Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on January 24, 2001, 08:01:00 AM
-
What is significance of Marathon in ancient Greece?
A. A place of a pitched battle where greek's army defeated a superior invading forces of Persia, saving Athens and the whole Greece.
Attacked by Athens heavy hoplite infantry on a narrow beach, persian army consisting mostly of missle cavalry and light infantry could not realise it's mobility advantages and was destroyed.
B. A place where long-distance running competitions were conducted during ancient greek Olympic games, hence the term "marathon".
C. All of the above.
D. None of the above.
======================
Answer posted below
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
I would like to use a lifeline? Can I call a friend?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
I know for a fact A is an answer... I'm not so hot on my sports history though.
Also deserves to be mentioned that Athen's force for the battle was warned, somewhat predictably I suppose, by a runner who had to run the miles from siting the Persians to Athens.
Anyhow... Greek history, wow. Been a while.
Jay.
-
here you go:
Question: what is the legend of marathon?
Answer: The modern marathon race is based on the fact that Pheidippides, a professional messenger, ran from Athens to Marathon to join the battle there, then he ran back to Athens with the words "Greetings, we win!" and then dropped dead. The length of the marathon is the distance he ran from Marathon to Athens. Just before the battle he is supposed to have run to Sparta and back to Marathon to request the help of the Spartan army.
found it at: http://apk.net/~fjk/olympic.html (http://apk.net/~fjk/olympic.html)
(you can find anything on the net)
Eagler
-
And the dear people only suffered around 192 dead.
Apparently, disporportionate kill/death ration were common back then, because most of the killings occured on a running panicky enemy. Sort of like my 190 and Pee 51's.
And I know history. After all, LW won WWII.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://us.st5.yimg.com/store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_4916770)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
The answer is D. - none of the above.
The ancient olympics did not have a long-distance running competition similar to marathon. It is a modern invention.
As for the "battle", it is just one mighty PR success of historical proportions.
The persians were pissed off at Athens for interfering in the affairs of their greek-populated cities, but not so much as to fight for it.
Greek opposition party at the time wanted to take power and to that effect invited persians to invade, or at least fake an invasion. Persians disembarked their army about 25 miles away from Athens in order to lure the Athens' army out of the city which they had no desire to invest.
The opposing party was supposed to use that opportunity to capture the power while persians sailed in unopposed.
After persians made sure that greeks knew about their position, they loaded their whole army onto the ships and stood off shore, except for a small covering force of skirmishers.
Their intention was to sail back to Athens and land there with city in hands of their allies and army safely outside.
An extremely fast march of greek army brought it to the beach where the enemy was supposed to be. The persian screening force retreated to the remaining few ships and left with teh fleet. Allegedly they and greeks suffered a few casulties in the process.
Discerning the enemy intentions, the greek army performed another forced march and got to Athens before the persian fleet showed up or opposition had time to put their plans into the effect.
Since Darius had no intention to conduct a costly prolonged siege, they left.
Hence Marathon affair was a brilliant example of a bloodless strategic success as a result of quick thinking and decisive maneuvers, but not of any kind of a battle or associated heroics.
Since Greece was a democracy, kind of like ours, it was probably dangerous for a politician or a public figure to seem smart or use complex words in public.
So instead of explaning to greeks the intricacies of the strategic planning with charts and diagrams (and ending up laughed at like Ross Perot), Miltiades probably said "we kicked their ass, big bad hoplites, we!".
Thus groundlessly assured in a fighting prowess of their army, Athenians grew even more arrogant, continuing to piss persians off, until in ten years (480 BC) Xerxes came and sacked and raised Athens to the ground. Apparentlty those hoplites could run much better then they could fight, despite the heavy armor.
After that Athenians wisely withheld from using their army and disrupted the persian invasion by sinking many of persian ships at the battle of Salamis. Since persians used the ships to supply their army, they had no choice to withdraw.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
D.
I like Eagler's response. Had something to do with important messages.
Fury
-
There was actually a battle, and Greek army actually defeated a Persian Invasion. Check link (http://www.britannica.com/seo/b/battle-of-marathon/) and link (http://www.campus.northpark.edu/history/Webchron/Mediterranean/Marathon.html).
But IMO the right answer is A, because Marathon is a place. and yes, there was a battle.
Cheers,
Pepe
[This message has been edited by Pepino (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
A.
I always loved the fact that we have felt the need to run the same race a guy dropped dead on. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Pepino:
There was actually a battle, and Greek army actually defeated a Persian Invasion. Check link (http://www.britannica.com/seo/b/battle-of-marathon/) and link (http://www.campus.northpark.edu/history/Webchron/Mediterranean/Marathon.html).
But IMO the right answer is A, because Marathon is a place. and yes, there was a battle.
That is what you get for being ignorant and trusting "common knowlege".
The info in the first link (www.britannica.com) is crap. Once you start thinking through things, you find plenry of holes. Here:
he Greeks learned that the cavalry were temporarily absent from the Persian camp
Where was it? Went out for a walk? Attacked Athens? Stroke greeks in the rear? Wouldn't we have heard about it?
How about the fact that persian army was all cavalry with only minor light infantry component - mostly mercenaries acting as auxillary skirmishers.
How would it sound if you read "British army defeated German army using the fact that their planes, tanks, artillery and infantry were temporarily absent!"
And the persian army never fought pitched battles. They were missle troops - horse archers and javeliners. They came close to a less-mobile enemy, shot at the enemy and retreated if attacked, bleading the enemy to death or forcing them to break formation and attempt pursuit. The first thing persians did in any war was to make sure their army had plenty of space for maneuver behind them.
How could greeks have a battle, if persians did not have intent to do so?
If they did, why would they wait rather then attack themselves? Why would they even land so far from the Athens?
Why would they do it on a narrow beach negating threir army mobility and giving advantage to greek heavy infantry tactics?
The number of casualties (less then 200 on greeks side) should have made people think.
"because most of the killings occured on a running panicky enemy" is the common explanation but it could not be true.
How could heavy greek infantry after forced 25 miles march pursue retreating cavalry and light infantry? Where would persians retreat if they were on a beach? Wouldn't they all bunch knee-deep in the sea and fight desperately? In that case considering tens of thousands of participants you would have more then two hundred dead greeks.
The second link is closer to the truth. Though there are a lot of contradictions in it either. For eight days, the two armies stood confronting each other. probably would have skirmished a bit and learned that greeks were exellent well-armed and organized troops. Then how could "thought them as an army of madmen running toward their certain destruction".
If their tactics was to bury the enemy in a barrage of arrows, why did it have to be defencive? You may come to the enemy to do that, not wait for them to come when they are ready. In any case, you would have insured space for maneuver, especially having eight days to prepare.
And what the rush to warn Athens that persians can sail there before the army comes home, if the persians just suffered a spectacular defeat?
Historians do not usually have to make any sense out of the events like other disciplines - like engineering or military strategy, for that matter. They do not usually care "why", or "how" - just "what", and the more colorfull, the better.
Read a strategy text (start with the most popular author - Liddel Hart, famous british historian and military writer), not stupid web page copied from a stupid textook for ignorant thirdgraders (in this case apparently "ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA").
It is just more romantic to read about glorious greek victory and dead runner, then greek treachery in internal political struggle.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
Thus groundlessly assured in a fighting prowess of their army, Athenians grew even more arrogant, continuing to piss persians off, until in ten years (480 BC) Xerxes came and sacked and raised Athens to the ground.
Only after losing thousands of their soldiers in pitched battle at Thermopylae to just 300 Spartans.
I just finished reading Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire for the second time. It is one of the best books I have read. One of the people on this BB has in their signature the Spartan King Leonidas' reply to the Persians when ordered to lay down their weapons:
"Come and get them."
------------------
LuckyDay
"What're you going to do, bleed on me?"
-
Follow-up question:
Why was the marathon changed from its earlier distance to the current 26.2 mile standard distance?
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
Originally posted by LuckyDay:
Only after losing thousands of their soldiers in pitched battle at Thermopylae to just 300 Spartans.
I would be carefull now about the number of persian casualties at Thermopylae. Enemy casualty numbers in wars somtimes are known to be inflated. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
What do Startans have to do with it? Are you casually mixing together Athenian and Spartan armies? Not only Spartans were completely different state with different political structure, they were enemies of Athenians more often then not. A real hero runner run over hundred miles to Sparta in two days to request help against Darius invasion at Marathon and that request was turned down, wasn't it.
Kieren,
What earlier distance are you referring to? I didn't know it was ever changed since the first modern Olympics. Was it?
miko
-
The Thermopylae. The fastest clipper ship on the seven seas. The Cuttysark was prettier. Are we talking about the same thing? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
the clipper ship Thermopylae had a top speed of 26.2 mph, hence the distance for the race
old sea capt
-
miko, I believe K was refering to the distance added because (if I remember correctly) the olympic committee added the distance of 1/4 mile to the original marathon to accommodate the traditional "once around the track" at the end of the race.
-kidcol-
-
The current marathon distance (26 mi., 385 yds.) was set for the 1908 London Olympics so that the course could start at Windsor Castle and end in front of the Royal Box. Not until 1921, however, was that distance adopted as the "official" Marathon distance by the IAAF.
This from a great marathon source at:
http://www.marathonguide.com/history/index.cfm (http://www.marathonguide.com/history/index.cfm)
I ran the 100th Boston Marathon- 50,000 people! Personal best marathon time- 2:43:44.
-
Hehehehe.. was thinking about the title of this thread and how well the point is being made.
If you are religious.. there is only one entity that truly "Knows history". The rest of us are relegated to learning of people's interpretation of history.
AKDejaVu
-
La Civilización Griega - François Chamoux
ISBN 89-95300-19-2
Miko,
I beg your pardon because my ignorance may cause this resumed translation to be not all that accurate. Also forgive me, because the Internet references was a kind of fast quotes, as I was on may workplace and altho I think I have some historical accumen, I do not remember all details properly. I did not intend to offend your highly educated intellect. The title of the book you see above mentioned is, I translate for your convenience "The Greek Civilization". Now, please, read:
Dario, King of Persia issued a punishment expedition in year 490 B.C. agains Athens and Eretria, as a retaliation for the support these two state-towns gave to the Ionian sublevation. This expedition is believed to involve some 25.000 men, taken to the place by means of sea transportation, and was commanded by Datis and Artafernes. Hipías, son of an old Athens dictator (before democracy Athens was ruled by a dictator) was among the persians and expected some degree of cooperation of athens, because he wanted to regain authority on the Áthica(sp) region with the help of Persian army.
On the way to Athens, persian fleet burned Naxos and the Cyclad islands, and surrendered Eretria after a six day siege. Assesed by Hípias, persian Army put his feet on Marathon bay (named that way after the Marathon town), shortly after.
Athens then asked Sparta for help, help denied on religious terms by spartans. Then, instead of waiting for the persians behind Athens walls, the Athens assembly, assesed by 10 strategists (among them was Milcíades) decided to put a brave face on the persians and fight them on open field. Milcíades has some war experience against persians, after some clashes in a colonial campaign years before.
Marathon bay is a small one. It has a beach and two hills near the coast on each side. Persian army was deployed just by the shoreline, backed by its fleet.
In some september dawn in the year 490, an "hoplita" (dunno the english translation, excuse my ignorance, pls) army, enforced by 1.000 soldiers sent by Platea (an Athens ally) was set up against the persian army. Milcíades split his forces in tree groups, one in front, and two flanking the persian army, on both hills.
Of course Milcíades knew the strenght of the persian archers, that's why he put the initial set up just off their range. Then he ordered a frontal assault of the center section. The persian archers shooted them, but they did not notice the flank charge. The center side of the athens were losing the battle, but the flanks of the persian army soon failed. Suffering both sides flank attack, and unable to use their archers & cavalry due to short range, persians began to die under the long spears of the Athens. They boarded their boats leaving some 6.500 corpses behind. Less than 200 casualties among the greeks.
At that very moment, greeks realised persians did not surrender yet, and were trying to land in Falero, near Athens. They made a fast march back and succeed to show themselves to the persians. Seing the shoreline defended, persians finally gave up and sailed back to their homeland.
So, this author does gives credit to Marathon being the location of a battle. I would like to know if, by your strategist and military logic mind standards, this is a valid source of documentation. If it is not, and as we are talking about Greece, please avoid looking like an absolute cretin and enlighten me with yours, the ones that entitle you to affirm that there was no war in Marathon. Please, do not state your oppinions about what makes sense or not, you've already done that. Give me facts, figures, references, as I do. If you need the bibliograpy used by the author, please ask. I can provide it.
On a different field, I do not know what makes you think that I am an ignorant. Anyway, it does not speak much in your favour that you so lightly write about me in such terms without the little knowledge you have of me. Please be so kind as to clarify this too.
Sincerely,
Pepe.
[edit note:] Sorry for my English. Mi education goes that far.
[This message has been edited by Pepino (edited 01-26-2001).]