first, let me make it clear this movie was based off a comic interpreation by someone who likes being artistic and going over the top with his drama. However I thought it might be useful to point out some historical innacuracies for thsoe who have little exposure to the reality of the Battle of Thermopylae. I'll be ignoring all the monsters and imaginary creatures in the movie.



First, there were actually 1000 who stayed behind. 300 Spartan soldiers and 700 men from another city state. I forget which one, it was not achadia though. That was the only other city state mentioned in the movie. The Spartans fought to the last, then the remaining support forces surrendered. They did indeed hold the pass for three days though against an army estimated to be at miniomum 220,000, at maximum in the millions.



Prior to the Persians flanking them at the pass, the Greek forces were much larger. I believe the guess is in the low thousands. Many city states contributed greatly. I am only including actual hoplites, the men armed to fight as a phalanx. Peltasts and other support fighrers are not in the estimate.



The actual battle that followed was some years later, and was only a part of the victory against Xerxes. The naval battle was much more vital, as it prevented the Persian armada from supporting their troops by sea. Without the naval victory, Greece likely would have never held out against Persia.

Thespia, from where we get thespians, people who like to act.

And I think that it was more like 300 Spartans, and 900 or 1,000 Thespians. I think.





I've always had a problem with Herodotus' claim of Persian strength. Logistically speaking, can you imagine the facilities needed to feed all of those men and animals? And this was back in the day when there were only four modes of transport: human foot, animal foot, ship's oar, and ship's sail. I honestly can't see such a force being fed with the feeble logistics at hand. Even if the Persian army had ravaged the Anatolian countryside they still would not have found enough to eat.

Discrepancies?! The whole film was one enormous discrepancy!

Though I was not as irritated as one would think at the various 'monsters' that were shown in the film - Herodotos was writing on the events from a strongly pro-'Greek' view and his history continually melds themes of myth and legend with that of apparently real events.

In terms of those present at the battle, they didn't even bother to follow Herodotos with Leonidas's initial army at Thermopylae which was as well as 300 Spartiates, 2120 Arkardians, 400 Corinthians, 200 Phliusians, 80 Mycenaeans - as well as 1000 Phocians, 700 Thespians and 400 dodgy Thebans. While the Thespians did stay on after the deadly Persian flanking maneuver, so did the Thebans.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28fil ... l_accuracy
I wonder which historian they bribed to say that...

Question for those more interested in ancient history:

Was the pass really that narrow? I know it is much wider in modern times, but that is largely geological shifts at work. That and the modern highway.

And The Helots,they fought too didn't they?



I too don't think these numbers are acurate.




Yes,thanks to the battle of Salamis,most Persians left due to
logistical problems.
The battle of Salamis is(in my oppinion)much more important than the battle of Thermophylae.

Perhaps the battle of Thermopylae was a bit more dramatic and easier to set as an action film.

I am unsure, but if it was wider then, that would bring into question the possibility of such a small number of Greeks (or large number of Persians) being able to defend.
Perhaps knowing the original size of the pass would help us understand the real numbers involved in the conflict, and help us separate the myth from the fact.


No, they supported their masters in carrying, etc. - but not fighting.

We can only hypothesis the numbers involved in the conflict. It is highly unlikely that the force was in the millions, but it was still probably quite a large force of its day.
I am personally comfortable with the figure of a bit over 200,000.


It certainly was. In fact I would say that the battle of Thermopylae was actually quite an unimportant battle in the Persian wars in strategic terms (but immeasurable in propaganda). The simultaneous sea-battle of Artemisium was really the more successful of the two strategically.

I'm looking at a photo of the Thermopylae pass right now in the book 'Warfare in the Ancient World' by Richard Humble. There's a road running through it, and the caption states that "in 480 BC the coastline would have run just to the right of the road." Using a car on the road as a yardstick, I would estimate the distance between the hills and the road as between 100 and 200 metres. This would have been the width of the Thermopylae pass at the time of the Persian invasion. The caption also states that "spurs reaching down from the hills pinched the coastal strip into the narrow 'gates' defended so magnificently by Leonidas and his men."

So yes, it seems clear that 300 to 1000 men could successfully hold out for three days against an army in the hundreds of thousands, simply because only a tiny fraction of those huge numbers could actually be brought to bear on the defending force at any one time. The historical record is credible.

I wonder if was based on geological surveys.


As well as the super efficiency of highly trained hoplites in such a situation. Reminds me of myself as a child at the beach trying to dislodge a large rock crab from crevice in a rock, a completely futile activity.

Well, a hundred or so metres would be wider than the 300 representation. Mind you a larger pass would have made the limited cast look kind of silly.

Chipping into the discussion on numbers, the Greeks would have to have had a fair number of troops. Not only would they still have to cover a reasonably large frontage, they would need enough people at the back to resist the push of Persian troops. Finally, consider the need to relieve the troops at the front periodically.

On the topic of numbers and geography, would the defenders have actually been able to see the main body of the Persian army from the pass itself?

Actually something that didn't come to mind the other night: the Greeks originally held the pass with over 6,000 hoplites including the Spartans. Defending that amount of space would not have been too complicated with that many men in hoplite formation.


This would be the case with hoplite vs hoplite conflicts, but the badly armoured Persian infantry I don't think would have been much of a 'pushing' force.

The Greeks actually had more than 300 - counting the auxiliary and allied troops, they had closer to 1000. Enough to defend a front about 100 to 200 metres wide.


They did have a fair number of troops. And as has been mentioned, the Persian toops were not good at 'pushing', especially against Spartan hoplites. Relieving the troops would be a problem, which is probably why the Spartans recognised from the outset that they were on a suicide mission.


Judging from the photograph, probably not.

While I can't be bothered to consult Herodotos at this moment, I believe they expected a possible relief through the rest of Sparta's citizen army.
So the mission was probably never initiated with honorable battle suicide in mind. In this way the 'Spartan mirage' once again permeates the perception of the Spartans as warriors who would not back down in any engagement to save their honour, etc. The fact is, the Spartan army has been recorded many times throughout various sources of having withdrawn from engagements and even a surrender. They may have been master soldiers, but they were not idiots. Thermopylae is a slightly different story though...but-sleep-is-needed.

The sheer mass of the Persian army in the relatively small space would have created push, even if the front ranks of the Persian force were dead (it's not like they had room to fall down). The effect of compression on troops has been observed in a much later battles, like Cannae or Agincourt.


Yeah, I know, but I was talking about the film.


Not necessarily. As long as there were pausing in the fighting (and inevitably there would have to be), mixed with efficient drill (which is the essence of Hoplite warfare). The only issue is you need enough troops to have a reserve in the back.

Had the Greeks lacked a reserve, I doubt the battle would have lasted more than a day. Even the best soldiers can only carry on for some long under pressure.

You don't go to the movies for historical accuracy anyway. They're just enterteinment.