt as soon as the fire was out.
The whole dialect thing is blown out of proportion. There are various passages in Plato's works where he has Socrates or one of his pupils inviting some Theban, Boioteian, Thessalian who happened to be there at the time of the discussion (assuming they were true) to talk about the subject at hand. I suppose I can make a whole fuss out of this but you can see how you are wrong about Greek dialects.
Actually these estimates are quite realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Source: http://www.umsystem.edu/upress/fall2006/hansen.htmQuote:
For 232 out of circa 1,000 city-states, the size of the urban center can be estimated, and for 636 city-states, we have an idea about the size of the territory. Employing a “shotgun method” Hansen derives approximate population figures and argues that, in the age of Alexander the Great, the population of all the Greek city-states must have totaled some 8-10 million people.
Also, according to Mogens Herman Hansen, the population of Ancient Greece increased by a factor larger than ten during the period from 800 BC to 400 BC, increasing from a population of 800,000 to a total estimated population of 10 to 13 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogens_Herman_Hansen
@Randarkmaan
Monarchy was abolished in Athens in 683 BC, the reforms of Solon established an aristocratic governement which lead to the period of the Tyrants. Specifically the tyrant Pissistratus and his sons from 561.
This "dynasty" of Tyrants was overthrown in 501-500, at which point Democracy was instated by the reforms of Cleisthenes.
Now it should be noted that the term "Tyrant" under the Ancient Greek context, did not mean someone who Tyranised the population, it carried no ethical implication and simply refered to anyone who had overthrown the established governement of a City-State. It was done more often than not with Popular Support, as most Tyrants of the then times came from Aristocratic Famillies, Land Owners, and had gained the popular support in their favor, through their influential powers (Giving land to the poor, freeing slaves etc).
The modern use of "Tyrant" refers to a Cruel Despot, that was not the case back then.
It was more like "We love this land-owner more than you therefore we support him".
So, did the Greek Victory of the Greco Persian wars save democracy, I would answer yes to this, since democracy was but an infant, only 10 years old at the Invasion of Darius, and 20 years old at the invasion of Xerxes.
If the Persians had been victorius and Athens never had the chance to become the big Cultural and Economic power that it became after the Persian Wars which permited the spread of Democratic Concepts to the rest of the Hellenic world, the advent of the great Philosophers and their influence to Western Ideology. Democracy would most probably not exist, or at least not reappear for a long time.
As for Sparta it was a militaristic type of governement, it had the Council, and it had 2 Kings, as to preserve a Balance. So it was not Monarchic, it was an Oligarchy.
The Athenian Democracy or, Classical Democracy is a Direct Democracy type of system as opposed to Representative Democracy type of system we enjoy today.
The terminology itself comes from 2 Greek Words. "Deimos" People and "Kratos" State, Power, so a People's State, the People's Power, a State governed by its People.
So the people voted on legislation and executive bills in their own right, and did not elect representatives that di so on their behalf.
Now, not all inhabitants of Athens were considered Citizens, but from those that were, the participation was constituted with no reference to economic class. Poor or Rich had same rights and participation as long as they were Citizens of Athens.
Citizenship was quite rigid by todays standards, only Males of Athenian Descent who had finished their military service (age 20+) were allowed to partake and vote. This effectivelly excuded, women, children, metics and slaves. Metics were permanent residents of Athens, that were not of athenian descent.
This population is estimated between a 30,000 individuals at its lowest and as high as 60,000 at its highest.
And, as difficult it is to immagine today, all of these people convened in a stadium (Amphitheater) refered to as the ecclesia, and debated and touk decisions (by vote) much like the Congress or Parliament representatives do today. Difference being that all citizens touk part on the process and were part of it with equal rights.
Other City-States addopted democratic systems not always exact copies of Athens, nevertheless, democratic.
---
Finally a comment on what is perceived as a general dislike of non-greeks. I think this is steming from the fact that Greeks called everyone else a Barbarian.
However, the word itself has a different sence under the greek Concept, a Barbarian today may refer to someone who is less civilized, uncultured, brutal, cruel.
But, back then, the word was used by the Greeks simply to refer to anyone else that did not speak Greek. (now if the Greek Dialects were that distinct then Greeks would call other Greeks barbarians too..but it is not the case).
It is innacurate to assume that Ancient Greeks dispised automatically all barbarian cultures they came in contact with. In fact greeks were very aware of the antiquity of other cultures such as the Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians and Mesopotamians from which they did borrow extensivelly.
You are however disregarding the Germanic idea of democracy, along with the Gallic one, and Phoenician one.
If I've understood correctly the Greeks were actually in general quite in awe of the vast and sophisticated Persia - which is why they had to fall back to the classic "sour grapes" of claiming moral superiority, the exact same way the Romans did with the Greeks not too long later.
Classic neighbour and class envy, in other words. :beam:
As for the Athenian democracy, I've seen it argued its unusually wide inclusiveness (ie. the classes below the hoplite rank also having a say) was the direct result of the importance of the navy for the city's power base, and hence the military importance of the lower classes which provided the rowers. "Trireme democracy" is a term I've seen it called by.
I've long had severe difficulties accepting this claim at a face value. First off so far as I know the first pioneers of "natural philosophy" were Ionian Greeks, that is, from the colonies on the coast of Asia Minor which for fairly obvious reasons spent a lot of time as Persian satrapies. Second, the Persians had a very hands-off approach to their provinces already out of purely practical considerations; an empire the size of theirs simply could not have been run with the means of communication available at the time without allowing the outlying regions a rather high degree of autonomy (the regional satraps for example tended to be virtual kings in all but name only, and but for their often somewhat formal subordination to the distant High King). In practice so long as the region paid its dues, raised troops for the army as requested and didn't cause trouble it was pretty much free to do as it pleased otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
Nevermind now that the Romans and not a few other communities had quite similar systems going - the Republic was pretty much run by a copy of the usual Greek hoplite oligarchy for quite a long time far as I know, so even if the structures of the poleis of Hellas had by some strange occurrence not survived a period of Persian suzerainty (and they certainly lived through varying phases of entirely native autocracy well enough) there's no particular reason to assume the republican/democratic idea and tradition of governement would not have flourished in one or another of its many other incarnations.
Heck, the Greco-Roman version survived through the abolute autocracy of the Empire, its collapse and the turbulent period of warlords of the Migrations, the feudalism of the Middle Ages and the remergence of absolute monarchy in the Early Modern period well enough... not to mention that quite a few communities cheerfully used entirely autochtonous versions through it all.
There's one thing about Thermopylae which has always kind of puzzled me though. The main offensive punch of the Achaemenid infantry was its missile troops, wasn't it ? The close-combat troops were there primarily to shield them from enemy shock troops and cavalry, and the Greeks were AFAIK perfectly aware of the fact (which is why at Marathon the hoplites ran for the last hundred meters or so - the really deadly ground where the Persian bows could be expected to be a serious threat to a hoplite). So why does Thermopylae seem to have been largely fought hand-to-hand ? Surely the Persians would have realized very quickly there was little point in engaging the Greek heavy infantry in hand-to-hand combat (and, indeed, likely knew it full well from the start - this wouldn't have been the first time they fought hoplites after all) and would've fallen back to burying them under clouds of arrows and slingstones and javelins instead - and as the hoplites presumably could not have pursued the skirmishers very far without leaving the tactical bottleneck of the pass and duly getting swamped by the vastly superior Persian numbers, there would have been rather little they could do about it. Even well-armoured infantry with large shields simply cannot withstand that sort of firepower indefinitely, as the Romans at Carrhae can also attest to, and while the Greeks had some missile troops of their own in all their armies, these could hardly have matched the composite bows and sheer skill and numbers of the Persian archers.
Was there some kind of terrain obstacle or field fortification behind which the Greeks were able to take cover or something ? That would certainly also have been helpful in keeping the already somewhat outmatched Persian close-combat troops at bay, and in ensuring the potentially troublesome cavalry kept away.
It is possible that the Persian side simply did not allow the proper deployment of missile troops for anything but a few ranks to fire directly into the ranks of defenders. High angle plunging shots must have also been somewhat of a crap shoot given that the pass at that point was no more than 20(?) yards wide (can anyone provide an accurate number?). No doubt the Greeks took the terrain into account when they originally built the defensive walls found throughout the pass. The Persian generals must have thought the approach to the Greek position afforded them little opportunity to make the most out of their most effective troops. Most likely the Persians initially believed that such a small force could be easily overwhelmed in a short period of time and did not want to waste time waiting for their archers to wear down the Greek defenders and break their morale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
It is also possible that the Persians knew the Greeks would retreat behind the wall for cover if it became obvious that the Persians intended to rely exclusively on the use of missile troops. The defensive walls erected throughout the various chokepoints of the pass were old but they were supposedly repaired and restored before the Persians arrived. Who really knows how tall these walls were? They may have been as high as a man's chest or shoulders, thus offering excellent cover against all attacks. On the other hand they may have been rather short, perhaps up to a man's waste, intended only to break up an attacker's momentum in a charge. Also consider that the average hoplite was extremely well protected against missiles, especially against arrows. It is an extremely tall order for your average arrow of that era to do harm to a fully armored hoplite, especially one making the most out of his thick hoplon shield. It is an even taller order if said hoplite is using a thick stone wall as cover. We're talking about a major waste of arrows, missiles and time. Persia's generals probably took these factors into account and believed that a frontal assault would be the only effective means of clearing the Greeks out of the pass.
What does seem clear is that there was good ground for missile troops on the Greek side of the pass. When it was learned that Persian troops discovered the hidden path around the pass the surviving Greeks were reported to take up a defensive position on a hillcock. We must assume this hillcock was somewhere in the Greek rear area and the surrounding terrain afforded Persia's missile troops enough space to deploy in number and whittle down the remaining Greek defenders.
The possibility I'd incline to is that Herodotus largely exaggerated the amount of hand-to-hand fighting at Thermopylae; considering the fact that there were so few, if any, Greek survivors I'd wonder who was left to tell the tale accurately aside from the Persians. Far more likely that an initial attempt was made on the pass by the Persians, but the tactically idiotic repeated charges depicted by Herodotus seem unlikely to me.
Given the sheer vastness of the Persian empire I find it very doubtful their rather sophisticated military system wouldn't have had some practical experience with fortified tactical chokepoints. All those mountain ranges alone are practically made for such tactical ploys, and the Persians quite likely employed them as well particularly to stump steppe raiders and suchlike.
Anyway, unless the Persian generals and/or Xerxes were genuine idiots and incompetents (which I find a little doubtful) I'm inclined to agree with Geoffrey's theory. The situation would essentially have been one of a siege assault, save with less daunting fortifications than usual, which tend to be characterized by a lot of hurty stuff flying through the air to make the other guys' lives miserable (especially if they're short on the ability to strike back) punctuated by repeated hit-and-run assaults to probe for weaknesses and just tire out the defenders.
Bet you they started looking for alternative routes already by day two, too, and kept up the pressure in the pass if only to pin the main force of the defenders there. This was a rather well-organized, professional and tried military system of a highly advanced empire after all, not some bunch of hairy macho barbarians convinced of anything other than a frontal assault being for wimps and little girls (not that most "barbarians" were actually that foolish about fortified places either, but they often lacked better solutions).
No I am not, however, they are out of topic here, would be nice to have a separate thread and talk about other cultures and their democratic innovations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
The topic here was Greece, and the discussion required clarification on the Athenian Democracy as related topic on the Battle of Thermopilae.
Just trying to stay on topic friend :)
Lets look at it from another perspective shall we? Natural Philosophy may have been pioneered elsewhere than athens, however, most often than not it is not where something is being pioneered that matters, rather where that something had the opportunity to flourish.Quote:
I've long had severe difficulties accepting this claim at a face value. First off so far as I know the first pioneers of "natural philosophy" were Ionian Greeks, that is, from the colonies on the coast of Asia Minor which for fairly obvious reasons spent a lot of time as Persian satrapies. Second, the Persians had a very hands-off approach to their provinces already out of purely practical considerations; an empire the size of theirs simply could not have been run with the means of communication available at the time without allowing the outlying regions a rather high degree of autonomy (the regional satraps for example tended to be virtual kings in all but name only, and but for their often somewhat formal subordination to the distant High King). In practice so long as the region paid its dues, raised troops for the army as requested and didn't cause trouble it was pretty much free to do as it pleased otherwise.
Nevermind now that the Romans and not a few other communities had quite similar systems going - the Republic was pretty much run by a copy of the usual Greek hoplite oligarchy for quite a long time far as I know, so even if the structures of the poleis of Hellas had by some strange occurrence not survived a period of Persian suzerainty (and they certainly lived through varying phases of entirely native autocracy well enough) there's no particular reason to assume the republican/democratic idea and tradition of governement would not have flourished in one or another of its many other incarnations.
And even if some things were pioneered somewhere else it is in Athens that they were permited to Flourish, many personalities of the time came from all over the hellenic world to Athens where they could not only express their ideas but also debate them with others, listen to others, expand and evolve their own.
Athens was the home of Plato's Academy aswell as Aristotle's Lyceum for very important reasons.
Now, can we say with any degree of certainty that if Athens did not exist another place would have had this same opportunity.
Eventually somewhere something would have hapened, however, I think that the very nature of Athens, its democratic nature, presented a very fertile environment which contributed to the flourishment of cultural expression and evolution, and at a much higher degree, however loose any Governing of other cities under a given Monarchy may have been.
Dont you think?
No, not really. You don't need democracy for great thinkers, artists and whatnot to get patrons after all, or an environment where they can flourish. All that is really needed is the absence of active repression and certain other, rather random and circumstantial, details but the latter aren't really something people have much control over much as they might wish otherwise.
Besides, the oligarchic for of democracy the Greek poleis practised - when and if they now did - wouldn't actually have been that far removed from assorted other forms of local communal governance the Persians most definitely did not bother doign anything about in other parts of their empire. As long as the High King got his dues he didn't really care too much what the heck the assorted provinces actually did, after all.
Heck, the Persians invaded Greece mainly because the peninsulars had been stirring up trouble among their cousins across the Aegean anyway, and barbarians beyond the border fomenting revolt and unrest inside an empire has always been a source of headaches for their rulers and more often than not a motivation for further military operations abroad - even when the empires would really rather not have reached that far otherwise.
What a wild, inaccurate and inexplicably prejudiced description of Herodotus this is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Herodotus emphasizes time and again that he is telling us 'what is being told' about events in the past; he almost never claims solid knowledge and countless times impresses upon his readers not to believe everything that is related and to use their own judgement.
Your comparison of Herodotus and Thucydides is neither here nor there. Of course Herodotus was no Thucydides. Thucydides was not a historian, he was a chronicler. T. was in his late twenties when the Peloponnesian War broke out, and he set out to gather information from the start with an eye to publishing his account of events.
Herodotus was a pioneer of modern historiography, not because his account conforms to modern standards of evidence-shifting, accuracy and consistency, but because he deliberately sought to make sense of human affairs by approaching them from all possible angles, and particularly from the angle of the human condition: geography, customs, psychology.
Moreover, H. was part of a critical historiographic tradition, most of which was sadly lost to us. He is said to have read and partly copied or emulated the work of a Hekataios of Miletus of whom we have only one, but very telling quote left: 'I write what I deem true, for the stories of the Greeks are manifold and seem to me ridiculous.'
Until then, the scribes of kings and high priests had recorded annals lacking in the most basic standards of accuracy, lacking the most basic knowledge of the world outside the city gates and certainly lacking even the beginnings of a critical spirit. Even the Jews of the time, who were no mean chroniclers and historians, wrote sober accounts in which fact, cause and consequence were all severely distorted by their belief in an all-powerful God. Compared to them Herodotus was a true intellectual revolutionary.
Besides, already the dispassionate, deeply humane and worthy treatment of the Persian opponent in his Histories should be enough to convince us that he was not a vulgar propagandist as you suggest.
Funnily enough, the hype of Thermopylae which by some is seen as a symbol of defense of democracy, was rather the opposite:
The democracy of Athens arose because the Athenians came to rely heavily on their fleet during the Persian wars, and the fleet was manned by slaves and poor - people which suddenly became indispensable and therefore had to be granted more influence and basic rights in order to assure they wouldn't prefer Persian rule over the Athenian oligarchy. When the threat of the Persians was gone, attempts immediately begun at revoking these rights, and of course - to diminish the importance these men had in defeating the Persians. That was necessary to be able to revoke the rights of the poor and the in some aspects democratic constitution. It's quite ironic that the battle which is presented as THE battle in defense of democracy in reality was one of the main methods used by those who revoked and destroyed the Athenian democracy.
...not to mention all other things worth questioning about that battle:
- the Persian numbers: 250,000 - 500,000 men seems impossible, since the first time such large armies appear in history apart from Thermopylae is over 2,000 years later, at a time when world population is at least 10 times as large if not 100 times larger or even more... Maybe 40,000 - 150,000 Persian troops is a more realistic guess (the entire roman army during the empire period numbered around 360,000 men IIRC, and it was seldom able to muster more than 120,000 for a campaign - and that was at a time when world population was much larger than at the time of Thermopylae).
- the Greek numbers: maybe 300 - 15,000 Greeks in the actual battle of Thermopylae is likely
- the Greek losses: did the Greeks really fight to the last man? Was there really only 1 survivor? Or were there just heavy losses and a rout?
- the Persian losses and tactics: did they really charge for long enough to suffer huge enough casualties to make the battle matter for the Greeks? Or did they just stay back and bombard them with arrows, with trying charges every once in a while to see when the Greek line would be thinned out enough to break? Was the Persian commander really as impatient as described? Or did he stay back, disciplined and calm, seeking to open alternate paths through the pass - first by the naval battle of Artemision, where the Athenian fleet managed to hold back the Persians and prevent them from opening this path, and then by finding a path through the mountains
- the "traitor" that showed the Persians the way through the mountains. Was it really a traitor, or was it just Persian reconnaissance that found the pass?
etc.
I think that you do need democracy. You can be a thinker if not in a democracy, but I think that you do need democracy in order for that thinker to be able to express their ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Because in any other type of governement as soon as these Ideas seem to challenge the establishment, your simply going to dissapear or silenced.
And History is testimony to that in many occasions, yes exceptions are aswell, yet these are exceptions, as with all things in life, there are exceptions, true advancement comes from a context that gives the opportunity for it which in turn contributes to that advancement independently of its stance towards status quo.
That being said, I shall agree to disagree with you on that aspect, you have the right to your own Ideas about this aswell, let history do the rest :)
My friend, my friend, my friend... you are speaking of intellectuals here -- the extremely limited minority of Hellenics (i.e. ancient Greeks) who were familiar with the advances that ancient Greece made, often held as widespread throughout the territory in mainstream history (that is: "300" history). Your typical Greek -- that is, the people who fought at Thermopylae -- had barely an inkling, if one at all, of what philosophy, architecture, surgery or whatever else the ancient Greeks produced that Rome improved, was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
You have read my post, yes? Then I am sure you have read the part where I distinguish between modern historiography and pre-modern historiography, I assume?Quote:
I am a studdent of Human History, promoting propaganda goes against all the principles that render History a science in itself.
Because it seems, reading your post, that you have not. Herodotus was the West's first historian, friend (if not the world's), and he was not bound in any kind of way, form, or shape, to the tenets of objectivity, empirical research and scientific justification.
You seem to like Herodotus. Let me tell you why the man is not to be trusted when it comes to trying to reconstruct the actual happenings of an event (say, around the time of the Greco-Persian Wars).
You (and others) all view this from a Greek point of view. Have you ever viewed this from a Persian (that is to say Iranian, to be correct) point of view? Have you ever wondered if Herodotus' writings on Achaemenid Iran were correct? Have you ever pondered the possibility that Herodotus really knew nothing substantial on the matter and was viewing things from the typically biased Greek side of things, that saw the Iranians ("Persians") as dirty savages, so-called "barbarians"?
Apparently you haven't.
You see, Herodotus didn't know, nor did he understand, the Iran of that day. He wrote about an empire of slaves, ruled by a tyrant, commandeered by its despot's every whim, in this case to make illicit war upon an innocent grouping of "free" city-states (the notion that Sparta was "free" is of course hilarious) -- and then to fail, of course, despite the supposedly immense difference in numbers.
All of it is a lie.
Achaemenid Iran was a dictatorship. It was a despotate. All of that is true: but in the context of the time that was only natural, for even in the so-called "democracy" of Athens was the city-state ruled, in reality, by a virtual oligarchy which jealously guarded its self-bestowed rights.
In fact, in the context of the time, Achaemenid Iran was an extremely benevolent empire. Countries, tribes, clans, regions and nations (an endless list, "a thousand nations" as Herodotus writes -- one of his few metaphors for truth instead of lie) conquered by Cyrus the Great, his son Cambyses and his relative Darius were allowed to live in peace and abide by their own rules -- not those of Persepolis. This is how the cities of Greek Asia Minor had slaves while, in Iran, people were paid fairly and squarely for their labor.
Meanwhile, the so-called tyranny that was this Achaemenid Empire was in reality a system most akin to the modern idea of a federation. Of course, these are ancient times, and this 'federation' was upheld and enforced by Achaemenid military might, and was based on coercion and not the typical values we, modern people, think of when we think 'federation'. This meant that, indeed, troops and ships (mostly Phoenician, those latter) were provided by Achaemenid 'allies' under pressure and threat of repercussion, but they were not commandeered. A crucial difference.
Of course, the idea that this was an "illicit," "illegal" war against "free" city-states is laughable. A simple case of "national" bias (the modern, ideological term 'national' used here lacking better words): to the Hellenic Herodotus, Iranians were savages, barbaroi, as foreign as can be and therefore as ill-understood as can be. Greek city-states were neither "free", nor can any war in that day and age be called "illegal," without tapping into a substantial pool of bias and prejudice -- from both sides. It depended entirely on who was writing (in our case, all Greeks) what was "legal" and what was "illegal," for instance.
This all adds up to present you the fact that Herodotus did not know the Iran of the Achaemenids. In fact, the man did not even take the time to get to know the entire culture. Realizing that he was writing 2500 years ago, this is completely understandable (the man practically invented Western historiography, so give him a break for his faults while doing so) -- but it does make him a very bad source to rely on for claims as to conduct, numbers, strategy and outcomes, be they Greek or Persian. The man is simply too held down by the constraints of his own time to take as fact.
As you said, friend, and as I explained (saying that the mutual intelligibility of Greek was present only in the extremely limited upper castes of ancient Greek society): Herodotus was a literate member of the intellectual class of ancient Greece (Hellas). He had a marked interest, if not a full-blown political motivation, to unify the members of his class (speaking for all of the Greeks, of course!) against the widespread bloodshed that took place in the Peloponnesian War -- which had just reached another ceasefire.Quote:
As for your various and unfounded accusations of the reason Herodotus chose to bring forth Historical facts of his world and time. Have you considered the context before comming to these conclusions?
herodotus was from Halicarnassus, his work is written in Ancient Doric, not the Attic-Ionic that was spoken in his City State.
The man, therefore, needed a unifying element. That element became the Persian empire, the neighboring titan -- and the evil, savage, slave-driven empire which stood as a reminder that "Greece" (non-existant in the fullest at the time) stood for freedom, liberty -- and perhaps even democracy. Thermopylae, after all, Herodotus reminds us on quite numerous occasions, was fought by free men, citizen-soldiers of the Greek states. Not the supposedly conscripted, unfree "slaves" (in Herodotus' completely incorrect treatise on the matter) that manned Xerxes' army.
So, in the end, Thermopylae was not about heroic Greeks standing for their so-called "values" (as if ideology existed at the time) against their exact opposites. It was (mostly -- especially concerning this movie, "300") about the stubborn nature of Spartan honor: a Spartiate simply did not run. E tan epi tas. And every single one of them knew the consequences of choosing the wrong alternative (as the only survivor found out the hard way -- he died at Mantinea, I've read, charging the 'Persians' on his own to save his lost honor). Not about any far-fetched ideas of some mutual Greek ideology -- which, if existant at all, was prevalent only amongst the intellectuals of society... an extremely limited group.
I thought that there was small wall in the pass which the Greeks made use of.
Well I've got news for you since you seem to have forgotten something interesting: the Enlightement was an era of absolute monarchies. And, yes, sometimes the thinkers and and playwrights and whatnots went and did annoy some high courtier or crownhead or similar enough, and found themselves exiled or banned or whatever. Most had fairly little trouble finding new patrons elsewhere though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
The Renaissance didn't yet have real absolute monarchies (although there were a few spirited stabs in that direction), but it is rather questionable if the smaller kings and barons and warlords and conservative city councils were meaningfully more accommodating to radical thinkers. Actually, given that this would have been the era of general social, economical and religious unrest for a rather large number of complicated reasons, likely rather less.
The East I know rather less about in these matters, but I'm aware that the Muslims and Chinese and Indians and Japanese had their quite creative periods as well.
@Baba Ga'on
First of all, permit me to express an appreciation for your reply, as I perceive its tone and its spirit to be very open and welcoming to pursue this exchange of Ideas on the curent subject.
I think we have both tryed to express the same thing up to a certain degree, based on your reply. This is the question of context, that I agree as well. Any serious evaluation of events, evaluation of credibility describing certain events aswell as a measure of accuracy has to be made from the point of view of both sides, it is otherwise biassed.
No argument on that, I understand completelly, however, I am guessing that you can also understand now that your first reply which prompted my reply, did not express that tone since it was very specific and focussed on giving the end result of your assessment without expressing the steps of evaluation that you employed to arrive at the expressed conclusion.
This last reply in our discussion from you does that, which is great since it demonstrates your angle on the topic. In other words I now see from where you are comming from.
And we are in agreement as far as the methodology is concerned :)
More in detail to the question at hand, I believe that Adrian II has made some very valid points about Herodotus however, which presents another angle on the validity of what Herodotus has chosed to record. I shall therefore not repeat that angle and take as granted that it has been taken under consideration.
What I will reply on is the questions of Intellectuals and the question of Spartan Honor as you call it.
I shall do so, assuming that we both, by now understand and acknowledge, that modern Ideologies of Nationalism have no place in our evaluation of the events that happened at Thermopilae. Also, that attempts for Propaganda are also not what traspired either, since we have established that both Nationalism and the Idea of Propaganda are relativelly modern concepts, and therefore highly unlikelly that either the Persian Perspective or the Greek Perspective were influenced by them.
Yet, the greatest challenge that lies before us is that we also, rid from our own minds these two Ideologies. We are here both part of a world that has been marked by these ideologies, it is, (unfortunently) how our present world works, and we both, I think, agree that our evaluation and way of thinking towards events that happened prior to these ideologies can be influenced by them.
Finally, I am doing so, assuming that we also agree to the etymology of the word "barbarian". I hope you understand that Greeks called barbarians all other cultures that simply did not speak Greek, and the word did not have ethical implication (in other words it did not mean brutal decadent, inferior etc).
And so, we have a very good idea of life in many city-states. Specifically Athens from people such as Plato, Aristotle, Aeschines and many others.
As such, what you refer to as "Intellectuals" today may seem like a small minority, however, back then all Free Citizens, were given an education, knew how to read and write, the basis of music and drawing as well as a very rigorous training and participation in Physical Education(Gymnastics). Coincidently it is at the Gymnasiums and Lycaeums of Athens that Philosophers would also go to and express their Ideas.
So to say that only a minority was educated is semi-acurate, as we know from earlyer replies in this thread the minority of the population was actually considered Citizens, between 30,000 to 60,000 athenians. These athenians independently of their economic state also knew how to read and write.
So yes it was a minority in one sence, but in another sence it was not as you say only the "elite" of the population, a few hundred individuals or the most rich.
the different economic state only affected the "quality" of the education the parent of a certain child could afford. The most rich could even hire people such as Plato and Aristotle themselves for the education of their children. But that does not mean that the others did not receive any education.
There is much documentation about the Athenian Daily Life by several authors, but a nice read on the subject can be found here:
http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/cl...life/index.htm
Now Sparta was unique since it was a military society. Still, young boys, just like in Athens went to School at the age of 6-7, and were also tought to read and write. Yet in Spartan education, music and drawing was really not an item on the curiculum, military training was. While in Athens gils did not go to School, they were educated to read and write in the comfort of the confines of their house. In Sparta girls were sent to school much like the Boys and also received military training. Boys were trained in Brotherhoods, and their military training continued till the Age of 30, however they did remain in active military service till the age of 60.
Yes the slaves that worked the land of the land owners may not have received this education, but then again it was not them that went to fight in the wars either. It was the free citizens of a City state that also constituted the Military force. And it was not made by uneducated soldiers. Quite the contrary.
Same could be said for Free citizens living outside of the City State (free shepherds etc), but, my friend, they were the minority here, as most people would live in the city state.
So I think when Herodotus describes the Greek Military, to him, it goes without saying, that being specific to explain all this in his writting is really not necessary, as he understands that every citizen that would be reading his writting would know them. It was how life was for Greek Citizens in their respective City States.
Herodotus did not write what he did thinking about us more than 2000 years later. he wrote what he did based on accounts from his contemporaries and for his contamporaries.
In conclusion of this point, we are not talking about the extremelly limited minority here, we are talking of the Greek Citizen General population that defines the Ancient Greek City States, and the people that fought in these battles.
Now the second point that you raise about Spartans merelly defending their own honor. I would argument on that, based on the understanding which you yourself have put forth of evaluating a society with its own concept and from its own perspective.
As such, to the Spartans, their Honor, their way of Life, their own Choice to Choose when to Fight, How to fight, when to Live and when to lay down their own lives according to their own Traditions and Beliefs, represents their Autonomy.
And as we have established that the values of "Freedom" are later concepts in relation to the battle of Thermopilae. The concept of Autonomy itself is not.
To them however, great, benign, and fair, the Persian Empire and its sistem may have been, accepting to be ruled by a Persian King, the King of Kings, would be the same as losing that Autonomy. And for that Autonomy they fought, for the Autonomy of Sparta, and for the equal Autonomy of their neigboring City States, made up of other, Autonomous Greeks.
So, let Herodotus on the side, and let me ask you aswell to view this question from the perspective of the Spartans and how they would have perceived the Invasion of their lands, by the benign Persian Empire.
*offers a glass of 7star Metaxa cogniac* ~:cheers:
And a final word about Herodotus, he was born in Halicarnassus, he did grow up in Halicarnassus, same as Artemisia the ruler of Halicarnassus during the battle at Thermopilae, and Halicarnasus, as part of Ionia was a client City-State of Xerxes, that contributed of its army to the war effort. I think, that Herodotus had a good idea of the Persian Empire. However, most Historians do agree that his judgement of it was biassed. That however as expressed above, is beyond the point, if we are to analyse the Greeks from their own perspective.
Also, in relation to the movie 300, I agree that its portrayal of the Persian Empire is completelly false historically, it is fantasy at best, it is artistic interpretation. I much more appreciated the movie "Alexander" in that regard.
There is no argument about the movie, I have expressed my opinion of it, in the multple "300" threads in these forums.
:bow:
Well when the greeks found out that the persians where going through the mountains and attack them from behind, Leonidas did send away the largest part of the army, and just stayed with a few (the 300 Spartans, the Thespians and the Thebans).Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
IIRC Xerxes first attempted to use the Saka, they failed. Then tried the best the Immortals (although they should actually be the Companions IIRC, a small miss by Herodotus, the persian words aren't too different), when they proved to be unable (atleast without unnecessesarily(sp?) heavy casualties) he pulled them pack. When the Immortals then where going to attack the greeks in the rear, he sent the various less than useful levies, to hold the greeks in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Both are possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Most of what we know about the Achaemenids we know through Herodotus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
The only extant Persian written sources are a few hundred clay tablets and fragments of same (now in Chicago), a handful of royal inscriptions and the so-called Cyrus Cylinder (in the British Museum). They are all stereotypical, bland, reflecting the administrative efficiency of the empire, its 'multicultural make-up (Aramaic, Greek and Indian dialects were among the spoken and written languages in Persepolis) and finally the lack of individuality of Persian scribes. The same applies to Persian art, which was rich and thoroughly eclectic but never lively, always monumental and inspired solely by the service of the Great King, and hence not very informative as to historic events, the Persian state of mind or the inner workings of the court or state apparatus. Persian art became exhausted within a hundred years after Cyrus, petering out into the shameless ostentation of the later palaces.
In view of the dearth of Persian sources, H. is a veritable fountain of knowledge (and not just on the Persian empire, either).
As to his sources, H. never claimed to have travelled Persian lands. He tells us that most of what he writes about the Persians is from Persian sources, just as most of what he writes about the Greeks is from Greek sources. On the life of Cyrus, he prefers the Persian account above any Greek versions. His professed respect for the traditional Persian emphasis on truth and honesty (rooted in Zoroastrianism) may be one reason for this choice.
Apart from his youth and adult years in Halikarnassos, Samos and Egypt (in each of which he would have met knowledgeable Persians) H. must also have met Persian refugees in Athens at the time of his writing, for instance Zopyrus III (whom he mentions).
Furthermore, any suggestion that Greek city-states and the Persian empire were somehow separated by water-tight cultural barriers is nonsensical. There has been so much cross-fertilisation that elites on both sides would have been quite aware of each other's culture and society.
Much of H.'s bias is easily discernable because he is so open about it. His work is eminently transparent, which is one of the qualities most sought in modern historiography. His notion of the Persian 'God-King' for instance is obviously the result of the Persian practice of proskynesis (prostrating, kneeling, even kissing the ground before the King) which was abhorrent to Greeks, who reserved such honours for their Gods. Hence the assumption that Persians venerated their King like a God.
As for the message that H. wanted to convey, my own view is that he wanted to warn his fellow Athenians against their hubris in the Peloponnesian conflagration. In his book he treats both the downfall of Kroisos and that of Xerxes as examples of men brought down by their hubris . In the sense that he treats these two men as essentialy human and driven by the same lust for power as the protagonists in Greek tragedy, H.'s outlook is profoundly 'modern', certainly non-racist and non-propagandist. If anything, he made propaganda for a more modest stance on the part of his favoured Athens in order to prevent its downfall in a manner similar to that of Kroisos or Xerxes. Which, by the way, conforms entirely to the assessment of most modern classicists with regard to the causes and circumstances of the downfall of Athens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The 18th Century Enlightenment period was spear headed under a context of increassing dissatisfaction with repressive rule.
It is out of context to the current discussion. I am talking about cultural advances in the Ancient Era.
And I still remain with my previously expressed view. As I said friend, I agree to disagree with you. ~:cheers:
Very interesting interpretation Adrian II, I have to say I find myself agreeing with it. There is many exemples in Greek Literature of someone choosing to demonstrate a point that critisises Greek Ways by showing as an exemple what happened to people or cultures on the exterior of the Greek world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Maybe Herodotus chose this particular one on the Parsian Empire, because he felt comfortable doing so, being Greek from a Greek City State that was nevertheless a subject of that Empire during the event chronology in question. Maybe he felt a certain privillege doing so compared to the mainland Greeks.
Given that your claim was that thinkers and suchlike need democracy to flourish, neither of the above really hold water. One, the Enlightement period is a glaring example of the contrary. Two, I fail to see why the exact period of world-history were somehow very relevant given the somewhat categorical nature of your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
And agreeing to disagree makes for no argument at all, which is boring and why I am cheerfully not going to leave it at that. ~;p
GAH! Don't forget about the archaeologists! ~:mecry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Although the area is not of my personal persuasion the archaeological record here is quite vast and if I'm remembering correctly from former colleagues (and I like to think I am) there is alot it can contribute here. The light that it can shed on Thermopylae is that of the armament and experience of the Persian army prior. They typically had incredibly light arms; the armor and shields of its heaviest troops often not exceeding wicker in nature. The bulk of their combat experience came from fighting highly disorganized hillsmen and tribes who's collective might could not and did not forge the Persians into any kind of major fighting force to be reckoned with in a man for man comparison with Greek city states.
Are you quite sure about this ? Them Greek vase paintings show not a few Persian soldiers in what look like lionothorax cuirasses; even if it's a bit of an artistic convention (as those kinds of cuirasses were something the painters were used to depicting) given the generally high standards of accuracy in depictions of both sides' dress, war gear etc. in such sources one would rather think this was a clear hint that at least some of the infantry used textile-based body armour the Greeks regarded as similar and comparable to theirs. Armour would hardly have been an unknown factor for the Persians either - it was widely used in Mesopotamia around the time they conquered their empire in the form of scale cuirasses and they doubtless used it at the time as well, and AFAIK the light and relatively cheap linothorax traces its ancestry into Egypt of roughly the same period which the Persians also conquered. Moreover accounts of the Spartan campaign into Asia Minor soon after the Persian Wars suggest at least some Persian cavalrymen wore quite substantial body armour (there are mentions of the lighter javelin-type spears Greek cavalry used beside the heftier dory breaking to little effect against cuirasses in hand-to-hand combat), and one cannot discount Xenophon's discussions of Persian cavalry armour from not too long later either.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
As for the shields, I rather suspect the woven-wicker construction gets an unfairly short shrift in most assessements. The design would hardly have been used so long and so widely if it didn't work after all. If I've understood the basic principles of the structure correctly it would appear to me that the shields it produced, while certainly not as solid as the bronze-faced heavy ones for example the Greeks used, would nonetheless be rather resilient by the virtue of retaining a degree of flexibility in the structure and take a fair bit of effort with a suitable "chopper" to take apart due to their woven structure. Certainly the huge pavise-like spara would have been rather tough by its sheer size and volume alone, and in any case as if I've understood correctly among the common weapons the Persian shields encountered were axes and kopis-type swords (both widely popular sidearms in Persia and neighbouring regions), both of considerable cleaving ability, making it rather unlikely the design of their shields wouldn't take the need to survive fairly intense abuse into consideration.
They also had their assorted internal conflicts - succession-dispute civil strife, rebellious satraps, that sort of thing, essentially pitting the Persian military machinery against itself. They'd also only recently first subdued the Greek colonies in Asia Minor and then suppressed the uprisings the Greeks of Hellas had played their part in fostering, so even if they didn't have the experience of the endemic inter-communal strife of the pathologically pugnacious poleis (which apparently rather puzzled the Persians), I suspect you're selling them a little short. Nevermind now that the more regular standing contignents doubtless campaigned over the entire Persian empire for years as a matter of course, as now tended to be the case of the permanent formations of the state proper in such realms.Quote:
The bulk of their combat experience came from fighting highly disorganized hillsmen and tribes who's collective might could not and did not forge the Persians into any kind of major fighting force to be reckoned with in a man for man comparison with Greek city states.
Of course not, perish the thought. And when it comes to archaeology and the Persian army at the time of Thermopylae, an even better case can be made than what was stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
This army incorporated troops from the various subject peoples -- including Greeks! -- and its arms and armour of course reflected this make-up, up to and including the Scythian battle-axe that killed Callimachus at Marathon and later nearly killed Alexander at Gran. The remains of such axes have been found, confirming their portrayal on Attic vases. So has a large number of Persian arrow heads near Thermopylae, suggestive of the reported fate of the last Spartans.
The Persian wicker shield probably consisted of wet leather threaded through with wicker intended to render it impenetrable to arrows.
We have a Babylonian contract from the second year of Darius II that lists the outfit of a horseman as follows: 'A horse along with girdle and bridle, a helmet, an iron cuirass, a bronze shield, 120 arrows, an iron mace and two iron spears' (mind you, Herodotus mentions 'armoured Persian cavalry').
Etcetera, &cetera.
Yet, as every expose of Ancient Persian history, art and archaeology will tell you, most of the evidence depends on contemporary Greek sources and Herodotus in particular.
Watchman
I could throw those questions and perceptions out to a few people closer to the primary material than I will have or ever will be if you would like me to. I was speaking from memory of what they had stated in casual discussions, formal presentations to faculty, and lectures. The evidence is just not there to support a well armoured Persian infantry and the cleaving ability of the sword genre you speak is negated by the nature of Hoplite warfare.
Adrian
The Persian wicker shield probably consisted of wet leather threaded through with wicker intended to render it impenetrable to arrows.
Which tended to be quite ineffective against the hoplite armament is what I remember from the information.
We have a Babylonian contract from the second year of Darius II
Isn't that dated around 60 years after the event in question?
Contemporaries in their histories would view gaps in factual evidence through a Hellenic lense and, vase painters in particular, are not to be taken in the literal always. I believe that in sources like Herodotus the word "cavalry" covers a lot of ground.
Both of you mentioned cavalry as in evidence of armour. The problem is that cavalry's role (aside from chariots) was not that of frontal shock troops, the stirrup absent, their value was regulated to screen, skirmish, cav vs cav and flank/envolopment shock, their armament went along with the economics and valuing the inherent expense. Also the role played at the battle in question is of little value until the game was practically up, if memory serves.
Regarding the Persian wicker shield: It could resist arrows but a strong enough spearthrust pierced it, dissapointing the man it was supposed to protect. The bronze shields of the hoplites resisted both arrows and spear thrusts, not to mention that the Persians often found it difficult to reach the Greeks with their spears because the Greeks were able to reach the Persians with their spears earlier, not to meniton that they often pierced their shields.
I will have to agree with the vase painters not being vary accurate sources.Quote:
... vase painters in particular, are not to be taken in the literal always.
Vase Potery and Painting was an occupation that the slaves had, and these would not go to the front, (some exceptions exist) they often painted from second hand accounts based on what those that saw transmited.
While, depictions of domestic activity are more accurate, since it was based on first person account, depictions of battles cannot be taken as literally.
Well, there obviously were good reasons why the Greek hoplites - specialist shock infantry - used very solid bronze-faced shields instead of woven-wicker ones ! I'm just saying it is a bit presumptuous to assume the Persian shields were next to useless in hand-to-hand combat as one often seems assumed, which would be somewhat strange indeed as they were chiefly carried by the men whose main job was to specifically shield the light archers from enemies trying to get in close...
A good spear-thrust could certainly penetrate one - accounts of that happening aren't unusual with much heavier and sturdier shields either, AFAIK - but whether it could do so enough to actually reach the shield's owner is an entirely different question, all the more so as the fellow will doubtless try to twist it so as to pull the spear out of line. And any shield is in any case most certainly better than nothing for the crush of hand-to-hand combat.
A helmet plus linothorax-equivalent would hardly amount to "well armoured" you know. The Greek hoplites usually had greaves besides that at the minimum, although keeping in mind that there was a period when they only wore helmets it should be obvious mere weight of arms was not all that much of a key factor in the hoplite way of war.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
By what I understand of it the purpose of the linothorax family of light armour was never to give the wearer particularly great degree of protection, but rather to endow him with decent levels for little weight and discomfort and relatively low cost, particularly compared to metal armours. The base design had been developed by Late Bronze Age Egyptians as standard-issue light body armour for close-combat infantry, one remembers, so a certain degree of affordability and comfort are pretty much a given. Which is also why the Greeks liked it; the ones shown in vase-paintings tend to have a fairly broad band of scale reinforces around the middle, partly no doubt for decoration but those would hardly have hurt the cuirasses' stoppin power either. If the customer was willing to take the extra weight and foot the bill there was of course nothing to stop an armourer from covering the whole thing with scales, for obviously much improved protection. Much heavier and more protective metal armours, such as that one built-up iron-plate cuirass excavated from the grave of whowasitnow, Philip II IIRC, could also be made to look like linothoraxes presumably for fashion reasons.
I don't really understand where the bit about the cleaving ability of kopis choppers "being negated by the nature of hoplite warfare" comes from though, as the things were very popular sidearms among Greek warriors both mounted and foot (although they usually called it machaira). I understand it was specifically valued for its great cutting power, much like the Medieval falchion, and vase-paintings often show it wielded by both Greeks and Persians (it was also quite popular all over the Middle East; one theory traces its ancestry to the Late Bronze Age sickle-swords such as the Egyptian khopesh, which were widely used and apparently designed for quite similar performance).
The Assyrians had armoured cavalry many centuries before the event in question. So had all their neighbours who calmly divided their empire amongst themselves when it collapsed. So had the Persians when they came down from their highlands to win themselves the greatest empire the world had yet seen. Especially given how central part archery played in warfare in the whole region, and the fact cavalrymen there as in Greece didn't yet use shields, what would you bet the odds of the warrior aristocracies that mainly formed the cavalry arm to have ceased using decent armour in the meantime to be ?Quote:
Isn't that dated around 60 years after the event in question?
Personally, I refuse to assume them to have been idiots with a deathwish. These same fellows often enough had to fight the nimble horse-archers of the steppes as well.
No. And not just concerning the fact no cavalry ever was at its best at charging formed infantry frontally.Quote:
Both of you mentioned cavalry as in evidence of armour. The problem is that cavalry's role (aside from chariots) was not that of frontal shock troops, the stirrup absent, their value was regulated to screen, skirmish, cav vs cav and flank/envolopment shock, their armament went along with the economics and valuing the inherent expense. Also the role played at the battle in question is of little value until the game was practically up, if memory serves.
The Greeks alone had more than enough occasions of decisive cavalry charges, in some cases also right against hoplite shieldwalls, and their mounted war gear tended to include a fair bit of body armour not in the least due to the absence of shield. Muscle-cuirasses were common enough for example - after all, anyone who could afford to fight on horseback in Greece had to be seriously rich and could thus afford virtually any equipement he wanted. Persian cavalry, largely aristocrats likewise, was at least as capable and well equipped (although the heavy end of body armour among them would mainly have been scale rather than monolith bronze), better mounted, and far more numerous for fairly obvious reasons.
And forget the stirrup thing, it's long since been proven to be complete bollocks. Dedicated assault cavalry such as the Macedonian hetairoi and the cataphracts of the steppes alone should dispel any doubts as to the effectiveness of cavalry without the dangly things.
Persian (and that picked up from the Macedonians and Greeks along the way) cavalry would not have had much to do at Thermopylai of course, but then the battle was more of a siege assault anyway and cavalry never has much to do in those. Here even less, as there was rather little patrolling and raiding and suchlike - the jobs of cavalry during sieges - to be done due to geography issues.
To totally different examples there and in their role, mechanics and technology...should delve into them a bit more before making sweeping claims of absolute divinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I offered what I know from an objective stance and from those in academia, I'm leaving it at that. Maybe its just your style but you seem to seek evidence only to support your claim and ignore anything else and you do it in a highly confrontational and almighty manner which I do not wish to engage further as it is not a vehicle for constructive discussion but a yelp of claims and definates almost from an unnecessary fear of being viewed inadequate.
I will only urge you to find those in academia around you, if that is where you are at, or anywhere involved in archaeology and they can give you primary material from the time and place. I could state a truth that the Hittite infantry of prior were more heavily armoured then the Persian infantry at the time in question, but what does it mean? nothing, just as your Assyrian assertion which abandons the political and cultural climate of the time and evidence of the period that I know of and related.
The main difference between the hetairoi and the kataphrakts is the amount of armour involved; aside form that both were dedicated shock lancers, and both had a quite glaring lack of stirrups. The Companions lacked saddles too, for that matter.
The track record of both speaks for itself about the essentialness of equestrian gear like stirrups for effective close-combat cavalry.
I'm always open to new info. If you happen to know something interesting about Hittite infantry then do tell, although I was under the impression around those times the most armour the infantry of the chariot empires could hope for was a helmet and some nonmetal body defence...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The kataphraktoi did indeed have stirrups which they adopted from the avars who no doubt obtained them from those populations further east before they were pushed west. As far as I know it hasn't been shown to be an independant development from its conception in India and further east. This allowed them to not only take on the role of shock lancers but also be more heavily armoured.
The hetairoi did not have stirrups, nor any saddle, and neither were they shock lancers or frontal shock in any form. The revolution in warfare at this time was not only the professional phalanx, but the usage of cavalry as a force of opportunity to attack breaks, breaches, and flanks. This is born out throughout Alexander's campaign, not to mention under Philip at Chaeronea.
:vulcan:
...what ?
I think you just gave me a headache. Christ, I can't deal with this at this hour. The dismemberment of your arguments is postponed until tomorrow, I can't start writing essays this late.
Permit me to come in the middle here.
The Question of Cavalry is somewhat controversial right now amogst Historians.
many view the use of Cavalry as ShadeHonestus is discrbing.
However.
There is new light being thrown at the use oof it during the Time of Alexander the Great.
Mainly by the work of Robert E. Gaebel.
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev...15411084744526
Which demonstrates that Alexander the Great did in fact use the Hetairoi(Companion Cavalry) in a Shock role.
At this time the subject is controversial, and I hope that we dont go in to the controversy ourselves :)
Interesting link, Suraknar. Indeed, this is the level of exchange we should have in the Monastery, not Backroom style confrontation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
Four-meter lances aren't usually used for much else than shock action. Probably because they kinda suck for anything else.
I agree completelly Adrian II.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
And francly prefer it personally than confrontation, to me it is not about who is right and who is wrong. History is there for us to discover, explore and learn, and it can be a more enjoyable journey to do so by exchanging with eachother and from eachother's knoweldge of it.
~:cheers: