Military Review

The 300 Spartans Myth

160
Why myth? Therefore. Because if the Spartans who fought in those days were exactly three hundred, then how can one explain the loss of the Greeks, who in that battle were about 4 thousands killed and about 400 taken prisoner?


I tactfully leave the film of the same name with such a name as a good sample of epic marasmus, with its three-meter Xerxes wrapped in a chain, fighting elephants, the size of a good five-story building, and fighting rhinos rushing into battle (films with such a name, by the way, were It has been shot at different times already, but now I’m talking about the last one that caused so much noise at the box office).

But back to the designated topic: so, according to many, in 480 BC. The Persian army of Xerxes in the town of Thermopylae (“Hot Gate”) was opposed by 300 soldiers from the city of Sparta (led by the courageous king Leonid). However, things were not quite right.

For the answer, we turn to "Stories"Herodotus, to the book of the seventh (" Polyhymnia ") of this work - the only reliable source about this battle, where in the paragraphs 202 and 203 we read (the number of soldiers I have highlighted in bold):" The Hellenic forces that were waiting in this area of ​​the Persian king, from 300 Spartan hoplites, 1000 Tegues and Mantinians (by 500 of those and others); further, the 120 people are from Orchomen in Arcadia and 1000 are from the rest of Arcadia. So much was the Arcadians. Then from Corinth 400, from Flint 200 and 80 - from Mycenae. These people came from the Peloponnese. From Boeotia there were 700 Thespians and 400 Thebes. In addition, the Hellenes summoned the Opunta Locrians with all their militia and 1000 Foksi ... ”*. By simple arithmetic calculations, we get the number: 5200 warriors (note: Wikipedia in the “Thermopile Battle” article gives other numbers: 5920, nevertheless this number is wrong, because the Wikipedia author cited the number of warriors from Miken, “800” instead of “80”, which accounts for the inaccuracy of the calculation).

So, we see not three hundred, but more than five thousand soldiers. In this case, I especially emphasize the word “warriors”, since Herodot included only professional heavily armed warriors (google), while Herodot, speaking of the number of Spartans, reports only the number of helpers, not counting this is the ilots, peculiar state serfs in Sparta, which the Spartans used as lightly armed soldiers and servants, but with whom they did not share fame. Men like the Spartan tribes were also among the warriors from other Greek polis. The number of Spartan ilites in the Battle of Thermopil can only be calculated approximately, since Herodotus is simply silent about their number. At the same time, according to the same Herodot, a year later (479 BC), in the battle of Platai, for every Spartan city, there were 7 ilotas; their ratio in the Battle of Thermopylae is unknown, but apparently it was about the same, based on the number of Greeks killed in the battle. Total only Spartans in that battle was attended by about two thousand people.

By miscalculation, a number of specialists in the Fermopilsky battle of the Persian army confronted about 12000 the Spartans and their allies from other Greek policies, which you will agree, certainly not 300.

However, this circumstance in no way minimizes the feat of the Spartans and warriors from other Greek policies, because they were opposed by about 200 of thousands of Persian soldiers, including the elite parts of Xerxes - the so-called "immortal". In this battle, which lasted three days, about 20 thousands of Persians (including 2 siblings of King Xerxes) fell, while the losses of the Greeks are given at the very beginning of the article.

* Cit. by: "Historians of Antiquity", M., Pravda Publishers, 1989, t.1 p.189.
Originator:
http://www.ljpoisk.ru
160 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. MG42
    MG42 21 September 2013 07: 52
    +9
    Stylish clip on this topic >>
    We will fight to the end.
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 21 September 2013 08: 31
      12
      Now I'm rereading Plutarch, it says - "After the death of the Spartan king Leonidas in the town of Thermopylae with an army ...." No numbers - 300 or more .... Where did they get 300 is not clear.
      1. MG42
        MG42 21 September 2013 08: 37
        21
        This film was probably conceived as Iran’s Hollywood trolling, a bunch of computer effects completed the demonization of Xerxes’s army ..
        The news is certainly not fresh as the topic ..

        Iran called on Turkey to remove the 300 Spartans comic strip from the box office, arguing that showing this film could negate Ankara's efforts to establish a "dialogue of civilizations."

        "Demonstration of such films in Turkey could negate the efforts of one of the countries that initiated the" dialogue of civilizations "to implement this project," the Iranian embassy said in a statement circulated in local media on Wednesday. This project, supported by the UN, is being implemented by Turkey jointly with Spain.

        The Iranian Embassy in Ankara has issued a special statement, which says that the film, which tells the story of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. e., in which 300 brave Spartans led by King Leonidas blocked the path of the army of many thousands of the Persian king Xerxes, "completely distorts history."

        The Iranian embassy hopes that "the Turkish authorities, the media and the Turkish people will give a worthy response to the propaganda of the ideology of the clash of civilizations and attempts to create discord and division between nations."


        http://www.newsru.com/cinema/21mar2007/300.html

        From the cover of this film, Tsar Leonid, photoshoppers sent to serve in the Airborne Forces ..
        1. Joker
          Joker 21 September 2013 09: 42
          +3
          This film was probably conceived as Iran's Hollywood trolling.

          This film is based on the 300 Spartans comic, soon the 2 part will come out, but about the battle between Athens and Xerxes. I liked the film, good special effects, spectacular battles, what a plot.
          1. igor67
            igor67 21 September 2013 14: 05
            +3
            . Here is a movie fragment
          2. MG42
            MG42 21 September 2013 14: 32
            +4
            Quote: Joker
            I liked the film, good special effects, spectacular battles, what a plot.

            I have a DVD with this movie, but I haven’t reviewed it for a long time ..
            the clip for that last film of 300 Spartans, perhaps even better than the one that I posted above in this thread >>
          3. starshina78
            starshina78 21 September 2013 16: 26
            37
            You forget that there was another movie, Three Hundred Spartans, filmed in 1962. This film is made more truthful than this Hollywood beleberda. In that film (which I think is closer to history), Thespians, the messengers of the city of Thesp, take part in the battle, the Athenian Themistokol commands the sea and defeats the entire fleet of the Persians (this is already a historical fact). Let more soldiers participated there, but the memory of exactly 300 Spartans has been preserved in history. And you shouldn't destroy this myth about people who stood up to defend their Fatherland and gave their lives. Let Leonidas (king of Sparta) and his warriors remain heroes, who stood alone before the horde of Persians.
          4. rolik
            rolik 21 September 2013 21: 50
            +4
            Quote: Joker
            good special effects

            Especially Xerxes (popularly nicknamed Xerox). It looks like an ardent admirer of the toughest BDSM.
            1. MG42
              MG42 21 September 2013 22: 26
              11
              Quote: rolik
              Especially Xerxes (popularly nicknamed Xerox). It looks like an ardent admirer of the toughest BDSM.

              For some reason, you do not notice hard in the ranks of Xerxes’s troops fought TROLLY
              and other evil spirits that most of all have outraged Iran in this film, well, as shown by Xerxes is also natural .. wassat I wrote about trolling in its pure form ..
              Still from the film >>
          5. Corneli
            Corneli 21 September 2013 22: 14
            +6
            Quote: Joker
            This film is based on the 300 Spartans comic, soon the 2 part will come out, but about the battle between Athens and Xerxes. I liked the film, good special effects, spectacular battles, what a plot.

            Precisely that according to the comic strip by Frank Millerr. A similar film (not "historical" laughing ), Tarantino (Sin City) is shot in the manner of his noir comics. The author also owns comics about the "exploits" of Daredevil, Electra, Batman. It is ridiculous to talk about the "historicity" of these comics. Actually, the director of the film, Zach Snyder, immediately disowned accusations of the abnormality of his "historical film" and said that the film was an adaptation of a comic book. Therefore, the Spartan hoplites are naked here, and Xerxes is a sado-maso-persinged giant, and the "immortals" (heavy, elite archers) zombie-goblin-ninja ...
        2. xetai9977
          xetai9977 21 September 2013 18: 31
          12
          Personally, I did not like the movie. Excessive computerization, instead of real warriors, some monsters. The old film was much more enjoyable. And the story goes that when Thermopylae was not the most important battle of that campaign. The timely construction by the Themistocles of the Athenian fleet and its decisive actions at sea decided the fate of the war in favor of the Greeks. But the unconditional courage of the Spartans, led by Leonid, of course, is in every way worthy of respect!
          1. Yarik
            Yarik 23 September 2013 10: 21
            0
            This "masterpiece" of Hollywood surprised to the extreme. What is going on in their heads? Patience was enough for 5 minutes.
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 21 September 2013 09: 46
        14
        Quote: xetai9977
        It’s not clear where they got 300 from.

        what According to books and legends, this was his personal guard, which he could dispose of at any time, despite any holidays or prophecies of any oracles ...
      3. Sirocco
        Sirocco 21 September 2013 11: 28
        +7
        Quote: xetai9977
        .From where they got 300 it is not clear.

        This just confirms the fact that the whole story is a complete lie and deception, as is the case with the history of Russia, and specifically with the Kulikovo field. For some reason, the history of Russia was intensely written by the Germans, with whom M.V. Lomonosov tried to fight.
      4. Deniska999
        Deniska999 21 September 2013 11: 32
        +4
        Herodotus. Story. VII. 202.Diodorus of Sicily. Historical library. Xi. 4. In addition to Plutarch, there are other sources!
      5. Deniska999
        Deniska999 21 September 2013 11: 36
        0
        And the Persians are about 75 thousand.
      6. duke
        duke 21 September 2013 12: 21
        +2
        given that Tsar Leonid himself took part in the battle, it was possible his personal guard, although it is written that he selected 300 worthy warriors who already had children so that not a single Spartan clan would be suppressed. We don’t know how many people the Spartans had in units of that time (for example, it is known that the Romans in the legion had units in number (according to the decimal system) - contubernial -10 people, manipula -60-100 people., Century -100 people., cohort of 500-100 people. From the 2nd century BC, the Roman legion consisted of 10 cohorts, so most likely this number (300 people) certainly had a logical meaning and formed an integral military unit similar to the Roman centurium.
        1. alexpro66
          alexpro66 21 September 2013 15: 57
          13
          Quite right! More or less like this! With Leonidas, only his personal guard went (and even then not all) the bulk of the Spartan nobility intended to buy off the Persians and provoke them only to capture Athens. Leonidas did not receive support from his own people either, as he offered to help the Greeks. It should be borne in mind that at that time there was a terrible civil strife on the territory of present-day Greece. The figure 300 arose from the result of the battle - the Persians found about 280 bodies - in a rage, they chopped the Spartans into small pieces and could not count accurately (but even the number of human remains found speaks of the same figure and not of mythical thousands) Leonidas himself after being seriously wounded was hidden somewhere (or hacked because he was without armor) and most likely died of wounds. Considering that the defenders could not secretly leave Thermopylae pass (they could not even retreat, in the final part of the battle the path was cut), then the figure is adequate. During my travels, I was at this place and I can say that 100-120 soldiers could tightly close this passage, moreover, close it like a concrete plug, and plus considering that the Spartans at that time had the best military equipment and military training (some shields and spears cost what formation with a phalanx) the Persians simply could not break through their order from the front and could not fall asleep with arrows the rock on the left side .. on the right, of course, there is no abyss, but a very gentle slope which is impossible to bypass the width of the path from the rock to the slope of no more than 20 (about the use of cavalry and There could be no question) meters plus the advantage that the Spartans stood immediately behind a small turn behind the rock where the path goes up and the Persians were in the palm of your hand and the "turtle" of the Spartans could easily just push them down a slope without even using weapons and the rear ranks of the Persians with all their desire, they could not push the front rows on the enemy with their mass - they mixed the rock and turn behind it, as a result, it turned out that the Spartans were helped for the other ranks of the Persians pressing on the vanguard and the Spartans and Persians simply pushed down a part of the Persian vanguard. According to British and German historians, the total loss of the Persians was from 15 to 25 thousand !!! Please note that the Spartans skillfully used the "Greek fire" !! My opinion, given that I saw the place of the battle, the Spartan guard could not let the Persians pass for at least a month, given the level of their physical and military training, replacing each other and in the case of reinforcement (albeit small, but it would be, for sure from the Greeks), the Persians could be moved away.
          A minus article! No need to re-write other people's nonsense!
          1. alexpro66
            alexpro66 21 September 2013 16: 44
            +4
            That place with a photograph that is indicated in Wikipedia in front of the place where Leonid stood up .. And the Greeks themselves talking about this battle persistently prove that they left Leonid (in principle, logical! Why would the army leave from an excellent position ??) and all the battles of the combined Greek army were after the death of Lonida! And no one covered the bypass path - by the way, it’s generally a goat path and I don’t understand how a thousand soldiers were sent there ???? Something Herodotus evidently mixed up !!)) He himself was interesting there ??)))
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 21 September 2013 17: 36
            +2
            Quote: alexpro66
            The number 300 arose from the result of the battle, the Persians found about 280 bodies - in a rage they chopped the Spartans into small pieces and could not calculate accurately (but even the found number of human remains speaks of the same figure and not mythical thousands)

            You rave, buy a beef thigh and try chopping it into small pieces with a bronze weapon.
            Quote: alexpro66
            A minus article! No need to re-write other people's nonsense!

            Article plus, do not believe in other people's nonsense.
            1. alexpro66
              alexpro66 21 September 2013 18: 24
              +5
              I tell you what the Greeks themselves (archaeologists and historians) tell me in person and I have reason to trust them more than articles from Wikipedia (by the way, translated from English) Are you sure that only with steel blades can a man be cut to pieces ?? Then you are just naive. What I agree with the author is that you do not need to watch Hollywood films, it is better to revise the old film about the Spartans feat. Cinema is cinema, but the fact is that it was about 300 Spartans who died in one place, led by their king, and for some reason the Persians did not find other bodies besides their bodies. You can argue a lot over two thousand years, everything was overgrown with myths and legends, and sometimes the truth is distorted (many Western historians about the Russian war claim that we did not fight the Nazis at all, as the Napoleonic army froze and left and we were on their shoulders, instead of fraternal allies bleeding in a difficult struggle with Hitler, entered Berlin!) but this does not mean that we must unfoundedly deny the truly great feat of Leonid and his soldiers. By the way, the Greeks still do not like Sparta, but they bow before the feat of Leonid.
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 22 September 2013 22: 35
                +1
                Bronza is an alloy of copper, usually with tin as the main alloying element, but alloys with aluminum, silicon, beryllium, lead and other elements are also used, with the exception of zinc and nickel. And when they discovered tin or aluminum, I think everyone knows, so it seems that they are rewriting history. So there can be no talk of any bronze weapons. But the contradiction from Wikipedia Tin was known to man already in the 4th millennium BC. e. This metal was inaccessible and expensive, therefore, products from it are rarely found among Roman and Greek antiquities. There are references to tin in the Bible, the Fourth Book of Moses. Tin is (along with copper) one of the components of bronze (see History of copper and bronze), invented at the end or middle of the third millennium BC. e. Since bronze was the most durable of the metals and alloys known at that time, tin was a "strategic metal" throughout the "Bronze Age", more than 2000 years. World tin deposits are located in Southeast Asia, mainly in China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. There are also large deposits in South America (Bolivia, Peru, Brazil) and Australia. And children are taught on these nonsense.
            2. Mairos
              Mairos 22 September 2013 12: 48
              +1
              The weapon was very steel, do not confuse the times of the Greco-Persian wars and the times of the Trojan war. wassat
          3. LINX
            LINX 22 September 2013 00: 22
            +7
            ... or chopped up as it was without armor ...

            Did you go too far, saw the ancient hoplite ??? like a tin can in lats, and not like in a movie - in a loincloth and cloak.



            A Spartan warrior can be compared to a knight of the Middle Ages, they also went to war with numerous servants (sometimes up to 50 people), but only one knight won the battle)

            And even in the dense formation of the classic phalanx, the hoplites could strike with a spear only from above the shield, and any Hollywood "tricks" or sword fighting meant only death for the phalanx.
            1. alexpro66
              alexpro66 22 September 2013 19: 31
              +1
              There was no armor because of his injury - they took it off to bandage besides Leonid had armor with the royal "marking" he would have been immediately identified (by the way, the Persians never found Leonid's armor) - the Greeks say that Xerxes never found his body and his head took a more or less similar Spartan ..
              1. old man54
                old man54 22 September 2013 20: 52
                +1
                Quote: alexpro66
                the Greeks say that Xerxes did not find his body and took his head more or less like a Spartan ..

                No, Lonid’s head was chopped off while still alive, unfortunately, but already wounded several times, including fatally. Sad, but true. And indeed, in reality, this was not a Persian army, although it was precisely the Pres there that were full, but not only them. But at the head of the whole army, his command was not Persian, but at the same time had a clear nationality! Guess what kind of nation it is? wink
          4. Yarik
            Yarik 23 September 2013 10: 35
            +1
            Great ATP. for a meaningful comment.
      7. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 21 September 2013 17: 24
        +3
        Quote: xetai9977
        Now I'm rereading Plutarch, it says - "After the death of the Spartan king Leonidas in the town of Thermopylae with an army ...." No numbers - 300 or more .... Where did they get 300 is not clear.


        it’s fair to say that the battle was epic. just imagine - eight thousand against two hundred thousand. the Persians not in vain fell morale ...
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 21 September 2013 17: 50
          10
          Quote: Geisenberg
          it’s fair to say that the battle was epic. just imagine - eight thousand against two hundred thousand. the Persians not in vain fell morale ...

          200 thousand people - this is the army of the nineteenth century, for example Borodino, in the ancient world there were no such armies in nature. Let the "historians" tell us how Xerxes fed his army.
          1. Darakht
            Darakht 21 September 2013 19: 41
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            200 thousand people - this is the army of the nineteenth century, for example Borodino, in the ancient world there were no such armies in nature. Let the "historians" tell us how Xerxes fed his army.

            Ask how many soldiers participated in the Azov seat, long before 1812, what did the Turkish sultan feed them with?
          2. Mairos
            Mairos 22 September 2013 12: 52
            +2
            You're wrong. It was in feudal Europe that there were dwarf armies, and in ancient times the population was large and the armies were huge, read on the history of Rome, for example. In the period of the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe was very depopulated, as it was the collapse of an entire civilization.
            1. Klibanophoros
              Klibanophoros 22 September 2013 16: 29
              +2
              But I personally do not consider the size of the army of the Roman Republic indicated in the sources reliable. Here explain to me why, after the battle of Arausion (105 BC), the Roman Republic, having allegedly lost 100 people, was able to recover and continue its expansion, and after the massacre in the Teutoburg Forest (000 BC) having lost 9 legions, approximately 3-18 thousand people (counting auxiliary forces), the Empire forever abandoned plans for the colonization of Germany, and the territories from the Rhine to the Elbe have never been controlled by them? The plans for establishing a border along the Vistula and Danube were never destined to come true.
              From the defeat in the Teutorburg forest, Caesar Augustus fell into a terrible depression and during emotional outbursts banged his head and said: "Quintili Vare legiones redde".
              So you need to trust sources carefully.
              1. Corneli
                Corneli 22 September 2013 20: 31
                +4
                Quote: Klibanophoros
                Here explain to me why, after the battle of Arausion (105 BC), the Roman Republic, allegedly losing 100 people, was able to recover and continue its expansion

                After the defeat from the Cimbri, the Roman Republic was on the verge of destruction, which has not happened since the time of the Hannibal Cannes. Rome was lucky that the Cimars and Teutons did not go to Italy, and 3 years after that they roam around France, Spain and Germany. When Marius reorganized the army, and defeated the Germans (and in 2 terrible battles separately) they almost prayed for him.
                Quote: Klibanophoros
                and after the massacre in the Teutoburg Forest (AD 9), having lost 3 legions, approximately 18-25 thousand people (counting auxiliary forces), the Empire forever abandoned plans for the colonization of Germany, and the territories from the Rhine to the Elbe were never controlled by them ? The plans for establishing a border along the Vistula and Danube were never destined to come true.

                Unlike the aforementioned invasion of the Cimbri, where the Romans defended their very existence, in the Teutoburg forest they simply thwarted plans to create a new province. The defeat was unpleasant (no one had won them for a long time before, they got used to it), but the loss of 3 legions out of 30 and the loss of 12 out of 26 (the best part of the Roman army with Marius and Sulla fought with the Numidian Yugurta) are globally different things. That, however, did not stop Germanicus from driving Arminius for 10 years throughout Germany until he killed him. Perhaps the Germanicus would have achieved what Vara was sent for, but Uncle Tiberius, greatly fearing the popularity of Germanicus in the legions, suddenly sends him to the east, not allowing him to end the war. And there Germanicus "suddenly", after a year and a half, dies ...
                Quote: Klibanophoros
                From the defeat in the Teutorburg forest, Caesar Augustus fell into a terrible depression and during emotional outbursts banged his head and said: "Quintili Vare legiones redde".

                Well, my grandfather was 70 years old and he wasn’t rooted for a long time ... what do you want)
                1. Iraclius
                  Iraclius 22 September 2013 20: 47
                  +1
                  The whole point of the operation against the Cherusks was to transfer the border from the Rhine to the Elbe.
                  The huge masses of Germans were thrown out of the giant melting pot of the empire, and the border was more extended and difficult to protect.
          3. GREAT RUSSIA
            GREAT RUSSIA 22 September 2013 13: 40
            +3
            Why the Persian Empire didn’t have an army of 200. Here are some examples. China had an army of 000 during Qin Shihuandi. The Roman Empire during its highest prosperity under Emperor Anthony Pie had an army of as many as 250 000 people! On the contrary, in Europe there were tiny armies, since there were small kingdoms. However, even such large countries as France, England, the Holy Roman Empire, Byzantium, Hungary, Poland hardly had armies of 1 people. You can cite as an example Arabs with their empire, as well as the Ottoman Empire, before the campaign of the Ottomans easily gathered an army of 000 people, and this was far from the 000th century. In the 80th century, the Ottoman army was more than 000 people, but they were equipped with backward weapons. And if you are talking about nutrition, then there is an explanation. The Persian army mainly consisted of slaves. This means that they ate badly. Well-fed veterans, professional soldiers, and the immortal elite.
      8. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 21 September 2013 21: 11
        +5
        Quote: xetai9977
        Now I'm rereading Plutarch, it says - "After the death of the Spartan king Leonidas in the town of Thermopylae with an army ...." No numbers - 300 or more .... Where did they get 300 is not clear.


        If we turn to various sources (the most striking - E.A. Razin "History of Military Art. Volume I", then the course of the battle was approximately as follows:
        - defensive phase (army of the Greeks and army of the Persians);
        - the Persian bypass and a blow to the rear units of the Greeks, ending with their destruction;
        - Having discovered a detour by the enemy, Tsar Leonid ordered the main forces of the Greeks to withdraw, remaining with a detachment of 300 Spartans and volunteers from the nearest city.

        PS: conclusion - the author essentially misinterpreted the facts.
      9. fennekRUS
        fennekRUS 22 September 2013 05: 07
        0
        Like many other things, from the ceiling, and much later than the events. (Century that way in 18-19, let the experts correct)
      10. sullman
        sullman 23 September 2013 10: 10
        +2
        Are you surely re-reading Plutarch?
        For reference: "HISTORY. Book VII. POLYHYMNIA."
        202. The Hellenic forces, waiting in this area for the Persian king, consisted of 300 Spartan hoplites, 1000 Teigans and Mantineans (500 of each); further, 120 people from Orchomen in Arcadia and 1000 from the rest of Arcadia. There were so many Arcadians. Then from Corinth 400, from Flunt 200 and 80 - from Mycenae162. These people came from the Peloponnese. From Boeotia there were 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans.
        PS
        More details here: http://ancientrome.ru/antlitr/t.htm?a=1292787190
        PPS
        I don’t digest when people do not bother to find out more precisely when they publicly declare.
    2. Maks111
      Maks111 21 September 2013 14: 21
      20
      We have our own Spartans.
      1. Serg 122
        Serg 122 21 September 2013 20: 14
        +2
        6 company remember! What is not an example?
      2. Corsair
        Corsair 21 September 2013 23: 57
        +1
        Quote: Max111
        We have our own Spartans.

        Another lot of examples from the history of Russia - Russia (not excluding of course the period of the USSR!). And the story of the 300 Spartans ... even if the LEGEND, but the LEGEND is beautiful and instructive.
      3. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 22 September 2013 20: 43
        +1
        "600 Russian soldiers successfully defended against 65000 Bukharians"
        It's like saying "600 soldiers successfully defended themselves against 65000 inhabitants of Vologda" in the sense that the Bukharians were not professional soldiers. These are purely civilian people - artisans, merchants, peasants and others.
        These small "Uzbek" khanates were initially guarded by mercenary Turkic nomads (whom the main population of "Uzbek cities" - Sarts and Tajiks - were collectively called "Kipchaks"). These "Kipchaks" were essentially Kazakhs. In addition, there were Turkmens in the mercenary army. Kazakhs and Turkmens are historically sharpened to fight. However, in the 19th century, the Kazakhs voluntarily joined the Empire, and stopped hiring in the armies of Kokand, Khiva, Bukhara. The Kokand / Khivans tried to fill the lack of professional wars with Persian slaves, of whom there were in abundance. And even a few Russians prisoners of war (these people were donated by the Kazakh khan Kenesary, who took them prisoner during his uprising) the sarts were sent to their armies.
        By the time the Russian army invaded the borders of the Central Asian mini-states, these Sarts had no professional army. Sedentary residents who never held weapons were mobilized, had no idea about the war, and often (according to contemporaries) they naively believed that enemies could be defeated if the suras from the Koran were loudly sung.
        The battles between the Russians (by the way, the Russian troops usually included Kazakh volunteers who performed both military and auxiliary functions) and the Sarts are "beating up babies." That is why such impressive figures when compared.
        Plus a huge military-technical difference.
        Plus massive desertion among the mobilized Sarts.
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 21 September 2013 17: 30
      +5
      Quote: MG42
      Stylish clip on this topic >>

      A clip about jocks, strippers, and a movie about the same
      1. MG42
        MG42 21 September 2013 17: 34
        +2
        Quote: Setrac
        A clip about jocks, strippers, and a movie about the same

        About men's striptease associations did not occur to me repeat , see male striptease, namesake?
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 21 September 2013 17: 51
          +2
          Quote: MG42
          About men's striptease, associations didn’t come to my mind, see men's striptease, namesake?

          Unfortunately, this Hochma is not my invention.
        2. Corneli
          Corneli 21 September 2013 22: 17
          +2
          Quote: MG42
          About men's striptease, the association of feel didn’t come to my mind,

          Quote: Setrac
          A clip about jocks, strippers, and a movie about the same

          There is another clip on this topic:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwqiBlreuc
          1. MG42
            MG42 22 September 2013 01: 43
            +3
            Quote: Corneli
            There is another clip on this topic:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwqiBlreuc

            Thanks, it's funnier here >>
      2. soldier's grandson
        soldier's grandson 21 September 2013 19: 55
        -7
        but they were homosexuals like the Janissaries
        1. Mairos
          Mairos 22 September 2013 12: 56
          +1
          Stupidity write .. the same nonsense as about the fact that Tchaikovsky was a fagot. As now "honest" media in the West are talking about Russia.
          "Let's put in a word in defense of the Spartans"
          http://forum-msk.org/material/society/4677024.html
    4. Klibanophoros
      Klibanophoros 21 September 2013 19: 33
      11
      I never loved Sparta: we must remember the disenfranchised position of the Helots and the inhuman crypts. And give the tales of the swabber to the Americans - they hang this noodle on their ears.
      I must say, the Persians were not oppressors, even the Jews were liberated and released back from the Babylonian captivity. After the conquest of the Anatolian Greek cities, all the conquered kings turned into governors, did not affect their financial situation, and Asia Minor flourished. By the way, not everyone in Anatolia met Alexander as a liberator: the Asia Minor cities lost Persian sales markets for their handicraft products, and the war of the Diadochians after his death did not subside for 50 years.
      1. Darakht
        Darakht 21 September 2013 19: 42
        +1
        Quote: Klibanophoros
        I never loved Sparta: we must remember the disempowered position of the helots and inhuman crypts

        They did not need yours or anyone else's love. They forever entered history as the best warriors that were born under the earthly sky!
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 21 September 2013 21: 43
          +3
          Quote: Daraht
          They did not need yours or anyone else's love. They forever entered history as the best warriors that were born under the earthly sky!

          Samurai also consider themselves to be the best warriors. Where are the states of these "great" warriors?
          1. Darakht
            Darakht 21 September 2013 22: 17
            -1
            Quote: Setrac
            Samurai also consider themselves to be the best warriors. Where are the states of these "great" warriors?

            And where are the states of other great civilizations? Have sunk into oblivion!
            1. soldier's grandson
              soldier's grandson 22 September 2013 02: 19
              +1
              don’t forget your grandfathers, May 9th remember, this is where heroism is, not 300 Spartans
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 22 September 2013 12: 18
                +4
                Quote: Soldier's grandson
                don’t forget your grandfathers, May 9th remember, this is where heroism is, not 300 Spartans


                Your logic is strange - i.e. Need to know only your story? Respect for ancestors and native history is one thing, and crazy chauvinism is another.
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 22 September 2013 12: 17
        +2
        Quote: Klibanophoros
        By the way, not everyone in Anatolia met Alexander as a liberator: the Asia Minor cities lost Persian sales markets for their handicraft products, and the war of the Diadochians after his death did not subside for 50 years.


        You are right, but do not forget that, in comparison with the Greeks, the Mekedonians (especially Alexander and a number of his dyadohs) entrusted the leadership of the conquered territories to local leaders. And in general, politics, that of Alexander, that of Antigone, etc. very different from the politics of the Greeks. And the customs of the Macedonians were also different - it was a more conservative people.
    5. bodriy
      bodriy 3 October 2013 11: 13
      0
      I read a long time ago, of course, one German author, and so it says not about the number of warriors, but about the fact that there were several passages through Thermopylae, and it was not as difficult to get around these supposedly "300" Spartans as it might seem from the film!
  2. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 21 September 2013 07: 55
    11
    300 is simply a prettier figure than 5200, the glory on the 1 soldier in 14 times turns out more.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Aryan
      Aryan 21 September 2013 14: 38
      +4
      against 200 thousand belay
      Votblin really- King Xerox
      unhook the troops
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 21 September 2013 17: 39
        +9
        Quote: Aryan
        against 200 thousand
        Votblin really- King Xerox
        unhook the troops

        The figure of 200000 is clearly overstated, every ten or even twenty. Logistics of the ancient world did not allow to provide such a large army, concentrated in one place
  3. ujuice
    ujuice 21 September 2013 08: 15
    27
    As far as I remember, no one said that only 300 Spartans participated in the battle. 300 Spartans remained to cover the withdrawal of the Greek army when the traitor showed the way through the mountains to the rear of the Greeks.
    1. ICT
      ICT 21 September 2013 08: 55
      +6
      Quote: ujuice
      300 of the Spartans remained to cover the withdrawal of the Greek army, when the traitor showed the way through the mountains to the rear of the Greeks.

      also from the beginning of the article I thought about it,
      1. ICT
        ICT 21 September 2013 09: 13
        +9
        here is a cut from an old film, in my opinion it is more historically true (by the way, the role of helots in battle is also shown there), and even Herodotus, to the seventh book (Polygymy) the number of people was a little rounded, the conclusion made at the end of the film puts everything in its place,

        this is the great feat of people who stood up to defend their land, how many of them there were 300 or 28 is not so important
        1. ICT
          ICT 21 September 2013 09: 16
          +5
          forgot to insert
        2. goldfinger
          goldfinger 21 September 2013 18: 39
          +4
          Quote: TIT
          this is the great feat of people who stood up to defend their land, how many of them there were 300 or 28 is not so important

          Neighbor Belarus. The Greeks, by the forces of their great heroes, Leonid, Themistocles, then the Greco-Macedonian Alexander the Great, did the main thing, for many hundreds of years, without knowing it, they divided the world into the future Christian West and Muslim East. Although they could not take a look through the curtain of time on the results of their affairs. They left Europe a spirit of freedom and independence, which continues to live in European nations, including Slavic ones. True, before our eyes, terrible processes of decomposition of this European world are taking place. But, we will think about our children, we will be optimistic.
          1. Darakht
            Darakht 21 September 2013 19: 46
            0
            Quote: goldfinger
            The Greeks, by the forces of their great heroes, Leonid, Themistocles, then the Greco-Macedonian Alexander the Great, did the main thing, for many hundreds of years, without knowing it, they divided the world into the future Christian West and Muslim East

            You are fundamentally wrong! Look at least where Alexander the Great has come! The same Avicenna (Greek), whose works are well known in Greek policies was a Tajik.
            1. goldfinger
              goldfinger 21 September 2013 20: 38
              +4
              Quote: Daraht
              The same Avicenna (Greek), whose works are well known in Greek policies was a Tajik.

              Dear Darakht! My favorite city in the USSR was Tashkent! In addition to my native Minsk, I would like to live only there. (As part of the USSR). Relatives still live. In my library, almost all the books of Persian-Tajik poetry published in the USSR, in different translations into Russian. The Koran in Russian, as a guide. Books on the history of the East, and many. I can quote my beloved Khayyam. Everything is fine. I’m not a racist, I have never been. Indeed, the world was fairly uniform, the borders were almost arbitrary. And no one disputes the wisdom of the East. In chemistry, mathematics, astronomy, especially in medicine - hundreds of years ahead of Europe. And this is well known. Honor and praise. Bye.
              1. Darakht
                Darakht 21 September 2013 21: 07
                +3
                Quote: goldfinger
                There are many books about the history of the East. I can quote my beloved Khayyam.

                Then you should know that the Greeks were very close to the East.
                With respect!
                The spirit of slavery lies in the idol and in the Kaaba,
                Chime of bells - language of humility slave,
                And slavery black seal lies equally
                On the rosary and cross, on the church and mihrab. (one of my favorites).
    2. alexpro66
      alexpro66 21 September 2013 16: 06
      +2
      Somewhere you are wrong .. With the Greeks, the Spartans had constant wars and the Spartans were not going to "cover" anyone - Leonidas was not a stupid king and understood perfectly well that in the case of the passage of the 200 thousandth army of the Persians, the pipe would come not only to Athens (which was it is profitable for him) but also Sparta - therefore, he personally sent a messenger to the Greeks with a request for cooperation, but the Greeks, instead of meeting the enemy in such a convenient place, decided to wait for them on the plain and Leonidas did not send reinforcements
  4. Tamagon
    Tamagon 21 September 2013 09: 15
    25
    Sorry .. I could not help myself.
    Anecdote
    A history lesson at the university ..
    Professor gives a lecture on Sparta.
    Among other things, he reports that since wars were often far from home, they co-lived with them, and moreover, this was welcomed, as it was believed that a warrior who lost a lover in battle would fight with double fury.
    At this time, a laugh is heard from one of the desks
    Professor - "Do you have something to say, young man"?
    The student giggles - "So the Spartans were pe9ics"?
    - God forbid you, young man, to meet at the entrance with such pe9iks and make them any remark about their "war paint".
    - No, they were not peiki!
    - It was a real fighting pi **** sy !!!
    1. viktor_ui
      viktor_ui 21 September 2013 15: 28
      +2
      Tamagon - well, thanks for the post, asobl about his ending, neighing to tears !!! drinks
    2. kavkaz8888
      kavkaz8888 21 September 2013 16: 30
      +4
      The film did its vile deed. Now, as the Spartans, so peiki. And before, the best wars, heroes.
    3. Corneli
      Corneli 21 September 2013 22: 00
      +3
      Quote: Tamagon
      - No, they were not peiki!
      - It was a real fighting pi **** sy !!!

      I do not know what about the Spartans, in this regard, but there is another detachment of 300 bodies, also very famous in Greece.
      The so-called sacred detachment of Thebes, the same 300 hoplites (by the way, the Greeks loved this figure, they have many elite units equal to three hundred). The notability of this unit was that it consisted of 300 love couples.
      "The sacred detachment, as they say, was first created by the Gorgid: it consisted of three hundred chosen men who received from the city everything necessary for their training and maintenance and camped in Cadmeus; ... Some argue that the detachment was made up of lovers and lovers. A humorous saying of Pammenos has survived, who said that Homer's Nestor showed himself to be an unskilful commander, demanding that the Greeks unite for battle by tribes and tribes, instead of putting a lover next to a beloved. while the system, united by mutual love, is indissoluble and indestructible, since lovers, ashamed to reveal their cowardice, in case of danger, invariably remain beside each other. And this is not surprising if you remember that such people, even in front of an absent loved one, are afraid to be disgraced to a greater extent, rather than in front of a stranger who is nearby - as, for example, that wounded warrior who, seeing that the enemy is Comrade to finish him off, he prayed: "Hit him in the chest so that my beloved does not have to blush, seeing me killed by a blow in the back." It is said that Iolaus, the beloved of Hercules, helped him in his labors and battles. Aristotle reports that even in his time, lovers swore an oath of fidelity to each other before Iolaus's grave. It is possible that the detachment received the name "sacred" for the same reason that Plato calls his lover a "divine friend" Plutarch "biography of Pelopidas"
      "And again, the so-called Sacred detachment in Thebes consists of lovers and their chosen ones, thus showing the greatness of the god Eros in the fact that the soldiers of the detachment chose death with glory before the ordinary-looking miserable life" Athenaeus "Feast of the Wise Men"
      By the way, "fights ..." showed themselves pretty well in battles with the Spartans laughing
      This "detachment" died in August 338 BC. e. on the Boeotian plain near Thebes, in the battle of Chaeronea with the Macedonian Philip (Alexander's daddy):
      "There is a story that until the battle of Chaeronea, he (the detachment) remained invincible; when, after the battle, Philip, examining the corpses, found himself in the place where, in full armor, facing the blows of the Macedonian spears, lay all three hundred men, and on his the question he was answered that this is a detachment of lovers and beloved, he cried ... "Plutarch
      1. Mairos
        Mairos 22 September 2013 13: 04
        0
        About Thebans, yes, really. But they showed themselves not bad, since the Boeotans purely tactically outplayed the Spartans. But it was one single battle.
      2. Pinochet000
        Pinochet000 22 September 2013 15: 36
        0
        Quote: Corneli
        . Some argue that the detachment was made up of lovers and lovers.

        Gonevo it was invented to prove that pi ... race is normal ... In general, the official story is all such, completely lying.
        1. Hort
          Hort 23 September 2013 07: 36
          +2
          Nope. Many sources mention that the Greeks (including the Spartans) ran to each other and this was considered the norm with them. And by the way, not only among the Greeks: for example, in the Japanese Hagakure (The Way of the Warrior) this is explicitly stated in one of the chapters, they say all the rules, you can go on a campaign.
          Pi: Aras, in a word
  5. gerafak
    gerafak 21 September 2013 11: 00
    +5
    I completely agree, the old film is a masterpiece, the modern one is a computer drawing!
  6. Rayden
    Rayden 21 September 2013 11: 07
    +9
    Heroes have been at all times, the feat of the defenders of the Breta fortress is not too big, and let them go down in history as well as the Battle of Thermopylae
  7. atomic
    atomic 21 September 2013 11: 15
    10
    Horace, Bayard, Evpatiy Kolovrat, Panfilov's men, Nikolai Sirotinin, brig Mercury, finally, history knows a lot of examples of military courage. And whoever has a thin guts will always find 'facts' to slander heroes.
    1. axxelerator
      axxelerator 21 September 2013 18: 10
      +2
      Moreover, Kolovrat and the Heroes "Panfilovtsy" and Nikolai Sirotinin are all legends that did not exist in reality. But they are collective images of many people who have shown heroism and made a certain contribution to the course of hostilities.
  8. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 21 September 2013 11: 33
    +3
    This is a myth only for those who know the history of Hollywood crafts. And I knew before that there were more than 300 Greeks in this battle.
  9. Deniska999
    Deniska999 21 September 2013 11: 35
    +3
    Total Greeks were approximately 8-9 thousand. Of them Spartans - 300.
  10. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 21 September 2013 11: 36
    0
    It's cool, of course, when someone is looking for some kind of historical accuracy in the cinema, it's a no brainer that it's not there, I really don't have any pretensions to the film "300" either, be healthy, domestic cinema will never give this out, for which he my contempt, but on the other hand, you can’t despise a corpse? The Greeks created another myth for themselves, which they were very keen on in those days, because the same Sparta was repeatedly defeated by Athens or Thebes, and then the whole of Greece was taken over by the Romans. , because everywhere in the film there is no, but the phrase about the "free world" of "slaves of the tyrant" "slave east" and so on. And this can be both an allusion to modern Iran, and to another large eastern country with a special spirituality and its way, in short, they killed two birds with one stone. Well, what country acts as a "beacon of freedom and virtue" whose three hundred warriors playfully deal with thousands of "slaves", their outlandish T-34, oh sorry elephants and lose only because of vile betrayal, moral and physical freak, re an NSA runner, oh sorry spartan who showed that very path.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 21 September 2013 17: 43
      +1
      Quote: Standard Oil
      domestic cinema will never give out

      There is no need to remove such bullshit in Russian cinema, Russian history has real heroes, we do not need to invent anything.
      1. Jogan-xnumx
        Jogan-xnumx 22 September 2013 00: 05
        +5
        There is no need to remove such bullshit in Russian cinema, Russian history has real heroes, we do not need to invent anything.

        Oga, their own, domestic tuftyara took off on their hands. "Penalty", for example, dyuzhe "historical and true" film ... lol Well, not a drop of fiction ... laughing
        1. Jogan-xnumx
          Jogan-xnumx 22 September 2013 02: 09
          0
          This is to whom the "historically truthful Penal Battalion" with our current "crystal honest" cinema has fallen so deeply to the soul that it is scattered with minuses ??? fool
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 21 September 2013 18: 41
      +4
      Quote: Standard Oil
      It's cool, of course, when someone is looking for some historical authenticity in the movie

      This is not cool, it’s cool when someone disputes historical evidence on the basis of the film _ Which Herodotus? In the film, everything was perfectly visible!
      She, she would have been funny if it had not been so bitter.
  11. unknown
    unknown 21 September 2013 12: 31
    -11 qualifying.
    The feat of Panfilov’s heroes is a feat of two full, fully mobilized divisions
    But is their feat less significant from this?

    As for the feat of the Spartans, there is a well-founded version that these events took place much later, during the creation of the future Ottoman Empire.
    And opposed to the future Turks (Russian-Slavs and Volga Turks) knight-crusaders.
    Among which was St. Omer (Homer).
    1. Dovmont
      Dovmont 21 September 2013 21: 51
      +2
      That you probably Fomenko and Nosovsky read! Compared with them, Miller and Bayer are poor-minded features.
  12. Savva30
    Savva30 21 September 2013 12: 52
    -1
    we ourselves desperately need such myths
    1. chehywed
      chehywed 21 September 2013 13: 47
      30
      Quote: Savva30
      we ourselves desperately need such myths

      Why myths? And a true story is enough ...
      1. Savva30
        Savva30 22 September 2013 05: 10
        0
        And who knows her true story? Who gets it, who writes it for our children? True ??? How many people read this article ... one hundred, two hundred? The rest will know about three hundred Spartans ...
        I meant that we need a competent information war, part of which should be connected with the history of Russia, the history of wars and conflicts ... I have been able to conduct lessons on military-patriotic education. Personally for you ... children do not know the story ...
  13. 0255
    0255 21 September 2013 12: 55
    +1
    I tactfully leave the film of the same name with such a name as a good sample of epic marasmus, with its three-meter Xerxes wrapped in a chain, fighting elephants, the size of a good five-story building, and fighting rhinos rushing into battle (films with such a name, by the way, were It has been shot at different times already, but now I’m talking about the last one that caused so much noise at the box office).

    This film could be shot only for special effects, but based on real events.
    Let's write another article about the TV series "Spartacus", which ended in January this year, about what is wrong there.
    1. Assistant
      Assistant 21 September 2013 19: 58
      +1
      And who knows what is true and what is untrue, if there are only fragmentary data on the Spartak uprising in several sources that, sometimes, contradict each other? It seems that the main events in the series are reflected, somewhere closer to the generally accepted point of view, somewhere further away from it.
      And the series is valid.
  14. Darakht
    Darakht 21 September 2013 14: 41
    +8
    The battle of Thermopylae took place several thousand years ago, and the heroes are still remembered !!! Is this not glory? good
  15. knn54
    knn54 21 September 2013 14: 42
    +3
    -According to the miscalculations of a number of experts, about 12000 Spartans and their allies from other Greek policies were opposed in the Thermopyll battle of the Persian army, which, you see, is by no means 300.
    Thermopylae was protected by several thousand Greeks, including a detachment of 300 Spartans. The entire army was commanded by the Spartan king Leonid. WHEN the Persians were in the rear of the Greeks, Leonid ordered everyone to leave, but he himself remained with the Spartans. ALL of them died in a fierce battle.
    -In this battle, which lasted three days, about 20 thousand Persians fell.
    The Greeks defended their homeland and independence. And the Persian army was largely composed of bonded warriors. Sometimes they even had to drive them into battle with lashes. And if, as a warrior, the "immortal" was strong, then how much the military unit was significantly inferior to the Greeks ...
  16. Ram chandra
    Ram chandra 21 September 2013 15: 58
    +6
    My teacher, a historian specializing in ancient battles, also said that he was skeptical. But, after much digging and investigation (as much as possible), he finally came to the conclusion that this was true. In the end, these Spartans were stoned, he said.
    1. LINX
      LINX 22 September 2013 00: 43
      +2
      Quote: Ram Chandra
      these Spartans were stoned


      The ancient armies did not fight at all as we used to see in films, no one called the adversary for an honest fight with a sword in their hands, a direct clash in hand-to-hand combat came only in extreme cases.

      The normal course of the battle of the ancient armies provided for first to throw the enemy with everything that they brought with them or can be raised from the ground (spears, darts, arrows, stones, bricks, tiles, shells of the enemy), this went on for a very long time and often the enemy army scattered after firing its shells ( loss of 20% of personnel was considered catastrophic). In many descriptions of the life of commanders, they died precisely from a stray stone or piece of tile.
  17. Glory333
    Glory333 21 September 2013 17: 15
    +6
    I asked what the "heroes" of the Spartans, "freedom fighters", "democrats", etc. were like. and was horrified. The customs of Sparta for cruelty and inhumanity have few analogues in history, which are, for example, crypts - when young Spartans were sent to hunt, but not for animals, but for people
    "This is how the crypts happened. From time to time, the authorities sent young people who were considered the most intelligent to wander around the neighborhood, supplying them only with short swords and the most necessary supply of food. During the day they rested, hiding in secluded corners, and at night, leaving their shelters, they killed all the helots (state slaves) that they captured on the roads. Often they went around the fields, killing the strongest and strongest helots. "(Plutarch).
    It immediately became clear to me why the current cannibal democrats so praise the ancient democrats.
    The Persian Empire, by contrast, compared with Greece, was a model of law and order.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 21 September 2013 17: 53
      +1
      Quote: Glory333
      The customs of Sparta in terms of cruelty and inhumanity have few analogues in history, such as cryptias, for example, when young Spartans were sent to hunt not for animals but for people

      And people with dog heads walk on the edge of the earth, it's just a fairy tale.
    2. goldfinger
      goldfinger 21 September 2013 18: 34
      +1
      Neighbor Belarus. The Greeks, by the forces of their great heroes, Leonid, Themistocles, then the Greco-Macedonian Alexander the Great, did the main thing, for many hundreds of years, without knowing it, they divided the world into the future Christian West and Muslim East. Although they could not take a look through the curtain of time on the results of their affairs. They left Europe a spirit of freedom and independence, which continues to live in European nations, including Slavic ones. True, before our eyes, terrible processes of decomposition of this European world are taking place. But, we will think about our children, we will be optimistic.
    3. alexpro66
      alexpro66 21 September 2013 18: 37
      0
      You read about the customs of the ancient Slavs .. and about the internecine wars, no better. No need to juggle like that - it was such a time!
    4. andrew42
      andrew42 19 February 2018 11: 11
      0
      Sparta is a state in which the life of the Helots (the former indigenous population of the Peloponessus) was less valued than the life of livestock. At the "crossroads" such a perversion would not have existed for 50 years.
  18. holding
    holding 21 September 2013 17: 52
    -4
    From an early age I felt a smack of lies reading myths about the history of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and others like them. Unfortunately, the real history (deeper than 200 years), we have lost forever. And the film "300 Spartans" is cool, but a fairy tale. That would be at this level films about Our History would be shot!
  19. Simon
    Simon 21 September 2013 19: 25
    0
    We have more heroes if we dig through our history. yes
  20. Digston
    Digston 21 September 2013 19: 45
    +2
    I think there would be no interest in watching a movie with the title: "12000 Spartans" laughing
  21. alert_timka
    alert_timka 21 September 2013 21: 28
    +2
    The Greeks are still dreamers. Those. in those days they had people better able to write on paper and store it. So they wrote everything that came to mind. Therefore, so many myths and legends from Greece have come down to us, but as the proverb says "What is written with a pen cannot be cut down with an ax")))
  22. MG42
    MG42 21 September 2013 23: 12
    +1
    More in topic >>
  23. Jack122
    Jack122 21 September 2013 23: 42
    +3
    Does it not seem insanity to blame the film based on the comic strip in the absence of historicity? This film is not educational-historical, it is for you to watch meat with popcorn in the movie, turning off your brain for a couple of hours. I don’t even understand the meaning of the article: an important topic? Does the author boil? A person who wants to study history goes to the library, not to the movies.
  24. Snoop
    Snoop 21 September 2013 23: 44
    +3
    There were and were, what is it? And this film generally sucks. A solid computer game.
  25. pavlo
    pavlo 22 September 2013 00: 19
    +2
    but it’s interesting, where did 200000 attackers come from, in my opinion also a myth or bullshit, try to feed, arm and so on.
  26. poccinin
    poccinin 22 September 2013 01: 13
    +2
    the old "HOLLYWOOD" of the 50-60s filmed beautiful films. Now they are filming a frank manhole. and the younger generation believes these films. SPARTA was a country of warriors. yes there sick and frail babies were thrown off a cliff. this is cruelly agree. but the rest were all as on selection. beautiful and strong fighters and wives were beautiful. but that was certainly a different time.
  27. LINX
    LINX 22 September 2013 01: 28
    +9
    In this case, all the advantages of the phalanx were revealed, allowing the Greeks to close the narrow passage. We must pay tribute to the heroism and stamina of the Spartans defending their homeland.

    But in the future, history dotted all and ...



    These "simple" guys blew to the Greeks and Persians and Celts and ...., they got right up to China. The legionnaires' versatility and unrivaled tenacity made the Roman legion the best fighting unit of the ancient world.
    1. chehywed
      chehywed 22 September 2013 01: 54
      0
      Quote: LINX
      The universality and unsurpassed tenacity of the legionnaires made the Roman Legion the best military unit of the ancient world

      ... While manipulation tactics prevailed. During the late empire, they returned to the phalanx, due to the almost complete lack of combat training of the legionnaires.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 22 September 2013 12: 08
      0
      Quote: LINX
      "simple" guys blew both the Greeks and Persians and the Celts and ...., got right up to China.

      What kind of crap in the picture? Do you think this is a phalanx? No, it’s just people standing in a row. The first row of sitting will fight?
      1. LINX
        LINX 22 September 2013 12: 27
        +2
        No, of course, no one said that it was a phalanx, I wrote that the phalanx is a system for specific conditions (such as Thermopylae) and the manipulative system of the legion and the combination of throwing weapons with swords are the most universal.

        By the way, the structure of the Triarius of the early legion resembled a classic phalanx.

        1. chehywed
          chehywed 22 September 2013 12: 55
          0
          When the Triarii entered the battle, it meant that the legion was "trumpet." The expression "it came to the Triarii" usually meant a critical moment in the battle.
        2. Deniska999
          Deniska999 22 September 2013 15: 38
          0
          This is an early strategy (VI-II centuries. BC.) In the empire, the Triaries were not.
        3. Corneli
          Corneli 22 September 2013 19: 56
          +2
          Quote: LINX
          By the way, the structure of the Triarius of the early legion resembled a classic phalanx.

          In the early Republican army heavy. the infantry did not use Pilums (darts, as in your photo above), but spears - gasts, as in this picture. Triarii (3rd line of maniples from the most selected warriors) They sat like this all the time of the battle, firstly, hiding behind counts, the harm from arrows or other "gifts" was minimized, and secondly, they rested. if it came to them, they got up fresh and could change the outcome of the battle. But the construction of the phalanx has nothing to do with this.
      2. Corneli
        Corneli 22 September 2013 19: 50
        +1
        Quote: Setrac
        What kind of crap in the picture? Do you think this is a phalanx? No, it’s just people standing in a row. The first row of sitting will fight?

        As I understand it, this is a type of "turtle" construction. phalanx this cannot be the default, pilum is not a spear but a dart. not suitable for phalanx
    3. Starshina wmf
      Starshina wmf 22 September 2013 13: 17
      +2
      And then these simple guys were blown up by nomads, or as the barbarians called them.
      1. GREAT RUSSIA
        GREAT RUSSIA 22 September 2013 14: 07
        +2
        By the time these nomads blew, Caesar's legions were gone. There was the Western Roman Empire, whose army consisted of 85% of the barbarians and the discipline was absent by all 90%. The only defeat from the barbarians during its heyday, the Roman Empire suffered in 9 AD, and even then when the German leader Germanicus, who was an adviser to the Roman commander Vara, tricked him into the forest, where he ambushed him. The defeat was predictable, the Romans did not even have time to line up all of them, including Vara. After that, Emperor Octavian August went to bed and when he walked, he often stumbled and always said: “Var give me back my legions!” The loss of the Romans in this battle amounted to 15 people! As many as 000 legions. Soon after this battle, Emperor Octavian Augustus died, he could not endure this blow.
        1. Corneli
          Corneli 22 September 2013 20: 07
          +3
          Quote: GREAT RUSSIA
          and even then, when the German leader Germanicus, who was an adviser to the Roman commander Vara, tricked him into the forest

          His name was Arminius. Germanicus was the name of the adopted son of Tiberius (nephew), who after several years drove the army and other participants in Germany (even took his wife and children captive)
          Quote: GREAT RUSSIA
          Soon after this battle, Emperor Octavian Augustus died, he could not bear this blow.

          The battle was in 9 A.D. Augustus was 70 years old at that time (for that time, his age was dull, usually emperors died at 40-50) and he stumbled for another 5 years, dying at 76)
  28. MOPKOBKA2000
    MOPKOBKA2000 22 September 2013 04: 54
    0
    nah ... r specialists. it's just a beautiful legend
  29. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 22 September 2013 07: 37
    0
    You rave, buy a beef thigh and try chopping it into small pieces with a bronze weapon.

    You can slice not only the thigh, but the whole bull in minutes, even with a relatively modest dagger. The thigh alone detaches in a few seconds without much muscle effort. Now imagine what can be done with a person, moreover, with a sword and not with a dagger, and besides, if a trained warrior wields this sword. Difficulties can be when cutting tubular bones, but no one will do this, especially an experienced antique warrior.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 22 September 2013 12: 12
      0
      Quote: MRomanovich
      You can slice not only the thigh, but the whole bull in minutes, even with a relatively modest dagger.

      In your opinion, the butcher takes an ax and "angrily" chops the carcass, as a result, pieces are separated there, for example a thigh, brisket, etc. For you, apparently there is no difference between "neatly cut" and chop "with malice".
  30. AX
    AX 22 September 2013 07: 57
    0
    "Visiting a fairy tale ..."
  31. Iraclius
    Iraclius 22 September 2013 10: 53
    +3
    The author of the article forgot to add that he was forced to send most of his soldiers to guard the mountain passage.
    Even if Herodotus' reservation about the helot among the Spartans of Leonidas allows us to say that there were many of them there (personally, I see such an assumption far-fetched), then in this case the situation does not change either - the helots played the role of draft cattle and "cannon fodder" , used in the role of skirmishers-peltasts and the helots could not play a big role in the battle in any way.
    And in this case, Herodotus is absolutely right, because 300 of the Spartans fought with the Persians.
    Modern research shows that in ancient times the width of the Thermopylae was much smaller and the coast practically merged with the mountain range, so that 300 people in close formation could calmly hold the enemy’s forces there.
    Why this ridiculous attempt by the author of the opus "to rip off the veils" I still do not understand. Article minus for populism.

    PS Snyder's film is a hellish chthonic vyser. It is a pity that today's youth "teaches" history from such "masterpieces".
  32. holding
    holding 22 September 2013 12: 01
    -3
    Excessive popularization of the history of "ancient Rome", "ancient Greece" leads us away from understanding their history.
    This phenomenon has deep roots dating back to centuries. The Russian history, I am sure, is no less interesting and ... ancient!
    The splash of comments on this article shows that we are interested in the story, this is good, but whose story?
    Anyone who does not know their past loses the future. For example, we see how before our eyes some forces are trying to steal the Great Victory from us in 1945? We see. And imagine what kind of history they will write if their current plans are realized so after 50?
    Stories about 300 or how many Spartans there were of course heroic, but think about how much heroic even in our recent history, and to dig deep into time, is breathtaking.
    Meanwhile, some individuals stubbornly minus everything related to Russian history, God be your judge, enemies.
    1. Deniska999
      Deniska999 22 September 2013 15: 32
      +6
      And I like the story of Ancient Rome. And what, should I kill now?
      1. Corneli
        Corneli 22 September 2013 20: 08
        +3
        Quote: Deniska999
        And I like the story of Ancient Rome. And what, should I kill now?

        Alternative currents are waiting for this))) But it’s not worth it drinks
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 22 September 2013 16: 33
      +1
      Quote: hoot
      and dig into the depths of time, breathtaking.

      What to dig, cleaned everything up to Peter, only Nevsky and Pole Kulikovo.
      And then, few people know why it was Nevsky _ for the defeat, let’s say, of the Swedes, by the way, and that European mercenaries, like the Genoese, also fought on the Kulikovo Field against the Russian troops (but only RusKago?).
      And the story of Mr. Veliky Novgorod? After all, the Vikings, who terrified the whole of Europe, went to raids precisely in distant Europe, and not to their neighbors, to Gardarika!
      Was gold yellower or what?
      With a stranger Rurik began Russian Land!
      Ugh!
      These historical remodels would fall into Rurik’s arm ...
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 22 September 2013 17: 56
        +4
        It will sound very funny for you, probably, but there is such an ancient word - "mercenary". The black infantry of Genoa was very fond of money and willingly offered their services to everyone as crossbowmen.
        And where they just did not light up. And the Crusades, and the death of European chivalry under Curtre in 1302, and the same defense of the decrepit Constantinople in 1453, are among the Italian soldiers of fortune.
        And what's so shocking?
        And what about the cleansing of history before Peter the Great? Tear off the covers, I just lose my temper with curiosity!

        PS As these conspiratorial flies have already lifted up, the Roosters and Fomenkovtsy in the comments to any more or less significant historical topic. 100500 stupid posts are off topic and with a pathological conviction of their exclusive rightness are guaranteed. Ugh!
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 22 September 2013 18: 13
          +5
          I always wondered why some "patriots" have so much hatred for the Norman theory.
          More recently, I, blasphemously expressing his benevolent attitude to this theory, quickly got stuck about twenty minuses. laughing But at the same time not a single minuscruiser did not bother to comment on the documentary evidence that I cited. Herd, what can I say.
          And is it not because of the fact that minusovalschikov gets hot, that there is nothing to argue, except for the sacramental cry: "Rewrote! They lie! The Germans are enemies! Etc., etc."
          Another thing surprises me - for some reason, these same people are in awe of Joseph Vissarionovich, who is not entirely Russian in origin. They are modestly silent about who the later Soviet leaders were by nationality.
          And at the same time, bljad, it seems wild to them that some gangster and robber with a zealous squad and servants can become a catalyst for statehood in Russia! request
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 22 September 2013 19: 10
            +1
            Quote: Iraclius
            . 100500 stupid posts are off topic and with a pathological conviction of their exclusive rightness are guaranteed. Ugh!

            Hmm.
            Two comments one by one.
            Feels pent. More truly _ REACHED !!!
            Quote: Iraclius
            It will sound very funny for you, probably, but there is such an ancient word

            Mmm. No, even what Condotta is in the know.
            Quote: Iraclius
            The black infantry of Genoa was very fond of money and willingly offered its services to all comers as crossbowmen.

            Well, suppose not they themselves, but Genoa itself and every arbalester is an infantryman, but not every infantryman is an arbalester. wink
            But it's not about that, you see, NOT ABOUT IT!
            Even as a first approximation, the picture of the same Kulikovo battle is radically changing!
            Does the presence of mercenaries, at a minimum, imply hiring them?
            1. Iraclius
              Iraclius 22 September 2013 19: 28
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              Hmm.
              Two comments one by one.
              Feels pent. More truly _ REACHED !!!

              I rarely slip into emotions, but here you are right. Absolutely.
              When I registered on the site, I did not notice such a massive obscurantism.
              Now either the eye is trained or there are more of them. In any case - very ashamed.
              I thought that the audience here is competent and thoughtful.
              Quote: Cynic
              Mmm. No, even what Condotta is in the know.

              It is very good that I was mistaken here. I apologize. Condottieri. yes
              There were a lot of notable personalities.
              Quote: Cynic
              Well, suppose not they themselves, but Genoa itself and every arbalester is an infantryman, but not every infantryman is an arbalester.

              Your syllogisms do not prevent a certain category of people from claiming that there were horseback arbalesters.
              But seriously, then because of the crossbow, that does not need to be taught for a long time. Hence the mass phenomenon in the West.
              By the way, they are loved by artists in paintings dedicated to the Battle of Kulikovo.
              Mercenaries are hired - that's right.
              But what this changes is - I did not understand.
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 22 September 2013 19: 47
                0
                Quote: Iraclius
                But what this changes is - I did not understand.

                It proves the existence of hiring, i.e. commodity-money relations ( laughing ) between savage nomads and the enlightened West.
                Not everything was as clear and simple as we were taught.
                Could add _ And everything is against us Russian !!! How long has everything been going!
                Yes, only there on both sides, it was very far away to mono-ethnicity.
                1. Iraclius
                  Iraclius 22 September 2013 20: 04
                  +3
                  Alas, this does not change anything. I studied in a simple Soviet school and not a single teacher ever told me that nomads were savages.
                  As a schoolboy, I took part in archaeological expeditions and saw artifacts from Scythian-Sarmatian burials. People who did such things as savages can only be called a real savage. And they are enough in the enlightened XXI century.
                  Mamai, as a senior official of a large state education, certainly does not fall under the definition of "savage".
                  In the case of the Tatar-Mongols, everything is quite simple.
                  Nomads are very reluctant to fight on foot and, starting with Temujin’s Central Asian campaigns, they gladly used either mercenaries or infantry from representatives of the conquered peoples.
                  In Central Asia, Chinese engineers built throwing guns for him to storm cities, but they were most often not needed. Khorezm was taken by cunning.
                  Of the genuine defenders of Central Asia, I recall only the famous Jalal ad-Din Menguberdi and Timur-Melik, as well as the brave hero Kaiyr Khan - the protector of Otrar.
                  And the Afghan descendants of the Mongol conquerors - the Hazaras - became a headache for our own soldiers for many years in the DRA.
                  This is how the deck is fantastically shuffled.
                  1. Cynic
                    Cynic 22 September 2013 20: 40
                    +1
                    Quote: Iraclius
                    Alas, this does not change anything.

                    For you, for me.
                    But did others think that
                    Quote: Iraclius
                    Mamai, as a senior official of a large state education, certainly does not fall under the definition of "savage".

                    Hardly, so that I think not in vain we exchanged views.
                    Maybe someone will think that not everything is so simple and clear in our world.
                    laughing
        2. andrew42
          andrew42 19 February 2018 11: 23
          0
          What is the value of clarifying that the Genoese infantry are mercenaries? In Western Europe, the practical majority of the troops were mercenary contingents. But they would have bothered to explain how the “civilized” mud got hired by the “wild Asian” Mamay, and where is the “wild Asian” (even the Genoese owed his life) took some money for “hiring” —that would be interesting to listen to. And the Cynic, by the post above, very correctly noted "points of historical lies", and even that is far from all.
  33. stoqn477
    stoqn477 22 September 2013 19: 24
    0
    For me personally, the film "300", confirmed my opinion that it is time to stop in Hollywood, to "read" European history as they decide, and recreate in style. The same thing happened with the film "Troy" is at a far distance from Homer's work. There's no dispute that they are special effects masters, but that's half the movie.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 22 September 2013 19: 34
      +1
      StoyanIf you want to know the story, then you should not watch Hollywood films.
      History is generally an outcast in modern times. Everyone who cares is spitting on her.
      And Hollywood is about mass consumption. This means that a person should only know that there was such a Greek Leonid, he had 299 soldiers - peddlers of democracy and they gave healing pills to the "churks" from Persia. This seed is enough. Further, the intestines, blood vessels, severed arms / legs and other blackheads come into force.
  34. soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 22 September 2013 20: 24
    0
    when Hollywood was just filming this film in the West, an article came out where 300 Spartans are associated as the United States Marine Corps in Iraq or Afghanistan
  35. Alexeymiller
    Alexeymiller 22 September 2013 22: 14
    0
    As I know, the feat of 300 Spartans was that they defended the departure of the remaining Greeks when the Persians found a detour. And in the films about the Spartans, there were other Greeks.
    1. alexpro66
      alexpro66 23 September 2013 15: 31
      +1
      Greek historians argue that Leonid deliberately remained closing the narrow passage; he hoped that the Persians would not be able to find a workaround, however, as historians say, the shepherd Ephialt showed the Persians this way for the sake of money ...
      In general, one can summarize the events of those years from the point of view of the Greeks.

      "The Battle of Thermopylae, August 11, 480 BC - one of the famous battles of the Greco-Persian wars, where a small detachment of the king of Sparta Leonidas heroically died in a battle with the huge army of the Persian king Xerxes.

      Thermopylae, Greek. "Warm Gates"), the way to central Greece, where in antiquity passed the only road from Thessaly to Lokrida Epiknemidskaya. A rather narrow passage, from 14 to 21 m wide, 6,5 km long, narrowing at the entrance and exit, and widening in the middle, where hot sulfur springs beat, which gave the name to this path, went from the northwest to the southeast and was located between the mountain spurs of Eta and Kallidrome and the swampy coast of the Gulf of Mali. In the middle of the passage, the Phocians erected a stone wall to protect them from the raids of the Thessalians, but had already collapsed by the time of the Persian invasion.

      The huge army of Xerxes, crossing the Hellespont, and freely passing through Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly, went to Thermopylae. The Greeks, among whom there was no unity, not accepting the battle, left northern Greece, and an army of no more than 6,5 thousand soldiers was sent to the Thermopilus aisle, and Sparta generally did not want to risk her army away from her homeland and offered to defend only the Isthmus of Corinth (Eastm). Nevertheless, a small detachment of 300 hoplites (heavily armed warriors) headed by Tsar Leonid moved toward Thermopylae. The Greeks occupied the passage and rebuilt the Fokey wall.

      According to Herodotus, Xerxes, after 4 days of waiting that the Greeks themselves would move away from Thermopylae, sent the Medes and Kissians into a frontal attack, but it did not bring success to the Persians. After three days of unsuccessful battles, a certain Efialt informed the Persians about the existence of a detour and, thus, opened the way for them to the rear of the Greeks. Leonid, without waiting for reinforcements and learning about the roundabout advance of the Persian troops, decided to let go of most of the Greeks, remaining to defend the passage with 300 Spartans (and the accompanying helots). Thespians7 voluntarily remained with him, and the Thebans against their will. In total, no more than 1,5 soldiers remained to defend Thermopylae together with Leonid.

      Having in the rear the selected forces of the Persians, consisting of 9 thousand "immortals" led by Gidarn, the Spartans and Thespians retreated to the hill located behind the Phocaean wall, where, surrounded by superior enemy forces, they defended themselves to the last. The Thebans defected to the Persians during the battle and were turned into slaves. The Spartans and Thespians courageously resisted until they were all killed. According to Herodotus, Xerxes ordered to find the body of the dead Leonidas and cut off his head. The Persians lost a total of up to 20 thousand people, and two brothers of Xerxes were killed.

      The defeat that the Greeks suffered at Thermopylae turned into their moral victory, which showed the advantage of unity in the face of mortal danger and the ability to fight against the seemingly countless troops of the Persian king. It was a victory for free people who voluntarily made their choice and understood the inevitability of death. It was a victory for Greek weapons and tactics, a year later allowing the combined Greek forces to defeat the Persians in the decisive battle of Plataea. "

      Herodotus, if you reread his notes, it was beneficial to show the Greeks on the best side — although even the Greek historians say that when he wrote the history of the battle, he didn’t negotiate much and distorted because at the initial moment of the war the Greeks showed themselves to be sucking not from the best side, but giving them their due at sea, they showed themselves very courageously!
      1. alexpro66
        alexpro66 23 September 2013 19: 36
        +1
        A small addition about Herodotus to confirm my words;
        "The main source that has come down to this day, describing the battle of Plataea (respectively, and the battle of Thermopylae) is Book IX of Herodotus's History. The approach of the" father of history "to writing his work:" It is my duty to convey everything that is told, but of course , I am not obliged to believe everything. And this rule I will follow in all my historical work [4] "causes some criticism. The reliability of the information in his" History "is different. Some stories can be attributed to short stories and legends. Also, Herodotus was not alien to the political Living in Athens, he highly appreciates their contribution to the final victory over the Persians. He writes about Sparta with restraint, not denying her merits in the war. He is especially negative about Thebes, who betrayed the common Hellenic cause. "
        1. alexpro66
          alexpro66 23 September 2013 20: 11
          +2
          And another interesting detail! The Spartans after the battle indicated their losses, which were simply fantastically small, they lost only about 200 !!!! heavily armed warriors !! The figures from ancient historians differ, but Sparta presented exactly something near this figure! There was no point in lying to them, since dying a Spartan in battle was the highest honor! And here is an example of the only survivor of the 300 Spartans of Aristodemus, he was nicknamed "Coward" - although he was formally recognized as the best warrior in this battle! I have POINTED that the story of the 300 Spartans is very possibly not a fiction and it is very likely that only 300 Spartans were the main force that kept the Persians in Thermopylae!
  36. rodevaan
    rodevaan 23 September 2013 06: 40
    +4
    In the history of wars, it has been repeatedly confirmed and shown that even a very small detachment, defending a very inaccessible terrain or path in the rocks, can very long delay the enemy forces that are many times superior. The large losses of the Persians are easily explained, because in those conditions of the battle ALL of their advantages were completely lost:

    - The armament (both offensive and defensive) of the Greek hoplites was advanced for its time. Especially with regard to defensive combat. Greek weapons were bronze - these were anatomical cuirasses, large hoplons, greaves, bracers, and mostly closed Corinthian helmets (which is often depicted in ancient Greek warriors). If such a system of professional warriors in a closed formation blocked a narrow area, then to break such a defensive formation with a frontal attack (and nothing else remained) was a simple militia, which was numerous in Persians was extremely difficult and even impossible in such conditions.
    - In addition, Spartan warriors are professional soldiers who were very carefully and toughly prepared for military service, for felling, endurance, hand-to-hand combat, and in general for all kinds of tests, almost from birth. Moreover, the harsh conditions and maximum military training were elevated to the rank of "national idea" in Sparta. Needless to say, what were the Spartan soldiers like after such an upbringing, plus having the above weapons? I think such a formation, even of 300 people, could well hold in such an area and in such conditions a frontal (frontal) attack and 8-10 thousand people of an ordinary Persian militia. However, the conditions of the narrow terrain did not allow a large mass to go, therefore, it was necessary to advance in waves and in numbers approximately corresponding to the defenders, which significantly worsened the position of the Persians, because due to their weapons and level of training, the attackers were noticeably losing to the Greeks. Therefore, here, too, it was much easier for the defenders to repulse attacks in an organized manner and inflict losses on the attackers.
    - Further, the Persian tactics in those conditions, in the conditions of that battle was completely inappropriate. The Persians used cavalry with might and main and were supporters of a fast, mobile war with a very large and lightly armed army, which could freely perform flank, frontal, roundabout maneuvers, numerous cavalry and horse archers. This tactic worked perfectly in open spaces, in desert conditions, but not in the mountains, where it was simply impossible to use such tactics in the conditions of that battle. Even the armament of the Persian army was "sharpened" precisely for speed and mobility, that is, the warrior was maximally lightened (deprived of heavy armor) to reduce weight on a horse. The Persian warriors had mostly lightweight leather protective equipment, rarely with copper plates sewn onto the skin, and the main weapon, which was emphasized, was a bow, not a spear or sword. And among the Greek hoplites, the tactics were based precisely on hand-to-hand combat and the high individual training of a warrior for precisely this tactic. (That is why the Greek professional mercenaries after the Greco-Persian wars began to enjoy immense popularity).
  37. rodevaan
    rodevaan 23 September 2013 06: 40
    +2
    - The Persian army also had its own elite units and conventional infantry. The infantry was basically a poorly armed light militia, the purpose of which was to mix the first ranks of the enemy, to pin him down in battle, when the main business was usually completed by the mobile cavalry by encirclement or flanking attacks, followed by defeat. Elite, more trained and better armed units of "immortals" - professional warriors were used to strengthen attacks or unexpected finishing blows. The "Immortals" were much better armed with ordinary infantry, but the basis of their protection was again - leather armor, with sewn on plates, reinforced with padding, light open helmets, rarely leather bracers. The basis of the offensive weapon was the same - the bow, which they professionally owned. The tactics of foot hand-to-hand combat was not the main one for the "immortals", although they certainly knew how, like all professional warriors, to cut themselves on foot. However, in that battle, both the Persian infantry and the "immortals" completely lost their advantage (the first in numbers, and the second in worse defensive and offensive weapons and worse preparation of the battle on foot, close formation, since the "immortals" were professional cavalrymen and not infantrymen).

    As a result of all this, the Persian army was stuck firmly on that site and began to suffer heavy losses from tactics and terrain conditions unfavorable for itself, where the Greeks felt most profitable.

    Of course, Leonid knew what he was going on, and knew that his army would be defeated in any case, because the Persians could freely replenish losses and attack with new forces, while the Greeks had no one to make up for losses. Therefore, it was a doomed action, but in the name of a specific strategic goal. Therefore, the fact of the feat is obvious!
  38. FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 23 September 2013 10: 12
    -1
    Normal feature film. And as for the number 300, so maybe we are talking about the vanguard of the Greek army.
  39. alexpro66
    alexpro66 23 September 2013 15: 06
    +4
    Dear author of the article did not take a good example of Hollywood historical films - recently all historical adaptations are a base thrash! Watch this 300 Spartans movie / The 300 Spartans (1962) http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/64043/ Thank God at that time directors and screenwriters sometimes read history books! This is the ONLY adequate film about 300 Spartans, although it also contains a lot of errors, but at least when creating this film, the director consulted with Greek historians! Personally, I always watch this film and get great pleasure from the play of actors, sets, costumes! At that time, in Hollywood, they valued Stanislavsky’s school!
  40. ibn117
    ibn117 23 September 2013 15: 10
    +2
    but I have more articles, I like to read comments))) more informative
    1. alexpro66
      alexpro66 23 September 2013 15: 33
      +2
      All the same, I advise you to watch the old movie, very interesting!
      Better yet, go to the place, as I was not too lazy at the time, it’s even more interesting there!
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 23 September 2013 16: 58
      +1
      Quote: ibn117
      but I have more articles, I like to read comments))) more informative

      As elsewhere, and everywhere without any regard to those!
      But in essence, the people do not look at the root!
      Look at the root

      Kuzma spoke! And he was absolutely right!
      Well, judge for yourself, what difference does it make of how many were 300, 1300, 3 or 000! Against 7 thousand, well, let 000 !!!
      The unsatisfactory ratio is 7 against 000! Here 75 against 000 300 is YES!
      Resentment speaks for the destruction of the DIGITAL ENTURAGE and nothing more!
      The feat of the Spartans did not become less great, that there were more of them and they were not alone!
      For fun, I think they would argue just as excitedly if they claimed that the Spartans were not 300, but 301!
      laughing
      1. bogdan28901
        bogdan28901 18 July 2014 15: 28
        0
        guy in Sparta beat just 10 troops
  41. alexpro66
    alexpro66 24 September 2013 15: 12
    +1
    In principle, the argument could be ended simply by reading this article about the Battle of the Plateaus http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0 % BF% D1% 80% D0% B8_%

    D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%85
    Where the main merit belongs again to the Spartans! The Athenians initially relied only on their fleet - they did not believe in the possibility of defeating such a large army of Persians on land and only a personal example of 300 heroes of the Spartans inspired the Greeks to join forces and again the Spartans were at the head of all the main hostilities!
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 24 September 2013 18: 08
      -2
      Quote: alexpro66
      did not believe in the possibility of defeating such a large army of Persians on land and only a personal example of 300 heroes of the Spartans inspired the Greeks to join forces

      Hmm.
      I came across this expression
      If you are paranoid, this does not mean that you are not being watched.

      The feat of 300 Spartans, by definition exactly 300 (no more!), Was supposed to be for the inspiration of the Hellenes.
      Propaganda (lat. Propaganda literally - “subject to distribution (faith)”, from lat. Propago - “distribute”) - the systematic dissemination of facts, arguments, rumors and other information, including knowingly false, to influence public opinion.
      1. alexpro66
        alexpro66 24 September 2013 18: 35
        +2
        It’s hard to argue with you in response to your post ... Anyway, you won’t understand .. For I came across the following expression:

        Schizophrenia (from other Greek. Σχίζω - split and φρήν - mind, reason), previously lat. Dementia praecox (“premature dementia”) is a polymorphic mental disorder or group of mental disorders [1] associated with the breakdown of thinking processes and emotional reactions [2]. Schizophrenic disorders are generally distinguished by characteristic fundamental disorders of thinking and perception, as well as inadequate or reduced affect. The most common manifestations of the disease are auditory hallucinations, paranoid or fantastic delusions, or disorganization of speech and thinking against the background of significant social dysfunction, impaired performance.
        In addition, "propaganda" is a companion of any war from either side of the conflicting sides. And the words that the feat of the Spartans inspired the Greeks did not belong to me; they were expressed by the Greeks themselves, a little earlier, that way two and a half years ago - what, in your opinion, the cleverest people of Greece who said this are paranoid ?? Well then, you are five-plus-SIT UP! And by the number, you can indicate more precisely - 298, because one hoplite was sent as a messenger and the second was released due to illness (he had a terrible fever) and by the way, he was the only one and survived ..
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 24 September 2013 18: 58
          -1
          Quote: alexpro66
          Well then you are five plus-sit down!

          Thank you balsa! laughing
          Quote: alexpro66
          you can specify more precisely-298 for one hoplite was sent as a messenger and the second was released due to illness (he had a terrible fever) and by the way he was the only one who survived ..

          Here you already sounded
          Quote: alexpro66
          And another interesting detail! The Spartans after the battle indicated their losses which were simply fantastically small; they lost only about 200 !!!! heavily armed warriors !! The figures of ancient historians vary but Sparta showed exactly something about this figure!

          I already said above
          Quote: Cynic
          The feat of the Spartans did not become less great, that there were more of them and they were not alone!

          By the way, you completely misunderstood the meaning of the phrase or pretended that you did not understand.
  42. alexpro66
    alexpro66 24 September 2013 19: 25
    +2
    Quote: Cynic
    Quote: alexpro66
    Well then you are five plus-sit down!

    Thank you balsa! laughing
    Quote: alexpro66
    you can specify more precisely-298 for one hoplite was sent as a messenger and the second was released due to illness (he had a terrible fever) and by the way he was the only one who survived ..

    Here you already sounded
    Quote: alexpro66
    And another interesting detail! The Spartans after the battle indicated their losses which were simply fantastically small; they lost only about 200 !!!! heavily armed warriors !! The figures of ancient historians vary but Sparta showed exactly something about this figure!

    I already said above
    Quote: Cynic
    The feat of the Spartans did not become less great, that there were more of them and they were not alone!

    By the way, you completely misunderstood the meaning of the phrase or pretended that you did not understand.

    Well, if you misunderstood, then probably you need to more specifically formulate your idea? And do not speak out so it looks like an insult. I didn’t want to offend you if sorry. I already wrote above that, in principle, a dispute is useless, the place was a feat. number of heroes everything else is known meaningful sophistry. I repeat the Greeks themselves at the moment say that Leonid fought almost alone - why I personally believe this is written off above.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 24 September 2013 20: 09
      -2
      Quote: alexpro66
      Do you need to formulate your thoughts more specifically?

      A fairly common expression like
      in every joke only a fraction of the joke

      и
      because of the trees did not see the forest

      The semantic load is identical, in my opinion, of course, but more capacious.
      Quote: alexpro66
      And do not speak out so it looks like an insult.

      It has long been noted that many perceive any disagreement as an insult and, accordingly, in this light interpret everything.
      Quote: alexpro66
      Didn't mean to offend you

      1. alexpro66
        alexpro66 24 September 2013 20: 43
        +2
        You are just a troll boorish man .. I apologized. You continue to be rude. Then the diagnosis above is definitely yours.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 25 September 2013 09: 12
          -1
          Quote: alexpro66
          You are just a troll boorish man .. I apologized. You continue to be rude. Then the diagnosis above is definitely yours.

          Hmm.
          A hard case, you see jokes you absolutely do not perceive. Even friendly.
          Where are you like that, huh?
          I explain about the insults _ They carry water on the offended - it’s stupid to be offended by anyone in the discussion, it’s only to demonstrate the presence of complexes!
          Immediately the main thing was understood by you (this is about yourself beloved, if that) or not.
          Judging by our dialogue, you did not understand me or do not want to understand me? Do not look for an associative layer hostile to you in my posts.
          request
          1. alexpro66
            alexpro66 25 September 2013 14: 48
            0
            Usually, in a normal society, if they apologized to you, they are accepted or not accepted but do not pour a verbal waterfall of phraseological turns and hints of what is not clear. Before you I did not dig into my opinion you have sensible thoughts but not always ...
  43. Ram chandra
    Ram chandra 24 September 2013 20: 36
    0
    By the way, I forgot to say that they threw stones from the slopes.
  44. rodevaan
    rodevaan 25 September 2013 15: 41
    +1
    As usual, they again switched to idiocy, like "d-u-cancer himself."
    If we distract from this stupid bickering and again return to the topic itself, then there is something else to be said about the battle under discussion:

    If you look at this battle and the war as a whole, it is completely neutral and unbiased, noting only facts and consequences, then I wrote earlier why the Persians, although in the end killed the small army of Leonid, but strategically lost both the battle and the entire campaign. And naturally, in the detachment there were not only 300 Spartans, but also a host of other Greek detachments from other areas. 300 Spartan hoplites were only the most well-armed and trained skeleton of this army.
    In a strategic sense, the Persians lost the battle because the smaller army was able to inflict much greater losses, delayed the main forces for a very long time, allowing the rest of the Greek forces to mobilize other resources, and as a result it is much better to prepare to repel the invasion and regroup their forces. It was a strategic victory for the Greeks. Sacrificing a figure - they won the war as a result.
    However, there were quite a few reasons for the defeat of the Persians throughout the war:
    1. More powerful and more modern offensive and defensive weapons of the Greek army. Bronze armor, large hoplon shields (which covered the entire warrior in full growth), closed helmets, of the Greeks were much more effective than the lightweight leather fragmented Persian armor which almost did not protect the Persian warrior as effectively as the bronze Greek.
    2. In the conditions of mountainous and very rugged terrain, numerous Persian cavalry, accustomed to waging mobile combat in open spaces in the desert, completely lost its advantage and, as a result, the ability to move freely and quickly entering the flanks and rear of the enemy. That is, the ability to use cavalry in full accordance with its tactical capabilities in Xerxes was very limited. Consequently, in the conditions of that locality, the Persians needed to conduct battles mainly on foot and on foot, where it was the Greeks who had the advantage in armament, tactics and individual military preparation of the battle in close formation.
    3. Directly individual training of soldiers among the Greeks was "sharpened" for, first of all, the conduct of hand-to-hand combat in a close formation, and in full contact with the enemy. that is why the defensive and offensive weapons of the Greeks were heavy and covered the body as much as possible (cuirass, shields, deaf helmets, greaves, bracers - all bronze). Whereas the Persian army focused on mobile, mobile combat with cavalry units. The Persian infantry was intended only for mixing and disrupting the general formation of the enemy, which was then surrounded and sought by mobile cavalry. Therefore, to reduce weight, the Persian warriors were maximally lightened and deprived of any heavy weapons, which in a dense foot battle with heavily armed Greek hoplites was tantamount to suicide. And the Persians basically had to fight like this in the mountainous and very uneven terrain of Greece.
    4. More trained, more experienced, as well as more strategically strong commanders and generals, plus excellent knowledge of the area, also played in favor of the victory of Greece in that war. The idea with Thermopylae about the delay, the population of the huge damage of the numerous Persian army - was invaluable in those conditions. The idea itself was very timely and very successful, and even the performer - Tsar Leonid coped with the task brilliantly, because he fulfilled, albeit at the cost of his life, all the strategic conditions that were set.
    5. The morale of those who wage a war of liberation on their territory is much higher than the morale of attackers who fight in a foreign, hostile area. In a simple fight, wall to wall, rather than high-precision, high-tech weapons of the future, the coefficient of moral stability and the spirit of the troops is very important.
  45. rodevaan
    rodevaan 25 September 2013 15: 41
    +1
    In fact, the Greeks in that war, having let the Persians into their territory, completely eliminated all the advantages of the Persian army - strength and mobility, and in fact began to wage war in the most favorable conditions for themselves, which ultimately brought a logical victory.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 26 September 2013 17: 40
      0
      Quote: rodevaan
      In fact, the Greeks in that war, having let the Persians into their territory, completely eliminated all the advantages of the Persian army - strength and mobility, and in fact began to wage war in the most favorable conditions for themselves, which ultimately brought a logical victory.

      Hmm.
      I didn’t think I wondered to meet Russian motives of 1812 and 1941!
      Why Russians?
      And no other country, in the recent past, was able to realize these advantages obtained in this way.
      1. rodevaan
        rodevaan 28 September 2013 03: 08
        0
        Quote: Cynic

        Hmm.
        I didn’t think I wondered to meet Russian motives of 1812 and 1941!
        Why Russians?
        And no other country, in the recent past, was able to realize these advantages obtained in this way.


        - I didn’t understand anything. What did you want to say?
        Better express your thought directly, without any pretensions to "wit".
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 28 September 2013 14: 12
          +1
          Quote: rodevaan
          Better express your thoughts directly

          Yes, she is simple.
          What do you think can be called those who, in order to achieve certain advantages over the enemy, will allow him to enter their territory ?!
          As for 1812 and 1941, then some citizens tried to explain the seizure of the vast territories of Russia _ There are not stupid people on top, they lure the adversary! And then !
          How many human and other resources did Russia lose then? The fascists won the Ukrainian black earth with compounds, not to mention people! Sweep all!
          And you
          Quote: rodevaan
          in fact, the Greeks in that war letting the Persians into their territory, completely eliminated all the advantages of the Persian army

          Well, then the Spartans and other Greeks laid their heads? It was necessary to get hold of such a strategic advantage right away! No needless sacrifices!
          1. rodevaan
            rodevaan 29 September 2013 16: 14
            +1
            Quote: Cynic
            Quote: rodevaan
            Better express your thoughts directly

            Yes, she is simple.
            What do you think can be called those who, in order to achieve certain advantages over the enemy, will allow him to enter their territory ?!
            As for 1812 and 1941, then some citizens tried to explain the seizure of the vast territories of Russia _ There are not stupid people on top, they lure the adversary! And then !
            How many human and other resources did Russia lose then? The fascists won the Ukrainian black earth with compounds, not to mention people! Sweep all!
            And you
            Quote: rodevaan
            in fact, the Greeks in that war letting the Persians into their territory, completely eliminated all the advantages of the Persian army

            Well, then the Spartans and other Greeks laid their heads? It was necessary to get hold of such a strategic advantage right away! No needless sacrifices!


            - You would be in the ancient Greek strategists! We would have scattered all the Persians on the way ... on their own. And Napoleon would have been stopped on the border in the 12th, and the fascists would still have been caught up to Berlin before 41 ...
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 29 September 2013 20: 28
              0
              I agree, but
              Quote: rodevaan
              You would

              Quote: rodevaan
              And Napoleon would

              Quote: rodevaan
              fascists still

              this is the most would and interferes, otherwise ... Ugh again this would !
              bully
              1. rodevaan
                rodevaan 30 September 2013 04: 01
                0
                Quote: Cynic
                I agree, but
                Quote: rodevaan
                You would

                Quote: rodevaan
                And Napoleon would

                Quote: rodevaan
                fascists still

                this is the most would and interferes, otherwise ... Ugh again this would !
                bully


                - Yes, it’s scary to even think about the consequences for the people!
  46. The comment was deleted.
  47. Kicker
    Kicker 5 October 2013 17: 40
    +2
    Leonid is certainly a great suicidal hero, but a complete moron commander.
    He came to Thermopylae not to defend Greece, but to die, so that according to the prophecy of the drunken oracle Sparta would not be destroyed.
    But 500-1000 Thespians who remained with Leonid and fell with him, no less heroes than 300 Spartans. Or maybe big ones. After all, they could leave with the rest. And they were not to such an extent trained warriors. HZ why stayed. Maybe he was also an oracle, or maybe they tried to hold the enemy back even for a day.
    But as a military leader Leonid - DEBIL. Stalin would be against the wall ...
    Leonid had 7-12 thousand. And not much worse than the Spartans. Remember in the many wars of Sparta with Athens and other cities (well, they had such a fun, they looked for unfading glory, because there were no computers with an Internet :-)), Sparta not only won, but also repeatedly raked.
    To keep Thermopylae 200-500 hoplites would be enough, around the clock - 1-1,5 thousand, and taking into account the clearing of the path for advancing from corpses, it would be even less ... Could be clogged with a 2-3 thousand mountain path. I KNEW because of her! This is even easier than thermal saws. Yes, there maybe 100 hoplites with a hundred archers would be enough - the trail is mountainous, not a prostect. And he would protect his rear. And could stand there WEEKS, and not 3 days.
    Well, try to feed 300000 hungry Persian mouths WEEKS. Especially taking into account the fact that the REAL hero-commander of the Athenian Themistocles blocked the road to the Persian fleet not only for landing to the rear of Leonid, he also cut off the ways of supplying the army with the sea. And he hollowed it slowly (200 ships against 1000 nevertheless), but surely. Until zadolbil. But that's another story :-).
    In short, if: -) ... Yes! This "WO" in history ... If there was the one who commanded the Marathon, then maybe Xerxes could not have burned Athens.
    1. redguard
      redguard 17 January 2014 14: 34
      +1
      Before calling Leonid DEBIL, he himself should have studied the matter at least a little.
      And you need to drink less, then drunk oracles will not seem. The Delphic oracle is not a man, but an institution. The role of the soothsayer there was performed by the Pythia - the priestess (I will specify - female, since there are such problems with orientation). The well-known version of the prophecies in an altered state of consciousness (caused by fumes of poisonous gases) has not yet been confirmed.
      The prophecy about the death of King Sparta is just a propaganda tool. (By the way, not the fact that Leonid received it at all).
      The Greeks under Thermopylae had up to 7.5 thousand soldiers, but not once 12 thousand. A thousand fighters came from Lacedaemon (true, there were only three hundred volunteers of the Spartiates). Spartan army classic
      period (VI - beginning of IV century) was considered the best in Hellas, and a few defeats in any way
      cannot affect. Several thousand heavily armed hoplites had chances to keep superior enemy forces in Thermopylae conditions: the advantage of the Persians in numbers and maneuverability was nullified.
      The proposal to keep this passage with 200-500 hoplites is ridiculous and stupid. Leonid had more troops on the last day of the battle, and they died in a few hours.
      The Thespians are truly heroes, no worse than the Spartans.
      True, they had nowhere to go - their city was just on the path that Thermopylae covered. At the same time, the long-standing enemies of Thespius, the Theban traitors, were even more dangerous than the Persians. So the reason for the defense to the end among the Thespian hoplites was, which, of course, does not detract from their heroism.
      It is especially amusing to read the teachings of the Kritikan about the mountain path. Unfortunately, he is not aware that instead of the two hundred fighters recommended by him, Leonid sent there a whole thousand Phokeians (about 1/7 of the entire army), better than others prepared for military operations in the highlands. Valuable instructions from the Kritikan were useless: the Persians sent the best forces around - the "immortals", and the famous mountain traditions and mountain courage also did their job.
      If the Persian bypass maneuver had failed, Leonid would have defended Thermopylae before the approach of the main Hellenic forces (including the Spartan army and the Allied fleet). And in this case, the alignment changed dramatically.
      And the point is not in supply. There was no problem for the Persian kingdom to provide an army of 480 WEEKS - it did it without problems during the war of XNUMX. If only because the supply routes, no matter how it seemed to the Critic, were not cut. And the mechanism for providing its PROFESSIONAL army in the Persian Empire has been successfully functioning for centuries.
      There was an opportunity to give a general battle with good chances of success. And here is Leonid
      would be very helpful.
      1. bogdan28901
        bogdan28901 18 July 2014 16: 02
        0
        They didn’t beat there. Not 7.5 wars beat Elita Sparti Goplity there. They fought because of their physical preparation and the Narrow Aisle, but forgive me there were 7500 wars from Greece. That’s why they simply didn’t fit there, especially for the laws of Sparta. The king could take with him Toko 300 wars no more In Sparta, there were a total of 10 wars. More Spartans were beaten. A cruel test. If you didn’t pass the test, then they’ve simply been kicked out.
        1. andrew42
          andrew42 19 February 2018 11: 42
          0
          In his youth he was engaged in melee. In good shape, in a trained state, from a convenient position, you can successfully work with five opponents in a circle. But there is one “but”, firstly in training, secondly, if you are lucky, and thirdly, from the strength of about 5 minutes. After 5 minutes of intense combat, your knees will bend anyway, but in real life, even earlier. We multiply the stamina of the “hoplite system” by 10, and three more times by the “shift” of 2 front lines. About 8 hours at the most trump position with continuous attacks, is already the edge of fantasy. Further - beyond. And you tell me about the "super-abilities" of three hundred "super-people" from Sparta! And this is without Captain America, Hulk and Superman with Wolverine! Her, I do not believe.
  48. KolynS
    KolynS 17 March 2015 19: 32
    0
    You scoop downs, what can you know except your scoop and race? I would rather believe the legends of the Greeks than quilted jackets. You can continue to believe in the Nonsense of the Donkey UNITED RUSSIA.

    PS: No offense to the Russians, this is an appeal to the garbage of your Great country, scoops and other Putin's suction.

    Glory to the King! Glory to the Imperial Flag!

    Hello from Ukraine, scoops.

    Russians, true Russians do not swallow vodka without measures, vodka for scoops, choose a sport.
    1. Protonych
      Protonych 9 February 2016 04: 30
      +2
      Remember the scoop, padded jacket and Russian is the same !!! And call more often !!!)))) I’ll be angry when they call a quilted jacket or a scoop !!!)))) And Putin is our supreme commander in chief !!! Leader and emperor !!!! It remains to pick up Prelschu Finland the whole of the Baltic States and Ukraine !!!)))) Return the Empire of its land !!! But even if Putin is not the best, then he is better than Fascist and drunk Poroshenko and the black-assed monkey Obama, I'm not talking about the smelly and lousy European rabble !!!! Come on, what to swear and argue !!!! Ukrainians are good people and Slav brothers !!!)))) You guys from Donbass and Lugansk will tell you everything in Kiev and Lviv !!!))) Good luck !!!! By the way, I am a resident of the lands of the Great Novgorod Republic of the homeland of Prince Alexander Nevsky !!! And from history we know that the Novgorodians never obeyed Kievan Rus and even once captured Kiev !!!)))) Good luck and good health to you !!!)))))))
  49. andrew42
    andrew42 19 February 2018 15: 03
    0
    The feat of 300 Lacedaemonians (and the Thespians undeservedly devoted to oblivion) ​​is the feat of the rearguard. There have been many in history. You can admire the frenzy of the brutal Spartans, who, in general, were grown for a glorious death on the battlefield. But the bottom line is that the Greek army could and should have kept the strategic passage at Thermopylae at 7, but it did not. And the Persians solved the strategic task, although at the cost of serious losses. After that, the "lost spirit" of the Persians occupied Athens, and did not intend to retreat before Salamis, but on the contrary, the encirclement forced the Greek fleet to battle, ready either to scatter or topple towards the Corinthian isthmus. The demoralized Persians had the audacity even more than a year (!) After the Salamis defeat to host Middle Greece. And again, about the "innumerable Persian hordes": Herodotus was also a fabulist and a "singer of Athenian glory," - "my duty is to convey everything that is told, but, of course, I do not have to believe everything." 300 Persian-Theban troops under the Plateaus, who have been eating something for 000 years, excuse me, in not very grainy Greece - even Batu would be nervous about such a competition. So, the feat of Leonid’s detachment in Thermopylae is a sadness in the Greek mess and civil strife, but not a moral victory over innumerable Persian “orcs”. And yet, yes, Ctesias with his Persian History, who lived at the court of Artaxerxes II, - already Aristotle, Strabo, Plutarch and the rest of the company was repeatedly declared "pseudoscientific", which supposedly belittles Greek fame, characters non-existent (which is very interesting) invents. That is, the truth is repeatedly replicated solely on one side. Of course, Mardonius will not rise again, and will not tell anything.
  50. demo
    demo 24 February 2018 12: 02
    +1
    We all know about the unprecedented feat of the Spartan warriors led by Tsar Leonid, who did not yield to the huge Persian army, did not retreat, and perished. And the Persians went further. But even now, many Leonids are named so in his honor. And rightfully so. And who heard of Colonel Pavel Mikhailovich Karjagin, who fought with Persia in 1805? Units.

    If you ask an ordinary European with whom Russia fought at the beginning of the XIX century, many will say that with Napoleon. Exactly. But, probably, far fewer people know that Russian-Turkish (1806-1812) was going on, during which territory in the Caucasus and Bessarabia were captured, Russian-Swedish (1808-1809), as a result of which Finland was captured, and also unparalleled a campaign on the ice of the Gulf of Bothnia captured the Aland Islands, as well as the Russian-Persian War (1804-1813), during which significant areas of Transcaucasia were annexed to Russia.

    So, after the annexation of the Kartli Kingdom to Russia, the small khanates and sultanates of Transcaucasia join Russia one after another - on September 12, 1801, Alexander I (1801-1825) signed the “Manifesto on the Establishment of a New Government in Georgia”, the Kartli-Kakheti Kingdom was part of Russia and became the Georgian province of the empire. Then Baku, Cuban, Dagestan and other kingdoms voluntarily joined. In 1803, Mengrelia and the Imereti kingdom joined.

    January 3, 1804 - the assault of Ganja as a result of which the Ganja Khanate is liquidated and is part of the Russian Empire.

    On June 10, the Persian Shah Feth Ali (Baba Khan) (1797-1834), who entered into an alliance with Great Britain, declared war on Russia. At the beginning of 1805, the detachment of Major General Nesvetayev occupied the Suragel Sultanate and annexed it in the possession of the Russian Empire. The Erivan ruler Muhammad Khan with 3000 horsemen could not resist and was forced to retreat. On May 14, 1805, the Kurekchay Treaty was signed between Russia and the Karabakh Khanate. According to his conditions, the khan, his heirs and the entire population of the khanate passed under the power of Russia. Shortly before this, the Karabakh khan Ibrahim Khan defeated the Persian army under Dizan.

    Following this, on May 21, the Sheki Khan Selim Khan expressed a desire to enter into Russian citizenship and a similar agreement was signed with him. Taking advantage of the fact that the main forces of the Russian army went on a campaign against Napoleon in Austria, enormous masses moving to Austerlitz, the Iranian shah decided to regain his position in the Caucasus. His 40th army marched in Transcaucasia. In the Caucasus at that time, only 7 thousand regular Russian troops and Cossacks, as well as a number of Georgian and Armenian volunteers, untrained and unreliable, were at the front from the Black to the Caspian Sea. In June 1805, the Iranians occupied Askeran fortress and moved towards Tiflis.

    The campaign began with the fact that the enemy crossed Araks at the Khudoperinsky crossing. The battalion of the seventeenth jaeger regiment, which was covering it, under the command of Major Lisanevich, was unable to keep the Persians and retreated to Shusha. The Commander-in-Chief in Georgia, General Prince Tsitsianov (Tsitsishvili, in those years the Georgian elite did not consider Russian occupiers, but considered it an honor to wear Russian epaulettes) immediately sent another battalion and two guns to help him, under the command of the chief of the same regiment, Colonel Karyagin, a man seasoned in battles with the Highlanders and Persians.

    The strength of both detachments together, if they succeeded in uniting, would not exceed nine hundred people, but Prince Tsitsianov knew the spirit of the Caucasian troops well, knew their leaders and was calm about the consequences. Karyagin left Elizabethpol on June XNUMXst and three days later, approaching Shakh-Bulakh, he saw the advanced troops of the Persian army, under the command of Sardar Pir-Kuli Khan.