pothos.org

I wonder if we will ever know what effect the Spartan defence might have had on the Persians.Thermolypae is a bit like Rourke's Drift, in some respects. If the defenders of Rourke's Drift had tried to escape they would have been cut down to a man, so there was no point; on the other hand, there was no military gain from their defence - although, from a top-level strategic viewpoint, the effect it had on the Zulus, who had just wiped out a much larger British force, was crucial to the outcome of the war.Might there not be a similar aspect to Thermopylae? I'm not suggesting that the Persians would have won had Leonidas *not* stood his ground ... but such a strong, if ultimately futile defence must have caused the PErsians some strong concern?All the bestMarcus

I think the difference is that Alexander would not have left the field.I've been re-reading the accounts of Gaugamela in the ancient sources, and the Babylonian diaries seem complimentary to them rather than contradictory. I don't think that they show in any way that it was not Alexander's personal courage, charisma and leadership that won the day for the Macedonians. Even with the belief in astrology which you say made many Persian soldiers leave the field, enough of them were still left fighting against the Macedonians to have carried the day at any point, if Alexander simply had not been the better leader. Cheers and thanks for sharing your ideas,Halil

He chose to die a hero, Jona, because no one sings the praises of a King in retreat Greek or Persian. Authors in our own time still write about the guy. In view of his culture, he made the correct decision to stand. We as moderns would have attempted retreat, but then we are a different sort entirely. I would not characterize it as "stupidity," just as I would not characterize the Sacred Band's choice to fight to the death at Chaironea. Such things were extremely important to the warrior culture.