Download The invasion of 490 BC

The invasion of 490 – packages of information
1. Persian preparations:

In 492 BC Darius ordered the construction of a massive fleet, presumably for the
invasion of Greece.

The campaign itself began with the sending of envoys to the various Greek city states to
demand their submission. Many of the islands in the invasion path submitted
immediately; however, Athens and Sparta put the Persian envoys to death.

Remembering Mardonius’ unsuccessful attempt to sail along the northern coast to
Greece (his fleet was destroyed off the coast of Athos), Darius decided to sail directly
across the Aegean.

Because Mardonius had been seriously wounded in 492, Darius put two generals in
charge of the invasion force – Datis and Artaphernes (who was the son of the satrap of
Sardis). It consisted of 200 warships and 25,000 men.
2. The Persian advance into Greece:

The invasion force arrived in Eubeoa in 490 BC and soon captured its two main cities –
Carystus and Eretria. Eretria’s temples were burnt and its inhabitants enslaved.

The Persians then moved their force across the Euripus Strait between Euboea and the
mainland, disembarking at Marathon. They chose this spot because it offered protection
for their ships and was only 42 kilometres from Athens. (They were advised to do this by
Hippias, the former tyrant of Athens, who knew this area well.)

The Athenians sent a runner to Sparta requesting help, but the Spartans could not come
until their religious festival was over (which would be at the next full moon – at least ten
days away). Meanwhile, an Athenian general, Miltiades, persuaded his fellow generals
to march out and face the Persians at Marathon, rather than defend Athens. This would
give them the best chance of victory. Miltiades’ opinion counted for much, as he had
firsthand experience of Persian military tactics, having fought in Darius’ unsuccessful
invasion of Scythia in 513 BC. (Miltiades had ruled a small Athenian colony in Thrace
before and after its incorporation into the Persian Empire.) He also feared that if the
army stayed in Athens, Hippias’ supporters might open the gates and let the Persians in.

The Athenians took up position south of Marathon, where they could defend the two
routes to Athens. There they seized the high ground, defending it with a stockade. They
were joined by 1,000 soldiers from Plataea, bring their number to 11,000. The Persians
had about 25,000 infantry at Marathon, and somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000
cavalry.

The Greek infantry (known as hoplites) were well equipped, each with bronze armour,
bronze grieves (to protect the legs) and a bronze helmet, plus a sword, a spear and a
bronze or wooden shield. The Persian infantry had very little armour and only wicker
shields. They relied instead on their archers and cavalry to destroy the enemy.
3. The Battle of Marathon

The Athenians generals now debated whether or not to attack first. Opinion was evenly
divided, until Miltiades persuaded the commander-in-chief, Callimachus, not to wait.

According to Herodotus, Miltiades’ reasoning was political rather than military. If they
delayed, Athenian resolve might weaken; Hippias’ supporters might persuade people to
1





submit to Persian rule. However, this doesn’t make sense, as they would have been
better off waiting for the Spartans to arrive before attacking.
The historian Victor Ehrenberg believes Miltiades might have been influenced by the
absence of the Persian cavalry at Marathon. Herodotus makes no mention of the cavalry
in his account. Ehrenberg suggests the Persians might have sent their cavalry by ship to
attack Athens (which was completely undefended) once they realised that horsemen
could not be used against the Athenian defences at Marathon. A Byzantine source (the
Suda) hints at this. Another possibility is that the Persian’s horses were grazing at the
time and not ready for battle.
Yet another view is that the Athenians were forced to attack when it became clear that
the Persians themselves were preparing to do so. (The Persians might have realised that
Spartan reinforcements were on the way, so needed to act before they arrived.)
Whichever was the case, the Athenians had good reason to strike first.
When the Greeks got to within about 1.5 kilometres of the Persians, Miltiades ordered
that the centre (commanded by Themistocles and Aristides) be weakened and the flanks
reinforced. This might have been to ensure that the Greek line could be extended to the
same width as the Persian line (to avoid being outflanked), or as a ruse to lure the
Persians into attacking the centre (so they could be outflanked).
Miltiades ordered his troops to run towards the Persian line, to minimise the impact of
the Persian archers. Few Greeks were killed by arrow fire, and when they engaged the
Persian infantry they cut them to pieces. The Persian flanks collapsed, allowing the
Greek flanks to close in on the Persian centre and destroy it. The Persians broke and ran
– some back to their ships, others into the nearby swamp where they drowned.
Herodotus tells us that 6,400 Persian bodies were found on the battlefield. 192
Athenians died, among them their commander Callimachus, and 11 Plataeans.
4. Aftermath of the battle:

Both armies now hurried to Athens – the Greeks by land and the Persians by sea.
Aristides and his troops were left behind, to guard the booty captured from the
Persians.

The Greek troops reached Athens first, and when the Persians arrived they found the
city well defended. They lay at anchor for a while, then returned home to Persia. Darius’
invasion had failed.
5. Reasons for the Greek victory and the Persian defeat:

Miltiades’ leadership was crucial. As tyrant of a colony in Persian-controlled Thrace, he
had been forced to join Darius’ unsuccessful Scythian campaign in 513 BC, so he
understood Persian military tactics and capabilities. He helped persuade the Athenian
Assembly to face the Persians at Marathon, then persuaded Callimachus to attack first.

The Greeks were better equipped than the Persians – something Herodotus emphasises.
They had bronze helmets, breastplates and grieves, giving them far more protection
than the Persians who had barely any armour at all. They also had better weapons. Each
carried a sword, spear and bronze or wooden shield. The Persians, by contrast, carried
spears and wicker shields (which could protect them from arrows but not spears). This
gave the Greeks an advantage in hand-to-hand combat.
2



The hilly terrain where the Greeks made their camp played to their advantage. They
could guard both routes to Athens, and deny the Persians use of their cavalry – their
most potent weapon.
The Greeks also had better tactics. Miltiades understood that he needed to attack when
the Persians were without their cavalry. He then sent his soldiers in at a run, thereby
minimising the impact of the Persian archers. Also, his decision to weaken the Greek
centre was crucial, though he probably did not realise the impact it would have.
Finally, the Greeks were fighting for their homeland and their fledgling system of
democracy, so had greater morale than the Persians. They knew that defeat would likely
lead to death for themselves and slavery for their women and children. The Persians, by
contrast, were mostly conscripts from across the empire. They had much less to fight
for.
6 . The role of Miltiades in the Greek victory:

Miltiades’ role was crucial both politically and militarily.

Politically, he persuaded the Athenian Assembly to fight the Persians at Marathon.

Militarily, he made a series of crucial decisions:
 He persuaded Callimachus to attack, once he realised the Persian cavalry was absent.
 He strengthened the wings of the Greek line and weakened the centre, allowing the
Persian army to be outflanked.
 He ordered a charge, to minimise the impact of the Persian archers.
 Following the battle, her ordered the army to return to Athens to block any attack by
the Persian navy.
7. The significance of Marathon:

For the Persians, the defeat at Marathon was not a serious setback, as they had
committed only a relatively small force to the invasion. However, it was the first check
on their westward expansion into Europe. Darius now committed to sending a far
greater force to reverse the outcome. This time, the Persians would learn from their
mistakes.

For the Greeks, the victory was proof that their system of democracy was superior to
Persian tyranny. Athens’ key role in that victory propelled it on its journey to becoming
the premier city state in Greece. The Greeks also realised that Persia was not
unbeatable. However, they underestimated Persia’s power and determination to strike
again. Instead of preparing for a new round of hostilities, they returned to bickering
with one another. Only the Athenian statesman Themistocles made serious
preparations for war.
3