300 men (mostly)
There is a movie comming soon to a theater near you named 300. For those who liked Lord of The Rings, Sin City, V for Vendetta and other movies with innovative screen imagery, this movie is going to be the golden grail. From what I have seen, it is going to be breathtaking.
There is a commemorative stone in Thermopylae in Greece that reads "Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie". The event it commemorates is the battle of Thermopylae where a mere 300 Greek soldiers fighting under Leonidas (who was one of the Spartan Kings. Sparta, strangely and almost uniquely in history was a kindom that had two Kings). Most western historians have latched on to this battle as the defining moment in the history of western civilization, when Greece and western civilization itself stood on the precipice, facing a massive Persian army under Xerxes. What glory of glories, it is saved by the individual valour of 300 men fighting for freedom and laws!
I am resigned to this movie igniting yet more jingoistic chest thumping without any desire on anybody's part to look into the deeper issues involved and think about the reality of the event. Here are some thoughts for your consideration:
1. There were 300 spartans in the fight. However, each Spartan soldier was accompanied by 2 or more "batmen", slaves who were expected to fight and die with their master. It was still a small number compared to the Persian army, however I am pointing it out to indicate that the official Greek histories of Monsieur Herodotus were maybe a liiitttle bit biased.
2. What more, official Geek history does not even count the slaves. Ironically, Spartan slaves were all Greek also (Helots). The first thing the Spartans did after establishing their kingdom was to go conquer a neighbouring Greek state and turn all of its citizens into slaves. Every single one of them. This system was preserved by the Spartans for centuries after the battle of Thermopylae battle that is depicted in the movie. So if the Spartans were fighting for Freedom, it was not any kind of Freedom recognizable in the modern era. In reality, they were in a kill or be killed kind of a fight, and were completely indistinguishable in this regard from any other people of that time.
3. Aristotle would later bristle at the thought of these slaves, but only because they happened to be Greeks. Everyone else was aparently fair game! Historians often mention that events of the ancient past must not be judged by the standards of modern morality. By the same logic, it stands to reason that abstract ideas over which the ancients fought should not be transplanted into modern terminology like laws and freedom in order to give a false impression of continuity.
4. It is not unusual for a relatively small force to be able to hold up a large army when the small force is defending a narrow pass. Xerxes finally managed to get past the pass by flanking the Spartan formation after many attempts at a frontal charge were annihilated. An American soldier once saw a column of British soldiers marching up a German held hill as if they were on a parade ground. They were mowed down my German machine guns. The American said it was the bravest thing he had ever seen, as also the dumbest. Xerxes was exceptionally arrogant and incompetent in that fight (on his way into Greece, Xerxes and his army could not cross a river because it was flooding. He ordered the river to be given 50 lashes told to subside! History does not record if the river obeyed). Greek valour played its due part of course, but it alone would not have managed to do much damage to Xerxes had he decided to out flank the defences to begin with.
5. The Greeks were a professional army with heavy armour. The Persians were mostly conscripts with light armour that could not withstand a hoplite column.
6. The 300 Spartans were supported by troops from many other Greek cities and the total army was about 5 to 7 thousand. This whole idea of 300 Spartan fighting a 500,000 strong Persian army to stand still is bullshit. A better estimate would be that about 5-7 thousand Greeks stood against about 50-70 thousand Persians. This is still an overwhelming numerical disparity, however it was offset in some measure by superiority of armour and the advantages of terrain and a prepared defensive position.
7. The connection between the flame of enlightenment in Greece and that rise of Europe after the dark ages is tenuous at best. It must be remembered that Greek knowledge came to Europe from the same lands that the Persians once ruled (Arabia). So maybe the Persians would have become the preservers of Greek achievement even if the Greeks had lost.
8. Finally, a more subtle point. Everyone has heard of Marathon, and everyone celebrates Thermopylae. However, Marathon was a relatively minor battle and Thermopylae did not stop the Persians. The decisive battle was fought at sea, in the straight of Salamis. The Persian Navy was decimated, leaving their land army stranded without any means to resupply. They had to withdraw. But whoever heard of Salamis? For most people it sounds like a fish. The Greek traditionalists always considered the "sailor rabble" to be a despicable kind. Unworthy of protecting the Greeks. In this world view, the "real men" were supposed to be aristocratic land owners who fought land battles in hoplite columns, like at Marathon. The larger battle of ideas may have been between conservative Sparta against the enlightened Athens, but there was clearly a subtext to that story. There were differing strains of thought within Athenian society, with many prominent thinkers including Plato showing marked affinity to the Spartan system. Athens may have won the battle of ideas in history, but within that battle, the battle for mind space seems to have been won by the conservatives. Nobody knowns Salamis. Everybody knows Marathon. Wonder why?
On the flip side:
1. The personal courage of Leonidas and his men cannot be questioned. They marched into certain death and never thought of removing themselves from the path of harm. Their sacrifice may not have ignited the glory of wester civilization like some historians seem to conclude with clear over reach, however it certainly bought many days extra time for the Greeks to prepare themselves.
2. The events of that battle firmly consolidated Spartan supremacy in the minds of the Greek conglomoration of states. In that regard it did change the course of history as it played an important role in the rise of Spartan hegemony.
3. In the flow of history, Theromopylae was definitely a milestone, just as Marathon was. It proved the decisive superiority of Greek armour, if not their war making capability. It provided important lessons to the Greeks when centuries later a young man named Alexander confronted larger numbers of Persians and drove a dagger straight into their heart.
Irrespective of the pros and cons, I hope to enjoy the movie for purely artistic purposes. Watch the trailer in the producation blog and you will agree with me!
There is a commemorative stone in Thermopylae in Greece that reads "Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie". The event it commemorates is the battle of Thermopylae where a mere 300 Greek soldiers fighting under Leonidas (who was one of the Spartan Kings. Sparta, strangely and almost uniquely in history was a kindom that had two Kings). Most western historians have latched on to this battle as the defining moment in the history of western civilization, when Greece and western civilization itself stood on the precipice, facing a massive Persian army under Xerxes. What glory of glories, it is saved by the individual valour of 300 men fighting for freedom and laws!
I am resigned to this movie igniting yet more jingoistic chest thumping without any desire on anybody's part to look into the deeper issues involved and think about the reality of the event. Here are some thoughts for your consideration:
1. There were 300 spartans in the fight. However, each Spartan soldier was accompanied by 2 or more "batmen", slaves who were expected to fight and die with their master. It was still a small number compared to the Persian army, however I am pointing it out to indicate that the official Greek histories of Monsieur Herodotus were maybe a liiitttle bit biased.
2. What more, official Geek history does not even count the slaves. Ironically, Spartan slaves were all Greek also (Helots). The first thing the Spartans did after establishing their kingdom was to go conquer a neighbouring Greek state and turn all of its citizens into slaves. Every single one of them. This system was preserved by the Spartans for centuries after the battle of Thermopylae battle that is depicted in the movie. So if the Spartans were fighting for Freedom, it was not any kind of Freedom recognizable in the modern era. In reality, they were in a kill or be killed kind of a fight, and were completely indistinguishable in this regard from any other people of that time.
3. Aristotle would later bristle at the thought of these slaves, but only because they happened to be Greeks. Everyone else was aparently fair game! Historians often mention that events of the ancient past must not be judged by the standards of modern morality. By the same logic, it stands to reason that abstract ideas over which the ancients fought should not be transplanted into modern terminology like laws and freedom in order to give a false impression of continuity.
4. It is not unusual for a relatively small force to be able to hold up a large army when the small force is defending a narrow pass. Xerxes finally managed to get past the pass by flanking the Spartan formation after many attempts at a frontal charge were annihilated. An American soldier once saw a column of British soldiers marching up a German held hill as if they were on a parade ground. They were mowed down my German machine guns. The American said it was the bravest thing he had ever seen, as also the dumbest. Xerxes was exceptionally arrogant and incompetent in that fight (on his way into Greece, Xerxes and his army could not cross a river because it was flooding. He ordered the river to be given 50 lashes told to subside! History does not record if the river obeyed). Greek valour played its due part of course, but it alone would not have managed to do much damage to Xerxes had he decided to out flank the defences to begin with.
5. The Greeks were a professional army with heavy armour. The Persians were mostly conscripts with light armour that could not withstand a hoplite column.
6. The 300 Spartans were supported by troops from many other Greek cities and the total army was about 5 to 7 thousand. This whole idea of 300 Spartan fighting a 500,000 strong Persian army to stand still is bullshit. A better estimate would be that about 5-7 thousand Greeks stood against about 50-70 thousand Persians. This is still an overwhelming numerical disparity, however it was offset in some measure by superiority of armour and the advantages of terrain and a prepared defensive position.
7. The connection between the flame of enlightenment in Greece and that rise of Europe after the dark ages is tenuous at best. It must be remembered that Greek knowledge came to Europe from the same lands that the Persians once ruled (Arabia). So maybe the Persians would have become the preservers of Greek achievement even if the Greeks had lost.
8. Finally, a more subtle point. Everyone has heard of Marathon, and everyone celebrates Thermopylae. However, Marathon was a relatively minor battle and Thermopylae did not stop the Persians. The decisive battle was fought at sea, in the straight of Salamis. The Persian Navy was decimated, leaving their land army stranded without any means to resupply. They had to withdraw. But whoever heard of Salamis? For most people it sounds like a fish. The Greek traditionalists always considered the "sailor rabble" to be a despicable kind. Unworthy of protecting the Greeks. In this world view, the "real men" were supposed to be aristocratic land owners who fought land battles in hoplite columns, like at Marathon. The larger battle of ideas may have been between conservative Sparta against the enlightened Athens, but there was clearly a subtext to that story. There were differing strains of thought within Athenian society, with many prominent thinkers including Plato showing marked affinity to the Spartan system. Athens may have won the battle of ideas in history, but within that battle, the battle for mind space seems to have been won by the conservatives. Nobody knowns Salamis. Everybody knows Marathon. Wonder why?
On the flip side:
1. The personal courage of Leonidas and his men cannot be questioned. They marched into certain death and never thought of removing themselves from the path of harm. Their sacrifice may not have ignited the glory of wester civilization like some historians seem to conclude with clear over reach, however it certainly bought many days extra time for the Greeks to prepare themselves.
2. The events of that battle firmly consolidated Spartan supremacy in the minds of the Greek conglomoration of states. In that regard it did change the course of history as it played an important role in the rise of Spartan hegemony.
3. In the flow of history, Theromopylae was definitely a milestone, just as Marathon was. It proved the decisive superiority of Greek armour, if not their war making capability. It provided important lessons to the Greeks when centuries later a young man named Alexander confronted larger numbers of Persians and drove a dagger straight into their heart.
Irrespective of the pros and cons, I hope to enjoy the movie for purely artistic purposes. Watch the trailer in the producation blog and you will agree with me!
Comments