Besides The Thermopylae Case Do You Know Of Other Historical Examples Of A Army That Faced A Very

What can be said about the Battle of Thermopylae that has never been said before?

Let’s see. The Greeks lost…no, that is already known. They were not the only Greeks there, in fact the majority of Greeks there were not Spartans…no, everyone is aware of that. That the Persians had to go through Thermopylae rather than circle around…no, that is a known fact.There might be a chance of discovering something if we look at the Spartans as deliberately sacrificing themselves in order to unite Greece, with the Persians deliberately attacking a strongly held defensive position manned by the most famous warriors of Greece as a way of saying to the Greeks, submit to me, avoid the fate of the Spartans, you have no choice. (or, “You will be assimilated”).Other than the above, I can’t think of anything else other than why did Xerxes abandon his army and return to Persia, (even though we know of the numerous revolts and threats of revolt that threatened the Empire at that time). History has a tendency to cover events with the sands of time to the point that nothing but legends remain. Most legends are not to be trusted, other than Paul Bunyan which I know for a fact was a real person who, along with Blue, performed wonders.

What happened after the Battle of Thermopylae? Which Army won the last battle?

A2A.The Battle of Thermopylae was one of the many battles fought as part of the Greco-Persian Wars that spanned generations. The Battle of Artemisium occurred on sea simultaneously with the Battle of Thermopylae, after which was fought the Battle of Salamis (on sea again). The Greeks won the Battle of Salamis, but lost the other two aforementioned battles. This was the immediate aftermath. The Greco-Persian Wars were the backdrop to Herodotus’ Histories.The Greeks, under the leadership of Athens, formed an alliance called the Delian League and ousted Persian garrisons on their borders.The Delian League, which was nothing short of an Athenian Empire, soon came into conflict with the Peloponnesian League under Sparta, leading into the Peloponnesian Wars .At the end of these wars, Sparta replaced Athens as the Greek ‘superpower’, although in the aftermath of the Corinthian War Athens managed to win back some political power. Persia was able to interfere in Greek politics again by the end of all this infighting among the Greeks; Athenian invasion of Achaemenid Persia and Persian interference in local Greek politics had been the causes of the Greco-Persian Wars all along.Ultimately, the Greeks won when Philip of Macedon became the Greek hegemon by subjugating Athens and Sparta and established the Corinthian League (of which Sparta wasn’t a part) with the intention of invading Persia. However, Philip died before he could do so and this onerous task fell on the shoulders of his son Alexander.All these events happened over the span of many decades, of course, and this is only a simplified answer which glosses over several other important factors.A few things to note:Spartans wore armour and headgear; they didn’t go half-naked into battle with Achaemenid Persia, one of the most powerful multi-ethnic empires of the Ancient World. This is what the Spartan hoplites most probably looked like -Image courtesy - Wikimedia CommonsXerxes did not look like an effeminate manboy-king wearing gold piercings. Most Persian kings wore robes, headdresses and had full beards.The Persian Immortals were heavy infantry wearing scale armour underneath their robes. They didn’t wear masks, but probably wore some kind of cloth or cap to protect their faces from the dusty winds. And they certainly weren’t demons.The films from the 300 franchise are historically inaccurate in more than a few things, but are incredibly faithful to the source material - Frank Miller’s comic book 300.

Would nations throughout history often surrender if one army of theirs was decisively defeated? Is the obliteration of one army all it took in many cases?

Not at all, and this should be the lesson that you take from military history: Defeat in war is a political outcome, not a military one. Military defeats can be a factor, but not a prerequisite. Sometimes they’re not even a primary cause.Case in point is Napoleon’s career. Many assert that this was the case with his defeat at Waterloo on 18 June 1815 and his abdication on 22 June.But his abdication was to his son and his eventual incarceration was due to him asking asylum of the British over a month later. His exile at St. Helena was the result. But it was the political events in France drove that outcome, not anything that happened on the battlefield. Whatever the outcome at Waterloo, Napoleon likely faced political upheaval even if he had been successful in Belgium.When you think of it, even his second rise was a political event - no battle was fought to unseat Louis XVIII in favor of the emperor.Wars are always fought with two key aspects in mind - Means to wage it and will to endure it. If either factor fails entirely, war becomes impossible to wage.However, as is often found, the means are far less important a culminating factor than public will. This is why the Confederacy fought so long and hard, and why Robert E. Lee was so enraged after his most sublime victory at Chancellorsville in 1863 when he was told that the Union Army had successfully retreated. It was also the impetus for his final charge at Gettysburg a little later in the year and the entire Wilderness Campaign of the next year.The point was not the military outcome, but the effect of these campaigns might have on the Union political will. It was a near-run thing, regardless of the disparity of military casualties or means to wage war between the Union and the Confederacy.

Alternative military history: What modern military units would have been needed to hold off the Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae?

Honestly, in my opinion it would be better to go back to “old” technology for this one and choose a WW2 era machine gun platoon in the British Army equipped with Vickers Machine guns. Obviously they would need appropriate stockpiles of ammunition and barrels but that is implicit in the question.These bad boys were capable of firing 5,000,000 rounds (yes, five million) continuously and still be in excellent working order after (with barrel changes and adequate water for cooling).[1] One British machine gun platoon typically had one officer in command of four guns, in two sections of two, each with a crew and a small team of riflemen whose job was to protect the gun and keep it supplied with ammunition.Thermoplyae now lies quite far inland on a plain in between the mountains and the see (I actually went past it on the train earlier this month) but in the Classical period it was on the sea.There would not have been a lot of space between the mountains and the sea, best summed up by this artist’s impression (taken with respect from Kevin Yue’s answer).All you would need to hold off the Persian army would be to set up two machine gun nests on either side of the gap to provide a massive kill zone. I have provided an illustration below to show what I mean, but please be aware I am a Classicist not an artist.Basically any Persian soldier entering that kill zone is going to have a seriously bad time. The Vickers was used for indirect fire on targets over 4km away (and during the World Wars soldiers became very adept at firing like this) and an effective firing range of 2km. Having 2 nests on either side allows at least one machine gun to be firing at all times while another changes barrels/reloads. It is possible that the Persians could simply overwhelm the platoon, but I suspect that morale would break from all the seemingly random death on the approach and they would probably turn back without even getting close.[1] Forgotten Weapons: The Vickers Gun Is One of the Best Firearms Ever Made