"Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World"

[Jona Lendering]

All very true, dear Rich, but eyewitnesses for the last hour at Thermopylae and Leonidas' decision? No, not on the Persian side. They have seen the dead bodies and have Herodotus shown the place where it happened; but nobody can have told Herodotus why Leonidas stayed. Although Abronichus deserves attention.

[floofthegoof]

Well, we know that the detour by the Persians was discovered early enough for most of the allies to leave. This is where the story gets murky and H. starts speculating. They may have left on their own, or have been sent away by Leonidas, we don't know. We do know that the allies left, and by that we can assume that Leonidas could also have left had he wanted to, but decided to stay. I don't think it is reasonable to think that Leonidas expected victory after the absence of most of his force. He stayed to cover their retreat, or to simply send a message. Those are the only two choices right?

In regards to other details about the actual last stand battle, some of them seem too arbitrary to be simply made up. Here are some of the passages. Better late than never to post the actual battle we've been discussing. Some of it is quite clearly speculation, although I detect no attempt to decieve. The deaths of famous persians can certainly be checked against persian sources to see if these people ever existed and when. If anyone can do that please do.

CCXXIII. Xerxes made libations at sunrise and waiting till about mid-morning, made his assault. Epialtes had advised this, for the descent from the mountain is more direct, and the way is much shorter than the circuit and ascent. [2] Xerxes and his barbarians attacked, but Leonidas and his Hellenes, knowing they were going to their deaths, advanced now much farther than before into the wider part of the pass. In all the previous days they had sallied out into the narrow way and fought there, guarding the defensive wall. [3] Now, however, they joined battle outside the narrows and many of the barbarians fell, for the leaders of the companies beat everyone with whips from behind, urging them ever forward. Many of them were pushed into the sea and drowned; far more were trampled alive by each other, with no regard for who perished. [4] Since the Hellenes knew that they must die at the hands of those who had come around the mountain, they displayed the greatest strength they had against the barbarians, fighting recklessly and desperately.

CCXXIV. By this time most of them had had their spears broken and were killing the Persians with swords. Leonidas, proving himself extremely valiant, fell in that struggle and with him other famous Spartans, whose names I have learned by inquiry since they were worthy men. Indeed, I have learned by inquiry the names of all three hundred.1 [2] Many famous Persians also fell there, including two sons of Darius, Abrocomes and Hyperanthes, born to Darius by Phratagune daughter of Artanes. Artanes was the brother of king Darius and son of Hystaspes son of Arsames. When he gave his daughter in marriage to Darius, he gave his whole house as dowry, since she was his only child.

CCXXV. Two brothers of Xerxes accordingly fought and fell there. There was a great struggle between the Persians and Lacedaemonians over Leonidas' body, until the Hellenes by their courageous prowess dragged it away and routed their enemies four times. The battle went on until the men with Epialtes arrived. [2] When the Hellenes saw that they had come, the contest turned, for they retired to the narrow part of the way, passed behind the wall, and took their position crowded together on the hill, all except the Thebans. This hill is at the mouth of the pass, where the stone lion in honor of Leonidas now stands. [3] In that place they defended themselves with swords, if they still had them, and with hands and teeth. The barbarians buried them with missiles, some attacking from the front and throwing down the defensive wall, others surrounding them on all sides.

CCXXVI. This then is how the Lacedaemonians and Thespians conducted themselves, but the Spartan Dieneces is said to have exhibited the greatest courage of all. They say that he made the following speech before they joined battle with the Medes: he had learned from a Trachinian that there were so many of the barbarians that when they shot their missiles, the sun was hidden by the multitude of their arrows. [2] He was not at all disturbed by this and made light of the multitude of the Medes, saying that their Trachinian foreigner brought them good news. If the Medes hid the sun, they could fight them in the shade instead of in the sun. This saying and others like it, they claim, Dieneces the Lacedaemonian left behind as a memorial.

CCXXVII. Next after him two Lacedaemonian brothers, Alpheus and Maron, sons of Orsiphantus, are said to have been most courageous. The Thespian who gained most renown was one whose name was Dithyrambus son of Harmatides.

.......*poems left and story of unfortunate messanger survivors*

CCXXXIII. The Thebans, whose general was Leontiades, fought against the king's army as long as they were with the Hellenes and under compulsion. When, however, they saw the Persian side prevailing and the Hellenes with Leonidas hurrying toward the hill, they split off and approached the barbarians, holding out their hands. With the most truthful words ever spoken, they explained that they were Medizers, had been among the first to give earth and water to the king, had come to Thermopylae under constraint, and were guiltless of the harm done to the king. [2] By this plea they saved their lives, and the Thessalians bore witness to their words. They were not, however, completely lucky. When the barbarians took hold of them as they approached, they killed some of them even as they drew near. Most of them were branded by Xerxes command with the kings marks, starting with the general Leontiades.(ouch!) His son Eurymachus long afterwards1 was murdered by the Plataeans when, as general of four hundred Thebans, he seized the town of Plataea.

.....*long conversation between Xerxes and Demaratus(ex-Spartan king) and also Achaemenes(Xerxes brother and admiral of the fleet). Possible source of such a high level internal discussion must be a complete mystery. Very curious indeed.

CCXXXVIII. Having spoken in this way, Xerxes passed over the place where the dead lay and hearing that Leonidas had been king and general of the Lacedaemonians, he gave orders to cut off his head and impale it. [2] It is plain to me by this piece of evidence among many others, that while Leonidas lived, king Xerxes was more incensed against him than against all others; otherwise he would never have dealt so outrageously with his dead body, for the Persians are beyond all men known in the habit of honoring valiant warriors. They, then, who received these orders did as I have said.

The discussions between Xerxes and his advisors are very suspect to me. The only way these conversations could see daylight is if there were many witnesses to them. In a time where news travelled relatively slowly, perhaps informational security was not foremost in the mind of Xerxes.

However, even Eisenhauer and Churchill wrote in detail about their battle plans after the war. This Demaratus character is a strange inclusion into the narrative. I wonder if he himself perhaps wrote about his experience in the Persian court. I can see no other possible source.

[hoplite14gr]

Except Herodotus and Plutarch "life of Leonidas", I advise:
Check the "linothorax" thread. Then check the "Othismos" thread.
Take into account that through out history natually "fortified" places and strongpoints were favoured by the defenders. Thermopylae is such a place.
At 480 BC the pass was wide encouh for two ox wagons.
That means that unusually deep phalanx could be deployed.
An old undermaintained fortification did exist. Missile troops could support the phalanx from there. This fort usually is forgotten. When close combat ensued as in Marathon hoplites could do murder almost with impunity. So it was a perfect place to "bottle up" th Persian Army.
Then the passage is betrayed. Phokians-weak in heavy infantry fail in the defence. Leonidas takes the Thebans with him and holds the one end.
He implores the allies to stop Hydranes. Anopaea is narrow and the hoplits still have a chance. The allies loose heart and evacuate. Perhaps only the Thespians try to tackle Hydarnes.
Leonidas dies and Thebans surrender. Many armies of ancient times have given up when the leader was dead-nothing unusuall here. If Leonidas death news reached the Thespians they might have collapsed also.
We do not know if Demophilos their leader was killed at opening stages too.
Xerxes mutilated the body of Leonidas body because the MOLON LAVE was very personal. Check "uncouth soldier inscriptions" in the Ancient Civ. Talk to see why.

Also Greek history has many exmples of people dieing to avoid slavery.
The women of Naousa thre their children first and then threw themselves over a cliff to avoid being cupture in 1822.
Consider also a more modern case. The small German garisson of Simi island near Rhodes blew themselves up in the ammunition dump rather than surrender in 1944.

People can choose death if they consider other options dishonourable.

In times of extreme hardship people seem to find it easier to make hard choises.

Why it is so difficult to accept th fact that 1000 brave men raised on the princible of freedom chose to die rather than submit?
Is it perhaps because most modern people would have chosen the "Theban option"?

Kind regards

[Jona Lendering]

Anopaea is narrow

From what I have seen (I did not check all paths), the slopes are usually gentle. I think a military unit could pass on the slopes. But I admit that I have little experience with mountains - a common defect among Dutchmen.

Is it perhaps because most modern people would have chosen the "Theban option"?

Actually, this is insulting to the Thebans. :wink: I think -and this is serious- that Plutarch has made it clear that a Theban unit fought bravely at Thermopylae. Herodotus is indeed biased against Thebes.

Probably, they belonged to a faction that wanted to defend Greece, and did indeed fight; once they were taking captive, the majority of the Thebans was for medizing. A monument to the 400 Thebans, next to the Spartan and Thespian monuments, would be nice.

[Muzzaguchi]

Hi all,

Interestingly, I was teaching a course on Greek warfare at adult education and one of my students was at Thermopylae in 1942(? or was it earlier) and defending the mountain pass. He said it was quite exposed once you were there and was little surprise to him that they (the British in WWII) abandonned the position.

Cheers

Murray

[Hoplitesmores]

2000 years changed the landscape quite a bit.That is one cool student . Tell him thankou from the Greeks.

[hoplite14gr]

Yes Murray please thank your student.
Small correction. It was April 1941 Not 1942.
My basic source is General Edipides history writen 1950.
BEF rtreating from Aliakmon made an attempt to block Thermopulae pass.
The Annopaea was guarded by strugglers from the 9th and 11th Greek divisions. For two days the British repulsed the German Armor thrusts. The Greeks repulsed the Gebirgsjager the first day and next day they were attacked by Leibstandarte supported by "stukka" and they were decimated.
By some fatal twist of fate the casualties were 298 dead-two short from the ancient Spartans! The photo showing 2 Grenadiers with donkey crossing a stream is actually from the Leibstandarte supply train crossing Annopaea.

Jonah I apologise to the Theban "TAXIS" at Thermopylae but not to the Thebans. They fought like devils in Platea supporting Mardonios and uncle Plutarch conveniently forgets it.
Thank you all for enduring my rants.

Kind regards

[Anonymous]

Why it is so difficult to accept th fact that 1000 brave men raised on the princible of freedom chose to die rather than submit?
Is it perhaps because most modern people would have chosen the "Theban option"?

Kind regards

I asked the same question earlier, in different words. I note that it is the one argument I used which no-one has addressed.

[Anonymous]

[Actually, this is insulting to the Thebans. :wink: I think -and this is serious- that Plutarch has made it clear that a Theban unit fought bravely at Thermopylae. Herodotus is indeed biased against Thebes.

But that is not the issue. :evil: The real issue is Leonidas' choosing death - and you have chosen yet again to focus on an irrelevance rather than address this fundamental point. Answer the question, Jona :wink: ; why don't you believe in the Spartans having the courage to sacrifice themselves? :roll:

[Jona Lendering]

why don't you believe in the Spartans having the courage to sacrifice themselves?

That's an assumptive question. The courage is not at issue. The only thing is that we don't know what happened. Perhaps Leonidas wanted to retreat, because in that way he could harm the enemy better; that cannot be ruled out, but we simply do not know. Herodotus offers a hypothesis, which must be treated as a hypothesis, and not -as is often done- as a reliable historical explanation.

[conon394]

But that is not the issue. The real issue is Leonidas' choosing death - and you have chosen yet again to focus on an irrelevance rather than address this fundamental point. Answer the question, Jona; why don't you believe in the Spartans having the courage to sacrifice themselves?

I think you are realy collapsing two points into one here.

One: Did the Spartans and Thespians have the courage to fight to the death and not surrender even when the cause became completely hopeless, clearly they did. Given that the Thebans managed to surrender at some point, it seems likely the Spartans and Thespians could have surrendered as well, but did not.

Two: Did Leonidas intend to sacrifice himself and his command? I don’t think a positive answer to question one needs implies that he did. Three hundred Spartan Hippeis were not exactly a easily to replace resource, if the position was lost, why throw away a significant portion of a very finite resource? The Spartans do not seem to have felt that withdrawal was unwarranted when a position was untenable, and considering the long run what the loss of Leonidas meant to Sparta. Arrogant and apparently rather corruptible Pausanias in command happily providing the pretexts for the formation of the Delian league…

In many ways I think Ephorus’ version is perhaps more probable than Herodotus’s. The ideal the Leonidas would use his small force to launch a surprise night attack with the aim of killing the king makes a fair bit of sense. The potential gain is certainly worth the risk, and even if they fail they achieve the secondary objective of delaying the advance of the Persians, allowing the main force to withdrawal.

Edit

Three hundred Spartan Hippies

oops corrected now too Hippeis

[Anonymous]

Hippies[/b]

So that's why they all had long hair! Funny they weren't advocating peace and love, man. ( Or were they Hippeis?)

Assumptive question or not - Collapsing two questions into one or not, the title of this thread questions whether Thermopylae was a battle that affected the course of History and the view expressed by Jona is that Leonidas got his men butchered through incompetence, rather than heroism. He looks at the facts, and the periods for which we cannnot be sure of the evidence, and chooses to come down on the side of prosaic military incompetence.

Like Stefanos, I wonder at the modern mindset which prefers to doubt heroism.

[hoplite14gr]

Agree with both Paul(s) comments. (Except Pausanias that needs thread of his own.)

In my opinion Leonidas decided to hold the main pass. He thought that Allies were enough to tackle Hydarnes. The Allies lost nerve and fled.
Hyradnes force is given a "immortals" but perhaps it contained lots of mountain people of the emepire. The Thespians too possibly attempted to hold Annopaia but at the point that meet the Thermopylae road it is terrain for light troops not phalanx and explains a lot in my opinion.
Leonidas died in hope that the he bought time for the others to clear Hydarnes. Perhaps his death was the most catlytic event that forced the Thebans surrender and Spartan,Thespian remnants to crowd on the "death hillock" and get killed.
The decision to hold Thermopylae was militarilly correct. And because of Marathon Greeks knew that they could overpower a "bottled" host.
And as I said the battle of Annopaia was never been examined carefully.
Kind regards

[Jona Lendering]

the view expressed by Jona is that Leonidas got his men butchered through incompetence, rather than heroism. He looks at the facts, and the periods for which we cannnot be sure of the evidence, and chooses to come down on the side of prosaic military incompetence.

I think that summary is too easy. I take the devotio theory seriously, if only because I proposed it myself in the late 1980's. And that makes our men heroes. My main point is that we do not know.

Do I prefer incompetence to heroism if I have to explain something? Certainly; that goes without saying. The accounts that I have read about battlefield experience, have convinced me that it is a total mess, and that acts that are later called heroic, are often accidental. (There are exceptions; there is no need to diminish the heroism of Alexander.) Incompetence is standard; cf. the quote by the elder Von Moltke, when he was told that an officer had shown himself to be half-competent, that the guy had to be decorated because in war, nobody can possibly be competent. (In fact the central thesis of Von Clausewitz.)

I think that in battle, there are two constants. The first one is that people can not know what they are doing, and are therefore incapable of acting according to a plan. The second one is the need to create heroes, because without heroes, the generals soon have no soldiers. Thermopylae has all the aspects of a story invented to inspire; personally, I think that it was invented by someone in the circle of Gorgo, wife of Leonidas, who appears to have been one of Herodotus' sources.

[Felix]

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.