Thermopylae - Was King Leonidas an moron?

While doing some reading about the Spartans, and especially The Battle of Thermopylae, I came across an interesting point of view concerning the Spartans loss and King Leonidas' skill as a military tactician. The url is here, ( http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/logos7_22.html ) The writer of the article states, "The fact that Leonidas asked for reinforcements when the Persian army was already at close quarters, does not say much for his military abilities. There may be much truth in the statement of the great German historian Julius Beloch (1864-1929) that the death of the three hundred was a mistake: their self-sacrifice did not serve any military purpose, except -of course- the removal of an incompetent commander. On the other hand, it may be that Leonidas' kamikaze had a religious motivation: if the oracle announced that the Spartans would loose their town or their king, it was reasonable to sacrifice a king to save the city." Of course it is interesting that someone believes that King Leonidas was an idiot for going in there very much disadvantaged and unprepared. Someone was bound to bring the decision into question, and for good reason. However, given that he may have wholeheartedly believed what the oracle said, and his loyalty to Sparta, his family and friends, I see where the sacrifice may have made sense to him.

Greek Democracy - A British Spin, Athens, Then and Now

Following the French Revolution, an English scholar wrote an account of Greek history from a mostly political point of view. He apparently was writing with the fear of revolution in mind or was thinking that Great Britain may just decide to become some sort of democracy, which to him was an evil that brought only chaos. It permeated his work. At the time his history of Greece was written, there had not been much of an emphasis on the study of ancient Greece. There was more of a focus on Rome. As far as scholarly works on the subject, there wasn't much competition. So, once it was published, apparently it was widely read. A few years later, an Australian came out with his own history of ancient Greece that was possibly not so anti-democratic and became a more popular and current book. The Englishman's work was not forgotten entirely, but was put on the back burner. Whatever his intention, obviously the world has not forgotten about democracy's origins. It is such a great idea, that even some countries that we would not consider democratic at all have a democratically phrased constitution, such as the former Iraq. Yes, the one under Saddam, the dictator. So pretty language on paper itself doesn't guarantee anything, but democracy has lived on despite those who have not been true in deed as well as in word. Perhaps there is a modern cautionary tale concerning democracy in there?
The idea of the city state, or polis, growing out of defensible positions, such as the Acropolis, is very interesting. I was just in Athens a few months ago, and when you are at the top looking over the city, you can see how the ancient is still the center of the modern there. It is such an amazing sight, and you really do get the sense that it is the center which the city has grown out of. The people are very protective of it and I would say, very proud. Their past is still very much a part of their present, and I can imagine how secure an ancient Athenian would have felt in the shadow of the Acropolis. Then there is the temples and all the activity that would have centered around that area. That security, pride, duty to the polis and the fact that the conquered were not automatically the Athenian's slaves may have contributed to the increasing over-population of Athens. It would have been an interesting time to live in Athens, for sure.