Talk:Battle of Thermopylae/Archive 2

An event mentioned in this article is an August 11 selected anniversary

---

Halo

• The Halo 2 Volume 2 Soundtack has a song titled "Finale: Thermopylae Soon." Also the book, "Halo: The Fall of Reach" by Eric Nylund refers to the Thermopylae battle, in book the Spartans come out victorious, as Nylund has used the battle as propoganda in a brain-washing program. Having the Spartans lose would not be satisfactory to the purporse of conditioning the perfect soldiers.

I can't really word this properly, but Nylund doesn't make a mistake about the battle, he does it purposely to show that ONI (something from his book) is willing to lie to the Spartan IIs to train them.

The allusion to Thermopylae in the soundtrack probably refers to the battle over Earth, similar ot the historical battle. That track is the one that plays during the annoying cliffhanger cinematic at the end. Mindgiver 01:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Poem by Lord Byron

I don't know if this is relevant enough, so I won't add it to the article myself. Never the less it's a striking poem about the battle of Thermopylae.

Earth! render back from out thy breast

A remnant of our Spartan dead!

Of the three hundred grant but three,

To make a new Thermopylae!

(Don Juan. Canto iii. Stanza 86. 7)

--BeSherman 19:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

More Anti Greek Lies

Every time I check this page, I see an English or Turk has tried to lower the number of Persian Soldiers in the Box. There are NO estimates as low as 170,000 - Every Historian I have read has given the estimation of their own at a quarter of a million, perhaps a little lower, perhaps a little higher. Stop lying, as my dad says, the english will never forgive us for inventing civilization.

Is it not equally possible that you are just blindly pro-Greek? Adam Bishop 01:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There are estimates 170 000 and lower, so I've restored it, but I've also kept the new maximum of 250 000. This is something there is a lot of uncertainty on, and we really need to provide some discussion and references, instead of just throwing out a number. Josh

Ok, maybe you are not anti-Greek. But I have never read anything which cites 170,000 as an estimate, that is why I Wondered, all of the books I have read (and I will admit I have only read about 6 or 7 on the subject and the wider Persian Wars), say that most probably there were a quarter of a million Persians.

40 times 7000?

"...an army of some 7000 Greeks, led by 300 Spartans, stood to receive the full force of the Persian army, numbering perhaps some forty times its size."

Will you PLEASE stop badmouthing the English? Bloody hell. I may not be English (American) but I do know that the British studied Greek battles like these for Hundreds of years including names like Nelson, Wellington and Mongomery. I doubt that anyone is really anti-Greek enough to try and change them. Second, even though I am severly not fond of Hitler's Germany, I don't try to go around changing numbers until suddenly the blitzkreig was conducted by 180 million Germans, so please state your problems in a reasonable voice, ok? Cannot use Sig. Not Registered. Is there a reference for this number? 280,000 seems excessive.

A brisson 22:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of references, none of them particularly reliable. I believe Herodotus tries to claim that there were two million men, that they drank entire rivers dry, blah, blah. Most historians nowdays believe that the numbers were around a quarter million or so the article is reasonable. ChrisU 08:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Spartan soldiers had mastered the phalanx formation

I really don't like this sentence at all..

One: it's misleading - it makes phalanx formations seem like a tactic particular to the Spartans, which is untrue. Phalanx warfare was a hallmark of all Greek warfare of the time, and had been for centuries. Also, I'm not debating that the Spartans were masters of phalanx warfare, but the other city states of the time were far from novices either; Athens in particular had a long history of giving Sparta a run for its money.

Two: The sentence feels clumsy and breaks the flow of the narrative. I'm not questioning that more emphasis needs to be placed on the fact the the Greeks met the enemy in a phalanx, it was the major reason that so much carnage was inflicted and that the Greeks lasted as long as they did against a so much larger force, but I think that that needs to be done elsewhere.

This article is reaching a level of maturity that makes me hesitant to arbitrarily change it without checking to see if others agree with me. Unless anyone raises any major objections, I'll take this sentence out and perhaps see if I can work in a better mention of phalanges elsewhere.

---Phalanx.

At the time, the Spartans were the best. The only other armies that could (if matched) hold their own agianst them (from what I read) were thebes, and macadonia. Although they were of differnt time periods completely.

Battles compared to Thermopylae

I want to remove the "see also" section here because every country has its lists of battles which it likes to compare to Thermopylae and I don't think that such as list is enlightening. Unless there is realy strong objections I shall remove the two in the see also section. If there is to be one (sigh!) then I suggest that it is kept to one per country. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Battle of the Alamo Texan/American
• Battle of the Tennis Court British/Indian (turning point of Burma campaing).

Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do with those, but I don't think they are particularly relevant either. Adam Bishop 16:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

removed See also

• Battle of Wizna
• Battle of Zadwórze

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Other various issues

This page probably will eventually need disambiguation from the other Battles of Thermopylae (notably that of 279 BC). I might have a go at writing a page about the 279 BC battle when I have a moment free.

Secondly, about the epitaph:

ἀγγέλλειν should read ἀγγέιλον (angeilon), if I can remember my Greek correctly. A quick check on Perseus should solve this.

Not really. All the Greek history books that I've read speel this as ἀγγέλλειν (aggelein). I'll ask someone who is more proficient with ancient Greek though and post a followup here. Keramida 02:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The "literal" translation isn't particularly literal either. Following the text closely, you would get:

O foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians that here we lie, obeying those words.

ξεῖν' carries more the connotation of "foreigner" rather than "stranger" here (remember they've just lost everything North of the Isthmus of Corinth to the Persians). It definitely does NOT mean "traveller" (that would be "hodoiporos")! ὅτι τῇδε κείμεθα can only mean "that here we lie". There is no relative pronoun to make it "that we who lie here" (and that would mess up the hexameter anyway). Likewise πειθόμενοι is a Present Middle Pariciple. κείνων literally means "those" not "their", although it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference here - "those" puts the emphasis more upon the words being Leonidas's, "their" attributes it to the Spartans in general - but it's sheer pedantry to make that distinction in English!

Under "inspiration", you might like to mention Jacques-Louis David's wonderful painting "Leonidas at Thermopylae" which hangs in the Louvre. -- 82.36.26.229

It's deffinitelly 'aggelein'. I admit it would sound more grammatical with 'aggeilon', but maybe it's a poetic use or something like that. All sources deffinitely agree on 'aggelein'. 'Xein' doesnt necessary have to be 'foreigner'. It can very well mean stranger, even guest. (eg Xenia) Druworos 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't help you with the translation, but as for disambiguation, do you mean the 191 BC battle? Was there also one in 279? There are already links to Battle of Thermopylae (191 BC), but the article hasn't been written yet - I don't think this one needs to be disambiguated with a date in the title because this is clearly the most famous Battle of Thermopylae (but we can say "for other uses, see..." at the beginning of this article). Adam Bishop 19:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there was also a skirmish there during WWII Germans and Allies (New Zealanders). I agree with AB, For other uses see Battle of Thermopylae (disambiguation) or Thermopylae (disambiguation). Philip Baird Shearer 21:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I took out a bit in the introduction saying how all but 300 Spartans were sent away, which is pretty much wrong however you look at it: 1) There were never more than 300 Spartans there anyway, 2) More stayed than just the Spartans for the final battle, 3) It is explained later in the text of this same article that other armies remained (not just the Spartans). I also added a brief blurb stating that the reason for this battle was to buy time for Greek perperation. Someone else may want to reword or expand on this, I just felt it deserved a mention. Other sources indicate that the Greeks were both evacuating Athens and building ships so fast that a delay of a few days could literally mean a few more ships. The original article makes it sound too much like the battle was of no consequence to the war while I think it could be argued that morale issues aside, holding up a huge army for 5 days using a tiny army is, in itself, a pretty good effect. The reason the Greeks didn't send a bigger army to Thermopylae is because they weren't ready yet.

Oracle

Was there some kind of oracular prophecy that the greeks could not triumph in the war unless a king of Sparta died?

Yes, see Battle of Thermopylae#Legends

Thank you. That's what I get for just skimming when looking for it.

I have a photograph of a display of the phases of the battle, which is located at the original place in Greece. I don't know if it would be interesting to upload it. I like graphics, but what do you think? And I don't know how to work with wikipedia, someone would have to look over changes I make...

FD

• Upload it and let's have a look --Briangotts (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy of the word 'decimation'

Just a small (perhaps pedantic) point on this sentence:

"However, even the Immortals lacked the power to break the Spartan phalanx and they were forced to retreat, their numbers decimated."

although it is generally accepted in modern day speech that 'to decimate' means something along the lines of 'to reduce greatly', i believe it is a word of Roman (Latin) origin meaning, specifically, to kill one in every ten. is there evidence to say that one in every ten immortals were killed? if not should the word be changed, in the interest of accuracy?

I shan't change it now; the decision pends upon whether anyone finds this a relevant point, or mere pedantry. --allthesestars 00:06, 04 July 2005 (BST)

Yeah, the Romans occasionally practiced decimation on their own men as a form of punishment, usually for cowardice in the field. That meaning of the word is pretty obscure nowdays, and I think it can be established pretty well from context that that isn't what was happening at Thermopylae. ChrisU 4 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory?

I've taken out that this was a Pyrrhic victory. It's true the losses at Thermopylae were not pleasant for the Persians, but they don't seem to have significantly hampered the invasion. They still pillaged Athens, and stood a good chance of winning until the defeats at Salamis and Plataea. Certainly, the battle didn't harm them anywhere near as much as it hurt the Greek cause, which is the usual meaning of a Pyrrhic victory. Josh

I have added it back in, as the casualty count shows quite clearly that although the Persians won the battle, it severely hampered their campaign with regards to morale and fear of Greek Armies. Btw, you are anti Greek.

On the contrary, I admire ancient Greece enough that I feel it deserves to be remembered accurately. The Persians had heavy casulaties, but they could afford to lose some men. I'm trusting every historian I've seen, including the original Herodotus, that there were some battles that didn't work out in the Greek's best interest. If you disagree, please give some references. Josh

If you dont think it was a Phyrric victory I think you should refer to the Persian sources. The enourmous losses and delay ( delay was about 3 days) undoubtedly mean this was a phyrric victory. This kind of battle is the very definition of a 'Phyrric Victory' in history

I've read Persian sources, and I understand they had heavy losses. I still haven't seen any evidence that anyone considered it a strategic victory for the Greeks, or that it seriously hampered their invasion of Greece, which proceeded along essentially the same plan as before. This is in contrast to the battle of Asculum that Pyrrhic victories are actually named for. So the label is at best misleading (and still unreferenced); but it looks like it's here to stay, no matter what anyone says.

What source are you looking for? Someone to say it was a 'phyrric victory'? In the eyes of history, this battle has the reputation of being the architypal battle of this kind. No one expected 300 Spartans and a couple of thousand others to completeley destroy such a massive force and this is indeed why they were sent as a delay and damage force. Hence why this battle is so famous as they were so effective in delaying and causing such significant losses.

I wont change it back because I know you'll just be back on to change it again but to say that the 'Phyrric Victory' description is misleading is simply absurd and makes me wonder about you're motives in this

Xerxes' force lost 10-20,000 out of over 200,000. That hardly constitutes an army that was "completely destroyed". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Listin up! This site is KNOWEN for its historical revisionism (an I do NOT mean that in a positive way) from WWII to Korea to (especially) Vietnam. However, I will try to reason with you. The Greek allies held the Persians back for several days, costing them time. Time that the other Greek allies were using to whip armies out of civilians. Time that Persia could not afford to loose. Had the Spartans not been there, Persia's advance could have been MUCH quicker. I am not saying at the door of Athens by teatime, but it would have at the very LEAST robbed the Greeks of the time they needed to equip, train, discipline, and field armies.

Likewise, despite the realativly low percentage of dead in the overall Persian force, the Persian elite suffered disproportianatly heavy lossees, for as Xerxes grew more and more desprate, the Immortals and other Veteran units found their heads being hurled at the Greeks more than the Conscripted units. In a war were the gap of quality of units between the two sides is so large that the Greeks lost about 202 men to 6,400 Persians, you KNOW that the losses of any single elite soldier for the Empire is going to hurt the Persian cause.

No, the battle of Thermopylae is not as clear cut phyrric victory as opposed to say the Alamo, but it WAS very valuble as it gave the Greeks time to make an army and it killed a great deal of the Persian elite. I am switching it but I am adding a note to it. ELV

Treachery or commonsense?

Looking at the map, the first thing the Persian commander would do on finding a serious obstruction in the Pass would be to scout to the right. The first gap they come to is the one they made their flanking manouvre through.

I expect it would be nice for them if they could find someone who regualrly walked over there, but it seems a little unlikely that they needed it.

Paths aren't always as obvious as they seem from a map. The first rule for reconstructing military events is always to argue from the records, rather than to argue from what should have been done. -- Josh Grosse 05:34, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

What map? The topology of the area has changed a lot since then, according to eg. Paul Cartledge. The fact that today a path may seem common sense, doesn't necessarily mean it was as obvious when one was looking at a map of that era (provided, of course, there was a map in the first place). -- Giorgos Keramidas 17:38, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

the relief map. However that has nothing to do with the actions of the commander at the time. It is a mountain, hence the strategic importance of the position. The behaviour of military commanders on finding a frontal obstruction doesn't change much either - scout to the flanks of which there is only one here, and probe each successive possible way to outflank the enemy. Grabbing any locals you find helps no doubt. I've not walked over that path though. Do we actually have the war diary for the battalion that souted the path - even if we do, I'm just slightly sceptical about the story.

a map from a reference given in the article. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/images/thermop.gif I didn't find a satellite photo that I can accurately locate it on, but as drawn, the question of where else they would go seems reaosnable. Is there a more detailed relief map to hand?

Your assumptions on the behaviour of military commanders don't hold either - you're applying modern doctrine to ancient warfare.

As a doctrine it may be more recent than the evolution of primates. Midgley 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a source for that, naturally? ;) 172.216.248.88 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good commanders like Alexander might have done as you say, and even he wasn't above sacrificing good tactictics for showmanship - consider his reluctance to "steal his victory" at Gaugamela. Xerxes was a pretty rubbish general and he was supremely over confident due to the numbers in his army and his sense of moral superiority. Even if Xerxes had been told about the pass on the first day he might very well have chosen to not use it simply because he believed his forces to be so superior that he wouldn't need it. ChrisU 12:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In an army of a quarter of a million, I suspect some operational decisions were devolved to a level well below the commander's staff. Micromanagement didn't really get going until radios were invented. I agree that the army may have thought it would roll straight through, but when was the first account of an army caught by an attack from the flank when in a position with nowhere to go on the other flank? I don't know but I doubt it was later than this. Flank security is one of those things that bothers people even if they have not been on a course. Midgley 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You suspect, again. The point is, in an army with as much reliance on central command as the Persian (a large proportion of the troops were virtually slaves being from outlying and thus recently-conquered satrapies, or at least distrusted by their commanders as for the Medes mentioned in the article, and thus would have been allowed virtually no room for initiative or autonomy at all) and such an obviously lack-lustre commander, especially with such a self-presumed superiority over the enemy in size and supposedly sophistication (the Persians looked upon the greeks as the barbarians, as I recall), even what today would be seen as the most basic of precautions would not necessarily be taken. Again you're just projecting modern-day thought onto a classical situation, and assuming that the reaction would always be the same, regardless of the shift in thinking; this is simply *not* a valid method of historical evaluation, especially for a period so far back. That's a basic point that any history student learns early in their studies. 172.216.248.88 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thebans

I have removed:

In contrast to the Thespians, Leonidas also had a force of Thebans with him, but after the initial engagement they defected to the Persians.

Because the Thebes, Greece page says:

The aversion to Athens best serves to explain the unpatriotic attitude which Thebes displayed during the great Persian War. Though a contingent of 700 was sent to Thermopylae and remained there with Leonidas to the end, the governing aristocracy soon after joined the enemy with great readiness and fought zealously on his behalf at the battle of Plataea in 479 BC.

Both can not be true so if the former is correct then please re-insert it and fix the Thebes page. Personally I think both are wrong because if they did not desert to the Persians they must have left when most of the Greeks left. But now I have pointed out the inconsistency I am sure that someone will fix it :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 10:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Leonidas had sent away the most Greek alies and defended the pass with his 300 Spartans and the Thespieis, 500 or 700 led by Demophilus. Spartans had a saying "Ή ΤΑΝ Ή ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ" with it or under it, which means the warrior can return from the battle as a winner, holding his shield, or he may return dead, covered with his shield. Their laws (see Lycurgus (Sparta)), and their honour system didn't allow them to flee - those who fled had to drop their shields (an ancient shield was too heavy for running), and they would be dishonored (or even executed) if they returned to Sparta. So we can understand that Leonidas went to Thermopylae to die (self-sacrifice) with an army of about 1000 men, against numerous Persians. The next question is why did he do that? At that time, the Greek defense was unprepared. The place of Thermopylae was chosen to delay the advance of the Persian army. If that didn't happen, the Persians would have conquered the whole Greece (probably first of all they would have destroyed the greek navy). The only choise Leonidas had, according to his moral code as a Spartan, was to fight till his death. Apart from molon labe the next quote is also attributed to Leonidas, the last morning of the battle (perhaps when he sent away the rest Greeks): Men eat well for breakfast, because tonight we'll dine in Ades (that's a rough translation from memory, probably mentioned by Diodorus Siculus). We should also note that Demaratos had sent a secret message to the Spartans informing them about the expedition while the Persian king was still preparing it, and then the Spartans asked the oracle (herodotus VII:239).

The spartan way and the laws of Lycurgus, were also the reasons that they didn't join the army of Alexander the Great, their laws forbade them to join a campaign under a non-spartan leadership (at various times, mercenaries of Spartan origin existed, but they couldn't return to their home-Sparta). MATIA 08:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Thebans issues is a bit more complicated. Herodotus writes that those Thebans whom I mentioned when I reckoned them in the number of the troops, of whom the commander was Leontiades the son of Eurymachos: and for this reason Leonidas was anxious to take up these with him of all the Hellenes, namely because accusations had been strongly brought against them that they were taking the side of the Medes; therefore he summoned them to the war, desiring to know whether they would send troops with them or whether they would openly renounce the alliance of the Hellenes; and they sent men, having other thoughts in their mind the while. (VII:205),

Of these the Thebans stayed against their will and not because they desired it, for Leonidas kept them, counting them as hostages; but the Thespians very willingly, for they said that they would not depart and leave Leonidas and those with him, but they stayed behind and died with them. (VII:222). The Thebans however, of whom the commander was Leontiades, being with the Hellenes had continued for some time to fight against the king's army, constrained by necessity; but when they saw that the fortunes of the Persians were prevailing, then and not before, while the Hellenes with Leonidas were making their way with speed to the hillock, they separated from these and holding out their hands came near to the Barbarians, saying at the same time that which was most true, namely that they were on the side of the Medes and that they had been among the first to give earth and water to the king; and moreover that they had come to Thermopylai constrained by necessity, and were blameless for the loss which had been inflicted upon the king: so that thus saying they preserved their lives, for they had also the Thessalians to bear witness to these words. (VI:233).

But other sources claim that Herodotus was biased against Thebans. MATIA 08:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The devil may or may not be in the detail, but it certainly complicates a simple battle narrative! Was Leonidas killed before or after the retreat to the small hill? I have put it as afterwards because of "while the Hellenes with Leonidas were making their way with speed to the hillock" what do the other sources say? BTW do you have a named source which "claim that Herodotus was biased against Thebans"? Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I did read it somewhere but I can't find a source right now. I 'll try to look into it (hopefully during the next week). Herodotus#Opinions has some critics on Herodotus. I believe he deserves the name Father of History, even if other historians may challenge bits of his narration. A public domain map of Thermopylae's Battle would be nice too. You may want to check volume 1 and volume 2 of Herodotus at gutenberg. On book 7:224 he writes that Leonidas fell when the greater number of Spartans' spears were broken and on 7:225 he describes the fight over Leonidas' body. MATIA 11:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

How many soldiers were there?

I don't like the wording of 'Herodotus also wrote that the army drank entire rivers and ate the food supplies of entire cities. While these are certainly exaggerations...'. If there really were 5 million men, as Herodotus claimed, then they would indeed have consumed the food supplies of entire cities. Whilst I admit it's very unlikely to have that many men, you can't dismiss A after using it to prove B. Are there any common consensuses on the matter? Bgh251f2 07:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

From the greek side, 700 Thespians and 300 Spartans (Leonidas had sent away the rest greeks - check the wiki). Later historians (probably Plutarch too, but I didn't have the time to check him) claimed that Herodotus was wrong about the numbers of the Persian army. You may also want to check Alexander the Great (at his time the Persians had about triple size of Alexander's army, if I remember correctly). You may want to check the various external links (here and on related wikis). +MATIA ☎ 10:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Mountain pass?

How sure are we that Thermopylae was a mountain pass? From my time in Greece, I remember the site identified as "Thermopylae" being a stretch of beach between the sea and very sheer cliffs. Apparently, this strip of beach was even thinner in antiquity, and could have been held by a small but determined force. Some others seem to share my opinion.

(I'm pretty sure that Ephialtes' route was through the mountains, BTW, but I'm asking about Thermopylae itself.)

We also have "The Spartans on the sea-wet rock sat down and combed their hair" (also quoted in the article), which would imply that the impending battle was to be at the seashore, not up in the mountains.

Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

template error

somebody fool screwed the template, can anybody fix it please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.141.125 (talk • contribs) .

500.000 Persians?!?!?!

We are talking about more than 2000 years ago! The Persian army was - at its largest extent - not more than 250.000. The German Wikipedia claims that only 120.000 Persians were at the battle ... so where did the other 330.000 come from?! Here is one source:

• "... Emperor Xerses conscripted the Imperial troops from every satrapy of the Persian Empire, amassing the largest army that had been seen to this date. In 481 BCE, he had his headquarters at Sardes in Lydia. He sent out envoys to all of the Greek city-states except Athens and Sparta, demanding the earth and water of submission. It is estimated that Xerxes' force contained over 150,000 (Herodotus claimed that the Persian army were over 1,000,000 soldiers and Athenians and Spartans only 300!) combatants, approximately half of which would have been Iranian troops consisting of Persian and Medes soldiers. It included the very best cavalry of the Mediterranean area, fast cavalry armed with spear and bow. His Imperial fleet contained approximately 1200 ships, of which many would have been transports carrying supplies and the horses for his cavalry (the cavalry of the day did not use horseshoes, and most of the horses would have came up lame if they had made the long trek from Persian territory to the Greek mainland). He would also have had to carry a large amount of supplies of all kinds for such a large force to be able to live in such an arid land as Greece. The fleet would need to provision the army from the sea if there was to be any chance of success. ..." [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/greece_invasion.htm

The Encyclopaedia Iranica - which, btw, is an authoritive scholarly source - claims that only 100.000 Persians attacked Greece. [1] Anyway, the numbers "300.000 - 500.000" sounds extremely exeggerated!

Tajik 11:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems very hard for king Xerxes who had good intelligence on Greece to have sent an army smaller than that the alliance of Corinth managed to put up at Plataea, that is 100-110,000. It was the most certain recipe for failure. The problem with the Persian wars is that no account has survived from the Persian side. Thus even Encyclopedia Iranica's numbers have as a primary source the numbers given by Greek historians. The link on the bottom called the size of the Persian army gives great arguements on why the number was large. Ikokki 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume 110 000 is an accurate number? Adam Bishop 20:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus gives a very good breakdown: 38,700 hoplites and 71,300 lightly armed. Of the hoplites 10,000 Lacedemonians (5,000 omoioi and 5,000 perioikoi ), 8000 Athenians, 5,000 Corinthians etc. (the number adds up). As for the light 35,000 helots, 1,800 Thespians and 34,500 from the other cities. While the number of helots has for good reason come under doubt (1 for every 7 Spartans?) it is not inconsistent with the population of Messenia and the Evrotas valley at the time and even if it is somewhat bloated, I don't think the army could have numbered significantly less than 100,000 troops Ikokki 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

We can agree that by modern estimates Xerxes took 2000 ships on the invasion, now having 500,000 at the higher end of the scale seems unreasonable for persian forces because that would mean 250 persians were on each ship. Considering the sizes of the triremes and transporters, this is not possibe, you can probably get anywhere from 100 persians onto a trireme and approximately 150 on a transport, considering cavalry also takes more space up than infantry as well. So if we got a range of 100-150 persians on a ship, for 2000 ships. Our range for the cumulative persian forces comes to 200,000-300,000. This is why I have changed the warbox numbers, anyone else have comments, I would appreciate that, but please post before anyone changes the numbers. Thanks.

Also I have changed in the warbox Persia's casualties to around 20,000 as that is the average of the original 10,000-30,000 given and because later on in the article is says that the Persian casualties were approximately 20,000.

Xerxes's invasion was not a purely maritime operation. The Persian army crossed on foot the Hellespont, walked the road from Thrace to Therme and then south through Tempe to Thermopylae. The fleet was providing support and carrying supplies for the army, not transporting it, thus the size of the army was not limited by fleet transportation. Also BTW Herodotus claims that each ship carried 200 rowers and 30 soldiers who had the job of not only fighting their enemies during sea battles but also to supress any mutiny on the fleet Ikokki 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For the numbers pleas refer to Hans Delbruck. Numbers much over 100,000 is impossible to supply in ancient times. In modern times only at Napoleonic times armies could be that large and population density was much higher than antique times. Please remember that Napoleon could not supply his 500,000 army in Russia. Most of the casulaties died during summer. And Napoleın's army used several different routes. On the other hand Perisan army used only one road and again in where which had much lower population density. And after Salamis with no naval logistics. Ilpars

Population density of the Greek countryside in antiquity was larger than in the modern era. Lack of population was not a reason to draft a small army for the Persians since their empire had a population of over 50,000,000. At 5% draft (common in the modern era, in ancient Greece it was more like 30%) this gives 2,500,000. Lack of food again was not a reason, for the Persians had been stocking food for 4 years in Europe in preparation for the campaign. Lack of water seems ridiculus, at 4 liters per person (and people require 2-3) the Penius river can support millions... Ikokki 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No army was larger than 100,000 before the Napoleonic wars? What about the 150,000 Leo I the Thracian sent to conquer the Visigoths? The 140,000 byzantine soldiers in the battle of Yarmak? The 500,000+ Arabs at the second Arab siege of Constanstinople in 717 AD? This number is given by both sides, Arabs and Byzantines. The 150,000 Mongols that invaded Russia and Hungaria? The 300,000 Turks that conquered Constantinople in 1453, or any Ottoman army since, for that matter? Lets not talk about the Chinese Army. That theory mentioned earlier is full of holes... Ikokki 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Greek Strength

This is primarily directed to Miskin: The article encompasses the whole battle, which involved 7000 Greek soldiers. The final battle, while the most significant portion of the battle and the most remembered, was not the whole battle. 1000 Greek soldiers did not take on 200,000 Persians. What argument do you have against this? --Scottie theNerd 05:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that 7000 fought and 1500 fell gives the wrong depiction of the events. The fact is that the narrow pass of Thermopylae only allowed a small group of soldiers to fight (maybe not even a complete phalanx), a task that was taken up mainly by the Spartans (this is why they're credited above all others). During the first 2 days only a few hundreds of the lot did all the fighting. The 6000 that were dismissed on the last day had probably not participated in the battle at all, they were just present as "back ups". The Persian army on the other hand had all of its units present and motivated until the last moment. Emphasis has to be given to the soldiers who fell at the final stand, that is the 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians. The 6000 should be also mentioned in the box, but they must be given lower priority (such as in a Note). If we don't follow this practice the reader will be questioned by the fact that when historians speak of Thermopylae they emphasize the role of the Spartans, the smallest force of the lot. Details are given in the main article. Miskin 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The significance fo the final stand is emphasised in the article itself. I'm getting the impression that you're hypothesising without any actual evidence, and as Wikipedia requires the citation of sources, if you can provide a source that states that only 1000 Greeks were used in battle, then by all means put it in. As it stands, your "hypothesis" looks flawed in itself. If the pass was only narrow enough to allow a portion of the Greek troops to fight, then the same limitation would also be placed on the Persians. Point being, either cite your source that supports your claim, or leave the numbers at 7000 Greeks and let the article do the talking. --Scottie theNerd 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I double-checked in Histories and my claim is only valid for the first and the third day. On the second day, numerous cities took place in the battle and in turns (all except the Phocians), taking advantage of the pass' narrowness. So as you can see I wasn't just hypothesising. However I'll make some adjustements, it's not fair to completely ignore the efforts of the other Greeks. Miskin 12:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it also would not be fair to the Persians to make estimations about how many actually participated in the fight. I differentiate however between the numbers of Spartans, Thespians and other Greeks in order to emphasize the latter's importance (after all they were the ones who sacrificed themselves). Miskin 12:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair and accurate. --Scottie theNerd 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

No need for costly Persian victory, not even the battle of Passchendaele is written like that. We have three choices, victory, phyrric victory and decisive victory. Since this was not a decisive victory discard that, since it wasn't a phyrric victory because 20,000 for a range of 200,000-500,000 is not that much and Xerxes did not have to retreat (like Phyrrus), and still continued the march to athens burning it. Discard phyrric. So its just plain and simple Persian victory, anything more and that is Greek bias, expressing self courage for former country men. --Arsenous Commodore 18:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is costly for 2 reasons:

• 20K casualties in a battle of 500K vs 7K
• duration of 3 days, allowed athenians to evacuate their city and make preparations for the battle of Salamis

It basically cost the entire war. Miskin 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No one's arguing that it cost the Persians the war. The point being made is that "costly victory" is not a term used to designate types of victory. --Scottie theNerd 09:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean Scottie, we usually run some consistency in categorizing victories as: victory, desicive victory, stalemate or phyrric victory. I have not seen any other battle victory categorized this way, all I ask for is some consistency. As for being what cost the war Miskin, I don't think it was Thermopylae. Salamis was the turning point and particular battle that cost the war in my humble opinion. --Arsenous Commodore 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interseting, somebody enjoyed inserting some Greek bias with that chart into the article that states the total confederate Greek force was 4,200. You got to love when Greek patriotism blinds and makes a mistake, well I added the numbers in the chart and guess what you get 5,200 not 4,200. I ask you, what sense of pride does it give to individuals like Ikkoki and Miskin at the fact that the we reduce the Greek army size at Thermopylae by one thousand to 4,200 when adding the numbers gives you 5,200. Secondly, why would anyone bother posting this garbage chart here, it is almost unanimous that Greek forces were 7,000. Not 4,200 or 5,200, please Ikkoki the madness must stop. You have to reduce the bias you put in these articles. Besides which this chart merely contradicts an almost unanimous figure agreed upon by almost all non-bias scholars which has the Greeks at around 7,000.--Arsenous Commodore 22:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that that there were 5,200 Greeks. I said that these were the numbers given by ancient sources and that with auxiliaries there were probably no more than 7,000. Diodorus does give 4,000 , Herodotus numbers add to 5,200 but these are probably the hoplites. Ikokki 18:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I put up the table. I decided to table-ify the previous numbers for easier reference. When I did it one week or so ago I used the windows calculator and it gave me this number. Aparently I had forgotten to add one of the thousands. I'll fix this also at the Greco-Persian wars page. I would like to remind you that before I added to this article it said 4,000 Greeks. Am I given the benefit of doubt here? Could it be I made a genuine mistake? Ikokki 18:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt here, and I appologize if it seems like I jumped down your throat. But we agree, there was around 7,000 total Confederate Greeks at Thermopylae, and that's the figure that should remain in the war box, agreed? --Arsenous Commodore 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not change the warbox here. Whether there where 4 or 7,000 Greeks in Thermopylae would have really matter if there were 10 or 20,000 Persians. Whatever the number (and I believe more like 7,000) they were vastly outnumberred by the Persians. But I doubt it cost the Persians the war since (if we are to take Ctesias who is the only one who gives numbers for everybody) the Persians lost a little over 100,000 out of 800,000; not enough for victory in the war... It is possible I will change the text to also add the other POV why there might have been few Persians, but I would love to know why. I read on the web that no more than 20,000 were accompanying the "Myrioi" along Cyrus and that they fought against 60,000, not 1,000,000 with the king, but they just don't say how they came with these numbers, they just write them... Ikokki 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Greek casualties

Where does it say the other Greeks, other than Thespians and Spartans, lost 1000 men? If anything the casualties of the first 2 days (when they fought) were so small that Xerxes despaired. The wear down was extremely small. If we extrapolate Ctesias it was under 100, not 1,000. Who puts 1,000? Ikokki 20:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cavafy translation

Whose Cavafy translation is that? Jkelly 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine. I did a rather rough original translation from the Greek into English. Use it as GFDL at will. Ikokki 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am getting sick and tired of pro Greek bullshit that keeps getting written in the war box. This is not a Phyrric victory. Whether you take ratio of modern casualties numbers to strength numbers or ancient ones. Athens was stilled captured, and Xerxes couldn't care enough how many troops were lost. Then we have a fellow probably like Miskin here or his want-to-bees claim that the reason for "Phyrric" is because it wasted three days and permitted Athenians to escape. Hello pro-Greek morons. Athenians under Themistocles did not want to escape to Salamis. They wanted to continue fighting in Artemisium against the Persian navy. It was only after that the Athenian navy discovered that the last few Spartans were about to be annihilated that Athens got a chance and decided to leave. How did the Athenians get a chance to leave? No, not because naked Leonidas stalled the Persians long enough hundreds of kilometers away from the naval battle. It was because the Persian navy was more interested in ravaging the city of Artemisium than follow the retreating Athenians. Also there were no confederate Greeks preparing in southern Greece. The Spartans began mobilizing a force to cover the Isthmus of Corinth after the last few Spartans were killed. I apologize but casualties on the Immortals, irrelevant, patriotic Greek.

So don't change this into Phyrric or an administrator will be notified. For the better time of this articles life, the outcome has been called a "Persian victory", not a Phyrric. I apologize for some of my language but over nationalistic people, not only Greek but all really tick me off when they cloud history like this. Nothing has changed, Greeks like Herodotus and Diodorus lied then and now we have more doing it again 2400 years after on a great site like Wikipedia. --Arsenous Commodore 01:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)