What if Leonidas was allowed to take 3000 men with him? - 300 (2007) Discussion

[–] Atheist_Dude 9 years ago

He nearly won with 300. With 3000 he would have surely won.

The only flaw in his plan was Ephialtes.

reply

[–] vojkan087 9 years ago

Leonidas already had 6000+ infantrymen at his side, plus at least twice as many armed 'squires'.

Ephialtes (not exactly a flaw in his plan, since he was just a local peasant according to actual sources) was probably just a rationalisation or mytologizing by Greeks after the battle.

It was a matter of days in which many of Xerxes' scouts would have found the path(s) through mountains.

A traitor named Ephialtes (nightmare) just sounds more epic and poetic.

reply

[–] lijkel 9 years ago

A traitor named Ephialtes (nightmare) just sounds more epic and poetic.

I'm pretty sure that 'Ephialtes' only started to mean nightmare after the battle. It also started to be used as a way of saying 'traitor' after the battle, the same way English speakers use 'Judas' to mean 'traitor' or 'backstabber'.

Also, (ancient) Greek historians seem to know who his father was, so he must be more than just a peasant. He definitely wasn't a wee monster man though.

reply

[–] vojkan087 9 years ago

You may actually be right about Ephialtes. I can't remember any sources earlier than late antiquity actually naming nightmare demon as Ephialtes.

However, son of a father was something used like a modern surname and doesn't necessarily imply any particular social status. I doubt Herodotus' or Greek narrative of a single traitor. Persians certainly had means and expertise to find path(s) themselves and it is very hard to believe one named Greek was responsible for the entire action.

Regardless, I can't dismiss a primary source, especially Herodotus, without other more reliable source or archaeology, both of which we are lacking.

reply

[–] NutMustardx 8 years ago

One man showed them the way through the pass. They couldn't travel in the day, Leonidas had scouts watching for the flank assault. The only way the Persians could do it is at night and if they didn't know the way there's no way in hell they'd find their way thorough, and not be spotted. Plus by time the Persians found the way on their own it would have been way too late. The story wasn't made up out of the blue. Sure history is exaggerated or twisted at times but if it wasn't true the Judas would have denied it which he never did

reply

[–] pcyiu9 8 years ago

I imagine if he had 3000 men, he could have spared a company or two to guard the mountain path.

-----------------------------
I miss Giles.

reply

[–] bigwitt187 8 years ago

He sent the Phocian contingent, 1k men, to defend the path. They abandoned their post, I think because they feared that the Spartans would be overrun and Phocis was the first territory past Thermopylae. Given that the path could only accommodate 2-3 men across, they could've held out for days.

reply

[–] Congo39 8 years ago

No. The Spartans would have needed much more than 3,000 soldiers. In a defensive stance, against a force of 80,000 (sorry... the Persians did not have a million soldiers [limitation of logistics proves that]), I would say that they would need at least 40,000 to pull off a victory against 80,000 Persians. But that still comes with a higher percentage of a chance of defeat.

If you look at their battles, it appears that their reputation is far greater than their actual performance. But the name Sparta and the mythology of Sparta drives the imagination.

reply

[–] NutMustardx 8 years ago

What was wrong with their performance? They killed the enemy at a 20 to 1 ratio, minimum. Xerces didn't know anything about thier reputation before he faught them.,hence his utter humiliation. And the numbers were closer to 250 to 400k men in the Persian force including the armada.

reply

[–] vojkan087 8 years ago

Their reputation matched their performance quite well. It is later eras, such as Roman, and especially modern times, that popularised this mythological version of Spartans as superhumans or supersoldiers.

Spartans weren't thought of as 'invincible' during the period in question. They were simply respected as very good warriors, and a state with great political influence. Certainly not a force many were willing to be against. They had a vast territory, great(est) wealth, and relatively small, but well trained army and a system to support it.

They did suffer defeats in some battles (Against Messenians, Argives, Arkadians etc.), sure, and had a lot of trouble in certain wars (with Tegea). But ultimately, they succeeded, even if it took them years. Many city states had warriors just as good and wealthy as Spartans, but usually not as many.

reply

[–] tmf_scipio 8 years ago

Not really. Once the Persians had them surrounded, they were done.

Hitler! C'mon, I'll buy you a glass of lemonade.

reply

[–] aer71367-313-155069 8 years ago

They were saying a documentary that Military still study the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans were the Delta Force of their time. Yeah the Persians had great numbers, but they didn't have very many actual soldiers. They had an army of people they had conquered. Not actual trained soldiers.

reply