https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg Respond to the question, citing evidence from the source documents to justify your answer. en-us 2018-11-30 19:31:31 UTC 2025-10-23 21:49:18 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310588995 ~280,000

Based on the evidence provided by Ernle Bradford, it is rather evident that the might of the Persian army was severely limited by the lack of resources available. In addition, his findings are free of any possible bias, unlike Herodotus's and Ctesias's sources. However, Sir General Frederick Maurice failed to account for the likely possibility of Xerxes's advanced guard of laborers and engineers created dams in streams, creating reservoirs of water, and thus more resources, as stated by Rupert Matthews. However, as these reservoirs can only supply so much additional water ( no more than 50%), there can only be so many additional men. Thus, I believe that 280,000 Persians fought in the Battle of Thermopylae. ]]> 2018-12-03 18:56:29 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310588995 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310598325 12,000.0

Based on the evidence presented,  I predict that there were 12,000 soldiers present at the Battle of Thermopylae. My estimate was based off of the prediction of Ctesias, who was Greek and claimed that he had access to the official Persian archives. The evidence from Ctesias seemed valid because he was from that time period. Many of the historians in the document had large guesses purely based on the fact that there were many resources that could be used by the Persian army. But because they were not from the time period, most of them based their predictions of those of Herodotus and cut the number of troops based on the water and resource supply of the area. So that is why there was 12,000 soldiers present at the Battle of Thermopylae.

]]> 2018-12-03 19:11:20 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310598325 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310600844  Based on the evidence suggested by General Sir Frederick Maurice who went to the area of the battle and concluded that the water reserves could not have supported more than 250,000 men, I think that his conclusion was the most accurate. The other accounts were based off of claims of evidence like the soldiers. The soldiers might not have known the exact number and just saw a huge army, therefore likely exaggerating their estimate. The other person claimed that he had official records, but he never gave any truth. The evidence suggested by the general was the most sound and therefore is the most convincing estimate.]]> 2018-12-03 19:15:56 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310600844 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310603284 300,000

Based on the evidence of Matthews is apparent that the Persian army would have to be larger then 210,000 but smaller then 350,000. He looked at Bradford evidence and concluded that because of the size of the land and the resources available he reached the conclusion that the land could support around 300,000 to 350,000 men. Matthews also took Herodotus's evidence into consideration. He discovered that the Persian army used up all of the resources that were available so he concluded that the number must be around 300,000 men. This is supported by the fact that construction of dams and canals which there was evidence of would increase the number of soldiers that Xerxes could have had. 

]]> 2018-12-03 19:20:26 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310603284 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310608260 300,000

 Based on evidence shown while reading through the documents it is apparent that this army was big and traveling to Greece was a large feat so they wouldn't have been too small. The army wanted to be large in size to ensure victory against the Greeks. Matthews excerpt stood out to me based on how he identified how it would have been impossible to march too many men across the roads and keep them supplied for the entire conquest even though they sent people before them to prepare the route. Too many Persians travelling the route would have exhausted the supplies and resources such as water resources and food along the way so the number could not be too high otherwise they would not make it there to the Battle of Thermopylae equipped and ready to fight. Therefore the army could not have been too small or too large.]]> 2018-12-03 19:28:28 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310608260 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310609419 275,000

Based on the evidence provided by General Sir Frederick Maurice from Ernie Bradford's document it has become apparent that the Persian army lacking resources to support a very big army by looking at the water supplies and his knowledge of the terrain. The water reserves that the Persian army had could not support more than 250,000 men according to the General. Matthews seems to add on to Bradford's findings by saying that streams could have been dammed showing that the water could be in reservoirs as well; no more than 50%. So his findings of the Persian army having more than 210,000 but less then 300,000 men is a good conclusion. I believe that both of these sources have the least bias as well making it more trustworthy because the Herodotus and Ctesias interviewed the Greek veterans and so most of the numbers that they came up with would most likely be a prediction or speculation. This is why I believe that 275,000 Persians fought in the Battle of Thermopylae. ]]> 2018-12-03 19:30:27 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310609419 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310611718 280,000

According to General Sir Frederick Maurice, the amount of available water is very limited and cannot support an army the size of Herodotus's estimations.  However, Maurice fails to account for the laborers that were sent ahead. Matthew states that the laborers that aided the army would've supported a bigger army than 210,000, which is what Maurice predicted. Matthews predicts that the water would increase by 50%, supporting up to 350,000 soldiers. Herodotus and Ctesias's findings could hold bias due to the fact that they interviewed Greek veterans. Herodotus was also a young boy that had little knowledge and wouldn't have produced an accurate number. Based on the evidence given, I believe that 280,000 Persian soldiers fought in the Battle of Thermopylae.]]> 2018-12-03 19:34:12 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310611718 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310614941
20,000

Based on the evidence given by Ctesias, a Greek physician who lived during the time of the battle, I predict there were approximately 20,000 Persian soldiers that fought in the Battle of Thermopylae. Ctesias had access to the original Persian archives meaning his evidence is the most pure out of the four sources. The other sources are all either biased or out of the timeline. Bradford and Matthew's accounts are both completely distant from the time that the battle actually took place. Herodotus doesn't even have any evidence for his claims. Therefore, I will base my answer around Ctesias who stated there were 10,000 Persians who fought in the Battle of Thermopylae.

]]> 2018-12-03 19:39:55 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310614941 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310619146 About 295,000

Based on the evidence provided by General Sir Frederick Maurice we can conclude that the number is most likely not anywhere close to Herodotus's estimation. We can also most likely rule out Ctesias' estimate as it seems to low to be believable and does not really make sense it also does not make sense how they would be able to fight for 2 days and still burn Athens. Matthews and Bradford seems to be closer together and make the most sense with our other evidence provided. ]]> 2018-12-03 19:46:25 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310619146 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310620306 I think that there were 210,000 men because the evidence used to get this number was scientific. While Matthews was most likely unbiased, he based his estimation off of a theory. The other two sources were most likely biased because they were most likely effected by the aftermath of the war. The evidence that Bradford used was based off of a proven study. Proven studies most likely hold more truth than written word, firsthand stories, and theories. 210,000 men were at the battle of Thermopylae.]]> 2018-12-03 19:48:19 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310620306 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310705255 About 280,000

According to the evidence and discovery of General Sir Frederick Maurice, the water available to the Persians could not physically support an army over 250,000 soldiers. However, Maurice was unaware of the fact that laborers were sent ahead to try and resolve the water shortage. Based on the evidence presented by Matthews, these laborers could have succeeded in increasing the amount of water by 50%. This would allow for a maximum of 350,000 men and a range between 210,000 and 350,000. This immediately overrules Herodotus's biased estimate of 2,317,610 men. However, Ctesias' estimate of 10,000 is just too low, especially considering that the Greeks had 7,000 soldiers. In almost every other major battle, the Persians significantly outnumbered the Greeks, and, in principle, offense requires many more soldiers than defense. Also, it seems near impossible that the Persians would have been able to fight, win the battle, get all the way to Athens, and burn it down with only 10,000 soldiers. Therefore, given that the Persian's could not have risked taking too few soldiers but couldn't possibly take more than 350,000, right in the middle, 280,000, seems to be the most logical and reasonable estimate to support the evidence.]]> 2018-12-04 00:44:23 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/310705255 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311093458 Around 290,000

I think that this is a reasonable amount of men because of the evidence provided by all four people that the article talked about but especially Mathews. The number can't be outrageously large for like Mathews stated there is no possible way an army of any large number would be able to be sustained through out the whole journey. And even with the water reservoirs the number of men that those would sustain for isn't too much larger than my guess. ]]> 2018-12-04 19:20:12 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311093458 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311098988 I believe that there were around 300,000 Persian men at the Battle of Thermopylae. I believe this to be so because of the evidence sited by Matthews and Bradford says that if they had any more, they wouldn't have been able to sustain their ranks. I find these two men's information to be reliable. They say that around 300,000 people would have been there because that was around the most that the Persians could have without drinking their water sources running dry. With any more people, they would have died out before the battle began.]]> 2018-12-04 19:28:58 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311098988 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311099865 Based on the evidense from General Sir Fredrick Maurice, I do no think that their army was over 250,000 soliders. Its not possible because they didnt have enough water to support everyone. Yes, laborers were sent to resolve this, but they only resolved the complication by 50%.]]> 2018-12-04 19:30:36 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311099865 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311100869 I believe that there were about 300,000 men at the Battle of Thermopylae, because the evidence Rupert Matthews offers is the most reliable. Herodotus could have been biased, as he had interviewed Greek veterans 30-60 years after the battle had occurred. Ctesias made a claim that he had access to Persian records, but had no evidence to support that he truly did. In addition, there may have been bias, as he worked for the king of Persia. Ctesias also claimed that "only two or three Spartans were slain", but it has now been proved that all the Spartans were killed, which brings up questions as to how reliable the entire source is. Being the most recent source of the documents, Matthews disputes Bradford's claim by using logic and reason to conclude that Xeres would've been able to bring more people by creating reservoirs. Therefore, Matthews provides the most convincing and reliable argument that 300,000 Persians were at the Battle of Thermopylae.]]> 2018-12-04 19:32:19 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311100869 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311102320 ~285,000

I think that there were roughly 285,000 Persian soldiers present at the Battle of Thermopylae, based on evidence from Documents C and D. Historians Ernle Bradford and Rupert Bradford were both unbiased, as they had no affiliation to Greece nor Persia. In addition, Bradford used evidence form military and terrain expert General Sir Frederick Maurice. Sir Frederick reported the water supply limitations that limited the number of Persian soldiers to around 210,000. However, I believe the number is slightly higher after considering the evidence provided by Bradford. He suggests that Persians sent an advance of builders to prepare for invasion, likely to build a dam and increase water supply to allow for almost 350,000. The combination of these histories leads to a conclusion of around 285,000 Persian soldiers present at the Battle of Thermopylae]]> 2018-12-04 19:34:30 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311102320 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311104715 Around 285,000 

I think that there were around 285,000 Persian men at the Battle of Thermopylae. I agree with the evidence presented in both Document C and D by Bradford and Matthews. Both historians used geographical evidence to justify their claim, saying that there could have been invasions or dammed streams that could have held of Persian soldiers. They also said that Maurice has previous knowledge of the terrain along with excellent military knowledge. From the evidence I presented I say that there were around 385,000 Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae. ]]> 2018-12-04 19:39:01 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311104715 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311106087 I think that there were about 250,000-300,000 Persian men at the Battle of Thermopylae. The evidence presented in Document C and D both had answers based off evidence and inferences and they both seemed very realistic. ]]> 2018-12-04 19:41:30 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311106087 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311108904 I believe that there were about 300 to 350 thousand Persian soldiers at the Battle of Thermopylae. First of all this is supported by the information stated in the video on the Battle of Thermopylae on how there were 50 Persians to every Greek. This is also supported by Document D because Matthew takes in the information on water supply and its relation to men from Document C but also calculates how the Persians sent workers ahead to make canals for water that could support more Persian soldiers.]]> 2018-12-04 19:46:35 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311108904 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311111680 2018-12-04 19:51:27 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311111680 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311145053
I believe that there were about 210,000~250,000. Based on the Bradford's record, General Sir Frederick Maurice, who covered the area of the march of the Great King not long after the First World War, the men from the Persian Army, cannot exceeded 250,000, since the water supplies were not available to serve more than 250,000. ]]> 2018-12-04 21:09:25 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311145053 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311167676 In the Battle of the Thermopylae, there most probably was 250,000-350,000 people. This is supported through the data collected and interpreted by both Bradford and Mathews. Herodotus (Doc A), interviewed regular veterans to gain all of his information, it is highly unlikely regular soldiers would know accurate information and data regarding the size of their army, also the number is way too big for it to be possible at that time. Ctesias (Doc B), seemed to have more reliable data with numbers being more possible, but the bias present discredits any of his previous data. With Bradford and Mathews (Doc C and D), they both looked at the evidence present and made more accurate scientific calculations, which seem to be most possible. They also looked at other people and what they had done to determine the amount of people in the army. With analysis and up to date information, they concluded around the same number of people which seems to be the most reliable data. ]]> 2018-12-04 22:39:00 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311167676 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311194155 300,000
Based on the reliable evidence in Document D I have concluded that there were 300,000 Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae.  In Doc D it states that the Xerxes Army sent Laborers and Engineers in advance to prepare the route for invasion. These workers were constructing reservoirs for the soldiers to drink out of. In Document A , Herodotus claimed that there were 50% less soldiers than what Matthews predicted. Although Herodotus interview the Greek soldiers, he was not a reliable source considering he was just a young boy when the battle happened and was biased alongside Ctesias in Doc B. Lastly, in Doc C, Bradford's Assertion was not reliable since it has been concluded that reservoirs were built in order to sustain more soldiers.

]]> 2018-12-05 01:17:57 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311194155 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311196748 I believe that there were about 200,00 250,000 Persian soldiers.In document C The historian Bradford provides  scientific  and logical facts that supported his statement. Which was That there was enough recourse for the amount only. they didn't have water for more than 250,00 people.]]> 2018-12-05 01:31:24 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311196748 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311200137 Based on the evidence presented, I believe there were around 250,000 Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae. First off, in Documents A and B, the evidence provided was not supported by facts. In Document A, Herodotus only interviewed the soldiers who had served in war. The soldiers wouldn't have known the total number of soldiers, and Herodotus uses the phrase "I reckon" to show that he is not very sure of what he is stating. In Document B, Ctesias only claims he had access to the official Persian archives; however, there is no evidence towards this claim, so it is an unreliable source. Documents C and D are the most reliable documents because they use scientific observations to arrive at their conclusions. In Document C, Bradford's information comes from General Sir Frederick Maurice, who based his conclusion on the number of water supplies available. Thus, using this observation, he concluded that the army couldn't have excceeded 250,000. Additionally, Document D agrees because based on the streams converted into reservoirs, Matthews concluded that the army size was well over 210,000. In conclusion, a reasonable size of the Persian army would be 250,000.]]> 2018-12-05 01:51:34 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311200137 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311206294 Based on the evidence provided, I have come to the conclusion that there were around 300,000-350,000 Persian soldiers at the Battle of Thermopylae. Both Documents A and B don't provide a strong argument. Document A was mainly based on interviews which weren't proven reliable. Document B was written by someone who worked for the Persian king. Though he claims to have had access to the Persian archives, we don't know this for a fact. Both Documents C and D were written in more modern times and the authors use scientific observation and research to support their claims. Document B had strong evidence, but the lack of explaining how Xerxes sent laborers and engineers prior to attack made me learn more towards Document D. In Document D, Matthews uses research to support his claims, and with including the engineers and laborers, he explains how Xerxes could have led a considerably larger army with the formation of water reservoirs. For this reason, I feel that the Persian army housed around 320,000 men.]]> 2018-12-05 02:30:27 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311206294 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311221106 Based on the given documents, I believe that there were around 230,000 Persian soldiers present at the Battle of Thermopylae. The evidence given is Documents A and B are likely inaccurate due to bias and other possible inaccuracies due to the fact that they were written in the 5th century BCE. Documents C and D are more reliable as the writers are likely not biased and their predictions were made in modern times. Document C states that given the water resources available, there could not be more the 250,000 Persians. Document D states that “if streams were dammed to create reservoirs of water, Xerxes would have been able to move an army considerably larger than 210,000 men…”. The evidence for there to be more than 300,000 Persians is based on and “if” statement that has nearly no evidence behind it. Since there is no evidence of any dam building, I conclude that there were less than 250,000 Persians but more than 210,000 Persians, so around 230,000 Persian soldiers present during the Battle of Thermopylae.]]> 2018-12-05 04:05:29 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311221106 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311225417 I agree with Rupert Matthew's beliefs that there were around 300,000 to 350,000 Persians in the Battle of Thermoplylae. Herodotus' belief in Document A that there were an estimated amount of well over 2 million soldiers in the Persian army seems very unrealistic and biased as he only interviewed Greek veterans and was a Greek historian himself. While the claim that Ctesias of Cnidus in Document B had access to the official Persian archives may be true, there is no factual proof this ever happened which lead me to believe that his data is not reliable. Although Bradford claim of 210,000 seem realistic and he does not seem to have a bias, Document C was refuted by Rupert Matthew stating geographical facts in Document D. Because Matthew did not seem to have a bias, addressed past ideas and historians, and took many other possibilities into consideration, he seemed to be the most convincing historian of the four and allowed me to conclude that there were around 300,000-350,000 Persians at the Battle. ]]> 2018-12-05 04:46:08 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311225417 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311389156 Based on the evidence presented, I think there were total of about 210,000 Persian army which was written by Ernele Bradford (Doc C) He’s a reliable source because he’s an English Historian who’s specializing in the ancient Mediterranean World and knows what he’s talking about unlike others. He uses scientific data can’t calculations to back up his numbers which is not done by any of the other people. (Document A) Herodotus numbers are wrong because the numbers of men were too much for a war. (Document B) Cteasis of Cnidus’s numbers are wrong because they state that only 2 or 3 Greek soldiers were killed which is almost impossible for a war. ]]> 2018-12-05 15:01:49 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311389156 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311605494 I agree with Rupert Matthew, and think that around 300,000 soldiers were present. 2 million is a nearly impossible number of soldiers, obviously, and Matthew's account provided a lot of good evidence on how exactly the increase from Bradford's took place, and why. He explained how they could dam up rivers to provide more usable water. Document A and B probably are tilted towards accentuating the grandeur of the battle, considering veterans were interviewed. Both Document C and D seemed pretty reliable but I felt that Matthew backed up his claims a little better.]]> 2018-12-05 21:15:30 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311605494 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311613211 Based on the evidence that was presented by the various historians, I believe that there were around 325,000 Persian soldiers present at the Battle of Thermopylae. The evidence that was presented by Herodotus and Ctesias of Cnidus was extremely unreliable. Herodotus claimed that there was a preposterously high number of soldiers, over two million, which reflects on his credibility (Doc A). Additionally, his only sources were Greek soldiers who fought in the battle, who could have made up numbers, or exaggerated them. While Ctesias of Cnidus' sources appeared to be more reliable than those of Herodotus, they were still not very reliable. Ctesias claimed to have access to the official Persian archives, but there is no proof to solidify his claims (Doc B). And, although Ctesias' estimate was significantly lower than Herodotus' estimate, it was still tremendously high. It seems rather outlandish to fit over eight hundred thousand soldiers into a narrow pass, such as the one at Thermopylae. The evidence provided by Ernie Bradford and Rupert Matthews were both reliable, but I believe that Matthews' account was more accurate. All of Bradford's facts were centered on evidence that was gathered by Sir Frederick Maurice after World War I (Doc C), which is both outdated and incomplete. Maurice did not take into account that if the streams were dammed, Xerxes could move far more soldiers than 210,000 (Doc D). Because of these various pieces of evidence, I am concluding that there were approximately 325,000 Persian soldiers fighting at the Battle of Thermopylae.]]> 2018-12-05 21:43:02 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311613211 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311633465 2018-12-05 23:35:34 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311633465 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311635390 I agree with Ernle Bradford in document C that there were around 210,000 to 250,000 soldiers at the Battle of Thermopylae. The evidence in document B by Ctesias of Cindus does not have strong enough evidence to support it and 800,000 would be a lot for troops from one country in a war. Also in document A over 2,000,000 soldiers is way to high and the Greek war veterans blew the numbers of soldiers out of proportion because it could have seemed like there were so many people fighting. These reasons show why I think there were only 210,000 to 250,000 soldiers at the Battle of Thermoplylae.]]> 2018-12-05 23:49:53 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311635390 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311643635 290000 
Based on the evidence presented from the historians. I believe 290000 is  reasonable estimate to the amount of soldiers. Rubert Matthew's evidence is extremely reliable. Herodotus seemed very bias throughout his estimate of the soldiers after he interviewed the Greek veterans. Cteisas said that he had evidence towards Persian records but had no evidence he actually did. Bradford however did have evidence to back up his claim. There could've been a little bias due to how highly he speaks of Maurice, but it is credible. Matthews believed that most of the evidence and sources were irrelevant making his estimate more relevant.]]> 2018-12-06 00:49:05 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311643635 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311645986 I believe the Persian Empire could have had 300,000 men at Thermopylae. The accounts that are supported with the most evidence range from 250,000-350,000. I believe the ingenuity of Xerxes in creating the reservoirs would have increased the size, however there are factors such as disease, deserting, and supplies like medicine and food that limit that size. Therefore, I believe the size of the Persian Empire must have been 300,000, though the idea of 2 million Persians attacking the small Thermopylae is quite humorous.]]> 2018-12-06 01:03:27 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311645986 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311653058 After looking through all of the source documents, I think that the number of Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae was between 300,000 and 350,000 soldiers, just like as stated in Document D. There could not have possibly been some 2 million Persian soldiers as Herodotus stated in Document A. Like Rupert Matthews said in Document D, the amount of supplies for that many people would have been too much to take with them. While Ctesias's guess in Document B could have been right, he gave no solid evidence to prove it. All he provided were claims to have had access to the Persian archives but that was all they were—claims. Ernle Bradford's conclusions in Document C could really lean either way; biased or not. It is unclear because Bradford used evidence that he did not find himself and, though he provided some context, there is not really anything that proves or disproves his conclusions. Sir General Frederick Maurice could very well have been skilled in the logistical and militaristic aspects of the terrain of the mountain pass, land can change so much over the course of time (Document C). This is especially true in this case where there's nearly two and a half thousand years between when the Battle of Thermopylae happened and when Maurice actually went to the site of the battle. I agree most with Rupert Matthews and the conclusion of 300,00 to 350,000 Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae. ]]> 2018-12-06 01:43:35 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311653058 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311677395 Based on the evidence presented, I think the number of Persian soldiers at the Battle of Thermopylae were 315,000 soldiers, the result of taking a 50 percent from the 210,000 soldiers(proposed from Document C), or approximately 300,000 to 350,000 soldiers, stated by the historian Rupert Matthews in Document D. In Document A, Herodotus provided the information of how he concluded to the result that the total number of Persian soldiers were over 2,317,610 by providing the number of soldiers that constituted to the total number of soldiers, such as providing the number of soldiers that were part of the sea forces or the number of soldiers that were Libyans. Although Herodotus' account seems somewhat accurate and certainly official, it is not completely a reliable source of information as did not provide where the information was obtained from, as mentioned from Document D. Similar to Document A, although Ctesias of Cnidus who proposed that the number of people in the Persian army was about 800,000 men claims to have obtained information from the official Persian archive, it is unreliable due to the fact that it shows a slight hint of discernible bias; in fact, bias could be shown from either side(the Persians or Greeks) as they could've wanted to persuade people to view the Persian army a certain way, showing the number of people in the Persian army being on of them. Nonetheless, both documents C and D provide reasoning that having the number of soldiers proposed from both Documents A and B are much to massive to be able to pass through the narrow pathways of Thermopylae, as well as the fact that there isn't enough water supply to the soldiers. Although Document C and Document D are in conjunction of the fact that water supply was not sufficient enough to supply a number of soldiers mentioned in Documents A and B, Document D mentions that although Document C mentioned that about 210,000 soldiers were part of the Persian army, considering of preparation for the route, improved by laborers and engineers, would have increased the number of Persians around 50 percent from around 210,000, making the total number of Persians approximately 300,000 to 350,000. Therefore, I believe there were 300,000 to 350,000(315,000) Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae.
 ]]> 2018-12-06 04:49:08 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311677395 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311827135 Based on the evidence stated in document D, I believe the number is closer to 350,000. This document takes the estimate from the general, and factors in the Persian engineers coming to Greece and preparing the route they marched on before hand. If it is true that the route was preprepared, it is entirely possible that the resources of their camps wouldn’t be depleted. Herodotus’ estimate would be impossible because even if engineers became before they came, the resources of their camps would be depleted and they would die of dehydration. Plus Herodotus relies on soldiers accounts , and its possible that the Greek soldiers could have exaggerated the Persian numbers to seem more valiant. In conclusion, Rupert Matthew's estimate of 350,000 soldiers is the stim are that I agree most with.]]> 2018-12-06 14:46:57 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311827135 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311896218 Based on the information stated in document D, I believe that there were around 300,000 Persians there. There is no way that an army of 2 million could be sustained as stated in document A. And although document B cuts that number down significantly, it is still hard to believe that there would be enough resources for an army of that size. Ernle Bradford did not take into account the possibility of construction for the army, and said that they would run out of water. However if they were to have damned up the streams, then there would be enough water and resources for an army of up to 350,000.]]> 2018-12-06 16:33:38 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/311896218 https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/314226512  Based on document C, I believe that the Persian Empire had 200,000 men at the battle of Thermopylae. Sir Fredrick Maurice traveled around the Mediterranean sea and had military and logistical knowledge of the terrain. 250,000 soldiers was the maximum amount of soldiers there. I don't think the maximum amount of troops will be there. So I think there were 200,000 men at the battle of Thermopylae. The documents answers don't make sense. 2,317,610 solders is too much of a number. 10,000 seems to be too small of a number. The Persian army may not of dammed the river. So I think that 200,000 soldiers were at the battle of Thermopylae. ]]> 2018-12-13 13:21:41 UTC https://padlet.com/tmcasey1/iqivfs2epnfg/wish/314226512