Compare And Contrast Persian And Greek War

They believed by training their young at such a young age that they would be the strongest military force there was. (Document H) School was very different for the children of Athens, they did not only educate them in military but in the arts. At the age of 18, Athenians began military training while the Spartans started exceptionally sooner. By doing so, Athenians were prepared for both

Being alive to witness the events that occurred in and around fifth century B. C. E. Greece meant that Thucydides could not help but write down his experiences. The Athenians of Greece and the people of the Persian Empire were constantly at odds with each other, and these differences eventually led to the Peloponnesian war. This war lasted from 431-404 B.C.E. and began an era of conflict between the two peoples (Bulliet). This power struggle not only inflated the ego of the Athenians, but created many negative viewpoints of the Persians. Thucydides, being an Athenian, was therefore extremely biased against the Persians.

Herodotus explains how the Spartans carried on defending Greece even though they were in distress from the continuous shooting of arrows form the Persians. This was not a situation the Spartans were used to as they were more skilled in close combat, whereas the Median soldiers were highly skilled archmen. Therefore, the Spartans should be given more credit than the Athenians for holding the line even in conditions they were not used to, under severe distress. However, the passage later goes on to reveal that the Spartans needed the Athenians help as they were only holding the line. They had no way to penetrate the Persians barricade that they built with their wicker shields and without the Athenians there was not much they could do.

Athens had the means to support the war due to the immense wealth and the resources remitted from Athenian colonies and allies. He figured that they would outlast the Spartans do to their limited wealth and resource base available to them. To ensure that the means of Athens were maintained, she was required “to keep a tight rein on their allies” since without their allies the support being provided and remittance of resources would dry up. During the Spartan raids into Attica in attempts to draw out the Athenian army, the ever present risk that was present to answer the raids due to the honor which called the people to defending their homes and lands. Pericles minimized the risk by not calling an assembly or meeting the people, which could reverse the strategy that he outlined.

Both described the formation as wings. The weakest in the center, and the stronger men on the outside, the wings. This was like Hannibal’s plan in the Battle of Cannae. He had his strongest men surrounding the Roman’s, trapping them while the kill the weaker men, thinking they have the advantage. Both Hannibal and the Athenian general were very creative and very militarily smart.

Although Alexander’s forces were limited in terms of numbers, Alexander was able to command the approach with a definitive plan. There are usually multiple ways to approach and conquer challenges; this example proves that the most popular choice is not always the most effective. Even though Alexander had limited resources, the plan chosen by Alexander was meticulous and resourceful. Alexander used the troops under his command in an astute fashion to defeat a large and formidable opponent. Darius went into the skirmish with the belief that the size of his forces and the terrain would provide a clear advantage over the smaller forces of the opponent.

Well, this essay speaks about that very thing. The Ancient Greeks were strong and smart when it came to military forces. They had tough weapons and genius fighting tactics. Many of the soldiers were called hoplites and were armed with a long spear, a large shield, and up to seventy pounds of armor.

Alexander known as one of the best military leaders in history. 2. After the Persian War, Athens and Sparta had agreed to a Thirty Year Peace. They didn't want to fight each other while they were trying to recover from the Persian War. During this time, Athens became powerful and wealthy and the Athenian empire grew under the leadership of Pericles.

Two important individuals that had a large impact on the results of the Persian War, were Leonidas and Themistocles. Leonidas was an important individual in the battle of Thermopylae, as his decision to stay behind delayed the Persian army. Themistocles played a crucial role in the naval battles of Artemisium and Salamis, as his stratagems helped defeat the Persian navy. The outcomes of these battles, which were determined by the leaders preparation and strategic decisions, had both short term and long term effects. Better lead in needed Leonidas determined the outcome of the battle of Thermopylae with his decision to stay behind while the others retreated, by doing this he saved many lives.

The Second War began when the Spartan King Archimedes II laid siege to the city of Plataea. The Athenians were able to hold their position until 427 B.C.E., when the city fell. During that time, a revolt by the Spartans as taking place at Mytilene, which put additional pressure on Athens. While they defended and successfully extinguished that revolt, the Athenians made additional progress into Peloponnese, by sea, as well as Italy, by land. Athens’ success eventually ended when they were defeated in an attempt to recover Amphipolis in 422 B.C.E.

The Persians have a vastly bigger army than the Greeks do. According to Herodotus’ estimation, there were three hundred thousand Greeks fighting the 5,283,220 soldiers brought by Xerxes. (7.184&186) An army of that size can seize almost any land they want.

The Persians had the advantage with numbers and land, so Parmenion pushed Alexander to attack at night; however, Alexander refused because it would be stealing the victory. Darius feared the night attack, and kept his troops up all night, adding to their fatigue. [In the tale of the battle, it is said that Alexander was so overconfident, that he nearly overslept.] The next day, Macedonian troops attacked with the first mercenaries used by Alexander. Just like in the battle of Gaugamela, Parmenion defended the left, while Alexander attacked in a diamond shape from the right.

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, traditionally large Persian armies cannot remain settled in one region for long periods of time - resources available in one region usually cannot support so many people for so long. This means that it is possible that the Persian armies had to mobilize frequently - this may potentially lead to morale depletion or simply the pointless consumption of strengths, and is a very inefficient way of defending lands. Since the Persian forces were typically consisted of large numbers of people, it is safe to conclude that they move relatively slowly compared with Alexander’ army. The Macedonian army, on the other hand, were partially composed of Hypaspists, Companions and Agrians. The Agrians, who excel at skirmishes and versatile encounters, can provide great tactical flexibility against Persian forces, while the Hypaspists and the royal cavalry deliver quick, decisive

This is a classic example of one General Darius, believing that due to his superiority in numbers, knowledge to the area the battle was to take place and better information, that he would be victorious in the upcoming battle with Alexander the Great. Looking at it in logical military terms one would be hard pressed to not agree, yet at the end of the day General Alexander employed a total rout of his enemy. The reason why was strategy. General Alexander sought to negate all of General Darius’s advantages and it worked to perfection. By utilizing a left flank strategy he forced Darius to move his forces to the left.

The more mass and weight behind your army, the more powerful it was. By having a substantial weight advantage over your adversary, an offensive gain was the natural result. Since the sarissa provided the Macedonian commanders with more offensive power than their opponents, Philip and Alexander were able to dictate the tempo and position of battle. As the offensive element, the tempo of battle is manipulated because the defending unit is put into a reactive stance instead of a proactive one. The reactive element cannot choose where and how to fight, but is limited to counterattacks in confined manners.