Battle at the Thermopylae

[TheLoneWolf1]

150.000 to 1.700.000 men.

Utter bull**** again.

First of all you don't have to be rude. Second of all your opinion won't change the world's opinion about this matter which is pretty fixated so don't be so eager about it. Other than that we are talking about a battle that took 2500 years ago and the only people alive then talked about extremely big Persian forces. Modern historians can only estimate. The force that was gathered partcipated to the battle of Artemissium and Platae after Thermopylae until it was defeated in which all battles it sustained heavy losses. Thinking that way it shouldbe pretty big at least. Only 10.000 where Xerxes' kingsguard, the Immortals, who were slaughtered in Thermopylae only in one day.

 

[moraka]

From: http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/articles/nordicism/3-the-military-conflict-separating-fact-from-fiction/

Most modern scholarship appears to accept the figure of 100,000-200,000 invading troops, a figure consistent with the population base of the Achaemenid Persian Empire at the time (Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert, 2007, Chapter 5). Even if the Persian Empire had had the population base to produce 1,700,000 troops, it would have faced a gargantuan task in organizing and deploying these without the benefit of modern computers and communications technology. Even if such an army could be organized to set off on the mammoth journey from Asia to Greece, ancient logistics and supply would not have been able to sustain such fantastic numbers of troops in so ambitious a campaign. These capabilities date from far more recent modern times, from the time of the American Civil War (1861-1865) and the advent of the railway and telegraph.

 

[dinnerdog2zero]

Other than that we are talking about a battle that took 2500 years ago and the only people alive then talked about extremely big Persian forces.

It's obvious that the Greeks would exaggerate Persian numbers to enhance their own reputation. Everyone in the ancient world did it.

The force that was gathered partcipated to the battle of Artemissium and Platae after Thermopylae until it was defeated in which all battles it sustained heavy losses.

We have no way of knowing the exact losses sustained by the Persians but use some common sense. The casualty figures give by Herodotus are an obvious exaggeration.

Only 10.000 where Xerxes' kingsguard, the Immortals, who were slaughtered in Thermopylae only in one day.

The Immortals fought at Plataea so they could not have been "slaughtered" at Thermopylae. It may have happened in 300 but that does not not mean it happened in reality.

It's sometimes best to take Kaveh Farrokh with a grain of salt, but his figures for the size of the Persian army are the most accurate in my opinion.

 

[TheLoneWolf1]

I meant that the Immortal force that was sent to meet the Greeks was utterly defeated and ran down as it is described in many sources which indicate as well that they were around 10.000. I am just saying what I have read mainly and not what I estimate myself. But in your case dinnerdog2zero, I smell some ancient-Greek hating. Still I respect your opinion as everybody's else, no need to be aggresive though.

 

[Oberyn]

And of course it totally ignores that the persian empire posessed only a small border with the greeks. Nevermind the huge pressure from nomadic tribes in the north, the indian kingdoms to the east or frequent uprising and rebellions by Satraps and conquered peoples, most notably the egyptians, the babylonians and the lycians. The idea that the entire persian army could be gathered and deployed all in the same area is somewhat suspicious, so if those ancient estimates are based on estimated total numbers they do not represent the actual numbers in the invasion of Greece.

 

[dinnerdog2zero]

I meant that the Immortal force that was sent to meet the Greeks was utterly defeated and ran down as it is described in many sources

If you mean at Thermopylae then you're completely wrong.

But in your case dinnerdog2zero, I smell some ancient-Greek hating.

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion, although in your case I smell some ancient Persian hating.

 

[Antonis]

Well, based on the comments of both of you, you two are equally hateful and provocative. Would it kill you any of you to have a little tolerance? And to be clear, the subject of discussion is a bunch of dead guys...

 

[moraka]

It's sometimes best to take Kaveh Farrokh with a grain of salt

I am curious why?

 

[dinnerdog2zero]

Don't get me wrong, I find his work to be an excellent reference and a nice change from the usual Greco-Roman bias.

It's just that he sometimes paints Persia as a sole island of civilization and progressiveness in a sea of barbarians, which can be rather irritating.  Otherwise, I don't have a problem with him.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

There are no reliable sources for the size of the Persian army. None. Zero. Zilch. 

All we have is Herodotus and conjecture. Whatever it may be, even according to him, only <30k (three divisions) ever marched on the pass (which, btw, was only wide enough to fit like 15 men abrest, meaning that only a small portion ever got close to the action before the third day).

We simply don't have anything to base a realistic estimate on, since we lack administrative evidence indicating how the Persians went about organizing and supplying armies, how they were commanded and how large they usually were, all we have is the odd garrison payroll and chronicles, which aren't exactly reliable.

 

[djogloc02]

What do you guys think about this video? Sorry, the substitles are in portuguese and the quality is not the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsbQOAepzas

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

300 ripoff.

 

[Swordmaster]

Let me give my thoughts on this issue. If you want to estimate a number of how many men the Persian army fielded, then you must think logical.

This maybe a bit irrelevant but I know how the Ottomans levied their men. The sultan begins the march towards his desired campaign area, word reached the municipal lords and they slowly join them. During the march, they raise men from every place they visit, like a snowball growing. At best, the Ottomans raised no bigger than 280 thousand men, together with its standing elite army.

Date is around 1680s so i think the conditions at that date is far better than the conditions and also the population of the classical era. So I think the Persian army was no more than 300 thousand people.

 

[djogloc02]

We're talking about an empire not a small country.

 

[Swordmaster]

As if Ottoman Empire, my example, is a small country. 

 

[WuTaNiSt]

We're talking about an empire not a small country.

Er, are you not aware of how big the Ottoman empire was? Even modern Turkey is pretty damn big.

 

[djogloc02]

I know Ottoman Empire was very big, but we are talking about the PERSIAN Empire, and he said levied 280 men, lol? From what I saw, it was 300.000 men. OR, I got confused by his post.

 

[jepekula]

He talked about thousands.
"At best, the Ottomans raised no bigger than 280 thousand men, together with its standing elite army. "

 

[djogloc02]

Oh, english isn't my native language, thanks, sorry 

 

[matmohair1]

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae_%28279_BC%29

隐藏