Contents

1.0 Introduction to Greek-Persian relations1.1 Herodotus1.2 The Persian-Archaemenid Empire1.3 The Greek Empire States

2.0 Battlefield of Thermopylae2.1 Overview of Thermopylae2.2 Geology of area

3.0 The Battle of Thermopylae3.1 Troop specifications3.2 Summary of Battle events

4.0 References and Acknowledgements

3.3

2

1.0 Introduction to Greek - Persian relations

The boundaries of countries in the Middle East today are not the same as they were 2500 years ago, large empires expanded, collided and subsequently fought in large battles. These armies lacked the advantages modern armies have today, such as all-terrain vehicles, aircraft or GPS equipment, so terrain could be fully exploited, such as in the battle of Thermopylae, 480 BCE.

1.1 Herodotus

References by Herodotus Historia are marked as such (H. v(book number *see below for titles) (passage number if relevant).

Herodotus was a Greek historian whom, with his writing of Historia (or Histories) he set to verify the events of recent history; Herodotus’ Historia was written in 440 BCE, some 40 years after the battle of Thermopylae and serves as one of the best sources of information pertaining not only the encounter at Thermopylae but also the larger Greek-Persian wars that occurred during the 5th century. Herodotus was an Ionian, one of four tribes of the Greeks at the time, the other three being Aeolian, Dorian and Achaeans. The Ionian people had been key players in the events that occurred leading up to the Battle of Thermopylae and as such the presence of a bias from the perspective of Herodotus must be taken into account when reading his writings. This said, Herodotus was a scholar and not only accounts the battles that occurred but also records musings of mathematics, nature and river systems of continent. He speculates on what is know today as the east African rift system, that if the river Nile were to, for reason unbeknownst to him, instead drain into the east African rift then “…what is there to hinder it from being filled up by the stream within, at the utmost, twenty thousand years? For my part, I think it would be filled in half the time. How then should not a gulf, even of much greater size, have been filled up in the ages that passed before I was born, by a river that is at once so large and so given to working changes?” (H. v2 12). Herodotus, while not hitting the nail on the head, at least swung the hammer on comprehending timescales of environmental changes, especially considering the landscape we see today.

1.2 The Greek Empire States and the Persian-Archaemenid Empire

The largest of these empires at the time was the Persian (Archaemenid) empire lead by King Xerxses (r. 486-465BCE)[1]. The son of Darius I (r. 522-486 BCE), Xerxses succeeded his father’s throne mid way through the first of two invasions of Greece by the Persian Empire. This invasion was forced when Darius I met opposition from various areas of western Anatolia during his reign now referred as the Ionian revolt. These regions; primarily Ionia but areas of

3

Aeolis, Doris and Cyprus had been taken control of by the Persians in 545 BCE and had been since ruled by Histiaeus the Milesian who was appointed by Darius (H. v7).

Following the Greek Dark Ages where the Bronze Age civilisation collapsed, settlements of Greeks began to form larger cities and then would coalesce to larger city-states, such as Athens or Ionia. Before the battle of Marathon in 490 BCE, King Darius sent envoys to discus surrender or subjugation of the Greeks, famously portrayed in 300, these emissaries were executed leading to the events of Marathon and Thermopylae. Sparta and Athens were two of the strongest cities and formed the front of the Greek empire states against the threat of the Persian Empire.

2.0 The Battlefield of Thermopylae

2.1 Overview of Thermopylae

Thermopylae today isn’t exactly as it was in the past. Sea levels were much higher as illustrated in figure 1, which would have meant that the pass at Thermopylae (or also known the Hot Gates) was a lot thinner than would be assumed today and as such was a lot more of an important choke point for the Greek forces.

Figure 1. Difference in sea level representing the Gulf of Malia between 480BCE and today (Kraft et. Al, 1987) (G. Rapp, et al. 2006)

This choke lies between the then shores of the Gulf of Malia to the north and the mountains of Kallidromo to the south, running parallel with the Tempe valley that extends roughly ENE – WSW out to the Aegean sea. To gain access to the mainland of Greece, Xerxes troops need simply pass this hold.

4

2.2 Geology of Thermopylae

Figure 2. Tectonic map of the region, based on works by Clews 1989, Simonelli

While the geological formation of the area was unknown to the Greeks, the importance of the pass and its presence isn’t understated in literature. Without seeing the area first hand, a few observations of the maps and photographs can be made; a large flat plane runs NE to SW bound lineally with the Kallidromo Mountains along south and several individual mountains to the north, including Mt. Orthyrs. The Malian gulf has been regressing eastwards along this plane (G.R. Rapp, 2006) with the global change in sea levels since 480BCE, on top of sediment being deposited as the Spercheios River feeds into the gulf.

5

Figure 3 (above). Geomorphological aerial photo interpretation.

As can be seen, the structure appears to follow that of a graben, with the hanging wall downthrown and with uplift of the footwall, however the height disparity between the Kallidromo mountains and the Orthyrs could be the evidence of a half graben structure, but is at least an extensional graben. The Lamia graben (R.E. Holdsworth, 2002) is extending in a NNE/SSW orientation. The position of Thermopylae on the North Anatolian Fault (NAF) allows the driving mechanism of the region to be explained: the apparent refraction of the fault northwards as it cuts into the Greek mainland is essentially a large right step over of the NAF, which is a dextral system, which gives rise to extensional zones running parallel to the step (P. Kearey et al., 2009).

Figure 4 (below). Cross section of Kallidromo and the gulf of Malia. Taken from Kraft et al. 1987.

The Kallidromo mountains are made up of limestone formed in the upper cretaceous (Fig. 4), with weathering of northern faces (valley facing) of rocks producing a Limestone Regina (Translated. Fig 6.)

Figure 6.Soil + Superficial map of the Spercheios (Σπερχειός) valley.

1.

Limestone Regina4. Dark Limestone Regna5. Dry Stone (alluvium)6. Lithogenic dark red alkaloids7. Alluvial Reserves (flood plane)

6

15. Mixed depositional muds. (deltaic sediments).

The extent of the alluvial reserves is a good measure of the range the Spercheios/Lamia graben. The mountains of the Kallidromon would deposit material into the basin, wherin the river would transport that material toward the gulf.

7

3.0 The Battle of Thermopylae 3.1 Troop Specifications

In later summer 480 BCE, Thermopylae was a hive of activity, troops from both sides met at the path. The ‘Greek contingents’ quoted by Herodotus, maki as attending the battle are “no more than” 300 Lacedaemonians (or Spartans) lead by King Leonidus. 500 Tegeans, 500 from Mantineia, 120 Orchomenus. From “the other cities in arcadia”(Paus. 10.20.1) 1000 troops mustered with 80 Mycenaenians, 200 from Phlius, 400 from Corinth, 700 Boeotians, 700 from Thespiae and 400 from Thebes, giving us a total of at least 5,200 soldiers. Pausanias (Paus. 10.20.1) goes further than Herodotus’ account of the number of Locrians present, with an estimate of 6000 troops, giving a total greek force of approximately 11,000. A major attribution of why the greeks lost this battle could have been as Herodotus writes “they intended then to leave a garrison in Sparta and to come to help in full force with speed: and just so also the rest of the allies had thought of doing themselves; for it chanced that the Olympic festival fell at the same time as these events. Accordingly, since they did not suppose that the fighting in Thermopylai would so soon be decided, they sent only the forerunners of their force.” The inequality of numbers was certainly a decider in the outcome of the battle.

The number of soldiers present for Persia is, admitted by Herodotus himself, inconsistent. In just 40 years since the battle was fought, he writes “What the exact number of the troops of each nation was [referring to the Persians amassing at Doriscus, prior to the battle] I cannot say with certainty- for it is not mentioned by any one- but the whole land army together was found to amount to one million seven hundred thousand men”. This number has been refuted by modern historians, with an estimate of at least 250,000 Persian troops being present. This still meant that the Greeks were significantly outnumbered, at anywhere between 5000 and 11,000 troops of Greek command.

Figure 5. Reconstruction of the area 480BCE illustrating the position of each side. The size of the pass couldn’t have been more than 100m across (Kraft et. Al 1987) at the time.

8

3.2 Summary of battle events

The actual date of events has been lost but it’s agreed that the battle occurred around late august (Bradford, 2004). Xerses let four days pass “expecting always that they would take to flight” (H. v 7, 210) and sent men from Medes and Kissians. Getting “roughly handled” (H. v7 210) the medians retreated. The Lacedaemons were famously skilled fighters, yet the retreat of the Medians allowed a new Persian contingent to be toward the pass. A group whom could have won the battle sooner; referred to by Herodotus and King Xerxes as the Immortals.(H. v7 211). “Supposing that they at least would easily overcome the enemy” they advanced to the pass The Greek forces, though outnumbered, had tactics to work in their favour; longer spears allowed the Greeks to attack more efficiently and keep distance (H v7 211) and the feign of a retreat.. The elongation of the pass allowed the Greeks to pull back allowing a haphazard advance by Persians. These advances proved more of a hindrance than ground made; the Greeks turned and attacked the now out of formation Immortals. Both sides suffered casualties but it was ultimately the Persians who were first to retreat: “the Persians were not able to obtain any success by making trial of the entrance and attacking it by divisions and every way, they retired back.” (H v7 211).

The battle was still won part to the geological structure of the pass itself: the mountains are a barrier bottlenecking the pass but also a tactical advantage that both sides can use. After day two of fighting the Greeks were betrayed by Epialtes the son of Euyrdemos (H v7 213). This Malian man told the Persians of the Anopaia path; a path that lead around the Hot Gates that could be used to flank the greeks from behind. The Persians followed this path and met with 1000 Phokians whom Leonidas had posted to guard the route (H v7 227). When Leonidas found out of this, he sent the majority of his troops home, knowingly outnumbered and with the strength of the pass annulled by the Persians knowledge of it, he sent the majority of his troops home and fought to the death, the Persians free to move further toward Athens.

9

4.0 References

Historia, Herodotus of Halicarnassus (480 BCE) – Translated by George Rawlinson and available at classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.html. Extended versions of volume 7 can be found at http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh7210.htm - Translated by G. C. Macauley (1890).References by Herodotus Historia are marked as such (H. v(1-7)-(book number *see below for titles) (integer) (passage number if extended).

1 - Clio2 - Eurerpe3 - Thalia4 - Melpomene5 - Terpischore6 - Erato7 - Polymnia - events of Thermopylae8 - Urania9 - Calliope

Geoarchaeology; The Earth-science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation, George Rapp, Christopher Hill (2006),Yale University Press. p 96 fig. 3.19.

Figure 1

The Pass at Thermopylae, Greece, John C. Kraft, George Rapp, Jr., George J. Szemler, Christos Tziavos, Edward W. Kase (1987) Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No.2

Figures 1,4 & 5

Higgins MD, Higgins R (1996) A Geological companion to Greece and the Aegean. Duckworth Publishers, London

Philip Kearey,Keith A. Klepeis, Frederick J. Vine (2009) Global Tectonics (3rd edition).

Regional-scale processes, Robert E Holdsworth (2002), London Geological Society. Volume 1.

Pausanias, Description of Greece (Paus. 10.20.1).

The Quaternary evolution of the Gulf of Corinth, central Greece: coupling between surface processes and flow in the lower continental crust, Rob Westaway (2002), Techtonophysics 358 p 269-318.

A History of Greece, Connop Thirlwall (1835).

Soil map of Greece; accessed from http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EuDASM/GR/Greece_Soil_map.jpg 12/2015,- Translated by the wonderful Antigoni Gerantzi (2015), with thanks.

Title images; King Leonidas, http://orig12.deviantart.net/9d11/f/2012/064/e/a/spartiatai_by_aranthulas-d4rtio8.jpg, Aranthulas, with thanks. King Darius, King Darius I and Persepolis (Original) by Ruggero Giovannini.Bust of Herdotus; creative commons.

10