Muh Spartans

>Weapons
>Equal

U wut m8

7000 troops holding less than 100 metres for 2 days is not that impressive when you think about it.

By whom? Outside of anally-devastated Texans it isn't.

It is when you are using spears and sheilds.

>>muh Bowie

Numbers are pretty much irrelevant until they got flanked for those defending. They could have had a billion men. Only about three lines can engage.

t.butthurt Persian

Because...

WOLVERINES!!!

Your teacher is an idiot. The details have been overstated for the sake of storytelling (some accounts say the Persian army consisted of nearly 3 million troops when modern estimates say that at maximum there were probably around a hundred thousand. The Persian army was still substantially larger than the defending forces (including mercenaries) by a pretty large margin.

Probably because its an early well recorded easy to follow battles so its talked about more than others that may not have been recorded as well.

Herodotus is a known for his pro-Greek embellishments. Truth is they got rolled over with relative ease. The Persian army was the best of its era, these fags were using archaic open field phalanx tactics against world class mounted archers and spearmen with more experience than just fighting the local homosexual riffraff (athenians). They called it a war machine because they had hardened soldiers from every part of the known world, utilizing various tactics from all over. From steppe archers to fearless zergrushing spearmen to higher trained swordsmen who train from child. Greeks were known for one shitty type of soldier, the hoplite, and one shitty tactic, everyone stand really close together and hope these questionable shields hold up.

Plus their tactic of placing themselves under cliffs, against an army known for its skill in archery, was just absolutely stupid. I don't think very highly of the Spartans for their literal faggotry and pedophilia either way... Sorry but reading the actual history of this event redpilled me on how actually retarded the Greeks were. The naval battle was pretty good though. Greek sailors were much more crafty than Greek soldiers, the Persians definitely underestimated them in that field. The same argument can be used to promote the Greeks in this case as I used to promo the Persians, they had more warfare skill and diversity in their navy. Men who fought often in the Aegean and had fought other navies from the Mediterranean, vs Persians who had mostly fought on land and didn't into naval warfare much. They got assraped at sea, but on land literally walked up to Athens slaughtering everything in the way, and defeated them outright within days. Dariush could have taken Sparta in the same way but didn't even give a shit about their little 300 man tantrum among the 8,000 Greeks that stood in his way that day. They didn't really participate much in that war.

sounds like nu age leftist teaching of revisionist libshit history to me

it is when you consider the opposing force had 100,000 troops and your fighting was entirely dependent on phsyical strength and stamina of melee combat you absolute dumbass. they werent just lying down pulling a trigger

>Why is this considered such an impressive military feat?
numbers

hack at something with a sword or spear all day and night for 2 days to get a sense of the feat you dumb faggot. then imagine how much harder it would be if something was trying to stab you back and you had to constantly move and dodge and take blows

>dropped from record because it doesn't make for good ancient propaganda.
If there is no record then how does your history teacher know about these diverse allies? Sounds like bullshit.

Then why'd the war end with Greek victory

From the looks of it the battle of marathon and the battle of plataea was the death knell of the Persian campaign, they still caused from serious havoc before their defeat tho

Spartans had a practice of giving young boys to older men as apprentices, and in return for teaching the young boy about trades and warfare, the boy would provide the older man sexual favors. If the boy refused, he would be ridiculed and beaten by members of his own family, including his own father.

So if you see me behind your brotruck loling at your Spartan sticker, this is why. Greeks were complete and utter boyfucking faggots. Jerk off to Romans instead, at least they only fucked little girls.

>why is this considered impressive

They exploited all of the weaknesses of the Persians.

>Persians didn't into armor very well
>Persians didn't into formation based warfare as well as Greeks
>Persian archers were actually garbage against a well formed enemy
>Persians thought they could zerg rush a narrow point and win.
>Persian leaders had a tendency to not really value their soldiers

Basically it's a lesson in picking the perfect battle. If the Spartan's proper military had been mobilized, they would have won. If more allies had cared to show up, Greeks would have won.

#
Xerces initially invaded, then Dariush took over after he passed. Throughout the conflict it became apparent that the region would be as difficult for a satrap to hold as it is to hold Afghanistan today. The whole war was revenge for Greeks meddling in Ionia and other parts of the Persian empire, mainly piracy and funding rebel groups against the empire. When Dariush took over he reformed the empire heavily, his focus was on strengthening many other parts of the empire, so he said fuck the Greeks we have anally raped them enough to stop their meddling and fear our return if it ever continues.

To put it into perspective it would be like China invading Taiwan today, then seeing that it's just a drain and they don't really want the island anyway, then just burning everything and leaving so the pesky Taiwanese won't fuck with them again. The Taiwanese may be pretty formidable, but obviously no match for China. That's actually pretty close to the size/power difference between Persia and the Greek city states. There's no way they couldn't have raped it, but the Persians weren't about rape. Look into Korosh (Cyrus's) laws. They were about conquering and holding regions with satrapies so that they could benefit the empire. Some regions were very difficult to hold and required very skilled satraps to keep them in check (Afghanistan has actually historically been one of them), it became quite apparent that Greece would become one of these difficult satrapies. If you see the empire like a risk game keep chess board, this would be a bad move.

Texan here:

It was imoressive for the same reason Rhodesia was impressive. What amounted to a bunch of pasty farm boys removed Taco.

But Sam Houston's battle later on was more impressive. It goes back to "picking the right fights." And it wasn't like the Texan army was all that great. I'll freely admit that.

No. The Persians greatly outnumbered the Greeks. And in later battles, Greeks were still usually outnumbered. Shit. In battles against anyone outside of Greece, Greeks were usually fewer in number. But that was why their fighting style(s) evolved the way they did. They even BTFO huge roving Celtic horde once (at least once that I know of.) By doing exactly what they tended to do to Persians

>form up
>let the enemy attack
>slaughter tons of them
>let the enemy retreat
>let them attack again
>slaughter more
>then finally give full chase and pick off a bunch of panicked Goatfuckers/Blonde Goatfuckers.

It is when it's against 70,000–300,000 persian soldiers

Attached: 1565900112992.png (296x231, 102K)

I hereby recommend this book about the Greek-Persian wars. Highly readable and enjoyable.

Attached: persian fire.jpg (625x1000, 340K)

The overall numbers don't matter when only a tiny number from each side could engage.

Yes it does. Because one side had a finite amount of fresh soldiers to use to refresh their lines as men got tired or injured. The Persians had, for a two day battle, an endless supply of fresh soldiers. They also had the greater range capability that they were able to use as sort of a suppressive fire sort of deal.

Getting shot at by any projectile while trying to hold a line and succeeding for two days is pretty impressive. And on top of that, having to deal with a dwindling morale and growing fatigue wasn't exactly easy. It wasn't like the movie where everyone was screaming "HOO AH." It was a few good leaders trying to keep the collective shit of 7000 men together in what amounted to a claustrophobic clusterfuck that they knew they were going to come out of as losers.

A front about 80-90 metres wide, secure flanks, perfectly suited to the Greek phalanx shield wall. Say three lines at one metre per man equals about 250 men at a time at the point of contact. they had at least 7000 men, probably more like 10,000. so that's one man in forty engaged at any one time. They could rotate out and rest men at will. Maybe most of them never even engaged. Plus there was an army of slaves and helots and such to do the gophering.

The Persians did the smart thing - engage and pin the Greeks and find the flanks.

The legend is that they fought 3 days. The common sense truth is that they were probably steamrolled on the second but it still took hours for the Persian army to march across the narrow gorge and every hour counted because the Greeks were evacuating Athens at the time of the battle. The propaganda makes them look better and the successful evacuation of Athens was what denied the Persians victory in the end.

Attached: 1562009080240.jpg (2124x1317, 1.27M)

>nu age leftist
>being partisan about something so benign
As if democrats have a vested interested in deglorifying spartans???

Because Spartans are literally gay and modern day """""""Greeks""""""" need to justify their gayrape turkish roots.

Something something defending yourself and your land to the death. Same reason the confederacy is fetishized.

Because in 2001 we invaded Afghanistan, and in 2003 we invaded Iraq, and in 2006 Zach Snyder adapted a graphic novel based (loosely) on the battle of Thermopylae.

And, in the years after an ever growing portion of the population is eligible for veteran status, and many have it in their heads that the US now has this standing Warrior Caste. That our veterans should be honored and venerated, even if they never actually deployed, or never saw combat. That the 22 year old guy who enlisted at 18 because he had no other options, and literally mopped a ship for 4 years is somehow what we should all aspire to be.

These same people have adopted various warrior symbols or phrases from different points in history to show that they're different than everyone else, so they grow big viking beards and get fat when they separate, and demand blind hero worship of their veteran status, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of veterans put absolutely nothing on the line to get that status.

Now, all combat vets DO deserve the praise, thanks, and honor that they get. But it takes absolutely no sacrifice to do the majority of logistics, administrative, or organizational jobs in the military.

toxic masculinity needs to be stamped out user. what planet have you been on lately? you really havent kept up to date on topics of the modern left in academia

Attached: 1500254085731.jpg (800x600, 72K)

This is legit. There were 7,000-10,000 various Greeks, not 300 Spartans alone. The Greeks were making a serious stand, not just trying to act as a speed bump. Spartans didn't want to get involved for the most part, but the king believed it was paramount to not being overtaken by the Persian Empire.

Short answer: politics. Persia could've held Greece but like you said it would've been like holding Afghanistan, if not worse.

It's worse when you consider that Leonidas was meant to hold the Hot Gates while the Athenians were meant to hold the nearby sea route. Instead, Leonidas failed and both cities had to retreat even though Athens won the naval clash along said sea route.

HOW THE FUCK DOES NORMAL MATH MAKE THAT 1?!

Math is racist user, we had to make it more fair to little brown shit kids.

Pretty sure they intended the 2*2 to be in the denominator with the 4
Written as it is, nobody would read it that way.

>literal brainlets

Attached: 1568685482685.gif (320x514, 1.92M)

20
Divided by following group.
2x2 so 4
That 4 is multiplied by 5
That is 20
Divide by earlier 20
1
Read math problems like.a sentence and it becomes clear.

It reads 20/5(2×2)
Which turns into 20/5(4)
Now we read it as a sentence, 4(4)=16
It does not read 20/(5(2×2)) nor is it 20 over 5(2×2). It's a poorly written equation but with how it is written it should not be read as 20 divided by the group.

Propaganda.

Order of operations.

They held out for 13 days, user.

That is proper order of operations.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
Multiplication and division hold the same order of operations and are read from left to right. The multiplication of a number outside of parentheses with the number within parentheses does not take priority over the order in which the math is read.

It's pretty self evident why this is an impressive and legendary feat of strategy and soldierly prowess.
Getting flanked unexpectedly is a critically bad thing no matter what elite military force from whatever era it happens to.
TLDR & Conclusion:
You're a big 'ol dummy

>an impressive and legendary feat of strategy and soldierly prowess.

Hey guys let's surround ourselves with cliffs against an army known for raping people with arrows, what could possibly go wrong?
>get raped with arrows, only hold out two fucking days if that, lose 10,000 of your countrymen

The strategy was terrible. Phalanx is good against disorganized militias not using much missiles, or another phalanx, or with calvary/some type of flank support. Greeks never really got into supporting their formations like the Romans did. You don't put a phalanx up against mounted steppe fighters. You'll get showered with arrows and flanked easily. By covering their sides with cliffs, at least they were able to avoid the latter, but still their ground warfare needed to adapt to this new enemy but it just didn't, they kept getting fucked yet kept trying the same thing. Their navy on the other hand adapted and did damn well.

If you've ever used a calculator or done any scripting you learn pretty quick to clarify which groups are which with parathenses, in that case the way any computer would interpret that retarded formula would be (20/5)*(2*2) because it's assumed something is in the numerator unless explicitly said not to be by grouping it with denominator terms using parathenses

It isn't. It was a half assed attempt by the Spartans to defend Attika and it was a military disaster that left Attika wide open for the Persians.

It was also one of the most successful propaganda victories in all of history.

>Aaaacktually user if one civilization had unlocked Tier 3 swords, spears and shields, they'd just steamroll other civs who only had the Tier 1 gear.

When people have to kill each other by hand theres only so many ways it can be done right. And most of those can be accomplished with something pointy that can be held in one or two hands.

>Except for that part where a few hundreds years later some guy named Alex absolutely crushed the Persians over and over again, changing their way of life forever.

>BTFO huge roving Celtic horde

Can you please provide source on this? Sounds interesting.

>He totally could have taken everything

>With that massive, expensive army he'd brought halfway across the known world.

>He just didnt want to.

Hey man, can you point to where on this map you are from?

Attached: 1552168414882.jpg (747x411, 74K)

You're mixing up people. Darius came before Xerxes. It was Xerxes who prosecuted the war at the time of Thermopylae.

youtu.be/WNyrCc_Wn7Q

First time I heard of it was this gay (but informative) video.

Reminder: Every major battle the French foreign legion celebrates are one's they lost from Mexico to Dien Bien Phu.

You forget, user, everything that disagrees with what I believe is homogay islamofascist libtard fake news, regardless of whether its true or not.