Battle of Marathon

[EmperorBatman999]

Last night while taking notes out of my history textbook, I noticed it stated that the Athenians charged down the hill at Marathon and beat the Persians because the Persians were packing up and sailing away and had already had their infantry on the boats, leaving only the cavalry and archers. I thought that Marathon was like Thermopylae, but only in victory with the Greeks positioning themselves in a sort of gulley with no room for flanking manouvers by Persia.
Who's correct?

[MrDogbert]

What i was told was the Persia cavalry was out on a raid or something to keep them off the field when the battle happend. And the Greeks seeing the Persia carvalry was gone attacking. I would like to know myself sure someone knows this battle much better.

[conon394]

I noticed it stated that the Athenians charged down the hill

Sorry no hills it was a flat sea coast

because the Persians were packing up and sailing away and had already had their infantry on the boats, leaving only the cavalry and archers.

there is no credible source that the Persian were packing up anyone at all.

It is true that many people take an obscure passage from the Suda to suggest the Persian cavalry was absent but its a strained interpretation at best (and they - the cavalry - are in some of these versions suggested as being aboard ship).

Its more likely one should just remember the Persian force was amphibious and thus likely included little in the way of cavalry. Transporting horses is tricky business as many Historians don't seem to realize and cramming them in ships is not quite the same as loading up in a tailor for a short trip down the road with rest stops... Remember for Syracuse the Athenians sent no horses at all only riders and money to buy more horses. Next time your at a county fair check out if someone lets the dent's inside a cattle or horse tailor - a ship a panicked horse likely gets killed quick rather than risk the ship.

I thought that Marathon was like Thermopylae, but only in victory with the Greeks positioning themselves in a sort of gulley with no room for flanking manouvers by Persia.

The Athenian run delt with that and extending the line by thinning the center. Also who says the Persian cavalty was sufficnt to flank anything and would have it it could? At Plataea the Cavalry served in the center as a guard on the final day and before that as a a harassing force only.

[MAXlMUS]

if the persian cavalry was present they might have destroyed the athenians
remember persian cavalry tended to be much heavier than the greek one

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Transporting horses is tricky business as many Historians don't seem to realize and cramming them in ships is not quite the same as loading up in a tailor for a short trip down the road with rest stops... Remember for Syracuse the Athenians sent no horses at all only riders and money to buy more horses. Next time your at a county fair check out if someone lets the dent's inside a cattle or horse tailor - a ship a panicked horse likely gets killed quick rather than risk the ship.

Symmachus reports that while preparing to host his games he ordered 10 horses - 4 survived the trip across from spain to rome.

[Hanny]

Symmachus reports that while preparing to host his games he ordered 10 horses - 4 survived the trip across from spain to rome.

Actually he is dead wrong again, Gelo of Syracruse was approached by Athens, and offreed to send 24k foot and 4k horse and 200 ships to fight against persia, if he was awarded the leadership, so 4000 horsemen from sicly could have come to aid the Athenians, in the same manner as the Athenians couild have sent horses to sicily only chose not too, because a, they would be massivly outnumbered and outcloassed, and b, the satte only reimbursed to a max of 12oo drachmae, less than the cost of a war horse. This choice had nothing to do with capability to transport them, only the realityof circumstances, which also allowed Carthage to send mounted to sicly in large numbers, Syracruse to send 4000 to Greece if it wanted to do so, just as sparta found it wanted to send 1000 hoplites and 100 cav to sicily when it saw the opourtunity.

[Hanny]

Last night while taking notes out of my history textbook, I noticed it stated that the Athenians charged down the hill at Marathon and beat the Persians because the Persians were packing up and sailing away and had already had their infantry on the boats, leaving only the cavalry and archers. I thought that Marathon was like Thermopylae, but only in victory with the Greeks positioning themselves in a sort of gulley with no room for flanking manouvers by Persia.
Who's correct?

Seems your textbook is advocting the attack on a rear gaurd, originating from High ground, but then devolping over flat ground.


http://www.livius.org/man-md/marathon/marathon.html

Its more likely one should just remember the Persian force was amphibious and thus likely included little in the way of cavalry. Transporting horses is tricky business as many Historians don't seem to realize and cramming them in ships is not quite the same as loading up in a tailor for a short trip down the road with rest stops... Remember for Syracuse the Athenians sent no horses at all only riders and money to buy more horses. Next time your at a county fair check out if someone lets the dent's inside a cattle or horse tailor - a ship a panicked horse likely gets killed quick rather than risk the ship.

.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Milita...marathon.htmAs is stated by Platous (Menexenos| 240 C; Laws 698 D), all the Greek cities were paralyzed with fear before the Persian forces. There was no naval force in Greece that could challenge the Persians at sea (at the time the Athenian navy had not more than 80 triremes) with the result that the Persians could freely move to land their cavalry and infantry where they chose. No other Greeks came to the help of Eretria except for 4000 Athenian settlers on the island of Euboia who were instructed by their mother country to help the Eretrians, and these too saved themselves before the battle was over. The technical superiority of the Persian amphibious force was such that it could strike anywhere with impunity. No Greek city would help another because nobody could tell for sure where the blow would fall next.

The cavalry added to the navy completed the principle of absolute mobility on which the strategy of this operation was founded. There are critical historians who consider that this was not true. For instance, De Sanctis and Guilio Giannelli claimed that Herodotus' mention of a Persian cavalry force carried on triremes fitted for the transport of horses (VI 94, 95, 101, 102) is preposterous, because it would have been impossible to transport horses on a long sea voyage. Giannelli, who has written a special essay on the battle of Marathon, added that the Persian triremes were 100 and not 600, so that they would not have been an overpowering threat to the Athenian navy or other Greek navies. That horses could be transported on triremes is evidenced by Thukydides (II 56, VI, 43) and later Athenian documents. Thirty horses could be loaded on a trireme by reducing the oarsmen to 60, that is, one third of the regular number. Whoever invented the trireme reckoned sexagesimally, since in principle there were three rows of 30 oarsmen each on each side, with a total of 180. The lesser fighting ship used earlier by the Greeks, the penteconter, had been conceived by decimal reckoning, since it had two rows of 25 oarsmen each on each side with a total of 100. Probably the 30 horses were placed crosswise in the triremes, one for each bench of oarsmen. It has been argued that when horses were loaded on triremes all the regular seats were removed and the 60 oarsmen sat on the stormdeck that covered the seats of the regular three rows of oarsmen. The assertion of some critical historians that horses could not have been carried by the Persians in their island-hopping operation is gratuitous when we know that in 415 BCE the Athenians sent all the way to Syracuse in Sicily a force of 100 triremes which was fitted out for naval combat and carried 4000 hoplites and 300 horses (Thuk. VI 31, 43).

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't know. If the Persians were really stuck on the beach and Greeks were winning there should have been higher casulties. It seems like a good portion of the army did not participated.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

It is generally accepted that the Greeks attacked when it was realised that the Persian cavalry was indeed out on a raid. The bulk of the Persian army on the beach at Marathon consisted of lightly armed and armoured eastern infantry and archers.

These troops were no match for the heavily armoured Athenian hoplites, who charged straight into them.

[Rolling Thunder]

It is generally accepted that the Greeks attacked when it was realised that the Persian cavalry was indeed out on a raid. The bulk of the Persian army on the beach at Marathon consisted of lightly armed and armoured eastern infantry and archers.

These troops were no match for the heavily armoured Athenian hoplites, who charged straight into them.

More likely the sheer mass of several thousand heavy infantrymen rushing onto you in a great screaming mass simply broke the Persian lines. Hoplites phalanxes were basically giant rugby scrums, with armour and pointy sticks, designed mostly to break formations by running headlong into them.

[conon394]

It is generally accepted that the Greeks attacked when it was realised that the Persian cavalry was indeed out on a raid.

Is it?

Who says and how did the Athenians know? How did a force with cavalry and archers and light infantry and supposedly professional compared to weekend warrior hoplites - heavy infantry all - let the Athenians scout that close to their camp to notice said cavalry was away? I'm sorry but vague entries in the Suda do not amount to much in the way of evidence. Its telling Herodotus never suggests the Persian cavalry was absent...

The real problem is the modern assumption that a large mass of cavalry was on hand that needs to be 'away' else it would be decisive, and that the Persians used their cavalry like Alexander at this time. Neither assumption is realistic nor based on the best sources available - thus the cavalry need be nowhere but where it likely was in the center with the other best Persian troops - and not coincidentally where the Persians did the best on the day.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Is it?

Who says and how did the Athenians know? How did a force with cavalry and archers and light infantry and supposedly professional compared to weekend warrior hoplites - heavy infantry all - let the Athenians scout that close to their camp to notice said cavalry was away? I'm sorry but vague entries in the Suda do not amount to much in the way of evidence. Its telling Herodotus never suggests the Persian cavalry was absent...

The real problem is the modern assumption that a large mass of cavalry was on hand that needs to be 'away' else it would be decisive, and that the Persians used their cavalry like Alexander at this time. Neither assumption is realistic nor based on the best sources available - thus the cavalry need be nowhere but where it likely was in the center with the other best Persian troops - and not coincidentally where the Persians did the best on the day.

The Athenian army had blocked the exit from the plain at Marathon for several days. While the Persians stayed in their camp on the beach.

It would have been easy for the Athenians to gather intelligence on Persian movements. Spies, and sympathisers among the Ionian conscripts within the Persian army. Deserters. Plus the Athenians were on their own ground which they knew well.

Before the battle of Marathon. The Persians had never lost to a hoplte army in open combat. This was mainly due to potency of the Persian cavalry. Most likely horse-archers.

[Hanny]

Is it?

Its telling Herodotus never suggests the Persian cavalry was absent...

.

Herodotus does say that the Persians did 'dismembark their horses'' and 'there was no place in all Attica so convenient for their horse as Marathon...', but does not state their number.

He tells us the greek army camped on high wooded ground, and erected anti cav abbatis stakes, all this show cavalry present, but no detail is given by H for any action during the combat.

there are 2 schools of thought, one is that the cav was away on a raid and the other is that is was already embarked.

Your just not understanding H very well, as your posts show you dont understand what the Persian stratergy was and how they implemented it.

[conon394]

Before the battle of Marathon. The Persians had never lost to a hoplte army in open combat. This was mainly due to potency of the Persian cavalry. Most likely horse-archers.

Maybe maybe not - seeing as we lack any detailed description of battle before marathon is all just speculation. In particular I would note before Marathon the Persians likely never fought a large massed hoplite force before one resulting from the Spartan revolution on mainland Greece.

It would have been easy for the Athenians to gather intelligence on Persian movements. Spies, and sympathisers among the Ionian conscripts within the Persian army. Deserters. Plus the Athenians were on their own ground which they knew well.

Again all very well I suppose but given the assumed relative level of professionalism its difficult to credit such a complete Athenian intelligence success.

What Ionian sympathizers anyway - by in large Iona was ruled by oligarchies, narrow ones at that who look to have disarmed their masses and lived in fear of their slaves what makes you think they would be partial to the Athenian democracy?

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Maybe maybe not - seeing as we lack any detailed description of battle before marathon is all just speculation. In particular I would note before Marathon the Persians likely never fought a large massed hoplite force before one resulting from the Spartan revolution on mainland Greece.



Again all very well I suppose but given the assumed relative level of professionalism its difficult to credit such a complete Athenian intelligence success.

What Ionian sympathizers anyway - by in large Iona was ruled by oligarchies, narrow ones at that who look to have disarmed their masses and lived in fear of their slaves what makes you think they would be partial to the Athenian democracy?

A few years before Marathon, the persians had crused a revolt by the Ionian greeks, led by the city of Miletus. A revolt supported by Athens. I have read that the Athenians sent a small force of ships and hoplites to the aid of the Ionian greeks.

Together they captured and sacked the city of Sardis, before being retreating the the coast, harassed all the way by the Persian cavalry. That the Persians crushed the Ionian revolt suggests that they had obviousely come up against and defeated greek hoplute armies before marathon.

The weakness of unsupported heavy infantry when encountering large horse archer armies are well documented.

Yes, Ionia was ruled by oligarchies, but they were all subjects of the Persian king.

[hellheaven1987]

The weakness of unsupported heavy infantry when encountering large horse archer armies are well documented.

Achaemenid cavalries were not horse archers...

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Achaemenid cavalries were not horse archers...

I do not agree. I will dig up evidence later.

[Hanny]

I do not agree. I will dig up evidence later.

Your newsih here, you might n ot have noticed by Hell H is not well read on any historical subject.





http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...e/viewFile/1/1

Accordingly, the Persian cavalry were armed with bows and

spears, and naturally

palta, daggers and akinakes (α’κινα

,
κες

). Note the gerrha, large wicker

shields, were arms of infantrymen alone

5. The horsemen wore iron scale corselets and bronze or

iron helmets (Hdt. 7.84; cf. 7.61; 9.22; Plut. Aristid. 14,6)

6. We can observe the tactics of these

cavalry in combat against the Greeks. Herodotus describes the attack of the Persian horsemen at
Plataea in the 479 BC in this way (Hdt. 9.49): «The horsemen rode at them [the Greeks] and shot
8

ALEXANDER K. NEFEDKIN

Gladius,

XXVI (2006), pp. 5-18. ISSN: 0435-029X

5

Head, 1992: 37.

6

On the armour of the Achaemenid Persians and Medes see in detail: Gorelik 1982: 90-106.

Fig. 2. Persian mounted bowman. The drawing of
the cup of the master Triptolemus (probable
the 470s BC). After Head, 1992: Fig.
12 b.
Fig. 3. The drawing of the left longitudinal wall of the relief of Payava’s sarcophagus showing
the charge of the Lycian cavalry on the Pisidian (?) footmen (375-362 BC). After
Nikulina, 1994: Fig. 70.
’ ’
arrows and javelins among the whole Greek army to
its great hurt, since they were mounted archers and
difficult to deal with in an encounter» (translated by
A.D. Godley; cf. Hdt. 9.18, 20, 22). On the basis of
this passage it would appear that the main weapon of
the Persian cavalry was the bow (Hignett 1963: 45;
Khazanov 1968: 186). However, it is clear from
Herodotus’ information that the Persian horsemen
were not only bowmen, but also javelineers (Hdt.
7.61, 84; cf. Xen. Cyr. 1.2.12, 4.4; 2.1.7; 6.2.16;
figs. 2, 4, 5, 13). The prevalence of mounted archers,
of course, is a result of the presence in the Mardonius’
army of a large contingent of peoples from
Central Asia, whose high quality the «Father of history

» notes elsewhere (Hdt. 9.71)

[MAXlMUS]

Who says and how did the Athenians know? I'm sorry but vague entries in the Suda do not amount to much in the way of evidence.

Its telling Herodotus never suggests the Persian cavalry was absent...

so, this is what the suda says:

"The cavalry left. When Datis surrendered and was ready for retreat, the Ionians climbed the trees and gave the Athenians the signal that the cavalry had left. And when Miltiades realized that, he attacked and thus won. From there comes the above-mentioned quote, which is used when someone breaks ranks before battle"

you may have issues with the suda because it was written 15 centuries after the war, but the probability is that the author had access to sources which are now lost. at any rate you can't just dismiss the idea the entry in the suda because it isn't conveniant for your theory.

Herodotus, who always likes to exagerate the valour of the greeks, never mentions the persian cavalry as being present. besides, why else would the athenians attack, without waiting for reinforcements? dosen't make much sense

How did a force with cavalry and archers and light infantry and supposedly professional compared to weekend warrior hoplites - heavy infantry all - let the Athenians scout that close to their camp to notice said cavalry was away?

the suda mentions ionians climbing up in trees, but the use of spies in warfare is as old as war itself.

The real problem is the modern assumption that a large mass of cavalry was on hand that needs to be 'away' else it would be decisive, and that the Persians used their cavalry like Alexander at this time. Neither assumption is realistic nor based on the best sources available - thus the cavalry need be nowhere but where it likely was in the center with the other best Persian troops - and not coincidentally where the Persians did the best on the day.

it's funny how much the persian army gets bad press by 'historians', but i don't wanna discuss this now. If there was one section of the persian army which was very strong, it's the cavalry. Even at Gaugamala they broke through sections of the macedonian infantry and even reached the enemy camp. If the persian cavalry would have been present, they arguably would have destroyed the athenians. why on earth would an infantry army charge against an enemy that has (and values the use of) cavalry? First it takes a tremendous amount of bravery and disregard for one's own life, and then they also risk disrupting their own formation which was the main strength of the hoplite armies.

In particular I would note before Marathon the Persians likely never fought a large massed hoplite force before one resulting from the Spartan revolution on mainland Greece.

again, these are assumptions - but the persians fought against other greeks before marathon

What Ionian sympathizers anyway - by in large Iona was ruled by oligarchies, narrow ones at that who look to have disarmed their masses and lived in fear of their slaves what makes you think they would be partial to the Athenian democracy?

oligarchy = slavery? that's quite simplistic.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49486

The Thread above also discusses the Persian military, particularly relevant is the bit about the preponderance of skirmishers and light troops in the Persian armies.