The Spartan Contribution to the Myth of Thermopylae
The Battle of Thermopylae occupied a special position in the
commemorative tradition of Sparta; the sacrifice of Leonidas and
his 300 Spartans came to epitomise the ideal of Spartan bravery, a
preference for death over retreat or surrender.[footnoteRef:1] At
first glance it is perhaps curious that Thermopylae was celebrated
more in Sparta than the eventual victory at Plataia, in which the
Spartans played a key role,[footnoteRef:2] or the Battle of Salamis
which was won under the overall command of the Spartan admiral
Eurybiades.[footnoteRef:3] [1: This reputation was a key part of
Spartan success throughout the 5th century (Konijnendijk 2019). The
strength of this reputation is perhaps best evidenced by Thuc.
4.40.1, recording the shock felt through the Greek world when the
Spartans on Sphakteria surrendered rather than fighting to the
death. ] [2: Hdt. 9.71.] [3: Hdt. 8.42.2; Diod. 11.12.4;
11.16.1]
A parallel feature of the story of Thermopylae is that there
exists not one narrative but several, with multiple discrepancies
between them. The purpose of this paper is therefore twofold.
Firstly, I record the steps that Sparta took to commemorate and
celebrate Thermopylae through the creation of monuments, in the
city of Sparta and the pass itself. Secondly, I consider the role
that these monuments play in the construction and justification of
the divergent narratives of the events at Thermopylae. Due to
constraints of space I focus on two major issues: the presence and
potential number of Perioikoi and the events of the final day of
the engagement. In doing so, I hope to contribute to our
understanding of the active and enduring role played by Sparta in
the creation of the narrative of Thermopylae, as well as the effect
of monuments upon ancient writers more generally.
1. The Spartan Monuments erected in honour of Thermopylae
There are no recorded Spartan monuments or other offerings for
Thermopylae dedicated in the major Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries of the
Greek world, probably because the battle ended in a
defeat.[footnoteRef:4] Therefore, there are only two locations in
which monuments were set up commemorating Thermopylae: the pass and
the city of Sparta. [4: The serpent column at Delphi (Hdt. 9.81;
Thuc. 1.134; Paus. 10.13.9; cf. Stephenson 2016) and the statue of
Zeus at Olympia (Hdt. 9.81 Paus. 5.23.1) both celebrated the
Persian Wars as a whole and were dedicated out of the booty of the
entire allied force, although Sparta, as the leading power, played
a significant role in both dedications, and was probably not
expected to offer anything further, cf. Pritchett 1979 (III),
269-74.]
1.1. The Pass at Thermopylae
There were three major commemorative features in the pass of
Thermopylae itself: five inscribed stelai, a polyandrion, and a
stone lion. There exists uncertainty and debate over the form,
function, and even the dating of all three. Aside from two stelai,
all of the monuments here have some connection to Sparta. It is
necessary to stress that they were not all exclusively Spartan, and
that other states and individuals had a stake in their
creation.
Strabo tells us that in his day there were five inscribed stelai
at Thermopylae, although Herodotus only mentions
three.[footnoteRef:5] Four of these inscriptions are explicitly
recorded while the fifth may have honoured the Thespians with an
epigram composed by the otherwise unknown Philiades of
Megara.[footnoteRef:6] Strabo records an inscription honouring the
sacrifice of the Opuntian Lokrians as being ‘on the first of the
five stelai in the area of Thermopylae’ (ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν πέντε
στηλῶν τῶν περὶ Θερμοπύλας), which may suggest it was a later
addition.[footnoteRef:7] Herodotus records the remaining three
epigrams as being in honour of the Peloponnesians as a whole, the
Lakedaimonians, and finally the seer Megistias.[footnoteRef:8]
Aside from the epigram for Megistias, which Simonides set up on his
own initiative and at his own expense, these stones were apparently
commissioned by the Amphiktyons (which included Sparta in a
prominent role).[footnoteRef:9] The first of these inscriptions
reads; [5: Hdt. 7.228; Strab. 9.4.2; 9.4.16. Herodotus does not say
explicitly that he is recording all of the stelai in the pass. ]
[6: Stephanus of Byzantium records the epigram in his entry on
Thespiae. ] [7: The Opuntian Lokrians would have easier access to
the pass than most and could therefore conceivably have added their
own inscription later. ] [8: Hdt. 7.228. ] [9: Scott 2014, 77-9 on
membership and role of the Amphiktyony. ]
‘μυριάσιν ποτὲ τῇδε τριηκοσίαις ἐμάχοντο
ἐκ Πελοποννάσου χιλιάδες τέτορες’
‘Here three million once fought four thousand from the
Peloponnese.’[footnoteRef:10] [10: Hdt. 7.228.1. All Greek texts
follow Perseus Digital Library, all translations are my own. Here I
have simplified the literal 300 ‘myriads’ (=10000) to three
million. ]
There is some disagreement among the ancient sources as to the
exact wording of the epigram set up in honour of the
Lakedaimonians. Herodotus, our earliest source, records;
‘ὧ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι’
‘Stranger, go tell the Lakedaimonians that here we lie, obedient
to their words.’[footnoteRef:11] [11: Hdt. 7.228.2. ]
In contrast, Lycurgus, Diodorus, and Strabo all record the same
alternate reading, in which ῥήμασι (words) has been replaced by
νομίμοις (laws), which required some minor alterations to the word
order to fit the meter;
‘ὧ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα τοῖς κείνων πειθόμενοι νομίμοις’
‘Stranger, go tell the Lakedaimonians that here we lie, obedient
to their laws.’[footnoteRef:12] [12: Lyc. Leocr. 109; Diod.
11.33.2; Strab. 9.4.16. Cicero also appears to have followed this
reading, for he has legibus (laws) at Cic. Tusc. 1.42.101. ]
The meaning conveyed by the epigram as recorded by Lycurgus,
Diodorus, and Strabo influences the translation of Herodotus’
version, specifically that the ῥήμασι (words) should be understood
as shared laws or customs, rather than words or
orders.[footnoteRef:13] Indeed, it has been speculated that ῥήμασι
should be considered synonymous or, at least, associated with
ῥήτρα,[footnoteRef:14] which Plutarch states is the word used for
any law of Lykourgos, but is better understood as an agreement of
some kind.[footnoteRef:15] Without secure epigraphic evidence it is
impossible to be certain which version of the epigram is genuine,
but the sense conveyed is very similar in both. [13: Ziogas 2014
argues strongly against this, asserting that the epigram pins the
blame for the sacrifice of the 300 on the order they received, or
the promised support that never arrived from Sparta. Such a blatant
accusation of betrayal is hard to square with a couplet
commissioned after the eventual Greek victory. ] [14: Loraux 1995,
67. ] [15: Plut. Lyk. 6.1; 13.11. Plutarch’s claim that rhetrai
were so called because they were oracles has little foundation and
has been comprehensively rejected by Van Wees, who instead
demonstrates that in Sparta and elsewhere in the Greek world,
rhetrai were agreements or treaties. Van Wees 1999, 22-3 and n.
64.]
The five stelai in the pass were also said by Strabo to be close
to the polyandrion, commonly identified with the Kolonos (hill)
excavated by Spyradon Marinatos in 1939. Marinatos’ excavations
returned a great number of arrowheads from the base of
Kolonos,[footnoteRef:16] subsequently identified as Assyrian or
Egyptian in comparison with similar material from
Marathon,[footnoteRef:17] in addition to a single Greek
spear-butt.[footnoteRef:18] The top of the Kolonos had undergone
major changes, while excavations on the sides and base were cut
short by a four metre thick layer of ‘cement-like’ stone formed by
the salt springs in addition to a water table which in places was
as little as two meters below ground level.[footnoteRef:19]
Subsequently, Marinatos opened a trench at the widest part of the
pass but found that even after reaching a depth of eight metres the
layers were still Byzantine.[footnoteRef:20] Geological examination
of the pass has revealed that the layer of the 5th century
battlefield is as much as 20 metres below the current ground
surface.[footnoteRef:21] The Kolonos is commonly identified as the
site of the last stand of the 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians, on
the grounds that Herodotus informs us that they were ‘buried where
they fell’.[footnoteRef:22] The Greeks were all eventually buried
in a single tomb, for Strabo speaks of only a single polyandrion at
Thermopylae,[footnoteRef:23] but whether they were interred quickly
by the Persians after Xerxes had made a show of their
corpses,[footnoteRef:24] or only later, once the allied Greeks were
once again able to access Thermopylae, is unclear.[footnoteRef:25]
The significance of the existence of a single tomb and its position
in the pass are considered more fully below. [16: Marinatos 1940,
later supplemented by an English language guide to the site
(Marinatos 1951). ] [17: Snodgrass 1967, 99-100. ] [18: Robertson
1939, 200. ] [19: Marinatos 1940, 340; 1951, 68.] [20: Marinatos
1951, 67-8. ] [21: Kraft et al. 1987, esp. 194. ] [22: Hdt.
7.228.1. ] [23: Strab. 9.4.2; 9.4.16. ] [24: Hdt. 8.25-6 for the
display of the Spartan, Thespian, and Helot corpses. Paus. 9.32.9
explicitly states that the Lakedaimonians were buried by Xerxes. ]
[25: Pritchett 1985 (IV), 168. Paus. 9.32.9 explicitly states that
the Persians buried the dead. ]
The final monument which stood in the pass at Thermopylae was a
stone lion,[footnoteRef:26] set up either in honour of or upon the
grave of Leonidas.[footnoteRef:27] The remains of a (roughly)
square base in an appropriate position for the stone lion at
Thermopylae were described by Kroll and Mittelhaus and may be
connected to the monument.[footnoteRef:28] The surviving base was
composed of large stones, measuring c. 1.1 x 0.57 x 0.4
m.[footnoteRef:29] The stones in question are a mix of limestone,
breccia, and sandstone, not joined with mortar and therefore
conceivably belonging to the 5th century.[footnoteRef:30] A lion
represented a suitable funerary monument for Leonidas, not simply
as a pun on his name but also in the wider context of the use of
lions in Archaic funerary architecture,[footnoteRef:31] including a
Lakonian example from Kythera (fig. 1). Lions were popular due to
their apotropaic nature,[footnoteRef:32] and the allusions to
comparisons between heroes and lions in epic
poetry.[footnoteRef:33] There were also links to the Persians and
other peoples of the East,[footnoteRef:34] whose future incursions
would henceforth be confronted by their own royal symbol. [26: Hdt.
7.225.2. No other ancient authors describe the monument, even
though Pausanias claims to have visited Thermopylae (4.35.9) he
never offers a topographical description of the pass or the
monuments.] [27: The phrase‘ἐπί Λεωνίδῃ’ can be taken to mean
either ‘upon the tomb of Leonidas’ in a local sense, (Pritchett
1985, 171; Corbett 1949) or ‘in honour of Leonidas’, based largely
on Homeric uses of ‘ἐπί’ (Duffy 2018, 103; Curtis West 1965, 185;
How and Wells 1912 (II), 285). Forman 1894, 26-8; 61 records this
passage among others where ἐπί can be translated as ‘in honour of’
but concludes that in each case the local sense is sufficient and
that elsewhere in Herodotus its meaning denotes superposition.]
[28: Kroll and Mittelhaus 1934, 2414. ] [29: The North and
North-West sides of the base are described as missing, the South
side as 14 m and the East side 11.55 m.] [30: Duffy 2018, 103-4. ]
[31: Kokkorou-Alveras 2009, 270-5. We also have Anth. Pal. 344A, an
epigram attributed to Simonides which refers to a lion on a
funerary marker. ] [32: Kosmopoulou 2002, 45.] [33: Markoe 1989,
114-5 lists 28 instances of a hero ‘like a lion attacking (various
prey animals’ and five examples of heroes moving or acting ‘like a
lion’. ] [34: Markoe 1989, 105-9. In Archaic Athens, lions were
popular, possibly due to this diplomatic link to Eastern visitors.
After 490/80 there is a dramatic disappearance of lions from
Athenian art (Kosmopoulou 2002, 95-9).]
1.2. The City of Sparta
Much of our knowledge of the monumental topography of Sparta is
drawn from the description of Pausanias, who visited in the 2nd
century CE.[footnoteRef:35] We must therefore concede that a great
many of the monuments he describes may have been set up long after
the event which they commemorated and any attempt to reconstruct
the dedications made after Thermopylae must be approached with
caution. [35: On the monumental topography of Sparta, see Kourinou
2000. For attempts to reconstruct Pausanias’ route through the city
see most recently Sanders 2009. ]
Perhaps the most prominent monument to the Persian Wars as a
whole is the Persian stoa known from literary
sources,[footnoteRef:36] which may be identified with remains found
on the North-Western edge of the Paliokastro, thought to be the
site of the agora of Sparta.[footnoteRef:37] The striking feature
of this building was, according to both Pausanias and Vitruvius,
the columns built in the shape of Persians, including Mardonius and
Artemisia, noteworthy Persian combatants at Plataia and Salamis
respectively, though no equivalent figure for Thermopylae is ever
described as being included.[footnoteRef:38] Whether the elaborate
architecture found in later authors reflects a 5th century reality
is difficult to answer, for no trace of the caryatid columns has
been found.[footnoteRef:39] Pausanias tells us that the building
was greatly enhanced to reach its form in his day, yet the columns
in the shape of Persians would not be out of place in a classical
context, given their similarity to the more commonly attested
caryatids. A barbarian figurine (fig. 2), which can be conceivably
dated to the 5th century, may be made in imitation of the caryatid
columns of the Persian stoa, but this is extremely speculative. In
addition to the Persian stoa, we also hear of a prominent tomb for
Eurybiades, the Spartan admiral at Artemisium and Salamis, who
Diodorus claims was also the overall commander of both the fleet
and land force at Thermopylae.[footnoteRef:40] [36: Vitr. 1.1.6;
Paus. 3.11.3.] [37: For identification of this structure with the
Persian stoa; Kourinou 2000, 109-112, fig. 2. ] [38: Mardonius:
Hdt. 9.71; Artemisia: Hdt. 8.87-8. ] [39: Spawforth 2012, 118-21
argues that the caryatid columns were added much later than the 5th
century BC. ] [40: Paus. 3.16.6; Diod. 11.4.2. Hammond 1996, 5,
suggests that Eurybiades may have been placed in overall command
because the hoplites under Leonidas were considered sufficient to
hold Thermopylae, whereas the fleet may have to redeploy quickly
and so could not wait for orders. ]
Pausanias also describes a shrine (ἱερὸν) to Alpheios and Maron,
brothers who he says were the bravest at Thermopylae, after
Leonidas himself.[footnoteRef:41] Herodotus reports a similar
claim, although he has the brothers in third place behind Leonidas
and Dienekes.[footnoteRef:42] This shrine was probably a private
structure, set up soon after Thermopylae, yet its appearance is
unclear.[footnoteRef:43] This is the only example of the word
shrine (ἱερὸν) being used to describe the burial of historical
individuals, as opposed to completely mythical or semi-mythical
heroes in his description of Sparta and Lakonia (see fig. 3).
Therefore, we might imagine that the shrine to Alpheios and Maron
was a significant monument, perhaps similar in scale to the Archaic
monumental tomb located on Gerokomeiou Hill, but without further
evidence it is impossible to speculate further.[footnoteRef:44]
[41: Paus. 3.12.9.] [42: Hdt. 7.226-7. Herodotus states that
Dienekes left many sayings behind ‘as a memorial’, perhaps
suggesting a contrast with the physical memorial set up in honour
of Alpheios and Maron. ] [43: Paradiso 2009, 526; Hodkinson 2000,
257-8, n.60. Hodkinson argues that the very existence of a private
shrine must imply official sanction. ] [44: Raftopoulou 1998;
Raftopoulou 2006; Tsouli 2016, 361; Christesen 2018, 322-4.]
The most prominent memorials of Thermopylae visible to Pausanias
were clustered together in a prime spot close to the acropolis. To
date there are no archaeological remains which can be securely
connected to any of these monuments,[footnoteRef:45] so we are left
to rely upon the testimony of Pausanias; [45: The structure
commonly labelled as the ‘Tomb of Leonidas’ (cf. Waldstein 1893;
Kokkou 1977, 74-7) is better interpreted as a shrine, whether of
Apollo Karneios on the basis of inscriptions found in the vicinity
(IG.V.I.222 and V.I.496, 497) or the approximate location of the
House of Crius, in which Karneios was also worshipped (Sanders
2009, 201-2). ]
‘τοῠ θεάτρου δὲ ἀπαντικρὺ Παυσανίου τοῦ Πλαταιᾶσιν ἡγηδσμένου
μνῆμά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Λεωνίδου - καὶ λόγους κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον
ἐπ' αὐτοῖς λέγουσι καὶ τιθέασιν γῶἀνα, ἐν ᾧ πλὴν Σπαρτιατῶν ἄλλῳ γε
οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγωνίζεσωαι -, τὰ δὲ ὀστᾶ τοῦ Λεωνίδου τεσσαράκοντα
ἔτεσιν ὕστερον ἀνελομένου ἐκ Θερμοπυλῶν τοῦ Παυσανίου. κεῖται δὲ
καὶ στήλη πατρόθεν τὰ ὀνόματα ἔχουσα οἳ πρὸς Μήδους τὸν ἐν
Θερμοπύλαις ἀγῶνα ὑπέμειναν.’
‘Opposite the theatre, there is the memorial of Pausanias, the
general at Plataia, and another of Leonidas – and every year they
deliver speeches over them and lay on a contest in which no one
competes except Spartiates– the bones of Leonidas having been taken
up from Thermopylae 40 years later by Pausanias. There is also a
stele set up with the names, and father’s names, of those who
stayed behind at Thermopylae in the contest against the
Medes.’[footnoteRef:46] [46: Paus. 3.14.1.]
The passage poses an immediate problem, as there was no
Pausanias in a position to bring the bones of Leonidas back to
Sparta 40 years after the battle (c. 440). Pausanias the Regent,
commander at Plataia and the subject of the first part of the
passage, died sometime between 471 and 465, while the future king
Pausanias II was at most seven years old in 440. Scholars have
attempted to address this issue by suggesting that 40 years should
be amended to read either 80 years or 4 years, or that 40 years
should stand but that the name of a relative of Pausanias has been
lost from the text.[footnoteRef:47] There is also uncertainty over
the date of the stele bearing the names and patronymics of the 300,
specifically whether it would have been seen by Herodotus, who
boasts that he had learned the names of all of the 300, with many
scholars now favouring a later date.[footnoteRef:48] Herodotus
clearly had good sources in Sparta and presents much that has the
ring of genuine oral enquiry,[footnoteRef:49] but this should not
mean that we reject the notion that he could have gathered some of
his information from epigraphic sources.[footnoteRef:50] Diodorus
preserves a fragment of a poem composed by Simonides in honour of
the Spartans who fell at Thermopylae and which was probably
performed in Sparta.[footnoteRef:51] Low has highlighted the
comparison between the dead of Thermopylae and those of the ‘Battle
of the Champions’, who reportedly received commemoration at Sparta
during the Gymnopaidia festival. However, these honoured dead are a
collective, ‘an anonymous mass’, highlighting the fact that a list
of the dead of Thermopylae, even in a simple form, allows more
individualism than was available to previous Spartan war
dead.[footnoteRef:52] [47: 4 years: Paradiso 2009; 80 years:
Corbett 1949; 40 years: Connor 1979. In my opinion the arguments of
Connor are most convincing.] [48: For arguments against Herodotus
having seen Pausanias list see Marincola 2016 who argues further
that Herodotus’ claim to have learned all the names of the 300
represents a boast on the part of the historian after a lengthy
period of enquiry; Paradiso 2009 who claims that Herodotus may have
gained access to some form of official records and oral sources to
learn the names and that the language used suggests oral enquiry,
rather than reading from a stele. ] [49: Paradiso 2009, 522; West
1985, 302-3; Cartledge 2006, 161. Similarities have been drawn
between Herodotus’ wealth of information on Sparta and Samos as
evidence that he had good sources in both places: Mitchell 1975. ]
[50: West 1985, 303 highlights Herodotus’ regular habit of failing
to mention inscriptions as the source of his information and argues
that he may, in fact, have seen Pausanias’ stele. On Herodotus use
(or lack thereof) of Persian monuments in the creation of his
narrative, see Armayor 1978.] [51: Diod. 11.11.6. ] [52: Low 2011,
5-6. ]
Rather than attempting to dissect Herodotus’ language to
determine whether or not he saw the stele, I would argue that we
should focus on the general picture of Spartan commemoration in the
5th century. Whether we accept a date of 4, 40, or 80 years for the
removal of Leonidas’ bones from Thermopylae we can say that by the
end of the 5th century he had a tomb in Sparta. We might also
conclude that the presence of a shrine to Alpheios and Maron close
to the tombs of Leonidas and Pausanias suggests a private monument
established at a relatively early date. We know that in the second
half of the 5th century individual Spartans who died in war and
were buried elsewhere could be honoured with private or state
cenotaphs.[footnoteRef:53] Therefore, it seems remiss to imagine
that the glorious dead of Thermopylae would be completely ignored,
at least by their families.[footnoteRef:54] Furthermore, the only
extant Spartan polyandrion from the 5th century (that in the
Kerameikos), recorded the names of all the dead in an
inscription.[footnoteRef:55] To summarise: there was eventually a
stele, close to 5th century tombs from the same conflict; Herodotus
had learned (from some source) the names of all the 300; and the
Spartans of the 5th century regularly list the names of the war
dead through both private cenotaphs and on polyandria. In light of
all this, I would argue that a stele listing the names of those who
fell at Thermopylae would not be out of place in Classical Sparta,
rather that its absence would be quite striking.[footnoteRef:56]
[53: The cenotaph of Brasidas, close to the monuments of the
Persian Wars, is a prime candidate for a state monument. Private
cenotaphs existed in the form of the en polemoi stelai, a group of
28 stones dating from the 5th century BC to the 2nd century CE. For
discussion see Low 2006, for a recent catalogue, Christesen 2018,
Appendix 9. ] [54: Given that all the 300 had sons to carry on
their names, we may be confident that for the vast majority there
would be some sort of family group with a stake in commemorating
the dead man after the Persian wars. ] [55: On the tomb: Stroszeck
2006; 2013; Van Hook 1932. The inscription (IG.II2.11678) is
broken, but names two of the dead and labels them as polemarchs. ]
[56: This absence would be all the more striking in contrast to the
monuments erected by other Greek poleis, especially the epigrams
and casualty lists at Marathon which were set up early in the 5th
century. Cf. IG I3.503; Keesling 2012; Janko 2014. ]
2. The Divergent accounts of Thermopylae and the role of
monuments in their formation
The discrepancy between the accounts of Thermopylae found in
Herodotus, Diodorus, and others has previously been commented upon
and analysed.[footnoteRef:57] The interest of this paper is in the
role played by those monuments set up in Thermopylae and Sparta in
the formation, and justification, of these narratives. From the
outset we must acknowledge that this cannot constitute a full
investigation of the factors informing the different versions of
the Thermopylae story, for Herodotus and subsequent historians
relied heavily on oral tradition and other written sources, many of
which have since been lost.[footnoteRef:58] However, it is also
important to acknowledge that monuments, including inscriptions,
constituted a key form of evidence for Herodotus, even if he did
not always cite them explicitly.[footnoteRef:59] For example,
Herodotus and Pausanias both name Alpheios and Maron as some of the
bravest Spartiates after Leonidas, yet Herodotus offers no examples
of their deeds (as he does for Dienekes) and Pausanias’ only
evidence for their bravery seems to be the very existence of their
shrine in Sparta.[footnoteRef:60] [57: Hammond 1996; Flower 1998. ]
[58: Cf. esp. Hammond 1996, who postulates the existence of a more
pro-Spartan history of the Persian Wars. ] [59: West 1985.] [60:
Hdt. 7.226-7; Paus. 3.12.9.]
The following discussion is limited to two key discrepancies
between the accounts: the number and make up of the Lakedaimonian
force at Thermopylae, and the events of the final day, including
the burial of the dead. The discrepancies between the various
historical sources on these issues are set out in Table 1 and
2.
Ancient Reference(s)
Number of Lakedaimonians
Number of other Peloponnesians
Other Greeks present
Hdt. 7.202
300 Spartiates; Helots
2800 in total
400 Thebans; 700 Thespians; 1000 Phokians; ‘Full army’ of
Opuntian Lokrians
Diod. 11.4.5-7
1000 including 300 Spartiates
3000 in total
1000 Lokrians; 1000 Melians; <1000 Phokians; 400 Thebans
Isoc. 4.90; 6.99
1000 Lakedaimonians
Paus. 3.4.7; 10.20.1
300
2800 (follows Herodotus)
400 Thebans; 700 Thespians; 1000 Phokians; <6000 Opuntian
Lokrians (follows Herodotus)
Plut. Mor. 865C-D
300 Spartiates?[footnoteRef:61] [61: Here we must rue the loss
of Plutarch’s Life of Leonidas, in which he would have described
the number of the Greeks present. The passage quoted here, part of
his work On the Malice of Herodotus, refers to Herodotus’ treatment
of the Thebans, particularly that Leonidas would not be so foolish
as to think that 400 armed Thebans could be kept as hostages by his
300. ]
Dem. 59.94-5
Plataians, no other Boiotians.
Table 1. The number of Greeks present at Thermopylae
Ancient Reference(s)
Greeks remaining in the pass
Battle
Burial
Hdt. 7.222-8; 8.24-5
Spartiates; Thebans; Thespians; Helots
Surrender of Thebans, last stand on the hill in the pass
‘Buried where they fell’
Diod. 11.9.2-11.10.4
Lakedaimonians and Thespians (< 500)
Night attack
Plut. Mor. 865A-866A
Lakedaimonians; Thebans; Thespians
Night Attack
Strab. 9.4.2
Single polyandrion
Paus. 9.32.9
Xerxes buried the Lakedaimonian dead
Paus. 10.20.2
Lakedaimonians; Thespians; Mycenaeans
Table 2. The last day at Thermopylae
2.1. The number of Lakedaimonians at Thermopylae and the
disappearing Perioikoi
The first issue at stake is the composition of the Lakedaimonian
contingent at Thermopylae.[footnoteRef:62] Herodotus records only
the 300 Spartiates,[footnoteRef:63] whereas Diodorus, following
Ephorus and potentially another lost source, has 1000
Lakedaimonians, including 300 Spartiates.[footnoteRef:64] Hammond’s
solution is that the 1000 Lakedaimonians have dropped out of the
text,[footnoteRef:65] a position rejected by
Flower.[footnoteRef:66] Flower suggests that the Perioikoi are
omitted from Herodotus’ report because they did not remain in the
pass to die with the 300 Spartiates, yet there is no evidence to
support this beyond the absence of the Perioikoi from Herodotus’
account.[footnoteRef:67] Indeed, all the sources are in agreement
that, two individual exceptions aside,[footnoteRef:68] all the
Lakedaimonians who went to Thermopylae remained in the
pass.[footnoteRef:69] [62: On the term Lakedaimonian as extending
to the Perioikoi as well as Spartiates, cf. Ducat 2017, 597. For
the composition of Lakedaimon as a state and the role of the
Perioikoi within it: Ducat 2010; 2017; Shipley 1997; 2006.] [63:
Hdt. 7.205.2. ] [64: Diod. 11.4.5. The literal Greek would suggest
that there were 1000 Lakedaimonians and ‘with them 300 Spartiates’
(καὶ συν ὰὐτοῖς Σπαρτιᾶται τριακόσιοι) for a total of 1300, but
this is at odds with Diodorus’ own figures (Leonidas took 1000
Lakedaimonians in total, plus 3000 other Greeks, for a total of
4000 hoplites. Diod. 11.4.5-6). Understanding the former passage as
1000 Lakedaimonians, including 300 Spartitates also conforms with
the epitaphs honouring the 4000 from the Peloponnese, cf. Flower
1998, 367-8. ] [65: Hammond 1996, 12, n.9.] [66: Flower 1998,
n.19.] [67: Flower 1998, 368. ] [68: Aristodemos (Hdt. 7.229-31)
and Pantites (Hdt. 7.232). ] [69: Flower cites two passages of
Isocrates (Panegyricus 90 and Archidamus 99) which attest the
presence of 1000 Lakedaimonians but, as he admits himself (n.20),
both of these passages imply that all 1000 Lakedaimonians perished
in the pass. Cf. also Lysias 2.30-1; Xen. Hell. 6.5.43. ]
The numerical problem is confounded by the epigram which stated
that 4000 Peloponnesians fought in the battle.[footnoteRef:70]
Diodorus is clearly keen to make his history agree with this
epigram, for he has Leonidas and his 1000 Lakedaimonians joined by
3000 more Greeks before leaving the Peloponnese.[footnoteRef:71]
Herodotus is far more specific, breaking down the numbers by
contingent,[footnoteRef:72] but comes up with only 3100
Peloponnesians, including the 300 Spartans. Furthermore, Herodotus
seems to confuse the epigram for an epitaph, though the words
‘τῇδε… ἐμάχοντο’ mean ‘fought here’, not ‘died here’. Later,
Herodotus describes a scene where Xerxes invites the Persians from
the fleet to gaze upon the Greek dead at Thermopylae, who number
4000 combined Spartans, Thespians, and Helots.[footnoteRef:73] It
may be that Herodotus has adapted his account of this later event
to fit his understanding of the inscription[footnoteRef:74] and,
therefore, he does not see any discrepancy between his account of
the number of Peloponnesians who fought in the pass with the number
quoted in the inscription.[footnoteRef:75] If we were to add the
700 Perioikoi of Diodorus to the specific numbers found in
Herodotus it would make 3800 Peloponnesians, a much more agreeable
total in line with the epigram, but this requires some explanation
of their absence from Herodotus’ account. The answer may lie in the
list of those who fought at Thermopylae seen in Sparta by Pausanias
(see above). The central position of this monument in Sparta and
the contemporary Spartan traditions of commemoration suggest that
conceivably only the Spartiates would be named.[footnoteRef:76] The
Perioikoi, if they were commemorated at all, would probably be
honoured in their own communities or by their individual families.
Herodotus’ focus on the bravery and the sacrifice of the 300
Spartiates may therefore reflect the commemorative emphasis of the
Spartans themselves, expressed through their choice of monuments.
Diodorus, on the other hand, ensures that his number of combatants
matches the number specified on the epigram, but does not focus
narrowly on the heroics of the Spartiates. [70: Hdt. 7.228; Diod.
11.33.2.] [71: Diod. 11.4.5.] [72: Hdt. 7.202. Herodotus varies in
his level of detail, e.g. 120 men from Arkadian Orchomenos, 1000
from the ‘rest of Arkadia’. ] [73: Hdt. 8.24-5. This event is not
mentioned in any other ancient source. ] [74: Hammond 1996, 7. ]
[75: This would require at least 3000 Helots to be present at
Thermopylae, at a ratio of ten Helots per Spartiate. This is
slightly higher than the seven Helots per Spartiate Herodotus
reports at Plataia (9.28.2), but not so extreme as to be
impossible. ] [76: Archaic dedications from Sparta are evenly split
between those made by ‘Spartiates’ and ‘Lakedaimonians’.
(Spartiates: IG V.I.1561; 1563. Lakedaimonians: SEG 11.956/1214;
SEG 26.476). After the Persian Wars, victory dedications are always
made in the name of the Lakedaimonians as a whole. ]
2.2. The Events of the Final Day.
As noted above, the ancient sources are largely in agreement
over the Greeks who remained in the pass: the Lakedaimonians and
Thespians are unanimously agreed upon, with the Thebans remaining
either under duress (Herodotus), or voluntarily (Plutarch).
Pausanias also states that the Mycenaeans chose to remain, a claim
not supported by any other author, nor corroborated by the
existence of a monument. In contrast, the version of events of the
final hours of the engagement at Thermopylae are very different:
Herodotus narrates a sortie beyond the defensive wall, followed by
a retreat and eventual last stand on a hillock, while Diodorus and
Plutarch both follow an alternative version in which Leonidas leads
the Lakedaimonians on a night attack of the Persian encampment,
hoping to find and kill Xerxes. In addition, Herodotus states
categorically that the Spartans and Thespians who fell in the last
stand were ‘buried at the very place where they
fell’.[footnoteRef:77] The discrepancy between the two narratives
is therefore clear: if the Spartans launched a night attack on the
Persian encampment and were eventually surrounded and killed there,
then they were certainly not buried where they
fell.[footnoteRef:78] [77: Hdt. 7.228.1 (θαφθεῖσι δέ σφι αὐτοῦ
ταύτῃ τῇ περ ἐπέσον). We could allow for this to refer to the pass
as a whole, rather than the hillock, but this would still not
explain the discrepancy between the two narratives. ] [78: Hammond
1996, 9 believes the Persian camp was nearly five miles away,
making a retreat and last stand impossible. Flower 1998, 377 argues
that it would have covered a large area and so conceivably some
Spartans could have made it back to the hillock by daylight. Diod.
11.10.4 clearly implies that the Spartans were surrounded and
killed in the midst of the Persians. ]
At first glance it appears that Herodotus may have selected his
version of events to fit the monuments erected in the pass. This
hillock was home not only to the polyandrion but also, apparently,
the inscriptions and stone lion. The setting up of monuments in
significant spots such as this creates a circular argument: the
monuments apparently mark the site of the last stand, but the only
evidence of this is the monuments themselves.[footnoteRef:79]
Whether or not Herodotus knew of alternate versions of the events
of Thermopylae,[footnoteRef:80] his reference to the stone lion and
the inscriptions are intended to justify his chosen narrative. [79:
For a similar circular argument, cf. the tropaion erected outside
Amphipolis on the very spot where Brasidas engaged the Athenians
(Thuc. 4.10.). ] [80: Hdt. 7.213-4 records an alternative tradition
of the revelation of the goat track to Xerxes, so was certainly
aware of multiple versions of the story. For the existence of other
5th century historians and Herodotus’ awareness thereof cf. Fowler
1996, disputed by Flower 1998, 368. ]
Even within the confines of Herodotus’ own work, this assertion
that the heroic Greeks were buried in the very spot where they fell
is difficult to justify. When the Persians from the fleet are
invited to look upon the bodies of the Spartans (see above), the
4000 dead Greeks have been ‘brought together in one
spot’.[footnoteRef:81] By admitting that the bodies were moved and
arranged by the Persians, Herodotus undermines his earlier claim
that they were buried where they fell. Furthermore, it is prudent
to consider the burial of those who died before the final day.
Herodotus says that the inscriptions were set up over both those
who died in the last stand, and those who died before the allies
were dismissed by Leonidas, apparently all in a single tomb. This
means that either the dead lay unburied for several days and were
subsequently interred with those who died in the last stand, or
that the position in which the earlier dead were buried was
eventually used for all the Greek dead. These inconsistencies are
not insignificant, and they should rightly call into question the
accuracy of Herodotus’ report concerning the aftermath and burial.
However, they do not significantly detract from the argument that
Herodotus has arranged his narrative of the battle itself to fit
the monuments which a contemporary visitor could see in the pass.
[81: Hdt. 8.25. ]
The available evidence suggests that the Greeks were buried
quickly by the Persians or Medizing Greeks in the Persian army. It
is probable that the allied Greeks subsequently enhanced the tomb,
possibly creating a larger tumulus, and added inscribed stelai. In
the construction of subsequent narratives, the night attack has
apparently become more alluring, perhaps because later writers did
not believe that the Greeks were buried exactly where they fell,
and therefore had no reason to discount the night attack in favour
of a last stand.
3. Conclusion
There were doubtless multiple ways in which the Spartans, and
other Greeks, projected their contribution to the Persian Wars.
Herodotus, his 5th century contemporaries, and subsequent
historians have drawn on a wealth of sources, of which the physical
monuments formed a small yet key part. The monuments constructed by
Sparta specifically to commemorate Thermopylae all sought to
highlight the heroic actions and bravery of a small group of
citizens who fell fighting unassailable odds. Herodotus in
particular appears to have been swayed by his conviction that the
epigrams in Thermopylae marked the very spot where the Spartans
made their last stand, while also concluding on the basis of a
commemorative stele in Sparta that the sacrifice was made by the
Spartiates alone. Later writers apparently understood the
monumental evidence differently, and so adjusted their numbers to
fit with the epigrams in the pass and restored the contribution of
the Perioikoi, which had gone without celebration in the city of
Sparta itself.
In light of Herodotus’ use of visual monuments in the
construction, or at least the justification, of his narrative, we
may in future interrogate other aspects of his history in a similar
manner. For example, was Herodotus’ description of the actions of
the Thebans at Thermopylae based on his own personal prejudice, as
Plutarch asserts, or was this in part based on the lack of
commemoration afforded to the Thebans in light of their conduct
throughout the rest of the war? If the other contingents who fought
at Thermopylae were honoured with stelai, the Theban contingent
would be conspicuous by its absence, making it far easier to
justify a version of events in which they only ever fought against
the Persians under duress, and surrendered as soon as they had the
opportunity.
Bibliography
Armayor, O. K. 1978. “Herodotus’ Catalogues of the Persian
Empire in the Light of the Monuments and the Greek Literary
Tradition.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association. American Philological Association 108:
1–9.
Cartledge, P. 2007. Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the
World. London: Macmillon.
Christesen, P. 2018. “The Typology and Topography of Spartan
Burials from the Protogeometric to the Hellenistic Period:
Rethinking Spartan Exceptionalism and the Ostensible Cessation of
Adult Intramural Burials in the Greek World.” Annual of the British
School at Athens 113 (November): 307–63.
Connor, W. R. 1979. “Pausanias 3.14.1: A Sidelight on Spartan
History, C. 440 B.C.?” Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association. American Philological Association 109:
21–27.
Corbett, P. E. 1949. “ΛΕΩΝ ΕΠΙ ΛΕΩΝΙΔΗΙ.” Hesperia: The Journal
of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 18 (1):
104–7.
Ducat, J. 2010. “The Ghost of the Lakedaimonian State.” In
Sparta: The Body Politic, edited by A. Powell and S. Hodkinson,
183–210. Classical Press of Wales.
———. 2017. “The Perioikoi.” In A Companion to Sparta, edited by
Anton Powell, 596–614. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Duffy, X. 2018. Commemorating Conflict: Greek Mounuments of the
Persian Wars. Archaeopress Publishing.
Flower, M. A. 1998. “Simonides, Ephorus, and Herodotus on the
Battle of Thermopylae.” Classical Quarterly 48 (2): 365–79.
Forman, L. L. 1894. The Difference Between the Genitive and
Dative Used with Epi to Denote Superpostion. Baltimore.
Fowler, R. L. 1996. “Herodotos and His Contemporaries.” The
Journal of Hellenic Studies / the Society for the Promotion of
Hellenic Studies 116: 62–87.
Hammond, N. G. L. 1996. “Sparta at Thermopylae.” Historia:
Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 45 (1): 1–20.
Hodkinson, S. 2000. Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta.
London: Duckworth & The Classical Press of Wales.
How, W. W., and J. Wells. 1912. A Commentary on Herodotus with
Introduction and Appendixes.
Janko, R. 2014. “The New Epitaph for the Fallen at Marathon (SEG
56.430).” Zeitschrift Fur Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 190:
11–12.
Keesling, C. M. 2012. “The Marathon Casualty List from
Eua-Loukou and the Plinthedon Style in Attic Inscriptions.”
Zeitschrift Fur Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 180: 139–48.
Kokkorou-Alevras, G. 2009. “Funerary Statuary of the Archaic
Period in the Peloponnese.” In Honouring the Dead in the
Peloponnese: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Sparta, edited by
H. Cavanagh, W. G. Cavanagh, and J. Roy, 269–80. CSPS Online
Publication 2.
Kokkou, A. 1977. Η μέριμνα για τις Αρχαιότητες στην Ελλάδα και
τα πρώτα Μουσεία. Athens.
Konijnendijk, R. 2019. “Commemoration through Fear: The Spartan
Reputation as a Weapon of War.” In Commemorating War and War Dead:
Ancient and Modern, edited by M. Giangiulio, E. Franchi, and G.
Proietti, 257–70. Franz Steiner Verlag.
Kosmopoulou, A. 2002. The Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases
in the Archaic and Classical Periods. University of Wisconsin
Press.
Kourinou, E. 2000. Σπαρτη: Συμβολή στή μνημειαχή τοπογραφία της.
Athens: Horos.
Kraft, J. C., G. R., Szemler, G. J., Tziavos, C., Kase. E. 1987.
“The Pass at Thermopylae, Greece.” Journal of Field Archaeology 14
(2): 181–98.
Kroll, W., and Mittelhaus, K. eds. 1934. Paulys Realenzyklopädie
Der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche
Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Loraux, N. 1995. “The Experiences of Tiresias: The Feminine and
the Greek Man, Trans.” P. Wissing, Princeton, NJ.
Low, P. 2006. “Commemorating the Spartan War-Dead.” In Sparta
and War, edited by Stephen Hodkinson and Anton Powell, 85–109.
Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales.
———. 2011. “The Power of the Dead in Classical Sparta: The Case
of Thermopylae.” In Living Through the Dead: Burial and
Commemoration in the Classical World., edited by Maureen Carroll
and Jane Rempel, 1–20.
Marinatos, S. 1951. Thermopylae: An Historical and
Archaeological Guide. Ekdosis Ellenikou Organismou Tourismou.
Marincola, J. 2016. “The Historian as Hero: Herodotus and the
300 at Thermopylae.” TAPA 146 (2): 219–36.
Markoe, G. E. 1989. “The ‘Lion Attack’ in Archaic Greek Art:
Heroic Triumph.” Classical Antiquity 8 (1): 86–115.
Mitchell, B. M. 1975. “Herodotus and Samos.” The Journal of
Hellenic Studies / the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic
Studies 95: 75–91.
Paradiso, A. 2009. “Herodotus’ List of the Three Hundred.” In
Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese: Proceedings of the
Conference Held at Sparta 23-25 April 2009, edited by Helen
Cavanagh, William Cavanagh, and James Roy, 521–36. Nottingham:
Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies.
Pritchett, W. K. 1979. The Greek State at War, Part III.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 1985. The Greek State at War, Part IV. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Raftopoulou, S. 1998. “New Finds from Sparta.” British School at
Athens Studies 4: 125–40.
Robertson, M. 1939. “Archaeology in Greece 1938-39.” The Journal
of Hellenic Studies / the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic
Studies 59: 189–209.
Sanders, G. D. R. 2009. “Platanistas, the Course and Carneus:
Their Places in the Topography of Sparta.” British School at Athens
Studies 16: 195–203.
Scott, M. 2014. Delphi: A History of the Center of the Ancient
World. Princeton University Press.
Shipley, G. 1997. “‘The Other Lakedaimonians’: The Dependent
Perioikic Poleis of Laconia and Messenia.” In The Polis as an Urban
Centre and as a Political Community, edited by M. H. Hansen,
189–281. Copenhagen.
———. 2006. “Sparta and Its Perioikic Neighbours: A Century of
Reassessment.” Hermathena 181: 51–82.
Snodgrass, A. 1967. Arms and Armour of the Greeks. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Sourlas, D.. 2018. “«Τὰ δὲ Κύθηρα νῆσός ἐστιν, ἐπίκειται δὲ τῇ
Λακωνικῇ κατὰ Μαλέαν». Τα γλυπτά των Κυθήρων και η μαρτυρία τους
για την ιστορία και τις σχέσεις του νησιού.” In Το Αρχαιολογικο
εργο στην Πελοποννησο (Αεπελ1): Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου
Τρίπολη, 7-11 Νοεμβρίου 2012., edited by Ελένη Ζυμή, Άννα-Βασιλική
Καραπαναγιώτου, and Μαρία Ξανθοπούλου, 467–82. Kalamata.
Spawforth, A. J. S. 2012. Greece and the Augustan Revolution.
Cambridge.
Stephenson, P. 2016. The Serpent Column: A Cultural Biography.
Oxford University Press.
Stroszeck, J. 2006. “Lakonisch-Rotfigurige Keramik Aus Den
Lakedaimoniergräbern Am Kerameikos von Athen (403 v. Chr.).”
Archäologischer Anzeiger, 101–20.
———. 2013. “Το Μνημείο των Λακεδαιμονίων στον Κεραμεικό. Ένα
ταφικό μνημείο στο προσκήνιο του αθηναϊκού εμφυλίου πολέμου του
403.” In War, Peace, and Panhellenic Games, edited by P. Cartledge,
A. Gartsiou-Tatti, N. Birgalias, K. Buraselis, and M. Dimopoulou,
381–402. Pyrgos.
Tsouli, M. 2016. “Testimonia on Funerary Banquets in Ancient
Sparta.” In Dining and Death: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the
“Funerary Banquet”in Ancient Art, Burial and Belief, edited by C.
Draycott and M. Stamatopoulou.
Van Hook, L. 1932. “On the Lacedaemonians Buried in the
Kerameikos.” American Journal of Archaeology 36 (3): 290–92.
Van Wees, H. 1999. “Tyrtaeus’ Eunomia: Nothing to Do with the
Great Rhetra.” In Sparta: New Perspectives, edited by Stephen
Hodkinson and Anton Powell, 1–42. Swansea: The Classical Press of
Wales.
Waldstein, C. 1893. “Report of the Director.” In 11th Annual
Report of the Managing Committee of the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens, 1891-2, 21–32. Cambridge, MA.
West, S. 1985. “Herodotus’ Epigraphical Interests*.” Classical
Quarterly 35 (2): 278–305.
West, W. C. 1965. “Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars.”
PhD, University of North Carolina.
Ziogas, I. 2014. “Sparse Spartan Verse: Filling Gaps in the
Thermopylae Epigram.” Ramus 43 (2): 115–33.
Figures
Figure 3. The breakdown of terms for funerary structures in
Pausanias Book 3
Figure 2. Archaic Lion from Kythera (image from Sourlas 2018,
479, fig. 1)
Figure 1. Barbarian Figurine from Sparta (ADelt 27 B'1 (1972),
Pl. 186)
Shrine (5)
Hieron (5)HistoricalSemi-mythologicalMythological104
Tomb (10)
Taphos (10)HistoricalSemi-mythologicalMythological406
Memorial (22)
Mnema (22)HistoricalSemi-mythologicalMythological8311
Hero-shrine (21)
Heroon (21)HistoricalSemi-mythologicalMythological2118
