"Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World"

[hoplite14gr]

We are currently reserch the Phokian and Lokrian armies as part of our shield device project. After the 1st Holy War (Kirrean) very few of the 22 cities of the Phokian confederation could provide hoplites. Also most of the fighting done against the Thessalians was done in terrain unsuitable for the phalanx. The Phokian army had mostly psiloi/peltasts and "ekdromoi type" hoplites. Only in the last Holy War by ursuping the Delfic money and hiring mercenaries they got enough hoplites, cavalry and artillery.
The hoplites were minority in the Phokian force guarding the Kalidromo pass.
The Persian archers worked havoc in the light armored men and the hoplites did not press the charge as the Spartans did. For the psiloi to get covered in the rocks and trees they had to clear the open ground and so the few hoplites retreated too. So in my opinion the Leonidas should have sent at least the Myceneans and Phleiasians to bolster the Phokians.
Kind regards

[conon394]

hoplite14gr

I sorry to say I cannot agree on that logic at least with respect too the Phocians being non-hoplites. I see no particular reason to doubt the Phocians could field 1000 hoplites (in a pinch Plataea could scrape up almost as many, a 1000 seems not much of a stretch for a whole region). The very existence of the First Sacred war is questionable and even if it is taken as fact represents events over 100 before the Persians wars. I don’t see any reason to take a supposed lack of hoplites in 590 BC on the part of Phocis (mind you a period when the hoplite was still only coming into its own anyway), as providing a useful data point for understanding the Phocian contingent in circa 480 BC.

Herodotus seems rather clear in enumerating number of hoplites and ignoring other types of troops, that he explicitly states the Phocians sent 1000 troops seems a good indication that he considered them equivalent to the other enumerated contingents at Thermopylae.
Consider for example his calculations for the Battle of Plataea, where he notes the Thespians but is careful to indicate they were not all hoplites (9.30). If you are correct Herodotus at minimum must be argued as careless for not also noting a similar mixed force for Phocis.

But this all beside the point, the fact remains Leonidas made something of a mistake in depending on Phocians alone to hold what was a critical point of the Greek defense without a more reliable body of hoplites and/or commanders.

[lupus]

I've read that the Phocians WERE Hoplites...
Of course, our dear Stefanos, is in a middle of a huge research for my BELOVED Spartans, so... he may found something interesting, something else...

About King Leonidas and the Phocians as garrison in the Pass...

I DON'T believe he made any mistake! Have you been in the mountain, around Thermopylae's area? Is VERY hard to pass it and narrow...
So, even few hoplites, would crashed ANYONE trying to pass them...
BUT!!! Phocians, first of all, got themselves SURPRISED by the "Immortal" appearance... and second and MOST important, the Phocians, even surpised, took fast their arms and embattle themselves... but made a HUGE mistake! The Persians started shooting them with the bows and the Phocians withdraw to a hill, to make their last stand and die to the last!
But Persians DIDN'T want to fight them! Their goal was ONLY to PASS around the Greek lines and attacking them from the rear!
So they did! And Phocians did HUGE TACTICAL mistake, by withraw to the hill...

Regards...

[floofthegoof]

it showed how men who are citizens, and not subjects, can fight

This is the legend, of course. I like the legend, because I think that today, it needs to be stressed that failure can be honorable. Still, Herodotus' story remains a legend, a legend, and nothing but a legend. We don't know how many people were killed by the Spartans and we do not know why the Spartans did not leave the pass.

Like Hignett (Xerxes' Invasion of Greece), I think that when Hydarnes was moving down from the hill, Leonidas ordered a retreat, but that he was cut off before he, the Thespians, and the Thebans could make it to safety. What happened after the moment Leonidas' men were cut off, is just unknown, because there were no survivors. Herodotus' account of the final hour is a reconstruction, including the certainly invented detail that a fight was waged over the body of Leonidas, as if he were some sort of homeric hero. Hoplites didn't fight like that. What happened in that final hour remains the ultimate riddle.

I think the anti-Persian bias of Herodotus' account deserves some attention. Xerxes' men were at Trachis for a week, but still we have to believe that the Persian scouts (who had already found roads to circumvene Tempe) were incapable of discovering the paths through the mountains, and we are supposed to believe that a traitor was needed. (Herodotus himself mentions variant traditions.) As Herodotus presents the story, the Persians were poor warriors, Xerxes was effeminate (not controlling his emotions), the Spartans were unbeatable, so the fall of Thermopylae had to be the result of treason.

I think that we are closer to the historical facts if we assume that the Persians simply did what they had to do. There's no pass in the world that cannot be turned, and after a week, the Persian mounted scouts had discovered the detour.

However, Leonidas is like Gandhi: not the real man is important, but the legend. We like Gandhi as a symbol of peaceful resistance, and prefer to ignore his enthusiasm for the World Wars and his proposal to solve India's need for food by forcing the people to eat their excrements. Likewise, we prefer the legend of the courageous Leonidas, inspiring even in defeat, and we ignore that by putting only 1,000 Phocians on the Anopaea, he was defending the front door and leaving the rear door open.

The defeat at Thermopylae, as Julius Beloch pointed out in the nineteenth century, had the advantage that it liberated the Greeks from an incapable commander. That's the sad epitaph of the real Leonidas. Still, the legend, from Herodotus to Kavafis, remains a great and inspiring one.

Now, some people think the moon landing was a government hoax. In the end, we know history only from what we are told by others. I think you have to be very careful when you suppose that you can give us a more accurate blow-by-blow version than Herodotus. You can't discount the story as legend, and then also pretend to judge Leonidas on any tactical errors he might have made.

If we accept the story, I can hardly think of a more capable commander in all of history. He wasn't going to win this battle, but morale being such a huge factor in ancient battles, he decided to give his own life to set an example and send a powerful message. This greek obeys the law to the end! This greek will not be conquered! His act of leadership garnered many followers, not just in that war but many after. Our whole civilization is built by and has survived because of the followers of Leonidas! I can think of no general in history with a greater understanding of his duty and purpose than Leonidas. He maximized the force at his disposal like no other after him.

People laud the military genius of Hannibal, a man who by his pride and rashness brought ruin on himself and his country. As for me I'd sooner follow Leonidas.

[Jona Lendering]

If we accept the story, I can hardly think of a more capable commander in all of history. He wasn't going to win this battle, but morale being such a huge factor in ancient battles,

Perhaps some form criticism is in place. Herodotus says explicitly that Leonidas was waiting for reinforcements that failed to show up (7.206). That's in a part of the story where Herodotus could check his information. His general account of the movements of the troops goes back to a reliable, consistent diary, and from Beloch to Hignett to Greene, scholars believe this part of the story is credible.

The story of the self-sacrifice and Herodotus' look inside Leonidas' brain, however, belong to a part that he cannot have checked: those who were present and may have known the truth, were killed in action.

The break between these two parts is 7.219-7.220. 7.219 ends with Leonidas being abandoned by many allies. That's the last point of which Herodotus is certain.

7.220 is introduced with "legetai", it is said. This is Herodotus' usual formula when he offers information that he thinks is too important to ignore, but that does not belong to his main source or spokesman. This is followed by "in my opinion". Gnome in Herodotus always means that he is starting to offer a hypothesis, opposed to facts he could check (cf. 2.99, a quintessential section to understand Herodotus' method).

Herodotus now starts a new story, which flatly contradicts the first one: now Leonidas sends away the allies. The contradiction itself is not terribly important; what matters is that Herodotus does not present the second part of his story as a description of facts. He makes it absolutely clear that he is offering a hypothesis.

I think you have to be very careful when you suppose that you can give us a more accurate blow-by-blow version than Herodotus. You can't discount the story as legend,

We must, because Herodotus himself says that it is a personal opinion. Just like Herodotus, we can only speculate.

[floofthegoof]

Herodotus makes this admission only as far as whether Leonidas himself sent the allies away, according to his speculation, due to some oracle, or if they left on their own. It has little impact on the story. Herodotus often takes pains to clarify when he is speculating, I don't know myself of any reason why he would simply make things up without saying so.

The fact that no Greeks survived the battle doesn't bother me so much, as H. clearly has some insight to happenings from the Persian camp such as Xerxes conversations with Demaratus, and the mistreatment of Leonidas' body.

It is of course a giant mystery where exactly H. get's his info, but I ran across this little blurb that made me take notice in 7.239

CCXXXIX. I return now to that place in my history where it earlier left off.1 The Lacedaemonians were the first to be informed that the king was equipping himself to attack Hellas; with this knowledge it was that they sent to the oracle at Delphi, where they received the answer about which I spoke a little while ago. Now the way in which they were informed of this was strange. [2] Demaratus son of Ariston, an exile among the Medes, was, as I suppose (reason being also my ally), no friend to the Lacedaemonians, and I leave it to be imagined whether what he did was done out of goodwill or spiteful triumph.

"reason being also my ally" seems like it should be a clue when exactly H. was writing this. What does he mean by this exactly? Does he know Demaratus personally? or is Herodotus allied to the Medes? I can't read Greek so someone who can might clarify this to me.

[Jona Lendering]

Herodotus makes this admission only as far as whether Leonidas himself sent the allies away, according to his speculation, due to some oracle, or if they left on their own. It has little impact on the story.

Indeed, this itself is unimportant, but it marks the break. Until this point, Herodotus could check his facts, after this, I believe not; you (=Rich) believe that after this event, he still had "some insight to happenings from the Persian camp such as Xerxes conversations with Demaratus, and the mistreatment of Leonidas' body."

That's the rub. Do we believe this? This is the Immerwahr thesis: Herodotus' references to sources are often fake. The one point where I can follow this debate is Babylonia, and in my view, Herodotus simply made things up. Again, he does it subtle. He nowhere states he has been in Babylon, but he suggests it with lines like "people who have not been there find it hard to believe..." or "this was still the case in my age". Herodotus' errors are too great, which is -if Brill's Companion to Herodotus is a measure- communis opinio. He was not there, all the people he mentions as sources are fake.

Now Demaratus is also suspect. He is a "tragic warner", like Croesus. They are Herodotus' way to give an idea about the options that were open to the actors, like the speeches of Thucydides. Now it seems to me pretty clear that Croesus-after-his-escape-from-the-pyre is an invention. I am very skeptical about Demaratus at Thermopylae.

I think that the only thing we know for certain about Herodotus' spokesman in the Persian camp, is that he was not a Greek, but a Persian. The proof is the misunderstanding behind the Immortals (the existing Anûšiya, 'companions', is mixed up with the non-existing Anauša, 'Immortals'). No Greek who had served for longer than a couple of days at the Persian court, can have made this mistake. On the other hand, it is logical if Herodotus and an interpreter interviewed a former POW.

So, I think that after 7.220, Herodotus' only source is a Persian who, at Thermopylae, was not capable of knowing what Leonidas was doing.

[floofthegoof]

From my reading, I get the feeling that H. makes every effort to be an honest reporter. His big failing perhaps, is that he is quick to write down things that other people tell him. If in his mind, that of an ancient man in a world of mystery and myth, the information given him seems less than plausible, he will say "believe it if you will, but this is what is said."

So, I think that after 7.220, Herodotus' only source is a Persian who, at Thermopylae, was not capable of knowing what Leonidas was doing.

No matter what actually happened at Thermopylae, it would certainly be seen by all contemporary Greeks as a very important matter. There had to be all sorts of rumors and writings flying all over the place in Herodotus' time. I doubt H. actually talked to any persians, but simply reported the most plausible(to him) information that he could collect from all kinds of sources. I really wonder what happened to those other sources. Being from Halicarnassus(debated) it seems likely that H. would have excellent access to Medes who 'think' they knew what happened even if they did not. It had to be the topic of the day. One thing I was shocked not to find in Herodotus, was that very famous quote attributed to Leonidas, "Molon Lave". After looking into it, it seems that we get this quote from one tiny blurb from Plutarch's 'Famous Sayings'. Where on earth did Plutarch get that if not from Herodotus, who he accuses of all kinds of slander and blasphemy? We must be missing something.

[Jona Lendering]

We must be missing something.

Yes, I agree; what we are missing is, indeed, the gossip. The legend, as I call it, must have been there almost immediately and I sometimes think that Leonidas' wife Gorgo must have been one of those who offered this interpretation. After all, she could with plausibility claim that she knew that her husband had known an oracle; note the fishy story that involves Gorgo in 7.239.

What's also absent from Herodotus is the story of the night attack, which is told by Diodorus. Peter Greene has recently argued that it took in fact place. I have ordered the book, but not read it.

[Anonymous]

the battle was a simple mop-up.

I wonder how you will demonstrate this. It strikes me as an over-simplification. Is it a Spartan wind-up?

[Jona Lendering]

the battle was a simple mop-up.

I wonder how you will demonstrate this. It strikes me as an over-simplification. Is it a Spartan wind-up?

No, to Xerxes, it must, IMHO, have been an easy fight, not even a battle. He arrived, his mounted scouts checked the environment as they always did, the mountain tracks were discovered, and after three days, in which neither the archers nor his elite troops had been able to break through that wall in front of him, he ordered his men to use the tracks. It was full moon, things were easy.

The enemy abandoned positions, the tactical aims were achieved, there was little bloodshed ("no harm done to the weak"), except for some 300 Spartans and 600 Thespians who were punished for the harm they had inflicted upon Persian ambassadors. End of story, Persian numbers and superior reconnaisance had again proved to be the key to succes and asha (the divine order that was disturbed by the killing of the ambassadors) was restored.

Here are some aspects from Xerxes' self portrait, the way he wanted to be seen (full text). He had indeed acted like it.

I am of such a sort, I am a friend of the right, of wrong I am not a friend. It is not my wish that the weak should have harm done him by the strong, nor is it my wish that the strong should have harm done him by the weak.

The man who is cooperative, according to his cooperation thus I reward him. Who does harm, him according to the harm I punish. It is not my wish that a man should do harm; nor indeed is it my wish that if he does harm he should not be punished.

As a fighter of battles I am a good fighter of battles. Whenever with my judgment in a place I determine whether I behold or do not behold an enemy, both with understanding and with judgment, then I think prior to panic, when I see an enemy as when I do not see one.

[Zenodoros]

To Xerxes, "not even a battle"? Then are we to just throw away the claims that he reportedly jumped from his throne in ashtonishment and anger thrice during the fight as sheer myth?

Xerxes was more than likely expecting to just run right through the Greeks in one day. It took three times that amount, and could have been much longer if it weren't for some rather dodgey soldier positioning by the Greek leader and Ephialtes revealing the goat pass.

[hoplite14gr]

Except the Spartans were other Lakonians. So it was possible among them to be Krypteia elements pretenting to be perioikoi or aditional Skiritae.
The night raid that Diodorus talks about was in the ability of the Spartans army. Is likely that it happened but not the way the old film showed it.
In the Greek text 7.202.1 Herodotus talks specificaly about hoplitae when he refers to spartans and generaly about the forces of others. Is is implied(?) that they were hopltes or we assume it. In 7.203.1 he talks about Lokrians PANSTRATIA = full force and 1000 Phokians.
I am stil researching it but the armies of the ragged regions of Central Greece were not as "heavy" as the Pelloponisians Beotians or Athenians.

The truth is that the battle of Annopaea was not been examined as it should.
Throug out its history the pass of Thrmopylae has been compromised onlly by a flanking movement.

Kind regards

[floofthegoof]

I trust the version given by Herodotus for the following reason. I'm no scholar, I don't know how to cite sources properly etc. but I could, without doing any research or interviews, write a pretty good history of what happened in World War I and World War II. If for some catastrophic reason my history is the only surviving record 2000 years on, I would be confident that the real important stuff would be accurate. I was not alive during the wars and I don't know any veterans, but the world wars were the big story of the 20th century. Simply having an interest in history, and being surrounded by a wealth of information for much of my life, I know that story with very few gaps.

I figure if I could do it, Herodotus could do it too.

[Jona Lendering]

To Xerxes, "not even a battle"? Then are we to just throw away the claims that he reportedly jumped from his throne in ashtonishment and anger thrice during the fight as sheer myth?

I think it is fiction. There is the effeminate Asian who is discovering what real men can do. I do not know who invented the story -it may be old- but the extreme types of the Spartan men and effeminate Persians are suspect in all of Herodotus.

Xerxes was more than likely expecting to just run right through the Greeks in one day.

I don't think so. He expected problems and serious delays. Otherwise, he would not have needed an army of about 200,000 men 1,000 ships. His preparations took three years.

If for some catastrophic reason my history is the only surviving record 2000 years on, I would be confident that the real important stuff would be accurate.

This is sometimes called the 'positivist fallacy', the idea that the sources that survive are also the sources that matter. Now it is true that people who were forced to select which texts were important enough to be copied, tried to select the ones they thought were the best. The 3x7 Greek tragedies with scholia are no doubt the result of selecting the 3x7 best plays.

However, the criterium of selection changed. Monks have decided not to copy Livy's second decade (Pyrrhus, First Punic War) and instead copied every single letter written by the fathers of the church. The things we consider to be the best, were not regarded as the best by the generations between Antiquity and now.

Why was Herodotus copied? Not because he was considered to be reliable. Lucian illustrates it: he says the Herodotus was admired for his style. Not for what he had to say, because Herotodus was considered to be lunatic philobarbarian, as Plutarch says.

Just like today, quality is elusive and not a guarantee for survival. Unfortunately, it's not survival of the best, but survival of the fittest, which, for literature, means survival of authors who continue to please the reader. Herodotus has achieved that; and parts of his History show that he was not a bad historian at all; but that is not why it survived.