If history has taught us anything about the past it is that views of the past are for the most part difficult to change, which is why it is possible to find a variety of interpretations and explanations for an individual event. No truer statement can be made about the Greco-Persian War of the 5th century BC as an examination of the work of Paul Cartledge and Peter Green as influential writers compared to other historians in this field may provide several points of interest where there has been consistency but also conflict due to the way they treat ancient sources. Even more importantly, by comparing the work of Cartledge and Green it is possible to see how representative their work is of the scholarly consensus around the Persian Wars. These areas include the treatment of the first documents after the war, the times and dates of the oath of Plataea, the military background of the Persian immortals, the motivation for Leonidas' decision to fight at Thermopylae, considerations of when the turning point occurred of the war. occurred alongside the end of the war and finally an assessment of the war's prolonged legacy. From these arguments it can be argued that both authors can be considered atypical in their interpretation of traditional sources challenging some of the assumptions made whilst also being representative of the end of the war. Different ancient sources have been used to investigate the Persian Wars but there has been a broad division in which particular sources contain a faithful representation of the past. Herodotus and Ticydides provide the first account of the Persian Wars, and their work formed the basis for historical studies of Greek and Persian antiquity. It's important to note that while they provide the first insights into... middle of paper... wars, fine details such as the number of Spartans deployed are up for debate. Herodotus states that Leonidas specifically took 300 Spartans with him to Thermopylae. Cartledge's justification for this number of troops to be deployed is that 300 was a manageable figure for elite covert task forces, which was a recurring theme appearing in Greek warfare and that the number 300 also served a strong reference to Spartan culture as it represents the number of "hippeis" royal guards who protect the king. This approach to the occupation led Cartledge to believe that the agenda behind sending a small contingent had more symbolic than practical significance for the war efforts. Claiming that only 300 Spartans were deployed for specific symbolic overtones makes Cartledge's view on the matter somewhat controversial to the rest of the historical community..