Actual Accounts of Thermopylae?

Which actual ancient writers wrote accounts of the battle?

And I mean within 50years of the war?

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

I take it there are no Persian accounts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antiquity

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


Middle ages

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

19th century

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

WW2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoa

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disciple of Tacitus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disciple of Tacitus

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Fenrhyl,

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

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

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

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

About Teutoburg :

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


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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenrhyl

About Teutoburg :

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

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

---

IIRC he wrote one but not the famous one?

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disciple of Tacitus

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

---

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

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

Excellent article.

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

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

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

Like I don't have enough to read!

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

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

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

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

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

Other famous battles using the same principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still think it's cursed:laugh4:

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

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

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

you convinced me.....:yes:

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

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

Having a reserve of a few thousand other hoplites to rotate to the frontline probably rather helped with that...

Yeah

And I read that they WERE tired out by the end of 2 days of combat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

you convinced me.....:yes:

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

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

---

Well,

first of all the enemy did get tired as well, and night-battles were pretty much a big no-no in history in general. Second, until the last day there were very substantial contingents of other Greek poleis, far outnumbering the Spartans. The Spartans became famous because they volunteered themselves to cover the Greek retreat. Less well known is that they were not the only ones to do so (soldiers from one smaller polis stayed as well).

On an equal scale one could put the battle of Monte Cassino, where the Germans held out for months, despite being outnumbered, outgunned etc. etc. (there bad generalship and lack of experience/training on the allied side was a major factor, most obvious being M. Clark, though he was absolutely not the only one).

now I'm enlightened.....thanks.

speaking of which is there a mod for 480BC period? that would be great for thermopylae

Not in EB context, but AFAIK there are a number of other mods that cover the period. Although with a creative mix of various Eastern troops (eg. Syrian Archers ought to be able to stand in for Immortals reasonably well, at least with some upgrades) and some handwaving you should be able to do a decent enough custom-battle approximation in EB too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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

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

---

AAhh. To be young and hold off the Germans at Thermopylae in Panzer General again. Those were the days, let me tell you, 25 pdr's shooting on a German traffic jam from the overhead hills...it's pure hex-joy.

Tours-Poitiers! I love it.

In my family there's an ongoing argument between my 2 brothers about whether its actually the Battle of Tours or the Battler of Poitiers. I believe there's only 1 near contemporary account in some chronicle which indicates that the battle was between the muslims approaching Tours from Poitiers met by MC Hammer coming from the north.

If there was a running battle over several days between heavy foot and cav, then I think the footmen did well to push the cav back. If the scenario was cav seeking plunder vs foot on a plain then its a pretty decent outcome for the Franks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris1959

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

---

Some inscriptions at the battle site and war stories reported a generation later, and a great deal of near contemporary literary evidence (eg The Persians by Aeschylus). More than for most events in ancient history, but yes, pretty skinny compared to D-Day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris1959

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

---

Yes it is loaded with myth. Maybe the myth was a contemporary understanding of the event? There's a lot less supernatural stuff in the heresay than the account of Marathon (complete with axe-weilding demi-god) and a lot of people believed the same stuff about it a short time later, so probably Herodotus is on the money.

It looks like the Persians literally beat their heads against a wall for a day or two rather than show respect to the tiny but well placed army.
Can't help contrasting it with Alexander's action at the Persian Gates after Gaugemela, where he was careful to suss out the out-flank before attacking. He was probably a real wake-up to the possibility of a "Persopylae".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

(eg The Persians by Aeschylus)

---

Uhhhhhh... I'm not quite sure of how you can consider that one "evidence", at least, of the military events.

Quote:

---

Yes it is loaded with myth. Maybe the myth was a contemporary understanding of the event? There's a lot less supernatural stuff in the heresay than the account of Marathon (complete with axe-weilding demi-god) and a lot of people believed the same stuff about it a short time later, so probably Herodotus is on the money.

---

Bet ya quite a lot of people firmly believed the supernatural manifestations of Marathon too...

I don't think it would be too far off to replace "contemporary understanding" with "propagandistic necessity" really.

Quote:

---

It looks like the Persians literally beat their heads against a wall for a day or two rather than show respect to the tiny but well placed army.

---

What else were they going to do, really - sit on their thumbs and start starving ? Xerxes doesn't seem to have been the hottest tactician around, but once it became clear the Persians weren't going to effect a breakthrough very soon it was just SOP to keep up the pressure on the defenders while scouts went out looking for other routes.

Quote:

---

Can't help contrasting it with Alexander's action at the Persian Gates after Gaugemela, where he was careful to suss out the out-flank before attacking. He was probably a real wake-up to the possibility of a "Persopylae".

---

That certainly, but he was presumably in a rather better logistical situation too. Plus, IIRC it took him a lot longer to effect the flanking maneuver - the side route wasn't exactly short or conveniently placed IIRC.

[QUOTE=Watchman] Uhhhhhh... I'm not quite sure of how you can consider that one "evidence", at least, of the military events.[QUOTE=Watchman]

Yep, we don't have a lot of evidence from the battlefield, its all secondary and tertiary. What the Persians gives in a near contemporary response to the event which is evidence that it happened and it made a mighty impression on those involved. But its more like "Saving Private Ryan" than the US Army official History of D-Day.

[QUOTE=Watchman]Bet ya quite a lot of people firmly believed the supernatural manifestations of Marathon too...[QUOTE=Watchman]

Thats a question I truly wonder at. I think people believed the supernatural nonsense the way most people seem to believe in science or horoscopes, its an explanantion they can pin on an event: once its binned its not bubbling anymore. But what do I know?

I reckon there were a few skeptics around (definitely there were Skeptics a but later) who saw through the rubbish. But maybe the ancients were utterly alien to us in their thoughts.

I suspect Livy and a lot of his audience knew he was lying in his teeth about masses of details but it gave them all a good feeling, so they acted like it was true.

[QUOTE=Watchman]I don't think it would be too far off to replace "contemporary understanding" with "propagandistic necessity" really.[QUOTE=Watchman]

Herodotus does his best to give a balanced picture of all the different points of view on why Persia was evil. "We play both kinds, Country and Western!". he isn't unrelievedly chauvinistic, and puts very wise words in the mouth of Cyru in the very last page of his History. However he was working from greek sources mostly so the picture comes in those colours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

What else were they going to do, really - sit on their thumbs and start starving ? Xerxes doesn't seem to have been the hottest tactician around, but once it became clear the Persians weren't going to effect a breakthrough very soon it was just SOP to keep up the pressure on the defenders while scouts went out looking for other routes.
That certainly, but he was presumably in a rather better logistical situation too. Plus, IIRC it took him a lot longer to effect the flanking maneuver - the side route wasn't exactly short or conveniently placed IIRC.

---

Yeah you're right, Xerxes was a crap tactician and even though it urgent and easily done that he outflank the small tough force in the pass he seems to have battered at it with his best men who then (for whatever reason) fail to appear in the critical battles of Plataea and Mycale.

Of course its unfair to compare him to such a thorough yet quicksilver genius as Alexander. i suppose he thought "I'll quickly bash through" without taking into account the Spartans reputation. After all in the last 60 odd years the Persians had ruined a lot of other reputations.

I understand Napoleon had a similar episode in a pass outside Madrid in 1808/9 where he sent quite a few boys to their death in a narrow defile trying to take it in the rush, including quite a few Polish cav? IIRC he had to send in the plods to do the job right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Yeah you're right, Xerxes was a crap tactician...

---

If one may remind, Xerxes' plan was to set the trap at Thermopylae. He waited four days for the allied Greek ground forces to collect (not disperse) there. He also waited for the Greek naval group to defend Artemisium, then he sent a large naval detachment around Euboea to land a large blocking force at the strait of Evripos. This would have cut off all the Greeks setting at Thermopylae and Artemisium and bottled them up. Sounds like a good plan on paper, however Xerxes had a little bad luck. Either that or the gods weren't on his side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I understand Napoleon had a similar episode in a pass outside Madrid in 1808/9 where he sent quite a few boys to their death in a narrow defile trying to take it in the rush, including quite a few Polish cav? IIRC he had to send in the plods to do the job right.

---

Well... not exactly. Napoleon sent few thousand of infantry who failed miserably and then at first one, and later second squadron of Polish guard cav (together some 400 men). The cavalry actually succeded in breaking through, but took heavy losses (around 1/4 in dead and heavily wounded, much more were lightly wounded).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

If one may remind, Xerxes' plan was to set the trap at Thermopylae. He waited four days for the allied Greek ground forces to collect (not disperse) there. He also waited for the Greek naval group to defend Artemisium, then he sent a large naval detachment around Euboea to land a large blocking force at the strait of Evripos. This would have cut off all the Greeks setting at Thermopylae and Artemisium and bottled them up. Sounds like a good plan on paper, however Xerxes had a little bad luck. Either that or the gods weren't on his side?

---

Thanks for pointing that out, its good to be corrected when one makes a mistake.

I will certainly have to give Xerxes more credit for his tactics. I guess his basic strategy was sound too, invading with maximum force and supplying it by sea.

In hindsight the failure of elite troops can be crushing to an army's morale ("la Garde Recule!") and perhaps he shouldn't have rolled those dice that day, but he had a shot at a Spartan King so maybe it was worth the punt. Definitely the Hellenes span it their way: 4000 dead turned out to be a great victory somehow.

The kind of contempt shown for the Persians in 300 has a real Hellenistic ring to my ears, post-Alexandrian triumphalism. I think the Hellenes of the time feared and respected the Persians and thats why they rated their victory so highly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

Well... not exactly. Napoleon sent few thousand of infantry who failed miserably and then at first one, and later second squadron of Polish guard cav (together some 400 men). The cavalry actually succeded in breaking through, but took heavy losses (around 1/4 in dead and heavily wounded, much more were lightly wounded).

---

A quick wiki search shows how right you are.

Right,


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

Ἡροδότου Μοῦσαι
Ἱστοριῶν ἑβδόμη ἐπιγραφομένη Πολύμνια

Herodotus, The Histories
Book 7

210
ταῦτα λέγων οὐκ ἔπειθε τὸν Ξέρξην τέσσερας μὲν δὴ παρεξῆκε ἡμέρας, ἐλπίζων αἰεί σφεας ἀποδρήσεσθαι· πέμπτῃ δέ, ὡς οὐκ ἀπαλλάσσοντο ἀλλά οἱ ἐφαίνοντο ἀναιδείῃ τε καὶ ἀβουλίῃ διαχρεώμενοι μένειν, πέμπει ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς Μήδους τε καὶ Κισσίους θυμωθείς, ἐντειλάμενος σφέας ζωγρήσαντας ἄγειν ἐς ὄψιν τὴν ἑωυτοῦ. [2] ὡς δ᾽ ἐσέπεσον φερόμενοι ἐς τοὺς Ἕλληνας οἱ Μῆδοι, ἔπιπτον πολλοί, ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐπεσήισαν, καὶ οὐκ ἀπηλαύνοντο, καίπερ μεγάλως προσπταίοντες. δῆλον δ᾽ ἐποίευν παντί τεῳ καὶ οὐκ ἥκιστα αὐτῷ βασιλέι, ὅτι πολλοὶ μὲν ἄνθρωποι εἶεν, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἄνδρες. ἐγίνετο δὲ ἡ συμβολὴ δι᾽ ἡμέρης.

my rendering
210
In one respect this foul assertion persuaded upon Xerxes, as in constraint he carefully assembled nearby, all the while expecting they would melt away by the fourth day. Yet, the light of the fifth brought otherwise, as their shameless want of [good] counsel was revealed, and consistently they stirred not. Thus, aroused he sent forth the Medes and Cissians, ordered to take captive and bring them unconditionally into his presence.

[2]The Medes rushed and closed, many of whom the Greeks felled, nonetheless this host struck against as others pressed foreword to drive them out. In this instance it was made clear to everyone and least not the king himself, that amidst so much mankind, there were but so few men indeed. So, it came to pass that in this encounter their spirit was broken.

A. D. Godley version
210
He let four days go by, expecting them to run away at any minute. They did not leave, and it seemed to him that they stayed out of folly and lack of due respect. On the fifth day he became angry and sent the Medes and Cissians against them, bidding them take them prisoner and bring them into his presence.

[2] The Medes bore down upon the Hellenes and attacked. Many fell, but others attacked in turn, and they made it clear to everyone, especially to the king himself, that among so many people there were few real men. The battle lasted all day

George Rawlinson version
210
But Xerxes was not persuaded any the more. Four whole days he suffered to go by, expecting that the Greeks would run away. When, however, he found on the fifth that they were not gone, thinking that their firm stand was mere impudence and recklessness, he grew wroth, and sent against them the Medes and Cissians, with orders to take them alive and bring them into his presence.

[2] Then the Medes rushed forward and charged the Greeks, but fell in vast numbers: others however took the places of the slain, and would not be beaten off, though they suffered terrible losses. In this way it became clear to all, and especially to the king, that though he had plenty of combatants, he had but very few warriors. The struggle, however, continued during the whole day.

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

This was as close as I could get. Although Herodotus didn't say it was Xerxes' plan, he did indicate it was not smart for the Greeks to remain at Thermo Pylae. In Diodorus Siculus' The Library, there may be more details?

This goes as far as to show that the Persians had awaited for four days for the allied Greek force to surrender to the given diplomatic terms. I believe this alone contributed far much more to Themistocles' success, and the completion of evacuating Athens.

Plus...

the three days of the battle.

Thats one week.

But, the Athenian fleet was at Thermo-pylae at this time? So did most of Athen's population flee by sea (merchant fleet) or over land?

Hello to everyone
The big time of the battle was nearly at the end.
Spartans were doing most of the times
the tactics of fake route. Medians(Sakes,Lydians and other tribes) were chasing them and
at the reach of the narrow passage Spartans were
turning against them, slaughtering them easily as they were not organised and disciplined.
These tactics were until the engagement of the Immortals (Persians).
Along with the 300 Spartans were also 700 Thespieis voluntarily and a
small number of Thebians (I don't remember the exact number) who were driven into the battle obliged by the Spartans.
Also above the narrow passage was a place like a valley (narrow also)
where was the the phokian wall ( Τείχος των Φωκιέων).
As the scouts had seen the persian advance (because of Ephialtes) into the valley
the decision, which was taken, was that Phokians (nearly 7000) had to abandon the wall.
At the same time with the engagement of Immortals Leonidas is being killed.
At this time it is the peak of the battle,Spartans fighting fiercely to recover the dead body, as they did it.
The next day the persians reach the other side of the passage and advancing to battle.
Herodotus then describes the scene like cinema, saying (spartans spears(δόρεα) and they used the other bronze point(στύρακες) to stub,the shields were pierced and finally they fight using as weapons their nails and teeth.

That was a summary of some points in the battle that I didn't see in the previous posts. Herodotus who wrote the history of persian wars didn't use so scientific and reliable methods to describe. And the history was a little like an epic novel. The first who wrote a very reliable history was by far Thoukydides.

Sorry if there is any misuse of the language or any spelling mistakes
and happy to see replies and comments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Georgivs Tsililivs Graecvs

That was a summary of some points in the battle that I didn't see in the previous posts. Herodotus who wrote the history of persian wars didn't use so scientific and reliable methods to describe. And the history was a little like an epic novel. The first who wrote a very reliable history was by far Thoukydides.

Sorry if there is any misuse of the language or any spelling mistakes
and happy to see replies and comments

---

Thucydides' history is actually not as "reliable" as it appears. In many ways he owes a lot more to Herodotus, both stylistically and in the manner in which he collected and arranged his material, than is immediately apparent. But his attempt at appearing more reliable is a conscious stylistic decision on his part [e.g. see I.21 (???) for his notes on how he rendered speeches] and has led to many scholars and readers of his text believing he had access to material, or manners in gaining material, that historiographers before him did not.

orality is obviously a key topic here as well - how much his work was a performed work, and how much a topic for reading is an issue that will probably never be resolved (unless we uncover a papyrus stating "thucydides' work was orally delivered" or that kind of thing.....unlikely i know but i live in hope!!) but knowing that he might have spoken his words aloud rather than dispersed the text for private reading would also mean we must consider his stylistic choices in terms of how it sounds. Again as he notes, he wanted speeches to sound good, even if they weren't the exact words spoken....but this paragraph is somewhat off topic - apologies.

Well maybe you have a right point on the term reliability.
But Thoukydides had not just written speeches with other words like those
of Pericles, he has written the whole peloponnesian war
in which he had taken part in some battles in Chalkidike at Olynthos,Potidaia (athenian colonies).
Well another point is as we were taught in school (they teached us this history in the original text, as survived)
that there wasn't anyone who tried to write down all the events of the peloponnesian war except for him.

'Course, ole Thuc can't exactly be termed an impartial witness either...

Not to draw too fine a point, but as a Doric citizen of Caria and an erstwhile subject of the Achaemenid Empire, for as least his early years, might not Herodotus' account of the Thermo Pylae battle provide both Persian and Greek points of view? Maybe the actual words in the Herodotus account are more true to form, while some recent translations, with water under the bridge, are far less balanced and free of error.

Yes its a commonly held veiw that gossipy old Herodotus is the father of lies, not the Father of History, whereas terse proffesional sounding Thucydides is a real historian.

Unfortunately neither bloke put in a bibliography.

In Herodotus' favour he gives you a crack at some of his sources ("the Persdians say..." "the Corinthian version of events" stuff like that) which is actually more historical in its methodology than Thucydides digested speeches and single POV accounts.

For example Herodotus reports the incident of the circumnavigation of Africa, including coroborrating data about the sun's movement in the sky. Funnily enough he mentions this point as being most unlikely and openly doubts the story, but he includes it anyway. That is open-minded reporting.

To my mind Herodotus is a gossipy old tale-teller, but an historian by his method. He poses a question, identifies sources and evaluates them.

Thuycidides is smoother and sharper but he's trying to be, and its all so convincing I can't help but think of it as spin: at best he's a good journalist. He opens by saying "I'm just telling you what happened so you won't forget" I can't help thinking he means "you won't forget how the punk-ass Defeatocrats lost us the war!".

Yes you are right he was a kind of journalist...and herodotus much like a story teller - historian.
The difference is that Thoukydides tried to be like
an observer who doesn't take part in the events,being insulated from
sentimentality (right word?)
and the first who didn't give his own opinion for the incidents as Herodotus did
(which is the most significant difference between scientific method
and collecting opinions judging them by your own ability).

Cyclops, not to sound so very Junish 1940-politico but, 'punk-ass Defeatocrats lost us the war?'

A possible word to replace the phrase, 'insulated from
sentimentality' or 'objective.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Cyclops, not to sound so very Junish 1940-politico but, 'punk-ass Defeatocrats lost us the war?'

A possible word to replace the phase, 'insulated from
sentimentality' or 'objective.'

---

I forget where I saw that term Defeatocrat, it was on a RTW forum somewhere. It was from a commited republican backburning in case his mob lost the Presdency.

I'm trying to convey the idea of Thuycidides as a commited Athenian patriot but also a bitter and biased partisan within the Athenian politcal spectrum. There's a fair amount of Red vs Blue in the politcal landscape of Athens, and Thuycidides was of the aristocratic camp, very pro-Periclean and anti-Cleon.

He is one million miles from objective when he comments on Cleon's expedition to Sphacteria (paraphrased) "it was win-win for us, either we beat the Spartans there or Cleon got executed".

He peddles a nice line in accurate sounding analysis, and much of it can be confirmed but IIRC there are massive gaps in his history such as a 33% (or was it a doubling? I forget) increase in the annual tribute from the allies mid war which is attested by other sources.

He is much less gossipy than Herodotus but when you sort through all Mr. H's guff you notice most of the bulldust is other people's, not his own, and he's just passing it on. Mr T hides all the bulldust and its only if you look closely you see it leaking out the sides.

T does give a tighter less rambling narrative, conspicuously free of flying snakes. He does however take a mean swipe at H over the Pitane (sp?) and other perceived mistakes. Neither point makes him more of a historian than H.

Indeed, I find H's account somewhat instructive.

Book 7

211.
ἐπείτε δὲ οἱ Μῆδοι τρηχέως περιείποντο, ἐνθαῦτα οὗτοι μὲν ὑπεξήισαν, οἱ δὲ Πέρσαι ἐκδεξάμενοι ἐπήισαν, τοὺς ἀθανάτους ἐκάλεε βασιλεύς, τῶν ἦρχε Ὑδάρνης, ὡς δὴ οὗτοί γε εὐπετέως κατεργασόμενοι. [2] ὡς δὲ καὶ οὗτοι συνέμισγον τοῖσι Ἕλλησι, οὐδὲν πλέον ἐφέροντο τῆς στρατιῆς τῆς Μηδικῆς ἀλλὰ τὰ αὐτά, ἅτε ἐν στεινοπόρῳ τε χώρῳ μαχόμενοι καὶ δόρασι βραχυτέροισι χρεώμενοι ἤ περ οἱ Ἕλληνες, καὶ οὐκ ἔχοντες πλήθεϊ χρήσασθαι.


my rendering
211.
Yet after the Medes were roughly handled, and withdrew gradually, then the Persians took up a chant, for the Immortals had been summoned by the king, led by Hydarnes, [judging] that this undertaking would at any rate fall well. [2] When they clashed together with the Greeks, they could not bear to budge, the [enemy] host, than otherwise had the Medes themselves, as the battlefield and pass was too narrow and their spear shafts so short, rather for all the Greeks these favored and furnished what was needed to hold a great multitude.

A. D. Godley version
211.
When the Medes had been roughly handled, they retired, and the Persians whom the king called Immortals, led by Hydarnes, attacked in turn. It was thought that they would easily accomplish the task. [2] When they joined battle with the Hellenes, they fared neither better nor worse than the Median army, since they used shorter spears than the Hellenes and could not use their numbers fighting in a narrow space.

well there are different aspects for this argument if T was so reliable. The problem is that we do not have much of that we call "objective truths".
And onother reason which make the things more complicate is that the text we have in our hands are copies from the byzantine era around the 11th cent.
by monks. And to be more general the majority of ancient texts are byzantine reproductions and copies, so there would be a kind (maybe a smallest one) of "distortion". But don't dive in the events...the fact is that T is a normal human like everyone,like H. But the method which T had used was far more scientific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Georgivs Tsililivs Graecvs

... But the method which T had used was far more scientific.

---

I think you're mistaking spin for science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I think you're mistaking spin for science.

---

I hear a lot of that going around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

I hear a lot of that going around.

---

:2thumbsup:

"Its just a theory"

I wonder what Michael Moore has to say about Thermopylae?

"You have to wonder why all those guys had to die in the end. Why couldn't they all just sit down and sort it out like adults? Maybe because they would have discovered that Ephialtes was actually a consultant for Big Bronze, and less warfare meant less breastplates. And then there's a the whole issue of Themistocles' contracts with the Haliburtoi...."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

:2thumbsup:

"Its just a theory"

I wonder what Michael Moore has to say about Thermopylae?

---

Indeed...

never a more fitting name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKpzrrUnZz4

What would Big Mike say...

'yaaahhhaaaa aaaahhhh and hhhhhhhummmm ah unhaaaaaaa yaaahhhaaa well aaaaaaaaahhhh uuunnn hum?'

Got to luv that American subCulture and/or for the hearing impaired.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=306943291

lest we fore get

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=307431048

and of course...

They lay dormant for years, waiting for a chance to return...

...just when you thought it was safe, they're back, and they'll find you, no matter where you hide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlJa...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEnh...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfV-...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxrb...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igik...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGx...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iXP...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvf...eature=related

then last but by no means not least...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDPc...eature=related

of the wee specs of simple truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agi8PUmlAKU

There is a theme as all good stories have a decent spin, no?


Was that mac Saill Mor or micel moor?

and one more revisionist spin for the road...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcpf...eature=related

Thank you gentlemen for your considered responses, and in the end there isn't that much actual evidence from the time around and what exists is very biased to a Greek version of events.

Can I propose a very contentious variation.

Xerxes arrives at the pass with his vanguard and fleet and finds the Greeks already there.
It takes 5 days of bluff and bluster for the bulk of the army to arrive and re-victual the fleet.
During this time Persian light troops re-conoitre the mountains, remember large areas or the Empire are mountainous.
On the 6th day light troops are sent to probe the Greek defences and 200 ships sent to outflank the Greeks and bottle them up. The assaults fail with light casualties.
Day 2 the Persians assemble a force to outflank the greeks, unknown to all the 200 ships have been lost in a storm with 40,000 men approx. It won't be until day 3 that the flanking forces will be in place so Xerxes launches heavy infantry to pin the Greeks, unfortuneately they are outclassed and suffer moderate losse for no gain.
Day 3 the Greeks learn that the Persians have brushed aside the Phocians and will flank them, hastily they pull out and leave a sacrificial rearguard of 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 300 Thebans and 900 helots, The fleet no getting the worst of it and serving no purpose withdraws.
The Persians annihilate the rearguard, unluckily for them they just miss the bulk of the army, and their lost fleet can't stop the Greek fleet.
Net result the Persians have forced the pass, 2,200 greeks and a king are dead their own losses on land are probably not much different but theve lost 200 ships and their crews and through bad luck will of the Gods missed out on a crushing victory.
It is in the final part that the real effect is on the Greeks.

intersting..but I fear that this account will be derided; try catching a greek misstep in their accounts, that may prove your point-I still like this, since it's quite unbiased.