The Ancients - The Legacy of Thermopylae

Episode Date: April 18, 2021

Ever since its occurence in 480 BC, the Battle of Thermopylae has been the stuff of legend. Echoes of this battle, reportedly fought between a seven thousand strong Greek army and a Persian force of anywhere between 100 thousand and one million, can be found dotted across the literature and history of Ancient Greece and Rome. Professor Chris Carey from University College London has written a book on Thermopylae and, in this episode, he tells us how its shadow continues to the present day, where the battle and its heroes are referenced by those fighting for freedom, as well as in films and video games.

Hi, I'm Tristan Hughes, and if you would like the Ancient ad-free, get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my recent documentary all about Petra and the Nabataeans, and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. Whether you're in your running era, Pilates era, or yoga era, dive into Peloton workouts that work with you. From meditating at your kid's game to mastering a strength program,

they've got everything you need to keep knocking down your goals. No pressure to be who you're not, just workouts and classes to strengthen who you are. So no matter your era, make it your best with Peloton. Find your push. Find your power. Peloton. Visit Peloton at onepeloton.ca. It's the Ancients on History Hit. I'm Tristan Hughes, your host. And in today's podcast, we are talking about the legacy of one of the most famous clashes from antiquity, the Battle of Thermopylae. Now this podcast is going to cover a huge time period. We're going to be looking at Thermopylae's legacy

in antiquity, in its immediate aftermath in ancient Greece, but also with the Romans a bit later, and we're going down to the present day. We're going to be looking at Thermopylae's legacy through a variety of mediums, in politics, through video games, through films, and so much more. Now, to talk about these topics, I was delighted to get on the show Professor Chris Carey from UCL, University College, London. Chris has written extensively on the Battle of Thermopylae and on its aftermath. So without further ado, here's Chris. Chris, thank you so much for coming on the show. It's great to have you here.

My pleasure. My absolute pleasure. Good to see you at last, Chris. Good to see you too, through the computer screen and Zoom. Now, the legacy of the Basil Thermopylae and the Basil Thermopylae itself, it's such an interesting and remarkable basil in 480 BC, but perhaps just as interesting is this legacy that it leaves. Yeah, absolutely. Thermopylae became a legend almost immediately, and it's remained a legend right the way through to the present. Its impact can be felt in Greek literature, in Roman literature, and in Greek and Roman history, the way in which they engage with Sparta, the way in which Sparta impacts on the world at large, and then of course in the

modern era the way in which people have used and abused Thermopylae for their own agendas, which people have used and abused Thermopylae for their own agendas, sometimes good, sometimes bad, often, almost always in the cause of what they regard as freedom. But freedom of course is capable of different interpretations and sometimes the freedom actually involves taking away the freedom of others. So it's been used for truly remarkable and impressive acts of courage and defiance in the face of danger, and also, of course, for imperialist projects of a truly disreputable kind. Well, let's focus on the ancient history, first of all. Why, of all the many hundreds and thousands of battles that we know of in ancient history, why does

Thermopylae have such a resounding impact and become such a legendary clash so quickly? I think some of it is there in the sheer scale of the forces at work. There is a kind of David and Goliath quality to the battle. If you put yourself in the position of the Greeks as the Persians advanced against them, what they were encountering was the greatest army possibly that the world had ever seen. The Persians had made themselves masters of the world from the shores of the Aegean right the way through to the Hindu Kush. They had defeated nation after nation. And of course, they were able to turn the forces that they had acquired against almost any enemy. The army that they sent to Greece was probably the biggest army that had ever been seen on the peninsula. Just how big is very difficult to say.

Herodotus and the Greeks give us a force in millions. The inscription that was set up on the battlefield not long after the battle, maybe just a few years, reads against three million here, four thousand from the Peloponnese force. Now the Peloponnesian figure is probably a bit iffy. The three million of course is very very iffy indeed But right from the start, they saw this as an army of millions. Moderns guess anything up to 200,000. 200,000 would itself be enormous. 100,000 would be enormous. Even 50,000 would be enormous in a context where the average city-state could probably field no more than about 10,000

men. Most Greek battles are about 10,000 against 10,000, give or take. So this was a truly unprecedented scale. And of course, the Persians, as they advanced through Greece, were taking surrender from country after country. And so they were actually getting bigger as they approached. Herodotus gives us the impression of a snowball that's descending slowly upon Greece and just gradually acquiring momentum and volume. So you have this enormous army, however big you measure it, and then it's set against a Greek army, which I best guess was about 7,000. So the minutest fraction of the scale of the Persian army. And they held them. They held them at bay for over two days against seemingly insuperable odds.

So what you have is a truly dramatic disparity between the forces in the field. So there is that. You then have, I think, the remarkable courage of the Greeks. And of course, when they're finally surrounded by the Persians, the decision to stand and die and to face the Persians knowing that they're about to die is, again, I think something that really hooks the imagination. It's further spiced by betrayal, because the Persians are led by, according to Herodotus, just one Greek. There may have been more than one, but they're led through the mountains to descend behind the Greek position in the pass. And so you've got thrown in there, you've got the additional what-if element.

Could they, in fact, have held their ground? And so that, too, I think, adds to the remarkable quality of the whole battle. So all of this, I think, means that it has an appeal that very few battles since have had. And, of course, it wasn't a decisive engagement. The Greeks defeated the Persians by sea at Salamis. They then defeated them a year later at the Battle of Plataea. And those were really great turning points in the war. And yet neither of them gets anything like the cover of Thermopylae. I mean, that is really interesting in itself.

How you say this isn't a decisive engagement at Thermopylae. And perhaps it's not as important as the often overlooked naval encounters that was happening at the same time but in the end that doesn't really matter as you say all those things that you've just said there the size of the enemy force the courage of those defending the past this betrayal element the actual importance of the battle doesn't really matter because it appeals to those listening to it on so many levels. Yeah, it captures the imagination. And it is helped, I think, by the remarkably dramatic account that Herodotus gives us of the battle, because it is probably his best battle narrative. And it may be one of the best battle narratives that have come out of the ancient world. But the way he tells it, of course, they, by superior discipline and by superior weaponry, they're able to hold the Persian army

at bay. And of course, a wonderful choice of terrain where they can actually stick themselves like a cork in a bottle. And so there is that. And then when they're finally surrounded, they go out and take the offensive to tackle the Persians. And then gradually, when they're finally surrounded, they go out and take the offensive to tackle the Persians. And then gradually, when they're surrounded, retreat to a hill. They fight with their spears and their shields and they break. And then they fight with their swords and the swords break. They fight with their daggers. And then finally, they fight with their teeth until the Persians get fed up of endless casualties

from these people who are determined not to give in and then shoot them dead with arrows. So it's a phenomenal story of not just courage, but resilience against the odds and the refusal to go down other than fighting. And for the Spartans in particular, if I may apply, those who stand to the end, how much of an impact does this story have on the portrayal of Sparta's military for the rest of antiquity? We can see that in many areas, but probably the single most interesting detail is an engagement that took place in 425 BC. And the Spartans had a force on an island that was cut off by the Athenians. They were standing their ground. And there were, by coincidence, not far off 300 of them. The Athenians sent light-armed troops around behind them by a

circuitous route. And the Spartans were exposed to relentless fire from their enemy, and they surrendered. And it shocked the Greek world. They were convinced that the Spartans would stand and die to the last man. And it shows you the way in which Spartan courage was admired. It created, I think, Thermopylae or contributed to what's often been called the Spartan mirage. This feeling that Sparta is exceptional, that put them in the field, they will never yield and they will never lose. And of course, what it gives them, it's a phenomenal psychological advantage. If you step into the ring, or if you step onto centre court at Wimbledon, and you're known to be invincible, it's very, very difficult for your

opponents to give it their best. So I think it does make an enormous difference to the perception of Sparta. And interestingly, it's an impact that survives the decline of Sparta. In 371 BC, the Thebans in a battle in Boeotia broke the Spartan military power. They followed that up by a series of invasions of Spartan territory. Sparta had never been invaded before, and it was believed to be impossible to invade Sparta. But even after that, we find people in Athens who want to acquire a reputation for austerity, dressing like Spartans. So the Spartan mirage long outlasts the invisibility of Sparta itself. It's very interesting what you're saying there about the Sparta mirage, because it sounds like from what you're saying is that this false portrayal of Sparta is actually really put forward by non-Spartans. Yes, absolutely. I think it's probably encouraged by the Spartans themselves, because Sparta was a notoriously secretive society. Periodically, they had this system that they called Zenerlazia, when they systematically expel all foreigners from Sparta.

And they never divulge any information about their forces. Thucydides, when talking about another Spartan battle at Mantinea in 418 BC, says it was impossible to get the Spartan numbers because the Spartans kept that sort of thing very, very close to their chests. So the Spartans, I think, encouraged it through secrecy. And also, I think, through their own habits. They were notoriously people of deeds and not words. And so they encouraged, I think, this reputation for taciturnity, for being people who will never use 10 words where one will do. But it is true that the myth is fostered by non-Spartans. And I think everyone buys into this image of Sparta. I think part of the reason is that the

Spartans didn't generate a body of literature. They were not people of the written world. So for the Spartan tale to be told, it had to be told by other people. And of course, often people who were in awe of Sparta anyway. But as you say, yes, it is a remarkable fact that Spartan invincibility, or the image of Spartan invisibility is actually perpetuated by people who are not themselves Spartans. Now one key figure I'd like to talk about in this regard, keeping on this topic, is a later Greco-Roman Hellenistic writer called Plutarch, who obviously talks quite a lot about the Spartans. And he definitely seems to be one who really emphasises this mirage, this portrayal, and also this idea that the Spartans at Thermopylae, but also elsewhere, pithy responses,

short responses too. He really seems to be this man, as I said, who wants to hammer down on the mirage. Yeah, absolutely. Plutarch is an invaluable source for anyone who wants to study the history of the ancient world. But he doesn't, of course, see himself as a simple narrative historian. He likes the ethical side of history. He likes the character side of history. And of course, he loves anecdotes. His Sayings of the Spartans is an exquisite list of anecdotes of famous things said by the Spartans. And Thermopylae, of course, is one of the great sources for Plutarch. According to Plutarch, when Leonidas is taking his army out towards Thermopylae, the ephors, the Spartan officials, say to him, that's a very small number of men that you're taking out. And he says, they're plenty big enough

for the purpose I have in mind. There are enough of them to die for Greece. When he's saying goodbye to his wife, Leonidas was married to one of the most remarkable women in the ancient world, a woman named Gorgo. And Gorgo says to him, what shall I do? And he says, And Gorgo says to him, what shall I do? And he says, marry a good man and have good children. So this is a man who prepares for the perpetuation of his wife's line. And of course, takes care of his wife, the way he tells it, Xerxes sends a messenger at Thermopylae. And he says to Leonidas, lay down your arms. And Leonidas answers with two words. This is Spartan stuff, of course, the quintessence of the Spartan way. He says, malone labbe, come and get them.

And of course, that has gone down in history. It's echoed down through the ages as one of the greatest of the sayings of the Spartans. If you go to Sparta town, there's a very fine statue of Leonidas, and underneath him are those two words, come and get them. And if you go to Thermopylae itself, Leonidas still dominates the site. The monument there has again a statue of Leonidas. So Plutarch does an enormously good job as providing posthumous PR for the Spartans. But everyone, of course, falls in love with Leonidas. The later travel writer, Pausanias, says that in his opinion, Leonidas was the greatest of the Greek fighters against the barbarians. And by that, of course, he means that he includes people like Achilles.

And it's very rare to find a historical figure who is set against mythical figures in that way. Now, I know you've done a lot of work about the facts and the fiction about Thermopylae, or we've just been talking about with Plutarch and Pausanias. Do these seem like later fictional elements that are added to the story? I think yes, but they're working on it right from the start. I mentioned before that the Spartans encourage their PR and the image that the Greeks have of them. The Spartans in, again, just a few years after the battle, set up an inscription somewhere on the battlefield. And it says something like, stranger, go tell the Spartans that here we lie obedient to their orders.

And that's it. There is no sense of personal tragedy, no sense that you ever do anything other than stand your ground and die. No sense that you ever do anything other than obey orders. So remarkable discipline. But of course, because there are no tears between the lines there, remarkable restraint. So right from the very start, it's happening. And I mentioned before the inscription that gives the number of Persians. So it's already gone into legend within years. And when Herodotus tells the story of the battle, he again includes a number of anecdotes which magnify it. One of them is a man named Dionysus, and it's one of the most famous stories of Thermopylae. One of the locals says to him, when the Persian archers fire their arrows, there are so many that they block out the sun. And Dionysus says, that's good news. We'll be fighting in the shade. And again, pithy, no waste of words, but complete absence either of self-pity or of cowardice. So again, remarkable courage. And then there is a poor man named Aristodemus, who is invalided out of the battle because he is suffering from some sort of eye infection.

of eye infection. And there are two of them who have this infection. And one of them goes back into the battle on the last day. And he asks for his slave, his Helos, to lead him to the front line. And he fights blind and dies. The man Aristodemus makes the mistake of going home. And Herodotus says that they called him Aristodemus the Trembler, which was the Spartan term for a runaway. No one would talk to him and no one would light fire. And this is, of course, a world where there are no matches, no lighters. And if your neighbors won't light fire for you when your fire runs out, it is a serious problem. So essentially, he's subjected to a kind of social death. serious problem. So essentially, he's subjected to a kind of social death. And next year in Plataea,

according to Herodotus, he goes out fighting like a berserker, determined to eradicate the shame of survival, and he dies fighting. And even then, Spartans won't give him credit. They choose other people as the men to be honored as the greatest fighters at Plataea. And the point, of course, is there are no second chances in Sparta. So right from the very start, the Spartans are burnishing this and the Greeks are participating in this burnishing of the Spartan image. So there was never a point, I think, when it wasn't a legend. Right from day one, it was a legend. And as the period progresses, these figures that you mentioned in the battle itself, we talked about Plutarch earlier, as the Greek period, shall we say, go on before the Romans arrive, is just more and more and more added to the legend and added to the myth surrounding

Thermopylae. Yes, absolutely. It grows and grows. We've spoken about Plutarch, about Pausanias. One other aspect of this, of course, is that Thermopylae, because it's a wonderful defensive position for all that it often fails in its job, it was a place where many battles were fought. 200 years after our battle, there was one. Another hundred years later, battles throughout the Byzantine period, throughout the Middle Ages, right the way through to when the Persians were invading Greece. And you have these battles always being fought, but everyone looks over their shoulder at 480 BC. And so each battle, as it were, incrementally adds to the legend of Thermopylae 480 BC. And then, of course, it gets picked up by ancient historians, gets picked up by philosophers because they want to use Thermopylae. fear of death because Leonidas faced death knowing that he would die, but without flinching.

So there are many ways in which historians, philosophers, even poets, of course, are picking up on this. The Athenian orators use Thermopylae as a source of models for courage in the right cause, and they use that to contrast imperialist aggression. So they are constantly layering and layering this. And then, of course, in modern era, people are constantly using Thermopylae as the model for the courageous last stand. And each time they use it, of course, they're adding to the legend, adding to the magnification of it, to the point where there almost is no thermopoly

behind the legend. You're always trying to clear the undergrowth, and you're never actually fighting your way through to the real events. It's all very interesting that. But I mean, I found that really astonishing what you're saying. As you said, over 100 years after the battle we're talking about, you have the aftermath of Alexander the Great's death, spoilers, my area of interest, and the Greeks who are trying to revolt against the Macedonians, they take a stand there. You've got Greeks defending against Gauls and Galatians the next year, then you've got Romans and Hellenistic kings and everything. It's amazing the impact it seems to have the battle site as well as the people itself. You mentioned there Cicero, which I thought was really interesting, because how do the Romans adopt the whole Thermopylae legend?

Well, for them, it forms, I think, the basis of philosophical debate about the inevitability of death, about the fear of death. It also triggers a typically Roman response to the Greeks, which is a simultaneous admiration and discomfort. Obviously, the Romans are profoundly affected by Greek culture, but at the same time, they have conquered Greece ultimately, and the Greeks are one of their subject peoples. So you have this genuflection, this acknowledgement of the superiority of Greek culture, but at the same time, a feeling that Romans are superior to Greeks. And so you get these interesting reactions, such as that of the writer Cato, in which he talks about a famous Roman battle, in which a Roman tribune does what

Cato regards as being the equivalent of Leonidas at Thermopylae. He volunteers himself and his platoon to undertake a diversionary maneuver against the enemy, and the platoon is wiped out. And Cato points out rather acerbically that if this were Greece and Leonidas, he would come home covered in laurels, but for the Roman, it is enough to do your duty. So there is, I think, a profound ambiguity to the Roman response to Thermopylae. And I think you get that ambiguity elsewhere when the Athenians, through their oratory, are making extensive use of Thermopylae. Thermopylae, you get the use of Thermopylae in public oratory to talk about the great battles of the Persian Wars and how the Athenians and the Spartans stood side by side to resist the Persian invader. But at the same time, they like to point out that the Athenians at Salamis won and the

Spartans at Thermopylae lost, you get this strong feeling that a courageous defeat is very, very good, but a courageous victory may actually be slightly better. And as I say as well, what you get is this tendency to use Thermopylae when talking about historical precedents to argue that Thermopylae redounds to the credit of Sparta because the army fought and died against superior odds for the cause of freedom. And then they will contrast that with other Spartan conduct, where the Spartans were acting as aggressors and imperialists. And so Thermopylae is admired and other less praiseworthy battles are criticized. And so there is always, I think, this ambiguity.

And the ambiguity, I think, persists throughout history because at the same time as admiring Thermopylae and appealing to Thermopylae, whether you're fighting against the Germans in the Second World War or whether you're Custer at the Little Bighorn, or the English army at Rorke's Drift, there is always this desire, not just to invoke Thermopylae as being the model, but often to suggest that one had somehow bested Thermopylae. And so there is always, I think, I guess in any kind of reception of the ancient world, there's always a desire to register one's admiration, to accept the remarkable nature of what one is imitating, but also to try to hint that the imitation matches and on occasion outdoes the original. the original. Well, it is interesting that when you mentioned especially Athens and Rome, because it sounds like they're trying to paint Thermopylae to emphasise that the Spartans are worthy opponents, that the honourable foe. But actually, we've got examples where we were able to beat them, which makes us look even better. Yes, absolutely. Yes. My favourite example in the modern era is when Bill Clinton appeals to Thermopylae at a famous celebratory occasion. And it's for the passengers on flight 93 who courageously stormed the cockpit on 9-11 and died in the process.

He talks about the airnesses and about the anecdotes of fighting in the shade caused by the arrows. menaces and about the anecdotes of fighting in the shade caused by the arrows. But he points out, in addition, that the people on that plane were not soldiers. They were not under orders. They were ordinary civilians who were going the extra mile. They were doing what no one could expect of them. And so, yes, I think there is always this desire to suggest that, yes, these are admirable opponents, they are admirable models, but we are still capable of rising to those standards. There is always something aspirational, I think, there. Whether you're in your running era, Pilates era, or yoga era, We'll be right back. to be who you're not. Just workouts and classes to strengthen who you are. So no matter your era, make it your best with Peloton. Find your push. Find your power. Peloton. Visit Peloton at onepeloton.ca. Catastrophic warfare, bloody revolutions, and violent ideological battles.

I'm James Rogers, and over on the Warfare podcast we're exploring the vast history of ferocious global conflict. We've got the classics. Understandably when we see it from hindsight the great revelation in Potsdam was really Stalin saying yeah tell me something I don't know. The unexpected. And it was at that moment that he just handed her all these documents that he'd discovered sewn into the cushion of the armchair. And the never ending. So arguably every state that has tested nuclear weapons has created some sort of effect to local communities. Subscribe to Warfare from History Hit wherever you get your podcasts.

Join us on the front line of military history. Subscribe to Warfare from History Hit wherever you get your podcasts. Join us on the front line of military history. Let's move on to modern times, and we're talking about US and America, so let's try and keep on that for the moment. You mentioned Bill Clinton. Do we know any other presidents who envisaged Thermopylae or any other prominent US figures who envisaged Thermopylae? I think probably the most famous modern invocation of Thermopylae is in relation to Plutarch's anecdote about the weapons. Xerxes says to Leonidas, lay down your weapons, and Leonidas says, come and get them. And that's found its way into American history in a couple of ways. One is around the time of the Alamo, when the Mexican

army demanded the surrender of a cannon, which the American rebels had at the town called Gonzales, and they say, come and take it. And that too, of course, resonates with Thermopylae. But of course, in current debate, particularly the idea of surrendering weapons, resonates with the gun lobby. And America is full of bumper stickers, which actually have not just English language appeals to Thermopylae, but actually have the Greek words, malone labe, come and get them. And of course, this is the text of Charlton Heston, among other things, when he said to a meeting of the National Rifle Association, he said, if you want my gun, you will have to come and prize it from my cold,

dead hands. And of course, that's then picked up by the gun lobby. And the insistence is that they will not give up their right to bear arms unless they're forced to. So certainly that is one of the most prominent modern appeals in the US. But also, of course, it turns up in the aftermath of the Second World War, before the Americans become too heavily embroiled in Vietnam, and the French are first of all striving to prevent the disintegration of French Indochina. the American Secretary of State at the time says that at Dien Bien Phu, which was a battle in which a French army was attacked and heavily outnumbered by Vietnamese rebels, he says that Dien Bien Phu is as important as Thermopylae for the modern world. And so it comes up again and again. And of course,

earlier still, of course, possibly the most famous invocations in US history are the Battle of the Alamo and Custer at the Little Bighorn. So it has played a very, very significant role in US public life since the middle of the 19th century. It's very interesting how those the conic sayings and those hearkens back to Thermopylae have had influence in recent history. Let's say the last 200 years with the Alamo and Tiananmen Fu in military spheres, but also how that has unfortunately spilled over into modern political debates, isn't it? Absolutely, yeah. And I think Thermopylae has enormous appeal, as we said at the beginning, David and Goliath, courage, hints of betrayal, of course, as well. This is a very, very potent

chemistry. And of course, it's capable of being abused as well as used, like all historical precedent, because of course, people are always rewriting history. It's not static. It's always being reapplied and rethought. And it's very easy, I think, for you to decide that you are David, and not Goliath, that you are the defender of freedom and that the others are the enemy of freedom. And of course, not least, Thermopylae has two nations, one of which is regarded as a barbarian other. So consequently, there is always the potential for a playoff between ourselves and a racially inferior other. And so I think people are constantly casting themselves in the role of Leonidas and the 300, irrespective of whether they are aggressors or defenders of

freedom, whether they are the enemies of freedom or the friends of freedom. It is all, I think, up for grabs, I think, rhetorically, which is why, of course, one needs always to be on the alert for abuse of this sort. I mean, that horrible idea of the others being inferior and them using Thermopylae for it, it's just frustrating. But because you have to say, I mean, there were lots of Hellenic people fighting on the Persian side at the bastid Thermopylae. It wasn't straightforward that it was Greeks versus Persians. It was so much more complicated than that. Absolutely, yes. And of course, Thermopylae is part of the process that helps to cement the idea

of Greekness. The Greeks always knew that they were Greeks. They were under no illusions. And from 776 BC, the traditional date of the founding of the Olympic Games, only Greeks can compete in the games. So they always saw themselves as being related. But they never allowed that sense of ethnicity to get in the way of practical politics. And so from the moment when the Persian Empire starts to grow from the 6th century BC, the Greeks are constantly using the Persians against each other. The typical pattern is if you get into difficulties locally in your Greek state, you appeal to Persia. If you're exiled, the Athenian tyrants, the Peisistratids, were driven out by the democracy. And the first thing they do is to appeal to Persia. The Athenians themselves appealed to Persia. So this is before the wars begin, of course. But once the wars begin, Greeks are, as you say, fighting on the Persian side, just as in a period of great interest to you, the period of Alexander,

there are Greeks fighting on the Persian side. So there was always, I think, an element of pragmatism. And of course, the Greeks fought most fiercely against each other. This is part of Herodotus' narrative, isn't it, of the Persian wars, this sense of frustration that you get from his narrative that the Greeks simply cannot pull together. And so they're always ready to fight for the other. But of course, after the wars, they start to rethink things, and they get an increased sense of Greece as not a political unity, but a kind of ethnic unity, and of fighting against Greeks on the side of foreigners as being some sort of betrayal. And so they are rewriting the Persian wars as they go, just as they're rewriting Sparta

and Thermopylae as they go, they're rewriting the whole wars. And of course, as with, say, the Second World War, particularly in the UK, there is this concept of a good war and a bad war. So Athens has a good war. Sparta has a good war because they come out of it as the leaders of the free world, as it were. And then you get people like Thebes. And Thebes, of course, was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Persia. And they are never allowed to forget it. It resonates for the next century or so. People are endlessly charging Thebes with having betrayed Greece. And Thebes' role becomes worse and worse. At Thermopylae itself, there are Thebans fighting in that last stand. And the story goes, the story gets in

Herodotus, is that in the end, rather than die, they join the Persian cause. Now, that for Herodotus and for many is a great betrayal. But they did fight for longer than any other Greeks at Thermopylae. They stayed with the Spartans. They stayed with the Thespians when Leonidas let the rest of the army go. So they were in the last stand. But of course, Herodotus has an answer to that too. For Herodotus, they stayed and fought with Leonidas because he forced them to. And so their role, even when they fight on the right side, their role is being rewritten so that they become reluctant heroes and heroes who will turn into villains given a second's chance. That's quite interesting how Thermopylae's legacy is not just really focused on the Spartans and the battle itself.

It also has this lasting, damning impact on the Thebans and that city being the third most important city on the Greek mainland, but it is condemned to history. Yes, absolutely, yes. And they are endlessly in subsequent battles and subsequent encounters. They are coming back to these wars and justifying their own conduct. But yes, it impacts on everyone. Certainly, Sparta and Athens come out as the big winners in all of this. But the whole invasion, I think, shapes the way the Greeks view their relationship

with Persia. It becomes the great betrayal, obviously, subsequently to side with Persia against Greece. But inter-Greek relations are shaped by the way in which people behave towards Persia. And of course, ultimately, it becomes an enormous propaganda element for Macedon. When Philip of Macedon becomes the dominant power in the Greek world, the Athenians regard the Macedonians, of course, as little more than barbarians. And they're constantly comparing them with Persia as the great invader. And of course, it then plays to Macedonian propaganda because they are, among other things, wiping out the Persian aggression against Greece and finally taking

revenge for Thermopylae by invading Persia. So I think those wars really do shape Greek politics and not just Greek history. Yes, we probably shouldn't mention that the Spartans led a huge revolt when Alexander was in the East. Just gloss over that fact. Let's go back to modern times because I feel this wouldn't be a proper legacy of the Mopoli podcast if we didn't talk about films and movies in more recent times because the Mopoli, it's been the topic for a couple of films in the past 60 years or so. Yeah, there are three, actually, probably four films that stand out. I guess the ones which leap to mind most immediately are the 300 Spartans in 1962, and 300 at the beginning of this

millennium. And both of those are, like much of the literature we've been talking about, they're very, very heavily influenced by contemporary events. The earlier film is round about the time of the Bay of Pigs. It's a time when there is considerable tension, the height of the Cold War. And in fact, you can't actually see the contemporary politics very, very visibly in the action of the film. But there is a voiceover at the beginning and at the end, which insists on the importance of having a few free men willing to stand up for the cause of freedom at a time when freedom is under threat. is under threat. And it doesn't take a big leap of imagination. And I think people were aware at the time that this is also about contemporary threats to freedom and about the Soviet bloc and the threat that they present to Western democracy. But of course, much more dramatically influenced by contemporary events is Zack Snyder's 300. And I think that's very visibly the case. It's round about the time of the surge, isn't it, in the invasion of Iraq. And it's very, very clear,

I think, that one is looking at Spartans who are the archetype of the marine, as it were, and Persians who are very, very like modern members of the Arabian world. And so there is a strong subtext, I think, of Iran, and of course, Iraq and Islam behind it. And you see it as well in Xerxes himself, who, when he, in the very brief appearance in the film, he's a sort of gigantic figure. So there is something almost science fiction-like about him. But at the same time, he's bejeweled and wearing makeup. And so there is this sort of effeminate monster as well. So I think what you've got there is modern history stamping itself very, very firmly on ancient history. And of course, again, there is this whole question of the them

and the us and the alien other. But it also, of course, crops up in relation to the Vietnam War in the film Go Tell the Spartans, which is about an American platoon caught up in Vietnam. And this is before the Americans actually are there in strength, they're technically advisors. And one of the iconic scenes there is a scene in which they go to a French graveyard, a military graveyard, and it actually has the inscription in Greek, Go tell the Spartans. And one of them translates for the others. And of course, it is again suggesting that this is Thermopylae. But of course, this is a very ironic use of Thermopylae, because it's suggesting that firstly, of course, that we will lose,

we will be overwhelmed, as indeed this platoon is at the end. But it's also suggesting that this isn't really our war. And that so far from being Leonidas and the courageous defenders of freedom, we are somewhere that we shouldn't be. And so I think the film industry picks up, as earlier literature did, on the way in which thermopoly can be used to replay contemporary conflicts and to play them either ironically or play them straight, with you either as the bad guy masquerading as the good guys or deluding yourself that you're the good guys.

Or you can ironicise it and ask the question, who are the good guys here and are there any good guys here? And that, of course, also happens in the fourth film and in many respects one of the most interesting ones, which is Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai, where Leonidas is replayed in the samurai who are rebelling against the Japanese government. And the Japanese government are imposing the modern world on an ancient culture, and they're aided by American

advisors. And so the Americans are, as it were, with the Persians in all of this. But you get again the great suicide mission at the end. You get the last stand in defence of a way of life. But again, it's sort of turning modern perceptions of who are the Greeks and who are the Persians on its head. So I think cinema has been possibly the most imaginative use of Thermopylae that we've had. Cinema, and not to mention recently, you've also had video games as well, which are embracing it too. has been possibly the most imaginative use of Thermopylae that we've had. Cinema, and not to mention recently, you've also had video games as well, which are embracing it too.

Absolutely. And I think the video games are one of the reasons why cinema can return to it so easily, because I think what they do is they mean that in the way that, say, people would in the 19th century, they would have been reading their Greek and Roman authors, People would, in the 19th century, they would have been reading their Greek and Roman authors. Or in the 20th century, they would be reading modern poets who've made use of the Persian wars. I think because video games are such a vital part of modern culture, it means that Thermopylae is endlessly there. It's not allowed simply to be sidelined because of course as you know after the middle of the 19th century thermopylae is constantly there in things like military monuments and that disappears and people are no longer endlessly invoking thermopylae in say parliament or the like so it isn't figuring so much in the public official discourse but in sense, it's actually somewhere much more deeply embedded

in modern culture because video games, I think, are at the heart of modern culture. And so I think that means that there is an endless source of interest and also, of course, potential inspiration for new ways of working with the material. You know, Thermopylae's legacy will endure. And to wrap it all up, there's one last figure who I'd like to ask about

and how his portrayal has occurred throughout the centuries and whether there's been change and transformation. And that is the traitor himself, Ephialtes. I'm guessing in the legacy of Thermopylae, he is someone who is attacked. He's portrayed very badly. Is this something we see continually? Yes, I'm searching my head for an occasion when Ephialtes is presented

as being a good guy. And I'm sure it will occur to someone, but it doesn't to me. He's a bit like Judas Iscariot. He's never going to get a good press, I don't think. And right from the start, when Herodotus tells us about Thermopylae, he says that the people argue about who the traitor was. He says, I know who the traitor was because he was condemned. There was a price put on his head and eventually someone killed him. And so Herodotus says, I know for sure it was this man Ephialtes. But interestingly, no one wants Ephialtes. And so he's clearly a local, but all of the local states are competing with each other not to have Ephialtes as one of their people. So everyone wants to wash their hands of him. use of Thermopylae to stop the Celts in 279 BC. He mentions that the Celts found their way around, but he also says that the local Greeks showed them the way. He says that they just wanted

rid of them. And so his point is that they were really not traitors like Ephialtes, they were just responding to pressure. And of course, when you get to the film 300, you recall that Ephialtes is presented as a deformed character. And I think that comes from the comic book, doesn't it? But he's a deformed character, embittered because the Spartans wouldn't let him join them at Thermopylae. So always, and I think in the film, that physical representation is meant to suggest that you're looking at someone with a deformed spirit. It's a sort of physical enactment of the cowardice and treason that lurks within the man. So no, he never gets a good press. But at the

same time, it's worth asking what might have happened. Firstly, whether he was alone. Secondly, I think whether the Persians might have found their way through the hills anyway. They had a very, very good system of scouts, and they might eventually have found their way, though, of course, not as quickly, I guess, and they would have taken a lot more casualties in the process. And thirdly, perhaps, how persuasive the Persians were, because this is a world in which there is no Geneva Convention. There are no rules as to how you treat the native population. There are no rules for dealing with prisoners of war. And so one does want to ask oneself the question,

whether the Persians might have suggested to Ephialtes that it would be more healthy to show them the way than for them to get more persuasive. You know, rather like the Incredible Hulk, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry. And so it's just possible that Ephialtes was not quite the demon that he's painted as. But of course, as with everything else in the rewriting of this war, Anyone who was on the wrong side was inevitably going to, as always with history, be rewritten in the light of the ultimate victors, and that is the Athenians, the Spartans, and the Greeks at large. So I think Ephialtes never stood a chance, as it were. History is written by the winners indeed. Chris, that was a fantastic chat. Your book on Thermopylae is called?

It's in the Great Battles series, and it's simply called Thermopylae, Oxford Press. But my pleasure to talk to you. It's been great to share thoughts with you, Tristan. Chris, thank you so much for coming on the show. Stay safe. You too. Thank you.