300

[Invictus]

Considering the make up of Europe at the time, it isn't a stretch to say all of the individual clans/tribes of Europe would have rolled over for the Persian juggernaut.

Ranger Invictus, as a student of Indo-European history particularly the Celtic peoples I must disagree with your assessment of the situation. I seriously doubt that the Persian military would have done well against the various Celtic tribes and to a lesser extent the Germanic ones. Had they been able to make it into the main body of Europe.

I'd be interested to hear your take on that. I think they were too fractured to put up a consolidated defense. Numbers alone would have made it hard for them to stop the Persians. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss it further.

[Chiron]

Considering the make up of Europe at the time, it isn't a stretch to say all of the individual clans/tribes of Europe would have rolled over for the Persian juggernaut.

Ranger Invictus, as a student of Indo-European history particularly the Celtic peoples I must disagree with your assessment of the situation. I seriously doubt that the Persian military would have done well against the various Celtic tribes and to a lesser extent the Germanic ones. Had they been able to make it into the main body of Europe.

Numbers alone would place the Persians over them. We're talking a million man army plus the troops they would get from the remaining Greeks, Romans and so on. Remember that the Persian army grew each time they conquered a nation. Your argument doesn’t stand. By the time they reached the north tribes there would be at least a 3 million strong army beating down the tribes of Germania.

All this is speculation in that as we say if my grandmother had wheels she would be a train.

Nevertheless, the Romans beat the German tribes with far less troops. Imagine the spearhead of the Persian attack being several thousand Spartans. One could speculate that had the Persians won many Spartans would have enjoyed another fight.

[Jim]

Imagine the spearhead of the Persian attack being several thousand Spartans. One could speculate that had the Persians won many Spartans would have enjoyed another fight.

As I recall, the Persians did have some Greek mercinaries in their army. Even some Spartains.

[Chiron]

Imagine the spearhead of the Persian attack being several thousand Spartans. One could speculate that had the Persians won many Spartans would have enjoyed another fight.

As I recall, the Persians did have some Greek mercinaries in their army. Even some Spartains.

True! Traitors existed in all times. But imagine they having lost and "forced" to fight the barbarians.

[Invictus]

Fennidh's response to me via PM.

Ranger Invictus,
It is true that the Celtic tribes were rather opposed to centralized government. Which is why they appear to be fragmented through out history. Often that was the case. However it was not uncommon for many tribes to forge alliances under a high king or over king, or even some sort of coalition leader. Also one must take into account that a single tribe could be as large as some Greek city states, they were by no means small.
During this time we are still going through the Celtic expansion in Europe and entering the Celtic La Tene Period. (Heroic age of the Celts, time of mythology). They are near the hight of their power. Remember that only a couple hundred years later that Celtic war bands sack Rome, and rampage through Greece and sack cities on their way to the sack of Delphi. Shortly put this was not the time in history to be messing with the Celts.
Now in regard to the Persians, lets assume that they did managed to conquer Greece and after a year or two of R&R move on into Europe. The Celts are in full swing, and these are interesting new people to kill with all sorts of strange and wonderful riches with them from the near and far east. Given the Celtic cultural lust for treasures and the glory of battle at that time I believe that many tribes from near and far would come to try their hand against the Persian army. Where that not the case, then I think it is equally fair to assume that tribes would unite due to the common enemy. So we are not talking about small single tribe against the giant Persian army, but actual large forces.
As the Persians moved further into Europe they would encounter more and more tribes interested in fighting them. Also we can assume that as the Persian army moved their numbers would be constantly dropping. Due to the harsh European winters and terrain. Terrain that the Celts and also Germans were well versed in using to their advantage.
Lets also take the weak Persian moral into account as the Spartans did. If there is one thing about the Celts in battle that is not arguable, it is that they were masters of terror. They were constantly attacking enemy moral. Using strange instruments such as the Carnyx to terrify the enemy from a distance with truely strange and eerie sounds (they have made some recreations of them, they do indeed have a very eerie sound). The terrain to make it appear as if there were more of them. Constantly taunting enemies, and issuing challenges for single combat against the leaders of the enemy. (After a time the Romans made it illegal for Roman Generals to fight Celtic leaders in single combat). And then there are the Celtic "special units" to take into account. The head hunter cults, the elite warrior bands such as the Gasatae which fought naked and hurled themselves at the enemy in mad blood rages. The hit and run chariot teams. The body paint and armor and weapons made specifically to scare the enemy. The Persians had an army of slaves and very few professional soldiers. The Celts manged to scare the crap out of both Roman and Greek professional armies. To a bunch of conscripts it would appear is if the very forces of hell had come to claim them.
I believe that even if the Celts didn't manage to crush the Persian spirit and ride them down. Then the Persian advance would loose steam the further it got into Europe, due to the unfavorable terrain, as well as the constant opposition that would grow the further they moved in.

I'll concede to his apparent better knowledge of history for the time frame in question. He makes a good argument, and I definitely don't know as much about European history during this time frame, with the exception of Greece.

[Chiron]

Fennidh's response to me via PM.

Ranger Invictus,
It is true that the Celtic tribes were rather opposed to centralized government. Which is why they appear to be fragmented through out history. Often that was the case. However it was not uncommon for many tribes to forge alliances under a high king or over king, or even some sort of coalition leader. Also one must take into account that a single tribe could be as large as some Greek city states, they were by no means small.
During this time we are still going through the Celtic expansion in Europe and entering the Celtic La Tene Period. (Heroic age of the Celts, time of mythology). They are near the hight of their power. Remember that only a couple hundred years later that Celtic war bands sack Rome, and rampage through Greece and sack cities on their way to the sack of Delphi. Shortly put this was not the time in history to be messing with the Celts.
Now in regard to the Persians, lets assume that they did managed to conquer Greece and after a year or two of R&R move on into Europe. The Celts are in full swing, and these are interesting new people to kill with all sorts of strange and wonderful riches with them from the near and far east. Given the Celtic cultural lust for treasures and the glory of battle at that time I believe that many tribes from near and far would come to try their hand against the Persian army. Where that not the case, then I think it is equally fair to assume that tribes would unite due to the common enemy. So we are not talking about small single tribe against the giant Persian army, but actual large forces.
As the Persians moved further into Europe they would encounter more and more tribes interested in fighting them. Also we can assume that as the Persian army moved their numbers would be constantly dropping. Due to the harsh European winters and terrain. Terrain that the Celts and also Germans were well versed in using to their advantage.
Lets also take the weak Persian moral into account as the Spartans did. If there is one thing about the Celts in battle that is not arguable, it is that they were masters of terror. They were constantly attacking enemy moral. Using strange instruments such as the Carnyx to terrify the enemy from a distance with truely strange and eerie sounds (they have made some recreations of them, they do indeed have a very eerie sound). The terrain to make it appear as if there were more of them. Constantly taunting enemies, and issuing challenges for single combat against the leaders of the enemy. (After a time the Romans made it illegal for Roman Generals to fight Celtic leaders in single combat). And then there are the Celtic "special units" to take into account. The head hunter cults, the elite warrior bands such as the Gasatae which fought naked and hurled themselves at the enemy in mad blood rages. The hit and run chariot teams. The body paint and armor and weapons made specifically to scare the enemy. The Persians had an army of slaves and very few professional soldiers. The Celts manged to scare the crap out of both Roman and Greek professional armies. To a bunch of conscripts it would appear is if the very forces of hell had come to claim them.
I believe that even if the Celts didn't manage to crush the Persian spirit and ride them down. Then the Persian advance would loose steam the further it got into Europe, due to the unfavorable terrain, as well as the constant opposition that would grow the further they moved in.

I'll concede to his apparent better knowledge of history for the time frame in question. He makes a good argument, and I definitely don't know as much about European history during this time frame, with the exception of Greece.

Remember it's 480 BC. The Celts didn't have much on the Persians at the time. Also the Persian winters were even harsher than the European winters. Most of Persia was in the mountains and desert but the mountains are like Afghanistan REALLY HARSH winters.

I still believe that the sheer mass and technical know how of the Persian army of that time would have rolled over the Celts and anyone else up there.

Mind you we are speculating. Also the Persians had professional soldiers although many were slaves but it was still a force to be dealt with.

I don't believe any of the northern tribes had the know how to defeat the Persians but still you never know.

[Chiron]

The Roman Empire didn't take the north till hundreds of years later. By that time knowledge of tactics and weapons made it's way north. The time period in which the Romans and Greeks got hit by the northern tribes was way, way after the 300. We may be talking about 500 years after that Rome fell.

At the time of Thermopylae and the Persian attack on Europe the north people were living in caves and or huts. The vikings for example didn't flourish till 1000 years after Thermopylae.

[bulldogg]

Finally saw the movie, it struck me as very much a parable for our own times. I could very easily substitute modern day classes of people and themes and it rings just as true... the politicians selling out the warriors... some free men not having the stomach for the fight and would rather kneel or run... true warriors as distinct from soldiers in their mettle and attitude... tree of the dead then-- beheadings of captives today.

And they got the history right about how Sparta raised their children not just the sorting out of infants but also the time they were to spend as "wolves" before returning home and being accepted as full citizens of Sparta.

[Fennidh]

Ranger Chiron, as this is a Ranger forum and I am not a Ranger I do not wish to overstep my bounds by posting a whole lot. But I believe that I can make a compelling argument in regard to your last couple posts. With your permission I will do so.

[ANGRYCivilian]

My favorite part is when they are killing off the wounded from the first Persian assault and King Leonidas is talking about the small group coming towards them and says "Besides, there's no reason we can't be civil is there?" as his second in command kills one of the ragheads. I couldn't stop laughing.

That scene was good, but the apple made it great!

[Chiron]

Ranger Chiron, as this is a Ranger forum and I am not a Ranger I do not wish to overstep my bounds by posting a whole lot. But I believe that I can make a compelling argument in regard to your last couple posts. With your permission I will do so.

Be my guest. But I reserve the right to come with an argument when I return from the Eatser holiday on Monday night.

This is a topic open to all if you have an opinion fine. If you have hard facts even better. Go for it but I'll reply next week.

[Bulldawgs07]

I just saw it on Saturday. Awesome overall, though there were a few parts that were almost ridiculous (what was the point of the musician goat-person?), and they should have at least mentioned the Athenian naval engagement. Without that, it doesn't make any sense as to why Xerxes wouldn't have just sailed half his army down south and marched them into the Spartan rear, same way the Spartans got there.

Luckily, it was sylized and over the top enough that the lack of historical accuracy actually didn't bother me.

[Invictus]

I just saw it on Saturday. Awesome overall, though there were a few parts that were almost ridiculous (what was the point of the musician goat-person?), and they should have at least mentioned the Athenian naval engagement. Without that, it doesn't make any sense as to why Xerxes wouldn't have just sailed half his army down south and marched them into the Spartan rear, same way the Spartans got there.

Luckily, it was sylized and over the top enough that the lack of historical accuracy actually didn't bother me.

Hmmm....a cadet that tries to use reason and common sense... :?

(pssst You just missed April Fools day dude)