Beer & Pretzels: Leonidas as Commander

[grydth]

Anybody interested in a beer + pretzels debate on whether the King Leonidas in the movie "300" is a good or bad model for a modern commander to follow?

Beer + pretzels means: kinda serious, but let's have some fun...... this is a movie character, after all.

Maybe we can even lure Hubbard into this one...

To make it interesting, I'll take the anti-Leonidas position ..... and say: Great man, but do not try this at home! Trying to follow this act will only get you and your command a bad death.Any takers?

 

[Kreth]

To make it interesting, I'll take the anti-Leonidas position ..... and say: Great man, but do not try this at home! Trying to follow this act will only get you and your command a bad death.Any takers?

Wasn't that kind of the point though? His force was fighting a rearguard action, and not really expected to survive.

 

[grydth]

More in the nature of a delaying action.

I would say Cambronne at Waterloo is more an example of 'not expected to survive'.

The movie Leonidas could have made his stand - and returned to that luscious wife of his.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Different time, different worldview, different ethics all we can really do is judge his actions based on what we would do today. I dont know how valid any judgement we could make would be.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i've gotta come down pro-leo.

he led from the front.

he exemplified everything he expected of his men.

he treated his men with respect and love.

everything else is trivial.

 

[grydth]

Different time, different worldview, different ethics all we can really do is judge his actions based on what we would do today. I dont know how valid any judgement we could make would be.

When discussing an historical figure, it either has to be very serious and run into valid concerns that you cite - - - or you can have a free wheeling and less serious time, hence the beer + pretzels format. I'm not expecting any of this thread to make it to publication........

 

[grydth]

i've gotta come down pro-leo.

he led from the front.

he exemplified everything he expected of his men.

he treated his men with respect and love.

everything else is trivial.

He was indeed all of that - - - and if you try it at home, you'll much more likely have the Little Big Horn than a repeat of Leonidas' stand. In the modern world, the flaws you label trivial I say would be instead fatal.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'll refrain from comment until I see the movie and do a little side reading for historical context.

 

[tradrockrat]

i've gotta come down pro-leo.

he led from the front.

he exemplified everything he expected of his men.

he treated his men with respect and love.

everything else is trivial.

He also knew enough to allow Themistocles the Athenian commander to lay out the main battle plan and run the naval engagments to protect his flanks. If he had not been betrayed by Ephialtes who led the persians through the mountain pass or even if the Phocian forces there had had the guts to actually engage the Persians, Leonidas may very well have held that pass indefinitely.

Remember, in real life there were almost 8000 - 10,000 Greek soldiers there, but Leonidas held a rear guard to make sure they all were able to evacuate under cover of that last night. He had barely 1000 troops left to fight two fronts, but the Persians couldn't afford to go after the fleeing troops - troops who later would kick some serious Persian *** at the battle of Salamis (mainly a naval batle, but ground forces included many soldiers who had been at Thermopylae).

The saddest part is that ultimately, the Persians accomplished their main objective of burning Athens (Xerxes had sworn to burn it down in revenge for the parthenon which was a monument to a victory over Persian forces many years previously) despite the efforts of the Spartans, but the overwhelming losses so demoralized the Persians that Xerxes then left, never to return to Greece. When the Greeks finally kicked Persian forces out and went after the Persians on their own soil, Spartans led the way.

 

[grydth]

I'll refrain from comment until I see the movie and do a little side reading for historical context.

Pah! Why ruin a good discussion with the facts?:boxing:

 

[tradrockrat]

He was indeed all of that - - - and if you try it at home, you'll much more likely have the Little Big Horn than a repeat of Leonidas' stand. In the modern world, the flaws you label trivial I say would be instead fatal.

apples and oranges - The Spartans picked their battle ground - they had learned that lesson from their victory at Marathon. They also knew exactly what they faced. The Souix nation had the battleground at little bighorn - and Custer was an egotistical idiot with bad intel.

 

[grydth]

Relying strictly on the movie version -

Neither side knew exactly what they faced in either the Spartan foot soldier or the Persian Immortal.

Also, the Leonidas' movie line about 'only hoping' nobody tells Xerxes about the back door or goat path...... wishful thinking of that nature only leads to a dead command.

 

[Nomad]

From what I have heard and read, he was probably the one leader that could pull off the stand at Thermopylae, and the Spartan upbringing had essentially trained him and his 300 men for exactly this role since birth.

For a modern commander? I think parts of his character/actions are worthy of emulation (he saw what needed to be done and was willing to make that sacrifice both for the welfare of his country (& for personal glory)), but also know that warfare has changed "rather a lot" since then, and similar circumstances are really really unlikely to occur now.

Still one of the best battle stories of all time, though! The fact that we're talking about him (and making movies about him) 2500 years later is strong proof of the resonance of the tale.

 

[tradrockrat]

Relying strictly on the movie version -

Neither side knew exactly what they faced in either the Spartan foot soldier or the Persian Immortal.

Also, the Leonidas' movie line about 'only hoping' nobody tells Xerxes about the back door or goat path...... wishful thinking of that nature only leads to a dead command.

Well, strictly on the movie version he was a character in a CGI movie set - nobody actually died.

Seriously though, his character did send phoecian troops to guard the pass, but they were scattered without a fight - the bald guy in black leather ran in long enough to tell him near the end of the movie before he left with all his men. But the point was that this was the only hope of containing the Persians - if they took the pass there was nothing he could do at all - brilliant strategist or not. As for the immortals, he had not faced them specifically before, but he knew exactly how many soldiers he faced - they looked them over before the battle ever started - hell, the emisary from Xerxes told them how many they faced in the begining of the movie. Persians were not an unknown quantity, the dialogue made it clear that the Spartans knew much about thier culture and fighting habits.

I'm on the Pro-Leonidas side in this one.

 

[elder999]

he led from the front.

he exemplified everything he expected of his men.

he treated his men with respect and love.

everything else is trivial.

:asian:.

 

[grydth]

From what I have heard and read, he was probably the one leader that could pull off the stand at Thermopylae, and the Spartan upbringing had essentially trained him and his 300 men for exactly this role since birth.

For a modern commander? I think parts of his character/actions are worthy of emulation (he saw what needed to be done and was willing to make that sacrifice both for the welfare of his country (& for personal glory)), but also know that warfare has changed "rather a lot" since then, and similar circumstances are really really unlikely to occur now.

Still one of the best battle stories of all time, though! The fact that we're talking about him (and making movies about him) 2500 years later is strong proof of the resonance of the tale.

This fine post of yours pretty much sums up my personal feelings about Leonidas' place in history.

However - since this is a B+P debate about the movie character, it won't prevent me from throwing a little gas on the debate flames in the next post....

 

[grydth]

Okay, Nomad is right about Leonidas being the right man to save Greece.... but here are some things the movie Leonidas did that will bring a would be emulator to disaster:

* Leonidas treats friends the way most people treat enemies.

Yeah, we get it already: You are the few, the proud, the Spartans. But let's emphasize a key point - you are the few. You'll surely need the other 97% of us to win this war - and who wants to watch your flank with that attitude of yours? It's all nice to put down the Arcadian troops as being 'only' blacksmiths and farmers - but exactly who grows all the food, makes the cloaks and weapons so you have the luxury of practicing war all day long?? The fact that these guys are going to face the same enemy as you without all the training makes them as brave or braver in my book!

Leonidas fails where many of us who have achieved something fail: Our pride in our accomplishments too easily turns into derision of others. In coalition war, it will cripple your effort.

* Leonidas Murders Everybody - Except the Guy He Should Have Killed

What's with throwing messengers down into the pit? Looks fun, feels good at the moment - but some day you may answer for it. Also, need one be a great warrior to butcher all the wounded guys? In real life, that'll mean an enemy army unit that would have quit the field will instead fight to the death - resulting in needless deaths of your own troops as well.

Leonidas stops his captain from killing the one guy they arguably should have off'd - the hunchback. The guy knows the terrain, but you have to reject him and send him away angry. Hey, you're killing everyone else in the cast, why not toss this suspect off the cliff - - - and the Persians don't find the path to your rear.

Or, better yet, do what another great swordsman - Musashi - would have done and find some use for the guy. (Note the carpenter section in his Book of Five Rings)

 

[bushidomartialarts]

He was indeed all of that - - - and if you try it at home, you'll much more likely have the Little Big Horn than a repeat of Leonidas' stand. In the modern world, the flaws you label trivial I say would be instead fatal.

i'd posit that if custer had possessed the above qualities the little big horn never would have happened. his love for his troops would have prevented his hubris from getting the better of him.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

First the Spartans trained full time for war because they used serfs to grow their food and make their equipment. They were called helots. As a rite of passage, Spartan boys were let loose in the countryside as a lesson in survival and they reportedly also killed stray slaves as practice and as a means of keeping the helots in line. It was a different time and a different people.

As to killing the wounded. I seem to recall that the Spartan spear had a spiked butt and that while ther rear ranks had their shoulders into and pushing the ranks to their front, they used that spike in a piston fashion on the enemy they were trudging over.

 

[grydth]

i'd posit that if custer had possessed the above qualities the little big horn never would have happened. his love for his troops would have prevented his hubris from getting the better of him.

Custer, too, led from the front and was personally courageous. There is evidence that he cared for his men, was proud of them and that he may have overestimated their fighting abilities.

History vindicates Leonidas as the true Immortal, and forever condemns Custer...... and where's the line for future officers? Was hubris indeed the difference - or was it open terrain as opposed to a pass? Or the enemy - massed overconfident Persians versus mobile Sioux who were defending home rather than acting as invaders?

But my belief stands that many of those who would be Leonidas will instead be recorded as future Custers. Posthumously. Among the bones of their troops.