Battle of Thermopylae, i don't get it - Historum

questioner1 · February 13th, 2010, 08:40 AM

My question isn't so much about the battle of Thermopylae itself, but basically about ancient military tactics in general. I know how they we're defeated by the persians (surrounded, because the persians found a alternate pass).

What i don't understand, is why that meant the greeks' loss. And why being surrounded is a bad thing in general.

So the battle of thermopylae is only an example to ask my question.

< is persian
G is greek
the situation was like this:
> G <
so they were surrounded. but why didn't they just split in half:
> G G <
That way they wouldn't be surrounded, the situation would be the same, only the battle would take place in two locations.

Why is this not possible?

Can't this just always be used when an army is surrounded?

Because what is the difference if you're fighting someone in front of you, and theres also a fight going on behind you? one soldier still only has to fight the man in front of him.

I hope this isn't too vague.

**oshron** · February 13th, 2010, 09:35 AM

if youre surrounded, youre surrounded, period; splitting your forces doesnt make you not-surrounded. the bad thing about being surrounded, as opposed to fighting in one direction, is that you cant put all of your strength on one front. it was the same situation in WWII; the nazis were allied with the soviets because they wanted to focus all of their attention on the west instead of having to send half of their forces to the west and half to the east

Nikator · February 13th, 2010, 09:45 AM

As oshron said, the reason they lost was because when they were surrounding they had to split their forces. They could only fight with effectively half of their force against double the number of their opponents, so with that balance they lost the battle.

**oshron** · February 13th, 2010, 09:50 AM

also, in the case of thermopylae, they realized that they would be surrounded long before the encirclement occurred and ordered the retreat of most of their troops: it was only the famed 300 spartans, leonidas, and one or two thousand other troops that stayed behind, so they werent even at full strength for that. but they relized that they would ALL be destroyed if they all stayed anyway so they had the bulk of the army retreat; it was a necessary sacrifice

questioner1 · February 13th, 2010, 10:55 AM

@ oshron

"if youre surrounded, youre surrounded, period"

Well if you send half of your men away that means there are bassically two different battles taking place. so that wouldn't be exactly the same as being surrounded in one place, right? please tell me why this isn't true.

you say they could then only use half their strength, but they we're with 7000 men, and by far not all of them we're fighting at the same time, so what's the difference if you're fighting with 1000 (just picked a random number) men in front and 2500 men behind that basically don't do anything, or whethere theyre with 6000 not doing anything? Only the front lines are fighting, so i don't understand what 'half the force' matters.

As to the WWII example. that isn't quite the same, because we're talking about a single battle in a narrow corridor here. during WWII the nazis had to send their forces to two very far away places, which meant they couldn't strengthen certain positions anymore. in that case half the troops ment half the force, but in thermopylae there was only one place to defend, which was so narrow, that only a small amount of soldiers could fight at one moment anyway.

and i know all about the battle, really. I wasn't very clear in my first post, but I really want to understand this at a deeper level. Sorry for that.

Because I've learned that being surrounded untactical, and being attacked in the flanks is untactical, but i don't really understand why, considering the things i just said.

Thanks very much for answering though, i appreciate it.

Cedar Brown · February 13th, 2010, 12:43 PM

By marching through the mountain pass in force, Xerxes compelled the Greeks to retreat. If they didn't retreat, the communications and only escape route of their inferior army would be compromised. Leonidas' rearguard action helped the majority of the assembled Greek army to escape and fight another day. Xerxes effectively bypassed their strongly held position.

Leonidas' rearguard was a much reduced force. Before the greater portion of Greeks retreated, they had enough men to hold the pass in deep formation and probably keep a strong reserve. With only the Spartans, Thebans and Thespians, as well as the need to fight on two sides, the Greek phalanx was thinned. They were surrounded so there was no escape and they were all killed.

I don't think that any force defending the pass of Thermopylae has won the battle there. Brennus' hordes and Schorner's Wehrmacht would tell you.

**Sargon of Akkad** · February 13th, 2010, 12:57 PM

Well, if you want to simplify it, imagine this. The Persians are in blue, the Greeks are in red, and the chevron dictates the way they are facing.

Thermopylae Pass, 480 BC...

-----
100> -----------------------------
100> 100> 100> <100
100> -----------------------------
------

The Greeks have only a hundred men against a hundred Persians at a time. Oh how frustrated Xerxes is!

...but oh no! That nasty Ephialtes has betrayed the Greeks, and the Persians have approached from their rear!

-----
100> --------------------------------------
100> 100> 100> <50 50> <100 <100 <100
100> --------------------------------------
------

So now the Greeks have had their numbers halved and the number of enemies engaging them doubled. Is it any wonder that being surrounded sucks?

sylla1 · February 13th, 2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cedar Brown

I don't think that any force defending the pass of Thermopylae has won the battle there. Brennus' hordes and Schorner's Wehrmacht would tell you.

I'm aware of at least one exception:

The 352 BC Battle of Thermopylae was the blocking of the pass during the III Sacred War (356 BC- 346 BC) by the allied Phocians and Athenians against Philip II of Macedon.

The Phocian commander Phayllus managed to keep Philip out; it was one of the few defeats (or at least stalemate) of this Macedonian king.

Cedar Brown · February 13th, 2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

I'm aware of at least one exception:

The 352 BC Battle of Thermopylae was the blocking of the pass during the III Sacred War (356 BC- 346 BC) by the allied Phocians and Athenians against Philip II of Macedon.

Thank you.

Sargon's explanation is very good.

Shadow Dragon · February 13th, 2010, 02:57 PM

It really comes down to numbers. In the op's example, if the Greeks had a large enough army, they could have defended both their rear and front. However, the Greeks depended on basically creating a wall of shields and spears from the mountians to the sea. That was simple enough when they were just defending one side, but they couldn't creat two walls. When trying to defend both sides, it would have only been a matter of time before the Persians poured through the holes and disrupted the Phalanx formation.

Speaking in more general terms, it becomes very difficult to protect against missle attacks when defending from multiple positions. Each volley is going to become more and more effective.

And it harms morale. when a soldier sees a large number of enemies in every direction, they stop believing they will (or can) win the battle. At that point, it's only a matter of time before they lose.