300 Spartans

[hoplite07]

Okay, once again Im sorry about this reoccuring topic, I see theres been some others that made threads similar to this, but:

Did the Spartans manage to kill so many Persians just due to their superior tactics they used, their better armament and use of terrain or did it have to do anything with superior hand-to-hand fighting skill as well?(when I say hand-to-hand I mean up close fighting, melee if u will). Because my former Aviation teacher said he studied Greek hoplites in college and told me a Spartan from the 300 was no better as in pure fighting skill like say in a Roman Colesseum for example than a Persian in a fair fight. Is this true?

Also, what is an 'about-wheel'? Ive read over two books by Paul Cartledge that talked about this saying that it was a tactic used as a fake retreat and the Spartans would slay their over-confident pursuers. Did the Spartans just use this tactic or all the Greek troops?

-thanks, very much. Once again, I apologize I know this topic may be getting annoying to some

[Jona Lendering]

I apologize I know this topic may be getting annoying to some

No need to apologize. The only thing that is really annoying (and stupid) is not asking questions; we're all here because we have questions.

Did the Spartans manage to kill so many Persians just due to their superior tactics they used, their better armament and use of terrain or did it have to do anything with superior hand-to-hand fighting skill as well?

They had superior training and tactics, but the fact that Xerxes ordered his men to attack an almost impossible site, explains a lot as well. Please note, though, that the number of casualties may have been lower than is suggested in our sources: the troops that are mentioned, are all known as archers. The Persians will have refrained from close combat as long as possible.

Also, what is an 'about-wheel'?

It is mentioned by Herodotus, and I see no reason to doubt that this tactic existed. Whether it was actually employed is -in my opinion- doubtful: it is of little use against archers.

[Felix]

Also, the Greek equipment was superior for the mission and situation at Thermopylae. There was no room for maneuver, no need for speed, and the Persians had to force the pass.

[hoplite07]

Also, the Greek equipment was superior for the mission and situation at Thermopylae. There was no room for maneuver, no need for speed, and the Persians had to force the pass.

Yeah they were lightly armed with wickerwork shields I believe and short spears and made for fast moving warfare in open plains. So yeah, the pass clearly screwed all that up. But did the Spartans have superior h2h fighting skills, or no? Thats what I really wanted to find out.

[hoplite07]

I apologize I know this topic may be getting annoying to some

No need to apologize. The only thing that is really annoying (and stupid) is not asking questions; we're all here because we have questions.

Did the Spartans manage to kill so many Persians just due to their superior tactics they used, their better armament and use of terrain or did it have to do anything with superior hand-to-hand fighting skill as well?

They had superior training and tactics, but the fact that Xerxes ordered his men to attack an almost impossible site, explains a lot as well. Please note, though, that the number of casualties may have been lower than is suggested in our sources: the troops that are mentioned, are all known as archers. The Persians will have refrained from close combat as long as possible.

Also, what is an 'about-wheel'?

It is mentioned by Herodotus, and I see no reason to doubt that this tactic existed. Whether it was actually employed is -in my opinion- doubtful: it is of little use against archers.

So were all the Persian casualties just archers, or did it consist of some with shields and spears too?

[Jona Lendering]

So were all the Persian casualties just archers, or did it consist of some with shields and spears too?

At least in the final clash, there was hand-to-hand combat, so I think it is likely that spearmen from the Persian army were killed as well.

[hoplite14gr]

Brazelton,
Only in Hollywood and war-gaming one can make his archers go into hand to hand combat. In real life it was rarely if ever done.
In a narrow but flat pass there is next to impossible to survive an encounter with a group of armored men, if you are not similarly armed.
Even the units of the Saka infantry who seem to be used in hand to hand fights had to go past the Greek spears.
The proportion of casualties would be very high indeed.

Kind regards

[hoplite07]

Brazelton,
Only in Hollywood and war-gaming one can make his archers go into hand to hand combat. In real life it was rarely if ever done.
In a narrow but flat pass there is next to impossible to survive an encounter with a group of armored men, if you are not similarly armed.
Even the units of the Saka infantry who seem to be used in hand to hand fights had to go past the Greek spears.
The proportion of casualties would be very high indeed.

Kind regards

Okay, thanks that helps, but I just wanna make sure Im getting this right: Ur saying that there were many spearmen casualties too as well as archers?

[Paullus Scipio]

The answers to your questions are best found in Herodotus, readily available as a 'Penguin Classic'.
First, we should not distinguish so readily between 'spearmen' and 'archers'. H. tells us that "the persians... wore the tiara, or soft felt cap, embroidered tunic with sleeves, body-armour like the scales of a fish, and trousers; for arms they carried light wicker shields, quivers slung below them, short spears, powerful bows with cane arrows, and daggers (akinakes) swinging from belts beside the right thigh." - this is probably a description of the "Immortals"( who are similarly armed on Persian monuments) for elsewhere H. tells us that the Persians were unarmoured.
The picture we currently believe of how the Persian Infantry fought is that the leader of a file of ten carried a large wicker pavise, which protected the file from enemy archery, and was usually set up as a 'shield wall'. They then used massed archery from behind this, resorting to their short spears if the enemy closed. If depictions on greek pottery are anything to go by ( and they often are not when it comes to Asiatic garb, the potters working from descriptions, never having seen a Persian) it is possible that the rear ranks may have been spear-less, but if so we don't know how many.
H. also tells us why the Spartans were so successful against the Persians (referring to Plataea) "...in courage and strength they were as good as their (spartan) adversaries, but they were deficient in armour, untrained ( in close order hand-to-hand fighting) and greatly inferior in skill.Sometimes singly, sometimes in groups of ten men-perhaps fewer, perhaps more - they fell upon the Spartan line and were cut down."
"...while Mardonius (the Persian commander, commanding a personal guard of 1,000 - probably Immortals) was still alive, they continued to resist and to defend themselves, and struck down many of the Lacedaemonians; but after his death and the destruction of his personal guard - the finest of the Persian troops- the remainder....took flight."
"The chief cause of their discomforture was their lack of armour, (i.e. Hoplite panoply) fighting without it against heavily armed infantry" (hoplites)
At Thermopylae H. tells us :-
"On the Spartan side it was a memorable fight; they were men who understood war pitted against an inexperienced enemy, and amongst the feints they employed was to turn their backs on a body, and pretend to be retreating in confusion, whereupon the enemy would pursue them with a great clatter and roar; but the Spartans, just as the Persians were on them, would wheel and face them and inflict in the new struggle innumerable casualties ( this was probably done by a simple about-turn, and must have involved the whole greek line - the Spartan contingent occupying a front of no more than 50 yds). The Spartans had their losses too, but not many." (H. calls the army'spartan' because its commander - Leonidas, then aged in his sixties - and leading contingent were spartan ).
The pass was evidently too narrow for the entire Greek force -less the thousand Phocians - to deploy at once ( the 4,500 would form a line roughly 750 yards long) , for H. says that each division of the army took its turn in the line.
Does that give you something to go on, Brazelton ?

[hoplite07]

Wow, yes. thankyou. That helps alot. I didnt even know all that.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,or anyone,do you think the 1000 under Mardonius where foot me or cavalry?I'd guess the latter?
Some persian sculptures also depict soldiers(again probably Immortals)with that dipylon-like shield.Some modersn representations show them in lines between the archers and the sparabara with the long wicker shields.Suppse this is speculation,too.
Have you seen persians in greek vases holding both bow and spear?Most times they do carry a bow in one hand and fight with a sword-usually kopis.I agree these vases are not accurate in the way of fighting,as they are not for hoplites either,but they could be used for and arguement,if some characteristics are very common in most vases...
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Hi, Giannis !
While Herodotus doesn't specifically say so, I would be almost certain they were infantry, and almost certain they were "Immortals", for the following reasons :-
1.When cavalry are involved, H. tells us so - the skirmish when Masistius is killed, for example.
2.We know the "Immortals" were the highest status royal guards in Persia, and H. calls Mardonius guards"the flower of the Army", and later"the best troops"
3. Mardonius frequently orders the cavalry into action, but never leads them himself
4. The Persians under Mardonius set up a barricade of shields and bombard the Spartans from behind it.
5. The Spartans charge, there is a struggle at the barricade, then a fierce hand-to-hand struggle --- cavalry would have evaded the infantry charge, as they did earlier.
6.Mardonius was conspicuous on his white horse, but would not have been if he were surrounded by cavalry.

I could give more reasons, but I think these suffice.........

I can't recall off-hand seeing any spear armed Persian infantry on Greek pottery, even those where the wicker pavises (spara) are shown - but this is likely to be for artistic reasons, and is therefore of doubtful use in trying to reconstruct the Persian army.