The Chaff

Sunday, March 18th, 2007

Historical Analogy Is a Two-Edged Sword

It’s become pretty popular among various “hawkish” bloggers to bask in the reflected glow of 300. The glorification of war and cartoonish* masculinity has been commented on in detail by people far more qualified than I. But the nit I have to pick with the 300 hawks is the “historical analogy” angle. Because of such lovely tidbits like the wife of King Leonides saying “Freedom isn’t free” and the stereotype of light-skinned good people standing in for “us” in films, the hawks have decided that the Spartans are an analogy for America and the Persians an analogy for Iran, Iraq, or everyone in the Middle East in general.

You want to make 300 into a historical analogy? OK. Let’s look at that, shall we?

(*That’s a JOKE, son! It went right by ya!)

The Persian Empire was the richest, most powerful state in the world. King Darius tried to conquer the loosely aligned Greek city-states, but he was turned back at the battle of Marathon and died before he could mount another invasion. His son Xerxes took over the empire even though he wasn’t the first choice for successor and was a little bit…um…off (he ordered his men to whip the sea–and brand it with irons!–because it disobeyed him).
Egged on by his father’s advisors, Xerxes determined to conquer Greece. He set off with an overwhelming force, fully expecting the Greeks to be shocked and cower in awe at his might and surrender with little resistance.

The Greeks were not quite so compliant. City states (think “factions”) who normally fought amongst themselves once again joined together to stand against the invaders.
Hm…
On an operational level, Xerxes wasn’t big on strategy, and the experienced Greeks took advantage of the tactical gap:

for indeed they fought in a narrow place, and their spears were shorter than the spears of the Greeks, and their numbers availed them not at all. As for the Spartans they fought in a notable way, showing themselves more skillful by far in battle than were their enemies. Then they would sometimes turn their backs, and make as though they were all fled; and when the barbarians saw them flee they would pursue after them with much shouting and uproar. Then the Spartans would turn again and stand face to face with the barbarians; and when they turned they would slay such multitudes as could not be counted.

(In theory, that trick should only work once, you know?)

Xerxes is described as “perplexed” and not certain of what to do, so he continues his same strategy over and over again, unable to adjust to the new situation on the ground. He simply couldn’t believe the Greeks planned to fight him at all, and he was completely unprepared to encounter any resistance. He figured if he kept throwing men at the Greeks, they would despair and give up.

The same pattern continues through the war. In subsequent naval battles, the Greeks sailed circles around the Persians, using Xerxes own arrogance against him and trapping the Persian navy at the Bay of Salamis.

And, in the end, Xerxes lost a large part of his forces and nearly bankrupted the empire in his mad pursuit of revenge on the people who’d fought off his father. The Persian Empire lost its position, and the Greek states (particularly Athens) became the dominant force in the Mediterranean.

So, hawks, before you start playing the historical analogy game, you might double-check the context to make sure you’re not cutting yourself with your own blade. Because the “powerful invader vs. determined defender” story is a very powerful one–indeed, it’s the driving point of Herodotus’s narrative.

And we’re on the wrong side of it.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

---

2 Responses to “Historical Analogy Is a Two-Edged Sword”

1. paul Says:
   March 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 am

   In the old days (you know, back when the US thought of itself as a democracy) all the history books gave the credit for defeating the persians to Athens, because they were foresighted and intellectual and democratic and all. The spartans were just a footnote. O Tempora ! O Mores!

2. Dorothy Says:
   March 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm

   Well, true, that and Athens honestly did deserve more credit for the actual defeat of the Persians (particularly the navy). The delay at Thermopylae gave the other Greeks enough time to mount a strategic defense and evacuate some key cities, but in the end the Persians won that particular battle, as everyone knew they would.

   That’s part of what makes the Spartans so heroic in this context: they were on a suicide mission to buy time for the rest of the Greeks. Their orders were pretty much “Take as long as possible to die.” But there was never any doubt that dying was part of the package.

   Which is also why this story doesn’t work from the invader’s point of view. Xerxes lost way more than 300 men in the pass, but none of them are remembered as heroes. Suicide missions as hero stories only work when audience recognizes that you have something worth dying for.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

---

---