pothos.org

As some might know, I and the family have just returned from visiting Greece....and the US...and Germany....and Singapore thrown in to keep the marriage intact. Managed to meet a couple of Pothosians en route and the second, Efstathios, asked me in a PM what were my impressions of what I had seen.

Now, this maybe slightly off topic, but, I figured why not share? This might take the form of an occasional observation that others might feel free to comment on – lord knows, I will! I'll begin with one of the last visited: Thermopylae.

As is well known, the major National Road cuts this battlefield into two. The hill for the climactic annihilation is still apparent, though overgrown, as is what remains of the Phokian wall. It is difficult to picture the sea at its base two and a half millennia ago.

What struck me was the monument: a marvellous "Leonidas" and a later addition for the men of Thespiae. Too, there is a clear description of the ancient site and rendition of the battle on the well written signs near the monument provided by the relevant Greek Ministry. One can't help but wonder at what took place here.

Although clear, the government plaques seem to gloss over several things. First is that – from memory – there is constant reiteration of the "300". There were, in fact, some 7,000. Although known to myself, an American at the site – who was there via Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" – was surprised to find that there were more than the three hundred on the final day and that some 7,000 occupied the pass at the beginning.

The second is the utter failure (unless I missed it – I was tired at the end of a long day jousting with maniacs pretending to be drivers) to record the fact that somewhere in the order of six hundred or more Greek slaves also died over those three days. These were the Helots who served the Homoioi. It occurs that such a mention might not sit well with the Spartan legend – cultivated despite the repeated selling off of the Ionian Greeks for Persian Darics and continued today it seems – of being the "preserver of the freedom of the Hellenes". I could, though, be over cynical?

Lastly, the plaque – with not a single equivocation – records that this brave Spartan led band of resisters registered severe casualties amongst Xerxes' army numbering 1,700,000. It seems not to have occurred to anyone that – as I remarked to my American friend after a quick calculation on my phone – were such an army to march three or four abreast through Thrace and Greece, its tail will still have been waiting its turn to cross the Hellespont as its head reached Thermopylae.

Paralus hail

I think your spot on with the mention of the 9000 plus and the helots involved. Theres been so much legend about 300 Spartans where some readers seem to think 300 was all that were there. I voted for the 125 000 Persians at Thermopelaalthoght we disagree with the numbers at Gaugamela. 125 000 seems reasonable. And with 10 000 Greeks at a bottle neck. It doesnt really matter how many Persians. Had it not been for Ephialtes I argue that the Greeks could have held indefinately. And if the Persians kept pressing the bottle neck I would say they would have gradually been eroded and cut down in numbers. Where in fact the Persians in my view would have been defeated at Thermopelai or compelled to retreat.

It was only through a flanking manouver and mass archers that the Remaining Spartans wee cut to pieces. It is remenisent of the Persian gates. Alexander could not have prevailed at the Persian gates pressing head on and had to get behind. Even had the Persians been commanded at Thermopalia by Alexander even he wouldnt have broken through.

Kenny

Nearly 2 Million at Thermopalai? I doubt it it theres doubt that Darius had 500 000 at Gaugamelle.

A bit fantasical to say 1.7 Million.

Hi Michael. As we have briefly discussed the truth may be somewhere in the middle. Not the middle of 1.7 mil though. Although the Persian empire may have been capable of numbers beyond 1 mil, they wouldnt anyway have a use for all of them. That because of the terrain of Greece, plus the matter with supplies. Surely tossing in 1 mil soldiers would be for intimidation mostly. But most likely the Great King thought of it more strategically and realistically, and brought an army of around 300-400.000 with him. Which of course is still a big number and impresses.

I remember seeing the Rolling Stones here in Athens, back in '98, and the concert had about 85.000 people.After the concert ended i remember all these people outside of the stadium, and they were a lot! Wherever you would look you would see masses of people. So i imagine 300-400.000 are a lot, seeing them all toghether.

Plus the slaves, servants, women e.t.c. they would have been around 500.000. I dont think the main army was fewer than 300.000 though. If the force at Plataies was indeed 100.000 Greeks, then the Persian force that stayed behind could well be over 200.000, if not 300.000.

Anyway, the matter is still on debate.We only have a very few sources talking about the numbers, and of course the fame of the Persian empire and it's numbers.

I recently found a book, by a Greek archaiologist, that had an analysis of the population of Greece throught history. Specificly he said that during the Persian wars, the population in Greece was rather small, around 1-2 mil i think, or somewhere there, but after that there had been a big population increase, and at the hellenistic period, a little bit after Alexander's time maybe, there was a population of about 7 mil. I dont know how accurate this is, but if it is, the think about the population of the Persian empire. Surely, they could have gathered an army of 1 mil just for starters, but the thing is that such big numbers cannot be handled easily or be of any use.

The 300 moto, is something that is used to indicate that in the end there were these 300 Spartans that stayed to fight, regardless of how many there were before. You know how the story goes. They send the allies back and stayed to fight, even though they knew they didnt have a chance. As for the slaves, the Spartans wouldnt give credit to slaves. They used to hunt them down some times just for their young men to train.

Efstathios wrote:Surely tossing in 1 mil soldiers would be for intimidation mostly. But most likely the Great King thought of it more strategically and realistically, and brought an army of around 300-400.000 with him. Which of course is still a big number and impresses.

I remember seeing the Rolling Stones here in Athens, back in '98, and the concert had about 85.000 people.After the concert ended i remember all these people outside of the stadium, and they were a lot! Wherever you would look you would see masses of people. So i imagine 300-400.000 are a lot, seeing them all toghether.

The numbers thing will not ever be resolved. My own opinion is not really offered in the poll. I take a line based on what we know of other Persian armies of invasion. The evidence is scant but the preparation of fleets, in classical times, to settle a far greater irritant to the Great Kings – Egypt – suggest flotillas of 150 – 200 triremes. Three hundred max. I'd guess the armies to be similar to those of the Diadochoi: in the order of 60-90,000. To Xerxes, Greece will have been little more important a target than the constantly in revolt Egypt.

The Stones concert story is pertinent. The drive I took through central Greece served only to confirm the harsh nature of a country where towns are built on mountain sides so as to leave the few arable plains available for food production. Given that the Malian Gulf has receded since classical times, an invading army of anything in the order two hundred thousand or more will have filled all the available space around Lamia. More pertinently, it will have stretched as far as the pass that brought us from Delphi to Lamia – a pass in existence in classical times.

Efstathios wrote: The 300 moto, is something that is used to indicate that in the end there were these 300 Spartans that stayed to fight, regardless of how many there were before. You know how the story goes. They send the allies back and stayed to fight, even though they knew they didnt have a chance. As for the slaves, the Spartans wouldnt give credit to slaves. They used to hunt them down some times just for their young men to train.

Yes, no disagreement there. My observation is more of the modern Greek view. Today there is still no mention of the Greeks – helots though they have been – who went down on that final day. Again, my somewhat cynical view is that to mention such tarnishes a legend.

I dont know if many people actually know how many were there besides the 300 that stayed at the end. But it doesnt matter anyway. The main story at Thermopylae was the 300 and the treason of Efialtis, which led the Spartans to command the allies to leave. So it isnt really important how many allies were there. Although you are correct, there should be a mention about the helots.

The numbers thing will not ever be resolved. My own opinion is not really offered in the poll. I take a line based on what we know of other Persian armies of invasion. The evidence is scant but the preparation of fleets, in classical times, to settle a far greater irritant to the Great Kings – Egypt – suggest flotillas of 150 – 200 triremes. Three hundred max. I'd guess the armies to be similar to those of the Diadochoi: in the order of 60-90,000. To Xerxes, Greece will have been little more important a target than the constantly in revolt Egypt.

Dont forget the strategic point of the Greek Peninsula.It was maybe more important to the Great Kings than Egypt. And also, the fact that Darius was forced to flee by the Athenians, so Xexes surely came more prepared.

I dont agree with the argument that the Greeks exaggerated on the numbers cause they were the winners. Because Herodotus who is the first to have given the numbers of the Persian army, was a half Persian himself.

Also, if we go back to the battle of Marathon, we can see somewhere around 100.000 Persian troops being at the battlefield. And another 100.000 alledgedly were on the ships heading to Sounio. The Persians couldnt have been fewer or else they would be equal in size with a combined Greek force. Naxos island only, could get 9.000 soldiers. So if the Greeks joined forces, the Athenians, the Spartans, the islands, Eretria, e.t.c they could gather a big army. So the Persians must have been more than double in size.

So if in the first invasion the Persians were around 100-200.000, then surely in the second they could be twice as that or even triple.

The main argument that debates such a large army, is that there wasnt enough water for them. Greece is full of water. Lakes, rivers, many mountains with springs, e.t.c. We dont know of course if it would be enough for 2 mil soldiers, but it would be for half a mil, or even for 1 mil. This is still on debate.

Efstathios wrote: Dont forget the strategic point of the Greek Peninsula.It was maybe more important to the Great Kings than Egypt. And also, the fact that Darius was forced to flee by the Athenians, so Xexes surely came more prepared.

Strategically, the narrows of the Hellespont and Egypt will have certainly outranked a rather barren Greece. Indeed, the Persians expended much blood and treasure in the near continuous efforts to hold Egypt

Efstathios wrote: Also, if we go back to the battle of Marathon, we can see somewhere around 100.000 Persian troops being at the battlefield. And another 100.000 alledgedly were on the ships heading to Sounio... So if in the first invasion the Persians were around 100-200.000, then surely in the second they could be twice as that or even triple.

I’ve not ever seen estimates of 200,000 for the 492 invasion. This, as will be remembered, was an amphibious action. The ships used were mere transports. As well as men, equipment and provisions, they will have carried the cavalry horses: the single most important part of a Persian army. At a generous 250-300 men per transport we have 700 ships. That before we come to provisions and possibly 5-8,000 or more horses. Not in the slightest a likely scenario.

It is more likely that the Persians had some 25-30,000 combatants – including the horse (possibly 150-200 transports). George Cawkwell’s rendition – and I tend to agree – following Cornelius Nepo’s information that the cavalry “were away”, has it that the Athenians charged as the cavalry was near loaded back aboard the transports. It fits the total lack of any participation of the Persian’s corps d’elite in the battle descriptions.

The Persian army did not round cape Sounion until after the battle, when they had embarked to attempt to take Athens whilst the Athenian army was on its way back. Were 10,000 Athenians and Plataeans to have taken on 100,000-200,000 Persians at Marathon, there will have been no second Persian War: the first will have been a resounding success.

For the second invasion, something that struck me was something often written but which never sank in properly until I saw it. In Greece towns and cities (aside from Athens though it was similar in ancient times) are, almost without fail, built on the sides of hills or mountains – literally. A drive down the old national road from Lamia to Thebes (which we did at night) will show town lights twinkling all over the hills. This because of the lack of arable plains land.

The point being that any army marching from the Hellespont, through Thrace and Macedonia and into central Greece is going to have to cope with the many inevitable passes and coastal goat tracks that will limit that army to marching three to four abreast. There will no advantage to spreading out because the next day will throw up another bottle neck. Think of a water flow in a river constantly having to be constricted by beaver dams.

As well, at the time of the invasion, Athens was importing the bulk of its food from overseas (the Bosphorus and the reason for growing exportable product) and the Spartans (via Corinth) from Sicily (hence the Athenian fascination later in the century). Greece struggled to feed itself let alone an invading army of 1,700,000.

One last thing. Having had a look 'round Thebes (drove around the Cadmeia twice looking for a hotel), there is precious little chance – in my opinion – of the Boeotian plain sustaining 300,000 plus its own population for a year. Macedonia and Thrace must have been denuded.

I'd guess a force of about 75-90,000 excluding a fleet of about 300 - 400 fighting vessels (about 60-80,000 crew).

Athens, in her pomp, maintained a regular and ready navy: it cost a fortune and though her Navy Lists might record 300 plus vessels it is instructive that her active fleets rarely exceeded 100-120 vessels. The Ionian navies – destroyed at Lade and unlikely to have been allowed to reconstitute significantly – will have contributed fewer than is believed. More telling, the fleet being assembled in 397/6 – mistaken by Sparta as Aegean bound (and necessitating Agesilaos' dispatch to Asia Minor in the same year) but actually to support the Persian invasion of the (yet again) in revolt Egypt (a major military feat of arms – see Antigonus, 306) – numbered some 300. When this fleet was ready (394) Persia (with Athenian – Konon's – connivance) decided it was better used against the aggrandising Spartans. Hard data is difficult to come by – our main source Xenophon not being overly interested in describing Spartan defeats – but it is reasonably clear that the fleet that destroyed Spartan naval superiority was nowhere near 300. Even if it was, it presages an invasion force for Egypt no larger than Antigonus' in 306 (some 80,000 plus 8,000 horse).