Alright, going to pick up again live-tweeting my reactions to the next few videos in Steven Pressfield's 'The Warrior Archteype series.' I looked at the first five videos last time here:
The short summary of the first five videos is that they presented a utopian Sparta, almost entirely from Plutarch, read very uncritically & thus fell prey to the Myths of Spartan Equality and Spartan Military Excellence, which I have already exploded here: acoup.blog/2019/08/16/col…
Now I want to change up my tone a little bit because in the first posts I was rather flip and dismissive and I want to offer a bit more intellectual charity here.

Now on to 'Episode Six' which is...oh good heavens...which is "Come and Take Them." Because of course it is.
He opens by presenting 'Molon Labe' (still being questionably pronounced 'Molan Labe' rather than mol-own lah-bay) as something we absolutely know Leonidas said.

Tricky. μολὼν λαβέ does not appear in Herodotus, our best source for Thermopylae.
Instead, the saying is reported by Plutarch (surprise, more Plutarch read uncritically). Now while Herodotus wrote about the battle probably around 50 years after it happened (and doesn't include the phrase), Plutarch is writing c. 100 **AD**, 580 years later.
Needless to say, Plutarch - who gives no sense of his source and is often willing to rely on hearsay and legend - can hardly be considered reliable at this point.

So we cannot be confident that Leonidas even said that thing at that moment (or ever).

Not a great start.
"A force of 300 picked Spartan warriors, supported by 4,000 other Greek allies..."

That's going to be a hard no. Herodotus gives (excluding the Spartans) 2,800 Peloponnesians, 1,100 Boeotians, 1,000 Phocians, 'the full force' of the Locrians, plus the fleet.
Plus we know there were other Lacedaemonians (Perioikoi) there, around a thousand.

That's no less than 5,900 non-Spartiates on land - unclear why we get no number for the Locrians - plus the (mostly Athenian) fleet at Artemisium (271 ships, c. 50,000 men).
Diodorus gives a fuller - but perhaps not more accurate? - accounting and lands at 7,400.

So 300 Spartans, supported by c. 6-7k other land troops, supported in turn by c. 50,000 sailors and marines, for a combined operational strength of almost 60,000.
And as Herodotus is quick to note, Thermopylae was *not* imagined as a delaying action. The small force there expected new troops to arrive day by day. The plan - which failed catastrophically - was to hold Xerxes *indefinitely* at the pass.
"An invading army of what Herodotus named 2 million Persians."

Two problems.

1) Absolutely no modern historian believes Herodotus on this point. Much smaller.

But:
2) He's gotten Herodotus wrong too - Herodotus is very clear about the multi-ethnic nature of this army.
He lists out all of the various peoples that Xerxes has brought, of which the Persians were only a small minority.

I could excuse this if it was '2 million Persian Soldiers' - where we might imagine 'Persian' means 'in service of the Persian state'...
But '2 million Persians' without that word 'soldiers' implies ethnic Persians, which is an incorrect characterization of Herodotus.

Which is, again, a double error, since Herodotus is telling tall-tales. So Pressfield has given a false report of a false report.
We are 50 seconds into this video, guys. Jeepers.
"The Spartans died there, to the last man, as they knew they would..."

NO. Herodotus is clear: the Greeks expected to achieve decisive victory at Thermopylae. The 300 Spartans left Sparta expecting to win and come home.

This was not a suicide mission, just a disastrous defeat.
"by their sacrifice...and they saved Western Civilization."

Even if you buy the 'western civ' narrative hook, line and sinker (and you should be skeptical) this line is still bunk.

The western Med. - Syracuse, Rome, Etruria, Carthage - just peachy if Persia takes Greece.
I think this is a problem in how the ancient Med. is taught, with Greece first and then Rome, which gives a sense that the one happened and then the other.

By Thermopylae, the Roman Republic had been founded, Syracuse was 300+ years old, Carthage about as old.
"If there's such a thing as a good war, this was it...it was entirely defensive."

Uh, this conflict started because Athens funded rebel proxy groups in Persian territory and then Sparta backed them when the Persians got upset. Not *entirely* defensive.
"It was against overwhelming odds" and thus heroic.

Or stupid? I come back to this, but Thermopylae was just a really bad plan - forward defense with a half-formed up army in an exposed position giving pitched battle while wildly outnumbered.
"Had the Persians won, there would have been no such thing as democracy."

Ok, 1) democracy already existed by this point - Cleisthenes' reforms, typically taken as the start of Athenian democracy, were in 508.

But 2) Persia did not generally interfere with internal government.
Greek poleis would have continued to have their assemblies and their councils and so on. There were Greek democracies under Persian rule!

They were not independent, of course - and this is a meaningful distinction - but they existed!
Also, the Spartans: not fans of democracy. The idea of the Spartans as 'defenders of democracy' is pretty laughable - the Spartan Cleomenes had tried to strangle Athenian democracy in its crib in 510 and 506.
"No such thing as the rights of man"

Natural Law has antecedents in Greek philosophy (though it only appears in full in Roman writing), but that philosophy was stoicism - one of the 'philosophies of comfort' that emerges as a response to the loss of Greek liberty to Alexander.
Unlike the Romans, the Greeks didn't have a strongly developed idea of a 'ius gentium' ('Law of Peoples'), that is, a law that held and bound all peoples regardless of citizenship of ethnicity.

So, no, 'human rights' weren't saved at Thermopylae.
He comes back to the idea that the Spartans knew they were going to die (they didn't) and it is his central point about this battle.

So...the whole argument collapses because he didn't read Herodotus very closely.
'The Spartans fought in a very dense compact mass'

Two issues. First, if I don't note real uncertainty about how battle worked in 480, @Roelkonijn is going to bop me on the head. I think it is plausible that something like a phalanx was in use by this point, but we don't know.
The bigger issue is that this style of fighting when it did emerge was not unique to the Spartans. It was not some unique Spartan warrior formation.

It was how every Greek fought, including the potters and bakers the Spartans *despised* with all of their being.
'Now the Spartan shield'

GREEK shield. Spartan aspides were not special.

Oak as the material for Spartan shields. No.

Shield woods were generally light and that went double for the already heavy aspis. Pliny says poplar, we have an example from Sicily with willow.
He goes on for a bit on the qualities of oak, which is rather pointless given the previous point.

Also, he declares that 'nothing is going to penetrate this' which flies in the face of both some combat narratives in the sources and modern tests. Shields are good, not perfect.
Making declarative statements about the grips (overhand/underhand) of hoplite weapons.

This is something that drives me absolutely nuts about pop-history like this: confident statements about points of real uncertainty.

*Probably* overhand was more common, as in art.
On this debate, note @Roelkonijn 's r/AskHistorians realtalk here: reddit.com/r/AskHistorian…
'How did the Persians fight..they fought as archers, primarily.'

Wild oversimplification of a complex, combined arms Achaemenid army that incorporated light infantry, missile troops, what I'd call 'medium' infantry, skirmish cavalry, etc.
The general point here - that Achaemenid armies were more 'fire' oriented and Greek armies more 'shock' oriented is, I think, sound, but the degree of difference is wildly overstated.
'They might have a leather jerkin that they wore'

FFS. 'Leather Jerkin' is mostly a thing in Dungeons and Dragons. No serious student of historical armor uses this phrase, except for very early modern things like buff coats.

So no, not leather jerkins.
I'd say, conservatively, 75% references to leather armor I see are bunk; most often the armor in question is actually textile.

Not to say there weren't leather armors! Hardened leather, buff coats, leather lamellar, sure...but the DnD imagined leather is vastly overgeneralized.
"Leonidas seems like he was a quotation machine" - as related in legend by an author 600 years later and this prompts no suspicion or critical thinking at all?

C'mon.
That video was 8 minutes and 16 seconds long and I count 18 points of either error or significant misrepresentation.

I expected to get through more of these tonight, but the next batch will have to wait.
Before I bounce out, I should note that, after six videos about the Spartans - looking at the list, a lot of these are about Sparta - still no mention of the 80-90% of Spartan society which were not Spartiates.

Or any mention the Spartans had slaves at all.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with "Online Rent-a-Sage" Bret Devereaux

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BretDevereaux

Dec 16
I'm sympathetic to arguments that academics need to do better communicating with the public, but @wesyang is not @DrAllyLouks ' colleague and universities are predicated on the reasonable notion that only those at the edge of human knowledge are qualified to assess work there. 1/
That's not a slight at @wesyang but merely a true thing. No one does everything.

I'm not qualified to assess someone's physics research - either to know if it is well done or to know if it advances the field.

Which is why we leave that decision to folks in the field! 2/
Now it is fair to say academics at public institutions owe something to those publics (note the PhD was at Cambridge but most of the whinging is from Americans so we've already failed this test) to demonstrate the value of the field.

But that's not what a dissertation is! 3/
Read 13 tweets
Dec 14
This week on the blog: closing thoughts on Gladiator II and how it treats the city of Rome, gladiators and the Severan dynasty.

In particular, we look at why the real, historical Caracalla is history's crushing rebuttal to this film's own themes.

acoup.blog/2024/12/13/col…
In any case, the movie isn't *good* but what is surprising is that it mangles the Severans so badly that it doesn't seem to realize that the real Caracalla *is* the man-of-violence the film thinks Rome needs, but that actually turned out really badly in the event.
Also, to a degree I think a lot of reviews have actually missed, this is a shockingly anti-LGBTQ movie, where all of the villains are queer-coded and/or effeminate and all of the heroes are explicitly in straight marriages, both without exception.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 18
Kinda odd to ask a question and turn off replies, sort of defeats the purpose.

But its gone very badly and quite obviously so. As a move to weaken or deter Israel, a pretty miserable and counter-productive failure that got more Yemenis and Palestinians killed on the net. 1/
Red Sea shipping remains down by about 50%, which hasn't meaningfully deterred Israel, but did contribute (with a whole bunch of other things) to a political climate in which you have an incoming administration whose position is essentially a green-light for Gaza annexations. 2/
The Status-quo-coalition response (Prosperity Guardian and Aspides) continues to carry out strikes in Yemen while Houthi strikes on shipping seem increasingly ineffective and strikes on warships have been entirely ineffective. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Nov 15
Apparently this comment is sparking debate as if it really counts as 'mind control' if someone doesn't control your actions, but merely your sense perception so you can only see and hear a convincing fake world they present.

I am gonna contend that yes, that is 'mind control.'
If someone can make you see and hear things which are not there, and disguise things that are such that you don't know that, say, your city is burning and under siege, I don't think you are operating with complete free will and can be understood to be under a form of coercion.
And in my view that's a problem because the sad end of Celebrimbor really only makes thematic sense if you understand his decision to be arrogant, self-serving and wilful: he is making the rings in defiance of Eru's plan, for elves only, out of arrogance.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 14
So in the last 24 hours, I've seen serious, well-informed people conclude that Trump's nominees
1) are obviously unconfirmable
2) will obviously be confirmed
3) there will be no confirmation process.

I think that high level of uncertainty is notable and quite bad. 1/
I think the source of it is its just really hard to understand a 'normal' reason to nominate a bunch of people (Hegseth, Gabbard, Gaetz, esp.) who would be obviously unconfirmable in normal circumstances for any other administration.

It prompts confusing, upsetting questions. 2/
The one answer I am most skeptical of is the assumption this is 5-D chess to take over the government, if only because it would be extremely foolish to precipitate a showdown with Congress *before* you had your yes-men in charge of DoJ and DoD. 3/
Read 6 tweets
Nov 11
Further DA: Veilguard thoughts: I've heard folks rip on the writing. I think it's not *bad* but it also isn't strong.

Part of the problem for me is not enough thought was put in to how individuals embedded in this world might talk about things. 1/
Take for example, the Evanuris, the gods of the Elves, who are a major part of the plot. Regardless of background or faction, characters generally call them 'the gods' or 'the risen gods.'

Two problems: one, hearing that over again sounds strange and two there's no variation. 2/
Most people in the DA world (Thedas) worship the Maker and Andraste - those characters are not going to call the Evanuris 'the gods,' because they don't think they are.

You might get the proper noun 'Evanuris,' but I'd expect 'false gods' or more rude variations of that. 3/
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(