Originally posted by Pepino:
There was actually a battle, and Greek army actually defeated a Persian Invasion. Check link and link .
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).]
