|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lendering
states:
“Farrokh has an
incredible belief in the Histories
of Herodotus of
Halicarnassus.”
Kaveh Farrokh-The 300 Movie: Separating Fact from Fiction http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/300/index.htm
Below
is an excerpt from that article. It pertains to Farrokh’s perspective
regarding Herodotus’ description of the Achamenid invasion force in
Greece:
=
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = Few question the fact that Xerxes’ army was huge and that the Greeks were
outnumbered. The question is “by how much”? The trailer of the movie
states: “They
[the Spartans] were 300 men against a Million”. The main source of these accounts for modern European scholarship is Herodotus,
who actually cites 1,700,000 invaders (Herodotus, VII, 60). Herodotus,
who wrote after the Greco-Persian wars of Darius and Xerxes had ended,
and before the age of Alexander. Herodotus (484-425 BC) Herodotus lists a total of 46 nations mustered by Xerxes in his invasion
of Greece (see Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert, 2007, Chapter
5). The vast numbers of troops were actually a liability as co-ordination
and communication and logistical support must have been complex, particularly
in contrast to the much smaller and compact, and linguistically uniform,
Greek force. Nevertheless, it is unfair to pin these quantitative citations solely on
Herodotus. The Greek tragedy by Aeschylos, The Persians,
describes the Greeks facing Xerxes’ armies as facing "a great
flood of humans…a wave of the sea that cannot be contained by the most
solid dikes (The Persians, lines 87-90)…” and ”…a
rash ruler of populous Asia [Xerxes] pushes a human herd
to the conquest of the entire world" (The Persians,
73-75). It was from the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries
when a number of European scholars began to question the fantastic numbers
cited by Herodotus. European researchers such as Gobineau and Delbrueck
began to seriously doubt the numerical claims made by Classical sources. The table below cites some of the researchers
of the period who provided the following estimates as to the actual
size of Xerxes’ invading armies:
Most modern scholarship appears to accept the figure of 100,000-200,000
invading troops, a figure consistent with the population base of the
Achaemenid Persian Empire at the time (Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert,
2007, Chapter 5). Even if the
Persian Empire had had the population base to produce 1,700,000 troops,
it would have faced a gargantuan task in organizing and deploying these
without the benefit of modern computers and communications technology.
Even if such an army could be organized to set off on the mammoth journey
from Asia to Greece, ancient logistics and supply would not have been
able to sustain such fantastic numbers of troops in so ambitious a campaign.
These capabilities date from far more recent modern times, from the
time of the American Civil War (1861-1865) and the advent of the railway
and telegraph. At Thermopylae, the Greek
numbers were close to 6000, when counting all of the Spartans and Greek
kinsmen. Still, even if we take the lowest estimate of 40,000 Achaemenid
Persian troops, the Greeks would have been vastly outnumbered, especially
during King Leonidas’ last stand.
=
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = =
The
on-line posting makes clear that Lendering’s claim that Farrokh has
“an incredible
belief in…Herodotus” is patently misinformed.
Every
historian of ancient Iran has to cite Herodotus, whether he or she agrees
or disagrees with the historiography.
There are numerous mainstream historians (Iranian and non-Iranian)
who quote Herodotus, examples being Shahbazi, Olmstead, Frye, Yamauchi,
etc. The fact that these historians, including Farrokh cite Herodotus,
even if they do not agree with all of his statements, is indicative
of their need for preserving balance in historiography.
Lendering
fails to report that Farrokh balances his citations of Herodotus with
other sources which often convey different points of view. Note two
examples:
·
The History of Cyrus - Farrokh`s footnote 1 for Chapter 2 on p.294: Max
Mallowan, 'Cyrus the Great' in: Ilya Gershevitch (ed.): The Cambridge
History of Iran, vol. II: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, 1985
Cambridge, pages 392-419.
·
Xerxes’ army during the invasion of Greece - Farrokh’s
footnote 21 for Chapter 4 on p.296: Herodotus, The Histories, VII, 85;
Dandamaev & Lukonin, The Culture and Institutions of Ancient Iran,
p.234.
Most interesting however, is Lendering’s application
of double standards. A brief examination of Lendering’s
own writings, reveal that he has no problems citing Herodotus. This
is evident in his discussion on Cyrus the Great http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus.html
Note
(again) Lendering’s transparent double-standard: when he cites Herodotus that is acceptable but takes issue when Farrokh
does the same. |
