|
But you have a lot of WWII footage that just makes it easy to make WWII documentaries. Most of thee films are GOVERNMENT owned so no royalties need to be paid (Which also cut costs). Thus the History Channels tendency to do Hitler movies (Remember also after WWII, all of Hitler's property was declared public property so that none of his relatives to the Nazi party would ever get any financial benefit from Hitler's image, property or anything else involving that person).
Now the History Channel does try to do what is current (Some of this has to do with being paid, for example I suspect that whenever a new historical movie comes up, part of the advertising budget for that movie is a new piece for the history channel, thus last month's documentary on the battle of Thermopylae, given that the Movie the "300" was being released at that time).
Thus on Christian holidays the History tend to do religious historical documentaries. On memorial day/ Veteran day, War movies and Documentaries. Around June 6th, D-day Stories. These tend to vary in quality, for example last year when the History channel did the Mountain Meadow Massacre, you had several Mormon apologizer on the program. Such apologizer are absent when the History Channel do a story of Slavery or Segregation (Which were NOT many, but the History did do some).
One of my "favorite" stories about the History Channel was last year on the 100th Anniversary of the San Fransisco Earth Quake. Both the National Geography Channel and the History Channel did documentaries on the Earthquake. These were being shown at the same time in my area so I switched between the two. In the HistorY Channel's presentation when it came to the introduction of Federal Troops into San Fransisco to prevent "Looting" the history Channel pointed out pictures taken showing where the Federal Troops having LOOTED a shoe store were trying on the shoes to see which fit them. I switched over to the Documentary on the National Geography Channel and it shows the SAME PICTURE as evidence of how good the troops were in keeping order (The general Conscience is that the Federal Troops caused more harm then good by shooting people as "looters" even when they were "Looting" their own home). Thus I had to give the History Channel better quality over the National Geographic Channel as to those two documentaries.
While the History channel did a good job on the San Francisco Earthquake as to the Battle of Thermopylae I was less impressed. The only source we have of the Battle is the Greek Historian Herodotus, who even in Roman times was considered a liar. Thus we know a battle took place, but we really do NOT have a good reliable source for the battle (and most Historians want two or more sources, thus we have more books about Christ, the four Gospels than we have of this battle and you have people questioning the existence of Christ since NONE of the Gospels were first hands accounts, and the same can be said of Herodotus and the Battle of Thermopylae, but in least in the Gospels we have NO direct evidence the writers wrote things that they could NOT have been told unlike Herodotus and some of his other writings which are contradicted by other sources).
Anyway back to topic, the History Channel's handling of the Battle of Thermopylae. The History Channel used a lot of Historians, but all of whom rely on Herodotus for the story. No one who questioned Herodotus's accuracy. For example Herodotus reports an Army of over 2.4 Million (Through this is a combination of several numbers in his book several pages apart) but several Military personnel over the last 200 years have questioned that number (Based on their own Military experience in feeding Armies on the March). One English Officer put the upper limit as 175,000 which was his estimate on how much WATER Greece could provide to an invading army. Some people question this limit, but this WHOLE idea that the numbers for the Persians are excessive NEVER CAME UP IN THE PROGRAM. The idea that maybe the battle did NOT occur as Herodotus said it did was NOT brought up in the program. For example why would you launch light infantry against heavy armored infantry? If you are desperate yes, but Xerxes had a disciplined Army AND HE HAD Naval Superiority at that time. Xerxes was NOT in a position to be disparate (Unlike Queen Boudica when she launched her light infantry against the Roman heavy Infantry in 62 AD, her army was an armed mob that could only be used to attack, not wait for a better day or place to fight).
In the program Archers are used at first and the heavy armor and shields of the Spartans defeat the arrows. Then light infantry attacks. These are portrayed as two different attacks, but in combat at that time period these were always done TOGETHER. i.e. Archers are used, than the infantry (Light or heavy depending what is being used) goes through the archers and attack WHILE THE ARCHERS CONTINUE TO SHOOT ARROWS over the heads of their own troops. This would have forced the Spartans to decide how to defend themselves, shield in front to defend against the Infantry, or up high to protect against Arrows. The same when the Immortals were sent in against the Spartans, Archers are NOT mentioned. Archers are again mentioned, only in passing, as how Xerxes finished off the Spartans after they had been outflanked.
In my opinion, I would go with a 40,000 man army for Xerxes. This provides a huge number of troops more then the Greeks had, yet within the number armies have been historically. Historically it has been hard to feed an army over 50,000 men, thus 50,000 man armies tend to be the upper limit of armies. The exception to this was the Roman Legion, the Mongol Horde and the modern Army Corp and Division. All three formations are in reality mini-armies that maintain their own supply lines and only came together when needed as in a battle. Such mini-armies are the only way to effectively have armies that exceed 50,000 men (and thus any army that exceed 50,000 is probably only 50,000 in number, but often Generals had reasons to lie, for Example Alexander the Great when he defeated the Persians had about 40,000 men under his command, yet he "DefeateD" a 1 million man Persian Army. I suspect the number was only 50,000 but propaganda is not new).
Furthermore I Suspect the flanking operation did occur on the third day of battle, but the Greeks were caught by the Persians and were in retreat when the Persians fell on the Spartans and Thespians (probably shooting them down with Arrows). It is hard to move an army in a hurry, the least in danger must move first and quickest, while the most in danger must wait for the road to clear of the troops behind them. With the Spartans holding the line, they had to wait to guard the coast road, and by the time the rest of the greek army had moved on the Persians were on them.
I also suspect the first two days of combat, I suspect that no attacks occurred, instead the Persians sent in their light infantry to watch the Spartans. Some combat occurred by more probing attacks then any real combat. This would explain the light infantry role and Archers role. Harassing fire from the Archers some advance by the Spartans, some light infantry attacks but no serious attack by the Persians as they look to see how they could outflank the Spartans. As to the Immortals, I just do NOT Xerxes sending them in. Someone probably asked for them but Xerxes said NO, leave them lead the flank attacks whenever it would occur (and in fact did lead the attack through the flanking path).
Now, propaganda is NOT new, and the Athenians wanted Spartan help on land. Thus the above was spun to the story Herodotus wrote down. The Spartans fought hard and only shoot down with arrows after they had been outflanked by superior numbers and killed a huge number of Persians. The fact that maybe the Persians lost NO ONE was just ignored. Not good for the Propaganda story to keep Sparta in the war (Also would account for the downplaying the role of Archers in the battle, Archers were despised by the Spartans for anyone with a stick and time to train could kill a heavy armored Soldier that the Spartans represented).
My point is NONE of this was presented in the show. Herodotus's story is treated as Gospel. In more recent history we have seen similar propaganda messages that survive long after they are no longer needed. For example the Alamo, where every one of the Defenders fought to the last man (When we know they did not and makes sense for Davy Crockett to Surrender, by the time the battle reach where he was it was over and he would have surrendered if offered. Yet, people refuse to accept that fact we have one report he did surrender and his is confirmed by the sole survivor (a woman) who report Crockett's body with saber cuts as he is left out of the Alamo after being released by Santa Anna, that was NOT a combat death but cold blooded murder.
The Battle of Wake Island is another example, Wake Island did defeat one Japanese attack on the island but surrendered after the Second attack, but by then Wake Island had become a WWII version of the Alamo with even a movie showing everyone fighting to the last man (and by the time the movie was out the Japanese had released pictures of the Officers and men of Wake island in Japanese Captivity). The fight to the last man was shear propaganda in both the Alamo and Wake Island, the same can be said of Thermopylae. It smacks of propaganda. Most Military units lose unit cohesion (i.e. the ability to fight) whenever they lost 10% of their troops. Thus you tend to pull units who have suffered such losses and retrain them. The Spartans are in the battle for three solid days, somewhere they would have lost 10% merely by following over each other to avoid the arrows and spears over a three day period. No, the best explanation is that Herodotus either lied or accepted as truth Athenian Propaganda about the land battle at Thermopylae (and as such NOT a reliable source for the details of the battle).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(575 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
