Talk:Battle of Thermopylae

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

Modern Greek Army

The insertion of references to the modern Greek army are superfluous. This is trivia, and should be placed in a "contemporary references" section. These references have no place in the main body of the article. The following should be removed:

"Today Dienekes's phrase is the motto of the Greek 20th Armored Division.[13]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prolethead (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Herodotus' citations

For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Herodotus' citations --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Probable phony citations

For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Probable phony citations --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fortune of Leonidas

For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Fortune of Leonidas --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Size of the armies

Surely an army of over two and a half million is totally unrealistic, especially for those times. I strongly suspect that number has been exagerated out of all proportion to enhance the reputation and bravery of the outnumbered Greeks. Lianachan 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, someone should really change it. Yongke 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While obviously exaggerated or minimized (and you can't really prove which number has been falsified) we are left with Greek history. Do you, or does anyone, have verifiable numbers? I would think not. Unfortunately there is no way to know, so let us concentrate on the items that can be verified and / or falsified rather than quibbling about something that never can. Accept the fact that governments manipulate the facts and fight to stop it from happening today because you can't do anything about the Greek's manipulation of their histories now. You don't have the information to correct it. Inglixthemad

I'm not quibbling, and as a historian I know how little can be done to correct it. I'm just saying it's quite clearly shite. Lianachan 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The size of the armies is pulled from the historical account of a Greek historian. The numbers could very well be exaggaerated, but history is written by winners. What is for certain is that the Persian army was exponentially larger than the Greek one. The Greeks did so well because they used the land to their advantage and their army's reputation to instill fear in the Persians, causing them to hesitate at the sight of the Spartans.

This article needs fact check.

2 million vs 300 men? Come on. If its true, then the whole battle is a fantasy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.134.192 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Also, the world population at the time (as can be seen from the World Population page here at Wikipedia) was only 100 million at the time. It is extremely unlikely that 2% of the population would be in this single battle.

Yeah It's retarded to believe whichever historian said about that battle, especially someone as biased as Herodotus. We've all heard of the statement that history is written by the victors, and this is no different; majority of information we in the West have of that or any battle of the Greeks, is from the Greeks themselves, and it is rather obvious that they would skew history in their own favor. Frankly people still argue about what happened 10 years ago history, much less 2000+ yrs ago or so.

I agree. The number is probably closer to 300,000, and this is believable, since the Persian empire was massive. Xerxes took the invasion quite seriously, obviously. But to the guy at the top, this battle really happened. Anyone knows that in battle a valley can equalize the playing field, as numbers cannot be used to advantage. The length of the greeks' spears, combined with their superior skills and tactics, destroyed the Persian forces. 300 men could have held 10 million men for the same amount of time, if we forget the outflanking force of the Persians. The Bryce 11:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am more concerned with the logistical support of an army of millions in the early 400s. As the editor above already said, 2 per cent of the total world population being involved in one localized campaign sounds utterly unrealistic. Some other common sense-type of thoughts that come to mind are:

(1) It is both extremely expensive and risky to upkeep a large army for any extended period in a pre-industrial, agrarian society. Probably most soldiers would have been farmers themselves, and their hands would be needed for food production in their homelands. With an army proportionally that big, the results would have been disastrous if they stayed away from home too long. Was Xerxes that desperate to conquer the Greek city states? It doesn't seem very plausible.

(2) How did an expeditional force of this size support itself? The most obvious way would be to live off the land, but Greece has never been that fertile in terms of agricultural yields, and it supports only a population of modest size even in modern times. Where would the Persian army have got the food for its soldiers and the fodder for its horses (and camels) from?

Regardless of what ancient historians would want us to believe, I'd stick with the lower number. Iblardi 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There we go again. Iblardi since you pretend to be a new editor (and not a sockpuppet of a banned editor) I would advise you to read up at WP:NOR. Miskin 09:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't touch the article itself, did I? As I said, this is just a common sense-argument, something that might be taken into consideration. It hardly involves any personal research. Anyway, I'm sure good sources could be found that say something similar. Iblardi 10:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy?

escription of the battle are derived solely from the greks, thus they are naturally fabricated and are extremely out of proportion. This battle would be more aptly filed under greek mythology. If anyone read recent research and commentary of this battle they would arrive at the same conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.213.84 (talk)

Erm, if the Greeks wanted to glorify their history, wouldn't they have used the six-digit figures of Herodotus rather than remarkably smaller figures? --Scottie theNerd 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Only a fool who lacks comprehension of numbers would believe the hoaxes of herodotus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon1190 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Why do I get the impression that Jon1190 is the sockpuppet of the person who has been vandalising this and every other article related to this battle (300 (film), 300 (comic), Leonidas I etc). Miskin 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Scottie don't you mean the seven figure digits?--Arsenous Commodore 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• slap* I suck =( --Scottie theNerd 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually what the first guy's comment is correct. If you look at the persian greco war article it explains that the current statistical knowledge is based on pretty much on only herodatus's findings (he wasnt even alive at the time of the battles)and that his results were based on interveiws that were influenced by political slants and other biases. Other than that the article needs to point out that the size of the Persian Army was somewhat irrelevant tactically because of the geographic conditions (equally sized forces on both sides were actually in combat at the same time). The valley was "50 feet wide" (just enough room for the spartans but not enough for the persian army to utilize their numbers). Another item that needs emphasis is the equipment and the method of combat: the hopolites had spears with very far reach therefore they only needed to stand back in formation and protect their niche in the canyon (they fought extremely defensive unlike their portrayl as "herioc", aggressive combatants in the comic and film 300). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diddy2100 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Diddy2100 you have a point. Since the mountainous terrain was selected by the Spartans as the choke hold, it gave them two oportunities to capitalize. Firstly the 80,000 cavalry that both Herodotus and Kampouris claim would not have been employable. By all accounts these particular Persian units were most effective against Greek phalanx, it took much discipline to stand against a cavalry charge. Secondly as you stated the Persians would not have been able to use their full force, but obviously this was the Greeks alliance's plan. Had this battle been fought on an open field; rather than take 3 days, this battle probably would have been done in 3 hours. Leaving no time for the for the Athenians to flee or even plan the next strategy. There is no doubt that Herodotus exaggerated an at times employed rather false premises. Afterall he was an author an to publish and make famous his work he would have needed the assistance of the wealthy. So in many ways if you sponsored him, he would put you and your family in history, even if you were irrelevant.
That being said, Herodotus is our almost only significant source, so rather than completely bash him, it would probably be best if we could extrapolate what seems most truthful, neutral and realistic from his writings, that would be most useful. Did he exaggerate? No friggin doubt about it, but if we can carefully wander around the poetic bias we can unravel many truths as well.--Arsenous Commodore 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know Diddy, Herodotus was born at the time of the battle but he would have been I think a bit young to remember. Plus I don't think Herodotus should go so much stick because I very much doubt that he just selected some random numbers and placed them as the Persian strengths. He might have had a source that claimed that the Persians army had 2,000,000+ men. So please give Herodotus a break. :) Kyriakos 07:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's retarded to believe whichever historian said about that battle, especially someone as biased as Herodotus. We've all heard of the statement that history is written by the victors, and this is no different; majority of information we in the West have of that or any battle of the Greeks, is from the Greeks themselves, and it is rather obvious that they would skew history in their own favor. Frankly people still argue about what happened 10 years ago history, much less 2000+ yrs ago or so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.213.247 (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

More Book references

The CoDominion series by Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling, especially the one called "Go Tell the Spartans"

the late David Gemmell wrote about a group of soldiers called the immortals in his series on the Drenai, the character called Druss and a small group of Drenai soldiers held them at a pass untill there navy was sunk by the Drenais

Film Reference

"Rambling Rose" in 1991

After Rose (Laura Dern) attempts to make a pass at the character Daddy (Robert Duvall), Daddy says:

DADDY - Goddamn you, girl! You've made me make a fool out of myself, damn your hide, but let me tell you I am standing at the pass of Thermopylae and I won't budge! The very idea, my own home with children in the house, to say nothing of my wife -- oh-h, you had better believe I am standing at Thermopylae, you little nut, you had better believe it! What are you, crazy? A man is supposed to be a fool like this, but a woman is supposed to have some control and sense! Are you a nitwit? What's the matter with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluechao (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

"The Last Samurai" (2003) The main character Algren mentions the battle to a samurai named Katsumoto saying, "There was once a battle at a place called Thermopylae, where three hundred brave Greeks held off a Persian army of a million men..." Later, during the final battle of the film, Katsumoto asks Algren,"What happened to the warriors at Thermopylae?" to which Algren enthusiastically replies, "Dead to the last man."

infobox

I removed the 120,000 figure for the Persian strength. It is the minimum figure and doesn't reflect any more consensus than Herodotus' 5,000,000 (max value). In other words there's no point on putting the minimum estimate above the maximum. I replaced it with 200K-2M, it seems to be an average range of the estimates given by both primary and secondary sources (120K-5M as a raw figure). Miskin 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration section

I think that things should only be included if they have a strong link to the battle - it is in popular culture to such an extent that references can be found in quite a few places. Some of the section is in danger of veering into this area - the book 'Halo: the Fall of Reach' has almost no connection to Thermopylae, whereas 'Gates of Fire' does, for example. As I am a fairly new user, however, I wouldn't want to upset the status quo by meddling with the article. What do other people think? Andyana 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

additional movie reference

Please note that Tom Cruises (Capt. Algren) character in the movie "Last Samurai" also references the battle at Thermopylae at length.

I am not sure if this is a relevant reference, but it does bring the Greeks in a pseudo-heroic light again.

Sincerely

Richard OHm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.230.109.21 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Relocate?

Why is this article protected? It would seem more accurately placed in the greek propoganda/myth project. Throughout the article only the information of herodatos, the father of lies, is used. The article never addresses the arguments of other prominent, modern historians. The article never mentions alternate theories, explanations, or information. The article never mentions that some historians believe the battle is complete fiction. Many improvements could be made to this article, but some ass who totally believes the hoax of herodatus chose to block modifications.

Why Relocate?

The battle itself is a part of historical fact. Archeologists have found evidence of arrow barrages, et al. Remember something else: all history is technically lies (written by the winners no less) so don't get too proud of yours unless you were there to witness it personally. That's the idea your presenting carried to it's logical fallacy. Furthermore, pages are protected to keep random people from vandalizing them because they either disagree with the view presented or are simply changing it maliciously for the thrill.

Complain about it all you want. When it comes to history, especially early histories, there are very few concrete sources. Do you want to do something constructive (I hope so). Did the Persians keep a better history? Log in and present sources under the aspect title of "Persian Accounts" or something similar. Remember, complaining does little, presenting verifiable fact goes further. --Inglix the Mad - Killing all hope. 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Type of Victory

Should the line for "Result" in the Infobox read "Persian victory" or "Pyrrhic Persian victory", as it can easily be argued that the victory was pyrrhic? Mmace91 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be simply a Persian victory. Maybe it shouldn't be labelled a Persian victory at all. The Spartans and Thespians who stayed and died knew full well that they were going to be killed, however eventually. Their entire purpose in staying was to delay the Persian army. By all accounts, the Greeks won an astounding victory if one is to judge the battle's importance in the overall scheme of the Greco-Persian war. Thermapylae allowed the Greeks time to marshal their forces and prepare for the battle, and the morale damage the Spartans and Thespians inflicted on the entire Persian army simply can't be calculated. I imagine the knowledge that the 1,000 they fought (and bled rivers of blood against) were a mere fraction of the actual Greek army was frightening to many soldiers in the Persian army. It would seem to me that a Pyrrhic victory is exactly what this was, if we must label it as a victory at all. I think I'll log in and change this now. 151.151.21.100 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The battle was a Persian military victory and a Greek moral victory, kind of like the second siege of Messolonghi in 1827. Problem is there is no such thing as moral victory for the Wikipedia warbox Ikokki 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate actually went on for quite a while earlier, however it was unanimously agreed by Wiki users (except for one aggressive anon) that this battle cannot be classified as a Pyrrhic victory. Losing anywhere from a low of 1% to a high of 10% of your army (from Xerxes' perspective) according to the strength (200,000-2,000,000) listed above, does not at all constitute a pyrrhic victory. One of the errors repeated on this article is that we are using costly on a small scale synonymously with pyrrhic. Xerxes could have sustained 10-100 more similar battles. Even from a strategic standpoint the Persians were successful. It was the result of this battle that ensured Persian occupation of Greece and the razing of Athens. There isn't a doubt that in terms of a comparative tactical figure ratio to the Greeks, it was costly for the Persians; but that's all. This wasn't the case for Persian army's perspective. Also the whole crushing of morale, well with all sincerity that's probably not more than speculation. And the other point is like Ikkoki mentioned, "moral" or even "costly" are not standard Wiki descriptions for result. I am changing it back to the originally agreed upon result. I welcome any comments on the issue, just please post your reasoning before you make the changes. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Poet Simonides Comment

Simonides wrote after the battle this epitaph:

  "Here four thousand from the Peloponnese Once fought three thousand thousands."

Were there 4000 Spartans?

No, there were only 300 Spartans. However, the Spartans were joined by 6,700 other Greeks. Kyriakos 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah kriak knows for sure because he was there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.213.247 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

There were 300 omoioi (full citizen soldiers), some perioikoi and the helot servants of the omoioi. In Plataea there were 7 helots for every omoios. In Thermopylae we do not know Ikokki 14:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

{{Editprotected}}

It's been a month, I think it's time to remove protection.

Yes, done. If the vandalism starts right back up again, though, don't be surprised if it goes back on, and stays on for a lot longer. Proto ► 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mythology/History

The article could keep the fairy tale version, but it definitely needs modern estimates by modern historians while emphasizing that the ancient greeks fabricated these ridiculous statistics. According to the capacity, number, and size of the invading ships some scholars estimate 40,000 Persian Soldiers tops while the spartans had about 10,000. I have read on a few encyclopedias that some modern historians doubt that the battle even existed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You are a fool. There is zero doubt the battle existed. There is also zero doubt the Persian army was many, many, many, times larger than the Greeks army. If you want to even be considered in this discussion, then link some sources other than "a few encyclopedias." And you claiming "fabricated these ridiculous statistics," is itself ridiculous. you make it clear you're no historian. The Bryce 11:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to refrain from name-calling. Bryce, such denialist comments against western scholarship are very common here. With the upcoming film 300 it's going to get even commoner. So keep it cool, a few nationalist insecurities were never enough to change history. Miskin 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I expressed some reservations about the size of the Persian army further up this talk page. These reservations are not the result of any "nationalist insecurities", and neither were they "denialist comments against western scholarship". There is never going to be, to borrow a horrible expression from wikilore, a NPOV account of this battle simply because history has only handed down to us accounts from one side. To fully accept the account of Herodotus, without question, is not good historical practice. Lianachan 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the part of the article where it is implied that Herodotus is fully accepted. The number of the persian numbers appear as a range closest to the consensus. Over 2M is too much, and under 200K is to little. Since there can be no specific answer, we either remove the numbers completely or stick to the wide range. There you go. As for "denialists" and "nationalists", I think those terms are actually complimentary to someone who thinks that the battle is actually mythological. Look I don't understand why the Iranian crowd cares so much about this. Can't they just let it go? How come there's no Greeks complaining on Persian imperialism which nearly cost their freedom? Maybe because they won? That is the only reason. Miskin 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no vested interest in this, very little interest at all actually, and no axe to grind. I am just deeply suspicious of the reported size of the Persian army, as it is reminiscent of similar (although smaller) exaggerations in the accounts of historians such as Tacitus, with which I am more familiar. As a Scot, I'm not even sure who "the Iranian crowd" are! Lianachan 01:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the people who have been causing the vandalism and delivered personal attacks in discussion (which I removed). Miskin 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Size of the Persian army

Umm, why did 202.177.214.172 change it to say there were only 61 Persians? Is that supposed to be a joke or something?  :-o I'm putting back numbers from an earlier revision... -- MyrddinEmrys 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called vandalism. Miskin 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a somewhat different suggestion for the warbox. I find the inclusion of "the entire Persian presence" of 5M+ to be somewhat unnecessary. After all, it is a warbox, and the strength category is located just below the combatants. Wouldn't it be far more accurate and reasonably logical to maintain the warbox for war (or combat) units only; rather than to sum is value with support troops. It is pretty strange to up the Persian presence with the inclusion of maids, mistresses, musicians, treasure carriers, many ceremonial nobles etc; that all don't fight or make any military difference in the battle, in the warbox. Shouldn't Herodotus' claim of 2,641,610 military presence only be listed in the warbox footnote instead? I think this is a good idea, because the doubling of Persian troops is already done and explained in the article. Does anyone agree with the idea to change the footnote’s wording to imply only military unit figures and thus list the 2M+ number? I guess my point is that the battle box sould solely be reserved for battling and potentially battling units, not support troops too. I’ll make the change and be happy to hear others’ opinions.--Arsenous Commodore 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I agree with the way you put it. What about the 'pyrrhic' status of the victory? Some people keep adding it back. Miskin 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, an excellent argument against calling it Pyrrhic is made by User:Vawarner2000 on the Pyrrhic victory talk page... -- MyrddinEmrys 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The size of Xerxes' army in infobox

The lowest estimate is not 200,000, there are many modern sources that report 40,000 or 60,000. --Mardavich 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The highest estimate is not 2M either, the range is not going for the extremes. What sources mention 40,000 and 60,000? None is mentioned in the article. Credibility has to be taken into account, many foreign language articles provide a 400,000-500,000 figure as a modern estimation. Miskin 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way it is practically impossible to have less people at Thermopylae than at the battle of Plataea. Miskin 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those figures are absolutely hilarious. No serious contemporary salaried historian would take 400,000-500,000 as realistic figures. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What about all the scholars cited in the size of the Persian army section? I don't think your word is more credible than theirs. The Persian army was in reality "the armies of the kingdoms of the Persian Empire", which at a time expanded from Northern Africa to India. If a handful of Greek cities were able to gather over 100,000 soldiers, then it's only natural that Persia would have been able to gather many times that number. Now whether they she actually did, is a whole different story. Miskin 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate article

Anyone know why Adeebkasem duplicated this article just to claim that only 10,000 Persian immortals fought at Themopylae? This is his only edit to Wikipedia under this name. I'm changing that article to a redirect. -- llywrch 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is a travesty

This article makes a mockery of whatever sense of legitimacy Wiki has by citing "modern historians" that claim upwards of 5 million people is a realistic estimate of the number of people the Persians fielded at Thermopylae. Just throwing that out there.