MovieChat Forums > The 300 Spartans Discussion > 300 Spartans, but 7,000 Greeks.

300 Spartans, but 7,000 Greeks.


While there were 300 Spartans at the pass at Thermopylae, there were 7,000 Greeks in total. The film drastically underrepresents Greek numbers in order to make the stand seem more heroic than it was.

I'm not sure if I should submit this as a historical goof. I don't recall if the movie ever said how many Greeks were actually present. But the film is intentionally misleading on this point.

One the third day, when they were outflanked by the enemy, the Spartans dismissed their allies and prepared for a last stand. 700 Thespians insisted on staying with them and died along with the Spartans. Since they made a larger sacrifice, at least in terms of numbers, perhaps this film really should be called "700 Thespians."

The film doesn't ask this, but what's so heroic about dying pointlessly anyway? Sure it took lots of courage, and it's in keeping with the romantic Spartan warrior ethic, but for those of us who have an entirely unromantic and unsentimental view of war, the idea of men queueing up to die when they don't have to and when the battle is already lost strikes me as idiotic, not heroic.

reply

Yes, I am sure there were more Greeks than the 300 Spartans. According to wikipedia.org, the Persian force was about 1,700,000 infantry. This site also lists the Greek force of 7000 as the accepted size for the whole army. That is still quite a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae#Size_of_the_Persian_army


M T Martian Esq

reply

"According to wikipedia.org..."
Just because it needs to be said.... Wikipedia "IS NOT" a valid historical source for anything. Can you get a decent, somewhat generally accurate account of some things? Yes. But can you get grossly, incompetent, wrong information from it? Definitly.
I'm not saying its rife with false info, but many of the articles can be written by anyone. It's good for general or framework information on a subject, but I do not recomend if your ever writiing a legit (college, especially upper level) history or research paper using Wikipedia as a source.
Sorry, just ranting. It gets tiresome hearing/reading, well i got this off of Wikipedia....

reply

Wikipedia "IS NOT" a valid historical source for anything.


Quotation marks "ARE NOT" to be used for emphasis. Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

Anyway, Wikipedia is gradually becoming increasingly reliable, as more and more statements get sources while dubious statements get removed or at least marked as needing sources. But, of course, if you want to be assured of reliability, you ought to check out the sources yourself.

reply

Look im a greekcypriot.... My country Cyprus is divided since the invation of Turish in 1974... For 33 years my country a small island of 700 000 people is divided in two parts... What Turkish made was wrong... But as you say we shouldnt fight when there isnt hope.. Thats totally wrong... If we didnt stand against Turkey's beliefs for 33 years they would have taken all of my country... We know there isnt much hope to get back our land and our houses but we are still trying.. We never give up, so we can show them that we dont fear them...

Thats what King Leonidas wanted to do... To show that Spartans werent afraid of the millions of Persians... It doesnt matter if they were 300 or 7000 thousands.. The Persians were 1,000,000... The point is that Spartans and other greeks stood against Persia... They didnt give their souls like little chickens... Until there's hope we should still try to get what we want....

Im greek and i know greek history... King Leonidas had a plan... He wanted to delay Persian army so the greeks should be prepared... He may be took 7000 thousands but the second day only 300 spartans and 700 thespians stayed with him... He took the Persians into a narrow pass; the Thermopyle... Only few men could pass it every time... So he had a hope to win... But someone named Efialtis(=Nightmare) betrade Leonidas for a huge amount of money... He told Xerxhis King of Persia a secret passage, and the persian army went through it an killed all the Greeks there... Leonidas small army managed to delay Persians for 10 days... Then the greeks better prepared, defeated Persians...

Now you see the heroic point of the situation.. Leonidas and the 300 spartans and the 700 thespians fought to the last second... It is a great example for all of us.. We have to fight for everything we want to achieve.. Even if there isnt hope we should still be trying....

Leonidas and his army may had died but it helped Greeks to made and win a lot of "lost" revolutions.. The great leaders of Greece had always had the example of Leonidas... Some ex: 1821 revolution against turkey after 400 years of occupation, 1940 greeks didnt allow Italy to brake into the country so Germans came to give the solution.. this delayed them and Germans were forced to brake into russia where they lost because of the cold...

And one great example is one from my country... Cypriots decided to revolutionise against English in 1955-1959... One guy named Grigoris Auxentiou that was hidden in the mountains was betrayed by a farmer(this guy was wanted dead or alive by the english)... This guy was hidden in a hole in the mountains... When English came to the spot and told him to get out, he answered them "Molon Lave"(=come and get me);thats what Leonidas told to the Persians... This guy fought against English for almost 10 hours... They couldnt get him.. So they went up the hills and they put on a fire so he could be burnt... They managed to kill him but they never made a public funeral because they were afraid of him as a deadman too.. A lot of Cypriots fought against English.. English never managed to kill them by gun.. They haunted them, the closed them into prisons... Finally after a lot of Cypriots died England went away and we got independent..

These are historical facts and if you want you can find them....

Leonidas might died knowing there isnt hope but he taugth to the world a lesson
NEVER GIVE UP

reply

It's simple, Battle of Thermopylae was tactical defeat, but strategic victory. I can tell you of battle with similar effects, from history of my country - Poland. It was Battle of Zadworze during Polish-Bolshevik War. It was fought on August 17, 1920 near the train station of Zadworze, a small village located 33 kilometres from the city centre of Lwów. 330 Poles were defending against Bolsheviks (number unknown). They fought from noon till dusk. By dusk the Poles' ammunition was almost completely depleted, yet the Polish unit managed to repulse six consecutive cavalry charges. Polish commander, captain Zajaczkowski decided that the further defence of the station was impossible and ordered his units to retreat towards Lwow. However, the retreat was halted by three Bolshevik airplanes strafing the Polish defenders. After suffering heavy casualties, Zajączkowski ordered his men to organize a last pocket of resistance near the lineman's hut. After hand-to-hand combat with sabres and bayonettes, the Polish resistance was broken. Out of 330 Polish soldiers who seized the train station earlier that day, 318 were dead. Several dozen wounded Poles were captured by the Red Army and most probably murdered. Captain Zajączkowski himself committed suicide in order not to be captured by the enemy. Only twelve Polish soldiers returned to the Polish lines to recount what had happened during the battle. At that time, it was tactical defeat. However, the 11 hours long fight halted the advance of the whole Russian 6th Cavalry Division for almost 24 hours. This allowed for the strengthening of the defences of Lwów. In addition, because of the defence of Zadwórze, the 1st Cavalry Army of Siemion Budionnyi could not reach the forces fighting in the Battle of Warsaw and attack the undefended right flank of the forces of Józef Piłsudski advancing towards the rear of the Red Army forces around Warsaw. When the forces of Budionnyi finally regrouped and restarted their march northwards, it was already too late and the Battle of Warsaw ended with a complete defeat of the Red Army (the 1st Cavalry Army was later defeated in a Battle of Komarow, which became known as "the biggest cavalry battle since 18th century").
Because of the heroic defence and number of casualties, the battle of Zadwórze was nicknamed the "Polish Battle of Thermopylae". The name is even more significant, when we realise, that if we had lost battle of Warsaw, Bolsheviks would have had a clear way to invade rest of Europe (which was weakend after the WWI). Vladimir Lenin viewed Poland as a bridge that had to be crossed so that communism could be brought to Central and Western Europe, and the Polish-Bolshevik War seemed the perfect way to test Bolshevik strength. Bolshevik speeches asserted that the revolution was to be carried to western Europe on the bayonets of Soviet soldats and that the shortest route to Berlin and Paris lay through Warsaw. It didn't happen, thanks to polish victory in the battle of Warsaw, which in turn was in great measure possible due to the defend of Zadworze. Like the British historian A.J.P. Taylor said, the Polish-Bolshevik War "largely determined the course of European history for the next twenty years or more.[...] Unavowedly and almost unconsciously, Soviet leaders abandoned the cause of international revolution."

reply

Only??? What about the other countries on the Balkan peninsula? Or you studied only your history at school?

reply

Only??? Balkan Peninsula??? The Irish suffered 800 years of English oppressive occupation. By avoiding the bulk of the Dark Ages, preserved Western culture. Today, in spite of years as Europe's third world country is now an economic dominating force - The Celtic Tiger.

reply

read your history dumb ass

reply

Considering 'Thespian' is now an another term for actor - and Spartan means
bare, or the basic - then i fully expect to see a parody of this story in the near
future

reply

Thats because 300 spartans stood off the people at the pass
the greeks were pretty much meat for the grinder
they had no skill and were quickly slaughtered
The spartans are the ones that stoped at the pass and helled it for how ever many days it was they would have defended it longer if a traitor hadnt snuck the army around a second trail behind the spartans

Their were 300 that lived, faught, and died with honor defending their homes and making it so instead of Western Civilization being Arab (which it woulda been if Persia broke through before the rest of the army got there) it is Greek design

reply

[deleted]

Actually, Persians ie a good portion of modern day Iranians are not Arabs. Ethnically, they're probably closer to Europeans than they are to Arabs.

reply

To Jstok,
and anyone who are here not just to make fun of people,

So first of all, it's a hollywood movie type of thing. You can't use it as material at a college history class.

Second, if only 1000 greeks were fighting on the decision battle, I don't have a problem with the film leaving the part of 6000 more greeks were there at the first day.

Third, as for your crtique on the message of the film, If any half human have a functional brain they would find the idea of bravery ethics in the film. I don't think the message is under-presented.

As for if it's the true intend, IDK. For me, it's more of chemical reactions in your brain making the story exciting thing.

Enjoy the best of things,

ZW

reply

i would be a spartan if i could....

reply

[deleted]

I think the outcome of the war would not impact historical development alot, certainly not the big Doom that most stop at.

From what I remember from reading Herodotus the Persian king was not intent on occupational conquest. He wanted to teach the Greeks a lesson for some insult or relatively small matter (I forget).

What would have happened if the Persians won would most likely be some massive destruction of property, lots of deaths and then Greek self-governance with yearly payments to the Persian capital, as most states in the outskirts of the Persian empire did. This would of course not last very long because of a combination of 2 factors:
1) Despotism is unstable and the Persian grip would not last, especially since Greece was so far from Persia in terms of the primitive transport then, and
2) The Greeks valued their self governance greatly and would break free soon enough.

Having to pay yearly tribute to Persia would have kept the Greek states in closer unity and agreement, and the later Peloponesian wars might have been avoided, which in total cost far more damage, death, destruction and money than what would have been lost in a Persian victory.

reply

Thank you, gregkimwk, for supplying this mostly inane discussion with a plausible outcome had the Persians defeated the Greeks. While I have great admiration for the Spartans, and the rest of the Greeks (especially their navy) who fought against Persia, too much is made of the claim that the 300 Spartans are responsible for saving democracy.

Don't ask a dyin' man ta lie his soul inta Hell

reply

lol jealous retards such as urself make me laugh. carry on clown lol

reply