The objections to the Herodotean version are by no means decisive in character.
1. As far as coercion is concerned, Thebes had to reckon not merely on Leonidas and his band, but on the whole Greek force at the Isthmus.
2. Ephoros’ story is of later date, but really contributes the strongest piece of evidence adduced against Herodotus.
3. The Theban prisoners had just been fighting against Xerxes in the pass. He was not likely under the circumstances to discriminate them as friends among foes.
4. Plutarch’s evidence, being that of a Bœotian, is liable to suspicion. His evidence, too, taken in detail, is open to criticism.
(a.) Plutarch’s argument is weak, because, as has been seen, the contagion of medism spread in the North for the most part after Tempe, and probably in consequence of the fiasco there.
(b.) There exists no means of judging of the truth or falsehood of his assertions with regard to Leonidas.
(c.) Leonidas’ action is comprehensible on the supposition that he wished to definitely embroil Thebes in the defence against the Persian.
(d.) It is quite possible that the Bœotian Plutarch has discovered a genuine mistake of Herodotus with regard to the name of the Theban commander.
Two theories are possible: either that these Thebans were taken as hostages for their fellow-countrymen’s behaviour; or that they joined the expedition with a patriotism which stood the test of the extremest danger. Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence against them may seem to be the smallness of their contingent when compared with that of the minor town of Thespiæ. But here again the explanation may be that they shared the evident distrust with which the Northern States regarded the Peloponnesian effort at Thermopylæ, and were ready to fulfil their share of the obligation whenever they saw Sparta willing to undertake hers.