Author of 'Thermopylae 480 BC - Last Stand of the 300'
Dr. Nic Fields
Dr. Nic Fields started his career as a biochemist, after which he
served the United Kingdom as a member of the Royal Marines. After his
matriculation at the University of Newcastle, and thereafter upon
completion of his Ph.D., he entered Academia as the Assistant Director
at the British School in Athens and later as a lecturer in Ancient
History at the University of Edinburgh.
Recently having had the chance to communicate with Dr. Fields, I found his answers to the questions submitted relative to his book and the Battle of Thermopylae quite compelling, as I'm pretty certain you will.
JT: Dr. Fields: Since you began your career in a totally different discipline, the
question begs to be answered, 'Why did you leave the field of
biochemistry and when did you realize that Ancient History was going to
be your vocation rather than an avocation?'
NF: When I was a small boy my parents took me to
see my first motion picture. We were overseas (France was still a
member of NATO and my father had been posted to Versailles) and at
the camp cinema there was showing the latest blockbuster from
Hollywood. I cannot recollect what the historical epic was exactly
(Antony and Cleopatra perhaps), but I do remember quite
vividly Julius Caesar. Anyway, a few years later I picked up my first
Penguin Classic, a copy of The Conquest of Gaul and I was
hooked. However, the discipline of science was the order of the day,
and at school (we were now back in London) my education took the path
of physics, biology and chemistry. To cut a long story short, the
field of biochemistry was my first university venture, which
thereupon took me into the pharmaceutical industry.
Yet Caesar kept poking his balding head out from around corners and
tapping me on the shoulder. What is more, I was never completely at
ease with the wonderful world of wonder drugs, so I eventually
decided to return to university and studied ancient history, this
time up in Newcastle. So, in a roundabout way, I became, via
scientist and soldier, a scholar. Now, having recently left Edinburgh
for the bucolic pleasures of south-west France, the scholar has
metamorphosed into a scribbler.
JT: When did you first get the idea for writing 'Thermopylae 480 BC' and how long did it take
you to complete the manuscript?
NF: Having been taught at Newcastle by John Lazenby
all there is to know (and more besides) about the Persian Wars, and
then visited all of its battle sites, and subsequently myself at
Edinburgh having taught a course on the same subject, meant that I
had accumulated a sizeable collection of notes and maps, as well as a
clutter of thoughts and ideas on this olympian struggle between
Hellene and Mede, East and West. So when my editor, Nikolai
Bogdanovic, suggested a Campaign title on Thermopylai I leapt at the
opportunity. That was back in 2006, and Thermopylae, as you
know, was published in 2007.
Between the signing of a contract and the
delivery of a manuscript, you normally have a period of nine to
twelve months. Of course you have to appreciate that as a freelance
writer I have other contracts to fulfill, other deadlines to meet,
and in order to sample and enjoy the gastronomical delights of the
corner of the cosmos Esther (ma femme d'esprit and
photographic partner) and I now live in, I need to write a number of
these monographs each year. This particular title happened to be one
of four published by Osprey in 2007.
JT: Since the majority of the images included in your monograph are
from your personal collection, how much time was spent in Greece for
research, including photographing the landscapes, statues, artifacts,
etc?
NF: I was fortunate enough, during my second year of postgraduate
studies, to secure a scholarship from the Hellenic government, which
thus gave me the chance to live and study in Greece for six months.
Well, six months turned into ten - the scholarship being kindly
extended - and from one scholarship, I fell into another, this time
from the British School at Athens, and lo and behold, three years had
slipped by.
Anyway, during this time I had travelled widely throughout Greece
and the Aegean, visiting sites and museums naturally, but also
walking the battlefields of ancient Greece, collecting data and
photographs as I went. My former military training came into its own
here, a real bonus, allowing me to understand the local topography
and draw up maps and make sketches. These years as a soldier also
permitted me to make imperturbable observations concerning such
matters as approach routes and battleground dispositions. On all of
these expeditions I not only carried decent relief maps (what was
then the War Office published a 1:100000 series in 1944), but also
annotated photocopies of relevant passages from the ancient sources,
Herodotos, Thucydides, Xenophon and Diodoros in the main, though
Plutarch came into his own on occasions.
So, having served the British School (my last
year was as its Assistant Director) and having completed the doctoral
thesis (a thematic inquiry into the human
dynamics of mercenary service during the age hoplite warfare)
and gained my PhD, I started teaching American undergraduates who
were visiting Greece on study abroad programmes. Instructing them
principally on ancient sites and in museums, the essential aim of
these twelve-week courses was to introduce the physical setting of
Greek antiquity and to relate Greece's landscape, ancient
monuments, and artefacts to their historical contexts. At the same
time, between undergraduate programmes, I was freelancing for the
Smithsonian Institute as a study leader on their museum-based
educational travel programme. These long-distance tours not only gave
me further opportunities to travel around Greece, but also to explore
parts of Turkey and Italy. On all these journeys, my camera and
notebooks were always ready to hand.
I was resident in Greece for some seven years, during which time I
got to see most of the country apart from the northeastern corner and
the Ionian Islands. I certainly miss Greece. It got into my blood, a
wonderful land, a special people.
JT: Herodotus' 'The Histories' has been the primary source for
historians and scholars when it comes to the Greco-Persian Wars,
however, there is a minority who vociferously question the validity of
several of his passages, most notably the number of combatants who
comprised Xerxes the Great's army. Most academics are proponents of
his oeuvre, therefore, 'What should be said in defense of the 'Father
of History'?
NF: An Ionian writer born in Doric-speaking
Halikarnassos of good pedigree, Herodotos was a master storyteller,
tireless traveller, and a genius whose true worth is frequently
underrated. In truth, he was the first to make events of the past the
subject of research and verification, which is what the Greek word
historiē meant. The first 'historian', his
prose epic, the Histories, undoubtedly ranks as the single
major source of information available to us concerning the events of
the Persian Wars, but contains much else, including wonderful
accounts of various cultures, myths and sights. For instance, in his
survey of the customs of the Persians we learn that as imperialists
they were relatively tolerant and supportive of local beliefs and
customs.
It also reminds us that Herodotos, with his
insatiable curiosity, was not only a historian but an anthropologist
as well, and as a geographer he has his merits too. He was the first
to understand the relative size and situation of Europe, Africa and
Asia. He was aware of the fact that the Caspian Sea was surrounded on
all sides by land, and knew reports about the circumnavigation of
Africa (a statement that was generally questioned until the
Portuguese navigator Bartolemeo Diaz reached the Cape of Good Hope in
1487). If we believe what he says, he travelled extensively in the
known world to the Greeks of the fifth century BC,
from the northern shores of the Black Sea to as far south as
Elephantine on the first cataract of the Nile, and from southern
Italy (where he was to spend his old age) to western Iran. We have no
means of checking this amazing itinerary and, much like a modern
tourist, he did not command any foreign languages. Nonetheless, he
was a terrific collector and teller of marvellous stories - cracking
bedtime reading.
It is apparent that Herodotos'
historical narrative, in its main lines, follows the surprisingly
swift expansion of Persia and then describes the defeat of the
Persians at the hands of the Greeks. In the words of John Lazenby,
the military historian who enlightened me to the truth that ancient
warfare was not the same as I was trained to do, the "Persian
Wars without Herodotos would not so much be Hamlet without the
prince, as Hamlet without Shakespeare". Anyway, by the
winter of 481/80 BC Xerxes,
who was to lead the invasion in person, was ready with his Asian
forces at Sardis. Believed by Herodotos to number 2,317,610 and
gathered from all over Xerxes’ empire, so richly endowed with
manpower, the land force alone probably numbered around 80,000
combatants, with its main fighting strength being Iranian troops, and
the rest perhaps token contingents from all the subject races. It was
not that Herodotos was wrong. Rather, in this particular case he had
probability been informed by his Persian source the total manpower
strength available to the Great King from all corners of his vast
domain.
JT: Even though their writings have been discounted because they have
relied so heavily on Herodotus, how important are the works of Ephorus
of Cyme and Diodorus Siculus with respect to the Battle of Thermopylae?
NF: Latter writers, such as Diodoros of Sicily, have, at
first glance, a good deal to add to our understanding of the Persian
Wars. Sadly Diodoros' account of Marathon and of the events
leading up to Xerxes' great invasion is almost entirely lost.
However, book 11 has survived intact, and there are those who would
argue that it provides valuable evidence to supplement or even
correct Herodotos.
Let us consider the following. Diodoros' principal source, Ephoros of Kyme, is described by Polybios, who did
have military experience, as one of "the most learned of the
writers of earlier times" (6.45.1), but as the same time was "completely ignorant about battles on land" (12.25f).
Thus Diodoros' cockamamie yarn of the commando-style raid,
staged during the small dark hours prior to the final day at
Thermopylai, behind enemy lines to try and liquidate Xerxes
(11.10.1-4), culminating, apparently, in the annihilation of Leonidas
and his swashbuckling band in the Persian camp itself, is sufficient
evidence of Ephoros' shortcomings in this respect, if he was
Diodoros' source. It is from Herodotos in the first place that
we form our best impression of the battle of Thermopylai, though we
should probably thank Ephoros via Diodoros for preserving the Laconic
humour of Leonidas - arguably apocryphal but aptly appropriate - when
he ordered his men "to prepare their breakfast quickly, since
they would dine in Hades" (11.9.4).
JT: There is a dichotomy with respect to the involvement of the Thebans
during the Greco-Persian Wars as Herodotus states that they had
pro-Persian sympathies. This was confirmed when they fought against
the Greek forces at Plataea, however, we
know that at a minimum, they fought on the third and final day with the
remnants of the Spartan and Thespian contingents. How do historians
reconcile the fact that the 400 hoplites from Thebes fought at
Thermopylae despite Herodotus' contention that the city-state had
'medised'?
NF: The 400 Thebans who turned out to fight at
Thermopylai deserve all honour, even if they represented a tiny
anti-Persian faction, which had nothing to lose and everything to
gain. Of course, we would like to believe that Herodotos' story
of their surrender at the end is untrue, more so when we consider it
deeply tainted by prejudice. Let me explain.
Herodotos
says of the Thebans that as they were surrendering they were yelling
to the Persians they had "come to Thermopylai against their
will" (7.233.1). There is no reason to doubt that at least some
of them, if not all, having decided that they had done enough in the
aid of a cause that was clearly hopeless, opted to surrender and
survive rather than to face a certain death. Yet there is a strong
element of bias - probably the product of a hostile Athenian source -
in Herodotos' remarks about the Thebans both here and elsewhere
in his account of the battle. For instance, he says that Leonidas was
particularly anxious to pick up the continent from Thebes he took
with him when he marched north to stop the Persians, because of
serious accusations of medisim against the Thebans.
In reality it is possible that the Spartans were still
confident that the Thebans would support them, though they presumably
hoped for more than the 400 hoplites they got being that Thebes was
the chief state of Boiotia. It seems this modest contingent of
Thebans with Leonidas represented those in Thebes who were inclined
to resist the Persians. Indeed, as Diodoros (Ephoros?) says, they
were "of the other party" (11.4.7). Later, after
Thermopylai, all the Boiotian states except Thespiai (enemy of
Thebes) and Plataia (ally of Athens) medized, so that the reputation
of all the Thebans, pro- and anti-Persian alike, was especially
blackened when the Persians were eventually forced out of Greece in
the following year.
JT: Having taught, researched and written about the Battle of
Thermopylae of 480 BC, what do you feel is its biggest misconception?
NF: The biggest misconception of
Thermopylai must be the common belief that the Spartans made their
last stand alone on that fateful, final afternoon. Posterity
commemorates the Three Hundred, but how many of us recall the 'Seven
Hundred' who perished the same day. Indeed, it is a remarkable
fact that Thespiai willingly sent all the adult males who qualified
for hoplite service to fight at Thermopylai. As far as we can tell,
this tiny Boiotian state had
no obligations to Sparta or even Athens, although, like next-door
Plataia, there was a tendency for its citizens to gravitate towards
the latter out of hostility towards the neighbourhood bully, Thebes.
All the same, in a few short hours an
entire generation of citizen-farmers was obliterated.
Still, justice was finally seen to
be done when, in 1996, a bronze sculpture
was set up and unveiled at the site of Thermopylai to commemorate the
gallant citizen-soldiers of Thespiai who volunteered to fight and die
with Leonidas and the Three Hundred.
JT: The Battle of Salamis is considered the turning point of the second
Persian invasion of Greece, or even Plataea for that matter as some
have suggested, therefore, how would you characterize the significance
of Thermopylae even though it resulted in a defeat for the Hellenes?
NF: Athens had been abandoned and the battered Greek
fleet took up station in the confined waters between Salamis and the
mainland. It was here, probably around the time of the autumn equinox
and almost four weeks after the fall of Thermopylai, that an epic
naval encounter was fought. The Persians suffered a bloody repulse,
resulting in Xerxes returning to Persia. But why had the Greeks
elected to fight at 'Divine Salamis'?
Salamis turned out to be the decisive battle of the war
and, we can reasonably argue by exercising the privilege of
hindsight, the turning point. Following three days of indeterminate
skirmishing off Artemision, which coincided with the three days of
fighting at Thermopylai, the Greek fleet fell back to the island of
Salamis. Here, in the narrows between what is now Ambelákia on
Salamis and Pérama on the Attic coast (still a matter of
scholarly dispute), the final reckoning with Xerxes' navy took
place. It is possible that the Persian fleet was foxed into rowing up
the channel, at night, by a message from Themistokles (doubted by
many scholars), but the Greeks were informed by a deserter and were
ready at dawn.
It is unclear exactly what happened that morning, and
even numbers are uncertain, though the Greeks appear to have had 310
or 368 triremes and the Persians rather more. Persian morale may have
been low both after a night at the oar and because they had thought
the Greeks would not fight. It seems probable that the Greeks
initially outnumbered the leading or right-wing Persian squadrons,
and were able to cut them off and drive them ashore before turning on
the left wing and driving it out to sea. All that we know for sure is
that the Persian fleet was defeated and the shattered survivors
sailed eastward.
Anyway, whether or not it was straightaway that
Thermopylai was celebrated not as a failure, but as the ultimate
triumph of moral courage and martial valour, the immediate outcome of
this defeat was to act as an inspiration to those Greek states who
opted to forget traditional antagonisms, form an alliance, stand fast
and stop the invader. Remarkably, amongst their number was to be
counted Thespiai, which supplied the coalition forces with all its
surviving male population, precisely 1,800 unarmoured and poorer
citizens.
JT: The illustrations by Steve Noon are extremely detailed, therefore,
was it collaborative in the sense that you provided direction by
suggesting revisions along the way, or did Mr. Noon research and create
the artwork without any of your input?
NF: This is how it works. Each monograph written for
Osprey is done so under a given contract, and each contract
stipulates that the author supply full reference material for the
briefing of the colour plate artist. As the artist is under no
obligation to research the subject in question, the reference package
has to be detailed enough (i.e. written instructions as well as
pictorial material) to allow him or her to perform their task without
undue worry. So I will put together information for each of the
colour plates to be created, detailing the scene required and
specifics therein.
Naturally, en route to the finished
plate, there is input by the artists. Indeed, many of them are pretty
well tuned in to the subject, and when you look at the striking art
created by Steve Noon for Thermopylae, you can see he had a
certain passion for this particular subject. In fact, Steve has just
executed three marvellous plates for Spartacus and the Slave War.
I like his work hugely.
One unwonted nightmare for me is to open one of my
monographs, still hot off the press so to speak, and find an
anachronism in a colour plate, such as a helmet pattern or sword type
out of temporal context. There are a lot of experts out there,
especially when it comes down to the minutiae concerning war gear. So
you have to be confident that the reference material you are sending
to the artist is as foolproof as it can be.
Let us take a straightforward
example, the linen corselet that protected the torso of a hoplite.
The north and east friezes of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi, which
are dated to 525 BC or
thereabouts, depict hoplite figures wearing both the stiff linen
corselet and the bronze bell-shaped corselet. As this is, as far as I
am aware, the first pictorial evidence for the use of the linen
corselet, we assume that it first appeared around 525 BC,
ergo, a colour plate depicting hoplites prior to this date should
show them wearing the older, heavier corselet, while after this date
the newer, flexible corselet can be included. It seems simple, but it
is not always the case.
JT: Historians, academics, scholars and several communities have been
vocal in their renunciation of the revisionism of 'Troy', 'Alexander'
and '300'. While the success of these movies has varied, why do you
think '300' resonated with audiences while the others didn't?
NF: History according to Hollywood,
not a bad thing at all. In fact, many of us get our first real taste
of the ancient world via the silver screen, and, as you know, I
gladly include myself in this category. Of course, many academics
shook their heads or wrung their hands after having viewed an ancient
epic 'with a cast of thousands' such as Troy,
Alexander or 300, muttering dark words about historical
inaccuracies and the like. Presentation of the past in the present is
so often a controversial topic, and you can appreciate their point of
view, namely once Hollywood has seized a historical theme, past-fact
is usurped by present-fantasy. As Gore Vidal once famously said: "In
the end, he who screens the history makes the history".
Hollywood is a dream factory that stirs our imagination and makes
monstrous amounts of money in the process. True, these epic films can
shape modern perspectives on the ancient world, but in a grey world
ruled by grey men uttering grey words, they can also act as a visual
panacea to a disillusioned populace. It is heartening to think that
heroes of old, such as Achilles, Alexander and Leonidas, are still
worthy of the Hollywood treatment.
To catch the popular imagination, a
historical epic should furnish the impression, atmosphere, and
felling of history, not the sort of accuracy demanded from an
academic dealing with the same historical topic. Yet the ancient
sources are readily available in translation, and thus easy to check,
and often more dramatic and entertaining than the modern script.
Plutarch himself, for instance, would have made an ace Hollywood
screenwriter. Whereas Troy attempts to rationalise the
supernatural world of Homer by banishing the gods, and Alexander
busies itself with the seamier side of Alexander's private
life, one of the major appeals of the 300 is that somebody had
obviously picked up a copy of Plutarch and read it well. For the film
effectively portrays the 'Lykourgan' system, peculiar to
Sparta and framed with the specific purpose of making its warriors
deadly efficient in war. Still, when compared with that more
effective epic, The Three Hundred Spartans, it has a good deal
more blood than glory.
Anyway, to finally answer your question about
revisionism, I suppose all three of these Hollywood epics full into
that timeless trap of portraying Orientals as dull and decadent, and
Occidentals as formidable and freedom-loving. Yet, to borrow those
immortal words of Rudyard Kipling, "there is neither East nor
West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, when two strong men stand face to
face, though they come from the ends of the earth!"