How did the Persians not over run the Greek nation?

The biggest thing was the Greeks had the technological edge. Their weapons, breast plates and shields were bronze. The Persian shields were wicker, their body armor padded leather and their spear points were copper.

They also had the advantage of the narrow pass to defend so that they were pretty much fighting even numbers for most of the Battle of Thermopolis, even with being outnumbered by 10 to one.

@WestRiverrat add superior training, leadership, and morale to that, and you’ve nailed it entirely.

@WestRiverrat has it right. Thermopolis was a critical point in the conflict. Also, most of the persian army had no personal interest in the fight (I believe many were shipped in from the outskirts of the Persian empire and forced to fight against their will).

And Greece wasn’t Greece as a nation yet, it were different city states, who, in turn were also sometimes in conflict with each other.

Hate to be pedantic but it was the Battle of Thermopylae

Hate to be a spoilsport, but the Greeks (well, my Greek does) call it Thermopolis.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I don’t think the training and morale were that far apart, at least not for the Spartans and the Immortals, both were the elite units of their respective nations. Greek leadership was indeed superior.

“Greek leadership was indeed superior.”
As opposed to their leadership nowadays :-)

@rebbel You’re right about the Greek leadership but Thermopolis is in Wyoming!

You mean Wyomingos?!

@flutherother you are correct, it has been 30+ years since I took Greek history. Can’t you cut me a little slack?

@WestRiverrat As long as you don’t think Greece is somewhere in Wyoming.

@auhsojsa Have you seen 300?

Greece was able to fend off the Persians for several days due to the incredible skill and ferocity of the 300 Spartan warriors at the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans, under the command of king Leonidas, held off a vastly superior force or Persians ( estimated at 250,000 ) long enough for Athens and the other Greek Citystates to prepare a proper defense. Most historians consider this a turning point for Western civilization.

There were about 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans, and a few hundred others that stayed with the 300 Spartans to the end. They started with a force of about 7500. The Persian forces were anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 depending on which accounts you believe.

It is believed most of the fighting for the pass took place in an area about the size or two football fields end to end.

@FutureMemory Yes. Was that indeed the most pivotal point? Also watched a documentary on it and it talked about the smaller societies coming together to defend. But with as vast as the Persian empire was, it’s just amazing that other routes weren’t further utilized. Also I’m a bit aware of the back and forth before Alexander of Macedonia finally penetrated enough to call the defeat of the Persian empire.

@auhsojsa As I recall from a documentary on the subject, I believe the greek navy also played a pivotal role in preventing the Persian army from bypassing the narrow pass.

Another thing to consider is that the Persian were fight for revenge/territory. The Greeks however, were fighting for their LIVES. This would have led the Greeks having more motivation and determination. Determination being a key factor in any war.

The narrow channel near Salamis in the Battle of Slamis was a great victory. The smaller Athenian(?) navy was able to out manouver the larger Paersian one.

And of course the unification of the City-States in the Battle of Plataea, showed their strength in numbers (for the Greeks).

The Greeks won because Xerxes was a sh*tty military leader. He lead his army on a huge march to Greece, when he arrived he managed to walk them right into a bottle neck that allowed Leonidas to play to his advantage (facing his superior warriors with even numbers at any one time rather than overwhelming numbers surrounding them).. Then when he managed to win that fight he marched into Greece and got stuck there for the winter with little to no supply lines. Then he left the damned army to go back to Persia and deal with rebel uprisings because he’d taken the majority of his damn army… and unsurprisingly the troops he left, worn down and out from winter and not wanting to be there in the first place… were beaten by a Greek combined force that equaled them in number since they’d had time to organize due to Xerxes’ failure to just smash the bejesus out of the major Greek City-states when he had the chance.

Spartan military prowess, technological advances, patriotic will power… That’s all fine and dandy… But the fact of the matter is Xerxes was a crappy strategist.

It all just amazes me if Xerxes had took over the whole nations that is present day Greece. From what I’m learning in Art History, the Persian empire would swallow the armies of whomever they conquered, yet would allow for culture to remain the same. Had he succeeded do you all think we would be speaking Persian?

@auhsojsa No. The Persian empire was bound for collapse, taking Greece wouldn’t have changed that, and in fact would’ve only made it that much easier for the emerging Roman Empire several centuries later.

@tedd Well, that’s one opinion I can sort of respect that. However, conquering the Spartans and Atheneans alone and making them war lords would give a huge advantage to the Persian empire don’t you think? Brute army strength of the Spartans and the vast Navy skill of the Atheneans? Anyways, I doubt those nations ever thought about submission as their actions spoke for themselves.

@auhsojsa The Spartans and the Athenians, as well as the combined forces of all the other Greek City-States.. didn’t mean a thing when the Roman empire emerged.

It’s obviously hard to argue what would have happened hundreds years after a historical event, if that event had turned out differently. How would WW2 have played out if the British had won the American Revolution?

But empires come and go, and the Greek Empires saw their end well before the emergence of the Roman Empire. Given the poor management skills the Persian Empire already had, I highly doubt adding more unwilling subjects to the mix would’ve made it any more successful or stable.

Leonidas and the Spartans rocked!!

( also Xerxes was a crappy leader because I heard one of his advisers was a guy named Ahmanidejad. Lol. )