08-05-2006, 08:45 PM
I think it is worth considering two famous "last stand" actions of more recent times for comparison. Both occured in the 1870's, both occured between Western style forces against indigenous peoples, but the results differed.
In the northern plains of the United States, General Custer was part of a campaign to subdue to Sioux Indians (Native Americans) and their Cheyenne allies. He located a large group of natives camped on the Little Bighorn River/Greasy Grass, and decided to attack them immediately, although there were infantry forces he was supposed to be working with. (The pros and cons of this decision will be ignored for this post.) He split his 7th Cavalry regiment into 3 parts, and launched his attack. One arm of his attack went straight ahead into the Indian camp, one went wide to his left (and only became engaged after it moved back to the center, since there were no hostiles in the direction it was sent), and the third (Custer's) force went to the right, to attack the known part of the camp in the rear, while it was holding off the central attack. As is well known, the center attack was repulsed before Custer's attack went in, and his force was overwhelmed and annihilated. It is quite clear Custer had no intention of leading a "last stand". The archeological evidence matches the surviving (Sioux) accounts of this action - that Custer's attack faltered, and tried to pull back, but the swarming Sioux and Cheyenne moved faster, and surrounded the cavalrymen and killed them all.
About the same time, the British invaded Zulu territory. The main British column was overwhelmed by the Zulu army at Isandlhwana. A small detachment of the 24th Infantry had been left behind at a place known as Rorke's Drift, to keep open communications with Cape Colony. After the disaster to the main column became known, the mission buildings at Rorke's Drift were hastily fortified, and it was decided to defend the position against an unknown number of hostiles, just coming from a stunning victory over the main British force. The mission was successfully defended in what was a conciously chosen battle of potential annihilation. (The British government and press needed heroics at this point, and played up the triumphant action for all it was worth - but they didn't create the heroics in the first place.)
Without reliable data on Thermopylae, it is hard to say what happened. There might have been a deliberate decision to engage in an action which was likely to be fatal, or Leonidas may have intended to retreat and save his men, but simply not retreated early / fast enough.
In the northern plains of the United States, General Custer was part of a campaign to subdue to Sioux Indians (Native Americans) and their Cheyenne allies. He located a large group of natives camped on the Little Bighorn River/Greasy Grass, and decided to attack them immediately, although there were infantry forces he was supposed to be working with. (The pros and cons of this decision will be ignored for this post.) He split his 7th Cavalry regiment into 3 parts, and launched his attack. One arm of his attack went straight ahead into the Indian camp, one went wide to his left (and only became engaged after it moved back to the center, since there were no hostiles in the direction it was sent), and the third (Custer's) force went to the right, to attack the known part of the camp in the rear, while it was holding off the central attack. As is well known, the center attack was repulsed before Custer's attack went in, and his force was overwhelmed and annihilated. It is quite clear Custer had no intention of leading a "last stand". The archeological evidence matches the surviving (Sioux) accounts of this action - that Custer's attack faltered, and tried to pull back, but the swarming Sioux and Cheyenne moved faster, and surrounded the cavalrymen and killed them all.
About the same time, the British invaded Zulu territory. The main British column was overwhelmed by the Zulu army at Isandlhwana. A small detachment of the 24th Infantry had been left behind at a place known as Rorke's Drift, to keep open communications with Cape Colony. After the disaster to the main column became known, the mission buildings at Rorke's Drift were hastily fortified, and it was decided to defend the position against an unknown number of hostiles, just coming from a stunning victory over the main British force. The mission was successfully defended in what was a conciously chosen battle of potential annihilation. (The British government and press needed heroics at this point, and played up the triumphant action for all it was worth - but they didn't create the heroics in the first place.)
Without reliable data on Thermopylae, it is hard to say what happened. There might have been a deliberate decision to engage in an action which was likely to be fatal, or Leonidas may have intended to retreat and save his men, but simply not retreated early / fast enough.
Felix Wang
